War

[moose eater]

And I'm not the only one who's mentioned it, nor the only one to hear it referenced.

 

[GenghisKush]

Thanks for that legwork, guys.

I would like to suggest that given the scope and finality of the conclusions being drawn here, based on this 97% number, we might at least consider for a moment the veracity of the claim itself.

 

[moose eater]

As a contrast or comparison, look at the 'cohesion' (unbridled groupthink) in the US that took place after 9/11 and during the illegal invasion and US war crimes in Iraq.

Fully without the lure of 'free land' that belonged to others, or government-distributed military weapons to civilians in order to assist in taking that land, etc..

 

[dramamine]

My point is that prominent US civil rights leaders incl. Dr King, Bayard Rustin, Rosa Parks, A Philip Randolph were Zionists, and that Kamala - who has been a lifelong civil rights activist - is a Zionist as well. And that their og organizing principle was nonviolence, and that present-day organizers for nonviolence in Gaza are being informed on by purported journalists and purged by Hamas. That point is made in reference to this infographic posted by 'vore, presumably to draw some parallel between polling in Israel and US.

View attachment 19083270



@Microbeman do you know where that 97% figure comes from?

Seems a surprisingly high degree of unanimity, especially for a poll describing responses of a population largely composed of people who have a well-earned reputation for disagreement.

There's a lot of water (or blood, as the case may be) under the bridge since those civil rights leaders' early support for Israel. They were lied to, just as is done now. But the lies have become transparent, as we can all see what is happening in real time with our own eyes.
You don't really think MLK would have supported rape, torture and blatant murder. You're just using it as a defensive tactic. It's despicable.

 

[moose eater]

There's a lot of water (or blood, as the case may be) under the bridge since those cil rights leaders' early support for Israel. They were lied to, just as is done now. But the lies have become transparent, as we can all see what is happening in real time with our own eyes.
You don't really think MLK would have supported rape, torture and blatant murder. You're just using it as a defensive tactic. It's despicable.

Some in this 'discussion' are notorious at this point for (incredibly) loose associations, to the point that it's either an admission of manipulation beyond the pale, or a sign of a thought disorder. One or the other. Possibly both.

 

[GenghisKush]

Some in this 'discussion' are notorious at this point for (incredibly) loose associations, to the point that it's either an admission of manipulation beyond the pale, or a sign of a thought disorder. One or the other. Possibly both.

Moose. I first mentioned the fervent Zionism of King, of Rustin, of Parks, of Randolph in direct response to an association made by you.

your comment:

I've often compared the level of solidarity required for any effectiveness during the bus boycotts in the deep South, with the immediate gratification culture of today, and how much economic power has been willfully forfeited out of self-interest and laziness.

my response:

It is worth remembering that many of the organizers of the Montgomery Bus Boycott including Rosa Parks, Dr MLK Jr, and Bayard Rustin, were Zionists.

POV: Rosa Parks reincarnated as a Columbia student in the year 2024.


Rosa Parks would have been forcibly excluded by her own peers, were she a Columbia student in 2024, because she was a Zionist.

P.S. Does everyone here know the history of the term "beyond the pale" and why it is a uniquely poignant trope to embed within an imperious rebuke amid a discussion of racism and antisemitism? Do you mean to set boundaries for me, moose?

 

[GenghisKush]

There's a lot of water (or blood, as the case may be) under the bridge since those civil rights leaders' early support for Israel. They were lied to, just as is done now. But the lies have become transparent, as we can all see what is happening in real time with our own eyes.
You don't really think MLK would have supported rape, torture and blatant murder. You're just using it as a defensive tactic. It's despicable.

Dr King was unambiguous when he stated publicly his Zionism: "Israel's right to exist as a state in security is incontestable."

Dr. King Repudiates Anti-semitic, Anti-israel Black Power Stand - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, denounced black separatism and anti-Semitism Tuesday and repudiated the anti-Israel position taken by the New Politics Convention in Chicago last month. The Negro leader said anti-Semitism was “immoral” and was...

www.jta.org

 

[JKD]

Here is another documentary film from Al Jazeera. One thing of note is that near the end there is talk of Palestinians being the only people that have been expelled from their homes and not permitted to 'return to their homes'. This is untrue. This exact exercise took place in North America against the thriving population which existed when their homes were desirable for the incoming illegal immigrants. This all was supported by acts of congress. You might say that this exercise/extermination was more violent than that which took place in Palestine.

The People were forced onto reservations, where they remain to this day and their children taken from them and put into re-education centers (last one closed in 1997); many of the children died or were murdered; abused certainly. There are many descendants of these immigrants and those who followed who say they support the indigenous land claims but in reality, would they give up their homes so indigenous people could 'return to their homes'? There are many of these colonizers who say they were born in North America and their ancestors came after the stealing and massacre so they are free of guilt. Can we say the same of citizens of Israel who were born there?

We hear of polls taken showing that 97% of the Israeli population support the occupation of stolen lands and can therefore conclude they are as guilty as their government. They are worthy of condemnation. What if polls were taken in North America concerning giving back one's home which was stolen from the People? I don't have much doubt that the results would be similar.

Thanks for the documentary.

I agree that it is incorrect to claim that the Palestinians are the only people to be expelled with no right of return. It has happened many times in the past to the many indigenous peoples who had their land colonised/stolen. Nor are the Palestinians the only people currently experiencing this - the Rohingya are another, along with the indigenous peoples of Brazil.

I am not aware of any indigenous population that has not suffered or been disadvantaged for generations following colonisation. We know this happens. We know it will happen still. I consider this an argument among many against continuing the practice of colonisation.

One thing that was different in earlier times of colonisation was the “Doctrine of Discovery” which essentially robbed native people of any legal protection or ownership of their land. Aside from this, the treaties that were made were often manipulated, broken or ignored. This is no argument in favour of these dehumanising and basically racist policies, but pointing out that then there was little in the way of international legal protections, where now there supposedly is.

The effects of colonisation are still a cancer afflicting indigenous people, despite the actual theft of land happening generations ago. For Palestine and Myanmar, thefts occurred in living memory, and are ongoing still. Land is actively being settled despite the knowledge that this is illegal under international law. In ‘settler times’ there was no such knowledge. It was certainly still as unethical and immoral, but it was not considered illegal.

I can’t speak to how Israelis or non-Native Americans might poll. A distinction I might draw between the US and the Palestinian Territories is my own personal feeling/opinion that if your family has inhabited the land for generations your strong feeling of ownership/entitlement is understandable and more justifiable than if you, your father or grandfather has colonised this land in living memory. The land is still stolen, the original inhabitants with generations of suffering ahead, but in the second example there is something that can be done to arrest the theft and perhaps correct it; people can be returned to the land that they themselves, or family that lived in their lifetime came from. Redress becomes evermore difficult with each generation that passes, though it can still occur in a manner, and New Zealand is an example of a country that is attempting to do so, but the settlement process there cannot be anything but imperfect.

 

[moose eater]

Thanks for the documentary.
I agree that it is incorrect to claim that the Palestinians are the only people to be expelled with no right of return. It has happened many times in the past to the many indigenous peoples who had their land colonised/stolen. Nor are the Palestinians the only people currently experiencing this - the Rohingya are another, along with the indigenous peoples of Brazil.

I am not aware of any indigenous population that has not suffered or been disadvantaged for generations following colonisation. We know this happens. We know it will happen still. I consider this an argument among many against continuing the practice of colonisation.

One thing that was different in earlier times of colonisation was the “Doctrine of Discovery” which essentially robbed native people of any legal protection or ownership of their land. Aside from this, the treaties that were made were often manipulated, broken or ignored. This is no argument in favour of these dehumanising and basically racist policies, but pointing out that then there was little in the way of international legal protections, where now there supposedly is.

The effects of colonisation are still a cancer afflicting indigenous people, despite the actual theft of land happening generations ago. For Palestine and Myanmar, the theft occurred in living memory, and is ongoing still. Land is actively being settled despite the knowledge that this is illegal under international law. In ‘settler times’ there was no such knowledge. It was certainly still as unethical and immoral, but it was not considered illegal.

I can’t speak to how Israelis or non-Native Americans might poll. A distinction I might draw between the US and the Palestinian Territories is my own personal feeling/opinion that if your family has inhabited the land for generations your strong feeling of ownership/entitlement is understandable and more justifiable than if you, your father or grandfather has colonised this land in living memory. The land is still stolen, the original inhabitants with generations of suffering ahead, but in the second example there is something that can be done to arrest the theft and perhaps correct it, less so in the first - though it can still be addressed, and New Zealand is an example of a country that is attempting to do so, but the settlement process there cannot be anything but imperfect.

One difference in the law and historical context, albeit not in general ethics and justice, but in the law, is that 'rights of conquest' are technically illegal under international law in today's world.

 

[dramamine]

Dr King was unambiguous when he stated publicly his Zionism: "Israel's right to exist as a state in security is incontestable."

View attachment 19083305

Dr. King Repudiates Anti-semitic, Anti-israel Black Power Stand - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, denounced black separatism and anti-Semitism Tuesday and repudiated the anti-Israel position taken by the New Politics Convention in Chicago last month. The Negro leader said anti-Semitism was “immoral” and was...

www.jta.org

You highlighted the sentence you liked. Now read the three sentences that follow it. And again, a lot has happened since then. You didn't address my point at all, unsurprisingly.
"His Zionism"....dumb, dude.

 

[Microbeman]

Thanks for the documentary.

I agree that it is incorrect to claim that the Palestinians are the only people to be expelled with no right of return. It has happened many times in the past to the many indigenous peoples who had their land colonised/stolen. Nor are the Palestinians the only people currently experiencing this - the Rohingya are another, along with the indigenous peoples of Brazil.

I am not aware of any indigenous population that has not suffered or been disadvantaged for generations following colonisation. We know this happens. We know it will happen still. I consider this an argument among many against continuing the practice of colonisation.

One thing that was different in earlier times of colonisation was the “Doctrine of Discovery” which essentially robbed native people of any legal protection or ownership of their land. Aside from this, the treaties that were made were often manipulated, broken or ignored. This is no argument in favour of these dehumanising and basically racist policies, but pointing out that then there was little in the way of international legal protections, where now there supposedly is.

The effects of colonisation are still a cancer afflicting indigenous people, despite the actual theft of land happening generations ago. For Palestine and Myanmar, thefts occurred in living memory, and are ongoing still. Land is actively being settled despite the knowledge that this is illegal under international law. In ‘settler times’ there was no such knowledge. It was certainly still as unethical and immoral, but it was not considered illegal.

I can’t speak to how Israelis or non-Native Americans might poll. A distinction I might draw between the US and the Palestinian Territories is my own personal feeling/opinion that if your family has inhabited the land for generations your strong feeling of ownership/entitlement is understandable and more justifiable than if you, your father or grandfather has colonised this land in living memory. The land is still stolen, the original inhabitants with generations of suffering ahead, but in the second example there is something that can be done to arrest the theft and perhaps correct it; people can be returned to the land that they themselves, or family that lived in their lifetime came from. Redress becomes evermore difficult with each generation that passes, though it can still occur in a manner, and New Zealand is an example of a country that is attempting to do so, but the settlement process there cannot be anything but imperfect.

Is there an international law stating that once the ink is dry on the false papers/deeds that the theft is no longer illegal? One for the higher courts, perhaps. Mexico returned over 50% of her land to the indigenous people (after revolution).

 

[moose eater]

A quick and somewhat dirty synopsis of the end of 'rights of conquest', and other related history of the subject.

I'd guess that some questions, hypothetical or otherwise, remain unanswered?

Right of conquest - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[JKD]

Is there an international law stating that once the ink is dry on the false papers/deeds that the theft is no longer illegal? One for the higher courts, perhaps. Mexico returned over 50% of her land to the indigenous people (after revolution).

I would doubt there is such a law.

Like New Zealand, Mexico established a legal framework to address historical grievances. It requires the political will to do so, along with the resources.

 

[moose eater]

Post facto law and the related prohibition on such might have some impact on the concept.

As JKD implied or stated, it's a political thing, as was observed in First Nations land claims in both Canada and Alaska.