The war in Gaza has finished. Should pro-Palestine protests be cancelled and pro-Palestine activist groups finally disband? (1 Viewer)

[Interdice]

The difference is you have Israel, is yes majority Jewish partially because all the Jews were expelled out of the Arab countries post WW2 and post 1948

Conveniently forgets that they were also kicked out of Europe after WW2.

Why weren't white Jews given a small part of Germany? Oh wait cause no one likes them, and no one wants to be stuck with them(for good reason).

 

[dan964]

These Jews are Europeans who have deluded themselves into thinking that they were the ancient noble race, who once inhabited Israel. This is a common and dangerous behavior with Europeans. I met a presumably Dutch girl, who described herself to me as South African. No amount of words or culture will make her an African, just as with the Jews.

As a brown person's who's country was colonized and I support Palestine's right to take back what's rightfully theirs.

(1) You do realise not all Jews are European. Many Jews were expelled from Iraq, as one example, you also have Jews that were in Syria etc.
This is textbook anti-semitism, you paint with too broad a brush...
(And to counter yes Zionism is also problematic depending on what you mean by "Zionism").

As a brown person's who's country was colonized and I support Palestine's right to take back what's rightfully theirs.

So basically your argument is Israel = white therefore bad/oppressive; Palestine = non-white, therefore good.
So much wrong with this. History is not so how-to put it not black and white. Also define Palestine.

 

[Interdice]

(1) You do realise not all Jews are European. Many Jews were expelled from Iraq, as one example, you also have Jews that were in Syria etc.
This is textbook anti-semitism, you paint with too broad a brush...

It's terrible what happened to them. So bad.

BUT they sided with the European Jews, and thus should be counted as European Jews, and meet their fate. They're colonialists too. You don't get to benefit from an unfair deal, then claim to be oppressed, that's not how it works.

(And to counter yes Zionism is also problematic depending on what you mean by "Zionism").

What is a problem, is letting people stay outside of their "natural habitats". Blood is thicker than water. If European Jews need their own country, it should be in Europe. I"m also against Muslim immigration to Europe, I'd be very embarrassed if I was a European.

So basically your argument is Israel = white therefore bad/oppressive; Palestine = non-white, therefore good.

Ancient Jews looked like Gulf Arabs. These modern Jews look European AND they were cast out of EUorpe after WW2. Occam's razor tells us, that they colonized Israel.

Also define Palestine.

Successor state to Israel, after the Jewish race(not religion) was defeated and obliterated by the Muslims.

 

[dan964]

Conveniently forgets that they were also kicked out of Europe after WW2.

Why weren't white Jews given a small part of Germany? Oh wait cause no one likes them, and no one wants to be stuck with them(for good reason).

If you mean the Soviet Union, then yes, communism was why. But for other parts of Europe you got your dates wrong... they were definitelye either during WW2 in the case of Germany and its allies (Italy); whilst other explusions were earlier. List of them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsions_and_exoduses_of_Jews

Let me guess, you also think the Holocaust was a fraud. And that Jews have no right to Israel. Oh wait you already said that you did.
Sigh....

 

[Interdice]

Let me guess, you also think the Holocaust was a fraud

No. But I do think no one really cared about the Holocaust, and the real reason was to prevent Germany from getting too powerful.

Halocaust was terrible. I blame the old Europeans(especially the Germans/British) for the conflict more than the Jews, but the modern British/Germans, have nothing to do with the conflict

they were definitelye either during WW2 in the case of Germany and its allies (Italy); whilst other explusions were earlier. List of them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsions_and_exoduses_of_Jews

That's terrible. But that does NOT grant those Jews to claim refuge in a land that doesn't belong to them.

They could have gone to America, moved to Western Europe, or tried to fix their reputation, instead of invading a country, against the wishes of it's native population.

 

[dan964]

It's terrible what happened to them. So bad.

BUT they sided with the European Jews, and thus should be counted as European Jews, and meet their fate. They're colonialists too. You don't get to benefit from an unfair deal, then claim to be oppressed, that's not how it works.

What is a problem, is letting people stay outside of their "natural habitats". Blood is thicker than water. If European Jews need their own country, it should be in Europe. I"m also against Muslim immigration to Europe, I'd be very embarrassed if I was a European.

Ancient Jews looked like Gulf Arabs. These modern Jews look European AND they were cast out of EUorpe after WW2. Occam's razor tells us, that they colonized Israel.

Successor state to Israel, after the Jewish race(not religion) was defeated and obliterated by the Muslims.

Nah they look Jewish

And many indigenous Australians look white? (Intermarriage is a thing)

So basically if you are to be believed migration = colonialism? How far back do we go?
What about when the Muslims conquered the Holy Land back in the 600s or more recent than that?

If that is the case then the Arabs should go back to Saudi. Clearly you need to read up on the history of Islamic colonialism if you think all of North Africa and the Middle East was Arabic.

 

[dan964]

They could have gone to America, moved to Western Europe, or tried to fix their reputation, instead of invading a country, against the wishes of it's native population.

When your ancestors came to Australia, was that invasion?
You conflate migration and invasion/colonialism.

There was a pre-existing Jewish population. In fact some of the then Palestinian population (irrespective of race/religion) are now Israeli citizens?

 

[Interdice]

When your ancestors came to Australia, was that invasion?

I'm a colonist I'm not denying that.

BUT the Aboriginals need us. If we leave them, they'll live in subsaharan conditions, and live miserable lives.

There was a pre-existing Jewish population

They do have a claim to Israel. But that lost that claim, when they sided with the Europeans.

And many indigenous Australians look white? (Intermarriage is a thing)

They ARE white. I'm sick of descendants of Europeans, who raped Aboriginal girls, getting special benefits.

You conflate migration and invasion/colonialism.

I'd argue all migration is colonialism, cause if you give a Muslim European citizenship, you are giving a small part of the country to the Muslims. A little isn't that bad, maybe even beneficial, but a lot is terrible.

Nah they look Jewish

So looking Jewish = looking European?

What about when the Muslims conquered the Holy Land back in the 600s or more recent than that?

Those Jews were different to todays Jews.

and yes that was colonialism. But the original Jews are dead now.

If that is the case then the Arabs should go back to Saudi. Clearly you need to read up on the history of Islamic colonialism if you think all of North Africa and the Middle East was Arabic.

The native races are all dead now. So what's the use of giving the land back to tribals?

Imagine if all Europeans left Australia, it would be a shit show.

 

[imgonnascream]

I take the position that both sides have their problems as well.
Your quip about starvation I agree with which is due to the current conflict but I would apply that to the Gaza strip only, not to all of Israel/Palestine. But as I also mentioned this is not purely on Israel, Hamas and the UN agencies are part to blame as well. There is well documented video footage of large amounts of aid going into Gaza, as well as footage of Hamas looting aid - so its not from lack of trying.
(Aside: the situation in Yemen is even greater but no-one is vocal about that butI digress)

You said "this is colonizer logic" using the labels of "colonizer" and "indigenous" - my critique was the manner in which those terms get thrown around carelessly and I stand by original comment that you threw them around as such.
My point is that you are defining or playing into the idea that everything is in terms of colonialism vs indigenous struggle; with obviously one being in the right and the latter being in the wrong.


I did not miss, you did not read up on history past 1900. Also you do realize whomever was majority is irrelevant, indigenous has nothing to do with majority, both Jews, Christians and Arabs (not just Muslims) have historical and spiritual connections to the land, and technically Jewish claim is way older (Muslim conquests were 6th century AD, Jewish claims date to pre-Roman times when the region was called Israel / Judea); but there have been other conquests since including the Ottomans and Egyptian conquests)... obviously there are more simpler* political motives tied in as well as nationalist (and superiority complex on the part of both groups including 'Zionists').
(* or more complex, depending on how one sees it).

My point is this isn't a case of one side being the "colonizer" and the other being the indigenous, so hence why comparing it to scenarios like Australia is irrelevant and not applicable. The closest equivalence I can think of is what happened in the Bosnian wars in the 1990s,
and maybe the WW2 is relevant (allied bombing of Dresden is an example) but this one is a lot more complicated, because you also have sacred sites as well (so the specific piece of land is still important, yes it has to be the land of Israel/Palestine and Jerusalem).

But my critique applies to you and the person making what you referred to as a "colonizer" argument. If only the conflict was to do with land disputes, rather than layered in with an intense hatred and racial prejudice (between Jews and Arab Muslims) that exists as old as Islam itself. A lot of this war is rooted in deep religious and racial prejudice. The difference is you have Israel, is yes majority Jewish partially because all the Jews were expelled out of the Arab countries post WW2 and post 1948. The other reason why the term "colonization" does not work in this scenario you kind of conflate what a "Palestinian" is. The modern "Palestine" identity does not equal the identity of someone living intime of Mandatory Palestine.

Never once did I imply that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be reduced to a matter of colonisation. Again, I was referring to the might makes right sentiment, so I was responding and critiquing the justifications how the was being painted on this thread specifically. I am aware that Jewish people have a claim to the land as well, but it’s very important to distinguish between them. The Mizrahi and Musta’arabi Jews which were living in that land for just as long as the Palestinians do have equal claim to indigeneity, claim can not be greater because genetic studies show that Palestinians are also directly descended from Bronze Age southern Canaanite populations and show major genetic continuity to before the Islamic expansion (Arnaiz-Villena et al., 2001); therefore, Palestinian claim is just as old as the Jewish claim. The issue regarding Israeli indigeneity is that much of the Jewish population in Israel are returning and claim indigeneity to the land which they did not live in (to no fault of their own) for centuries often on the basis of religious grounds. This use of religion is often problematic and in itself strips the conflict of nuance in favour of a divinely sanctioned claim, against a people who do not believe that the land is promised land to the Jews anymore (Romans 4:9 and Galatians 3:15-16 for Palestinian Christians (Kashouh, 2017) and Quran 5:21 and 7:128-9 for Palestinian Muslims). Moreover, the ancient claim to the land by populations who lack genetic continuity or an uninterrupted presence in the land for centuries should not be taken all that seriously, ancient Hebrews are obviously not the same as modern day Jewish populations. So one claim can not be older or more legitimate than the other. I agree that the conflict has been ongoing largely due to prejudice and extremism on both sides. However, Israel has taken measures that do not at all help its case, for example, putting up separation walls in occupied Palestinian territory and implementing policies which favour Israeli Jewish populations. Furthermore, it was Francesca Albanese, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, who claimed that Israel has “the intent to colonise the occupied territory”.

 

[SylviaB]

you do understand that I was specifically referring to the reasoning that the land belongs to whoever is strong enough to hold it, right? Because that reasoning was applied everywhere from Australia to the Middle East to East Asia, etc. And no it’s not fallacious to make historical comparisons, I don’t take a side in this war but it’s a known fact that Palestinians are being starved and removed from their land, this is something that happened to many other indigenous peoples. And yes, Palestinians are Indigenous to that land in the same way as any other people, they were already living there before the creation of a Jewish state, a fact you seem to miss. I’m not Muslim but during the British mandate of Palestine that land was majority Muslim not Jewish.

Most majority muslim or arab countries were not originally so. Most of this expansion was a product of conquest. Muslims/arabs themselves believe in might makes right when they're the ones with the might. When this logic no longer benefits them, they pretend to be oppressed indigenous people.

Europeans are as indigneous to Europe as palestinians are to palestine, but nobody would ever say that 'muslims invaded europe and took control of the land from the indigenous population'. And certainly wouldn't feel that some great injustice was done when this happened.

 

[Interdice]

Most majority muslim or arab countries were not originally so. Most of this expansion was a product of conquest. Muslims/arabs themselves believe in might makes right when they're the ones with the might. When this logic no longer benefits them, they pretend to be oppressed indigenous people.

Islam wasn't created until 600ad, and every religion had an originating date, it's not like they came out of nowhere... Everyone is a convert, if we go far enough.

Europeans are as indigneous to Europe as palestinians are to palestine, but nobody would ever say that 'muslims invaded europe and took control of the land from the indigenous population'. And certainly wouldn't feel that some great injustice was done when this happened.

Happened a trillion years ago. Barely any White Europeans these days are Muslims. And how do you think Christianity came to Europe hmm?

Also my opinion, but I think modern white women should read the Quran and TAKE NOTES!!!

 

[SylviaB]

Islam wasn't created until 600ad, and every religion had an originating date, it's not like they came out of nowhere... Everyone is a convert, if we go far enough.

And most arab expansion didn't occur significantly unil after Islam came into existence.

Happened a trillion years ago.

There are people alive today who were alive when the Ottomans still ruled parts of Europe

And how do you think Christianity came to Europe hmm

Because the birthplace of Christianity was part of a European empire at the time.

Also my opinion, but I think modern white women should read the Quran and TAKE NOTES!!!

Why? So they can be more like these sort of women? Why would anyone want that lmao

 

[lunaaaa4403]

And most arab expansion didn't occur significantly unil after Islam came into existence.



There are people alive today who were alive when the Ottomans still ruled parts of Europe



Because the birthplace of Christianity was part of a European empire at the time.



Why? So they can be more like these sort of women? Why would anyone want that lmao

View attachment 50328

View attachment 50329

View attachment 50330

UR AGAINST CHILD MARRIAGE??? YES SYLVIA HAS ONE GOOD TAKE!!

 

[dan964]

They ARE white. I'm sick of descendants of Europeans, who raped Aboriginal girls, getting special benefits.

That assumes a lot.

I'm a colonist I'm not denying that.

BUT the Aboriginals need us. If we leave them, they'll live in subsaharan conditions, and live miserable lives.

They do have a claim to Israel. But that lost that claim, when they sided with the Europeans.

They ARE white. I'm sick of descendants of Europeans, who raped Aboriginal girls, getting special benefits.

I'd argue all migration is colonialism, cause if you give a Muslim European citizenship, you are giving a small part of the country to the Muslims. A little isn't that bad, maybe even beneficial, but a lot is terrible.

So looking Jewish = looking European?

Those Jews were different to todays Jews.

and yes that was colonialism. But the original Jews are dead now.

The native races are all dead now. So what's the use of giving the land back to tribals?

Imagine if all Europeans left Australia, it would be a shit show.

To be truthfully honest, really hard to keep track of what you are trying to say... you seem to say one thing and then say something completely left field that appears to completely contradict what you are saying...

I would have to disagree that colonialism and migration are the same thing. Motive plays a huge part of it and the willingness of the incoming population to live in peace.

At the heart of it is whether people who move to a different land can live in peace with each other. Certain groups of people have shown they cannot (and most of them in recent years are from radical parts of one particular religion)

Do you think all white people are the same? Nope, but you lump everyone in and say they are "Europeans".
To me, it is irrelevant the colour of a persons skin as to their nationality or heritage.


+++++++
With regards to our views on the Israeli Jewish population's heritage, I would not really consider them white or European (or Polish), but whether they genuinely have a unbroken connection to the land they now reside in is I would agree up to a point is tenuous (it is why I don't necessarily support Israel); especially considering modern day Judaism (the religion) is different to classic Judaism because of the destruction of the temple. The same could apply to a lesser extent to parts of the population from the West Bank for example. The point I would disagree with is this: "They do have a claim to Israel. But that lost that claim, when they sided with the Europeans." - I think this statement is false.

In the end, what matters is whether groups of people can live in peace. Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah only really have one aim, the removal of the state of Israel; to establish an Islamic Arabic state similar to that in Iran. If that aim was achieved, that region would be even more of a s*** show then it is now.

I take the view that Israel is known to overreact to threats on its sovereignty and is known for using excessive force. If the sides had swapped, I'd imagine we'd see the same from the other side. The only difference is that with the current state of Israel, there is an opportunity for Jews, Christians, Muslims, Arab or otherwise to co-exist to an extent and to have access to Jerusalem; realistically a "free Palestine" would be a Muslim majority state with Sharia law similar to what we see in Iran where religious minorities (including the non-religious/secular) population would be persecuted subject to 'dhimmi' tax.

It is exactly what we've seen in Gaza since 2005. Its part of why I don't really support the pro-Palestinian movement because they justify things like what triggered this latest conflict (on Oct 7), but I also don't support Israel fully, because the manner in which they respond is excessive (similar to how the US responds to conflicts, think the unnecessary "war on terror").

History repeats itself ironically.

 

[dan964]

Never once did I imply that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be reduced to a matter of colonisation. Again, I was referring to the might makes right sentiment, so I was responding and critiquing the justifications how the was being painted on this thread specifically. I am aware that Jewish people have a claim to the land as well, but it’s very important to distinguish between them. The Mizrahi and Musta’arabi Jews which were living in that land for just as long as the Palestinians do have equal claim to indigeneity, claim can not be greater because genetic studies show that Palestinians are also directly descended from Bronze Age southern Canaanite populations and show major genetic continuity to before the Islamic expansion (Arnaiz-Villena et al., 2001); therefore, Palestinian claim is just as old as the Jewish claim. The issue regarding Israeli indigeneity is that much of the Jewish population in Israel are returning and claim indigeneity to the land which they did not live in (to no fault of their own) for centuries often on the basis of religious grounds. This use of religion is often problematic and in itself strips the conflict of nuance in favour of a divinely sanctioned claim, against a people who do not believe that the land is promised land to the Jews anymore (Romans 4:9 and Galatians 3:15-16 for Palestinian Christians (Kashouh, 2017) and Quran 5:21 and 7:128-9 for Palestinian Muslims). Moreover, the ancient claim to the land by populations who lack genetic continuity or an uninterrupted presence in the land for centuries should not be taken all that seriously, ancient Hebrews are obviously not the same as modern day Jewish populations. So one claim can not be older or more legitimate than the other. I agree that the conflict has been ongoing largely due to prejudice and extremism on both sides. However, Israel has taken measures that do not at all help its case, for example, putting up separation walls in occupied Palestinian territory and implementing policies which favour Israeli Jewish populations. Furthermore, it was Francesca Albanese, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, who claimed that Israel has “the intent to colonise the occupied territory”.

Your original response implied such, I responded to it because I believed it as such. I definitely think your position is far more rational and through then some of the others on this thread.

Firstly, Romans 4:9 and Galatians 3:15-16 are taken out of context as they make no explicit remarks on the promised land for Jews, rather in the context (with other supporting passages such as Hebrews 11) point that the promises to Abraham were shadow of greater promises such as a heavenly country, people (the church) and blessing through Christ to all nations as the focus.
(this is what is referred to in theology, as Typology).

Mind you, it is mainly the Dispensationist view, which I don't agree with personally is biblical, predominant in American especially Pentecostalism, that sees the meaning of some prophecies in the Bible (Old Testament especially - which is the Jewish Tanakh) to mean the re-establishment of a literal state of Israel (which some see fulfilled in the modern state of Israel) - which explains some of the reasons why some conservative Christian leaders in Americans back Israel.

Scholarly evidence does conclude that majority of Jews like Palestinians, this has always been the traditional view and was the view at the time Israel was established, I do agree with it up to a certain point:
" Autosomal DNA studies show high levels of genetic relatedness among Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi Jews, corresponding to a shared Middle Eastern ancestry with variations in regional admixture.[5][22] Autosomal DNA evidence supports the historical narrative of Jewish populations originating from the ancient Levant, with genetic diversity shaped by migrations, admixture, and isolation over millennia." - snippet copying from Wikipedia.
Peoples and populations do change over time, as well as language.

Prior to 1967, the West Bank was part of Jordan and Gaza was part of Egypt. There never was an independent Palestinian state prior to 1948 (only colonization by the British and before that the Ottomans ). (Technically Israel is a independent "Palestinian" state).
But of course confusion can arise because the region was called "Mandatory Palestine" but that also applied to the Jewish population and Arab population many of whom became Israeli citizens. It comes down to people wanting their own right to self-determination. That's really the heart of the issue.

I still draw many parallels to the Bosnian war when you have different cultures (Serbs, Croats, Bosnians) living within the same land with clashing ideals. That is part of the issue as to why the conflict exists.1

The other reason Judaism and Islam are incompatible with each other. Jews are embittered at Muslims because of the mosque Al Asqa (Dome of the Rock) amongst other reasons; including persecution of Jews at the hands of Arabs during WW2 (because some Arab leaders aligned themselves with the likes of Hitler in terms of how they viewed their Jewish populations) - for some in the Jewish population, that does lead to extreme views. Muslims of the jihadist variety believe that every Jew (and then Christian) should be extinguished. This is why the conflict is so exaggerated and explosive; in reality it is a civil war. Mind you most Jews are secular, and religion here is just an afterthought or as you correctly pointed out, an excuse to justify their actions; but it is why this conflict is not like any old conflict.

Separatist groups exist in other countries, of people wanted to unify around an identity (which in the case of the Palestinians, an Arab Palestinian identity). The issue is really the use of violence by both sides whether perpetrated and/or retaliation is to be questioned. And definitely agree that Israel is guilty of provocation towards the Palestinians with their settlements in the West Bank.

Francesca Albanese is not an impartial source which as a Special Rapporteur she kind of should be, it is well documented her bias against Israel by the UN Watch (which ironically is very anti those anti-Israel in general from what I've observed, so obvs take with a grain of salt) https://unwatch.org/italy-blasts-francesca-albanese-entirely-devoid-of-credibility-and-impartiality/

 

[Interdice]

I would have to disagree that colonialism and migration are the same thing. Motive plays a huge part of it and the willingness of the incoming population to live in peace.

No one comes to a foreign land and thinks/says "I'm gonna loot it and KILL everyone!" They publicly say that they're going to "help" the "backwards people of the land". Look at India for example, British claimed that they were there to help Indians, obviously they didn't. Same with Japan and China.

You can't tell if colonialists have "good" or "bad" intentions, so if you live outside of where you belong, you're probably a colonist.

At the heart of it is whether people who move to a different land can live in peace with each other. Certain groups of people have shown they cannot (and most of them in recent years are from radical parts of one particular religion)

Rich you're saying that. After you came to their homelands(Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq) and killed a shit ton of them. They have a right to be mad at Europeans. Also rich the Jews want to live in the middle east, if they hate everything about the middle east.

Also siderant about Western Europeans, fuck me are they horrible. They have no concept of personal/private business, and keep on trying to get into my personal business. Like one of my coworkers is Dutch, and she keeps on asking me if I go to parties, and called me boring, after I said I don't go to them for the 70th time this year. She is pretty hot though. I was shocked when I discoverd that she was Dutch. Cause she looks almost Eastern in appearance. She even has A cup tits. It's such a shame she doesn't have the best TWO attributes about the Dutch. But the behavior makes a lot more sense. Also she defenfs aboriginal dei.

Eastern Europeans are A LOT better. Like way better. Like I've liked ALMOST EVERY Eastern European I've met, while disliking a good 70 percent of the WEstern Europeans I've met. And the girls are so nice. Like they don't bother you at all. They just sit and look like dolls.

Non European, non Muslim POV btw. I have no stake in this.

Do you think all white people are the same? Nope, but you lump everyone in and say they are "Europeans".

From my experience, Eastern Europeans are more dignified/reserved than Western Europeans. Their also more traditional. They almost behave like Asians in white bodies. I've got a Russian friend, he was born in Australia, and he still has his Russian accent.

But from Spain to Ireland to Netherlands, 100% the exact same. They sound the same, act the same but look slightly different.

In the end, what matters is whether groups of people can live in peace. Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah only really have one aim, the removal of the state of Israel; to establish an Islamic Arabic state similar to that in Iran. If that aim was achieved, that region would be even more of a s*** show then it is now.

Fair enough. If Europeans will killing my kin, stealing my wealth and lliving in my home, I would support "terrorist" groups killing them(ONLY in regions that belong to my people, not UK, or anywhere else in Europe) where possible. It's not pretty, but the Europeans are an existential threat to the Palestinians.

Sorry but not sorry 100% pro Hamas supporter here.

I take the view that Israel is known to overreact to threats on its sovereignty and is known for using excessive force

Because they have no sovereignty, and they know it.

Their Polish leader Netanyahu is not even a religious Jew. What basis does he have to exist in Israel.

The only difference is that with the current state of Israel, there is an opportunity for Jews, Christians, Muslims

Cmon

 

[Interdice]

That assumes a lot.

Indigenous.AFL - AFL.com.au

The hub of all things Indigenous AFL, including Sir Doug Nicholls Round, AFL’s annual round recognising and celebrating indigenous players and culture is named in honour of Sir Doug Nicholls.

www.afl.com.au

A contemporary Aboriginal man.

As a 100% ethnic, it's not hard to tell if someone is ethnic. Why do Europeans make this so complex?

Why isn't his skin black? Why isn't his hair black? What Aboriginal traits are found in this European, apart from wanting to steal public tax payer money?

You know what. Aboriginals were brutually genocided, and I feel kinda sorry for them, so while I don't support it, I'd turn a blind eye to public funds going to them. But when this European, that Hitler would adopt, gets more benefits THAN ME, that's where we have a problem.

 

[dan964]

As a 100% ethnic, it's not hard to tell if someone is ethnic. Why do Europeans make this so complex?
Why isn't his skin black? Why isn't his hair black?

Yet your tirade against your Dutch colleague proves otherwise. You really seem to have a thing against white people generally? Or just white women?

Also Aboriginal people don't necessarily have black hair, they have a wide range.

At countless points, you are guilty of committing the fallacy of composition by lumping in the views/motives of every white, or what you deem "non-ethic".


You also do the same by labelling all immigration as "colonization" which is " the process of establishing control over a territory and its people, often by force, for the benefit of a foreign power". The only aspect of Israel's involvement that could be deemed such is what they are doing with settlements in the West Bank which are in retaliation to the rocket strikes from Palestinian militant groups like Hamas.
Israeli has every right to be pissed at Hamas after what happened on October 7th but it does not mean that the extent of their response is justified. But war is kind of like that.

It is very ignorant to assume all Western European people are the same.

Rich you're saying that. After you came to their homelands(Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq) and killed a shit ton of them.

Well after they killed a ton of Americans in 9/11, that might be why. Not that I agree with the war on terror was justified.
I'm not American btw.

Sorry but not sorry 100% pro Hamas supporter here.

I figured as much...

Because they have no sovereignty, and they know it.

More like they have too many enemies. Something about sending a message that they aren't to be messed with. American does the same.

But when this European, that Hitler would adopt, gets more benefits THAN ME, that's where we have a problem.

I agree in the sense that funds should go to those that actually need it. He doesn't seem that badly off.

Cmon

Do you know what is it like to be a non-Muslim in Iran? If you want to know what a Palestinian state run by Hamas looks like, look at Iran.
The point is the only solution for Palestine region, is a secular government, where Jews, Muslims and Christians can live... its probably not going to happen.

 

[Interdice]

You really seem to have a thing against white people generally?

My best friend is white.

Well after they killed a ton of Americans in 9/11, that might be why. Not that I agree with the war on terror was justified.

911 wasn't justified imo. Lot of good people were killed that day. But had that plane hit Hollywood or the Pentagon/White House, I wouldn't be complaining.

Regardless America just overthrew the Iran government, and were doing shady shit in the region. Way worse than just one attack.

More like they have too many enemies. Something about sending a message that they aren't to be messed with. American does the same.

They have so many enemies, because they're not legitimate.

Do you know what is it like to be a non-Muslim in Iran? If

They voted for it. They don't like non Muslims, why should they have no non Muslims?

Fair enough imo, secular countries llike Australia, USA, UK, have lost their unique culture. Well I suppose Australia never had one, but USA/UK lost theirs. And secular Europe is a degenerate land, where men can become women. Fully understand why Iran may want Islam mandated, cause while I disagree with the religion, they've got some solid low Credit lessons on Human morality.

If you want to know what a Palestinian state run by Hamas looks like, look at Iran

Iran is a country that despite being sancioned by every western nation, is still not that poor, and until recently had a "very high" hdi score. Pretty good for the region.

It is very ignorant to assume all Western European people are the same.

They're all pain in my asses in unique ways. Some are racist(against ME), some do not like my homophobia, and some do not like my private life. So not completely the same.

You also do the same by labelling all immigration as "colonization" which is " the process of establishing control over a territory and its people, often by force, for the benefit of a foreign power"

The only difference between South Africa, and Australia, is that the Europeans managed to kill all the natives in Australia, but not South Africa. So tell me, if what you are saying is true, then why is colonization of South Africa seen as wrong, but not Australia?

Just admit you came to Australia for the wealth, there's no shame in it. I admit that. I'm only here cause Australia's rich.

Israeli has every right to be pissed at Hamas after what happened on October 7th

And Palestinians have a right to be pissed that their ancestral homeland was stolen by Europeans, and they have the right to make life as uncomfortable as possible for the Israelis.

 

[dan964]

My best friend is white.

Intriguing...

911 wasn't justified imo. Lot of good people were killed that day. But had that plane hit Hollywood or the Pentagon/White House, I wouldn't be complaining.

Regardless America just overthrew the Iran government, and were doing shady shit in the region. Way worse than just one attack.

Yes, America has done some shady stuff over the years (think CIA). America overthrew the last Iranian government as well.

They have so many enemies, because they're not legitimate.

Nope. Try again. Majority of their enemies are Arab Muslim majority countries.

They voted for it. They don't like non Muslims, why should they have no non Muslims?

Because not all Iranians are Muslim? Part of the problem is the US though, they did meddle in Iranian affairs as well.

Fair enough imo, secular countries llike Australia, USA, UK, have lost their unique culture. Well I suppose Australia never had one, but USA/UK lost theirs.

Australia has culture, just not really in its major population centres, like it is probably not as developed as Asia, African countries, or even parts of Europe, because it hasn't had centuries to develop.

Some are racist(against ME), some do not like my homophobia, and some do not like my private life. So not completely the same.

So you decide you are going to be racist back? I can kind of get what people don't like homophobia. I don't get why some people care so much about other peoples private life, as long as people aren't breaking the law or being a douchebag to others.

The only difference between South Africa, and Australia, is that the Europeans managed to kill all the natives in Australia, but not South Africa. So tell me, if what you are saying is true, then why is colonization of South Africa seen as wrong, but not Australia?

I was of the opinion that apartheid is what is seen as the big wrong in South Africa, and the white Australia policy is also seen as wrong. Australia as a nation does have a blindspot when it comes to viewing its origins.

Nah what I'm saying is not all immigration is colonization (First Fleet is colonization), contrastingly you coming here (and the many other from your part of the world) because you like Australia is not colonization, its migration. Yes migration can lead to colonization, but not necessarily.

Just admit you came to Australia for the wealth, there's no shame in it. I admit that. I'm only here cause Australia's rich.

I was born here. You don't even know my family heritage or history.

And Palestinians have a right to be pissed that their ancestral homeland was stolen by Europeans, and they have the right to make life as uncomfortable as possible for the Israelis.

Jewish people are Semitic, not European, they are a distinct ethnicity.
It all hinges on whether one takes the Jewish people to having a historical claim to Palestine. Obvs you reject that, so there's your answer.
I think they do but as I read into it, there is a lot of sketchy stuff around with the Zionist movement, so again I'm more on the fence these days.