That’s an interesting and far more detailed view of the situation. To summarize, various people came and were violently expelled. As a matter of virtue, I disagree with violent expulsion. Also as a matter of virtue, I believe people who once lived an area should be allowed to exist there in peace. These two virtues are in tension at this part of the world.

Just as I believe it’s right for the Israelis to be there, as the first people in the area, it’s right for the Palestinians (and more general Arab groups with roots in the area) to be-- they have a stake too. It’s wrong to steal land from people living on it and to make their lives difficult. It was wrong thousands of years ago, wrong in the '40s, and is wrong today. You shouldn’t need to be Jewish to vote there or have rights. That’s horrible, from my western individualistic lens.

My goal here was to comment on the absurdity of this cycle, specifically the extremist viewpoints that one side or another should be entirely removed from the area. I tried to illustrate that with the Native American example. These groups of people need to put the violence aside and figure out how to live together. Other countries need to stop picking favorites and avoid going beyond promoting lasting peace and mutual respect in the region.

Excuse my uncareful wording-- I took a lot more time to write this post. Hopefully it is more precise and clear.

I suppose Russia’s invasion is definitely imperialism, but I don’t see anyone saying both sides are at fault.

I don’t know of any cases of imperialism recently, though I see what appear to be conflicts incorrectly framed as such.

For example, many say this about the Israeli/Arab conflict. However, this conflict is thousands of years old. The Israelis solidly lost a war to keep their land in the BC era, then after WWII, leaders decided to undo the loss, again by force. Predictably, the Arabs, having lived there for thousands of years now (since they were Babylonians!) were not happy. It is not simple.

The Israeli return may have been orchestrated by the imperial powers, but I would argue this is not imperialism or even a bad thing. Consider the colonial invasion of the Americas. That was clearly imperialism because my ancestors had never lived there, and had no claim to the land. We just wanted it. At best, we thought we could make better use of it than the natives. That was not the case with Israel, whose ancestors largely were the natives.

Of course, persecuting Palestinians is wrong. Imagine if thousands of years from now, the American Indians, supported by the international community, forced Americans to adopt their customs and religion or leave. That would not be right either, even though maybe they should have their land back!

We need to share in these cases, and are unfortunately bad at sharing.

.

TL; DR-- There are many good reasons for regular people to prefer GrapheneOS

Hey, the security is nice, but I really like the detailed control over notifications, GMS prompts, and network access. When I used PixelOS, my phone did things I didn’t want it to, and it was hard or impossible to make it stop. On GrapheneOS, the defaults are a pretty good experience. I even recommend it to non-techies since they can use it with the Google apps and its still a more respectful experience, even if they don’t need or want the level of control that I like.

People deserve to get paid on their work, and currently the best way to do that and survive in America is to work on completely closest source products that don’t respect their users. Open source is probably the most respectful but doesn’t work well as a business. We need something that works reliably for delivering real products that will achieve mass adoption. I think these source available licenses are that.

The context in the article is important. Similar to what FUTO preaches-- people don’t donate. That’s why corporate solutions usually win. Better to charge a bit of money so we can have nice things.

The plan was to rely on donations, which doesn’t usually work for hosted products.