Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "10 Questions PRO-Palestinians Can’t Answer (Can You Prove Me Wrong?)" video.
-
15
-
@reutg6478 Absolute nonsense. Likud's bloody 100 year history ...
In 1923, 100 years ago, Ze'ev Jabotinsky wrote, The Iron Wall, and a follow up, The Ethics of The Iron Wall (sooo racist towards Africans), in which he fully acknowledged that post Balfour Zionsim was colonialism, and that, based on the entirety of history, the native Palestinian population would resist being colonized until the bitter end. He directly compared it to the colonization of North America. He promoted doing it anyway, claiming Zionist colonialism was a "just" colonialism (he also thought North American colonialists were good guys, so not a great judge of morality), not caring what that meant for the native population.
Ze'ev is important, because his Betar militant youth group helped found the Irgun terrorist group, along with other supporters of his, and the splinter Lehi terrorist group. The Irgun bombed numerous Palestinian markets and other public places, murdering many Palestinian civilians, including children, even including Palestinian Jews (who didn't support colonialist Zionsim).
The Irgun are important, because they ended up being led by future Likud PM, Menachem Begin, who bombed the King David Hotel. The King David Hotel was bombed because the British had raided the Jewish Agency and seized numerous documents that may have shown that the terrorists were working with the JA and Haganah (JA liked to pretend that they didn't support the terrorism). The British then stored those documents at their base, in the hotel. That the Irgun terrorists responded to a JA raid, itself seems to prove the connection. That the thousands of Irgun (and Lehi) terrorists were also quickly merged into the new nation's military (IDF) and intelligence (Mossad) agencies, and are still celebrated as "heroes" by Israelis, to this day, also seems to support total collaboration between the groups.
That other terrorist group mentioned, Lehi (also known as the Stern Gang), was considered even more extreme. They even tried to ally with the Nazis, against the British. Lehi ended up being led by Yitzhak Shamir, future Mossad agent, and another future Likud PM. They assassinated Lord Moyne, and others.
In 1945, there was a major land and peoples survey done in Palestine. It showed that the Zionists only owned about 5% of the total land, 20% of the arable land, and owned a majority in zero districts. The partition was not only going to be forced on the native Palestinian majority, but Jews were still going to be a minority, in the part allocated to them. The only possible way to even become a "Jewish state" was going to require getting rid of the actual majority (at least enough so that there'd be a solid Jewish majority, so they could fake being democratic).
This is also shown by the 1948, post Nakba, population of Israel. If there was 716,700 Jews, 156,000+ non-Jews, and approximately 700k non-Jews ethnically cleansed, that means the Jewish population, in the Zionist portion of partition, was originally over 100,000 less than the non-Jewish population. To believe that there was never any intent, by Zionists, to ethnically cleanse away the Palestinian majority would require believing that they never intended to create a "Jewish state". It's a nonsensical notion.
Begin, and those terrorist groups, also opposed partition, but for the opposite reason Palestinians did. Palestinians didn't want to be colonized, at all. The terrorists wanted to colonize it all. "Moderate" Zionists were okay with colonizing half ... for now (what would happen in the future, after partition, was up to them, said Ben-Gurion). The Zionist terrorists were also involved in massacres, and assassinations, during the partition violence (colonialist war against the natives).
Another notable future Likud PM, also started in the military, during the partition fighting. That was Ariel Sharon, war criminal, "Butcher of Beirut".
Menachem Begin, and these other Zionist terrorists, are important because they became involved in Israeli politics, first forming Herut. That was the party that Albert Einstein, and other prominent American Jews, opposed, having a letter printed in the NYT, in December of 1948, when Begin came to visit the US. The letter opened ...
"Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine."
Herut merged with other extremist parties, over the years, and eventually became Likud, in the 70s. Now, people get upset over the slogan "From the river to the sea!", but it's the second part that's most important, "Palestine will be free!". Because "Palestine" isn't defined as an ethno-state, a free Palestine can be a single state, free for all to live in, and return to, free of continuing colonization, free of occupation, free of oppression, etc. Just like a Germany free of Nazism, an Italy free of fascism, a South Africa free of apartheid, or an America free of slavery from sea to shiny sea. It doesn't necessitate purging all the Jews. It just necessitates them giving up on the idea of an ethno-state.
On the other hand, because "Israel" has been defined as an ethno-state, Likud's, "between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty", has no possible good interpretation. It is a declaration of intent to completely colonize, and ethnically cleanse, all Palestine territories. Not only that, but it also claims that they have a "right" to all of the "Land of Israel" (biblical borders that don't mesh with archaeological reality), which is an open declaration of future wars, against Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and possibly even Iraq.
Likud platform ...
1977: "The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel)
a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.
b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace."
"Settlement
Settlement. both urban and rural. in all parts of the Land of Israel is the focal point of the Zionist effort to redeem the country, to maintain vital security areas and serves as a reservoir of strength and inspiration for the renewal of the pioneering spirit. The Likud government will call on the younger generation in Israel and the dispersions to settle and help every group and individual in the task of inhabiting and cultivating the wasteland, while taking care not to dispossess anyone."
1999: "The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration, and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs."
"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."
All Palestine territories are officially considered occupied, by the International Court of Justice, the UN GA, the UN SC, and even in official documents of Israel's own allies. Likud is still using the blueprint for colonizing North America, in the West Bank. Move settlements out into native territory, piss off the natives, the natives retaliate, cry about poor "innocent" colonizing settlers being the "victims" of violent "Savages!", call in the cavalry to put down the native uprising, and eventually expand the borders to include those settlements. Rinse and repeat. In Gaza, Israel is operating an open air WWII style fascist ghetto. Them claiming a "right to defend themselves" would be like the Nazis claiming a "right to defend themselves " from the Warsaw ghetto uprising. There's no "war". That they're the occupiers means the "war" part is long over. Those people are actually supposed to be under the occupier's protection.
That partition was forced upon the Palestinian majority, against their will ... that the Zionist portion still had to be forcefully ethnically cleansed of its non-Jewish majority, against their will ... that the millions of occupied Palestinians don't have a say in the government that truly rules over them, Israel's ... means Israel is about as democratic as Nazi Germany after Hitler purged his political opponents and then held elections.
13
-
10
-
7
-
@John-bravooo Post Nakba: "By 15 May 1948, the population was 805,900, of which 649,600, i.e. 80.6%, were Jews and 156,000, i.e. 19.4%, were the remaining Palestinians of the region which was occupied and named as Israel later on."
If 700+k non-Jews were ethnically cleansed, then who was the actual pre-Nakba majority? Colonizers of North America let some "friendlies" live amongst them. I guess that totally means they weren't racist, colonizing, ethnic cleansers. The good old "black friend" argument.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
Which was Einstein? He considered Likud's founders on par with Nazis. Likud's bloody 100 year history ...
In 1923, 100 years ago, Ze'ev Jabotinsky wrote, The Iron Wall, and a follow up, The Ethics of The Iron Wall (sooo racist towards Africans), in which he fully acknowledged that post Balfour Zionsim was colonialism, and that, based on the entirety of history, the native Palestinian population would resist being colonized until the bitter end. He directly compared it to the colonization of North America. He promoted doing it anyway, claiming Zionist colonialism was a "just" colonialism (he also thought North American colonialists were good guys, so not a great judge of morality), not caring what that meant for the native population.
Ze'ev is important, because his Betar militant youth group helped found the Irgun terrorist group, along with other supporters of his, and the splinter Lehi terrorist group. The Irgun bombed numerous Palestinian markets and other public places, murdering many Palestinian civilians, including children, even including Palestinian Jews (who didn't support colonialist Zionsim).
The Irgun are important, because they ended up being led by future Likud PM, Menachem Begin, who bombed the King David Hotel. The King David Hotel was bombed because the British had raided the Jewish Agency and seized numerous documents that may have shown that the terrorists were working with the JA and Haganah (JA liked to pretend that they didn't support the terrorism). The British then stored those documents at their base, in the hotel. That the Irgun terrorists responded to a JA raid, itself seems to prove the connection. That the thousands of Irgun (and Lehi) terrorists were also quickly merged into the new nation's military (IDF) and intelligence (Mossad) agencies, and are still celebrated as "heroes" by Israelis, to this day, also seems to support total collaboration between the groups.
That other terrorist group mentioned, Lehi (also known as the Stern Gang), was considered even more extreme. They even tried to ally with the Nazis, against the British. Lehi ended up being led by Yitzhak Shamir, future Mossad agent, and another future Likud PM. They assassinated Lord Moyne, and others.
In 1945, there was a major land and peoples survey done in Palestine. It showed that the Zionists only owned about 5% of the total land, 20% of the arable land, and owned a majority in zero districts. The partition was not only going to be forced on the native Palestinian majority, but Jews were still going to be a minority, in the part allocated to them. The only possible way to even become a "Jewish state" was going to require getting rid of the actual majority (at least enough so that there'd be a solid Jewish majority, so they could fake being democratic).
This is also shown by the 1948, post Nakba, population of Israel. If there was 716,700 Jews, 156,000+ non-Jews, and approximately 700k non-Jews ethnically cleansed, that means the Jewish population, in the Zionist portion of partition, was originally over 100,000 less than the non-Jewish population. To believe that there was never any intent, by Zionists, to ethnically cleanse away the Palestinian majority would require believing that they never intended to create a "Jewish state". It's a nonsensical notion.
Begin, and those terrorist groups, also opposed partition, but for the opposite reason Palestinians did. Palestinians didn't want to be colonized, at all. The terrorists wanted to colonize it all. "Moderate" Zionists were okay with colonizing half ... for now (what would happen in the future, after partition, was up to them, said Ben-Gurion). The Zionist terrorists were also involved in massacres, and assassinations, during the partition violence (colonialist war against the natives).
Another notable future Likud PM, also started in the military, during the partition fighting. That was Ariel Sharon, war criminal, "Butcher of Beirut".
Menachem Begin, and these other Zionist terrorists, are important because they became involved in Israeli politics, first forming Herut. That was the party that Albert Einstein, and other prominent American Jews, opposed, having a letter printed in the NYT, in December of 1948, when Begin came to visit the US. The letter opened ...
"Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine."
Herut merged with other extremist parties, over the years, and eventually became Likud, in the 70s. Now, people get upset over the slogan "From the river to the sea!", but it's the second part that's most important, "Palestine will be free!". Because "Palestine" isn't defined as an ethno-state, a free Palestine can be a single state, free for all to live in, and return to, free of continuing colonization, free of occupation, free of oppression, etc. Just like a Germany free of Nazism, an Italy free of fascism, a South Africa free of apartheid, or an America free of slavery from sea to shiny sea. It doesn't necessitate purging all the Jews. It just necessitates them giving up on the idea of an ethno-state.
On the other hand, because "Israel" has been defined as an ethno-state, Likud's, "between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty", has no possible good interpretation. It is a declaration of intent to completely colonize, and ethnically cleanse, all Palestine territories. Not only that, but it also claims that they have a "right" to all of the "Land of Israel" (biblical borders that don't mesh with archaeological reality), which is an open declaration of future wars, against Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and possibly even Iraq.
Likud platform ...
1977: "The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel)
a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.
b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace."
"Settlement
Settlement. both urban and rural. in all parts of the Land of Israel is the focal point of the Zionist effort to redeem the country, to maintain vital security areas and serves as a reservoir of strength and inspiration for the renewal of the pioneering spirit. The Likud government will call on the younger generation in Israel and the dispersions to settle and help every group and individual in the task of inhabiting and cultivating the wasteland, while taking care not to dispossess anyone."
1999: "The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration, and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs."
"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."
All Palestine territories are officially considered occupied, by the International Court of Justice, the UN GA, the UN SC, and even in official documents of Israel's own allies. Likud is still using the blueprint for colonizing North America, in the West Bank. Move settlements out into native territory, piss off the natives, the natives retaliate, cry about poor "innocent" colonizing settlers being the "victims" of violent "Savages!", call in the cavalry to put down the native uprising, and eventually expand the borders to include those settlements. Rinse and repeat. In Gaza, Israel is operating an open air WWII style fascist ghetto. Them claiming a "right to defend themselves" would be like the Nazis claiming a "right to defend themselves " from the Warsaw ghetto uprising. There's no "war". That they're the occupiers means the "war" part is long over. Those people are actually supposed to be under the occupier's protection.
That partition was forced upon the Palestinian majority, against their will ... that the Zionist portion still had to be forcefully ethnically cleansed of its non-Jewish majority, against their will ... that the millions of occupied Palestinians don't have a say in the government that truly rules over them, Israel's ... means Israel is about as democratic as Nazi Germany after Hitler purged his political opponents and then held elections.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JoellePeters-ej5nh Then how the hell did you skip over 300 years of resistance, making out like it never happened? Native Americans hopes had to be crushed, and the population almost annihilated, to end resistance. No people welcomes being colonized and ethnically cleansed. Native Americans had originally welcomed and helped Europeans, but the Europeans turned on them. Jews had been living in Muslim countries for 1300 years. They fled to Muslim countries, when Christian countries offered conversion, death, or exile. But, you make out like their resistance is all about religion. What changed, about their religion, between 1917 and 1947?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JoellePeters-ej5nh Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout, whatabout, ... by your "logic", it was wrong to resist Genghis Khan, it was wrong to resist the Third Reich, it was wrong to resist Japan, etc., etc., etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JoellePeters-ej5nh No, I'm not. The US literally has a separation of church and state, and doesn't have a legally stated ethnicity or culture. Most countries don't have a legally stated ethnicity or culture. I know it means more than just religion, which is why you, comparing it to countries that have a national religion, is dishonest. It's an ethno-state, exactly like I said, like the Third Reich was.
There are currently millions of Palestinians, denied a right of return, to vote for the government. Meanwhile, they hand out a right of "return" to any Jews in the world. There are currently millions more Palestinians, under occupation, denied the right to vote for the actual authority over them. Israel is k-lling women, children, closeted LGBTQ people, anyone Palestinian, and you have the gaul to say they respect women and the LGBTQ community?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JoellePeters-ej5nh Aside from all your pointl-ss what-bouting, you're inc-herent. IL has been ethn-c cleansing innocent people for decades. They've k-lled innocent people for decades. They've oppr-ssed and occ-pied people for decades. C-lonizers are never not the aggr-ssors, when it comes to the native population. You made it clear that you don't think people should resist the aggr-ssors. But, then you pretend like the aggr-ssors are the v-ctims, if people do, and claim they have a "right to d-fend" themselves.
You've basically argued that it was just fine for N-zis to do their inv-ding, col-nizing, occ-pying, ethn-c cleansing, gen-ciding, operating of open air gh-ttos, because G-nghis Kh-n, or somebody else, did such and such ... that it was wrong for res-stance groups to f-ght back, and they should have bent the knee, like the Vichy. You're batsh*t cr*zy, as far as I can tell.
1
-
@JoellePeters-ej5nh @JoellePeters-ej5nh Aside from all your pointl-ss what-bouting, you're inc-herent. IL has been ethn-c cleansing innocent people for decades. They've k-lled innocent people for decades. They've oppr-ssed and occ-pied people for decades. C-lonizers are never not the aggr-ssors, when it comes to the n-tive population. You made it clear that you don't think people should res-st the aggr-ssors. But, then you pretend like the aggr-ssors are the v-ctims, if people do, and claim they have a "r-ght to d-fend" themselves.
You've basically argued that it was just fine for N-zis to do their inv-ding, col-nizing, occ-pying, ethn-c cleansing, gen-ciding, operating of open air gh-ttos, because G-nghis Kh-n, or somebody else, did such and such ... that it was wrong for res-stance groups to f-ght back, and they should have bent the knee, like the V-chy. You're batsh-t cr-zy, as far as I can tell.
1
-
@JoellePeters-ej5nh @JoellePeters-ej5nh @JoellePeters-ej5nh Aside from all your pointl-ss what-bouting, you're inc-herent. IL has been ethn-c cleansing innocent people for decades. They've k-lled innocent people for decades. They've oppr-ssed and occ-pied people for decades. C-lonizers are never not the aggr-ssors, when it comes to the n-tive population. You made it clear that you don't think people should res-st the aggr-ssors. But, then you pretend like the aggr-ssors are the v-ctims, if people do, and claim they have a "r-ght to d-fend" themselves.
You've basically argued that it was just fine for N-zis to do their inv-ding, col-nizing, occ-pying, ethn-c cleansing, gen-ciding, operating of open air gh-ttos, because G-nghis Kh-n, or somebody else, did such and such ... that it was wrong for res-stance groups to f-ght back, and they should have bent the knee, like the V-chy. You're totally ins-ne, as far as I can tell.
1
-
@JoellePeters-ej5nh Aside from all your pointl-ss what-bouting, you're inc-herent. IL has been ethn-c cleansing innocent people for decades. They've k-lled innocent people for decades. They've oppr-ssed and occ-pied people for decades. C-lonizers are never not the aggr-ssors, when it comes to the n-tive population. You made it clear that you don't think people should res-st the aggr-ssors. But, then you pretend like the aggr-ssors are the v-ctims, if people do, and claim they have a "r-ght to d-fend" themselves.
You've basically argued that it was just fine for the Th-rd Re-ch to do their inv-ding, col-nizing, occ-pying, ethn-c cleansing, gen-ciding, operating of open air gh-ttos, because G-nghis Kh-n, or somebody else, did such and such ... that it was wrong for res-stance groups to f-ght back, and they should have b-nt the kn-e, like the V-chy. You're totally ins-ne, as far as I can tell.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JoellePeters-ej5nh See, you completely missed the point. The point was that most tribes were almost wiped out, for whatever reason, before reaching the point of giving up and signing themselves to reserves. Absolutely nothing you're going on about, changes that fact. The whys of how disease spreads, and the history of viruses spreading, are entirely irrelevant. The point was about how most tribes felt, before deciding to give up. Again, for the slow ... People don't jump up and say "Please c-lonize and ethn-cally cleanse us!", they agree to it when they feel utterly defeated.
Just like before, with your endless pointless whatabouting, about Genghis Khan, and other irrelevant nonsense, that didn't change a single fact about Isrl-Plstn. Try to actually read what someone is saying, before going off on pointless tangents.
1
-
1
-
@JoellePeters-ej5nh And yet you keep talking about a small percentage of Native Americans, in Canada, as if that's the "one explanation", and apparently don't comprehend words like "the French were different", or "most", or "after initially welcoming and helping Europeans", or "c-lonize AND ethn-cally cleanse", etc.
If you want to be pedantic, let's start at the start ... You blamed the ones being c-lonized, who had accepted J-ws for some 1300 years, in P-lestine. So, comparably, what did the natives in the Caribbean do wrong, to get themselves c-lonized, ethn-cally cleansed, and g-nocided? They welcomed the newcomers, and then did what, to get themselves hunted by packs of dogs, for sport, worked to death as slaves, and such like?
1
-
1
-
@JoellePeters-ej5nh You have yet to tell me a single thing I didn't already know. Except, I didn't know there were Viking records, detailing their interactions with natives. Clearly, there must be, since you thought they were relevant, because obviously you wouldn't bring up something completely irrelevant ... yet again. Do tell me all about Viking-Native relations. I'm very eager to hear.
It's you that has been the one generalizing all of the Americas and all the various interactions, and boiling it all down to the tiny little bit you know about a few interactions in Canada. A treaty that actually respects a tribe's land is exactly the opposite of c-lonizing and ethn-cally cleansing that tribe. So, guess what? Not even comparable to Pal. I specifically stated treaties to have a tribe's land colonized, and the tribe ethn-cally cleansed, you know ... because that's actually comparable to Zio-Pal. You, on the other hand, go on and on about completely irrelevant and incomparable nonsense, and that seems to be because you can't actually comprehend the point someone is making.
1
-
@JoellePeters-ej5nh I know about the freaking Viking settlement. I asked you for all the detailed records of Viking-Native relations. Surely you didn't think it was worthwhile mentioning them, just to say that irrelevant bit. Surely you had an actual f-cking point to mentioning them ... that they were relevant to the conversation. Are you some kind of really bad AI, or just really really d-mb?
Now you're in f-cking China again?! You're in favor of atr-cities, is how we got here. You blamed the victims of c-lonization and ethn-c cleansing, for fighting back. You're united with the c-lonizers, is all you are, and have made little sense, other than making that clear.
Because I was making an analogy to actual comparable events, you ignor-mus. The closest you've come to something relatively comparable is Big Bear, and you totally dodged my reply to it. Tell me how Big Bear was wrong to not sign a bad treaty. Tell me how Riel was wrong to resist. Tell me how the Canadian government was in the right, and that it would have been perfectly fine for them to k-ll off 10%+ percent of the Cree population, in response to Frog Lake.
1
-
@JoellePeters-ej5nh I know about the freaking Viking settlement. I asked you for all the detailed records of Viking-Native relations. Surely you didn't think it was worthwhile mentioning them, just to say that irrelevant bit. Surely you had an actual f-cking point to mentioning them ... that they were relevant to the conversation. Are you some kind of really bad AI?
Now you're in f-cking China again?! You're in favor of atr-cities, is how we got here. You blamed the victims of c-lonization and ethn-c cleansing, for fighting back. You're united with the c-lonizers, is all you are, and have made little sense, other than making that clear. You think it's okay for China to be doing what it's doing, and blame the Uyghur, if you're consistent. It's totally the Tibetans' fault, for getting themselves occ-pied, if you're consistent.
Because I was making an analogy to actual comparable events. The closest you've come to something relatively comparable is Big Bear, and you totally dodged my reply to it. Tell me how Big Bear was wrong to not sign a bad treaty. Tell me how Riel was wrong to resist. Tell me how the Canadian government was in the right, and that it would have been perfectly fine for them to k-ll off 10%+ percent of the Cree population, in response to Frog Lake.
1
-
@JoellePeters-ej5nh I know all about the freaking Viking settlement. I asked you for all the detailed records of Viking-Native relations. Surely you didn't think it was worthwhile mentioning them, just to say that irrelevant bit. Surely you had an actual point to mentioning them ... that they were relevant to the conversation. Are you some kind of really bad AI?
Now you're in Ch-na again?! You're in favor of atr-cities, is how we got here. You blamed the victims of c-lonization and ethn-c cleansing, for fighting back. The only unity you showed was being united with the col-nizers in blaming the col-nized, and have made little sense, other than making that abundantly clear. You think it's okay for Ch-na to be doing what it's doing, and blame the Uygh-r, if you're consistent.
Because I was making an analogy to actual comparable events. The closest you've come to something relatively comparable is Big Bear, and you totally dodged my reply to it. Tell me how Big Bear was wrong to not sign a bad treaty. Tell me how Riel was wrong to resist. Tell me how the Canadian government was in the right, and that it would have been perfectly fine for them to k-ll off 10%+ percent of the Cree population, in response to Frog Lake.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
How is there a two state solution, with Likud? Likud's bloody 100 year history ...
In 1923, 100 years ago, Ze'ev Jabotinsky wrote, The Iron Wall, and a follow up, The Ethics of The Iron Wall (sooo racist towards Africans), in which he fully acknowledged that post Balfour Zionsim was colonialism, and that, based on the entirety of history, the native Palestinian population would resist being colonized until the bitter end. He directly compared it to the colonization of North America. He promoted doing it anyway, claiming Zionist colonialism was a "just" colonialism (he also thought North American colonialists were good guys, so not a great judge of morality), not caring what that meant for the native population.
Ze'ev is important, because his Betar militant youth group helped found the Irgun terrorist group, along with other supporters of his, and the splinter Lehi terrorist group. The Irgun bombed numerous Palestinian markets and other public places, murdering many Palestinian civilians, including children, even including Palestinian Jews (who didn't support colonialist Zionsim).
The Irgun are important, because they ended up being led by future Likud PM, Menachem Begin, who bombed the King David Hotel. The King David Hotel was bombed because the British had raided the Jewish Agency and seized numerous documents that may have shown that the terrorists were working with the JA and Haganah (JA liked to pretend that they didn't support the terrorism). The British then stored those documents at their base, in the hotel. That the Irgun terrorists responded to a JA raid, itself seems to prove the connection. That the thousands of Irgun (and Lehi) terrorists were also quickly merged into the new nation's military (IDF) and intelligence (Mossad) agencies, and are still celebrated as "heroes" by Israelis, to this day, also seems to support total collaboration between the groups.
That other terrorist group mentioned, Lehi (also known as the Stern Gang), was considered even more extreme. They even tried to ally with the Nazis, against the British. Lehi ended up being led by Yitzhak Shamir, future Mossad agent, and another future Likud PM. They assassinated Lord Moyne, and others.
In 1945, there was a major land and peoples survey done in Palestine. It showed that the Zionists only owned about 5% of the total land, 20% of the arable land, and owned a majority in zero districts. The partition was not only going to be forced on the native Palestinian majority, but Jews were still going to be a minority, in the part allocated to them. The only possible way to even become a "Jewish state" was going to require getting rid of the actual majority (at least enough so that there'd be a solid Jewish majority, so they could fake being democratic).
This is also shown by the 1948, post Nakba, population of Israel. If there was 716,700 Jews, 156,000+ non-Jews, and approximately 700k non-Jews ethnically cleansed, that means the Jewish population, in the Zionist portion of partition, was originally over 100,000 less than the non-Jewish population. To believe that there was never any intent, by Zionists, to ethnically cleanse away the Palestinian majority would require believing that they never intended to create a "Jewish state". It's a nonsensical notion.
Begin, and those terrorist groups, also opposed partition, but for the opposite reason Palestinians did. Palestinians didn't want to be colonized, at all. The terrorists wanted to colonize it all. "Moderate" Zionists were okay with colonizing half ... for now (what would happen in the future, after partition, was up to them, said Ben-Gurion). The Zionist terrorists were also involved in massacres, and assassinations, during the partition violence (colonialist war against the natives).
Another notable future Likud PM, also started in the military, during the partition fighting. That was Ariel Sharon, war criminal, "Butcher of Beirut".
Menachem Begin, and these other Zionist terrorists, are important because they became involved in Israeli politics, first forming Herut. That was the party that Albert Einstein, and other prominent American Jews, opposed, having a letter printed in the NYT, in December of 1948, when Begin came to visit the US. The letter opened ...
"Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine."
Herut merged with other extremist parties, over the years, and eventually became Likud, in the 70s. Now, people get upset over the slogan "From the river to the sea!", but it's the second part that's most important, "Palestine will be free!". Because "Palestine" isn't defined as an ethno-state, a free Palestine can be a single state, free for all to live in, and return to, free of continuing colonization, free of occupation, free of oppression, etc. Just like a Germany free of Nazism, an Italy free of fascism, a South Africa free of apartheid, or an America free of slavery from sea to shiny sea. It doesn't necessitate purging all the Jews. It just necessitates them giving up on the idea of an ethno-state.
On the other hand, because "Israel" has been defined as an ethno-state, Likud's, "between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty", has no possible good interpretation. It is a declaration of intent to completely colonize, and ethnically cleanse, all Palestine territories. Not only that, but it also claims that they have a "right" to all of the "Land of Israel" (biblical borders that don't mesh with archaeological reality), which is an open declaration of future wars, against Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and possibly even Iraq.
Likud platform ...
1977: "The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel)
a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.
b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace."
"Settlement
Settlement. both urban and rural. in all parts of the Land of Israel is the focal point of the Zionist effort to redeem the country, to maintain vital security areas and serves as a reservoir of strength and inspiration for the renewal of the pioneering spirit. The Likud government will call on the younger generation in Israel and the dispersions to settle and help every group and individual in the task of inhabiting and cultivating the wasteland, while taking care not to dispossess anyone."
1999: "The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration, and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs."
"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."
All Palestine territories are officially considered occupied, by the International Court of Justice, the UN GA, the UN SC, and even in official documents of Israel's own allies. Likud is still using the blueprint for colonizing North America, in the West Bank. Move settlements out into native territory, piss off the natives, the natives retaliate, cry about poor "innocent" colonizing settlers being the "victims" of violent "Savages!", call in the cavalry to put down the native uprising, and eventually expand the borders to include those settlements. Rinse and repeat. In Gaza, Israel is operating an open air WWII style fascist ghetto. Them claiming a "right to defend themselves" would be like the Nazis claiming a "right to defend themselves " from the Warsaw ghetto uprising. There's no "war". That they're the occupiers means the "war" part is long over. Those people are actually supposed to be under the occupier's protection.
That partition was forced upon the Palestinian majority, against their will ... that the Zionist portion still had to be forcefully ethnically cleansed of its non-Jewish majority, against their will ... that the millions of occupied Palestinians don't have a say in the government that truly rules over them, Israel's ... means Israel is about as democratic as Nazi Germany after Hitler purged his political opponents and then held elections.
1