Anonymous #3 14w

The point really went over your big head huh?

34

Anonymous #4 14w

Points aren’t good points when you use words that don’t mean what they do

-11

Anonymous #3 14w

My brother in Christ, you know what is meant. Don’t be this way.

26

Anonymous #5 14w

Not as blown as yours when I visit

35

Anonymous OP 14w

Words have meaning. I won’t apologize for holding people to the very low standard of not just saying what they mean, but meaning what they say

-6

Anonymous #3 14w

I see that you have a standard but you are also intelligent enough to understand what is meant and convey the message as what is meant rather that the detailed technical meaning

22

The founder of revisionist Zionism, Ze’ev Jhabotinsky, disagrees with you

28

Anonymous #3 14w

Jewish is a religious identity not a race

5

Anonymous #10 14w

Correct, not a race. But it’s also not just a religion according to Judaism.

3

Anonymous #3 14w

And homosexuality is wrong according to Christianity. I don’t care what a religion says, Jewish is not a race no matter how much the Israeli government treats it as such

4

Anonymous #10 14w

Who defines what Judaism is, you or Judaism?

6

Anonymous #3 14w

Judaism is a religious identity, I’m talking about the insistence that Jewish is a racial identity despite the diaspora essentially decimating direct Jewish decent. Some guy from Yonkers does not have a genealogical claim to Palestinian territory

-5

Anonymous #10 14w

The diaspora has not decimated direct Jewish descent tho, and now you want to pick and choose instances where your argument applies? You feel the same way about a 3rd generation Palestinian born in Lebanon whose parents were also born in Lebanon? Palestinian isn’t a race after all

3

Anonymous #1 14w

You’re conflating expansionism with national self-determination. Manifest Destiny maps better to Greater Israel. Zionism is closer to Texans (former Mexicans + US residents) after independence defending an existing society while the borders remained contested (by Mexicans that became “foreign”).

41

Anonymous #11 14w

Then again that analogy might only make sense to people forced to learn the history of Texas 🤘

17

Anonymous #3 14w

Has it ever occurred to you to that if there was such thing as a Jewish race that the Israeli government WOULDN’T ban dna testing

3

Anonymous #10 14w

Like I said, no one argues it’s a race. Ethnicity maybe, but not a race. And there’s absolutely zero correlation. I guess we better start accusing Germany, France, Switzerland, Austria, and Portugal too since they have judicial restrictions on commercial DNA tests?

3

Anonymous #10 14w

Im not sure that supports your premise. You could easily come up with a story to ban genetic testing if there was genetic identifiers of Jewishness if there are different groups within it (say not one market but 2-3). This also could be explained if Palestinians share one of those markers.

1

Anonymous #8 14w

Judaism already has a built in system for who is Jewish. It only requires one parent to be Jewish. You can have 50% Jewish DNA and still not be Jewish. Native American tribes also had outsiders join their tribe and be considered 100% one of them despite what DNA says. Would you take upon yourself the liberty to tell them no, they’re not actually part of the tribe?

4

Anonymous #11 14w

The zionist movement was developed around the active settlement of Jews in Palestine. I think it’s most similar to the settlement of Mormons in Utah. The Mormons were settling in a religious promised land (which they said was a New Zion) to escape religious persecution in the eastern United States.

10

Anonymous #1 14w

Texas was a political secession from Mexico (one of several at the time) focused primarily on legal disputes with the Mexican central government and on the desires of Anglo-Texans to have slavery. That is very different from the “utopian haven from religious and ethnic persecution” that motivated Israel’s creation. The puritans or Quakers could also be considered somewhat similar.

4

Anonymous #1 14w

The revolt of Texas was actively participated in by both Anglos and Tejanos. It was not something conducted on a solely Anglo ethnic basis like the creation of Israel.

2

Anonymous #3 14w

I mean tbh that’s what the modern system of blood quanta in many tribal governments does which sucks but that’s like a massive rabbit hole of the problem of tribal politics and membership lol.

3

Anonymous #8 14w

They have actually done genetic studies on Jewish and Palestinian populations. Because of the propensity for genetic disorders within Jewish populations, they are an extremely well understood demographic genetically. The genetics show that most Jewish populations are of Levantine descent, with varying degrees of admixture from the populations in their host countries. The Palestinians are closely related, with some genetic admixture from peninsular Arabs and Egyptians.

6

Anonymous #1 14w

Certain Jewish populations (like Beta Israel from Ethiopia) do not show evidence of descent from ancient Israelites. But the Israeli government based Aliyah eligibility on Jewish religious identity or recent ancestry to religious Jews, not on genetics.

4

Anonymous #1 14w

There were members of the original Zionist movement who themselves were not ancestrally Jewish. The Subbotniks were Russian Christians who adopted Jewish religious practices, and many immigrated to Palestine in the very first waves of Jewish settlement. There was a time where the Israeli government, decades later, attempted to deny their eligibility for Aliyah. But this was overturned.

6

Anonymous #1 14w

Revisionist Zionism is an expansionist basically fascist version of Zionism that does not represent Zionism as a whole. It’s like trying to say Kahanism is equivalent to Zionism. Using extremists to counter is not effective and is similar to a straw man

7

Anonymous #13 14w

Revisionist Zionism and labor Zionism were the primary competing ideologies prior to the founding of Israel. Plus I think revisionist Zionism is pretty damn relevant given it’s what the current Israeli government follows. And Jhabotinsky turned out to be right while his Labor rivals were wrong. The Arabs did not just roll over and allow for Israel to be founded without resisting.

3

Anonymous #15 14w

I don’t believe in ethnostates. If a state is declared to be for a single ethnicity then those not of that ethnicity will be marginalized.

11

Anonymous #1 14w

It doesn’t matter if you believe in them or not but using Zionism as a form of antisemitism is straight up wrong

9

Anonymous #15 14w

Israelis that live in that Occupied Palestine are aware that is wrong because according to the Talmud, Ketubot 111a commands that Jews should not mass-return to the land by force, rebel against the nations, or hasten the end times. Therefore they go against their own laws and faith to mass occupy, genocide, ethnically cleanse Palestinians off their own land. So no, you can either be a genocidal Zionist freak and steal land or be a diasporic Jew who believes in a free Palestine.

0

Anonymous #15 14w

Yes, I do not think that random Jews should be blamed for Zionism, and people doing that is largely what caused the expulsion of the Mizrahim, much suffering, and the resulting radicalization of Israeli society.

0

Anonymous #14 14w

Sure I do

1

Anonymous #3 14w

True! I wouldn’t but you know there would be some that would. Heck look at how absurd Mormons are with genealogy. I’m just saying that when your point can be used to support both sides of an issue it’s not supporting nor disproving anything.

1

Anonymous #1 14w

I see the parallel to the Mormon in Utah more than American Expansionism too. The majority of Israel being middle eastern/African groups (“eastern” Jews, Kurds, Druze, Ethiopian, etc) makes it hard to call it solely Anglo (whether we even consider any Jews “Anglo” is a whole other can of worms)

15

Anonymous #12 14w

A large portion was empty. Migratory tribes and groups make land empty for a time. Disease also helps makes lands empty

9

Anonymous evil_sheep 14w

The population rivaled that of Europe before the settlers arrived so it was definitely not any more empty than Montana is empty now. And deaths do no make lands empty. By that argument, anyone could claim Europe after the Black Death

2

Anonymous #12 14w

I mean they kinda did. The principalities in Russia faced massive population migrations and invasions following from the South, East and west. Wars by kingdoms trying to invade Europe did happen although they tended to get sick by the disease and weaken. Scotland invaded England when they were struck with the plague. But all that accomplished was spreading the plague back into Scotland. Due to all the deaths of nobles smaller lords and merchants were able to get land(with the king’s permission)

4

Anonymous #12 14w

That’s also to ignore all the other places suffering from the plague

1

Anonymous evil_sheep 14w

You’re proving my point by calling them invasions

-3

Anonymous #12 14w

I mean that’s just large scale actions. Pleanty of towns and villages were abandoned or died out completely it wasn’t that uncommon to stake a claim. The problem is more serfdom and the requirement of people to stay to their land but the plague allowed people to leave and create new lives in these areas taking homes, lands, etc from the dead

5

Anonymous evil_sheep 14w

It wasn’t uncommon for invaders to stake a claim… it WAS uncommon for invaders to be given official ownership

1

Anonymous #12 14w

I mean as long as you paid taxes to the lord you were often left alone. It’s the predecessor of modern day squatters rights which still exist

7

Anonymous evil_sheep 14w

That’s bs… land reverted to lords if everyone died. It wasn’t just given to invaders. The closest parallel to America is actually (and ironically) Jews being dispossessed of lands rightfully theirs during the turmoil. Of course, no one thinks that was just unoccupied land being taken like they do for native Americans.

1

Anonymous #4 14w

You know the Talmud is not the same as the Torah right? The Talmud is a collection of writings from rabbis talking about different things, it’s not considered a holy book. It’s kinda of like saying that we can’t do something because Reddit told us not to

9

Anonymous #18 14w

Isn’t that what the Bible is too?

-2

Anonymous #12 14w

The Bible says that it’s the word of god the same way the Torah does. The Talmud differs because it never claims to be the word of god, it’s quite literally rabbis debating Jewish law over millennia

6

Anonymous #12 14w

Again a lot of people died including the lords. Also land is vast and you may not own it in name but you are basically left to your own devices as if you did. Land becomes uninhabitable and you can stake a claim even a lordship depending on your money and rank it’s not a great parallel because nobody in the history of the world had basically 2 continents up for grabs. Where whoever can enforce their control over an area can have it.

1

Anonymous evil_sheep 14w

Again, that’s not how any of this worked. Almost all of Europe has some sort of land tenure system. When people died tenure reverted up the chain. Invaders were just that, invaders. They could make a deal with the tenure holder but it was never “land is empty so whoever can take it “

1

Anonymous #12 14w

But areas of Europe were depopulated by the Black Death. Verona lost nearly 60% of its people. I am not sure what “the population rivaled Europe before ‘settlers’ arrived. Are we talking population density? Sheer numbers? Which settlers? The Jews from other nearby lands? The Muslims that followed them? Only the Ashkenazi Jewish population?

3

Anonymous #12 14w

Mostly because most of it was already settled. The only real empty places were in Russia where one could easily move to one of the Khanate and settle due to the vastness of the land/uncentral gov. Like the Cossacks or the Rus. A lot of natives didn’t have land systems like that in Europe meaning no chain of ownership or in most cases a system of ownership. So when a tribe is wiped out due to smallpox the land has no claim on it and this happened often with 96% of natives dying due to disease

0

Anonymous evil_sheep 14w

lol, it’s obvious how flimsy your argument is when you’ve gone from arguing Scots were taking lands by going under borders to it only happened in Russian outlands, hahahaha

0

Anonymous #12 14w

You kinda kept moving goal posts so I just moved with you

4

Anonymous evil_sheep 14w

Hahahahahaha… haven’t seen that excuse before. I didn’t move the goal posts at all. You however, had to go all the way to Russia.

0

Anonymous #12 14w

I also talked about Russia when I talked about Scotland.

0

Anonymous evil_sheep 14w

You said the principalities of Russia. The main ones, as far as we know, saw nothing remotely similar to what the colonizers did to the native Americans. The khanates were sparsely and vast and we have even less of an idea of what happened there.

1

Anonymous #12 14w

Like I said I put in the same comment I did Scotland. You said Europe and yet are surprised I did a European nation?

0

Anonymous evil_sheep 14w

Again, you said the principalities. Which are not the same thing as the khanates, which were basically mongol territory.

1

Anonymous #12 14w

What do you think the Principalities bordered? The consolidation of the Russian Principalities following the fall of the mongol empire and the rise of the Khanates. One of the largest being the Crimean Khanate which had a border with the Principality of Moscow. You don’t know what you are talking about bud

0

Anonymous evil_sheep 14w

Ok, how is that relevant to the situation in America? lol

1

Anonymous #12 14w

Land empty people move on to empty land says it’s there’s. Government comes and says you’re part of us. People either stay or move further away quite similar to American settlement on the frontier where native populations decimated by disease were few meaning more empty land to take. I’m tired of this back and forth and i want to go to bed

0

Anonymous evil_sheep 14w

lol…. we have no records of what happened in the khanates. If you know that stuff, you should publish it. Historians would be thankful. The European history we do know has not remotely similar to what happened to native Americans, not one example.

1

Anonymous #12 14w

Ok buddy

0

Anonymous evil_sheep 14w

Hahahahahahaha… should have just given up when you realized you didn’t have a leg to stand on. Weird what lengths people will go to do defend colonization

1

More like drawing parallels. But that might go over your head

7

Anonymous #8 14w

We’re talking about native Americans. And Verona is a perfect analog. Even though it got depopulated by disease, no foreign settlers were aggressively taking over the land claiming it was empty and pushing the remaining people out so the population recovered. Israel was obviously even worse because there wasn’t even any disease, then forcibly made the land “empty” for settlers.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Still wrong

8

Anonymous #18 14w

This was the opinion of the Satmar rebbe but it’s not mainstream for most Jewish sects. Mainly because it has more with rebuilding the temple than Jews moving back to Israel. Even the opinion of the Satmar Rebbe doesnt object to a jews making Aliyah.

4

Sybau

5

Anonymous #11 14w

But the Jews are the dominant ethnic group. I think there is a bit of an argument as to the Druze being analogous to the Tejanos, but Israel’s founding war was heavily dependent on large-scale ethnic violence against Arabs, something Texas never did against Mexicans.

4

Nobody wants to conquer you. We just want the trash taken out before it rots and attracts bugs.

5

Cook

0

Anonymous #23 14w

Ah, yes, we were so generous when we gave them forced dependence on a government that routinely overlooks, abuses, and disenfranchises them, constantly freezes any funding, has unnecessary and targeted legal barriers, and continues to encroach on ancestral and spiritual land— in short, the genocide of Indigenous Americans never stopped, it just changed form.

1

Anonymous #21 14w

I don’t think the Israelis are gonna let the Palestinians get rich off of owning casinos in the future

0

Anonymous #23 14w

Ah, yes, because a handful of casinos make up for literal genocide. Are you fucking thick?

0

Anonymous #21 14w

“Literal genocide” Ah yes that evil bacteria

0

Anonymous #23 14w

Feel so bad for the human sacrificers btw

0

Anonymous #23 14w

You’re fucking stupid. SYSBAU and leave the fucking planet for the celestial trashcan you belong in. Fucking disgusting piece of shit.

4

Anonymous #1 14w

The analogy is about the structure and motivation of the conflict, not a perfect ethnic one-to-one. Manifest Destiny was territorial expansion; Zionism was a national self-determination movement. Texas ~ Israel; Mexico ~ the invading Arab states; Anglo immigrants ~ newer jewish immigrants; and pro-independence Tejanos ~ the alliance of locally rooted groups that supported Israel, including established Jews, Druze and some Bedouin and Arab communities. Other Tejanos remained loyal to Mexico, similar to the Arab groups that became the Palestinians opposed the new state. Tejanos (on both sides) were later intimidated, marginalized, displaced and dispossessed. Had those who fled been denied integration in Mexico, kept as hereditary refugees, and told their only solution was reconquering Texas, they would be like the Palestinians #FreeTexas

6

Anonymous #11 14w

Zionism was a settler colonial movement intended to obtain ethnic and religious safety and autonomy for the settler group, like Liberia, Massachusetts Bay, or Deseret

3

Anonymous #1 14w

I agree that obtaining safety and autonomy was a core part of Zionism, like it was for Texans (not Expansionists). Texas had both longtime residents and newcomers on the independence side, just as Israel did. It wasn't based on removing every member of the other ethnic group. Many Tejanos stayed in Texas, like many Arabs stayed in Israel and became citizens (~20% of the country today). The Palestinian crisis isn't an inevitable consequence of Zionism itself. It is the consequence of selfish and apathetic leadership on both the Israeli and Arab sides that repeatedly chose, and continue to choose, politics over a durable solution.

5

Anonymous #11 14w

Nope, it’s the colonial violence at the core of zionism that lead to this. Cosplaying as a Jewish movement was just the perfect cover story for free rein to do everything with absolute impunity. zionism MUST be abolished. Land back.

1

Anonymous #25 13w

Ok

3

Anonymous #10 13w

it’s a race

3

Anonymous #27 13w

School?

1

Anonymous #28 13w

I mean some are, mainly the Mizrahim and Sephardim that inhabited it prior to the Zionist movement. Indigeneity isn’t about “were you there in the distant past” it’s about what side you are on in a colonial dynamic. The Japanese originated in Korea 2,500 years ago. But they were the colonizers in recent times. Same goes for the Americo-Liberians and some Northern Irish. They were colonizing a land their ancestors once lived in and displacing the local people.

1

Anonymous #1 13w

But they didn’t displace the Palestinians! 2 million still live there with full legal equality! The ones who got forced out were the violent ones.

-2

Anonymous #28 13w

Holy zionist bullshit 🤦🏻‍♀️

1

Anonymous #28 13w

Yeah those entire villages with women and children just so happened to be entirely the “violent ones.”

7

Anonymous #21 13w

If you don’t do any fucking research and get all your info from TikTok that’s on you, but the only difference is that Arabs don’t get drafted into the military. They can still volunteer. There are far more Muslims in Israel than Jews in ANY Muslim country. You don’t know what apartheid is

0

Anonymous #28 13w

You clearly don’t. Pick up a fucking book for once. You need to learn about the Nakba and how your zionazi bullshit doesn’t hold up to reality. Disgusting, antisemitic, genocide apologising fuck.

1

Anonymous #1 13w

Yeah Palestine has had many documented child and female suicide bombers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_child_suicide_bombers_by_Palestinian_militant_groups https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-181056/

1

Anonymous #1 13w

Btw the plantation of ulster in Northern Ireland (which I named as an example) was made after the Irish revolted against increasing English domination, so when the English won, they ethnically cleansed ulster and filled it with Protestant settlers so there wouldn’t be risk of another Irish revolt.

1

Anonymous #28 13w

Oh look they’re saying kids are a valid military target to defend ethnic cleansing, how completely expected tbh

1

Anonymous #1 13w

It’s like when you put weapons in a church it loses its protection under the laws of war

1

Anonymous #1 13w

Btw Israel was doing the ethnic cleansing before the year 2000 so doubly a dogshit argument

1

Anonymous #28 13w

Bro I’m talking about the Nakba your dogshit attempts at Gaza war apologism aren’t relevant

1

Anonymous #1 13w

Also isn’t the “well they’re all dangerous terrorists” the thing Egypt claimed when it ethnically cleansed its Jewish population? Or do you pick and choose when your ethnic cleansing apologism applies

1

Anonymous #1 13w

The Nakba? The thing where the Palestinians started murdering a bunch of Jews and got forced out as a consequence? That Nakba?

1

Anonymous #1 13w

Palestinians were murdering Jews before the year 200 AD so that’s a moot point

1

Anonymous #28 13w

Fucking what. Palestinians are just local Jewish, Canaanite, and Samaritan peoples who adopted Arabic culture after the 600s what the fuck are you talking about. You told someone to do research and you try pulling that shit????? And you’re bringing up collective ethnic responsibility for past actions? Sounds an awful lot like the “Jewish decide” which was a massive component of historic antisemitism.

1

Anonymous #28 13w

Oooo oooo I know this one! “They were trying to kill us first so we had to genocide them” is what the Turkish government says about the Armenians.

1

Anonymous #1 13w

Like goddamn I knew y’all’s arguments were dogshit but come on bro

1

Anonymous #28 13w

Not all. But you know who are? Palestinians

1

Anonymous #1 13w

They have identified as Arabs for over a thousand years up until literally the 1960s

5