Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "HasanAbi"
channel.
-
672
-
160
-
153
-
149
-
140
-
98
-
91
-
81
-
69
-
64
-
64
-
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.
57
-
57
-
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.
The two terrorist groups also operated outside of Palestine. The Irgun bombed the British Embassy at Porta Pia, in Rome. The Lehi bombed the British Colonial Club, in London. A timer failed in another bombing attempt, at the Colonial Office, in Whitehall. Two female Lehi operatives were arrested crossing from Belgium to France, with the ingredients for letter bombs. 21 letter bombs were found to be have sent, and were intercepted. They mined the Cairo-Haifa train, in Egypt, twice, killing dozens of civilians, as well as British soldiers.
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."
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.
56
-
@steviejohnson378 In 1923, Ze'ev Jabotinsky fully acknowledged that Zionism is colonialism. He also predicted, based on the entirety of history, that the natives would react by resisting until the bitter end. The Zionists just didn't care what would happen to the natives. The ethnic cleansing involved in colonialism is already waging war.
On top of the colonialism, Zionists also resorted to terrorism, by groups like the Irgun and Lehi. They bombed many Palestinian markets, amongst other civilian targets, killing many, including children, even including Palestinian Jews (who opposed Zionism). Israel merged those terrorists into the new nation's military and intelligence agencies. Israelis elected Menachem Begin, leader of the Irgun, who bombed the King David Hotel, as PM. Israelis, to this day, celebrate those terrorists as heroes. They literally taught their neighbours that terrorism is a valid path to independence and statehood and that terrorists are to be celebrated.
53
-
47
-
42
-
41
-
36
-
36
-
@peeptbgod7047 No, no facts, at all. The terms "Philistia" and "Philistine" are as old as the terms "Israel", "Israelites", "Judah", and "Judahites". Philistia existed alongside both of those kingdoms, for as long as they existed. Israel was the most short lived kingdom, being wiped out about 120 years before Judah and Philistia, by the Assyrians. Refugees from Israel went to Judah, which is how they all became Judahites, and the term "Israelites" lost use.
35
-
34
-
34
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
30
-
29
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
@Max78912 It's the most natural reaction to colonialism (a Ghandi response is quite abnormal, even though it may be the better strategy ... always make the colonialists appear to be the aggressors they are, by always being non violent yourself ... never give them a chance to fake being the victims of "savages"). And, resistance has won a number of times. When you're in it, you don't know the outcome. WWII resistance groups didn't know that Germany would eventually be defeated. They just knew that they needed to resist. Native Americans didn't know there was an endless supply of Europeans, across the ocean. The IRA military won, the IRA "terrorists" lost. The Jews of Judah rebelled against the might of the Roman Empire, with zero chance of succeeding. Not sure what Hamas expects, or if they expect anything, other than to just keep resisting.
While colonialism is the foundation for Zionism, terrorism is the foundation for Israel. Groups like the Irgun and Lehi, bombed many Palestinian markets, threw dynamite into Palestinian homes, killed many civilians, including children, and even killed Palestinian Jews (who opposed Zionism). Those terrorist groups were merged into Israel's new military and intelligence agency. The leader of the Irgun, Menachem Begin, who ordered much of that terrorism, including the bombing of the King David Hotel, was elected PM of Israel. Israelis, to this day, celebrate those terrorists as "heroes". Israel literally taught their neighbours that terrorism is a valid path to independence and statehood, and to overcome your adversaries.
In the West Bank, Israel is using the blueprint for the colonization of North America. Move settlements out into native territory, piss off the natives, the natives respond with violence, cry about being the poor innocent victims of the "Savages!", have the cavalry come in and out down the native uprising, and eventually expand the borders to include those settlements. Rinse and repeat.
In Gaza, it absolutely boggles the mind, that Israel is basically running an open air WWII fascist style ghetto. They're like the Puritans, who fled persecution in their homelands, only to turn around and persecute everyone else in the New World ... natives, other denominations, even hanging Quakers of all people, attacking other towns for being too hedonistic, etc. It really is absolutely disgusting, how they've become much like the thing they fled.
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
@JC-sf6sf Again ... you and Shapiro proved you have zero clue how interviews work. It's just a fact that interviewers are there to ask questions, not answer them ... not to be interviewed themselves. Arguing an interviewer is dodging questions, when they aren't there to answer questions in the first place, is dumb. Really dumb. Fact.
It was Shapiro who proved to be dodging and redirecting, by trying to reflect the questioning back at the interviewer, instead of just answering. Fact.
It was Shapiro who proved to be dodging and redirecting, by ranting about bias and accusing the interviewer of being a leftist, instead of just answering. Fact.
It was Shapiro who proved he's a hypocrite by being offended by "barbaric" while, in the same interview, justifying "fascist". Fact.
It was Shapiro who proved to be a whiny little bitch, by taking his ball and running home. Fact.
He was wrecked, and none of your stupid spin can change that. Fact.
Insult all you want. I originally didn't say crap about your opening derogatory remarks, so why whine like a little bitch about mine? Especially since your argument is factually dumb, by definition of the words "interviewer" and "interviewee".
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
@LikeLikeLikeLikeLi It basically comes down to the fact that ... To win seats in the South, Republicans ran their own Southern rcst candidates. By the time of Civil Rights, the division was North-South, not Rep-Dem. Dems wrote the bills. A Dem president signed the bills. Both the Northern Reps and Dems voted for. Both the Southern Reps and Dems voted against. Fed up with the Northerners of both parties, the Southern rcst majority voted for a third party resegregationist, in 1968, winning 5 Southern states. Nixon then won that Southern rcst majority over to the Republican party, in 1972.
On the other side, with the Great Migration North, and industrialization, millions of black workers started voting for the more pro worker Dem party. That migration also left the South even more rcst, percentage wise.
13
-
@TransKidsMafia You seem confused. All, or part, of the region has been called some variation of Palestine by the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks (Aristotle considered the Dead Sea to be "in Palestine"), Western Romans, Christian pilgrims, Eastern Romans, early Muslims (Filastin), Christian crusaders, Ottomans, British, and even the first Zionist congress (19th century) that wanted to create a home "in Palestine". It was Israel that ceased to exist. Even the Israelites became Judahites (Jews). Even when they wrote down their religion, during Babylonian exile, it became known as Judaism, not Israelism.
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
@shpluk Here's a brave, no mask, proud colonialist, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Iron Wall, 1923:
"My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent.
The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilised or savage."
"Our Peace-mongers are trying to persuade us that the Arabs are either fools, whom we can deceive by masking our real aims, or that they are corrupt and can be bribed to abandon to us their claim to priority in Palestine , in return for cultural and economic advantages. I repudiate this conception of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are five hundred years behind us, they have neither our endurance nor our determination; but they are just as good psychologists as we are, and their minds have been sharpened like ours by centuries of fine-spun logomachy. We may tell them whatever we like about the innocence of our aims, watering them down and sweetening them with honeyed words to make them palatable, but they know what we want, as well as we know what they do not want. They feel at least the same instinctive jealous love of Palestine, as the old Aztecs felt for ancient Mexico, and the Sioux for their rolling Prairies.
To imagine, as our Arabophiles do, that they will voluntarily consent to the realisation of Zionism, in return for the moral and material conveniences which the Jewish colonist brings with him, is a childish notion, which has at bottom a kind of contempt for the Arab people; it means that they despise the Arab race, which they regard as a corrupt mob that can be bought and sold, and are willing to give up their fatherland for a good railway system."
"There is no justification for such a belief. It may be that some individual Arabs take bribes. But that does not mean that the Arab people of Palestine as a whole will sell that fervent patriotism that they guard so jealously, and which even the Papuans will never sell. Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised.
That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of "Palestine" into the "Land of Israel.""
"Colonisation carries its own explanation, the only possible explanation, unalterable and as clear as daylight to every ordinary Jew and every ordinary Arab.
Colonisation can have only one aim, and Palestine Arabs cannot accept this aim. It lies in the very nature of things, and in this particular regard nature cannot be changed."
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
@Tetrahfy 1. First Step has been shown to benefit wht prisoners more, and did nothing about the front end problems, of being arrested at higher rates, charged at higher rates for similar crimes, being convicted at higher rates, and being sentenced for longer times. Blk Americans still have to face all the front end problems, and now wht prisoners are getting their sentences reduced more than blk prisoners, actually increasing the sentencing discrepancy, with First Step. Incarceration rates started going up in the 70s, with Nixon's W on D. They spiked further, when Reagan supercharged it. Every Dem state, that has legalized mari, has kept more blk Americans entirely out of prison, than Trump.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@JC-sf6sf Fuck you're clueless. Shapiro didn't address the Georgia laws, at all, and instead had hissy fits about bias, never answering the questions.
Shapiro didn't address whether, or not, he was part of the problem with American political discourse, which his book is about, and instead whined that a UK interviewer used the word "barbaric", trying to imply irony/hypocrisy on Andrew's part. But, a UK interviewer has nothing the fuck to do with American discourse, so it's impossible for his question to be ironic/hypocritical. It was a total dodge and misdirection by Shapiro ... another total fail at trying to gotcha Andrew.
Ben makes out like he has nothing to do with videos that have "DESTROYS" in the title. That's just an outright falsehood. He has a bunch in his own Twitter and YouTube. He wrote a fucking book with "Destroy" in the title. He's a little weasel, who totally dodged that question with dishonesty.
I don't give two craps about the BBC. Say whatever you want about it. Yet more misdirection, from you, won't change the fact that Shapiro fell flat on his face, had a little tantrum, and ran away.
Your boy is an idiot.
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@quadkidnate6370 Jews lived relatively peacefully with Muslims for 1300 years. They were given refuge when Christian nations offered conversion, death, or exile. The widespread tension began with the colonialism. Native Americans reached a point where they wanted to push the white man back into the sea, and it wasn't simply because he was white. It was because of all the negative things they came to associate with being white, because of what had been done to them.
Israel has made it very clear that they don't want peace until they own the whole thing, and as long as there's a conflict they can deny Palestinian rights. Netanyahu was the one who promoted, and even helped fund, Hamas, to avoid possible peace and an official Palestinian state. He is constantly supporting new settlements. I think the Palestinians should throw a wrench and just surrender, declare the Israeli government to be theirs, demand equal rights, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees, now that the conflict is over. If not, Israel will just continue to colonize and beat the shit out of them, for as long as they can get away with it. Which could be another 100 years, with the help of the US.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@antidote4870 The two state solution took land from the native population and gave it to newcomers, from Europe and Russia. It was based on colonialism. It's almost a single state, already. Israel sure seems like it wants that outcome. Bezalel Smotrich, the lunatic Netanyahu put in charge of the West Bank, made public a plan to segregate and subjugate (no federal representation), exile, or kill, any non Jews in all of Israel/Palestine. Even worse, his map of "Israel" includes parts of Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.
The question is whether Palestinians will have any property or rights left. To survive as a Jewish ethno-state, Israel has to keep Jews as the majority, which means continuing to ethnically cleanse, or kill, enough Palestinians to keep themselves in the majority, or resort to taking away any non Jewish rights and give up being democratic.
7
-
@swiftfuegon So, every single religion needs its own nation, and every single ethnic group needs its own nation, and we should use force, and cleansing methods, to make it happen? A Scientology country? Utah should split off and become a Mormon country? A Wiccan country?
Both Palestinians and Jews have Canaanite DNA. It is the Palestinians' homeland, as well, except they never left for 1700 years. They aren't Iraqis, or Saudis, or anything else. There's no good reason to ethnically cleanse them off their homeland, for people who left for hundreds of years. That would be like me, and 6 million other North Americans, with ancestors that left England hundreds of years ago, going "back", and demanding half the country, and that everyone currently living on our half to move to the other half. Or, at least enough, so that us "returnees" are in the majority, so we can fake being democratic.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@shpluk Ze'ev Jabotinsky, The Ethics of the Iron Wall ...
"Let us consider for a moment the point of view of those to whom this seems immoral. We shall trace the root of the evil to this – that we are seeking to colonise a country against the wishes of its population, in other words, by force. Everything else that is undesirable grows out of this root with axiomatic inevitability. What then is to be done?
The simplest way out would be to look for a different country to colonise. Like Uganda. But if we look more closely into the matter we shall find that the same evil exists there, too. Uganda also has a native population, which consciously or unconsciously as in every other instance in history, will resist the coming of the colonisers. It is true that these natives happen to be black. But that does not alter the essential fact. If it is immoral to colonise a country against the will of its native population, the same morality must apply equally to the black man as to the white. Of course, the blackman may not be sufficiently advanced to think of sending delegations to London, but he will soon find some kindhearted white friends, who will instruct him. Though should these natives even prove utterly helpless, like children, the matter would only become worse. Then if colonisation is invasion and robbery, the greatest crime of all would be to rob helpless children. Consequently, colonisation in Uganda is also immoral, and colonisation in any other place in the world, whatever it may be called, is immoral. There are no more uninhabited islands in the world. In every oasis there is a native population settled from times immemorial, who will not tolerate an immigrant majority or an invasion of outsiders. So that if there is any landless people in the world, even its dream of a national home must be an immoral dream. . Those who are landless must remain landless to all eternity. The whole earth has been allocated."
... the f*cking guy doesn't even think that "the simplest way out" is to not colonize another country.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@xenomar9417 He uses the "doesn't prevent infection" strawman in this very video, instead of saying vaccines also significantly reduce infections. That's misleading people about the vaccines, not simply a no mandate argument. No vaccine 100% prevents infection, and yet he was good with mandating them before ...
"The point of mandatory vaccinations is not merely to protect those who are vaccinated. When it comes to measles, mumps and rubella, for example, children cannot be vaccinated until 1 year of age. The only way to prevent them from getting diseases is to ensure that those who surround them do not have those diseases. The same is true for children with diseases like leukemia, as well as pregnant women. Herd immunity is designed to protect third parties.
But Americans have short memories and enormous confidence in junk science. Parents will ignore vaccinations but ensure that their kids are stocked up with the latest homeopathic remedies, Kabbalah bracelets and crystals. St. John's wort, red string and crystals all existed before 1962. They didn't stop the measles. Vaccination did.
When it comes to measles and mumps and rubella and polio, your right to be free of vaccination -- and your right to be a dope with the health of your child because you believe Jenny McCarthy's idiocy -- ends where my child's right to live begins."
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@RobCipher The covid vaccines are proving to be effective for everyone, of all age categories. A 0.1% infection fatality rate is also the flu's pre vaccine infection fatality rate. So, you're removing older people from the equation (partly because you don't grasp how herd immunity works, and how everyone being vaccinated helps old people as well), just so you could point out that covid is as deadly for the individual as pre-vaccine influenza, while ignoring that it is far more contagious meaning more deadly overall, causes more hospitalizations amongst all age groups, and is millions of times more likely to cause long term effects? Covid has left over 120k American kids orphaned by killing adults young enough to still have kids. Studies have shown that while covid is less deadly than the flu, for individual kids, the fact that it's far more contagious makes it more dangerous overall. The flu kills about 500 kids a year (pre covid). Covid has now killed over 1000k, in two, and most of those since Delta (1 year). And that was with all the covid measures. All the covid measures (masks and such) massively reduced the flu rate, because it's so weak, in comparison to covid.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@woobiefuntime They ditched "Hebrew". They ditched "Israelite". They kept the identity that their religion got attached to, after they wrote their fairy tale book, while in Babylonia. If Jews and Palestinians both have Canaanite DNA, that means the vast majority of natives, that never left, actually did change their identities, likely converting along the way.
And, outside Saudi Arabia, "Arab" is somewhat like "Hispanic". It doesn't mean you're actually from Arabia. Arabs didn't genocide every country they conquered and refill it with Arabians from a little desert country. If Palestinians have Canaanite DNA, then they were likely simply Arabized, as well as the converting.
Do you think that people in England no longer have any actual Briton in them? Just pure Anglo (even though the Anglos were conquered by the Normans)?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Understandingways After the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed by both Democrats and Republicans in the North, and opposed by both Democrats and Republicans in the South, the racist white Southern majority abandoned both parties, in the 1968 presidential election, instead voting for a third party racist, winning 5 states. Nixon then won over that racist white Southern majority to vote Republican, in 1972. Aside from giving Southern boy Jimmy Carter one shot, that racist majority has almost entirely been voting Republican ever since.
He was already protesting the conventions of both parties, before that happened. Pretty sure he would not be a modern Republican, after that happened, and didn't say anything to suggest he'd be opposed to gay rights. His wife and Bayard Rustin think he would have supported their rights.
4
-
4
-
Israel is objectively the aggressor, by multiple measures ...
Modern history: 100 years ago, in 1923, Ze'ev Jabotinsky fully acknowledged that Zionism is colonialism, and that, based on the entirety of history, the natives would fight it until the bitter end. He just didn't care what would happen to them, and promoted doing it anyway. Colonizers are never not the aggressors.
On top of the colonialist nature of Zionism, the Zionists also formed terrorist organizations, like the Irgun and Lehi. They bombed many Palestinian markets and other public places, murdering many civilians, including children, even including Palestinian Jews (who opposed Zionism). Israel merged those terrorists into the new nation's military and intelligence agencies. Israelis elected Menachem Begin, leader of the Irgun, child murderer, Jew murderer, and bomber of the King David Hotel, as PM. Israelis, to this day, celebrate those terrorists as "heroes". Zionists literally taught their neighbours that terrorism is a valid path to independence and statehood, and that terrorists are to be celebrated.
Law: Israel is considered an occupier by the International Court, the UN GA, and the UN SC. Occupiers are also never not the aggressors. Those occupied actually have a right to resist occupation. On the flip side, it is illegal for the occupier to settle occupied lands, and illegal to use collective punishment. Israel is a rogue nation, that doesn't abide by international law. What it has been doing, and is doing now, is illegal.
Current events: This year, alone, prior to Oct 7 ... Israel held over 1200 Palestinian hostages without charges ... over 200 Palestinians had been killed by the IDF and settlers ... over 1000 Palestinians had been displaced by Israel's neverending colonization of the West Bank ... and, Israel continued to operate an open air WWII style fascist ghetto. Even ignoring modern history and law, in no reality did Hamas "start" anything.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@joe smath Rofl. You're claiming punching someone makes you a Nazi, and you think you're a good judge of IQ? Anarchists and communists getting into street fights with fascists and Nazis, in Italy and Germany, didn't magically turn the anarchists and communists also into Nazis. That's not the qualification that makes someone a Nazi, or not, ffs. There was also the Iron Front, which opposed Nazis, authoritarian communism, and monarchy. Simply punching a Nazi didn't magically make them Nazis, either. That is a seriously dumbass argument.
How is promoting the idea that people should have their rights taken away and forcibly removed from the country, not a threat to those people?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
@aepneuma Modernization most definitely kills off sections of industry. Sure, we still have horses, but motorized vehicles killed off using horses for the majority of farming, travel, deliveries, etc. Sure, there are still some hand weavers, but the loom killed off hand weaving as the majority of the industry. Realism used to be a major part of the painting industry. After photography, not so much. Who wants to sit for hours for a realistic family portrait, when you can just take a picture? And we started calling crap, like a black square, painted soup can labels, or paint splatters on canvas, "art". All animations used to be hand drawn, frame by frame. Now, a ton are done with 3D animation. Mass produced crap has become the norm, in many sectors of society. Sure, there will still be some people who care, but I don't know why you'd think that people who watch Kardashians, or some sh*t, won't welcome garbage.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@h..8083 I found that the developers bought the property over a year ago, and didn't find anything about Dave making threats, then. Some of that land was in a neighboring county, so the city annexed that, last summer, and didn't find anything about Dave making threats, then. The developers already introduced a first zoning plan, that was approved in Nov, and didn't find anything about Dave making threats, then. Then came this second zoning plan, which included assigning land to affordable housing, and lo and behold, Dave shows up making threats against it. Now it's just back to the original zoning plan.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Ghastlyteaparty Cows (fehu) were their currency. Whether you have a coin as a placeholder between selling a cow and buying a donkey, or you straight up trade a cow for a donkey, is of little relevance. They both still indicate an economy based on trading private property. It developed through a bunch of private property claimants (capital: wealth producing wealth), with no authority above them (anarcho), using their own private armies to settle land disputes. If the winner subjugated the other, or installed someone to rule over the new land under them, then a hierarchy began forming. Much like the cattle barons of the Western Territories, with little to no authority above them. They hired their own private armies of cowboys, and started throwing their weight around. They were only stopped by the federal government influencing more control over the region, removing the anarcho element.
Taxes have been around since ancient Egypt. But, until governments started becoming governments of the people, the "taxes" were really just direct payments to a private land owner, not to a non person government entity. The top of the hierarchy was a private landlord, and everyone who lived on his property, was paying rent in some form or another. No peasant could do whatever they wanted, if what they wanted was to live on a Lord's land for free.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dannyjenning1788 You really shouldn't want to get into a views vs subs ratio argument, on Hassan's channel, which make Crowder's ratio look pathetic, in comparison. Sam uploads multiple clips a day, and his channel's daily views to subs ratio is similar to Crowder's. Plus, he's on a weekly syndicated radio show. Plus, he does voice work on Bob's Burgers. Plus, he has debated Crowder's buddy Tim Pool, so fans of Tim should know Sam. Plus, he has debated Crowder's buddy Charlie Kirk, so fans of Charlie and Turning Points should know Sam. Plus, Fans of Politicon, in general, should know Sam. Plus, it all would have happened on the same H3 channel, with the same number of H3 subs and viewers, anyway. It's all just a lame excuse made by a coward, to "justify" running away. If he had some balls, and could have beaten Sam in a debate, then he would have actually made H3 and Sam ridiculous, rather than looking like the coward he is.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@moscowboyjer Israel is objectively the aggressor, by every relevant measure ...
Modern history: 100 years ago, in 1923, Ze'ev Jabotinsky fully acknowledged that Zionism is colonialism, and that, based on the entirety of history, the natives would fight it until the bitter end. He just didn't care what would happen to them, and promoted doing it anyway. Colonizers are never not the aggressors.
On top of the colonialist nature of Zionism, the Zionists also formed terrorist organizations, like the Irgun and Lehi. They bombed many Palestinian markets and other public places, murdering many civilians, including children, even including Palestinian Jews (who opposed Zionism). Israel merged those terrorists into the new nation's military and intelligence agencies. Israelis elected Menachem Begin, leader of the Irgun, child murderer, Jew murderer, and bomber of the King David Hotel, as PM. Israelis, to this day, celebrate those terrorists as "heroes". Zionists literally taught their neighbours that terrorism is a valid path to independence and statehood, and that terrorists are to be celebrated.
In 1945, it is well documented that Zionists owned just 5% of the land and were a majority nowhere. Israel was formed by actually going against the majority population. It's foundation is completely undemocratic. Then, becoming a majority, in "their" new nation, by ethnic cleansing the actual majority, and then claiming to be democratic, is utter nonsense.
Law: Israel is considered an occupier by the International Court, the UN GA, and the UN SC. Occupiers are also never not the aggressors. Those occupied actually have a right to resist occupation. On the flip side, it is illegal for the occupier to settle occupied lands, and illegal to use collective punishment. Israel is a rogue nation, that doesn't abide by international law. What it has been doing, and is doing now, is illegal.
Current events: This year, alone, prior to Oct 7 ... Israel held over 1200 Palestinian hostages without charges ... over 200 Palestinians had been killed by the IDF and settlers ... over 1000 Palestinians had been displaced by Israel's neverending colonization of the West Bank ... and, Israel continued to operate an open air WWII style fascist ghetto, in Gaza. Even ignoring modern history and law, in no reality did Hamas "start" anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Israel was itself founded on terrorism, by terrorist groups like the Irgun and Lehi. Israel itself elected terrorists, like Menachem Begin, who led the Irgun and blew up the King David Hotel. Israel still celebrates those terrorists. They literally taught their neighbours that terrorism is a path to independence and statehood.
And, 100 years ago, in 1923, Ze'ev Jabotinsky wrote the Iron Wall, which fully acknowledged that Zionism is colonialism, and predicted, based on historical responses to colonialism, that the natives would fight it to the bitter end.
In the West Bank, Israel is basically using the blueprint from the colonization of North America. Move settlements out into native lands, piss off the natives, the natives respond with violence, act all shocked and horrified by the "savage" attack, send in the cavalry to squash the natives, and then eventually expand the border to include the settlement. Rinse and repeat. Sure, Native Americans wanted to push the European settlers back into the sea, but it wasn't like they had no reason for wanting to do that. Like in the early years of Zionism, under the Ottomans, they largely welcomed the newcomers, until those newcomers proved themselves to be racists, bigots, and violent expansionists.
In Gaza, Israel has disgustingly created its own open air "ghetto". They are, again, acting like the Puritans of America, who fled persecution for the New World ... only to turn around and persecute everyone else there. They fled from those trying to throw them in ghettos, only to end up creating their own.
1
-
It was all indentured servitude, to begin with. Black people were then stripped of their rights, bit by bit, until almost all were chatel slaves. It had already begun, but the rebellion did hasten things along. Eventually, even most black freemen lost all their rights, too. Mixed marriages, leading to laws banning them, was another angle used to drive a wedge between the races. I think it was less to do with giving little advantages to one group, raising them up a tiny bit, and more to do with taking every little thing from the other group, dropping them down a lot lower.
1
-
1
-
@hakanpetersson2662 I was still referring to land owners, but okay. Between Jews, non-Jews, and publicly owned, they were a majority, or plurality, nowhere.
Haifa: 104k Jews, 120k non-Jews. But, you're right about Ramle/Lydda, a slight majority, but they only owned 14% of the property. Non-Jews owned 77%. 9% was public.
So, the Jewish partition should have been just Lydda.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theboss4359 Why lie? She started calling for ceasefire immediately, and hasn't stopped.
AOC and two fellow NY progressives back formal plea for ceasefire in Gaza
Oct 16, 2023
AOC leads Democrats urging Biden to call for Gaza ceasefire over ...
Nov 15, 2023
AOC blasts Biden admin for blocking UN Gaza cease-fire resolution
Dec 11, 2023
AOC says no one should be 'tossed out of public discourse' for accusing Israel ...
Jan 29, 2024
AOC Urges Biden to Call for a Ceasefire at the State of the Union
Feb 29, 2024
AOC decries 'unfolding genocide' in Gaza, urges halting weapons to Israel
Mar 22, 2024
Historic Number of Democratic Reps Vote Against Unconditional Aid to ...
Apr 20, 2024
Ocasio-Cortez Supports Doral Mayor's 'Very Important' Ceasefire Resolution
May 15, 2024
1
-
@theboss4359 Why lie? She started calling for ceasefire immediately, and hasn't stopped.
AOC and two fellow NY progressives back formal plea for ceasefire in Gaza
Oct 16, 2023
AOC leads Democrats urging Biden to call for Gaza ceasefire over ...
Nov 15, 2023
AOC blasts Biden admin for blocking UN Gaza cease-fire resolution
Dec 11, 2023
AOC says no one should be 'tossed out of public discourse' for accusing Israel ...
Jan 29, 2024
AOC Urges Biden to Call for a Ceasefire at the State of the Union
Feb 29, 2024
AOC decries 'unfolding genocide' in Gaza, urges halting weapons to Israel
Mar 22, 2024
Historic Number of Democratic Reps Vote Against Unconditional Aid to ...
Apr 20, 2024
Ocasio-Cortez Supports Doral Mayor's 'Very Important' Ceasefire Resolution
May 15, 2024
1
-
@theboss4359 Why lie? She started calling for ceasefire immediately, and hasn't stopped.
AOC and two fellow NY progressives back formal plea for ceasefire in Gaza
Oct 16, 2023
AOC leads Democrats urging Biden to call for Gaza ceasefire over ...
Nov 15, 2023
AOC blasts Biden admin for blocking UN Gaza cease-fire resolution
Dec 11, 2023
AOC says no one should be 'tossed out of public discourse' for accusing IL ...
Jan 29, 2024
AOC Urges Biden to Call for a Ceasefire at the State of the Union
Feb 29, 2024
AOC decries 'unfolding gncide' in Gaza, urges halting weapons to IL
Mar 22, 2024
Historic Number of Democratic Reps Vote Against Unconditional Aid to ...
Apr 20, 2024
Ocasio-Cortez Supports Doral Mayor's 'Very Important' Ceasefire Resolution
May 15, 2024
1
-
@theboss4359 Why so dishonest? She started calling for ceasefire immediately, and hasn't stopped.
AOC and two fellow NY progressives back formal plea for ceasefire in Gaza
Oct 16, 2023
AOC leads Democrats urging Biden to call for Gaza ceasefire over ...
Nov 15, 2023
AOC blasts Biden admin for blocking UN Gaza cease-fire resolution
Dec 11, 2023
AOC says no one should be 'tossed out of public discourse' for accusing IL ...
Jan 29, 2024
AOC Urges Biden to Call for a Ceasefire at the State of the Union
Feb 29, 2024
AOC decries 'unfolding gncide' in Gaza, urges halting weapons to IL
Mar 22, 2024
Historic Number of Democratic Reps Vote Against Unconditional Aid to ...
Apr 20, 2024
Ocasio-Cortez Supports Doral Mayor's 'Very Important' Ceasefire Resolution
May 15, 2024
1
-
@theboss4359 She started calling for ceasefire immediately, and hasn't stopped.
AOC and two fellow NY progressives back formal plea for ceasefire in Gz
Oct 16, 2023
AOC leads Democrats urging Biden to call for Gz ceasefire over ...
Nov 15, 2023
AOC blasts Biden admin for blocking UN Gz cease-fire resolution
Dec 11, 2023
AOC says no one should be 'tossed out of public discourse' for accusing IL ...
Jan 29, 2024
AOC Urges Biden to Call for a Ceasefire at the State of the Union
Feb 29, 2024
AOC decries 'unfolding gncide' in Gz, urges halting weapons to IL
Mar 22, 2024
Historic Number of Democratic Reps Vote Against Unconditional Aid to ...
Apr 20, 2024
Ocasio-Cortez Supports Doral Mayor's 'Very Important' Ceasefire Resolution
May 15, 2024
1
-
@theboss4359 She started calling for ceasefire immediately, and hasn't stopped.
AOC and two fellow NY progressives back formal plea for ceasefire in Gz
Oct 16, 2023
AOC leads Democrats urging Biden to call for Gz ceasefire over ...
Nov 15, 2023
AOC blsts Biden admin for blocking UN Gz cease-fire resolution
Dec 11, 2023
AOC says no one should be 'tossed out of public discourse' for accusing IL ...
Jan 29, 2024
AOC Urges Biden to Call for a Ceasefire at the State of the Union
Feb 29, 2024
AOC decries 'unfolding gncide' in Gz, urges halting weapons to IL
Mar 22, 2024
Historic Number of Democratic Reps Vote Against Unconditional Aid to ...
Apr 20, 2024
Ocasio-Cortez Supports Doral Mayor's 'Very Important' Ceasefire Resolution
May 15, 2024
1
-
@theboss4359 "rather than pushing for an end to g-word" Soooo, continuously calling for a ceasefire, for 7 months, isn't doing that? Her, and others, putting forward bills, and writing letters to the man, isn't doing that? Seems like you're expecting the impossible, or calling it nothing.
If you think a third party can win, you're delusional. If you think Trump is better, you're insane.
1
-
1
-
@alexb8878 There came a point when Native Americans wanted to push the white man back into the sea. It wasn't simply because he was white, dumb dumb. It was because they were colonizers and ethnic cleansers ...
Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Iron Wall, 1923 ...
"Voluntary Agreement Not Possible.
There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs. Not now, nor in the prospective future. I say this with such conviction, not because I want to hurt the moderate Zionists. I do not believe that they will be hurt. Except for those who were born blind, they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting "Palestine" from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority.
My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent.
The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilised or savage."
"Arabs Not Fools
This is equally true of the Arabs. Our Peace-mongers are trying to persuade us that the Arabs are either fools, whom we can deceive by masking our real aims, or that they are corrupt and can be bribed to abandon to us their claim to priority in Palestine , in return for cultural and economic advantages. I repudiate this conception of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are five hundred years behind us, they have neither our endurance nor our determination; but they are just as good psychologists as we are, and their minds have been sharpened like ours by centuries of fine-spun logomachy. We may tell them whatever we like about the innocence of our aims, watering them down and sweetening them with honeyed words to make them palatable, but they know what we want, as well as we know what they do not want. They feel at least the same instinctive jealous love of Palestine, as the old Aztecs felt for ancient Mexico, and the Sioux for their rolling Prairies.
To imagine, as our Arabophiles do, that they will voluntarily consent to the realisation of Zionism, in return for the moral and material conveniences which the Jewish colonist brings with him, is a childish notion, which has at bottom a kind of contempt for the Arab people; it means that they despise the Arab race, which they regard as a corrupt mob that can be bought and sold, and are willing to give up their fatherland for a good railway system.
All Natives Resist Colonists
There is no justification for such a belief. It may be that some individual Arabs take bribes. But that does not mean that the Arab people of Palestine as a whole will sell that fervent patriotism that they guard so jealously, and which even the Papuans will never sell. Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised.
That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of "Palestine" into the "Land of Israel.""
"Colonisation carries its own explanation, the only possible explanation, unalterable and as clear as daylight to every ordinary Jew and every ordinary Arab.
Colonisation can have only one aim, and Palestine Arabs cannot accept this aim. It lies in the very nature of things, and in this particular regard nature cannot be changed."
1
-
1
-
@mattolivier1835 Marx's ideal was for a stateless, non-authoritarian, direct democracy, form of sclsm. The complete opposite is an ultra-nationalistic, authoritarian, anti-democratic, form of crony capitalism. Republicans have always been riding the line, but MAGA made a full blown attempt to overthrow the democratic process, crossing the line. So, any MAGA Lauras, Laurens, Laras, ... Lauren Southern, Lara Trump, Laura Chen.
1
-
@mattolivier1835 Marx's ideal was for a stateless, non-authoritarian, direct democracy form of sclsm. The complete opposite is an ultra-nationalistic, authoritarian, anti-democratic, form of crony capitalism. Republicans have always been riding the line, but MAGA made a full blown attempt to ovrthrw the democratic process, crossing the line. So, any MAGA Lauras, Laurens, Laras, ... Lauren Southern, Lara Trump, Laura Chen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@msbkaioken136 You're saying a lot of nothing. Here. Likud's bloody 100 year history ...
The history of Likud is the history of Revisionist Zionism. In 1923, its founder, 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 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.
That same year, Ze'ev separated from the Haganah, and began training his own Betar militant youth group which, along with other Revisionists who broke from Haganah, formed the Irgun, and Lehi, terrorist groups. 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 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, Italian Fascists, and Vichy Lebanon, and continued fighting against the British, throughout WWII. 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 non-Jewish majority of Palestine, but Jews were still going to be a minority, in the part allocated to them. The only possible way to 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 there were at least 711,000 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 non-Jewish majority would require believing that they never intended to create a "Jewish state". It's a nonsensical notion.
Those terrorist groups also opposed partition, but for the opposite reason Palestinians did. Palestinians didn't want to be colonized, at all. The terrorists, on the other hand, 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, then became involved in Israeli politics, first forming Herut. That was the party Albert Einstein, and other prominent American Jews, wrote about, in 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 they have a "right" to all of the "Land of Israel" (fictional 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."
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 (OPT) 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 ... that millions more Palestinian refugees, don't have a right of return, to vote ... means Israel is about as democratic as Nazi Germany after Hitler purged his political opponents and then held elections.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GR33TINGSEARTHL1NGS He's an ignoramus. Likud's bloody 100 year history ...
The history of Likud is the history of Revisionist Zionism. In 1923, its founder, 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 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.
That same year, Ze'ev separated from the Haganah, and began training his own Betar militant youth group which, along with other Revisionists who broke from Haganah, formed the Irgun, and Lehi, terrorist groups. 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 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, Italian Fascists, and Vichy Lebanon, and continued fighting against the British, throughout WWII. 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 non-Jewish majority of Palestine, but Jews were still going to be a minority, in the part allocated to them. The only possible way to 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 there were at least 711,000 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 non-Jewish majority would require believing that they never intended to create a "Jewish state". It's a nonsensical notion.
Those terrorist groups also opposed partition, but for the opposite reason Palestinians did. Palestinians didn't want to be colonized, at all. The terrorists, on the other hand, 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, then became involved in Israeli politics, first forming Herut. That was the party Albert Einstein, and other prominent American Jews, wrote about, in 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 they have a "right" to all of the "Land of Israel" (fictional 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."
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 (OPT) 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 ... that millions more Palestinian refugees, don't have a right of return, to vote ... means Israel is about as democratic as Nazi Germany after Hitler purged his political opponents and then held elections.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Every one of them, that supports Likud, should be censured.
Likud was founded by Menachem Begin, leader of the Irgun terrorist group, murderer of civilian Palestinian men, women, and children, murderer of Palestinian Jews (who didn't support Zionism), and bomber of the King David Hotel. Israelis elected that terrorist as their PM. Israelis still celebrate those terrorists, as "heroes", to this day.
Likud was also founded by Ariel Sharon, war criminal, who massacred Palestinian villages.
Likud's original platform, "between the sea and the Jordan" ...
"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."
There is zero indication that Likud, Netanyahu, isn't still working towards that goal, with the endless colonization of Palestine territories.
1
-
1
-
@edpachomovas3807 Israel is objectively the aggressor by every relevant measure, dumb dumb ...
Modern history: 100 years ago, in 1923, Ze'ev Jabotinsky fully acknowledged that Zionism is colonialism, and that, based on the entirety of history, the natives would fight it until the bitter end. He just didn't care what would happen to them, and promoted doing it anyway. Colonizers are never not the aggressors.
On top of the colonialist nature of Zionism, the Zionists also formed terrorist organizations, like the Irgun and Lehi. They bombed many Palestinian markets and other public places, murdering many civilians, including children, even including Palestinian Jews (who opposed Zionism). Israel merged those terrorists into the new nation's military and intelligence agencies. Israelis elected Menachem Begin, leader of the Irgun, child murderer, Jew murderer, and bomber of the King David Hotel, as PM. Israelis, to this day, celebrate those terrorists as "heroes". Zionists literally taught their neighbours that terrorism is a valid path to independence and statehood, and that terrorists are to be celebrated.
In 1945, it is well documented that Zionists owned just 5% of the land and were a majority nowhere. Israel was formed by actually going against the majority population. It's foundation is completely undemocratic. Then, becoming a majority, in "their" new nation, by ethnic cleansing the actual majority, and then claiming to be democratic, is utter nonsense.
Law: Israel is considered an occupier by the International Court, the UN GA, and the UN SC. Occupiers are also never not the aggressors. Those occupied actually have a right to resist occupation. On the flip side, it is illegal for the occupier to settle occupied lands, and illegal to use collective punishment. Israel is a rogue nation, that doesn't abide by international law. What it has been doing, and is doing now, is illegal.
Current events: This year, alone, prior to Oct 7 ... Israel held over 1200 Palestinian hostages without charges ... over 200 Palestinians had been killed by the IDF and settlers ... over 1000 Palestinians had been displaced by Israel's neverending colonization of the West Bank ... and, Israel continued to operate an open air WWII style fascist ghetto, in Gaza. Even ignoring modern history and law, in no reality did Hamas "start" anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bikeman78 Israel is objectively the aggressor by every relevant measure ...
Modern history: 100 years ago, in 1923, Ze'ev Jabotinsky fully acknowledged that Zionism is colonialism, and that, based on the entirety of history, the natives would fight it until the bitter end. He just didn't care what would happen to them, and promoted doing it anyway. Colonizers are never not the aggressors.
On top of the colonialist nature of Zionism, the Zionists also formed terrorist organizations, like the Irgun and Lehi. They bombed many Palestinian markets and other public places, murdering many civilians, including children, even including Palestinian Jews (who opposed Zionism). Israel merged those terrorists into the new nation's military and intelligence agencies. Israelis elected Menachem Begin, leader of the Irgun, child murderer, Jew murderer, and bomber of the King David Hotel, as PM. Israelis, to this day, celebrate those terrorists as "heroes". Zionists literally taught their neighbours that terrorism is a valid path to independence and statehood, and that terrorists are to be celebrated.
In 1945, it is well documented that Zionists owned just 5% of the land and were a majority nowhere. Israel was formed by actually going against the majority population. It's foundation is completely undemocratic. Then, becoming a majority, in "their" new nation, by ethnic cleansing the actual majority, and then claiming to be democratic, is utter nonsense.
Law: Israel is considered an occupier by the International Court, the UN GA, and the UN SC. Occupiers are also never not the aggressors. Those occupied actually have a right to resist occupation. On the flip side, it is illegal for the occupier to settle occupied lands, and illegal to use collective punishment. Israel is a rogue nation, that doesn't abide by international law. What it has been doing, and is doing now, is illegal.
Current events: This year, alone, prior to Oct 7 ... Israel held over 1200 Palestinian hostages without charges ... over 200 Palestinians had been killed by the IDF and settlers ... over 1000 Palestinians had been displaced by Israel's neverending colonization of the West Bank ... and, Israel continued to operate an open air WWII style fascist ghetto, in Gaza. Even ignoring modern history and law, in no reality did Hamas "start" anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shpluk It's really pretty simple. Cowardly pro colonialists, trying to mask their colonialism, want it to be confusing. All the ancient history stuff is actually irrelevant. There was a well documented exodus, and living in Europe and Russia, for 1700 years. The Zionists were not inhabitants of Palestine, and hadn't been for generations. The Empire that kicked them out, due to their own terrorist acts, no longer exists.
If I rounded up 6 million people from the Americas whose ancestors left England or Spain hundreds of years ago, do they have any right to claim half of those countries for themselves, and force the current population off? If they went back, took half by force, and ethnically cleansed enough of the current inhabitants, at least enough until the newcomers were the majority (so they can pretend to be democratic), they would be colonialists.
Europeans have DNA roots back to Africa. They still colonized the shit out of Africa.
1
-
@prettypurplepicklez Nope. There were not waves of any significant Arab immigration. Almost all of the non Jewish population growth can be attributed to reproduction rates. Between 1918 and 1947, the non Jewish population increased by 2.2x. The Jewish population increased by 10.5x.
No. Jewish rebels killed hundreds of thousands of non Jewish civilians, including children, genociding entire cities, raped, pillaged, and even accounts of them parading around wearing the skins of their victims. And the rebels, not even close to the entire population, were taken as slaves. That Palestinians have Canaanite DNA would suggest that most of those who stayed simply converted along the way. Religion isn't tied to your DNA.
Yeah, the Palestinian Jews opposed Zionism, and were targeted by Zionist terrorists, like the Irgun and Lehi, alongside their Palestinian brothers. Zionists don't get to claim people they murdered, to act as some 1700 year place holder, for them all to return.
Unless you want to put the entire world back the way it was, at the very specific time that you like (Egypt was the first nation to rule over Canaan, but you don't want that, right?), the only relevant colonialism is ongoing colonialism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@darrellvalentine7316 Nothing you said refutes that colonialists are aggressors, dumb dumb. There were even times, throughout history, where less developed peoples conquered and colonized more developed civilizations.
On top of the Zionist colonialism, Israel was also founded on its own terrorism, by groups like the Irgun and Lehi. They bombed Palestinian markets, killing many civilians, including children, even killing Palestinian Jews (who didn't support Zionism). Those terrorist groups were merged into the new nation's military and intelligence agencies. Israelis elected Menachem Begin, leader of the Irgun, who bombed the King David Hotel. Israelis, to this day, celebrate those terrorists as heroes. They literally taught their neighbours that terrorism is a valid path to independence and statehood.
Even the Jews under Roman rule rebelled, and killed tens of thousands of non Jewish civilians. Even with how violent they were, they didn't take kindly to the Roman use of excessive force, the destruction of their temple, or being ethnically cleansed. If the Roman reaction was justified, then that completely eradicates the only justification they had to support their Zionist colonialism ... that they were forced out, and didn't leave willingly.
You should also maybe consider whether a bomb dropping on a baby might blow its body apart.
1
-
@antidote4870 Ummm, the planning for a Zionist state started in like 1918. Ben-Gurion declared they wanted it all. And, no, the Zionists always demanded to be a majority in their own state. One of the first plans included force moving a third of the native population, over 200k Palestinians. On top of being colonialist, Jewish terrorist groups, like the Irgun and Lehi, helped force the final solution. It's literally a colonialist terrorist nation.
How will a 2 state solution work, in 2023, when Israel has continued colonizing Palestinian lands the whole time? You think Palestinians will agree to having jack shit left over? Only if you squash their spirit, or ethnically cleanse or kill the ones who don't accept, like native Americans. Being stuck on reserves isn't exactly a "two state" solution. And, there's zero indication that Israel would willingly return to any former borders.
Other nations, that can pressure an outcome, need to step in, and demand one, like with South Africa. That would take them growing some balls, and finally declaring Israel a racist/colonialist/terrorist/fascist state. And, they can also pressure towards an outcome that would actually work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RobCipher People are stupid. Nothing was really rushed. The process for creating them is simply faster. The FDA usually approves, or doesn't, drugs within 6 months after trials. The vaccines went through phase I through III trials, just like anything else. They were fully approved in a standard amount of time. Waiting for full approval might have been a quasi valid excuse, once upon a time. Now, it's just stupidity. Are they all qualified doctors and scientists, who know the proper amount of time, to wait? Oh, wait, nope. Doctors are like 99% vaccinated. Just how much time should people wait, exactly, in their "expert" opinions?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KaiCross "Arab" doesn't literally mean an Arabian, dimwit. "Arab" is like "Hispanic". Palestinians have Canaanite DNA. They've been there since the land of Canaan. They aren't Iraqis, Turks, Egyptians, or anything else. There's no valid reason to ethnically cleanse them.
There was a well documented 1700 year tour of Russia and Europe, dumb dumb. I can't round up 6 million people from the Americas whose ancestors left England hundreds of years ago, and go claim half of England. That's moronic.
Zionist terrorists, like the Irgun and Lehi, actually targeted Palestinian Jews, who opposed Zionism. You don't get to claim people that opposed you, and that you killed, as a placeholder.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Thatsnotgonnawork Nope. She votes against the State Department appropriation bill, which contains the annual offensive aid to IL, every single year. If you're trashing her for voting for the entire budget (including SNAP, SSDI, SSI, housing, Medicaid, Medicare, education, etc., etc., etc.), then you're a complete and utter maroon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fredflintstone6729 Israel is objectively the aggressor by every relevant measure (modern history, law, and current events), dumb dumb ...
Modern history: With the Balfour declaration, Zionsim converted from something like immigration to colonization. 100 years ago, in 1923, Ze'ev Jabotinsky fully acknowledged that Zionism is colonialism, and that, based on the entirety of history, the native Palestinians would fight it until the bitter end. He just didn't care what would happen to them, and promoted doing it anyway. Colonizers are never not the aggressors, when it comes to the native population.
On top of the colonialist nature of Zionism, the Zionists also formed terrorist organizations, like the Irgun and Lehi. They bombed many Palestinian markets and other public places, murdering many civilians, including children, even including Palestinian Jews (who opposed colonialist Zionism). Israel merged those terrorists into the new nation's military and intelligence agencies. Israelis elected Menachem Begin, leader of the Irgun, child murderer, Jew murderer, and bomber of the King David Hotel, as PM. Israelis, to this day, celebrate those Irgun terrorists as "heroes". Zionists literally taught their neighbours that terrorism is a valid path to independence and statehood, and that terrorists are to be celebrated.
In 1945, it is well documented that Zionists owned just 5% of the land and were a majority in zero districts. Israel was formed by going against the will of the majority population. Its foundation is completely undemocratic. Even then, Jews were still a minority, in "their" half. The only possible way to actually become a Jewish ethno-state, would be to ethnically cleanse away the actual majority. And, that's exactly what happened. Israel has never allowed those people to return.
Law: Israel is considered an occupier by the International Court, the UN GA, and the UN SC. Occupiers are also never not the aggressors. Those occupied actually have a right to resist occupation. On the flip side, it is illegal for the occupier to settle occupied lands, and illegal to use collective punishment. Israel is a rogue nation, that doesn't abide by international law. What it has been doing, and is doing now, is illegal.
Current events: This year, alone, prior to Oct 7 ... Israel held over 1200 Palestinian hostages without charges ... over 200 Palestinians had been killed by the IDF and settlers ... over 1000 Palestinians had been displaced by Israel's neverending colonization of the West Bank ... and, Israel continued to operate an open air WWII style fascist ghetto. Even ignoring modern history and law, in no reality did Hamas "start" anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vytalman No. It would be one thing, if all the governments magically signed onto it, and some central global government, like the UN, organized global distribution. And, all the governments using their power to enforce it, within their regions. It would be completely another, to suggest you could ditch elected officials to run and enforce it. That would require almost everyone, at an individual level, voluntarily be onboard.
Who is going to stop a group of people who don't care about resources, and think they have some god given right to a piece of land, from taking it? Who is going to stop Puritan loons from trying to spread their "purification", like the Puritans of old? Who is going to make all the people who don't want to do things that way, comply (you'd have about half of Americans ready to fight to not share)?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ssir5927 YouTube not liking something I'm saying ...
You think kings couldn't trade property with other kings, cede property to other kings, or take property from other kings? I don't think you've read an ounce of history.
That's not how your so called "unions" worked. The king would try to make sure their most loyal people were the most powerful, and if any others got uppity, they could definitely be taken out, and replaced. It happened all the time.
Who do you think was controlling the rent? Kings added new fees for people living on their property, all the time ... for this w-r, for that w-r, for ransoms, etc.
You think kings couldn't evict people from their property, unless they tried to k-ll him? People could be hauled off, tossed in prisons, or k-lled, for all kinds of reasons. The king made the rules, laws, for living on his property.
1
-
@ssir5927 I literally said they were all tenants to the one on top, that the one on top owned everything.
Whatever pressures you think there were on them, they did what they thought was best for them, and they made the laws. That the tenants of my buildings could rise up and k-ll me, if they wanted, doesn't change the absolute fact that I own the buildings. And, in the vast majority of cases, if I'm taken out, or pass away, my property will go to my heir, just like with any other property ownership. Nothing you're going on about refutes that fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KaiCross And, Native Americans reached a point where they wanted to push the colonizing white man back into the sea. What's your point?
It wasn't already there. Before the emergence of Israel, Judah, and Philistia, the region was controlled by Egypt. It was the first nation to control the region. The kingdom of Israel emerged at about the same time as Philistia, and was wiped out before it. The refugees from Israel fled to the little kingdom of Judah. That's how they all became Judahites instead of Israelites. Whatever area "Peleset", or "Philistia" first described, the term was then used to describe a larger area, throughout history, by the Greeks, Persians, Romans, Christians, Muslims, and even Jews.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@woobiefuntime Nonsense. All the ones in Muslim nations, could have moved there whenever they wanted, over the course of 1300 years. Barely any did, until after Israel. There could have been lineups for hundreds of miles, for foreign Jews, to join up when Zionism first started. There wasn't. There was no indication of any massive desire to "return" to their "homeland", until the Russian pogroms and Nazis came along. Even then, many tried going to other countries first, and those countries loaded them up, and sent them on their way, to get rid of them.
Even if there was some great desire, that doesn't change the fact of what it was, colonialism. If I have some great desire to go "back" to England, round up about 6 million other people from the Americas, whose ancestors left England hundreds of years ago, and we go "back" to England, claim half of the country, and force any current residents off of our half, we'd be colonizers and cleansers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ultimosoneto674 Israel is objectively the aggressor, by every relevant measure ...
Modern history: 100 years ago, in 1923, Ze'ev Jabotinsky fully acknowledged that Zionism is colonialism, and that, based on the entirety of history, the natives would fight it until the bitter end. He just didn't care what would happen to them, and promoted doing it anyway. Colonizers are never not the aggressors.
On top of the colonialist nature of Zionism, the Zionists also formed terrorist organizations, like the Irgun and Lehi. They bombed many Palestinian markets and other public places, murdering many civilians, including children, even including Palestinian Jews (who opposed Zionism). Israel merged those terrorists into the new nation's military and intelligence agencies. Israelis elected Menachem Begin, leader of the Irgun, child murderer, Jew murderer, and bomber of the King David Hotel, as PM. Israelis, to this day, celebrate those terrorists as "heroes". Zionists literally taught their neighbours that terrorism is a valid path to independence and statehood, and that terrorists are to be celebrated.
In 1945, it is well documented that Zionists owned just 5% of the land and were a majority nowhere. Israel was formed by actually going against the majority population. It's foundation is completely undemocratic. Then, becoming a majority, in "their" new nation, by ethnic cleansing the actual majority, and then claiming to be democratic, is utter nonsense.
Law: Israel is considered an occupier by the International Court, the UN GA, and the UN SC. Occupiers are also never not the aggressors. Those occupied actually have a right to resist occupation. On the flip side, it is illegal for the occupier to settle occupied lands, and illegal to use collective punishment. Israel is a rogue nation, that doesn't abide by international law. What it has been doing, and is doing now, is illegal.
Current events: This year, alone, prior to Oct 7 ... Israel held over 1200 Palestinian hostages without charges ... over 200 Palestinians had been killed by the IDF and settlers ... over 1000 Palestinians had been displaced by Israel's neverending colonization of the West Bank ... and, Israel continued to operate an open air WWII style fascist ghetto, in Gaza. Even ignoring modern history and law, in no reality did Hamas "start" anything.
1
-
1
-
@thehawkguy Nope. All, or part, was called Philistia, Philistine, Palestine, of Filistin, by the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks, before the Romans. You're just lying.
1
-
1
-
@gmeister3022 It is pretty much only a religious conflict, from the Zionist side. There was absolutely no basis, for sticking people from Europe and Russia, there, except some fairytale claim of "god given" land. Palestinians are reacting like pretty much all natives react to colonialism.
Zionist terrorist groups, Irgun and Lehi, targeted Palestinian Jews alongside their Palestinian brothers and sisters, because they didn't support colonialist Zionsim. You don't get to use people you murdered, as some ridiculous 1709 year old place holder. Plus, Palestinians have Canaanite DNA, dumb dumb. They are also likely the Jews of old, who simply converted and were Arabized (like Hispanic Native Americans).
Me rounding up people from the Americas, whose ancestors left England hundreds of years ago, "going back", claiming half the country, and cleansing "our" half of its current inhabitants, would be a ridiculous notion. It would still be colonialism, if we had a superpower backer, to help force it on the current inhabitants. And, me, having some distant cousin living there, doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
Jews lived amongst Muslims for 1300 years, with few incidents. They had a Jewish "Golden Age". They were given refuge, when Christian nations offered conversion, death, or exile. The Ottomans even okayed the earliest form of Zionsim, which was closer to immigration than colonization. This whole thing is about the Balfour declaration, and Zionsim converting to colonialism. Native Americans reached a point where they wanted to push the white man back into the sea. It wasn't simply because they were white, dimwit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kenbone7315 Hamas is a poor man's Likud. Likud was founded by Menachem Begin, leader of the Irgun terrorist group, who bombed the King David Hotel. The Irgun also bombed numerous Palestinian markets and other public places, murdering Palestinian civilians, including children, even including Palestinian Jews (who didn't support colonialist Zionsim). Israelis elected Begin, terrorist, child murderer, Jew murderer, as PM. Israelis, to this day, celebrate those Irgun terrorists as "heroes". The Likud platform, "between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty", promises the complete colonization and ethnic cleansing of all Palestine territories. The Likud platform also claims a Jewish "right" to all the "Land of Israel" (fictional biblical borders that don't mesh with archaeological reality), which is also a declaration of future wars, against Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.
The only real difference between Hamas and Likud is that Hamas is fighting against colonialism, while Irgun/Likud is fighting for it.
1
-
@II-wu7mx Well ... the US, capital L, Libertarians, or Any Rand style Objectivists, are in favor of keeping the justice system and military to protect their property and class. Things would be similar to the early conflicts with workers, where they'd call in the cops, national guard, or hire private strike breakers, because there'd be no laws protecting a workers, only laws protecting the owners' private properties. Not exactly "antistatist".
And, anarcho-capitalism devolves into feudalism. Without any authority above them, large private property owners, or corporations, would resolve disputes privately, with their own private armies. They'd make rules for living on their property. They'd set whatever fees they want for living on their property. Etc. And, they'd effectively become their own privately owned and operated state. Also not exactly "antistatist".
1
-
@trollnerd When It comes to solutions, I never said to kick the Jews out. I'm for a single state solution, with a split Lebanon style government, and a right of return for Palestinian refugees. Nobody gets any ethnic cleansing dreams, like that Bezalel Smotrich loon, that Netanyahu put in charge of the West Bank. The guy made public a plan to segregate and subjugate (no federal representation), exile, or kill, any non Jews in all of Israel/Palestine. Even worse, being a religious nut, he thinks Israel is actually "god given" land and he has a Biblical based fairy tale map of "Israel", that includes parts of Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.
1
-
@kristian1115 Only Israel has the power to actually accomplish a genocide. Bezalel Smotrich, who Netanyahu put in charge of the West Bank, made public a plan to segregate and subjugate (no federal representation), exile, or kill, any non Jews in all of Israel/Palestine. Plus, he's a religious nut whose map of "Israel" is Bible based, or something, and includes parts of Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. 100 years of ethnic cleansing ... but Hamas is the main problem. 🙄
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IAmTheTruCanadian Israel exists because of a) Zionist colonialism. Colonialists are never not the aggressors, when it comes to the natives. In 1923, Ze'ev Jabotinsky fully acknowledged that Zionism is colonialism, and predicted, based on the entirety of history, that the native population would fight it until the bitter end. He just didn't care about the native population, and thought colonialism was a fine idea.
Israel exists because of b) Zionist terrorism. Zionists created terrorist groups, like the Irgun and Lehi. They bombed many Palestinian markets, and other public places, killing many Palestinian civilians, including children, even including Palestinian Jews (who didn't support Zionism). Israel merged those terrorists into the new nation's military and intelligence agencies. Israelis elected Menachem Begin, leader of the Irgun, child murderer, Jew murderer, who bombed the King David Hotel, to be their PM. Israelis, to this day, celebrate those terrorists as "heroes". They literally taught their neighbours that terrorism is a valid path to independence and statehood, and that terrorists are to be celebrated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shadebleu Do you, or someone else, keep flagging history?
"Meanwhile the Jews in the region of Cyrene had put one Andreas at their head and were destroying both the Romans and the Greeks. They would cook their flesh, make belts for themselves of their entrails, anoint themselves with their blood, and wear their skins for clothing. Others they would give to wild beasts and force still others to fight as gladiators. In all, consequently, two hundred and twenty thousand perished. In Egypt, they also performed many similar deeds, and in Cyprus under the leadership of Artemio. There, likewise, two hundred and forty thousand perished. For this reason, no Jew may set foot in that land, but even if one of them is driven upon the island by the force of the wind, he is put to death. Various persons took part in subduing these Jews, one being Lusius, who was sent by Trajan.[9]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitos_War
1
-
1
-
@anciencegray7956 Zionism converted from something more like immigration to colonialism, with the Balfour declaration. Ze'ev Jabotinsky, The Iron Wall, 1923:
"There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs. Not now, nor in the prospective future. I say this with such conviction, not because I want to hurt the moderate Zionists. I do not believe that they will be hurt. Except for those who were born blind, they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting "Palestine" from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority.
My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent.
The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilised or savage."
"Our Peace-mongers are trying to persuade us that the Arabs are either fools, whom we can deceive by masking our real aims, or that they are corrupt and can be bribed to abandon to us their claim to priority in Palestine , in return for cultural and economic advantages. I repudiate this conception of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are five hundred years behind us, they have neither our endurance nor our determination; but they are just as good psychologists as we are, and their minds have been sharpened like ours by centuries of fine-spun logomachy. We may tell them whatever we like about the innocence of our aims, watering them down and sweetening them with honeyed words to make them palatable, but they know what we want, as well as we know what they do not want. They feel at least the same instinctive jealous love of Palestine, as the old Aztecs felt for ancient Mexico, and the Sioux for their rolling Prairies.
To imagine, as our Arabophiles do, that they will voluntarily consent to the realisation of Zionism, in return for the moral and material conveniences which the Jewish colonist brings with him, is a childish notion, which has at bottom a kind of contempt for the Arab people; it means that they despise the Arab race, which they regard as a corrupt mob that can be bought and sold, and are willing to give up their fatherland for a good railway system.
All Natives Resist Colonists
There is no justification for such a belief. It may be that some individual Arabs take bribes. But that does not mean that the Arab people of Palestine as a whole will sell that fervent patriotism that they guard so jealously, and which even the Papuans will never sell. Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised.
That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of "Palestine" into the "Land of Israel.""
"This statement of the position by the Arab editor is so logical, so obvious, so indisputable, that everyone ought to know it by heart, and it should be made the basis of all our future discussions on the Arab question. It does not matter at all which phraseology we employ in explaining our colonising aims, Herzl's or Sir Herbert Samuel's.
Colonisation carries its own explanation, the only possible explanation, unalterable and as clear as daylight to every ordinary Jew and every ordinary Arab.
Colonisation can have only one aim, and Palestine Arabs cannot accept this aim. It lies in the very nature of things, and in this particular regard nature cannot be changed."
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LVArturs The League of Nations became the UN. This did not start "way before" the League of Nations. It basically started with the Balfour declaration. Early Zionists, like Ben-Gurion and Ze'ev Jabotinsky, fully acknowledged that Zionism is colonialism. There's no real ifs about it. Colonialists are never not the aggressors. Nobody "started" a war against Israel. The colonialism started the war. It's impossible for natives to attack you, if you aren't already there doing your colonialist aggression, first.
That's like saying Native Americans "started" wars against colonialists, and the poor "innocent" colonialists were just "defending" themselves. Native Americans initially welcomed settlers, until those settlers started claiming everything as their own, and started their ethnic cleansing. Then the natives reached a point that they wanted to send the white man back into the sea. It wasn't simply because he was white.
Jews had been living amongst Muslims for 1300 years. Muslim nations gave them refuge, when Christian nations were force converting, exiting, or killing, non Christians. The Ottomans initially welcomed Zionists, when it was somewhat more like immigration (PICA was okay, JNF was racist), before the British took it over. Everything turned to shit, due to colonialism.
1
-
1
-
@kpcook305 Private ownership over the means of production. The workers are left with barely enough to live on, while the owner gets all the surplus, from which they personally profit to fund their lavish lifestyle. A hierarchy of power, with the workers on the bottom. Etc.
A large privately owned company is even modeled the same way. It has an owner (monarch), who owns all the company's property and everything it produces. The company can be inherited. The owner has their upper management (nobles) and lower management (sheriffs, rent/tax collectors, etc.), who all benefit from the surplus goods produced by the workers. The actual workers get paid as little as possible (whether they're paid in money or goods is irrelevant). An absolute monarchy goes even further, like the more exploitative businesses that ran their own company towns. So, they also owned, and made profits from, the property the workers lived on, and made profits from the shops the workers shopped at.
The main difference is that most businesses have an authority above them, which wouldn't be the case in an anarcho environment. The company owners could then claim ownership of whatever they wanted, and use their profits to fund private armies to enforce those claims, and enforce whatever rules (laws) they want for their private property.
1
-
@Ghastlyteaparty I think you are very much underestimating just how organized they were. Maybe look into things like the Domesday Book, pipe rolls, close rolls, patent rolls, Inquisitions post mortem, etc. Like the owner of a large private company, a monarch did delegate. They had their upper management (nobles) who, in turn, had their own lower management (sheriffs, tax collectors, game wardens, etc.). The monarch kept very very close track of who was running their lands for them, the upper management. Each level of the hierarchy only had to keep track of the level just below them, so the monarch didn't have to keep track of the peasantry. Each level would keep track of the level below, and it would be the lowest level of local Lord, or their henchmen, who would know all the peasants under their charge.
The nobles basically leased the land, from the monarch, for X amount per year. They, in turn, assigned the lower management to extract that amount from the peasantry, plus whatever profits they wanted for themselves. Serfs were not living some lovely communal life, with all kinds of time off. They were basically indentured servants, tied to the land, and each had their own individual annual debts to pay. The ownership hierarchy made profits from the labor of the masses. They made profits off of sales by the much smaller merchant class in their lands. They made profits off of people traveling through their lands (tolls). Seeing as they were also the justice system, they also made profits from fining people. The ownership hierarchy had their hands in everything, and the working masses owned nothing.
1
-
1
-
Ze'ev Jabotinsky outright compared the colonialist Zionsim, which he supported, to the colonization of the Americas. They knew what they would do to the natives, all along.
"Our Peace-mongers are trying to persuade us that the Arabs are either fools, whom we can deceive by masking our real aims, or that they are corrupt and can be bribed to abandon to us their claim to priority in Palestine , in return for cultural and economic advantages. I repudiate this conception of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are five hundred years behind us, they have neither our endurance nor our determination; but they are just as good psychologists as we are, and their minds have been sharpened like ours by centuries of fine-spun logomachy. We may tell them whatever we like about the innocence of our aims, watering them down and sweetening them with honeyed words to make them palatable, but they know what we want, as well as we know what they do not want. They feel at least the same instinctive jealous love of Palestine, as the old Aztecs felt for ancient Mexico, and the Sioux for their rolling Prairies."
Followers of Ze'ev formed the Irgun and Lehi terrorist groups. The leaders of those two terrorist groups formed Likud, and were each elected as PMs. Israelis, to this day, celebrate those terrorists as "heroes".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kyoakland 2016: Dore promotes Trump (running on tossing 10m of the poorest Americans off of Medicaid expansion) as the better option to Clinton (running on adding 40m older Americans to Medicare expansion).
2020 primaries: Dore promotes Tulsi (public option) over Bernie (M4A).
2020 general: Dore runs a constant attack add campaign against Trump's (still trying to boot 10m of the poorest Americans off of Medicaid expansion, plus having a hand in killing hundreds of thousands of Americans) only remaining viable opponent, Biden (running on a public option and Medicare expansion).
2021: Dore is the one true champion of healthcare, and anyone who doesn't do as he says is a "fake", "fraud", "sellout", etc., including progressives who have done more for M4A in a few years than he has in his entire lifetime. He promotes a nearly nonexistent third party, when even the most popular third party hasn't won a single seat in congress in its near 50 year existence, and even if you got a third party popular enough to split off every progressive vote, that would just lead to Republican rule for decades to come. Promotes making friends with far right Boogaloos, who will be shooting leftists once they start the civil war they want (Jimmy is like the dipshit "leftists" who got themselves killed off on The Night of the Long Knives.). Repeatedly goes on far right television, largely just to agree with them. Abandons Nina Turner ... abandons adding another M4A yes vote to congress.
What does this guy do that benefits the left, in any way? All of the above seems to mostly benefit the far right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@edwsc3 Israel is objectively the aggressor by every relevant measure, dumb dumb ...
Modern history: 100 years ago, in 1923, Ze'ev Jabotinsky fully acknowledged that Zionism is colonialism, and that, based on the entirety of history, the natives would fight it until the bitter end. He just didn't care what would happen to them, and promoted doing it anyway. Colonizers are never not the aggressors.
On top of the colonialist nature of Zionism, the Zionists also formed terrorist organizations, like the Irgun and Lehi. They bombed many Palestinian markets and other public places, murdering many civilians, including children, even including Palestinian Jews (who opposed Zionism). Israel merged those terrorists into the new nation's military and intelligence agencies. Israelis elected Menachem Begin, leader of the Irgun, child murderer, Jew murderer, and bomber of the King David Hotel, as PM. Israelis, to this day, celebrate those terrorists as "heroes". Zionists literally taught their neighbours that terrorism is a valid path to independence and statehood, and that terrorists are to be celebrated.
In 1945, it is well documented that Zionists owned just 5% of the land and were a majority nowhere. Israel was formed by actually going against the majority population. It's foundation is completely undemocratic. Then, becoming a majority, in "their" new nation, by ethnic cleansing the actual majority, and then claiming to be democratic, is utter nonsense.
Law: Israel is considered an occupier by the International Court, the UN GA, and the UN SC. Occupiers are also never not the aggressors. Those occupied actually have a right to resist occupation. On the flip side, it is illegal for the occupier to settle occupied lands, and illegal to use collective punishment. Israel is a rogue nation, that doesn't abide by international law. What it has been doing, and is doing now, is illegal.
Current events: This year, alone, prior to Oct 7 ... Israel held over 1200 Palestinian hostages without charges ... over 200 Palestinians had been killed by the IDF and settlers ... over 1000 Palestinians had been displaced by Israel's neverending colonization of the West Bank ... and, Israel continued to operate an open air WWII style fascist ghetto, in Gaza. Even ignoring modern history and law, in no reality did Hamas "start" anything.
1
-
1
-
@ThinkingCap_ Israel is objectively the aggressor by every relevant measure ...
Modern history: 100 years ago, in 1923, Ze'ev Jabotinsky fully acknowledged that Zionism is colonialism, and that, based on the entirety of history, the natives would fight it until the bitter end. He just didn't care what would happen to them, and promoted doing it anyway. Colonizers are never not the aggressors.
On top of the colonialist nature of Zionism, the Zionists also formed terrorist organizations, like the Irgun and Lehi. They bombed many Palestinian markets and other public places, murdering many civilians, including children, even including Palestinian Jews (who opposed Zionism). Israel merged those terrorists into the new nation's military and intelligence agencies. Israelis elected Menachem Begin, leader of the Irgun, child murderer, Jew murderer, and bomber of the King David Hotel, as PM. Israelis, to this day, celebrate those terrorists as "heroes". Zionists literally taught their neighbours that terrorism is a valid path to independence and statehood, and that terrorists are to be celebrated.
In 1945, it is well documented that Zionists owned just 5% of the land and were a majority nowhere. Israel was formed by actually going against the majority population. It's foundation is completely undemocratic. Then, becoming a majority, in "their" new nation, by ethnic cleansing the actual majority, and then claiming to be democratic, is utter nonsense.
Law: Israel is considered an occupier by the International Court, the UN GA, and the UN SC. Occupiers are also never not the aggressors. Those occupied actually have a right to resist occupation. On the flip side, it is illegal for the occupier to settle occupied lands, and illegal to use collective punishment. Israel is a rogue nation, that doesn't abide by international law. What it has been doing, and is doing now, is illegal.
Current events: This year, alone, prior to Oct 7 ... Israel held over 1200 Palestinian hostages without charges ... over 200 Palestinians had been killed by the IDF and settlers ... over 1000 Palestinians had been displaced by Israel's neverending colonization of the West Bank ... and, Israel continued to operate an open air WWII style fascist ghetto, in Gaza. Even ignoring modern history and law, in no reality did Hamas "start" anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MuffinEnjoyer There was a massive land and peoples survey, done in Palestine, in 1945. The Jewish population were majority landowners, nowhere, in no district. That means, even after partition, they would be the minority in their part. They needed to rid themselves of the actual majority, to become a Jewish state. They did, and have never let them return. Hitler also held elections, after purging his political opponents. Didn't make Nazi Germany actually democratic.
All Palestine territories are considered occupied, by the International Court of Justice, the UN GA, the UN SC, and even by the governments of Israel's allied nations. They control the Gaza border, airspace, ports, electricity, water, imports and exports (only people can go through Rafah), and Bibi even controls the flow of money from Qatar, having turned it off and on, multiple times. Israel is operating an open air WWII style fascist ghetto.
People living in those occupied territories don't actually get to vote for the real authority over them, Israel, which is also anti-democratic. The entire partition was done against the wishes of the majority population, which was also anti-democratic. Israel has been a fake democracy, from the start.
1