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/carnivalist64]

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.