Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not so. Immigration means that you would share sovereignty with the existing population.Nice duck.Define immigration.
Define settler colonialism.
Right. This is where I thought you were heading with this.
The difference is self-determination and sovereignty. So, let's go back to what I said:
Restart the entire conflict with this thought in mind: The Jewish people have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT to be here as the Arab people do, if not more. The Jewish people are the indigenous people whose land has been stolen from them. It is their ancestral and historical home. Their sovereignty over their ancestral lands must be reconstituted and their Nation restored.
Its not enough for the Jewish people to be 'permitted' to live in the territory. The requirement is for sovereignty.
Come on. How is that a duck? You would phrase it as:
Immigration is moving with the intention of assimilating into a place. Settler colonialism is taking over the place.
But, at its essence, the difference is self-determination and sovereignty.
You are saying that Jews should be permitted to be present but must not have self-determination or sovereignty.
Nobody has the right to exclusive sovereignty.
Settler colonialism is claiming exclusive sovereignty.
Originally posted by Shusha
No, I'm not confusing the issue. This IS the issue.
Do people have the rights to self-determination and sovereignty over territory or do they not?
Do the Serbs have this right or not?
For the most part you're a good, serious debater....
But you also like to play dumb and confuse the issues.
Right now, you're trying to create a false, pathetic equivalence between a genuine independence movement of the native peoples of Catalonia, Tibet, Kurdistan and a colonialist, ethnocratic movement where:
1 An european power occupied militarily a region in the Middle East, taking away by the force of arms the right of the native inhabitants to maintain their society and ethnic composition.
2 A colonialist movement created by europeans of jewish faith that, between 1880 and well into the 20th century, was supported by a TINY minority of the people/religious group they claimed to represent, was allowed by the invading european power to create a TOTALLY SEPARATED society from the existing native society (one of the defining traits of a colony).
3 After the war against the European Power that acted as a typical "metropolis" of the classic cases of colonialism in the Americas, protecting the colonization of the region for 30 years, the colonists drove the native inhabitants into ethnic enclaves where they are kept to this day under the threat of death.
(COMMENT)1 An european power occupied militarily a region in the Middle East, taking away by the force of arms the right of the native inhabitants to maintain their society and ethnic composition.
(COMMENT)2 A colonialist movement created by europeans of jewish faith that, between 1880 and well into the 20th century, was supported by a TINY minority of the people/religious group they claimed to represent, was allowed by the invading european power to create a TOTALLY SEPARATED society from the existing native society (one of the defining traits of a colony).
(COMMENT)3 After the war against the European Power that acted as a typical "metropolis" of the classic cases of colonialism in the Americas, protecting the colonization of the region for 30 years, the colonists drove the native inhabitants into ethnic enclaves where they are kept to this day under the threat of death.
Originally posted by Shusha
No, I'm not confusing the issue. This IS the issue.
Do people have the rights to self-determination and sovereignty over territory or do they not?
Do the Serbs have this right or not?
For the most part you're a good, serious debater....
But you also like to play dumb and confuse the issues.
Right now, you're trying to create a false, pathetic equivalence between a genuine independence movement of the native peoples of Catalonia, Tibet, Kurdistan and a colonialist, ethnocratic movement where:
1 An european power occupied militarily a region in the Middle East, taking away by the force of arms the right of the native inhabitants to maintain their society and ethnic composition.
2 A colonialist movement created by europeans of jewish faith that, between 1880 and well into the 20th century, was supported by a TINY minority of the people/religious group they claimed to represent, was allowed by the invading european power to create a TOTALLY SEPARATED society from the existing native society (one of the defining traits of a colony).
3 After the war against the European Power that acted as a typical "metropolis" of the classic cases of colonialism in the Americas, protecting the colonization of the region for 30 years, the colonists drove the native inhabitants into ethnic enclaves where they are kept to this day under the threat of death.
For the most part you're a good, serious debater....
But you also like to play dumb and confuse the issues.
Right now, you're trying to create a false, pathetic equivalence between a genuine independence movement of the native peoples of Catalonia, Tibet, Kurdistan and a colonialist, ethnocratic movement ...
Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.
Why are you trying to confuse the issue?You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.
Why are you trying to confuse the issue?
There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.
Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.
Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.
The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.
You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.
The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.
It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc
So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.
Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.
And you cannot see where the issue is.
You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.
The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.
Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.
And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.
Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.
Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.
You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.
... maintain their society and ethnic composition ...
... TOTALLY SEPARATED society ...
... ethnic enclaves ...
NO! OK? You are reading what Shusha claims I say. She does this to repeat her nonstop argument. She does this on multiple threads. This is known as creating a straw man. It is the cause of all these same circular debates on nearly every thread. As a mod, you should already know this. And if "the 3 strike rule" was actually implemented, we could probably have some decent discussion and actually find out what points all sides agree on, which I believe to be many.You have an area that contains holy sites importent to three closely intertwined world religions. The same archaeologists that dispute which is the right wall don't dispute the evidence of Jewish history in that place and it sounds like you are. Are you?
A) If they are wailing at the wrong wall, they are wailing at the wrong wall, period. B) They are running around with guns after removing them from all Christians and Muslims. The incitement that this causes along with Israel's ability to close the area off to anyone they choose and whenever they choose is probably difficult for any of us to understand. So, no, the whole Mount situation needs to be seriously rethought.Places like these must be preserved and acess by all relevent faiths protected. I do think Israel has done a decent job there. Can you grant them that?
DCI-P Claims
“International law is clear: children should only be detained as a last resort, for the shortest appropriate period of time, and under absolutely no circumstances should they be subjected to torture or ill-treatment,” said Khaled Quzmar, DCIP general director. “And yet, year after year, we see Palestinian children experiencing widespread ill-treatment and the systematic denial of their due process rights by Israeli forces and the military law framework.”
NGO Monitor Analysis
Israel does not question that children should only be detained as a last resort and, like adults, should never be the subject of torture or ill treatment. At the same time, individuals committing violent crimes, including assault and murder, are not immune from accountability simply because they are minors.
In order to ensure that fundamental rights are granted to all suspects, including Palestinian minors, Israel operates multi-faceted law enforcement systems both within its recognized boundaries and in the areas controlled by the Israeli Military pursuant to the mutually agreed to and internationally guaranteed Oslo Accords. These systems provide comprehensive rights for all those who violate the law.
(full article online)
No Way to Represent a Child: Defense for Children International Palestine’s Distortions of the Israeli Justice System
Self-determination stops where war criminality and crimes against humanity begins. You don't seem to understand that even though every sane person on earth does.And so then I say, the Jewish people have the right to self-determination. And suddenly, team Palestine is all, "whoa, whoa, whoa. No they don't."
Self-determination stops where war criminality and crimes against humanity begins. You don't seem to understand that even though every sane person on earth does.And so then I say, the Jewish people have the right to self-determination. And suddenly, team Palestine is all, "whoa, whoa, whoa. No they don't."
Self-determination stops where war criminality and crimes against humanity begins. You don't seem to understand that even though every sane person on earth does.
A) If they are wailing at the wrong wall, they are wailing at the wrong wall, period. B) They are running around with guns after removing them from all Christians and Muslims. The incitement that this causes along with Israel's ability to close the area off to anyone they choose and whenever they choose is probably difficult for any of us to understand. So, no, the whole Mount situation needs to be seriously rethought.
How would you change it?NO! OK? You are reading what Shusha claims I say. She does this to repeat her nonstop argument. She does this on multiple threads. This is known as creating a straw man. It is the cause of all these same circular debates on nearly every thread. As a mod, you should already know this. And if "the 3 strike rule" was actually implemented, we could probably have some decent discussion and actually find out what points all sides agree on, which I believe to be many.You have an area that contains holy sites importent to three closely intertwined world religions. The same archaeologists that dispute which is the right wall don't dispute the evidence of Jewish history in that place and it sounds like you are. Are you?
A) If they are wailing at the wrong wall, they are wailing at the wrong wall, period. B) They are running around with guns after removing them from all Christians and Muslims. The incitement that this causes along with Israel's ability to close the area off to anyone they choose and whenever they choose is probably difficult for any of us to understand. So, no, the whole Mount situation needs to be seriously rethought.Places like these must be preserved and acess by all relevent faiths protected. I do think Israel has done a decent job there. Can you grant them that?
How would you change it?NO! OK? You are reading what Shusha claims I say. She does this to repeat her nonstop argument. She does this on multiple threads. This is known as creating a straw man. It is the cause of all these same circular debates on nearly every thread. As a mod, you should already know this. And if "the 3 strike rule" was actually implemented, we could probably have some decent discussion and actually find out what points all sides agree on, which I believe to be many.You have an area that contains holy sites importent to three closely intertwined world religions. The same archaeologists that dispute which is the right wall don't dispute the evidence of Jewish history in that place and it sounds like you are. Are you?
A) If they are wailing at the wrong wall, they are wailing at the wrong wall, period. B) They are running around with guns after removing them from all Christians and Muslims. The incitement that this causes along with Israel's ability to close the area off to anyone they choose and whenever they choose is probably difficult for any of us to understand. So, no, the whole Mount situation needs to be seriously rethought.Places like these must be preserved and acess by all relevent faiths protected. I do think Israel has done a decent job there. Can you grant them that?
How many European countried are there?Self-determination stops where war criminality and crimes against humanity begins. You don't seem to understand that even though every sane person on earth does.And so then I say, the Jewish people have the right to self-determination. And suddenly, team Palestine is all, "whoa, whoa, whoa. No they don't."
22 Arab countries, 57 Islamic countries are inadequate self-determination
How would you change it?NO! OK? You are reading what Shusha claims I say. She does this to repeat her nonstop argument. She does this on multiple threads. This is known as creating a straw man. It is the cause of all these same circular debates on nearly every thread. As a mod, you should already know this. And if "the 3 strike rule" was actually implemented, we could probably have some decent discussion and actually find out what points all sides agree on, which I believe to be many.You have an area that contains holy sites importent to three closely intertwined world religions. The same archaeologists that dispute which is the right wall don't dispute the evidence of Jewish history in that place and it sounds like you are. Are you?
A) If they are wailing at the wrong wall, they are wailing at the wrong wall, period. B) They are running around with guns after removing them from all Christians and Muslims. The incitement that this causes along with Israel's ability to close the area off to anyone they choose and whenever they choose is probably difficult for any of us to understand. So, no, the whole Mount situation needs to be seriously rethought.Places like these must be preserved and acess by all relevent faiths protected. I do think Israel has done a decent job there. Can you grant them that?
Reality Check: Jerusalem has zero legitimate religious sanctity in Islam. It’s not even mentioned in the Koran Not even once
It does not have to be mentioned in the Koran to have legitimacy.How would you change it?NO! OK? You are reading what Shusha claims I say. She does this to repeat her nonstop argument. She does this on multiple threads. This is known as creating a straw man. It is the cause of all these same circular debates on nearly every thread. As a mod, you should already know this. And if "the 3 strike rule" was actually implemented, we could probably have some decent discussion and actually find out what points all sides agree on, which I believe to be many.You have an area that contains holy sites importent to three closely intertwined world religions. The same archaeologists that dispute which is the right wall don't dispute the evidence of Jewish history in that place and it sounds like you are. Are you?
A) If they are wailing at the wrong wall, they are wailing at the wrong wall, period. B) They are running around with guns after removing them from all Christians and Muslims. The incitement that this causes along with Israel's ability to close the area off to anyone they choose and whenever they choose is probably difficult for any of us to understand. So, no, the whole Mount situation needs to be seriously rethought.Places like these must be preserved and acess by all relevent faiths protected. I do think Israel has done a decent job there. Can you grant them that?
Reality Check: Jerusalem has zero legitimate religious sanctity in Islam. It’s not even mentioned in the Koran Not even once
Jerusalem is the Jewish National Capital since antiquity
It does not have to be mentioned in the Koran to have legitimacy.How would you change it?NO! OK? You are reading what Shusha claims I say. She does this to repeat her nonstop argument. She does this on multiple threads. This is known as creating a straw man. It is the cause of all these same circular debates on nearly every thread. As a mod, you should already know this. And if "the 3 strike rule" was actually implemented, we could probably have some decent discussion and actually find out what points all sides agree on, which I believe to be many.You have an area that contains holy sites importent to three closely intertwined world religions. The same archaeologists that dispute which is the right wall don't dispute the evidence of Jewish history in that place and it sounds like you are. Are you?
A) If they are wailing at the wrong wall, they are wailing at the wrong wall, period. B) They are running around with guns after removing them from all Christians and Muslims. The incitement that this causes along with Israel's ability to close the area off to anyone they choose and whenever they choose is probably difficult for any of us to understand. So, no, the whole Mount situation needs to be seriously rethought.Places like these must be preserved and acess by all relevent faiths protected. I do think Israel has done a decent job there. Can you grant them that?
Reality Check: Jerusalem has zero legitimate religious sanctity in Islam. It’s not even mentioned in the Koran Not even once
Jerusalem is the Jewish National Capital since antiquity
