SotA models have cracked a handful of research-level math problems though.
The default Claude Code style harness is bad for complicated problems as well. Just taking the specific class or function you're working on, and putting it into a deep research style loop yields way better results. Limiting the initial context by hand is still the way to go in a lot of cases.
No, it's the same for math from what I've seen, aka it can do some of the easy things, usually with a lot of help. People usually mean the Erdos problems (aka "a list of things Paul Erdos thought were neat") and, well, here:
> While Erdős generated a huge number of problems, they are not all equally significant and important. I have, unfortunately, seen some mathematicians grow dismissive of Erdős problems recently, perhaps because they have seen reports of AI solving problems on this site that turned out to be quite simple, and wrongly generalised this to assume that all problems posed by Erdős are amusing novelties, of the level of olympiad problems.
The rest of the article isn't about AI at all, but I did think it was funny that it describes mathematicians as having more or the same opinion as SWEs.
I flat out don't take arxiv papers seriously without a lot of corroboration. Basically ~anyone can post ~anything to it. They do spam moderation but no content review.
Also that paper admits the problem turned out to be pretty trivial and was only unsolved because nobody had bothered to try that hard (page 11)
There's a lot of problems with paid scientific journals being a walled garden and I am by no means defending that system, buuuut it's also true that anything published to an open repository is almost certainly there because it wasn't good enough for anything else.
Yeah this is the same conclusion I have. I primarily use AI for UI code, and guess what, it's all basically mechanical drudgery anyways. Put a div here, or put a Box here, apply some style rules, etc. This shit should have been automated decades ago yet for some reason we're still writing the same stuff with a different "twist" today.
Now if your career is built on writing out the same boilerplate code in its infinite slight variations every day, congrats, you've been automated. Thank god we can free up our intellects to focus on the actual hard problems, the ones that are somewhat cutting edge, the ones that actually push our field and humanity forward.
Literally every example of AI generated code (without significant human input) is just basic stuff that is wholly unimpressive. Oh wow, you had an AI generate a Next.js app? It's writing HTML for you? It made a generic SAAS? Guess I'll become a farmer now.
Or, wait, I'll continue to write my multithreaded real-time multiplayer network for a MMO, since the AI currently generates something that would get me fired 10 seconds ago if I tried to push it to production.
It's amazing how you introduce just the slightest difficulty or novelty to an AI and it just craps the bed. And then you go online and apparently we're gonna be replaced -6 months ago or something.
I genuinely appreciated this comment—it made me chuckle. That said, I think there are better approaches to working with AI besides “here’s a big vague thing to work on, go write some code”. I think you have to iterate somewhat closely with the AI to write a doc describing exactly what you want the system to do and then scope out very narrow tickets and then have a separate agent do the TDD to actually produce the thing. The key insights here are (1) don’t let a code writing agent have too much scope—just a narrowly scoped ticket, (2) keep the coding agent’s context minimal, (3) don’t let the coding agent write much code without testing it. The agent should make very small changes at a time and then test that everything still works.
You will still need to QA stuff and review PRs, but I think AI done properly can genuinely make some tasks better.
> don’t let a code writing agent have too much scope—just a narrowly scoped ticket
it's interesting cuz my intuition is to give the language model writing the files as much context as possible, which means all of the previous planning thread. but I also thought you should plan with a small model and implement with a large one, and the meta seems to be plan with an expensive one and delegate code output to smaller ones. so what do I know.
> The agent should make very small changes at a time and then test that everything still works.
yeah I think if it's treated like a codegen machine it's basically just outputting code as if you're using a dsl, except the dsl is natural language and the output is meant to be edited, no `// this is generated code, do not edit` headers
> I think AI done properly can genuinely make some tasks better
thank god I dont need to write html by hand anymore, what a pita
Models seem to perform worse if you give them too much context. Even if you have a large context window, it seems like they’re only “smart” in the first few tens of thousands of tokens (including the system prompt, which is often huge). Also, it seems like they’re do better if you start a fresh agent off with a very narrow task and give them access to more context as necessary rather than shoving everything you have into their context window and wishing them well.
But I should also emphasize my limited experience and the rapid pace that this stuff is evolving.
I had it throwing in free advice on my code working as intended, but not a normal pattern. It was something like:"Bonus! This bug exists!" And I had to tell it stop doing that. Or, for generated SQL renaming to keep deeply linked table columns human readable via comments it was - "You can't have a comment of this style here." It works perfectly so yes, yes I can.
I can certainly get it to do things that are reasonably common it seems like.
As for the article itself, I can agree with much of it.
I had AI fuck up writing a scraper[0]. A scraper. It hit a snag with cookies and spiraled into a tizzy. I liked the part where it assured me it could resume from the point of failure, while starting over for the 10th time because it had written no such code lol
[0] For those with AI scraping PTSD, it was a government site with public domain info and I know how to scrape politely
I mean that’s been my line every time someone makes impressed noises when I say I’m a programmer - it’s really not that hard, it’s really just a question of whether you like it enough to put the work in, like anything else. “Don’t you have to be a math wiz?” No dude 95% of the time whatever you’re trying to do already has a very well researched approach, a lot of times you’re just picking which pre-vetted solution to adapt to your needs.
Right. Like anywhere the conceptual problems haven't been all figured out yet, or where higher order effects happen with scale or particular shapes of data/substrate and you don't know them in advance.
Sometimes hard like interesting and you get to do really novel thinking. A load of p2p/decentralised things are hard like this.
Also sometimes hard like you get to a particular challenge and it turns out to be a notoriously unsolved mathematical thing, or you push against subtle boundaries of core libraries, runtimes, systems etc. Working with metagenome assemblies is this kind of hard.
Honestly the hard code I've done made such a difference to my brain. There's plenty of trivial stuff I'm happy to have automated, but of I can't work on the hard problems I may as well not be involved at all.
Seems like 3 is a bit pessimistic. After all, if there are 3 founders then that greatly decreases the chance that the CEO steals equity from the other 2 cofounders. The CEO generally wouldn't have > 50%, so the non-CEO co-founders could keep the CEO in check.
Seems accurate according to my experience. It’s the new investment banks in later rounds that cause it. Bigger investments, stronger guarantees, better preferences, and lack of understanding on the part of inexperienced founders, plus lack of power held by the employees options pool … recipe for “only the banks see any upside.”
alot of financial engineering happens if the company is raising large rounds, if you leave early as a cofounder, they will absolutely mess with your equity. And even if you are there, youre considered an expense, unless the CEO explicitly advocates for you
its so common that I am shocked people willing enter roles like co-founding CTO without serious legal protections in place. go spend time in NYC/SF and talk to actual cofounders
alot of software engineering, especially in complex systems, is still just tweaking retries, alarms, edge cases etc. it might take 3 days to even figure out what went wrong
Much as I want to rip on vercel, its clear that ai is going to lead to mass security breaches. The attack surface is so large, and ai agents are working around the clock. This is a new normal. Open source software is going to change, companies wont be running random repos off github anymore
Most of recent issues, including this incident, happened not due to smart superintelligent "agents" taking over the world - chatbots and other text generators are about as intelligent amd powerful as a dead starfish - but due to the combined stupidity of the said chatbots amd lazy idiots who use them to hide their own incompetence and thus produce such embarassing mistakes. A few years ago, they would be fired for exposing secrets in plain text, but since their manager wanted an AI-Workflow...
LOL. Attackers will run these agents but the thousands of maintainers will be so dumb to sit idly and get hammered with exploits. I wonder what the ratio of attackers to maintainers must be, 1:1000 is a fair assessment i take it.
Also LLMs will be used to attack only, no one will be smart to integrate it into CI flows, because everyone is that dumb. No security tools will pop up.
Let that be the end of Microsoft. Was forced to use their shitty products for years, by corporate inertia and their free Teams and Azure licenses, first-dose-is-free, curse.
this like is saying email marketing is done better if you hand write every email. Thats true, but the hit rate is so low, that you are better off generating 1 million hyper personalized emails and firing them off into the ether
As someone who did the former for a couple years, “better off” is subjective and dependent on your business model, particularly for B2B. It’s a trade off like anything else. You may get more leads, but they may convert at a lower rate. Sending at that scale also increases your risk of email deliverability problems. Trashing your domain has more impacts than you’d think. In smaller, targeted markets it even can damage your business reputation and hurt future sales if done poorly; word gets around.
I disagree. Many humans are phishing in a different language than their native tongue, and LLMs are way better at sounding legit/professional than many of them. The best spear-phishing will still be humans, but AI definitely raises the bar.
I'm mostly surprised that people found the output quality of Opus 4.6 good enough... 4.7 so far is a pretty sizable improvement for the stuff I care about. I don't really care how cheap 4.6 was per task when 90% of the tasks weren't actually being done correctly. Or maybe it's that people like the LLM agreeing with them blindly while sneakily doing something else under the hood? Did people enjoy Claude routinely disregarding their instructions? Not really sure I understand, I truly found 4.6 immensely frustrating (from the getgo, not just the "pre-nerf" version, whatever that means). 4.7 is a buggy mess, it's slow, and it costs a lot per token. It's also a huge breath of fresh air because it actually seems to make a good faith effort at doing the thing you asked it to do, and doesn't waste your time with irrelevant nonsense just to make it look busy or because it thinks you want that nonsense (I mean, it still does all of these things to some extent, but so far it seems like it does them much less than 4.6 did).
Disclaimer: I'm always running on max and don't really have token limits so I am in a position not to care about cost per token. But I am not surprised by the improved benchmark results at all, 4.6 was really not nearly as strong of a model as people seem to remember it being.
> The compute is expensive, what is with this outrage?
Gamblers (vibe-coders) at Anthropic's casino realising that their new slot machine upgrade (Claude Opus) is now taking 20%-30% more credits for every push of the spin button.
Problem is, it advertises how good it is (unverified benchmarks) and has a better random number generator but it still can be rigged (made dumber) by the vendor (Anthropic).
The house (Anthropic) always wins.
> People just want free tools forever?
Using local models are the answer to this if you want to use AI models free forever.
Two big tech FAANG jobs, org is 95% h1b engineers from china/india. Tons of resumes from american grads somehow never hit my desk, continue to interview random candidates from india with some low quality USA masters from missisipi state. Candidate has spent the last year locked in a room memorizing algorithm interview questions
I’ve seen two interns through to FTE jobs at a FAANG, both were at least second generation immigrants (so citizens I guess, though I never asked). So kids are still getting jobs, they come from reasonable universities, I haven’t seen UW resumes yet (my Alma mater), for some reasons those kids are all scooped up before I can take a look (I work at an office in Seattle so I find it weird that we can hire from the local university).
the weird thing is seeing american kids from a top 20 american school (duke, carnegie melon, etc) mixed with a much larger majority of h1bs from absolute no name schools. its almost like the bar for americans is higher
I guess it’s different since I mostly deal with interns. But I haven’t noticed a lot of H1s being hire at my FAANG, at least ones that are obviously F1?
We aren’t an AI tech group or anything like that. I was on a Z (working) visa in China for 9 years though.
I knew an H1 in another group from an obviously second rate school in China and a masters from a no name in America. He was pretty successful in his career so I guess school brand doesn’t mean that much. Likewise when I was in China some of the PhDs from second rate Chinese universities also did very well.
Because if we didn't we wouldn't have a tech industry?
The main problem with immigrant talent in computer field is that legislators don't understand the difference between IT and Tech product development jobs. IT jobs don't need immigrant talent, so companies like Accenture, Infosys etc. should not be given H-1B visas. But tech companies like Google, Meta, Apple, OpenAI etc. absolutely need immigrant talent, or they will lose to Chinese competitors.
> There are plenty of Americans who can do these jobs.
This thinking is wrong. For IT jobs, the work is pre-defined and you go find people who can do the job. For product development this is sometimes the case, but for truly innovative products, such as AI models, this is not the case. You have to hire the best in the world and give them the resources they need, as opposed to defining the project upfront and hiring people "who can do the job".
I wrote my first neural net in the late 90s. Based on nothing but an old geocities post some rando put up about training a model to only unlock a pet door for their cat.
I implemented the same and it worked.
Where you see true innovation I see run of the mill. OpenAI, Google, etc are propping up data center rental business they came to rely on to titillate biology with whatever spaghetti that sticks. That's it.
The interesting science isn't happening anywhere close to big tech.
The mathematics of LLMs exists in textbooks from 1950s. Your entire comment chain here is little more than reciting propaganda.
Why is it important that Google (or any of these large companies) only hire Americans for their jobs in the first place? They are global companies now, they make money from everywhere. Why is the insular "Americans only" idea worthy of consideration at all?
The law forces American corporations to hire Americans, various work visas are exceptions from the law given under certain conditions. It appears the companies are abusing these exceptions and violate these conditions. There is no such thing as a "global company" in the law, with the exception of foreign consulates all the entities that hire people in the US are American corporations.
How many “best in the world” people are we talking about, though? Based on what I’ve seen that’s a very small percentage (maybe 5%) while the rest were being hired by companies who valued having workers with limited negotiating power.
(I’m not opposed to immigration at all but it was transparent how for decades the industry resisted any change which would make it easier for a skilled H1-B worker to take a better job)
Sorry, this is 100% false. Companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Meta etc. do not hire H-1Bs in order to depress wages. That does happen, but not at these companies. It typically happens when hiring IT workers.
If it’s “100% false”, I’d think you could have addressed the point. Do you think that H1-Bs have had the same negotiating power as permanent residents and citizens? Do you think that companies-especially the huge contractors and enterprise vendors who hired so many of them—did not exploit them?
I’m not saying that there aren’t people who really lived up to the idea that the best in the world were coming here—I’ve known a few of them myself—but that there were a much greater number of people who were not in that class and it wasn’t exactly a secret that their managers knew they could be imposed on more than their equivalently-skilled colleagues.
That H1B labour allowed other firms to build tech, which kept those firms competitive, creating a deeper economy and experienced bench.
That depth then enabled more advanced tech firms to be born.
At least thats what I think they are saying.
The analogy would be that China took over low tech manufacturing, and then because of that were able to develop expertise to move up the value chain.
At the same time, supply demand curves are real. If you have more workers, it should result in competition that drives down wages. (ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL)
There was a distinction being made between Tech and IT, which I am not too sure about.
> If you have more workers, it should result in competition that drives down wages. (ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL)
Sort of a meaningless statement when all things are definitely not equal.
If there are 5 million people in a country, or 200 million, the theory of too many workers means the 5 million people country should be paying everyone vastly more.
But that is trivially untrue.
Economies grow and shrink and adapt around the number people.
> Sort of a meaningless statement when all things are definitely not equal.
Hey, don’t look to me for a defense of the weaknesses of economic models.
At the same time you can’t really discuss complex systems like economies where one part affects another, without holding some of the factors in stasis.
Centris paribus does extreme amounts of heavy lifting.
You essentially have no data to back this up though, especially given the filed H1B/L-1 labor data for big tech is first year of employement with only base salary, which bears no ressemblance to what their wages will be even just 3 years in.
In the early 1990s a good software engineer was paid $40K starting salary, and good companies like Sun Microsystems paid $45K. If you adjust that for inflation it is around $100K. But good companies in silicon valley today pay $120K plus stock grants (so around $170K or so), and Meta and Google pay much more.
So software engineer salaries have gone up dramatically in the last 35 years H-1B visa has been around. In fact, the H-1B visa is the reason the salaries have gone up. Without it the industry would be stagnant, just like non-tech S&P 500 companies and most companies in Europe in the same time period.
Are you trying to argue that increased supply of labor is responsible for increasing wages?
As others have said, H1-B has been good for companies, and bad for American workers. The same companies who were found to be colluding to keep wages down.
Europe is stagnant because of regulation, not because of immigration.
> Are you trying to argue that increased supply of labor is responsible for increasing wages?
I am saying the reason silicon valley exists is because of the immigration of the smartest people from around the world. High Tech needs the best in the world, not the best in the US.
Consider the seminal research paper that kicked off the AI revolution (titled "Attention is all you need"). It was written by 2 Indians, 1 German, 1 British Canadian, 1 Pole, 1 Ukrainian, and 2 US born people. These people came to America, worked together and changed the world as we know it. Why would we want to stop it? Has this immigration been bad for American workers? Far from it. These immigrants are the lifeblood of the tech industry, without them the center of tech would be Beijing.
I'm not opposed to hiring the cream of the crop using H1Bs, but that would only be a few thousand people a year. The vast majority of H1Bs though are people taking jobs that Americans can definitely do.
Not sure how you came to draw this conclusion, as there's lots of data out there showing droves of Computer Science graduates here in the states unable to land jobs.
I think that data captures the fact that there are more people being handed degrees without an education than there are jobs. Especially when there are thousands of mid career people on the market right now.
Outside of the Default country what you call product development is a part of IT, along with QAs, SDETs, Devops and others. All of that is IT globally. And what USA calls IT is called system administration or something similar.
We would absolutely have a tech industry. The richest people on the planet, however, would make slightly less money. It is not an exaggeration to say this is what the entirety of American society is based on right now.
We had a tech industry prior to H1Bs before the 90s. What we didn't have was Silicon Valley corporatism that doesn't value American labor nor American education. It's why SV is so gun-ho on charter schools and devaluing American labor.
Let's not act like we need to import 80k "high tech" workers that amount to writing react components and spring endpoints.
Hardly anything hard that we couldn't force companies to train workers to do, but they don't want to ever help people they just want to suck up all the money in the room while decimating entire populations.zzzzzzz
Also, as an American I don't really benefit if US corporations are doing "better." How does that help the person that can't pay for healthcare or afford to go to school, but they sure can get their serving of Zuckerberg slop? I'm supposed to care about these companies success? Really? I hope they go down in flames.
The problem is that the rich and elite have captured and dictated American tech policy for far too long.
It is interesting to see the different views on immigration. Here in the UK, leading up to the brexit vote, everyone said blue collar workers were the problem, because they depressed wages for the poor and made the middle class richer because they could build cheaper houses, pick cheaper crops, etc.
In Singapore, the rage is mostly against higher earner immigrants, because they take all the good jobs, making the middle class in Singapore poorer.
I'm sensing a bit of a mix in your US centric argument.
All in all, a lot of people just hate immigration, always have, always will. It is a topic as old as time.
> How does that help the person that can't pay for healthcare or afford to go to school
How would you like to make t-shirts for rich Chinese, for $5 an hour? There is a reason Americans are not doing that. It is because we are smarter than the rest of the world. How do you think that happened? Were all the smart people born here? Nope. It is because smart people born around the world immigrated here. The prosperity they bring doesn't only help high tech workers, it feeds the economy, so everyone benefits.
I mean we aren't doing it because capitalists decided they would rather move the factories outside of the country because they don't care about workers.
Americans are absolutely willing to work in factors, but capitalists want chattel slave workers instead.
Your view of history is farcical, acting as if American workers had any real say in their countries industrial capacity rather than a few thousand people decided to inflict mass poverty to tens of millions of Americans.
> But tech companies like Google, Meta, Apple, OpenAI etc. absolutely need immigrant talent, or they will lose to Chinese competitors.
Let them lose.
Google and the rest do not prop up humanity. They prop up a financial engineering Ponzi scheme.
You're just parroting media and social tropes you grew up with.
We could assert in our children social truth about other forms of economics; for example, healthcare as a tent pole rather than stock valuations; still requires technology and jobs and we don't remain the last modern economy on the planet without universal healthcare. We're losing to Russia and China in healthcare.
But thankfully we win when the metric phallic rockets to nowhere and Google search uptime?
You should consider your economic benchmarks and their provenance; a bunch of self selecting biological organisms that we socially describe as billionaires have convinced you via their fear mongering that if we don't give them all the power giant foot will step on us
It's not just the USA, all Western countries are on a path of mass immigration: software, engineering and health services in particular.
A big factor has been diversity quotas to make organisations DSG numbers meet the requirements of institutional investors, political pressure and activists.
Problem is: pushing diversity into traditional male roles didn't result in boys diversifying into non-traditional roles such as nursing and teaching, and now you have those other roles being filled with immigrants to make up for the shortfall. And those immigrants don't care for diversity.
honestly i have no idea, in some cases, they are working weekends/are hyper focused on extremely boring, somewhat manual work. some of the systems are complicated and break constantly, so they are almost just oncall fodder for manually fixing a constantly breaking high scale service
Because we live in a techno-oligarchy now? Because the leaders of the top tech companies (by revenue) literally sat behind the President at his inauguration?
Because they can afford to buy the 'right' to do what they want, and you can't, and what they want is cheaper labor who they have more control over, and H1B workers will never rock the boat because the visa is a sword hanging over their heads.
It generates economic activity and taxes in the US and suppresses wages.
Most of the H1 candidates are in shitty roles that are well defined low/moderate skill jobs for giant companies. Hire people whom you can’t actively exploit and those are the kind of jobs where unions can organize.
The alternative is offshoring the work, not hiring Americans.
The smart thing would be to just let people immigrate. Instead we have a weird tiered system with a small number of highly skilled specialists and an army of serfs facing deportation if they piss off the bosses.
Then offshore the work. Americans aren't getting the jobs anyway and the imported labor now competes for things like groceries, gas, housing, etc. which drives up prices.
Look, I can make a solid economic argument against offshoring and how certain business practices hollow out local economies.
However immigrants are a net increase in investment and GDP. Yes - terms and conditions apply (its economics, when do they not)
Immigrants have to pay rent, buy clothes and groceries from wherever they live. This creates demand which depends the consumption economy. These are positive growth levers. This is despite whatever work they do in that region.
In contrast, asset prices like house prices rising, because they have become stores of wealth, are a different deal altogether. In that situation house owners benefit from just holding onto property, and not renting. The asset appreciates all the same.
The issue which can be brought up is wage depression, and paying immigrants under the table. This should depress wages for American labour.
One solution for this is to increase minimum wage, and to ensure that everyone is paid minimum wage.
This is a simplified model of the situation, but in general immigrants put more into the system than they take out.
FYI, these jobs pay the highest in the world. If these jobs are exploitative, then so are other non tech jobs that employ citizens and pay lower wages.
My former organization employed ~750 contractors developing software.
Their billable rates ranged from $44-76/hr in 2022. The people in the cafeteria probably made more. They get minimum viable salary like indentured workers in hopes of getting a green card and more opportunity.
Israel is done being on the receiving end of the Iranian octopus. No more Iranian missiles, rockets, drones, or Iranian funded and directed Islamist terrorists on its borders.
Only Syria is an exception: there, it was internal Druze pressure on the Israeli government to act to protect their brothers in Syria.
Interesting you assumed violent destruction! I don’t suppose you’re Israeli? Also curious that Israel hasn’t yet “won” even when not being attacked.
I’m talking about a (relatively) peaceful process with reparations, right of return, and international policing. Destroying Israel through violence doesn’t move us forward.
And how do you suggest this concept is marketed to Israelis? I mean, it doesn’t sound too appealing: giving their flourishing country away to Islamist elements and turning into Jewish a minority in what is essentially a large Gaza strip.
It will need to happen by force.
You could argue for sanctions but with the fracturing of the Western world that’s not likely to happen, and the west is very heavily invested in Israel already (Apple has more R&D in Israel than in the entire EU; Nvidia does all of their networking stuff in Israel and now plans a 12k engineer campus; Microsoft, Intel, Google…). The west buys tons of Israeli weapons and if you live in the EU then congratulations, your sky is now protected by Israeli Arrow-3 systems that Germany bought for 5bn Euro.
And then there’s the Israeli nuclear deterrence and strong self reliance. Sanction it for something and it will likely make its own or get it from a different actor, this is what happens in the first 30 years of its existence (US would not sell it arms back then).
Add to that the Jewish communities in Western countries which would block any kind of sanctions.
All you’re left with for “dismantling” Israel are Islamist actors operating military. Iran, Turkey, the likes, which brings us back to the endless loop I’ve mentioned before.
How about, then, a different alternative where Israel is recognized as a done deal, just like the US is? In both cases someone suffered from their creation but no one is calling to dismantle the US and no one is giving Indians their home.
That won’t happen though because the Palestinians are weaponized against Israel by Islamists, and the conflict with Israel is just too convenient for countries like Egypt and Turkey to keep the inflamed rhetoric and to have someone to blame for all of their woes.
They're people. And this is not about religion it's about rights and land.
> turning into Jewish a minority
Again, why the focus on ethnicity and/or race here? Equal rights for all people without regard to religion or ethnicity. (Otherwise it's racism)
> It will need to happen by force.
Some kind of force, yes.
> not likely to happen
Doesn't make it morally wrong.
> west is very heavily invested in Israel
disgusting.
> strong self reliance
Pretty sure Israel can't survive in its current state without being propped up by the West.
> Sanction it for something and it will likely make its own or get it from a different actor, this is what happens in the first 30 years of its existence (US would not sell it arms back then).
We should still sanction them.
> "Islamist"
Stop saying this, it's racist and again diverts from the fact that the conflict is about peoples rights and land, not religion.
> How about, then, a different alternative where Israel is recognized as a done deal, just like the US is? In both cases someone suffered from their creation but no one is calling to dismantle the US and no one is giving Indians their home.
Yeah, that's fucked up. The US is fucked up. But, I think it will probably happen this way. The Palestinians who were originally on the land will be ethnically cleansed and/or put on reservations, let out to work in Isreal for cheap, and the Israelis will be free to party in the Gaza Riviera atop the bones of hundreds of thousands of buried Palestinian skulls.
> That won’t happen though because the Palestinians are weaponized against Israel by Islamists
Like lebanon was dismantled (it was a christian nation in the 1960s) solved all its problems? Giving in to the islamo supremacists just migrates the problem. If israel ends you will have dhjihad in cyprus, greek, al andaluz and africa. They dont give a fuck about that worthless strip of dessert beach, except for the fact that unsupressed dhimi thrive in it.
The only ethno-supremacists are the Israelis and the whole world is watching the Greater Israel Project unfold before their very eyes. It's concerning and probably unsustainable.
I don’t think Israelis have heard of the “Greater Israel Project”. Sounds like scaremongering designed to defend the indefensible (Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, etc)
There is no such thing. I'll accept that Iran's model is a bit weird but there's definitely no supremacy nor expansionism going on in the name of some book or some psychopath's mind (like Netanyahu)
reply