In Part I of this essay, we established that if you ever need to express your love for an unhinged, racist and genocidal state, don’t say it with flowers.
I much appreciated your post. Thank you for having the courage to expose all of these athrocities perpetrated in the name of … God. The lapidation you get is no surprise as you are daring to question the mainstream discourse on war, power and money. NO war and killing will never be justifiable nor acceptable, from any nation
Okay, I concede I endorsed the bonkers description – a reference to your post and not to you personally – and specifically to the part of your post which dredged up the age-old anti-Jew trope of these wicked, avaricious Jews intent on grasping financial control of the world – I’m sorry that upset you - although it’s hardly on the same level as calling a complete stranger a *&^%*ng troll! But never mind, I’m not offended (it might be you doing a bit of projection there?!) I was just slightly shocked because I had always got the impression from your other posts that you were eminently reasonable and impartial. However, I don’t know what’s happened in your life to make you so one-sided on this issue – to the extent of denying that the viewpoint which says Israel has a right to exist is even a viewpoint. So let me try and summarize my perspective and offer my view – I’ll try to be brief - Israel was established around 1000 BC & split into two in 920BC; the Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrian Empire in 720 (approx), and the Southern Kingdom of Judah, in 586 by the Babylonians, who laid waste the land, destroyed the Temple and carried off tens of thousands into captivity. Babylon, in its turn was crushed by the Persians, who allowed the Jewish exiles to return to their land in stages – between 536 and 445BC. The Romans were the next occupying force and under their rule the 2nd Temple was finally destroyed in 70AD, when approximately one million Jews were killed. The land was renamed Syria Palestina in 134 AD by the Emperor Hadrian – the reference to the ancient Philistines (no relation to present day Arab Palestinians) was done to spite the Jews and punish their persistent refusal to submit to Roman imperialism. Most of the Jewish people were sold into slavery or scattered across the world – only a tiny remnant were allowed to remain in their land – a fact which all subsequent adversaries consistently bewail and attempt to ‘rectify’ by the total eradication of the Jewish race (The Charter of Hamas is indeed 100% relevant to the situation). The first documented arrival of Jews in Britain was 1066 – the first ‘Blood Libel’ took place in 1144 and all Jews were expelled by Edward 1st in 1290. They were not permitted to return until 1656. The first major wave of Jewish immigration from Europe back to Israel began in 1881, in the wake of horrendous Russian pogroms against them. The Jerusalem Census of 1864 shows Jews and Christians as the majority population with Arabs in the minority (the modern day usage of ‘Palestinian’ to mean specifically the Arab inhabitants, only took hold in 1964 with the establishment of the PLO). In 1914 the Turkish Ottoman Empire, the reigning Middle Eastern power, expelled 11,000 Jews and oppressed thousands more. The Turks’ 440 year rule came to an end on 9th December 1917 when British and ANZAC forces captured Jerusalem – you know all about the Balfour Declaration, the Arab unrest, riots etc., etc., - in 1929 after dozens of Jews were brutally murdered in Hebron, the British authorities responded by evacuating all Jews and forbidding them to return. The White Paper of 1939 effectively annulled the Balfour Declaration, restricted further immigration and outlawed land sales to Jewish people altogether. The Holocaust, in which six million Jewish men, women and children were callously disposed of as so much garbage, was the catalyst for the United Nations to allow a mass return of Jews to their homeland. We all know the rest – I haven’t had time to read the links yet that you sent but I will – my point is, that the Jews have a right to a national home, Israel has a right to exist – to say otherwise is to continue the cruelty and inhumanity that has been directed against them since time immemorial. None of that is an excuse or an approval or an attempt to justify the atrocities of successive Israeli governments or the IDF – nothing can justify murder, rape or apartheid - on either side – returning evil for evil only doubles it – and a belief in the Jews historical right to Israel is not incompatible with an abhorrence of their methods. Yes, there are forces which use that unique and historical right as a cover for their own nefarious ends, yes, the selective reading of ancient texts to justify wickedness is appalling, but I can assure you that we’re arguing at cross purposes here if you think that’s what I’m doing.
I’m afraid I am of the unshakeable belief that while all of the history of Jewish suffering, which I have never tried to deny, contributes to the understanding of what led to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948, it does not excuse it and nor does it exonerate the perpetrators. If you had read my article you would have noted that I did not object to the Jewish goal of self-determination per se. In Part 1 I said: “This in and of itself would not have been problematic had the formation of a Jewish state not entailed migration to a land already peacefully inhabited, and the expulsion of those inhabitants who had been there for centuries.” Entirely missing from your whole analysis is the fact that European immigrants to Palestine, most of whom arrived after the Balfour Declaration, displaced the indigenous Palestinian population. I am gobsmacked that you can leave out the central cause of today’s problems. You haven’t even tried to gloss over it; you just omitted it.
There is no moral or legal basis for a group of people who had been living in Europe and elsewhere for 2,000 years making a backdated claim to a piece of land they feel that they have a religious connection to (most Zionists are atheists except when it comes to the absurd Biblical right to return). The Palestinians who are there now and who were ethnically cleansed in 1948 have a deeper connection to that land than the European Jews who displaced them because they are more likely to have descended over the generations from the Jews who inhabited that area in Biblical times and then converted to Christianity after the Roman conquest and then to Islam after Islamic and Ottoman conquests. They are ethnically more Jewish than the European Jewish settlers. Genetic studies have shown that Palestinians are more closely related to Middle Eastern Jews than to European Jews who have mixed with Europeans or are genetically more European and converted to Judaism.
Dr Roy Casagranda captures the absurdity of the situation when he says: “The majority of Palestinians are of Jewish descent and are ethnically more Jewish than the European and American Jews who went and created Israel…Every time a Palestinian is murdered by an Israeli, a person who’s more Jewish is killed by a person who’s less Jewish…There are actually 7 million Palestinians living in Palestine and Israel. But 5 million are confined to the concentration camp that we call the Gaza Strip and then the ghetto that we call the West Bank…and so what the Israelis have done is they’ve created a situation in which the natives are in INTERNAL EXILE…They’re in Palestine, they’re just not in their homes [the homes that were stolen in 1948] and so they’re displaced inside their own country as a majority but with no rights to citizenship. This is the most nasty thing since apartheid South Africa. It might be worse than apartheid South Africa. In fact it is.”
Again, Casagranda on the absurdity of the 2000-year-old homeland claim:
Zionist: “This is my homeland.”
Casagranda: “Oh! You’re 2000 years old?”
While all of that serves to underline the immorality and the absurdity of the Zionist claim to have a right to terrorise Palestinians for over 76 years, it’s actually not relevant to the central basis of anti-Zionist critique: that a bunch of European settlers who happened to be Jewish and who deployed their Jewishness in a mythical narrative of Biblical entitlement, ruthlessly dispossessed a people who had continuity in that land prior to the arrival of the Jewish colonial settlers. The Holocaust, the awful event that happened to them, does not undo the Zionists’ crime. It is just heaping suffering upon suffering. Israel is a 76-year-old war nation that has never had a day’s peace. And it isn’t because the world hates them. It’s because they are doing the same thing to Palestinians that was done to them. And many people somehow think that’s ok. It is NOT. The Jews might, as you say, have a right to a national home, but they do not have the right to steal it from Palestinians and genocide them to get it. Again, you talk of the “Jews’ historical right to Israel”. THEY DON’T HAVE ONE! As I said in Part 2, quoting an extremely articulate and wonderfully logical researcher on that claim:
“It would be ridiculous if some native Americans migrated to Europe and then, 2,000 years in the future, people claiming to be descended from that group said they had the divine right to cross the Atlantic and conquer North America on that basis. That’s the actual equivalent of the pro-Israel argument here…These sorts of arguments are dangerous to entertain…since doing so might imply that there can ever be some sort of ephemeral, never-ending genetic claim to land going back thousands of years that can somehow legitimise people moving from anywhere in the world to carry out an ethnic conquest there…Such justifications are really treated as little more than jokes among anyone aside from those that espouse them.”
The WHOLE history, such as it is, that you’ve given from 1000 BC up to 1939 and even up to the Holocaust, is regrettably entirely irrelevant because it does not support the mythical claim to that land. I read it but I don’t need to check it because it has no relevance to my critique and anti-Zionist critiques in general. Again, please stop claiming that Jews have a “historical right to Israel”. It’s a fairy tale and a lie.
And what is the point of saying that “The White Paper of 1939 effectively annulled the Balfour Declaration, restricted further immigration and outlawed land sales to Jewish people altogether”? Are you trying to deny that the proportion of the Jewish population rose from under 10% in 1917 to 31% by 1947? Are you trying to deny that the British crushed the Arab uprising against British rule and against increased European Jewish colonial settlement between 1936 and 1939? Are you trying to deny that the crushing of this uprising left the Jewish minority in a strong military position vis-à-vis the indigenous Arabs and thus paved the way for Jewish militias to conquer Palestine by force in 1947-1948? Are you trying to deny that the Peel Commission of 1939 had already proposed giving 20% of Palestine to the Jewish settlers and transferring Arabs out of the area – a proposal warmly greeted by Zionist leader Ben-Gurion? Are you trying to deny that in 1947 Britain sat on their hands and did nothing when the Zionist terrorist militias began their operations in earnest to take Palestine – this at a time when the British had 100,000 troops in Palestine. Are you trying to deny that the UN partition stitch-up of 1947 didn’t happen – the stitch-up that proposed giving 55% of Palestine to a 30% minority settler population? Are you trying to deny that the British walked away and watched the Zionists ethnically cleanse Palestine and steal land and homes from people who had lived there for centuries?
Please tell me what was the point of that little observation about the 1939 White Paper? The 1939 White Paper was just that – a paper. It did nothing to change the course of the Balfour Declaration and it was rejected by the Zionists.
I’m extremely disappointed that you got the impression from my other posts that I’m “impartial”. The world is going to hell in a handbasket because it’s run by powerful criminal syndicates that want to depopulate most of the planet and enslave the survivors. Why the hell would anyone want to be impartial about that!? Zionism is one of the criminal syndicates’ many rackets and I’m frankly disgusted with people who are impartial about Zionism and its inherent apartheid system. (Links provided in previous longer reply – if you want to argue with Amnesty international, HRW and a former Mossad chief on that, go right ahead but it’s not even a controversial fact on which I am happy to get into further debate if you need convincing.)
You say that you “don’t know what’s happened in [my] life to make [me] so one-sided on this issue.” There’s no point in personalising the debate. There is nothing unique or special about me that makes me want to vomit when I contemplate the fact that a brutal apartheid state is still alive and well in the 21st century. It simply means I have a working moral compass on this particular issue. It’s undeniable that Israel is an apartheid state so how could you NOT want to see it dismantled? I lived in an apartheid state that was dismantled in 1980 and I lived next door to another one that was dismantled in 1994. I don’t remember the world complaining about the dismantling of those apartheid states. Do you?! So why do you object to the peaceful dismantling and reconstitution of the apartheid state of Israel? Why do you insist that apartheid has a right to exist?! In my moral universe it does not.
And finally I did not, to use your words, "dredge up the age-old anti-Jew trope of these wicked, avaricious Jews intent on grasping financial control of the world". You've made that up. Point to the text of my article that you think does that and I will not only confidently rebut it, I am sure I will end up making you look like the racist you are accusing me of being. The only defence you have against my arguments is to accuse me of racism. It's identical to the Zionist trick of equating anti-Zionism with anti-semitism. Zionism is fundamentally racist and it relies on accusing its critics of the very thing it is guilty of.
This is the last time I will reply because there really is no point – you seem either determined to misunderstand what I’m saying or you cannot accept that anyone who believes Israel has a right to exist, is not fundamentally wicked, racist and fully supportive of government crime. And yet you believe that Palestine has a right to exist? Because of their historic connection to the land? Even though their government are quite open about their stated agenda of apartheid and ethnic cleansing? Check their foundational charter – once they get rid of the Jews they’ll start on the Christians, the Freemasons, the gays and then clean up the rest of the infidels – maybe that has something to with the global elite’s desire to contain them while still keeping the world in a continuous state of warfare and unrest. Because the Palestinian government’s hatred for Israel, while no doubt exacerbated by the last 76 years, is entirely independent of it. If Israel laid down every single weapon and gave back every parcel of land Hamas would still happily slaughter every single Jew because “initiatives and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement” (Article Thirteen). The world got a taste of their style of government on October 7th – killing old people and babies, taking toddlers hostage and hiding behind schools to avoid the revenge and fury they knew full well they would provoke – heedless of the suffering of their own people - and you can’t even cry Zionist propaganda because the perpetrators broadcast themselves raping and mutilating and gleefully murdering young women who had the temerity to be wearing western clothes and enjoying a peace & love music festival - does that not make you vomit? Or does it not matter because their government and their grandparents are guilty of war crimes? And they shouldn’t be there anyway because despite the Jews being the only ancient race to have clear, concise and meticulous documentation of their connection to the land stretching back centuries, (& that's not confined to the Bible!) they have less right than their more recent neighbours – why? Because their government is right-wing and repressive? Because they insist on calling the land by its ancient name? Surely you know how important indigenous names are? Wouldn’t you still be from South Africa even if the world had agreed to call it Rhodesia for centuries? I’m conscious I’m talking emotionally here and I haven’t addressed your other questions – sorry – I’m sure they were probably rhetorical anyway! Because as you said, you have an unshakeable belief that Israel has no right to exist and you equate any dissent from that view with an unshakeable support for apartheid and racism – but I abhor violence and inequity and injustice in all its forms, and from whichever ‘side’ it comes, and I simultaneously believe that the Jewish people have a right to exist as Israel in their ancient homeland – remember they came in 1947 as refugees, not in a spirit of imperialist expansion but to escape annihilation – where would they go? Where would you send them back to? Look how tiny Israel is compared to the surrounding Arab League nations! A mere pinprick on the map, a tiny dot! Nevertheless I also believe the Palestinians have a right to be there – as the late author/peace activist Amos Oz said – the Israel/Palestine conflict is not a clash of right versus wrong, ‘but something infinitely more tragic; a clash of right versus right. Two peoples with deep wounds, howling with grief, fated to share the same small piece of land.’ We could debate endlessly, we could endlessly swap newspaper articles which support our particular perspectives, we could quote any number of illustrious people who agree with us, and it won’t affect Israeli policy or Hamas hatred one whit – so let’s just model the only way that will ever bring an end to the suffering and violence of this world – agree to differ and go our separate ways in peace.
You keep insisting that an apartheid state, Israel, has a right to exist. You have a seriously messed up moral compass. I'm saying an apartheid state should be peacefully reconstituted which means the apartheid state ceases to exist and a new one comes into existence. It is not a binary of: either Palestine exists or Israel exists. I'm not concerned with the name of a country. Both peoples must learn to live together in one society/country that gives both of them equal rights.
"the Jews being the only ancient race to have clear, concise and meticulous documentation of their connection to the land stretching back centuries". First off, the Jews that arrived there in the 30 years before 1948 do not have a connection to that land that gives them the right to displace the people who were already there. Having a "connection" to a place is not a moral or legal basis for displacing people who actually did have legal and moral tenure there. Secondly, not only do Palestinians have " a connection", they were physically connected by virtue of having lived there for centuries and not arrived on a boat from Europe...like the European Jewish new arrivals. I gave so many examples and explanations of this but you refuse to read and you are incapable of absorbing basic concepts. Anyone can claim a "connection" to anywhere on any flimsy basis. The only connection that counts is being there earlier than the thieves and brigands who arrived and committed ethnic cleansing between 1917 and 1948.
"Surely you know how important indigenous names are? Wouldn’t you still be from South Africa even if the world had agreed to call it Rhodesia for centuries?" No indigenous names are not important. Putting aside your mangling of Rhodesia and South Africa which are 2 totally different countries, the correct definition of indigenous is having continuity in a place prior to the arrival of colonists. Everyone knows that African Americans are descended from Africa. But an African American born, raised and living in America has NO rights to any piece of land in Africa. They can't just arrive in Africa and say, "Hey I'm black and you know my ancestors hailed from here 300/400 years ago, so step aside!" But that's exactly what the European settler Jews did, only worse, because many of them couldn't prove a genetic connection to Palestine because many of them were Europeans who had converted to Judaism. You are beyond hope if you think that’s ok.
"remember they came in 1947 as refugees" - it doesn't matter how they came. What matters is that they ethnically cleansed the people who were already there. Refugees don’t have a right to kill and steal , whether they’re Jewish or Martian. However, it’s clear that you do think they have this right simply because they were running away from persecution. What kind of sick justice do you support?
"Where would you send them back to?" - I wouldn't send them back to anywhere. I would have said in 1947 that the 30% Jews who had already arrived and the 70% Palestinians who were there FIRST, would have to find a way to form a democratic state and live together with equal rights.
I repeat: the entire basis of the whole immoral state of Israel is something you are incapable of wrapping your tiny little mind around - a newly arrived ethnic minority in Palestine ethnically cleansed the majority indigenous population that had been living there peacefully for centuries. It's that simple. And the only answer you have to that is, "ancient rights, refugees, the Hamas charter....other bullshit". 76 years of Palestinian suffering starting with the ethnic cleansing of 1948 does not feature in your analysis. If it did, you would have to acknowledge the crime that started it all – ethnic cleansing in 1948 carried out by European Jewish settlers. “A clash of right vs right”. How can you spout such utter garbage. Like I said, refugees don’t have a right to ethnically cleanse an indigenous population on the grounds that someone else did it to them. Go into a court room and tell a judge you have a right to evict your neighbour from his house and take possession of it because someone else had just done that to you and you were homeless. See how far you get with that defence of theft. What the hell is wrong with you? Just keep saying this over and over again in your head and then maybe you'll get it - "Newly arrived European Jewish settlers ethnically cleansed the indigenous population (who were born in and grew up in Palestine) in 1948".
"Newly arrived European Jewish settlers ethnically cleansed the indigenous population (who were born in and grew up in Palestine) in 1948".
"Newly arrived European Jewish settlers ethnically cleansed the indigenous population (who were born in and grew up in Palestine) in 1948".
"Newly arrived European Jewish settlers ethnically cleansed the indigenous population (who were born in and grew up in Palestine) in 1948".
Is it sinking in yet? Shall we do it in another language? Say it before you go to bed tonight and then say it again when you wake up in the morning. Say it to a friend over coffee. Keep saying it. Because it's the truth and you know it.
Would it make any difference? Your detestation of Israel is baked into every syllable of this post’s selective quotations and skewed interpretation of historic events - would that be changed by a reminder that mischaracterizing this tiny beleaguered nation as the epitome of evil, the killers of innocent children and invisible puppet masters of the global economy, has been the prelude to every attempt of extermination and hatred against the Jews down through the centuries? You started well with legitimate questions re the FSU etc., and degenerated quickly into slander, libel and irrational accusations. I imagine ‘bonkers’ as used by the previous correspondent, is merely the most simple and concise way of describing this rehash of ancient prejudice and suspicion; and ‘scary’, because the post echoes Hitler in Mein Kampf, the call for Israel’s total annihilation clearly stated in the foundational charter of Hamas and the murderous opinions of many others who reject Israel’s historic attachment to their land.
"Would it make any difference?" - It might if you could do it. I've written an argument based on an interpretation of facts. Responding with name calling is not going to convince me that I'm wrong. If the best you can do is name-call instead of engage in argumentation, then my argument stands.
My “detestation of Israel” – guilty as charged. I have said Israel is an abomination and I’ve outlined why. The apartheid system it imposes on the Palestinian people it seeks to ethnically cleanse and genocide is detestable.
I guess I'm in good company because Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and a former Israeli Mossad chief all recognise Israel as an apartheid state. They also detest Israel, and rightly so. The ICC and the ICJ – they’re also horrible, nasty people like me who detest Israel. The Human Rights Watch report is 278 pages long. If you think my meagre 6000 words expressing “detestation” of Israeli apartheid is unbearable, you’d better not read the Human Rights and Amnesty International reports. You’re likely to spontaneously self-combust in a fit of fiery rage.
The undeniable ethnic cleansing on which Israel was founded is detestable. The continued violent oppression of Palestinians and illegal occupation of stolen land is detestable. You don’t find all of this detestable? What moral universe are you living in?
“Skewed interpretation of historic events” – Please outline a different interpretation of historic events. While you’re at it, try not to ignore minor details like, uncontrolled immigration from 1917 to 1948 against the wishes of the indigenous population, ethnic cleansing by a minority against an indigenous majority in 1948, outright theft of the land and houses of people dispossessed using the JNF, illegal occupation, apartheid and now genocide.
“Mischaracterizing this tiny beleaguered nation” – the only nuclear power in the Middle East, which has the full military, political and economic support of the US-NATO empire; receives the most military aid from the US than any other country.
$38 billion in military aid over 10 yrs, plus $14 billion more to bomb civilians in Gaza. Assisted by the US with the most advanced weapons systems that it has so far used to kill around 40,000 defenceless people most of them women and children. Beleaguered?!
You think Israel is “beleaguered”. This “tiny beleaguered nation” has a Lobby in every major Western country that subverts domestic and foreign policy in its favour.
And you want to characterise poor little Israel as “beleaguered”?
“The killers of innocent children” – that’s just an undeniable fact. What are they doing now in Gaza? I suppose you think the Palestinian children being killed aren’t innocent then? Is that what you are actually trying to say?
“The prelude to every attempt of extermination and hatred against the Jews down through the centuries” – You’ve done what all Zionists do and you’re wasting your time. You’re characterising my anti-Zionism as anti-semitism. Absolutely pathetic. Let me quote Norman Finkelstein for you:
“If Israelis don't want to be accused of being like the Nazis, they simply need to stop behaving like Nazis."
I agree with his sentiments entirely and my vitriol is directed against Israeli criminality that is rooted in Zionism. Presumably you don’t think Finkelstein, whose parents were Holocaust survivors, is guilty of uttering words that are the “prelude to every attempt of extermination and hatred against the Jews”, so why do you accuse me of that? Point to one single sentence or word in my article that expresses anti-Jewish sentiment or hatred. Take your bullshit gaslighting down the pub with the normies where it might work. Anti-Zionists are tired of it. We’re not taking it anymore.
“The post echoes Hitler in Mein Kampf” – talk about scraping the fucking barrel. At this point frankly I feel stupid for having wasted my time giving a considered, evidence-based, thorough reply to your mindless drivel. You’re a troll. Mein fucking Kampf, which I’ve NEVER read because I find the idea of picking up a book by Hitler too disgusting. But you on the other hand HAVE presumably read it because you have made the utterly idiotic comparison. Here's how stupid your claim is: It is not necessary for me to have read Mein Kampf to know that your comparison is baseless (to put it politely). How could my post echo Hitler's book when all the events that form the basis for my arguments could not possibly have been referenced in Mein Kampf because the events I referenced had not taken place when Hitler wrote? The 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestine by terrorist Zionist militias and the subsequent establishment of the apartheid Israeli state... are those mentioned in Mein Kampf? Tell me, because I haven't read it. Was Hitler a Nostradamus? If he didn't mention those things, how could my article possibly echo Mein Kampf? What the fuck were you smoking when you wrote that?
The psychological term for what you’ve just done is projection. You’re projecting your own racism and hatred of Palestinians. YOU are the one defending a racist genocidal state, not me. My conscience is clear.
The “charter of Hamas” – Hamas’ charter is a complete irrelevancy. What really matters is the ample evidence and reasons I’ve given for Israel’s SUPPORT of Hamas. Why has Netanyahu supported Hamas? Address that.
"Israel's historic attachment to their land" - I dealt extensively with that lunacy in my article and you've chosen to ignore everything I've said that demolishes the utter bullshit about Israel's claimed 2000 year-old Biblical right of return. All you've done is just repeat the garbage statement as if saying "I believe in the tooth fairy" will make it true.
You and that other cretin have the nerve to call me bonkers when your reply demonstrates that you have a heart of jet black coal and the brain of a drunken fruit fly. I wrote an article on why Zionism is evil and stupid and you’ve just proven my point. Thank you.
Scott Ritter on what might happen to West Bank settlers under a one-state solution:
"The other thing is, you have a whole bunch of West Bank settlers in there who have stolen land that they're going to have to be evicted. That is another guaranteed outcome from this. The settlers cannot be allowed to remain in any construct that is Palestinian land. If the Israelis move against those West Bank settlers, a) there's going to be a crisis of confidence inside Israel. Again, those settlers aren't gonna say, “Uh okay. We're just gonna stay in Israel.” These are Brooklyn Jews who fled the United States knowing they were going to steal land and stay there. These are people who don't believe in hard work; they don't believe in earning anything. They're thieves; they're thugs; they're murderers; they're bandits. And when they lose their settlements, they're going to go back to where they came from: the United States or Australia or Canada or Europe. They’re not staying."
I’m quite shocked by how thin your veneer of civility and tolerance for free speech actually is - I suppose I shouldn’t be - I’ve seen the pro Palestine (we don’t care how many Jews are raped and murdered coz they deserve it ) marches - let’s hope you confine your vitriol to the keyboard. Best wishes.
You started out your exchange by calling me bonkers. You told me that my post echoed Mein Kampf, with absolutely no evidence to support the claim. Don't make yourself out to be a saint. You are anything but. You got what you asked for. I'm a free speech absolutist. You dished out tripe and I gave you a piece of my mind. You expect to be able to insult people by telling them they're bonkers instead of arguing cogently, and then when when I return the offence you complain about free speech. Proving my point about the hypocrisy of Zionists. Don't give offence if you can't handle the return fire.
I much appreciated your post. Thank you for having the courage to expose all of these athrocities perpetrated in the name of … God. The lapidation you get is no surprise as you are daring to question the mainstream discourse on war, power and money. NO war and killing will never be justifiable nor acceptable, from any nation
Okay, I concede I endorsed the bonkers description – a reference to your post and not to you personally – and specifically to the part of your post which dredged up the age-old anti-Jew trope of these wicked, avaricious Jews intent on grasping financial control of the world – I’m sorry that upset you - although it’s hardly on the same level as calling a complete stranger a *&^%*ng troll! But never mind, I’m not offended (it might be you doing a bit of projection there?!) I was just slightly shocked because I had always got the impression from your other posts that you were eminently reasonable and impartial. However, I don’t know what’s happened in your life to make you so one-sided on this issue – to the extent of denying that the viewpoint which says Israel has a right to exist is even a viewpoint. So let me try and summarize my perspective and offer my view – I’ll try to be brief - Israel was established around 1000 BC & split into two in 920BC; the Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrian Empire in 720 (approx), and the Southern Kingdom of Judah, in 586 by the Babylonians, who laid waste the land, destroyed the Temple and carried off tens of thousands into captivity. Babylon, in its turn was crushed by the Persians, who allowed the Jewish exiles to return to their land in stages – between 536 and 445BC. The Romans were the next occupying force and under their rule the 2nd Temple was finally destroyed in 70AD, when approximately one million Jews were killed. The land was renamed Syria Palestina in 134 AD by the Emperor Hadrian – the reference to the ancient Philistines (no relation to present day Arab Palestinians) was done to spite the Jews and punish their persistent refusal to submit to Roman imperialism. Most of the Jewish people were sold into slavery or scattered across the world – only a tiny remnant were allowed to remain in their land – a fact which all subsequent adversaries consistently bewail and attempt to ‘rectify’ by the total eradication of the Jewish race (The Charter of Hamas is indeed 100% relevant to the situation). The first documented arrival of Jews in Britain was 1066 – the first ‘Blood Libel’ took place in 1144 and all Jews were expelled by Edward 1st in 1290. They were not permitted to return until 1656. The first major wave of Jewish immigration from Europe back to Israel began in 1881, in the wake of horrendous Russian pogroms against them. The Jerusalem Census of 1864 shows Jews and Christians as the majority population with Arabs in the minority (the modern day usage of ‘Palestinian’ to mean specifically the Arab inhabitants, only took hold in 1964 with the establishment of the PLO). In 1914 the Turkish Ottoman Empire, the reigning Middle Eastern power, expelled 11,000 Jews and oppressed thousands more. The Turks’ 440 year rule came to an end on 9th December 1917 when British and ANZAC forces captured Jerusalem – you know all about the Balfour Declaration, the Arab unrest, riots etc., etc., - in 1929 after dozens of Jews were brutally murdered in Hebron, the British authorities responded by evacuating all Jews and forbidding them to return. The White Paper of 1939 effectively annulled the Balfour Declaration, restricted further immigration and outlawed land sales to Jewish people altogether. The Holocaust, in which six million Jewish men, women and children were callously disposed of as so much garbage, was the catalyst for the United Nations to allow a mass return of Jews to their homeland. We all know the rest – I haven’t had time to read the links yet that you sent but I will – my point is, that the Jews have a right to a national home, Israel has a right to exist – to say otherwise is to continue the cruelty and inhumanity that has been directed against them since time immemorial. None of that is an excuse or an approval or an attempt to justify the atrocities of successive Israeli governments or the IDF – nothing can justify murder, rape or apartheid - on either side – returning evil for evil only doubles it – and a belief in the Jews historical right to Israel is not incompatible with an abhorrence of their methods. Yes, there are forces which use that unique and historical right as a cover for their own nefarious ends, yes, the selective reading of ancient texts to justify wickedness is appalling, but I can assure you that we’re arguing at cross purposes here if you think that’s what I’m doing.
I’m afraid I am of the unshakeable belief that while all of the history of Jewish suffering, which I have never tried to deny, contributes to the understanding of what led to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948, it does not excuse it and nor does it exonerate the perpetrators. If you had read my article you would have noted that I did not object to the Jewish goal of self-determination per se. In Part 1 I said: “This in and of itself would not have been problematic had the formation of a Jewish state not entailed migration to a land already peacefully inhabited, and the expulsion of those inhabitants who had been there for centuries.” Entirely missing from your whole analysis is the fact that European immigrants to Palestine, most of whom arrived after the Balfour Declaration, displaced the indigenous Palestinian population. I am gobsmacked that you can leave out the central cause of today’s problems. You haven’t even tried to gloss over it; you just omitted it.
There is no moral or legal basis for a group of people who had been living in Europe and elsewhere for 2,000 years making a backdated claim to a piece of land they feel that they have a religious connection to (most Zionists are atheists except when it comes to the absurd Biblical right to return). The Palestinians who are there now and who were ethnically cleansed in 1948 have a deeper connection to that land than the European Jews who displaced them because they are more likely to have descended over the generations from the Jews who inhabited that area in Biblical times and then converted to Christianity after the Roman conquest and then to Islam after Islamic and Ottoman conquests. They are ethnically more Jewish than the European Jewish settlers. Genetic studies have shown that Palestinians are more closely related to Middle Eastern Jews than to European Jews who have mixed with Europeans or are genetically more European and converted to Judaism.
https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/2015-10-20/ty-article/palestinians-and-jews-share-genetic-roots/0000017f-dc0e-df9c-a17f-fe1e57730000
Dr Roy Casagranda captures the absurdity of the situation when he says: “The majority of Palestinians are of Jewish descent and are ethnically more Jewish than the European and American Jews who went and created Israel…Every time a Palestinian is murdered by an Israeli, a person who’s more Jewish is killed by a person who’s less Jewish…There are actually 7 million Palestinians living in Palestine and Israel. But 5 million are confined to the concentration camp that we call the Gaza Strip and then the ghetto that we call the West Bank…and so what the Israelis have done is they’ve created a situation in which the natives are in INTERNAL EXILE…They’re in Palestine, they’re just not in their homes [the homes that were stolen in 1948] and so they’re displaced inside their own country as a majority but with no rights to citizenship. This is the most nasty thing since apartheid South Africa. It might be worse than apartheid South Africa. In fact it is.”
https://x.com/resist_05/status/1805514601418965497
https://www.timesofisrael.com/jews-now-a-minority-in-israel-and-the-territories-demographer-says/
Again, Casagranda on the absurdity of the 2000-year-old homeland claim:
Zionist: “This is my homeland.”
Casagranda: “Oh! You’re 2000 years old?”
While all of that serves to underline the immorality and the absurdity of the Zionist claim to have a right to terrorise Palestinians for over 76 years, it’s actually not relevant to the central basis of anti-Zionist critique: that a bunch of European settlers who happened to be Jewish and who deployed their Jewishness in a mythical narrative of Biblical entitlement, ruthlessly dispossessed a people who had continuity in that land prior to the arrival of the Jewish colonial settlers. The Holocaust, the awful event that happened to them, does not undo the Zionists’ crime. It is just heaping suffering upon suffering. Israel is a 76-year-old war nation that has never had a day’s peace. And it isn’t because the world hates them. It’s because they are doing the same thing to Palestinians that was done to them. And many people somehow think that’s ok. It is NOT. The Jews might, as you say, have a right to a national home, but they do not have the right to steal it from Palestinians and genocide them to get it. Again, you talk of the “Jews’ historical right to Israel”. THEY DON’T HAVE ONE! As I said in Part 2, quoting an extremely articulate and wonderfully logical researcher on that claim:
“It would be ridiculous if some native Americans migrated to Europe and then, 2,000 years in the future, people claiming to be descended from that group said they had the divine right to cross the Atlantic and conquer North America on that basis. That’s the actual equivalent of the pro-Israel argument here…These sorts of arguments are dangerous to entertain…since doing so might imply that there can ever be some sort of ephemeral, never-ending genetic claim to land going back thousands of years that can somehow legitimise people moving from anywhere in the world to carry out an ethnic conquest there…Such justifications are really treated as little more than jokes among anyone aside from those that espouse them.”
The WHOLE history, such as it is, that you’ve given from 1000 BC up to 1939 and even up to the Holocaust, is regrettably entirely irrelevant because it does not support the mythical claim to that land. I read it but I don’t need to check it because it has no relevance to my critique and anti-Zionist critiques in general. Again, please stop claiming that Jews have a “historical right to Israel”. It’s a fairy tale and a lie.
And what is the point of saying that “The White Paper of 1939 effectively annulled the Balfour Declaration, restricted further immigration and outlawed land sales to Jewish people altogether”? Are you trying to deny that the proportion of the Jewish population rose from under 10% in 1917 to 31% by 1947? Are you trying to deny that the British crushed the Arab uprising against British rule and against increased European Jewish colonial settlement between 1936 and 1939? Are you trying to deny that the crushing of this uprising left the Jewish minority in a strong military position vis-à-vis the indigenous Arabs and thus paved the way for Jewish militias to conquer Palestine by force in 1947-1948? Are you trying to deny that the Peel Commission of 1939 had already proposed giving 20% of Palestine to the Jewish settlers and transferring Arabs out of the area – a proposal warmly greeted by Zionist leader Ben-Gurion? Are you trying to deny that in 1947 Britain sat on their hands and did nothing when the Zionist terrorist militias began their operations in earnest to take Palestine – this at a time when the British had 100,000 troops in Palestine. Are you trying to deny that the UN partition stitch-up of 1947 didn’t happen – the stitch-up that proposed giving 55% of Palestine to a 30% minority settler population? Are you trying to deny that the British walked away and watched the Zionists ethnically cleanse Palestine and steal land and homes from people who had lived there for centuries?
Please tell me what was the point of that little observation about the 1939 White Paper? The 1939 White Paper was just that – a paper. It did nothing to change the course of the Balfour Declaration and it was rejected by the Zionists.
https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/1939-british-white-paper-on-palestine/#:~:text=The%201939%20British%20White%20Paper,an%20independent%20Palestine%20by%201949.
I’m extremely disappointed that you got the impression from my other posts that I’m “impartial”. The world is going to hell in a handbasket because it’s run by powerful criminal syndicates that want to depopulate most of the planet and enslave the survivors. Why the hell would anyone want to be impartial about that!? Zionism is one of the criminal syndicates’ many rackets and I’m frankly disgusted with people who are impartial about Zionism and its inherent apartheid system. (Links provided in previous longer reply – if you want to argue with Amnesty international, HRW and a former Mossad chief on that, go right ahead but it’s not even a controversial fact on which I am happy to get into further debate if you need convincing.)
You say that you “don’t know what’s happened in [my] life to make [me] so one-sided on this issue.” There’s no point in personalising the debate. There is nothing unique or special about me that makes me want to vomit when I contemplate the fact that a brutal apartheid state is still alive and well in the 21st century. It simply means I have a working moral compass on this particular issue. It’s undeniable that Israel is an apartheid state so how could you NOT want to see it dismantled? I lived in an apartheid state that was dismantled in 1980 and I lived next door to another one that was dismantled in 1994. I don’t remember the world complaining about the dismantling of those apartheid states. Do you?! So why do you object to the peaceful dismantling and reconstitution of the apartheid state of Israel? Why do you insist that apartheid has a right to exist?! In my moral universe it does not.
And finally I did not, to use your words, "dredge up the age-old anti-Jew trope of these wicked, avaricious Jews intent on grasping financial control of the world". You've made that up. Point to the text of my article that you think does that and I will not only confidently rebut it, I am sure I will end up making you look like the racist you are accusing me of being. The only defence you have against my arguments is to accuse me of racism. It's identical to the Zionist trick of equating anti-Zionism with anti-semitism. Zionism is fundamentally racist and it relies on accusing its critics of the very thing it is guilty of.
This is the last time I will reply because there really is no point – you seem either determined to misunderstand what I’m saying or you cannot accept that anyone who believes Israel has a right to exist, is not fundamentally wicked, racist and fully supportive of government crime. And yet you believe that Palestine has a right to exist? Because of their historic connection to the land? Even though their government are quite open about their stated agenda of apartheid and ethnic cleansing? Check their foundational charter – once they get rid of the Jews they’ll start on the Christians, the Freemasons, the gays and then clean up the rest of the infidels – maybe that has something to with the global elite’s desire to contain them while still keeping the world in a continuous state of warfare and unrest. Because the Palestinian government’s hatred for Israel, while no doubt exacerbated by the last 76 years, is entirely independent of it. If Israel laid down every single weapon and gave back every parcel of land Hamas would still happily slaughter every single Jew because “initiatives and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement” (Article Thirteen). The world got a taste of their style of government on October 7th – killing old people and babies, taking toddlers hostage and hiding behind schools to avoid the revenge and fury they knew full well they would provoke – heedless of the suffering of their own people - and you can’t even cry Zionist propaganda because the perpetrators broadcast themselves raping and mutilating and gleefully murdering young women who had the temerity to be wearing western clothes and enjoying a peace & love music festival - does that not make you vomit? Or does it not matter because their government and their grandparents are guilty of war crimes? And they shouldn’t be there anyway because despite the Jews being the only ancient race to have clear, concise and meticulous documentation of their connection to the land stretching back centuries, (& that's not confined to the Bible!) they have less right than their more recent neighbours – why? Because their government is right-wing and repressive? Because they insist on calling the land by its ancient name? Surely you know how important indigenous names are? Wouldn’t you still be from South Africa even if the world had agreed to call it Rhodesia for centuries? I’m conscious I’m talking emotionally here and I haven’t addressed your other questions – sorry – I’m sure they were probably rhetorical anyway! Because as you said, you have an unshakeable belief that Israel has no right to exist and you equate any dissent from that view with an unshakeable support for apartheid and racism – but I abhor violence and inequity and injustice in all its forms, and from whichever ‘side’ it comes, and I simultaneously believe that the Jewish people have a right to exist as Israel in their ancient homeland – remember they came in 1947 as refugees, not in a spirit of imperialist expansion but to escape annihilation – where would they go? Where would you send them back to? Look how tiny Israel is compared to the surrounding Arab League nations! A mere pinprick on the map, a tiny dot! Nevertheless I also believe the Palestinians have a right to be there – as the late author/peace activist Amos Oz said – the Israel/Palestine conflict is not a clash of right versus wrong, ‘but something infinitely more tragic; a clash of right versus right. Two peoples with deep wounds, howling with grief, fated to share the same small piece of land.’ We could debate endlessly, we could endlessly swap newspaper articles which support our particular perspectives, we could quote any number of illustrious people who agree with us, and it won’t affect Israeli policy or Hamas hatred one whit – so let’s just model the only way that will ever bring an end to the suffering and violence of this world – agree to differ and go our separate ways in peace.
You keep insisting that an apartheid state, Israel, has a right to exist. You have a seriously messed up moral compass. I'm saying an apartheid state should be peacefully reconstituted which means the apartheid state ceases to exist and a new one comes into existence. It is not a binary of: either Palestine exists or Israel exists. I'm not concerned with the name of a country. Both peoples must learn to live together in one society/country that gives both of them equal rights.
"the Jews being the only ancient race to have clear, concise and meticulous documentation of their connection to the land stretching back centuries". First off, the Jews that arrived there in the 30 years before 1948 do not have a connection to that land that gives them the right to displace the people who were already there. Having a "connection" to a place is not a moral or legal basis for displacing people who actually did have legal and moral tenure there. Secondly, not only do Palestinians have " a connection", they were physically connected by virtue of having lived there for centuries and not arrived on a boat from Europe...like the European Jewish new arrivals. I gave so many examples and explanations of this but you refuse to read and you are incapable of absorbing basic concepts. Anyone can claim a "connection" to anywhere on any flimsy basis. The only connection that counts is being there earlier than the thieves and brigands who arrived and committed ethnic cleansing between 1917 and 1948.
"Surely you know how important indigenous names are? Wouldn’t you still be from South Africa even if the world had agreed to call it Rhodesia for centuries?" No indigenous names are not important. Putting aside your mangling of Rhodesia and South Africa which are 2 totally different countries, the correct definition of indigenous is having continuity in a place prior to the arrival of colonists. Everyone knows that African Americans are descended from Africa. But an African American born, raised and living in America has NO rights to any piece of land in Africa. They can't just arrive in Africa and say, "Hey I'm black and you know my ancestors hailed from here 300/400 years ago, so step aside!" But that's exactly what the European settler Jews did, only worse, because many of them couldn't prove a genetic connection to Palestine because many of them were Europeans who had converted to Judaism. You are beyond hope if you think that’s ok.
"remember they came in 1947 as refugees" - it doesn't matter how they came. What matters is that they ethnically cleansed the people who were already there. Refugees don’t have a right to kill and steal , whether they’re Jewish or Martian. However, it’s clear that you do think they have this right simply because they were running away from persecution. What kind of sick justice do you support?
"Where would you send them back to?" - I wouldn't send them back to anywhere. I would have said in 1947 that the 30% Jews who had already arrived and the 70% Palestinians who were there FIRST, would have to find a way to form a democratic state and live together with equal rights.
I repeat: the entire basis of the whole immoral state of Israel is something you are incapable of wrapping your tiny little mind around - a newly arrived ethnic minority in Palestine ethnically cleansed the majority indigenous population that had been living there peacefully for centuries. It's that simple. And the only answer you have to that is, "ancient rights, refugees, the Hamas charter....other bullshit". 76 years of Palestinian suffering starting with the ethnic cleansing of 1948 does not feature in your analysis. If it did, you would have to acknowledge the crime that started it all – ethnic cleansing in 1948 carried out by European Jewish settlers. “A clash of right vs right”. How can you spout such utter garbage. Like I said, refugees don’t have a right to ethnically cleanse an indigenous population on the grounds that someone else did it to them. Go into a court room and tell a judge you have a right to evict your neighbour from his house and take possession of it because someone else had just done that to you and you were homeless. See how far you get with that defence of theft. What the hell is wrong with you? Just keep saying this over and over again in your head and then maybe you'll get it - "Newly arrived European Jewish settlers ethnically cleansed the indigenous population (who were born in and grew up in Palestine) in 1948".
"Newly arrived European Jewish settlers ethnically cleansed the indigenous population (who were born in and grew up in Palestine) in 1948".
"Newly arrived European Jewish settlers ethnically cleansed the indigenous population (who were born in and grew up in Palestine) in 1948".
"Newly arrived European Jewish settlers ethnically cleansed the indigenous population (who were born in and grew up in Palestine) in 1948".
Is it sinking in yet? Shall we do it in another language? Say it before you go to bed tonight and then say it again when you wake up in the morning. Say it to a friend over coffee. Keep saying it. Because it's the truth and you know it.
Quite possibly the most bonkers and scariest post I've seen in a long long time
Started off well…….
I await a detailed refutation from you both of the specific parts that are "bonkers" and "scary".
Would it make any difference? Your detestation of Israel is baked into every syllable of this post’s selective quotations and skewed interpretation of historic events - would that be changed by a reminder that mischaracterizing this tiny beleaguered nation as the epitome of evil, the killers of innocent children and invisible puppet masters of the global economy, has been the prelude to every attempt of extermination and hatred against the Jews down through the centuries? You started well with legitimate questions re the FSU etc., and degenerated quickly into slander, libel and irrational accusations. I imagine ‘bonkers’ as used by the previous correspondent, is merely the most simple and concise way of describing this rehash of ancient prejudice and suspicion; and ‘scary’, because the post echoes Hitler in Mein Kampf, the call for Israel’s total annihilation clearly stated in the foundational charter of Hamas and the murderous opinions of many others who reject Israel’s historic attachment to their land.
"Would it make any difference?" - It might if you could do it. I've written an argument based on an interpretation of facts. Responding with name calling is not going to convince me that I'm wrong. If the best you can do is name-call instead of engage in argumentation, then my argument stands.
My “detestation of Israel” – guilty as charged. I have said Israel is an abomination and I’ve outlined why. The apartheid system it imposes on the Palestinian people it seeks to ethnically cleanse and genocide is detestable.
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution
https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-jerusalem-israel-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-83b44a2f6b2b3581d857f57fb6960115
https://web.archive.org/web/20231016194517/https:/www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/06/israel-imposing-apartheid-on-palestinians-says-former-mossad-chief
I guess I'm in good company because Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and a former Israeli Mossad chief all recognise Israel as an apartheid state. They also detest Israel, and rightly so. The ICC and the ICJ – they’re also horrible, nasty people like me who detest Israel. The Human Rights Watch report is 278 pages long. If you think my meagre 6000 words expressing “detestation” of Israeli apartheid is unbearable, you’d better not read the Human Rights and Amnesty International reports. You’re likely to spontaneously self-combust in a fit of fiery rage.
The undeniable ethnic cleansing on which Israel was founded is detestable. The continued violent oppression of Palestinians and illegal occupation of stolen land is detestable. You don’t find all of this detestable? What moral universe are you living in?
“Skewed interpretation of historic events” – Please outline a different interpretation of historic events. While you’re at it, try not to ignore minor details like, uncontrolled immigration from 1917 to 1948 against the wishes of the indigenous population, ethnic cleansing by a minority against an indigenous majority in 1948, outright theft of the land and houses of people dispossessed using the JNF, illegal occupation, apartheid and now genocide.
“Mischaracterizing this tiny beleaguered nation” – the only nuclear power in the Middle East, which has the full military, political and economic support of the US-NATO empire; receives the most military aid from the US than any other country.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/what-military-support-does-us-provide-israel-2024-04-08/
$38 billion in military aid over 10 yrs, plus $14 billion more to bomb civilians in Gaza. Assisted by the US with the most advanced weapons systems that it has so far used to kill around 40,000 defenceless people most of them women and children. Beleaguered?!
You think Israel is “beleaguered”. This “tiny beleaguered nation” has a Lobby in every major Western country that subverts domestic and foreign policy in its favour.
https://www.ajiunit.com/investigation/the-lobby/
https://rumble.com/v52rl4f-system-update-show-286.html
And you want to characterise poor little Israel as “beleaguered”?
“The killers of innocent children” – that’s just an undeniable fact. What are they doing now in Gaza? I suppose you think the Palestinian children being killed aren’t innocent then? Is that what you are actually trying to say?
“The prelude to every attempt of extermination and hatred against the Jews down through the centuries” – You’ve done what all Zionists do and you’re wasting your time. You’re characterising my anti-Zionism as anti-semitism. Absolutely pathetic. Let me quote Norman Finkelstein for you:
“If Israelis don't want to be accused of being like the Nazis, they simply need to stop behaving like Nazis."
I agree with his sentiments entirely and my vitriol is directed against Israeli criminality that is rooted in Zionism. Presumably you don’t think Finkelstein, whose parents were Holocaust survivors, is guilty of uttering words that are the “prelude to every attempt of extermination and hatred against the Jews”, so why do you accuse me of that? Point to one single sentence or word in my article that expresses anti-Jewish sentiment or hatred. Take your bullshit gaslighting down the pub with the normies where it might work. Anti-Zionists are tired of it. We’re not taking it anymore.
“The post echoes Hitler in Mein Kampf” – talk about scraping the fucking barrel. At this point frankly I feel stupid for having wasted my time giving a considered, evidence-based, thorough reply to your mindless drivel. You’re a troll. Mein fucking Kampf, which I’ve NEVER read because I find the idea of picking up a book by Hitler too disgusting. But you on the other hand HAVE presumably read it because you have made the utterly idiotic comparison. Here's how stupid your claim is: It is not necessary for me to have read Mein Kampf to know that your comparison is baseless (to put it politely). How could my post echo Hitler's book when all the events that form the basis for my arguments could not possibly have been referenced in Mein Kampf because the events I referenced had not taken place when Hitler wrote? The 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestine by terrorist Zionist militias and the subsequent establishment of the apartheid Israeli state... are those mentioned in Mein Kampf? Tell me, because I haven't read it. Was Hitler a Nostradamus? If he didn't mention those things, how could my article possibly echo Mein Kampf? What the fuck were you smoking when you wrote that?
The psychological term for what you’ve just done is projection. You’re projecting your own racism and hatred of Palestinians. YOU are the one defending a racist genocidal state, not me. My conscience is clear.
The “charter of Hamas” – Hamas’ charter is a complete irrelevancy. What really matters is the ample evidence and reasons I’ve given for Israel’s SUPPORT of Hamas. Why has Netanyahu supported Hamas? Address that.
"Israel's historic attachment to their land" - I dealt extensively with that lunacy in my article and you've chosen to ignore everything I've said that demolishes the utter bullshit about Israel's claimed 2000 year-old Biblical right of return. All you've done is just repeat the garbage statement as if saying "I believe in the tooth fairy" will make it true.
You and that other cretin have the nerve to call me bonkers when your reply demonstrates that you have a heart of jet black coal and the brain of a drunken fruit fly. I wrote an article on why Zionism is evil and stupid and you’ve just proven my point. Thank you.
Scott Ritter on what might happen to West Bank settlers under a one-state solution:
"The other thing is, you have a whole bunch of West Bank settlers in there who have stolen land that they're going to have to be evicted. That is another guaranteed outcome from this. The settlers cannot be allowed to remain in any construct that is Palestinian land. If the Israelis move against those West Bank settlers, a) there's going to be a crisis of confidence inside Israel. Again, those settlers aren't gonna say, “Uh okay. We're just gonna stay in Israel.” These are Brooklyn Jews who fled the United States knowing they were going to steal land and stay there. These are people who don't believe in hard work; they don't believe in earning anything. They're thieves; they're thugs; they're murderers; they're bandits. And when they lose their settlements, they're going to go back to where they came from: the United States or Australia or Canada or Europe. They’re not staying."
I’m quite shocked by how thin your veneer of civility and tolerance for free speech actually is - I suppose I shouldn’t be - I’ve seen the pro Palestine (we don’t care how many Jews are raped and murdered coz they deserve it ) marches - let’s hope you confine your vitriol to the keyboard. Best wishes.
You started out your exchange by calling me bonkers. You told me that my post echoed Mein Kampf, with absolutely no evidence to support the claim. Don't make yourself out to be a saint. You are anything but. You got what you asked for. I'm a free speech absolutist. You dished out tripe and I gave you a piece of my mind. You expect to be able to insult people by telling them they're bonkers instead of arguing cogently, and then when when I return the offence you complain about free speech. Proving my point about the hypocrisy of Zionists. Don't give offence if you can't handle the return fire.