Gaza War, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you're really all about ancestral lands, then guess what, Armenians lived in Artsakh for centuries, but that didn't keep Israel from supplying Azeris with top notch weapons to help them expel the natives.

DP.

I agree that claims to ancestral lands are unworkable.

Which is why Palestinians have no claim to Israel, since they last inhabited it > 80 years ago.

Actually, under UN Resolution 194, they do. They can either return to their homes or receive compensation. And in the case of Palestinians, we're not talking only about "ancestral lands," as in the lands of their ancestors. We're talking about their OWN lands, where they lived as young children and from which their parents and grandparents were evicted (or murdered) by Zionist terrorists (like the Irgun and Alexandroni Brigade) and the IDF. Also, it's under 80 years for many of those evicted during the Nakba. 80 years is very different from 2,000 years.

Excellent.

So Pakistanis also have the right to reclaim their family lands in India.

And we'll unwind the map of Africa to reapportion land ownership to reflect the end of the colonial period?

Splendid idea.

Anybody violently evicted from their homes and forced out of their homelands in the recent past should absolutely have the same options offered by UN Resolution 194. That is, they should either have the right of return or receive compensation. In my opinion, Native Americans should receive far more reparations than the occasional scant handouts they've been granted so far. If you want to talk about justice since the end of the colonial period, we agree.

Things get absurd when you try to go back 2,000 years to reclaim the land where a percentage of your ancestors may have once lived, and they really get ugly when you feel entitled to evict or butcher the people you used to share the land with, but who remained there from that time onward. It's worth considering where all of our ancestors lived 2,000 years ago. If you assume 25 years per generation, that's 80 generations and means we all have a LOT of ancestors who lived back then. The world population was much smaller at that time (perhaps 150 to 300 million). It's easy to see how closely related people living in what is now Israel must have been. My own ancestors probably lived in the Middle East and Europe, and I have distant cousins today who are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, a few other religions, and (mostly) secular. Trying to establish land ownership after 80 generations is virtually impossible. However, there are people alive today who were violently forced out of Palestine by the IDF and had all but the clothes on their backs stolen from them, and they cannot even visit the homes where they used to live. That is clearly an injustice that needs to be addressed.

So you favor a policy that would lead to civil wars across Africa, the ME, parts of Europe, and much of Asia?

Doesn't seem like the most humane approach to me.

Your idealism is...painful.

Land-grabbing by ethnosupremacist colonialists, often accompanied by the exploitation, eviction, and/or extermination of the indigenous population, hasn't exactly been a path to peace over human history. In fact, this process has led to horrific violence, as we see in Palestine/Israel.

Totally inapposite.

Umm (rolls eyes) ... yeah. Brilliant refutation. LOL

Refutation?

No interest in refuting—you’re quite correct.

Problem is that your argument is at best tangentially related to the prior discussion.

Am I to conclude that you’ve abandoned the argument that we should redraw borders across the globe to right the wrongs of the colonial era?

How is pointing out that "exploitation, eviction, and/or extermination of the indigenous population hasn't exactly been a path to peace over human history" not directly related to this discussion? The eviction and extermination parts (ongoing since the Nakba) are what have led to the current untenable and unstable situation in Palestine/Israel. It is a straw man to claim I've argued we should "redraw borders." I've argued instead for the right of return or compensation. As an example, I think Native American nations should receive reparations in instances where the U.S. government has violated land treaties, which seems more practical than, for example, carving out an independent Arapahoe/Cheyenne state 173 years after a treaty effectively granting them a specific area of land was signed. Of course, the Native Americans can live freely on that land today. There are also cases where redrawing borders has, in fact, been the just solution. For example, the borders of what were Bantustans in apartheid South Africa were dissolved, and now people who needed special passes to leave those areas can move freely about the country.

It has to be a mixture of both- the back hills and other national parks that were were strongly tricked or pressured away from them should be returned to Native American control and the indigenous people of Mexico, Canada and the US should be encouraged to work in concert in a G7 type body and all monetary reparations should be made and tribes that were purged from the rolls after WW2 should be reinstated and their desendants are owed compensation. It is also of note though that Cherokee and other tribes who were herded into Oklahoma are free if they have teh money to purchases land in Georgia, Tennessee etc. They also can marry Americans, they have full citizenship and can marry a person from overseas and bring them here. Arabs in Israel can do none of these things, reparations and a right to return are not on the radar, Israel is as apartheid state.

What are you talking about? The 2m Israeli Arabs have full rights. Are you seriously unaware of that? You’ve clearly never been to Israel.

No they dont- Jews and Arabs arent allowed to marry, a Jewish Israelis is prohibited from selling his/her property to an Arab Israeli, it is actually illegal but can sell to any other jewish person from all over the world. there are certain markets and streets that prohibit passage for Arabs, as in someone who looks Arab cannot walk there. This is in Israel proper and not the brutal and illegal occupation and opposition to a Palestinian state which is a whole other story or apartheid.

That is incorrect information.

Please explain how?

[Anonymous]

Lotta censorship going on here, for the apparent purpose of appeasing the pro-Israeli crowd and their interest in suppressing discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you're really all about ancestral lands, then guess what, Armenians lived in Artsakh for centuries, but that didn't keep Israel from supplying Azeris with top notch weapons to help them expel the natives.

DP.

I agree that claims to ancestral lands are unworkable.

Which is why Palestinians have no claim to Israel, since they last inhabited it > 80 years ago.

Actually, under UN Resolution 194, they do. They can either return to their homes or receive compensation. And in the case of Palestinians, we're not talking only about "ancestral lands," as in the lands of their ancestors. We're talking about their OWN lands, where they lived as young children and from which their parents and grandparents were evicted (or murdered) by Zionist terrorists (like the Irgun and Alexandroni Brigade) and the IDF. Also, it's under 80 years for many of those evicted during the Nakba. 80 years is very different from 2,000 years.

Excellent.

So Pakistanis also have the right to reclaim their family lands in India.

And we'll unwind the map of Africa to reapportion land ownership to reflect the end of the colonial period?

Splendid idea.

Anybody violently evicted from their homes and forced out of their homelands in the recent past should absolutely have the same options offered by UN Resolution 194. That is, they should either have the right of return or receive compensation. In my opinion, Native Americans should receive far more reparations than the occasional scant handouts they've been granted so far. If you want to talk about justice since the end of the colonial period, we agree.

Things get absurd when you try to go back 2,000 years to reclaim the land where a percentage of your ancestors may have once lived, and they really get ugly when you feel entitled to evict or butcher the people you used to share the land with, but who remained there from that time onward. It's worth considering where all of our ancestors lived 2,000 years ago. If you assume 25 years per generation, that's 80 generations and means we all have a LOT of ancestors who lived back then. The world population was much smaller at that time (perhaps 150 to 300 million). It's easy to see how closely related people living in what is now Israel must have been. My own ancestors probably lived in the Middle East and Europe, and I have distant cousins today who are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, a few other religions, and (mostly) secular. Trying to establish land ownership after 80 generations is virtually impossible. However, there are people alive today who were violently forced out of Palestine by the IDF and had all but the clothes on their backs stolen from them, and they cannot even visit the homes where they used to live. That is clearly an injustice that needs to be addressed.

So you favor a policy that would lead to civil wars across Africa, the ME, parts of Europe, and much of Asia?

Doesn't seem like the most humane approach to me.

Your idealism is...painful.

Land-grabbing by ethnosupremacist colonialists, often accompanied by the exploitation, eviction, and/or extermination of the indigenous population, hasn't exactly been a path to peace over human history. In fact, this process has led to horrific violence, as we see in Palestine/Israel.

Totally inapposite.

Umm (rolls eyes) ... yeah. Brilliant refutation. LOL

Refutation?

No interest in refuting—you’re quite correct.

Problem is that your argument is at best tangentially related to the prior discussion.

Am I to conclude that you’ve abandoned the argument that we should redraw borders across the globe to right the wrongs of the colonial era?

How is pointing out that "exploitation, eviction, and/or extermination of the indigenous population hasn't exactly been a path to peace over human history" not directly related to this discussion? The eviction and extermination parts (ongoing since the Nakba) are what have led to the current untenable and unstable situation in Palestine/Israel. It is a straw man to claim I've argued we should "redraw borders." I've argued instead for the right of return or compensation. As an example, I think Native American nations should receive reparations in instances where the U.S. government has violated land treaties, which seems more practical than, for example, carving out an independent Arapahoe/Cheyenne state 173 years after a treaty effectively granting them a specific area of land was signed. Of course, the Native Americans can live freely on that land today. There are also cases where redrawing borders has, in fact, been the just solution. For example, the borders of what were Bantustans in apartheid South Africa were dissolved, and now people who needed special passes to leave those areas can move freely about the country.

It has to be a mixture of both- the back hills and other national parks that were were strongly tricked or pressured away from them should be returned to Native American control and the indigenous people of Mexico, Canada and the US should be encouraged to work in concert in a G7 type body and all monetary reparations should be made and tribes that were purged from the rolls after WW2 should be reinstated and their desendants are owed compensation. It is also of note though that Cherokee and other tribes who were herded into Oklahoma are free if they have teh money to purchases land in Georgia, Tennessee etc. They also can marry Americans, they have full citizenship and can marry a person from overseas and bring them here. Arabs in Israel can do none of these things, reparations and a right to return are not on the radar, Israel is as apartheid state.

What are you talking about? The 2m Israeli Arabs have full rights. Are you seriously unaware of that? You’ve clearly never been to Israel.

No they dont- Jews and Arabs arent allowed to marry, a Jewish Israelis is prohibited from selling his/her property to an Arab Israeli, it is actually illegal but can sell to any other jewish person from all over the world. there are certain markets and streets that prohibit passage for Arabs, as in someone who looks Arab cannot walk there. This is in Israel proper and not the brutal and illegal occupation and opposition to a Palestinian state which is a whole other story or apartheid.

That is incorrect information.

Please explain how?

You Google it and show us what you said is substantiated and not twisted to fit your perverse views.

It’s also rather rich what you allege considering that the PA instituted in 1997 the death penalty for selling any land to Jews, and Israelis are not allowed in any area of the West Bank under PA control.

You clearly have not spent time in Israel to understand the overwhelmingly peaceful co-existence on a daily basis between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lotta censorship going on here, for the apparent purpose of appeasing the pro-Israeli crowd and their interest in suppressing discussion.

Oh you must be upset your sick post about Zionists controlling the world was taken down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you're really all about ancestral lands, then guess what, Armenians lived in Artsakh for centuries, but that didn't keep Israel from supplying Azeris with top notch weapons to help them expel the natives.

DP.

I agree that claims to ancestral lands are unworkable.

Which is why Palestinians have no claim to Israel, since they last inhabited it > 80 years ago.

Actually, under UN Resolution 194, they do. They can either return to their homes or receive compensation. And in the case of Palestinians, we're not talking only about "ancestral lands," as in the lands of their ancestors. We're talking about their OWN lands, where they lived as young children and from which their parents and grandparents were evicted (or murdered) by Zionist terrorists (like the Irgun and Alexandroni Brigade) and the IDF. Also, it's under 80 years for many of those evicted during the Nakba. 80 years is very different from 2,000 years.

Excellent.

So Pakistanis also have the right to reclaim their family lands in India.

And we'll unwind the map of Africa to reapportion land ownership to reflect the end of the colonial period?

Splendid idea.

Anybody violently evicted from their homes and forced out of their homelands in the recent past should absolutely have the same options offered by UN Resolution 194. That is, they should either have the right of return or receive compensation. In my opinion, Native Americans should receive far more reparations than the occasional scant handouts they've been granted so far. If you want to talk about justice since the end of the colonial period, we agree.

Things get absurd when you try to go back 2,000 years to reclaim the land where a percentage of your ancestors may have once lived, and they really get ugly when you feel entitled to evict or butcher the people you used to share the land with, but who remained there from that time onward. It's worth considering where all of our ancestors lived 2,000 years ago. If you assume 25 years per generation, that's 80 generations and means we all have a LOT of ancestors who lived back then. The world population was much smaller at that time (perhaps 150 to 300 million). It's easy to see how closely related people living in what is now Israel must have been. My own ancestors probably lived in the Middle East and Europe, and I have distant cousins today who are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, a few other religions, and (mostly) secular. Trying to establish land ownership after 80 generations is virtually impossible. However, there are people alive today who were violently forced out of Palestine by the IDF and had all but the clothes on their backs stolen from them, and they cannot even visit the homes where they used to live. That is clearly an injustice that needs to be addressed.

So you favor a policy that would lead to civil wars across Africa, the ME, parts of Europe, and much of Asia?

Doesn't seem like the most humane approach to me.

Your idealism is...painful.

Land-grabbing by ethnosupremacist colonialists, often accompanied by the exploitation, eviction, and/or extermination of the indigenous population, hasn't exactly been a path to peace over human history. In fact, this process has led to horrific violence, as we see in Palestine/Israel.

Totally inapposite.

Umm (rolls eyes) ... yeah. Brilliant refutation. LOL

Refutation?

No interest in refuting—you’re quite correct.

Problem is that your argument is at best tangentially related to the prior discussion.

Am I to conclude that you’ve abandoned the argument that we should redraw borders across the globe to right the wrongs of the colonial era?

How is pointing out that "exploitation, eviction, and/or extermination of the indigenous population hasn't exactly been a path to peace over human history" not directly related to this discussion? The eviction and extermination parts (ongoing since the Nakba) are what have led to the current untenable and unstable situation in Palestine/Israel. It is a straw man to claim I've argued we should "redraw borders." I've argued instead for the right of return or compensation. As an example, I think Native American nations should receive reparations in instances where the U.S. government has violated land treaties, which seems more practical than, for example, carving out an independent Arapahoe/Cheyenne state 173 years after a treaty effectively granting them a specific area of land was signed. Of course, the Native Americans can live freely on that land today. There are also cases where redrawing borders has, in fact, been the just solution. For example, the borders of what were Bantustans in apartheid South Africa were dissolved, and now people who needed special passes to leave those areas can move freely about the country.

It has to be a mixture of both- the back hills and other national parks that were were strongly tricked or pressured away from them should be returned to Native American control and the indigenous people of Mexico, Canada and the US should be encouraged to work in concert in a G7 type body and all monetary reparations should be made and tribes that were purged from the rolls after WW2 should be reinstated and their desendants are owed compensation. It is also of note though that Cherokee and other tribes who were herded into Oklahoma are free if they have teh money to purchases land in Georgia, Tennessee etc. They also can marry Americans, they have full citizenship and can marry a person from overseas and bring them here. Arabs in Israel can do none of these things, reparations and a right to return are not on the radar, Israel is as apartheid state.

What are you talking about? The 2m Israeli Arabs have full rights. Are you seriously unaware of that? You’ve clearly never been to Israel.

No they dont- Jews and Arabs arent allowed to marry, a Jewish Israelis is prohibited from selling his/her property to an Arab Israeli, it is actually illegal but can sell to any other jewish person from all over the world. there are certain markets and streets that prohibit passage for Arabs, as in someone who looks Arab cannot walk there. This is in Israel proper and not the brutal and illegal occupation and opposition to a Palestinian state which is a whole other story or apartheid.

That is incorrect information.

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2014-06-03/ty-article/.premium/could-you-marry-in-israel/0000017f-e65d-da9b-a1ff-ee7f98b90000

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-knesset-passes-law-barring-palestinian-spouses-2022-03-10/

For proof of anti-miscegenation laws, also only Arab Israelis are barred from marrying someone and then granting them citizenship, jared Kushner and Ivanka can claim Israeli citizenship but Hanan Kattan who's ancestors converted to christianity during Tiberius's reign cant.

the property is much more complex and isn't simple redlining but ore that after the war/s, Israeli government seized Arab land and is not permitted to lease it non jews. Most land in Israel is actually leased from the state (a la Baltimore) and you only own the structure on it, also Arabs aren't allowed to live wherever they want, It is not illegal to refuse to rent to an Arab and the State isn't allowed to rent property on the land to non jews either.

I know about the streets and markets that Palestinians arent allowed to walk in bc of tourist visits where tour guides explicitly said so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lotta censorship going on here, for the apparent purpose of appeasing the pro-Israeli crowd and their interest in suppressing discussion.

Considering that Jeff is strongly pro-Palestinian, you must have written something truly awful to have it censored.

Shocking, right? No anti-Semitism to see here. Of course not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lotta censorship going on here, for the apparent purpose of appeasing the pro-Israeli crowd and their interest in suppressing discussion.

Oh you must be upset your sick post about Zionists controlling the world was taken down

Zionists are 21st century Nazis. Didn’t post about them controlling the world. They poison the world, not control it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lotta censorship going on here, for the apparent purpose of appeasing the pro-Israeli crowd and their interest in suppressing discussion.

Considering that Jeff is strongly pro-Palestinian, you must have written something truly awful to have it censored.

Shocking, right? No anti-Semitism to see here. Of course not.

Jeff doesn’t have time to assess everything you Zionazis report, so he has resorted to removing anything that gets a report. Shows how lackluster the Zionist mind is that it took this long for you to figure that out. You can get your way just by clicking a button.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you're really all about ancestral lands, then guess what, Armenians lived in Artsakh for centuries, but that didn't keep Israel from supplying Azeris with top notch weapons to help them expel the natives.

DP.

I agree that claims to ancestral lands are unworkable.

Which is why Palestinians have no claim to Israel, since they last inhabited it > 80 years ago.

Actually, under UN Resolution 194, they do. They can either return to their homes or receive compensation. And in the case of Palestinians, we're not talking only about "ancestral lands," as in the lands of their ancestors. We're talking about their OWN lands, where they lived as young children and from which their parents and grandparents were evicted (or murdered) by Zionist terrorists (like the Irgun and Alexandroni Brigade) and the IDF. Also, it's under 80 years for many of those evicted during the Nakba. 80 years is very different from 2,000 years.

Excellent.

So Pakistanis also have the right to reclaim their family lands in India.

And we'll unwind the map of Africa to reapportion land ownership to reflect the end of the colonial period?

Splendid idea.

Anybody violently evicted from their homes and forced out of their homelands in the recent past should absolutely have the same options offered by UN Resolution 194. That is, they should either have the right of return or receive compensation. In my opinion, Native Americans should receive far more reparations than the occasional scant handouts they've been granted so far. If you want to talk about justice since the end of the colonial period, we agree.

Things get absurd when you try to go back 2,000 years to reclaim the land where a percentage of your ancestors may have once lived, and they really get ugly when you feel entitled to evict or butcher the people you used to share the land with, but who remained there from that time onward. It's worth considering where all of our ancestors lived 2,000 years ago. If you assume 25 years per generation, that's 80 generations and means we all have a LOT of ancestors who lived back then. The world population was much smaller at that time (perhaps 150 to 300 million). It's easy to see how closely related people living in what is now Israel must have been. My own ancestors probably lived in the Middle East and Europe, and I have distant cousins today who are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, a few other religions, and (mostly) secular. Trying to establish land ownership after 80 generations is virtually impossible. However, there are people alive today who were violently forced out of Palestine by the IDF and had all but the clothes on their backs stolen from them, and they cannot even visit the homes where they used to live. That is clearly an injustice that needs to be addressed.

So you favor a policy that would lead to civil wars across Africa, the ME, parts of Europe, and much of Asia?

Doesn't seem like the most humane approach to me.

Your idealism is...painful.

Land-grabbing by ethnosupremacist colonialists, often accompanied by the exploitation, eviction, and/or extermination of the indigenous population, hasn't exactly been a path to peace over human history. In fact, this process has led to horrific violence, as we see in Palestine/Israel.

Totally inapposite.

Umm (rolls eyes) ... yeah. Brilliant refutation. LOL

Refutation?

No interest in refuting—you’re quite correct.

Problem is that your argument is at best tangentially related to the prior discussion.

Am I to conclude that you’ve abandoned the argument that we should redraw borders across the globe to right the wrongs of the colonial era?

How is pointing out that "exploitation, eviction, and/or extermination of the indigenous population hasn't exactly been a path to peace over human history" not directly related to this discussion? The eviction and extermination parts (ongoing since the Nakba) are what have led to the current untenable and unstable situation in Palestine/Israel. It is a straw man to claim I've argued we should "redraw borders." I've argued instead for the right of return or compensation. As an example, I think Native American nations should receive reparations in instances where the U.S. government has violated land treaties, which seems more practical than, for example, carving out an independent Arapahoe/Cheyenne state 173 years after a treaty effectively granting them a specific area of land was signed. Of course, the Native Americans can live freely on that land today. There are also cases where redrawing borders has, in fact, been the just solution. For example, the borders of what were Bantustans in apartheid South Africa were dissolved, and now people who needed special passes to leave those areas can move freely about the country.

It has to be a mixture of both- the back hills and other national parks that were were strongly tricked or pressured away from them should be returned to Native American control and the indigenous people of Mexico, Canada and the US should be encouraged to work in concert in a G7 type body and all monetary reparations should be made and tribes that were purged from the rolls after WW2 should be reinstated and their desendants are owed compensation. It is also of note though that Cherokee and other tribes who were herded into Oklahoma are free if they have teh money to purchases land in Georgia, Tennessee etc. They also can marry Americans, they have full citizenship and can marry a person from overseas and bring them here. Arabs in Israel can do none of these things, reparations and a right to return are not on the radar, Israel is as apartheid state.

What are you talking about? The 2m Israeli Arabs have full rights. Are you seriously unaware of that? You’ve clearly never been to Israel.

No they dont- Jews and Arabs arent allowed to marry, a Jewish Israelis is prohibited from selling his/her property to an Arab Israeli, it is actually illegal but can sell to any other jewish person from all over the world. there are certain markets and streets that prohibit passage for Arabs, as in someone who looks Arab cannot walk there. This is in Israel proper and not the brutal and illegal occupation and opposition to a Palestinian state which is a whole other story or apartheid.

That is incorrect information.

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2014-06-03/ty-article/.premium/could-you-marry-in-israel/0000017f-e65d-da9b-a1ff-ee7f98b90000

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-knesset-passes-law-barring-palestinian-spouses-2022-03-10/

For proof of anti-miscegenation laws, also only Arab Israelis are barred from marrying someone and then granting them citizenship, jared Kushner and Ivanka can claim Israeli citizenship but Hanan Kattan who's ancestors converted to christianity during Tiberius's reign cant.

the property is much more complex and isn't simple redlining but ore that after the war/s, Israeli government seized Arab land and is not permitted to lease it non jews. Most land in Israel is actually leased from the state (a la Baltimore) and you only own the structure on it, also Arabs aren't allowed to live wherever they want, It is not illegal to refuse to rent to an Arab and the State isn't allowed to rent property on the land to non jews either.

I know about the streets and markets that Palestinians arent allowed to walk in bc of tourist visits where tour guides explicitly said so.

The religious restrictions on real estate are done via the Jewish National Fund, a quasi-governmental agency that is in effect a public-private partnership. The JNF is not allowed to sell or rent to non-Jews.

The way the process works is that the Israeli Government declares land as state owned and then sells it to the JNF to help fund the state.

Technically the religious restrictions are done by the JNF and not the Government but everyone involved knows what the consequences are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lotta censorship going on here, for the apparent purpose of appeasing the pro-Israeli crowd and their interest in suppressing discussion.

Oh you must be upset your sick post about Zionists controlling the world was taken down

Zionists are 21st century Nazis. Didn’t post about them controlling the world. They poison the world, not control it.

You certainly did use the word control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lotta censorship going on here, for the apparent purpose of appeasing the pro-Israeli crowd and their interest in suppressing discussion.

Considering that Jeff is strongly pro-Palestinian, you must have written something truly awful to have it censored.

Shocking, right? No anti-Semitism to see here. Of course not.

Jeff doesn’t have time to assess everything you Zionazis report, so he has resorted to removing anything that gets a report. Shows how lackluster the Zionist mind is that it took this long for you to figure that out. You can get your way just by clicking a button.

"Zionazi".

But of course you didn't post anything deserving of removal. Not your style, obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you're really all about ancestral lands, then guess what, Armenians lived in Artsakh for centuries, but that didn't keep Israel from supplying Azeris with top notch weapons to help them expel the natives.

DP.

I agree that claims to ancestral lands are unworkable.

Which is why Palestinians have no claim to Israel, since they last inhabited it > 80 years ago.

Actually, under UN Resolution 194, they do. They can either return to their homes or receive compensation. And in the case of Palestinians, we're not talking only about "ancestral lands," as in the lands of their ancestors. We're talking about their OWN lands, where they lived as young children and from which their parents and grandparents were evicted (or murdered) by Zionist terrorists (like the Irgun and Alexandroni Brigade) and the IDF. Also, it's under 80 years for many of those evicted during the Nakba. 80 years is very different from 2,000 years.

Excellent.

So Pakistanis also have the right to reclaim their family lands in India.

And we'll unwind the map of Africa to reapportion land ownership to reflect the end of the colonial period?

Splendid idea.

Anybody violently evicted from their homes and forced out of their homelands in the recent past should absolutely have the same options offered by UN Resolution 194. That is, they should either have the right of return or receive compensation. In my opinion, Native Americans should receive far more reparations than the occasional scant handouts they've been granted so far. If you want to talk about justice since the end of the colonial period, we agree.

Things get absurd when you try to go back 2,000 years to reclaim the land where a percentage of your ancestors may have once lived, and they really get ugly when you feel entitled to evict or butcher the people you used to share the land with, but who remained there from that time onward. It's worth considering where all of our ancestors lived 2,000 years ago. If you assume 25 years per generation, that's 80 generations and means we all have a LOT of ancestors who lived back then. The world population was much smaller at that time (perhaps 150 to 300 million). It's easy to see how closely related people living in what is now Israel must have been. My own ancestors probably lived in the Middle East and Europe, and I have distant cousins today who are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, a few other religions, and (mostly) secular. Trying to establish land ownership after 80 generations is virtually impossible. However, there are people alive today who were violently forced out of Palestine by the IDF and had all but the clothes on their backs stolen from them, and they cannot even visit the homes where they used to live. That is clearly an injustice that needs to be addressed.

So you favor a policy that would lead to civil wars across Africa, the ME, parts of Europe, and much of Asia?

Doesn't seem like the most humane approach to me.

Your idealism is...painful.

Land-grabbing by ethnosupremacist colonialists, often accompanied by the exploitation, eviction, and/or extermination of the indigenous population, hasn't exactly been a path to peace over human history. In fact, this process has led to horrific violence, as we see in Palestine/Israel.

Totally inapposite.

Umm (rolls eyes) ... yeah. Brilliant refutation. LOL

Refutation?

No interest in refuting—you’re quite correct.

Problem is that your argument is at best tangentially related to the prior discussion.

Am I to conclude that you’ve abandoned the argument that we should redraw borders across the globe to right the wrongs of the colonial era?

How is pointing out that "exploitation, eviction, and/or extermination of the indigenous population hasn't exactly been a path to peace over human history" not directly related to this discussion? The eviction and extermination parts (ongoing since the Nakba) are what have led to the current untenable and unstable situation in Palestine/Israel. It is a straw man to claim I've argued we should "redraw borders." I've argued instead for the right of return or compensation. As an example, I think Native American nations should receive reparations in instances where the U.S. government has violated land treaties, which seems more practical than, for example, carving out an independent Arapahoe/Cheyenne state 173 years after a treaty effectively granting them a specific area of land was signed. Of course, the Native Americans can live freely on that land today. There are also cases where redrawing borders has, in fact, been the just solution. For example, the borders of what were Bantustans in apartheid South Africa were dissolved, and now people who needed special passes to leave those areas can move freely about the country.

It has to be a mixture of both- the back hills and other national parks that were were strongly tricked or pressured away from them should be returned to Native American control and the indigenous people of Mexico, Canada and the US should be encouraged to work in concert in a G7 type body and all monetary reparations should be made and tribes that were purged from the rolls after WW2 should be reinstated and their desendants are owed compensation. It is also of note though that Cherokee and other tribes who were herded into Oklahoma are free if they have teh money to purchases land in Georgia, Tennessee etc. They also can marry Americans, they have full citizenship and can marry a person from overseas and bring them here. Arabs in Israel can do none of these things, reparations and a right to return are not on the radar, Israel is as apartheid state.

What are you talking about? The 2m Israeli Arabs have full rights. Are you seriously unaware of that? You’ve clearly never been to Israel.

No they dont- Jews and Arabs arent allowed to marry, a Jewish Israelis is prohibited from selling his/her property to an Arab Israeli, it is actually illegal but can sell to any other jewish person from all over the world. there are certain markets and streets that prohibit passage for Arabs, as in someone who looks Arab cannot walk there. This is in Israel proper and not the brutal and illegal occupation and opposition to a Palestinian state which is a whole other story or apartheid.

That is incorrect information.

Please explain how?

You Google it and show us what you said is substantiated and not twisted to fit your perverse views.

It’s also rather rich what you allege considering that the PA instituted in 1997 the death penalty for selling any land to Jews, and Israelis are not allowed in any area of the West Bank under PA control.

You clearly have not spent time in Israel to understand the overwhelmingly peaceful co-existence on a daily basis between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs.

Seeing how settlers behave in the West Bank, I’d say the PA was entirely right to ban Israeli entry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the main worries with Israel is if things go bad they will start using nuclear weapons. If you are willing and proudly justifying a genocide why would you not use nuclear weapons?

Netanyahu would use his nukes only if this Democrat WH is at his side, at least unofficially.

What makes the last few months and whatever happens in Gaza such a disaster for Americans: the genocidal and warmongering crap the Israelis have done and will do implicates us. It has already done us serious damage and can only get worse, barring a major change in direction.

Yes, let’s worry about the “genocidal and warmongering crap” and not focus on the terrorist organizations we’re aligning ourselves with. Let’s pretend that the Gazans are all complete innocents and not controlled by a terrorist regime that wants to kill all Israelis, and let’s just say that Muslim extremism is not a threat to the US or Europe or the world. Let’s just allow Iran and Russia and China control our social media, our elections. Let’s just give the terrorists the keys to the car and watch them and the Israelis kill each other and cross our fingers and hope it will all work out in the end.

The body count speaks for itself.

[Anonymous]

The pro Israelis got another one!

U.S.C. Cancels Valedictorian’s Speech After Jewish Groups Object
The university cited security concerns at the graduation. But the student, who is Muslim, said the school was “succumbing to a campaign of hate meant to silence my voice.”

The University of Southern California said it has canceled plans for a graduation speech by this year’s valedictorian, Asna Tabassum, who is Muslim. The school said the decision stemmed from security concerns, after several pro-Israeli groups objected to her social media posts supporting Palestinians.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/16/us/usc-valedictorian-speech-gaza-war.html

Can’t have those Muslims speaking up! They have to know their place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The pro Israelis got another one!

U.S.C. Cancels Valedictorian’s Speech After Jewish Groups Object
The university cited security concerns at the graduation. But the student, who is Muslim, said the school was “succumbing to a campaign of hate meant to silence my voice.”

The University of Southern California said it has canceled plans for a graduation speech by this year’s valedictorian, Asna Tabassum, who is Muslim. The school said the decision stemmed from security concerns, after several pro-Israeli groups objected to her social media posts supporting Palestinians.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/16/us/usc-valedictorian-speech-gaza-war.html

Can’t have those Muslims speaking up! They have to know their place.

This isn't even about the supposed topic or content of her speech. She's just preemptively not allowed to speak at all. WTF