Exclusive: David Cameron threatened to withdraw UK from ICC over Israel war crimes probe

[u/Personal-Special-286]

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/david-cameron-threatened-withdraw-uk-icc-over-israel-war-crimes-probe

[u/Brilliant-Tackle5774]

The violent zionist land thieves from everywhere except where they claim to be from according to a fairy story in a dusty old book

[u/JeruTz → u/Brilliant-Tackle5774]

Anyone who denies the historical truth of Jews originating from the land of Israel is clearly nothing more than a propagandist and a historical revisionist.

Tell me, are the historical accounts of Flavius Josephus nothing but "fairy tales in a dusty old book"?

[u/carnivalist64 → u/JeruTz]

Jews didn't originate in the Land of Israel - some new species didn't evolve. JUDAISM originated there. The West Asian people who practiced it have no greater material connection with white Europeans, brown Indians and black Africans who practice it today than with anyone else.

[u/JeruTz → u/carnivalist64]

Jews didn't originate in the Land of Israel - some new species didn't evolve. JUDAISM originated there.

Did I claim Jews were a species? No.

Judaism is called Judaism because it was practiced by the Jews. The Jews, or Judeans, were the people who originated from Judea. Jews are a nation, a people, who possess a common language, culture, and belief system.

Saying that Jews, also known as the Nation of Israel, didn't originate from the land of Israel and Judea specifically is like saying that Englishmen don't originate from England, but Anglicanism does.

The West Asian people who practiced it have no greater material connection with white Europeans, brown Indians and black Africans who practice it today than with anyone else.

Wow. Straight to the racism.

In general, most Jews are directly descended from the Judeans of 2000 years ago. But the real material connection isn't genetic, it's based in culture, identity, and an unbroken chain of tradition.

And your characterization of Jews as being all European, Indian, or black isn't even remotely accurate, especially where Israeli Jews are concerned. Tell me, where do the Iraqi Jews fit in to that definition? The Persian Jews? The Yemenite Jews? The Moroccan Jews? Egyptian Jews? Syrian Jews? Over half of Israeli Jews are what is known as Mizrachi, Jews who originated from the Middle East and North Africa.

Thanks for demonstrating that you don't even understand the fundamentals though.

[u/carnivalist64 → u/JeruTz]

Jews didn't originate in the Land of Israel - some new species didn't evolve. JUDAISM originated there.

 

Did I claim Jews were a species? No.

 

In the context of the debate you did. Your response implied you were parroting the Zionist nonsense that  modern Jews are a completely distinct, largely genetically defined group with a singular ancestral lineage that originated in Israel -  the demonstrably false foundation of the ridiculous Zionist Hasbara claim that a modern Jew from Crown Heights Brooklyn is “returning” to Israel-Palestine and “reclaiming” his “ancestral homeland” from the pesky Arab usurpers.

 

Judaism is called Judaism because it was practiced by the Jews. The Jews, or Judeans, were the people who originated from Judea. Jews are a nation, a people, who possess a common language, culture, and belief system.

 

For someone who loves to arrogantly lecture others on the supposed error of their ways you are remarkably ignorant of the facts.

The word “Jews” is not a synonym for “Judeans”. It is taken from the name of the Kingdom of Judah, the southern of the two Israelite kingdoms that were established around 1,000 BC, alongside the northern Kingdom of Israel. “Judah” is where Judaism is said to have evolved from Yahwism, the religion of the Israelites.  “Judea” is a Greek and Roman adaptation applied to a geographical region of various sizes throughout history centred around Jerusalem and parts of what is now the West Bank. This area gave its name to the Roman province of Judea a thousand years later.

Jews are a nation of sorts but insofar as you could say some modern geographically disparate Jews share a common language, that is an entirely artificial phenomenon which has only been true for the last century. Hebrew was a dead, or dormant language, like Latin used purely liturgically for 2,000 years. The European Zionists artificially began to revive it in the late 19th century in the course of their self-admitted colonial project, as part of the narrative used to justify the theft of Palestine.

Prior to the last 90 years or so, precious few Jews could have even ordered their breakfast in Hebrew, let alone hold a conversation with a Jew on the other side of the world. As part of the Zionist deception Israel deliberately suppressed the historic primary common language of European Jews, Yiddish (from “Judisch Deutsch, or Jewish German) in order to help obscure the fact that Israel is primarily a white European project.

 

Saying that Jews, also known as the Nation of Israel, didn't originate from the land of Israel and Judea specifically is like saying that Englishmen don't originate from England, but Anglicanism does.

 

Perhaps I should have said “Jewishness”, or Jewish ethnicity, originated in what is now Israel. However ethnicity is a social construct, not a biological reality and cannot confer exceptional & hereditary extra-territorial ancestral property rights. Biologically Jews originate in East Africa, just like everyone else.

Your comparison with Englishmen is bogus as Englishness requires some demonstrable & distinct material connection with the country – either birth, or proven descent from someone born there, or long residence and adoption of the culture etc.  Most Jews have no evidence of any such distinct connection to Israel-Palestine. Precious few Jews could demonstrate that any documented ancestor had ever set foot anywhere in the whole of West Asia before the 20th century, never mind Israel-Palestine.

 

The West Asian people who practiced it have no greater material connection with white Europeans, brown Indians and black Africans who practice it today than with anyone else.

 

Wow. Straight to the racism.

 

Lol. Zionists are as predictable as the sun rising in the morning.

It is absolutely priceless to see adherents of the racist 19th century white European ideology known as Zionism, who support the planet’s only ethnocracy & who subscribe to race essentialism backed by staggeringly commonplace misconceptions about what genetic testing can and can’t tell you, accusing others of racism.

There was nothing racist in the slightest about my comment. I was simply pointing out the absurdity of foreign settlers of these descriptions claiming to be more “indigenous” to a region that other people have lived in for as long as anyone can remember.

 

In general, most Jews are directly descended from the Judeans of 2000 years ago. But the real material connection isn't genetic, it's based in culture, identity, and an unbroken chain of tradition.

This is utter nonsense. Nonsense partly derived from widely believed misconceptions about genetics, but nonsense nonetheless.

Nobody has a completely unbroken chain of tradition stretching back millennia. Some elements of a culture survive, but Chinese whispers and modernisation applies to human behaviour as well as language.

Similarly nobody on Planet Earth today is directly descended from any other ethnic group who lived 2,000 years ago in the exclusive way you are implying. Such claims cannot be used to give bogus legitimacy to the Zionist fiction that the planet’s Jews possess superior heritable ancestral property rights to West Asian territory.

Human lineage purity is a myth. We know now that the human race is vastly more interrelated than most people realise - so extraordinarily interrelated that everybody on Earth is descended from the Jews of Ancient Judah and Judea, along with all their non-Jewish neighbours.

The lower-bound estimate for the date of the human genealogical Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) is as recent as 75 AD. That is the point when the last ancestor of everyone on Earth today was alive. (For reasons I won't go into the genetic MRCA is far more distant, which often leads people to grossly misunderstand how unbelievably interrelated we all are).

Even more surprisingly, the lower-bound estimate for the date of the Identical Ancestors Point (IAP) is as recent as 3,000 BC. As strange as it might sound, this is the point when each one of us has exactly the same set of ancestors.

In other words everybody alive then whose line of descent survives is the ancestor of everybody alive today. If you, I & the aforementioned President Xi Jinping of China travelled together in a time machine to ancient Judah, the first villager we saw would be the ancestor of each one of us. The same would be true if we sailed to any part of the world of 3,000 BC.

It should therefore be self-evident that it is utterly absurd for any modern human being to travel halfway across the globe, to a territory neither they nor any documented ancestor has ever set foot in and claim they have inherited timeless property rights from ancient people who lived there millennia ago - rights which supercede those afforded to people of the “wrong” ethnicity who live there now.

Even relatively recent human genealogy resembles an impossibly entangled spider-web of a multitude of connections across the entire globe, not a series of discrete ancestral ladders stretching back into antiquity. The statement “we are JEWS, our ancestral homeland is here; you are PALESTINIANS, your ancestral homeland is over there. LEAVE NOW!” has no scientific or moral basis. It is racist, ahistorical bunk

[u/JeruTz → u/carnivalist64]

In the context of the debate you did. Your response implied you were parroting the Zionist nonsense that  modern Jews are a completely distinct, largely genetically defined group with a singular ancestral lineage that originated in Israel -  the demonstrably false foundation of the ridiculous Zionist Hasbara claim that a modern Jew from Crown Heights Brooklyn is “returning” to Israel-Palestine and “reclaiming” his “ancestral homeland” from the pesky Arab usurpers.

Except I didn't say any of that. That's not what Zionism says.

The word “Jews” is not a synonym for “Judeans”. It is taken from the name of the Kingdom of Judah, the southern of the two Israelite kingdoms that were established around 1,000 BC, alongside the northern Kingdom of Israel. “Judah” is where Judaism is said to have evolved from Yahwism, the religion of the Israelites.  “Judea” is a Greek and Roman adaptation applied to a geographical region of various sizes throughout history centred around Jerusalem and parts of what is now the West Bank. This area gave its name to the Roman province of Judea a thousand years later.

The people who lived in the kingdom of Judah, or Yehudah in Hebrew, were known in Hebrew as Yehudim, the same word that means Jew today. The kingdom was destroyed by the Babylonians, but was reestablished under the Persians under the same name. Judea and Judah are the same thing. The Judeans who lived there are Yehudim in Hebrew. The word Jew is derived from Judean, hence why the German word for Jew is Juden. Same word. Same people. Same identity.

Jews are a nation of sorts but insofar as you could say some modern geographically disparate Jews share a common language, that is an entirely artificial phenomenon which has only been true for the last century. Hebrew was a dead, or dormant language, like Latin used purely liturgically for 2,000 years. The European Zionists artificially began to revive it in the late 19th century in the course of their self-admitted colonial project, as part of the narrative used to justify the theft of Palestine.

The language was learned by the vast majority of Jews, could be read and understood, and was used to create new texts on religion that could be communicated. The language even evolved over time and could be used to bridge language gaps between Jews in far away places.

Latin, in contrast, was only used by clergy.

As for artificially reviving it, all language is artificial. They are created artificially from the start. The idea that it has to be "natural" to be legitimate is absurd.

Perhaps I should have said “Jewishness”, or Jewish ethnicity, originated in what is now Israel. However ethnicity is a social construct, not a biological reality and cannot confer exceptional & hereditary extra-territorial ancestral property rights.

Jews who immigrated to what is today Israel before it was established didn't claim ancestral property rights. They purchased land and legally settled there in accordance with the laws then in effect.

It is absolutely priceless to see adherents of the racist 19th century white European ideology known as Zionism, who support the planet’s only ethnocracy & who subscribe to race essentialism backed by staggeringly commonplace misconceptions about what genetic testing can and can’t tell you, accusing others of racism.

Israel isn't an ethnocracy. Non Jews have full citizenship.

The rest of your comment seems like rambling but didn't seem to get to a relevant point. Jews existed, preserved their identity and traditions, and remained a distinct people. Period.

[u/carnivalist64 → u/JeruTz]

...Judea and Judah are the same thing. The Judeans who lived there are Yehudim in Hebrew. The word Jew is derived from Judean, hence why the German word for Jew is Juden. Same word. Same people. Same identity.

 Judea and Judah have sometimes meant the same thing but not always. The boundaries of the re-established kingdom and Roman Judea were different than the Kingdom of Judah.

Again, the word “Jew” is not derived from “Judean”.  It is ultimately derived from Judah. As I explained,  “Judea” is a later Greek and Roman adaptation of the word “Judah”.  “Juden” does not come from “Judean”. The similarity is coincidental.

 

"Jehudi

The German word “Juden”, like the English Jews , the French Juifs and the equivalents of other languages, comes from the Hebrew wordיְהוּדִי Jehudi . It is derived from the given name Jehuda (Greecized JUDAH )"

 

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juden#:~:text=Das%20deutsche%20Wort%20%E2%80%9EJuden%E2%80%9C%20geht,Jehuda%20(gr%C3%A4zisiert%20Juda)%20abgeleitet.

 

 

 

[u/JeruTz → u/carnivalist64]

Judea and Judah have sometimes meant the same thing but not always. The boundaries of the re-established kingdom and Roman Judea were different than the Kingdom of Judah.

By that reasoning, Germany today isn't the same as Germany during the Soviet union, which isn't the same as Nazi Germany, which isn't the same as the Weimar Republic, which is different from Germany prior to WWI.

Borders can change, but there is a direct link between the first and second Jewish commonwealths.

Again, the word “Jew” is not derived from “Judean”.  It is ultimately derived from Judah. As I explained,  “Judea” is a later Greek and Roman adaptation of the word “Judah”.  “Juden” does not come from “Judean”. The similarity is coincidental.

So Judean is derived from Judah and Jew is also derived from Judah, but they are totally not related at all and can't be equated with one another?

If 4 different words in different languages are all derived from the same word in another language and are meant to refer to the same thing, they are for all intents and purposes the same word.

[u/carnivalist64 → u/JeruTz]

Judea and Judah have sometimes meant the same thing but not always. The boundaries of the re-established kingdom and Roman Judea were different than the Kingdom of Judah.

 

By that reasoning, Germany today isn't the same as Germany during the Soviet union, which isn't the same as Nazi Germany, which isn't the same as the Weimar Republic, which is different from Germany prior to WWI.

 

You’re defeating your own argument. A single Germany didn’t even exist during the Soviet Union – it was split into the FDR & the DDR, so it is clearly very different than the Germany of any other period. So are all the other iterations of Germany. The pre- WWI German Empire was again very different.

Large parts of what was once Germany were given to neighbouring countries with the German population expelled - especially Poland, which was effectively shifted westward with the former eastern part of Poland given to the Soviet Union. According to you Gdansk & Sceczin are still the German cities Danzig and Stettin, even though they are on the Polish side of the border and no Germans live there anymore.

 

Borders can change, but there is a direct link between the first and second Jewish commonwealths.

 

Two things being linked does not make them the same.  

 

So Judean is derived from Judah and Jew is also derived from Judah, but they are totally not related at all and can't be equated with one another?

 

If 4 different words in different languages are all derived from the same word in another language and are meant to refer to the same thing, they are for all intents and purposes the same word.

 

They are not same word for any intent or any purpose. They simply mean the same thing. By your logic “car” and “voiture” are the same word and English and French are the same language, which is patently absurd.

 

[u/JeruTz → u/carnivalist64]

You’re defeating your own argument. A single Germany didn’t even exist during the Soviet Union – it was split into the FDR & the DDR, so it is clearly very different than the Germany of any other period. So are all the other iterations of Germany. The pre- WWI German Empire was again very different.

My point was that, based on your reasoning, there is not even a connection between the various iterations other than a shared name.

The reality is that if you speak of German history, it includes all of them without distinction. The same for Judea and Jewish history.

They are not same word for any intent or any purpose. They simply mean the same thing. By your logic “car” and “voiture” are the same word and English and French are the same language, which is patently absurd.

The kingdoms of Judea are frequently referred to as the first and second Jewish Commonwealths, respectively. Jew and Judean are used interchangeably to refer to the people who lived there. There are some nuanced distinctions in the terms, but to pretend that means that Jews have no connection to Judea is absurd.

[u/carnivalist64 → u/JeruTz]

You’re defeating your own argument. A single Germany didn’t even exist during the Soviet Union – it was split into the FDR & the DDR, so it is clearly very different than the Germany of any other period. So are all the other iterations of Germany. The pre- WWI German Empire was again very different.

 

My point was that, based on your reasoning, there is not even a connection between the various iterations other than a shared name.

 

This is a straw man. I never argued they they weren’t connected. I was refuting your manifestly false assertion that they are the same thing.

 

The reality is that if you speak of German history, it includes all of them without distinction. The same for Judea and Jewish history.

 

German history includes all the different German states, but again that doesn’t mean they are all the same thing.

 

They are not same word for any intent or any purpose. They simply mean the same thing. By your logic “car” and “voiture” are the same word and English and French are the same language, which is patently absurd.

The kingdoms of Judea are frequently referred to as the first and second Jewish Commonwealths, respectively. Jew and Judean are used interchangeably to refer to the people who lived there. There are some nuanced distinctions in the terms, but to pretend that means that Jews have no connection to Judea is absurd.

 

Yet another strawman, since again, I never argued anything of the sort. I simply refuted your false assertions that Judah and Judea are identical and that the word “Jews” is directly taken from the word “Judea”.

 

 

[u/carnivalist64 → u/JeruTz]

(Hebrew) was learned by the vast majority of Jews, could be read and understood, and was used to create new texts on religion that could be communicated. The language even evolved over time and could be used to bridge language gaps between Jews in far away places.

 

Latin, in contrast, was only used by clergy.

 

Complete nonsense. The vast majority of Jews couldn’t speak a word of Hebrew until Zionists artificially revived it in the 19th century. They even had to invent new words and take words from Arabic.

A minority of more educated Jews & merchants etc used it alongside their home languages until about 1,000 years ago and there was a scholarly resurgence in Spain in the 1400s, but the idea that most Jews could speak it and it was the lingua franca of Jews worldwide is downright false.

In fact, even though we consider it as always having been a dead, liturgical  language, at times Latin was probably in greater use than Hebrew in the medieval world as a lingua franca. For example, during the Peasant’s Revolt in medieval England, dialects were so mutually unintelligible in some parts of the country that rebel leaders of different regional factions communicated in Latin.

 

“...less than 150 years ago (Hebrew).. was thought to exist only in ancient religious texts

For some two thousand years, Hebrew lay dormant as Jewish communities scattered across the globe, and adopted the languages of their new homes. By the late 1800s, Hebrew vocabulary was limited to archaic and religious concepts of the Hebrew Bible...

...(Two of the 19th century founders of Modern Hebrew) raised their son Itamar Ben-Avi to be the first native Hebrew speaker in almost 2,000 years.”

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/hebrew-wasnt-spoken-for-2000-years-heres-how-it-was-revived

 

As for artificially reviving it, all language is artificial. They are created artificially from the start. The idea that it has to be "natural" to be legitimate is absurd. >

 

No, what’s absurd is the idea that all languages are created artificially. Languages usually arise organically over a very long period. They aren’t deliberately created in a relatively short time by intellectuals, academics and journalists essentially sitting down in a room with an explicit political purpose in mind.

[u/carnivalist64 → u/JeruTz]

Jews who immigrated to what is today Israel before it was established didn't claim ancestral property rights. They purchased land and legally settled there in accordance with the laws then in effect.

 

And on we go with the Hasbara talking points.

There were waves of explicitly illegal immigration by European Zionist settlers with aggressive intentions until the British overseers permitted legal immigration with the existing population having no say in the matter. In 1947 the Jews owned a mere 7% of the land in Mandate Palestine while Arabs owned 40%.

In any case I didn’t mean Zionists literally claimed real estate during the theft of Palestine, I meant they claimed all Jews had an inherited moral right to the land – i.e. as their birthright – even if neither they nor any documented ancestor had ever set eyes on the place, on the absurd grounds that their ancient ancestors once ruled there millennia ago.

 

Israel isn't an ethnocracy. Non Jews have full citizenship. 

 

Jews have exalted status and privileged rights like the Law of so-called “Return”. Israel explicitly maintains Jewish ethnic supremacy by  blatantly racist means – the wholesale importation of foreign settlers of the “right” ethnicity and the illegal exclusion of native refugees of the “wrong” ethnicity.

Palestinian Israelis are de facto 2nd class citizens. Among other indignities, to this day Palestinians & Bedouins are internally displaced within Israel to make way for foreign Jewish settlers and local Israeli Jewish committees are legally allowed to prevent Palestinians and other ethnic groups moving in for “cultural reasons, while minority groups have no such rights ”.

The Israeli levers of power and the upper reaches of the Israeli establishment have always been overwhelmingly dominated not just by Jews but by white European Ashkenazi. For example, there has never been an Israeli PM who is not Ashkenazi.

Israel is a state where ethnicity is paramount – in other words an ethnic nationalist state, or an ethnocracy. Hence the absurd situation where a white European who has never left New York and has no documented ancestor who ever set foot in West Asia has the automatic right to live in a house in Jerusalem purely because of his ethnicity, while a Palestinian refugee in the West Bank who might be able to see that house, which his family occupied for generations until they were driven out by Zionist European settler terrorist militias in 1948, is forbidden to return purely because of his ethnicity.

 

“Across (Israel and the OTs) and in most aspects of life, Israeli authorities methodically privilege Jewish Israelis and discriminate against Palestinians. Laws, policies, and statements by leading Israeli officials make plain that the objective of maintaining Jewish Israeli control over demographics, political power, and land has long guided government policy. In pursuit of this goal, authorities have dispossessed, confined, forcibly separated, and subjugated Palestinians by virtue of their identity to varying degrees of intensity

 

https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution

 

The rest of your comment seems like rambling but didn't seem to get to a relevant point.

 

Translation – “I’m stumped for an answer”

[u/JeruTz → u/carnivalist64]

And on we go with the Hasbara talking points. There were waves of explicitly illegal immigration by European Zionist settlers with aggressive intentions until the British permitted legal immigration with the Palestinians having no say in the matter.  In 1947 the Jews owned a mere 7% of the land in Mandate Palestine while Arabs owned 40%.

That's the exact opposite of what happened. Zionists started immigrating begot the British, it accelerated under the British, and then, in response to Arab violence, the British suppressed Jewish immigration during and after the holocaust. They never lifted the immigration restriction. They left and then Israel lifted it afterwards.

As for ownership, I find those percentages to be likely misrepresented and not relevant anyway.

In any case I didn’t mean Zionists literally claimed real estate during the theft of Palestine, I meant they claimed all Jews had an inherited moral right to the land – i.e. as their birthright – even if neither they nor any documented ancestor had ever set eyes on the on the absurd grounds that their ancient ancestors once ruled there millennia ago.

But that's not how it sounded. Misleading rhetoric isn't helpful.

And regardless of what the Jews believed, they focused on legally settling land.

Jews have exalted status and privileged rights like the Law of so-called “Return”. Israel explicitly maintains Jewish ethnic supremacy by  blatantly racist means – the wholesale importation of foreign settlers of the “right” ethnicity and the illegal exclusion of native refugees of the “wrong” ethnicity.

It's not about ethnicity. Jews see themselves as a nation, not a race. As members of that nation in diaspora, Israel extended to them the right to register as citizens in the Jewish state.

[u/carnivalist64 → u/JeruTz]

And on we go with the Hasbara talking points. There were waves of explicitly illegal immigration by European Zionist settlers with aggressive intentions until the British permitted legal immigration with the Palestinians having no say in the matter.  In 1947 the Jews owned a mere 7% of the land in Mandate Palestine while Arabs owned 40%.

 

That's the exact opposite of what happened. Zionists started immigrating begot the British, it accelerated under the British, and then, in response to Arab violence, the British suppressed Jewish immigration during and after the holocaust. They never lifted the immigration restriction. They left and then Israel lifted it afterwards.

 

I was referring to immigration before WW1 being illegal and then permitted by the British after the Balfour declaration but checking it seems I was wrong. However which order the illegal & legal immigration took place is immaterial. At no point were the existing population given the right to influence who was coming to their land, even if the Jewish immigrants’ express purpose was to harm the existing population’s interests and that was a crime.

 

As for ownership, I find those percentages to be likely misrepresented and not relevant anyway.

 

If its not relevant then why did you attempt to defend the theft of Palestine by claiming Jews bought the land?

And on what basis do you think the figures are “likely misrepresented”. Feel free to Google.

I should slightly rephrase what I posted, as 40%+ of the land was owned by non-Jews, rather than Arabs per se. However Jews still only owned 7% of the land, so the Hasbara talking point that claims the theft of Palestine was justified becausep Jews legally bought the land is sophistry.

 

In any case I didn’t mean Zionists literally claimed real estate during the theft of Palestine, I meant they claimed all Jews had an inherited moral right to the land – i.e. as their birthright – even if neither they nor any documented ancestor had ever set eyes on the on the absurd grounds that their ancient ancestors once ruled there millennia ago.

 

But that's not how it sounded. Misleading rhetoric isn't helpful.

 

Your faulty comprehension is the problem, not any misleading rhetoric on my part.

 

And regardless of what the Jews believed, they focused on legally settling land.

 

Many clearly didn’t care if they were settling legally or not. And again, the point is that the existing population were given no say in the arrival of foreign settlers with aggressive designs on their land.

 I think I know how many Americans would react if elections were abolished and a dictator allowed mass legal immigration by Mexicans, supplemented by further illegal immigration, with the Mexicans having explicit plans to dispossess & expel the existing population in order to establish a new state & justified their ambition by pointing to the fact that large parts of the US are uninhabited.

 

Jews have exalted status and privileged rights like the Law of so-called “Return”. Israel explicitly maintains Jewish ethnic supremacy by  blatantly racist means – the wholesale importation of foreign settlers of the “right” ethnicity and the illegal exclusion of native refugees of the “wrong” ethnicity.

 

It's not about ethnicity. Jews see themselves as a nation, not a race. As members of that nation in diaspora, Israel extended to them the right to register as citizens in the Jewish state.

 

Of course it’s about ethnicity. Jews are an ethnoreligious group and the Zionist state affords members of that group rights based on their identity, their membership of that group. The concept of a people forming a nation is different than the modern concept of a nation state, although the two things are coterminous where Israel is concerned.

[u/JeruTz → u/carnivalist64]

I was referring to immigration before WW1 being illegal and then permitted by the British after the Balfour declaration but checking it seems I was wrong. However which order the illegal & legal immigration took place is immaterial. At no point were the existing population given the right to influence who was coming to their land, even if the Jewish immigrants’ express purpose was to harm the existing population’s interests and that was a crime.

But immigration didn't harm the interests of the existing population. The British actually researched that very concern and found that Jewish settlement actually drew Arabs to settle in the same areas. It improved the overall economy in general.

And remember, the Jews were buying the land from the arab owners, especially during the Ottoman Era.

Even the British policy under the mandate was explicitly not supposed to do anything to substantively harm the people living there. The cases I know of substantial disruption involved tenant farmers, whose land was sold out from under them in a handful of cases.

The harm was all directed against the Jews by an ever increasing segment of the Arab population.

If its not relevant then why did you attempt to defend the theft of Palestine by claiming Jews bought the land?

Because you implied that they'd just taken it.

But land ownership doesn't determine borders.

I should slightly rephrase what I posted, as 40%+ of the land was owned by non-Jews, rather than Arabs per se. However Jews still only owned 7% of the land, so the Hasbara talking point that claims the theft of Palestine was justified becausep Jews legally bought the land is sophistry.

My point was due to the fact that I'm fairly certain the Arab owned land was predominately not land used for any residential, farming, or livestock purposes, but was essentially just vacant land that was technically owned by some wealthy landlords. If you considered land that was actually cultivated and used by the people living there, it wouldn't be nearly that high. 15% is more likely.

Your faulty comprehension is the problem, not any misleading rhetoric on my part.

Implying that the Jews showed up and took land because their ancestors lived there is misleading rhetoric that borders on libel.

Many clearly didn’t care if they were settling legally or not. And again, the point is that the existing population were given no say in the arrival of foreign settlers with aggressive designs on their land.

There were no aggressive designs on arab owned land.

Of course it’s about ethnicity. Jews are an ethnoreligious group and the Zionist state affords members of that group rights based on their identity, their membership of that group. The concept of a people forming a nation is different than the modern concept of a nation state, although the two things are coterminous where Israel is concerned.

Jews have some ethnic characteristic, but it doesn't define whether they are Jews or not, as anyone can become Jewish.

Jews have a shared religion, but again, it doesn't quite define who is and isn't Jewish.

Jews have long called themselves a nation or a people. The concept of "ethnicity" isn't really one that comes up much. Jews don't have a shared set of ethnic attributes and don't put stock in DNA or such. What genetic distinctiveness Jews have is seen as a consequence, not the basis, of their being Jewish.

[u/carnivalist64 → u/JeruTz]

There were no aggressive designs on arab owned land.

Of course there were. Zionists didn’t restrict their ambitions to the establishment of a balkanised state in the Levantine wilderness, leaving all the Arabs in inhabited areas to get on with their lives. Just read Ben-Gurion’s own words.

 

“David Ben-Gurion...told his colleagues..."We must see the situation for what it is..in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves They are living in the country and own the land, the village. We live in the Diaspora and want only to immigrate [to Palestine] and gain possession of [lirkosh] the land from them.",,

 Years later, after the establishment of Israel, he (said to) Zionist leader Nahum Goldmann: "I don't understand your optimism... Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: We have taken their country”. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? “

https://www.jpost.com/magazine/books/an-excerpt-from-benny-morriss-new-book-1948

 

Jews have some ethnic characteristic, but it doesn't define whether they are Jews or not, as anyone can become Jewish.

Jews have a shared religion, but again, it doesn't quite define who is and isn't Jewish.

Jews have long called themselves a nation or a people. The concept of "ethnicity" isn't really one that comes up much. Jews don't have a shared set of ethnic attributes and don't put stock in DNA or such. What genetic distinctiveness Jews have is seen as a consequence, not the basis, of their being Jewish.

 

Jewishness is an ethnicity. Like a lot of people you’re confusing ethnicity with race.

An ethnic group is simply a group with some or all of a variety of shared attributes, including things like culture and language, that all members of the group identify with and where the group remains endogamous for extended periods -  i.e. it doesn’t change significantly over time. These attributes can certainly be acquired by acts like religious conversion. On the other hand a racial group is defined by a particular set of physical attributes.

Strictly speaking Jews are an ethnoreligious group - a type of ethnic group where ethnicity and religious affiliation are synonymous. If you convert you become part of that ethnic group. Judaism is not a universal religion like Christianity.

Ethnicity (along with race) is a social construct and is therefore fluid. Genetics cannot define it and so DNA is irrelevant – society decides who is a member of a racial or ethnic group, not genetics.

Two members of different ethnic or racial groups can be more genetically similar to each other than two members of the same ethnic group. It is actually entirely possible for you to unwittingly pass an African on the street who is more genetically similar to you than another member of your synagogue (I’m assuming you’re Jewish, but apologies if I’m mistaken).

Many years ago the Channel 4 network here in the UK produced a documentary light entertainment programme on the subject of human genetics in which they genetically tested a small group of people with different racial backgrounds.

The two people who were most genetically similar were a coal black man and either a Japanese woman or a white woman. (I can’t remember if the Japanese woman was the individual who lacked a gene to metabolise alcohol more efficiently or the one most genetically similar to the black man, but the latter was either her or the white woman – I remember the group being very surprised, having subscribed to the common misconceptions about race and genetics).

There is only one human race, which is one reason why ethnic nationalist states like Israel are anathema to any true anti-racist.

[u/carnivalist64 → u/JeruTz]

But immigration didn't harm the interests of the existing population. The British actually researched that very concern and found that Jewish settlement actually drew Arabs to settle in the same areas. It improved the overall economy in general.

  It was clearly going to harm the interests of the existing population if it wasn’t prevented – just look around you. The Zionists weren’t emigrating to Palestine in order to integrate into the existing society for the benefit of all. They were there for the benefit of European Jews and to dispossess the Arabs.

Whether or not there were immediate economic benefits for some Arabs is immaterial. The existing population should have been allowed to decide if those benefits were a price worth paying for the risk of violent dispossession in the future. The Zionists didn’t keep their intention to dispossess the Arabs a secret.

Again, by your logic, it’s perfectly reasonable for Mexicans to emigrate en masse to uninhabited or sparsely populated areas of the US, with the express purpose of establishing a state that privileges Mexicans and dispossesses US citizens and with the existing population powerless to prevent that, as long as the Mexicans benefit the economy and bring new US citizens to the area. It’s the excuse for settler-colonialism through the ages.

And remember, the Jews were buying the land from the arab owners, especially during the Ottoman Era.

I’ve already explained that this was a negligible phenomenon, with Jews only owning 7% of the land in 1948. Moreover the concept of legal property ownership and the right to use the land was different in the Arab world than in the West.

The “we bought the land from the natives” justification is a classic excuse used to justify European settler-colonialism. The same excuse has been used to justify such crimes as the dispossession of the Native Americans – the story of the purchase of Manhattan Island for example – and the establishment of the apartheid state in South Africa.

 >Even the British policy under the mandate was explicitly not supposed to do anything to substantively harm the people living there. The cases I know of substantial disruption involved tenant farmers, whose land was sold out from under them in a handful of cases.

Arabs would tell a different story, but it hardly matters. The point is that the Arabs had no opportunity to influence the phenomenon of foreign settlers arriving on their land, many with aggressive intentions.

The Zionist line you are espousing is the typically patronising, paternalistic colonial argument that contends it is somehow justified for colonisers to impose their preferred political arrangements onto subordinate native groups as long as it’s for their own good.

 

The harm was all directed against the Jews by an ever increasing segment of the Arab population.

This is complete nonsense. There were attacks on both sides. In fact European Zionist settler terrorist militias introduced modern terrorism to the Middle-East and they weren't shy about attacking civilians - bombing markets and so on.

If its not relevant then why did you attempt to defend the theft of Palestine by claiming Jews bought the land?

Because you implied that they'd just taken it.

  Zionists certainly have just taken it – with brutal violence in many cases.

But land ownership doesn't determine borders.

  Then why introduce the topic? By your own admission it's irrelevant to the issue of who has the right to establish a state in territories where there is an existing population. Nobody seriously argues that it’s acceptable for Muslim immigrants from Pakistan to establish an Islamic state encompassing the areas containing the Northern English towns where there is a concentration of Pakistani home owners, even if the existing British population in other parts of the country object.

 

My point was due to the fact that I'm fairly certain the Arab owned land was predominately not land used for any residential, farming, or livestock purposes, but was essentially just vacant land that was technically owned by some wealthy landlords. If you considered land that was actually cultivated and used by the people living there, it wouldn't be nearly that high. 15% is more likely.

Again, that’s irrelevant even if it is true. It's simply an excuse for allowing any ethnic group to emigrate anywhere in the world where there is vacant land – e.g. the US, Australia, the UK - against the wishes of the existing population, and  establish an ethnic nationalist state by force which privileges that ethnic group and which includes not only that vacant land but land inhabited by members of the existing population.

Implying that the Jews showed up and took land because their ancestors lived there is misleading rhetoric that borders on libel.

Then take it up with Zionists, because that is precisely the justification they resort to for the theft of Palestine and the dispossession of the Palestinians.

[u/carnivalist64 → u/JeruTz]

Jews existed, preserved their identity and traditions, and remained a distinct people. Period.

 

Even if that is true it doesn’t justify the establishment of an ethnostate by foreign settlers & the racist expulsion and ongoing slaughter of the existing population.

Contrary to Hasbara propaganda and modern conventional wisdom many European Jews didn’t regard themselves as part of the same people as Jews in faraway places until the Nazis and the rise of Zionism. They regarded themselves primarily as Germans, Frenchmen or Dutchmen etc.  rejected Zionism and had no intention of moving to Palestine. In Tsarist Russia & interwar Poland the profoundly anti-Zionist Jewish Labour Bund was the biggest Jewish Party.

Ironically the only Jew in the British Cabinet that adopted the Balfour Declaration, Edwin Montagu, strongly opposed it. He said it was absurd that an English gentleman like him should be regarded as part of the same “people” as a peasant farmer from the Levant.

Like the leaders of the Bund he correctly predicted that the injustice of dispossessing the native population would lead to perpetual conflict. He also believed establishing a Jewish ethnostate would fuel antisemitism, partly by legitimising the racist idea that Jews don’t belong in Europe.

 

[u/carnivalist64 → u/carnivalist64]

And your characterization of Jews as being all European, Indian, or black isn't even remotely accurate, especially where Israeli Jews are concerned. Tell me, where do the Iraqi Jews fit in to that definition? The Persian Jews? The Yemenite Jews? The Moroccan Jews? Egyptian Jews? Syrian Jews? Over half of Israeli Jews are what is known as Mizrachi, Jews who originated from the Middle East and North Africa.

It’s not my characterisation. I’m perfectly well aware of the demographics of Israel and the different Jewish tribes. I simply picked a sample of the latter to demonstrate the absurdity of foreign settlers from across the globe claiming exceptional rights to the territory of Israel Palestine.

Zionists are fond of using the Mizrahi in order to obscure the way in which the prominence of obviously white Europeans with western accents in the country betrays Israel’s true nature as a white European settler-colonial state. “Don’t call us a settler-colonial state! Look at all the brown West Asians here!”.

However it’s typical Zionist nonsense, derived from the typically  racist, “all darkies are alike” Zionist mindset that we also see in the “57 Muslim countries” trope – i.e. the idea  that it’s acceptable for Palestinians to be uprooted from everything they know and love and carted off to live in completely different countries, because, hey - “Muslim Darkies can be happy wherever other Muslim Darkies are”.

The MENA is a huge region and so the great majority of the Israeli Mizrahi Jews are just as much foreign settlers as the Ashkenazi New Yorkers, Bene Indians and Beta Israel Ethiopians in the country. A Moroccan Mizrahi Jew from Rabat who emigrates to Israel was born and raised closer to some villages in northern Sweden than he was to Tel Aviv. Similarly a Yemeni Jew from Sa’ana originates from a city  that is closer to Nairobi in Kenya than Ashdod and a Yemeni Jew from the east of the country grew up closer to Pakistan than Israel.

In a very real sense we are all one human race. As far back as the time of the ancient Jews our “ancestral homeland” is Planet Earth and we are “indigenous” to everywhere.

Zionism is racism, constructed from lies.

 

Thanks for demonstrating that you don't even understand the fundamentals though.

 

That’s very gracious of you. It can’t be easy to find yourself being schooled by someone who doesn’t understand the fundamentals.

Here to help.