"while on the books it was illegal for me to enter Area A[1], my privileged status gave me some confidence that even if caught, I would not suffer more than a short detention. However, if Qumsiyeh were to attempt to cross the same border, the story could end with a much longer and perhaps more consequential detention."
Notice what she did there: She switched from "me to enter Area A" in the first sentence to "Qumsiyeh were to attempt to cross the same border" in the second. The language is different for the simple reason that these are of course two entirely different things- God, the inability to grasp SIMPLE FACTS AND LOGIC these people have- as they are TRAVELLING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS. It's a lot easier, say, for an American to enter Nigeria than it is for a Nigerian to enter the US. And (even though of course the entire "logic" of the Left today is predicated on ignoring such things, babbling about "disparate impact" and raaaaaaaaaaacism whenever results are different no matter the causes) there are perfectly good reasons for that. In that case, Nigeria doesn't have to worry about a flood of tens of millions of Americans wanting to move to their country for the bennies; the opposite is of course not true.
In this case, Braverman can't enter Area A *for her own safety*. There is a non-negligible chance that she would be kidnapped or even murdered simply for existing as a Jew there, and of course Israel would feel obligated to save or recover her, and they don't want the hassle and danger. Whereas there is a far more than non-negligible chance that should Israel allow free crossings (of humans, not birds) from Area A into Israel, the result would be (as indeed it *has* been) a lot of dead Israelis. So the poor man has to suffer because his society has "murder of Jews" as its central organizing principle. Too bad for him, and perhaps too bad for the birds, but I'd rather be alive than dead.
"Braverman, as an Israeli citizen who broke the law, would have a harder time. And Qumsiyeh, as a non-citizen from a community that sometimes engages in terrorist attacks, would have an even harder time. The same disparities between treatment of animals vs. lawbreaking citizens vs. people from hostile countries would be true in any country in the world." This is misleading. Qumsiyeh isn't from a hostile country but from an area that is under Israeli military occupation, in which there are two sets of laws for two different kinds of residents. Whatever one's explanation of why this is, I think one can show more sympathy for Qumsiyeh's reluctance to engage with the Israeli authorities.
I don't think that's so fair. I can understand why someone living under military occupation where their basic rights are denied might be hesitant to deal with the Israeli authorities.
Irrespective of pilpul regarding the status of Area A (the images of Israeli forces in Area A over the last year must have been hallucinations), Qumsiyeh would not be able to get this bird to Israel without dealing with COGAT, an organization whose literal role is to administer Israeli military rule over the occupied territories. So denying the presence of an Israeli military occupation is no different to denying that the world is round.
And Israel of course has no good reason for administering military rule over the West Bank.
No, wait a sec, let me look out my front window. Ah, there's the plaque with eleven names on it from 2002. Let me look around the corner. Ah, another plaque, another eleven names from 2004. I'm so glad dead Jews are so much "pilpul" to you. Where do *you* live?
The supposed reason behind the occupation is not the issue here. It's a fact that Qumsiyeh wishes to avoid dealing with Israeli authorities who administer the military occupation.
I don't care about you personally. I'm just pointing out how people of your apparent political outlook so often mix and match their assumptions so as to make Israel look bad in mutually contradictory ways.
Well you did say "people of your apparent political outlook" without actually knowing what my political outlook is, other than the fact I acknowledge the reality that the Palestinians live under a military occupation in which they are denied the basic rights we Israelis take for granted.
According to her "logic," the crew of the Whale Wars boats (who famously once flew the flags of the Iriquois Nation after the UK stopped letting them fly the UK's flags) are colonialist for trying to prevent the Japanese from whaling.
ChaGPT is far better at such leftist poppycock. Here's its critique of this blog:
Rationalism and the scientific method, heralded as pinnacles of human intellect, insidiously promote a new mysticism. This so-called objective approach is, in reality, a tool for otherling. By debrowning indigenous knowledge systems and sidelining non-Western epistemologies, it perpetuates a vivasectorial impulse that dismisses diverse understandings. In this context, holofascism emerges, equachauvinizing science and enforcing a falsurreal dominance. The inter-colonialist agenda of panstructive knowledge furthers this disastrophic suppression, casting dissenters as sub-gendered others in a contraperation against holistic inquiry.
Moreover, the metaversive jargon of scientific discourse, with its linguo-coercive tendencies, solidifies a procusteanality of thought. This gendermandering of intellectual exploration, shrouded in rigourmoralist objectivity, reveals a utopio-fragility unable to withstand archeo-futurist critiques. This solipsexual elitism creates an infraficial consensus that apathetizes the masses, overshadowing genuine inquiry. Thus, the supposed rationalism and scientific rigor become tools for bong-mongering mysticism, ensuring that only the horizontalism of dominant paradigms prevails, while the rich diversity of human thought is relegated to the margins.
I read Braverman's text that you quote. Maybe I'm becoming senile but a lot of what she writes appears to me to be "word salad".
Thanks for the expression word salad, it is a great substitute for the less fancy bull-sh_t.
In any case, the person who has a demential worldview in this story is not you Sir.
"while on the books it was illegal for me to enter Area A[1], my privileged status gave me some confidence that even if caught, I would not suffer more than a short detention. However, if Qumsiyeh were to attempt to cross the same border, the story could end with a much longer and perhaps more consequential detention."
Notice what she did there: She switched from "me to enter Area A" in the first sentence to "Qumsiyeh were to attempt to cross the same border" in the second. The language is different for the simple reason that these are of course two entirely different things- God, the inability to grasp SIMPLE FACTS AND LOGIC these people have- as they are TRAVELLING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS. It's a lot easier, say, for an American to enter Nigeria than it is for a Nigerian to enter the US. And (even though of course the entire "logic" of the Left today is predicated on ignoring such things, babbling about "disparate impact" and raaaaaaaaaaacism whenever results are different no matter the causes) there are perfectly good reasons for that. In that case, Nigeria doesn't have to worry about a flood of tens of millions of Americans wanting to move to their country for the bennies; the opposite is of course not true.
In this case, Braverman can't enter Area A *for her own safety*. There is a non-negligible chance that she would be kidnapped or even murdered simply for existing as a Jew there, and of course Israel would feel obligated to save or recover her, and they don't want the hassle and danger. Whereas there is a far more than non-negligible chance that should Israel allow free crossings (of humans, not birds) from Area A into Israel, the result would be (as indeed it *has* been) a lot of dead Israelis. So the poor man has to suffer because his society has "murder of Jews" as its central organizing principle. Too bad for him, and perhaps too bad for the birds, but I'd rather be alive than dead.
"Braverman, as an Israeli citizen who broke the law, would have a harder time. And Qumsiyeh, as a non-citizen from a community that sometimes engages in terrorist attacks, would have an even harder time. The same disparities between treatment of animals vs. lawbreaking citizens vs. people from hostile countries would be true in any country in the world." This is misleading. Qumsiyeh isn't from a hostile country but from an area that is under Israeli military occupation, in which there are two sets of laws for two different kinds of residents. Whatever one's explanation of why this is, I think one can show more sympathy for Qumsiyeh's reluctance to engage with the Israeli authorities.
It wasn't about his being afraid. All he had to do was hand over the birds.
I don't think that's so fair. I can understand why someone living under military occupation where their basic rights are denied might be hesitant to deal with the Israeli authorities.
Area A isn't under military occupation. Try again.
Irrespective of pilpul regarding the status of Area A (the images of Israeli forces in Area A over the last year must have been hallucinations), Qumsiyeh would not be able to get this bird to Israel without dealing with COGAT, an organization whose literal role is to administer Israeli military rule over the occupied territories. So denying the presence of an Israeli military occupation is no different to denying that the world is round.
And Israel of course has no good reason for administering military rule over the West Bank.
No, wait a sec, let me look out my front window. Ah, there's the plaque with eleven names on it from 2002. Let me look around the corner. Ah, another plaque, another eleven names from 2004. I'm so glad dead Jews are so much "pilpul" to you. Where do *you* live?
The supposed reason behind the occupation is not the issue here. It's a fact that Qumsiyeh wishes to avoid dealing with Israeli authorities who administer the military occupation.
Well, boo-hoo for him. We all do things we find distasteful.
"Qumsiyeh isn't from a hostile country but from an area that is under Israeli military occupation,"
Ah, so you admit Palestine is not a country (and e.g. shouldn't be subject to ICC rulings).
You say this as if you've had a previous conversation with me in which I've suggested otherwise.
I don't care about you personally. I'm just pointing out how people of your apparent political outlook so often mix and match their assumptions so as to make Israel look bad in mutually contradictory ways.
Instead of making assumptions perhaps you'd like to read my substack to find out more about what I think: https://loveoftheland.substack.com/
Like I said, it's not about you.
Well you did say "people of your apparent political outlook" without actually knowing what my political outlook is, other than the fact I acknowledge the reality that the Palestinians live under a military occupation in which they are denied the basic rights we Israelis take for granted.
If it isn't a country do you agree that the Palestinians are living under military occupation?
"Occupation" by definition can only be of other countries. That's the vaunted "international law."
And even if it wasn't...so what? You know full well the history of the whole region.
Of course it's an occupation. It's supposed to be part of the Palestinian Arab state per the same UN resolution that created the Jewish state.
If it's not a military occupation, then can you explain what COGAT's purpose is? And why Israel literally applies military rule to the area?
According to her "logic," the crew of the Whale Wars boats (who famously once flew the flags of the Iriquois Nation after the UK stopped letting them fly the UK's flags) are colonialist for trying to prevent the Japanese from whaling.
ChaGPT is far better at such leftist poppycock. Here's its critique of this blog:
Rationalism and the scientific method, heralded as pinnacles of human intellect, insidiously promote a new mysticism. This so-called objective approach is, in reality, a tool for otherling. By debrowning indigenous knowledge systems and sidelining non-Western epistemologies, it perpetuates a vivasectorial impulse that dismisses diverse understandings. In this context, holofascism emerges, equachauvinizing science and enforcing a falsurreal dominance. The inter-colonialist agenda of panstructive knowledge furthers this disastrophic suppression, casting dissenters as sub-gendered others in a contraperation against holistic inquiry.
Moreover, the metaversive jargon of scientific discourse, with its linguo-coercive tendencies, solidifies a procusteanality of thought. This gendermandering of intellectual exploration, shrouded in rigourmoralist objectivity, reveals a utopio-fragility unable to withstand archeo-futurist critiques. This solipsexual elitism creates an infraficial consensus that apathetizes the masses, overshadowing genuine inquiry. Thus, the supposed rationalism and scientific rigor become tools for bong-mongering mysticism, ensuring that only the horizontalism of dominant paradigms prevails, while the rich diversity of human thought is relegated to the margins.
Well, here's a species of cuckoo whose extinction I wouldn't mourn. Its death is unnecessary; mutation would actually be preferable.