5 ms·

You literally went after someone just because they’re Israeli-could be my friend, coworker, or even me. If you single someone out like that, don’t be shocked wh

You literally went after someone just because they’re Israeli-could be my friend, coworker, or even me. If you single someone out like that, don’t be shocked when you get called out in return. And honestly, I’m not convinced my previous comment even counts as a real ad hominem-though sure, if it makes you feel better, let’s call it that. But let's get one thing straight: calling the Arabs in Israel/Palestine "indigenous" while dismissing the Jewish people’s claim to that land is laughable. The very name "Jew" comes from Judea—this same strip of land-where Jewish history stretches back millennia. I’m not saying Arab families who lived there never had rights; of course, they deserve their own country too. But the idea that they’re the only "indigenous" group is just another cheap piece of propaganda, right up there with labeling the whole situation as "genocide" or "apartheid". People have moved in and out of Israel/Judea for centuries. Plenty of folks calling themselves Palestinian today came around the same time as the Zionists or later-just look at the family names that point to places like Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and beyond Al-Baghdadi, Al-Masri (the Egyptian), Halabi (Haleb = Allepo, Syria), Hourani (from Houran in southern Syria), Tzurani (from Tyre in southern Lebanon), Hijazi (from the Hijaz province of the Arabian peninsula), Mughrabi (from the Maghreb). Hell, Arafat was born in Egypt. My basic point is this: both sides do actually have claims. But one side made it pretty clear they weren’t interested in compromise and resorted to terror against civilians, starting way back in the ‘60s. Naturally, the other side fought back, and things escalated. As for calling Israeli society "chauvinist", give me a break. Israel had a female prime minister in the ’70s, has had women on its Supreme Court since forever, and meanwhile the U.S. is still waiting on its first female president. So, yeah-save the grandstanding about "chauvinism". It’s not as black-and-white as you’re painting it, and if you’re going to throw punches, don’t whine when you get punched back.

runarberg 2y ago
> The International Labour Organization's (ILO) Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (ILO Convention No. 169), states that the convention covers: >> peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples > Several states do not recognize indigenous ethnic minorities within their territories as being indigenous peoples, and simply refer to them as ethnic minorities. Many of these ethnic minorities are marginalized from the majority ethnic population in relative social, economic and political performance measures, and their indigenous rights are poorly protected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_the_Rights_of_Indigenous_Peoples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_the_Rights_of_I... Note that Israel merely abstained from voting on the latter, rather then voting against like Canada, The US and Australia did (while 143 voted in favor). The case here is pretty clear cut. By most measures which actually matter for the rights of indigenous people, Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine, while most Israelis are settlers, or close descendants of settlers who gained control over the lands through conquest and colonization. It is in fact very reasonable to dismiss the (European) Jewish people’s claim to the land if we are talking about legal claims to indigenous peoples. Even though no clear definition has been widely adopted (perhaps for the better) most of the umbrella terms capture Palestinians, and hardly any captures Israelis. Denying the Palestinian claims to their indigenous lands is very much the behavior that the Decleration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples sought to stop.
- cess11 2y ago
  To add to this, the zionist movement also attacks jewish ethnicities and seeks to replace them with a new, modern identity. This is why they have a problem with yiddish and seek to replace it with an invented modern language, sometimes engage in Holocaust revisionism, are in constant tension with the haredim, used terrorism and similar tactics to try and force jews to move to Israel, and so on. It follows from this view that the historical jews were weak, impure due to assimilation, 'freyers', which is why they were persecuted and subjected to genocide, and the new, zionist, jew is strong, muscular and will always make someone else the 'freyer'. And, as many zionists see it, will also be on the frontlines in the final struggle of the endtimes, where they will absorb the brunt of the violence and then convert to protestant christianity if they survive.
cess11 2y ago
No, I did not. I "went after someone" because they have willingly contributed to atrocities. I don't think you should be doing business with people related to the al-Jolani or UAE regimes either, and if you do business in those territories it should be in support of resistance movements. If you are israeli and support the state of Israel, well, yeah, then I think people ought to try and make you uncomfortable until you stop. The palestinian indigeneity is much broader than the arabic language. There is no "Jewish people's claim", there is a zionist claim, i.e. a claim from a movement that mostly consists of christians, unless enough hindus have come to support it to outnumber them. Most of the foreign funding would still be from christians, I think. Either way, the territorial claims have little basis in either history or religion, it's an entirely modern idea that fused british and zionist colonial ambitions in the region with antisemitism, and later was inherited by the US. You have a very colonial outlook, by the way. You look at this and think of people as "Arab", as if the people displaced by Israel that got their homes and homelands eradicated would be the same as people in Morocco or Sudan. It's fine to just drive them away and murder them, because something something Judea, and the empire needs a military presence to offset challenges to its oil extraction. The zionists brought terrorism to the region and invented parts of modern terrorist tactics, things like market bombings. Palestinians have compromised, while the state of Israel has refused to and systematically murders its negotiating partners and attacks other neighbouring countries. The palestinians got nothing for their compromises, while Hamas has had some success with armed resistance, which, under occupation, is a right. Israel mainly attacks palestinian civilians, while palestinian militants have for decades tried to avoid civilian harm. This is why the suicide bombings stopped, for example. Israel is also not a democracy, and is illegitimate on this fact alone. I think the US is severely chauvinist as well. That "female prime minister" infamously said that she could never forgive the palestinians for resisting displacement and murder, and thus "force" the zionists to murder palestinian children. The zionist occupations are atrocious and criminal. This isn't a grey zone, it's clear from international law and basic morality. You don't get to eradicate people and societies in this way. It was wrong when the russians did it to the circassians, it's wrong when christians and jews do it to the palestinians and lebanese. There are no excuses, and can be no excuses.
- Protostome 2y ago

runarberg 2y ago

> The International Labour Organization's (ILO) Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (ILO Convention No. 169), states that the convention covers: >> peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples > Several states do not recognize indigenous ethnic minorities within their territories as being indigenous peoples, and simply refer to them as ethnic minorities. Many of these ethnic minorities are marginalized from the majority ethnic population in relative social, economic and political performance measures, and their indigenous rights are poorly protected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_the_Rights_of_Indigenous_Peoples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_the_Rights_of_I... Note that Israel merely abstained from voting on the latter, rather then voting against like Canada, The US and Australia did (while 143 voted in favor). The case here is pretty clear cut. By most measures which actually matter for the rights of indigenous people, Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine, while most Israelis are settlers, or close descendants of settlers who gained control over the lands through conquest and colonization. It is in fact very reasonable to dismiss the (European) Jewish people’s claim to the land if we are talking about legal claims to indigenous peoples. Even though no clear definition has been widely adopted (perhaps for the better) most of the umbrella terms capture Palestinians, and hardly any captures Israelis. Denying the Palestinian claims to their indigenous lands is very much the behavior that the Decleration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples sought to stop.

cess11 2y ago
To add to this, the zionist movement also attacks jewish ethnicities and seeks to replace them with a new, modern identity. This is why they have a problem with yiddish and seek to replace it with an invented modern language, sometimes engage in Holocaust revisionism, are in constant tension with the haredim, used terrorism and similar tactics to try and force jews to move to Israel, and so on. It follows from this view that the historical jews were weak, impure due to assimilation, 'freyers', which is why they were persecuted and subjected to genocide, and the new, zionist, jew is strong, muscular and will always make someone else the 'freyer'. And, as many zionists see it, will also be on the frontlines in the final struggle of the endtimes, where they will absorb the brunt of the violence and then convert to protestant christianity if they survive.

cess11 2y ago

No, I did not. I "went after someone" because they have willingly contributed to atrocities. I don't think you should be doing business with people related to the al-Jolani or UAE regimes either, and if you do business in those territories it should be in support of resistance movements. If you are israeli and support the state of Israel, well, yeah, then I think people ought to try and make you uncomfortable until you stop. The palestinian indigeneity is much broader than the arabic language. There is no "Jewish people's claim", there is a zionist claim, i.e. a claim from a movement that mostly consists of christians, unless enough hindus have come to support it to outnumber them. Most of the foreign funding would still be from christians, I think. Either way, the territorial claims have little basis in either history or religion, it's an entirely modern idea that fused british and zionist colonial ambitions in the region with antisemitism, and later was inherited by the US. You have a very colonial outlook, by the way. You look at this and think of people as "Arab", as if the people displaced by Israel that got their homes and homelands eradicated would be the same as people in Morocco or Sudan. It's fine to just drive them away and murder them, because something something Judea, and the empire needs a military presence to offset challenges to its oil extraction. The zionists brought terrorism to the region and invented parts of modern terrorist tactics, things like market bombings. Palestinians have compromised, while the state of Israel has refused to and systematically murders its negotiating partners and attacks other neighbouring countries. The palestinians got nothing for their compromises, while Hamas has had some success with armed resistance, which, under occupation, is a right. Israel mainly attacks palestinian civilians, while palestinian militants have for decades tried to avoid civilian harm. This is why the suicide bombings stopped, for example. Israel is also not a democracy, and is illegitimate on this fact alone. I think the US is severely chauvinist as well. That "female prime minister" infamously said that she could never forgive the palestinians for resisting displacement and murder, and thus "force" the zionists to murder palestinian children. The zionist occupations are atrocious and criminal. This isn't a grey zone, it's clear from international law and basic morality. You don't get to eradicate people and societies in this way. It was wrong when the russians did it to the circassians, it's wrong when christians and jews do it to the palestinians and lebanese. There are no excuses, and can be no excuses.

Protostome 2y ago