Comments by "yessum15" (@yessum15) on "Israel Begins Ground Invasion of Gaza" video.

@troyaturner1979 Being critical of their government is not enough. Religious ethnostates probably shouldn't exist, but if they do, they simply can't be allowed to be built on top of indigenous populations.
10
@OPFlyFisher304 The term indigenous is not problematic at all. The existence of a historic indigenous Palestinian people living uninterrupted for well over a thousand years on this parcel of land is a universally accepted historical fact. Documentary evidence of local commerce, culture, and governance is well established and rarely refuted among both contemporary and ancient scholars. It is important that we do not entertain the historical denialism and cultural erasure recently promoted by the colonists attempting to displace them.
8
@OPFlyFisher304 Being a part of multiple empires isn't relevant and there's no use trying to muddy the waters with this red herring. Egypt too was under the rule of multiple consecutive foreign empires stretching back to the pharonic period. Nonetheless we acknowledge that there is such a thing as Egyptians. The people who have lived in Palestine uninterrupted for 1300 years are Palestinians. Irrespective of what larger empire they fell under at one point or another. They have been recognized as "the people of Palestine" by historians and geographers for well over a millenia and there is little ambiguity here. Pretty simple.
8
Are they really journalists though? This show is essentially "DNC: The Podcast". It's a campaign instrument.
7
@cenauge They're not "deliberating endlessly". They are enthusiastically supporting and actively providing material support for the violence. The US has deployed military assets in support of the operation, is financing the operation, is providing diplomatic cover for it, and is concealing the extent of the violence. These crimes against humanity are a joint US/ISRL operation.
5
They can't call it out because they're partners in it. The US has financed it, deployed military assets in support of it, provided diplomatic cover, and attempted to conceal the extent of the human toll. They obviously can't admit to a crime they meet the criteria of culpability for.
3
They are partners in the genocide. How could they possibly be objective?
2
The US is an enthusiastic partner in the atrocities, actively providing material support for it, deploying military assets, financing it, providing diplomatic cover, and concealing the extent of the civilian toll. How could these guys possibly be objective?
2
@OPFlyFisher304 The people of Palestine have lived on the land uninterrupted for over 1000 years. Their existence has been well documented historically and they are clearly the indigenous people of that land. As with any indigenous people, some of the total population arrived later than others and there has been occasional emigration & immigration. However, the group as a whole is easily distinguished from the group of European colonists associated with the current occupational force. No one on either side is disputing who constitutes the occupied and occupier and there is plenty of documentary evidence to quickly identify who is who. So this doesn't seem particularly complicated. If China were to occupy and settle Spain today, we would similarly be able to distinguish between the occupied indigenous Spanish people who lived there before the occupation, and the Chinese occupational force. There would be no need to muddy the waters by saying "oh but wait some of the Spanish population that lived here prior to the Chinese occupation arrived later than others so calling Spanish people indigenous to Spain is problematic." That would be a silly muddying of the waters.
1
@OPFlyFisher304 Godwin's law strikes again. Glad to see your argument has imploded in such a classic manner.
1
@OPFlyFisher304 There is no Palestinian state at the moment so no one can "become Palestinian". However if I state is constructed I would expect it to operate under common contemporary international standards employing some combination of jus de soli citizenship and a reasonable naturalization process for immigrants (usually a boilerplate oath, a minimum residency requirement, and occasionally a simple knowledge requirement). I also support the notion of dual citizenship so applicants should not be required to renounce any other citizenship.
1
@OPFlyFisher304 There is significant documentary evidence to identify who is who because both sides of the conflict have kept records and both tend to roughly agree with each other. Everyone knows who the colonists are and who the indigenous population is. The only dispute they have is that both feel equally entitled to the land. In the same way that if China were to invade Spain today, there would be significant documentary evidence of who is who, with both sides' records roughly aligning. The only dispute would be that both sides feel equally entitled to the land. Since, in both cases the ethical approach is to prioritize the interests of the indigenous victims over the colonist aggressor, our primary interest would be in simply restoring to the expropriated their land. Typically the process for this would be to gather up any documentary evidence of ownership and redistribute the land accordingly. In instances where this is not practical, financial remuneration would be made. The primary difficulty would not be in establishing original ownership, or in running out of land/money because (as I stated before) there are a good amount of records still being kept that establish ownership and this region tends to have significantly more land than people, the vast majority of which (90%+) is currently held in a government sponsored trust. The bizarre references you made to physical color and killings are random outbursts unrelated to anything I've said so obviously I have nothing to say on that weird topic.
1