World News

You demonstrate a good enough understanding of the history that you clearly know that you are being deceitful.

I'm not being deceitful. I just stated historical facts to bring necessary context to something that you're intentionally trying to oversimplify.

Is there any colonised country that this doesn’t apply to?

Actually it goes beyond that, it applies to all the modern states. The point I was trying to make is that you can't water down history to narrative driven soundbites.

Colonisation is a core principle of Zionism. It’s so central to Zionism that it’s in the introductory paragraph on it’s Wikipedia page.

Wikipedia is not a source for anything related to modern conflicts because it's prone to manipulation. This article in particular has been edited so much that it's literally unrecognizable from a few years ago.

Many of the early Zionist leaders said that their goals could only be achieved through the displacement of Arabs, and the migration of Jews was, and still is, strongly encouraged by Zionists.

And you would be correct, and this notion that pushes ethnic cleansing is wrong. However, there's nuance that can't be overlooked. For example, Israel is a secular, democratic country, and because of this, there are a lot of people with a lot of different views. The current government of Israel is very unpopular among Israelis, and the majority of people oppose it. The current government is considered far right and extremist by Israeli standards, and the most don't support their actions.

The far right factions, like Ben-Gvir's Otzma Yehudit and Smotrich's Religious Zionist party, are responsible for the vast majority of things people associate negatively with Israel. Here's a short list:

• They are responsible for starting unprovoked aggression against their neighbors like Syria and Lebanon (excluding the Hezbollah conflict)
• They keep sabotaging peace deals to keep the Gaza war going for as long possible
• They go to extreme lengths to defend war crimes and war criminals
• They're the ones are aggressively expanding and creating illegal settlements in the West Bank
• They're the ones who encourage and defend discrimination and bigotry
• They want to erase Israel's secular and democratic institutions so they can turn into a theocracy

They're horrible people. They follow a specific ideology called Kahanism, which is basically Jewish fascism. This ideology is so extreme that the US and Israel both designated the original founder of the ideology and his party as terrorists. The entire far right Kahanist coalition only got 10.84% of the vote in the 2022 election, and they only got 14/120 seats. A lot of their voters were the illegal settlers in the West Bank. By all accounts, these parasites shouldn't have sniffed any significant position in power, but Netanyahu, being the corrupt war criminal that he is, decided incorporate them into his wing so he could form a government with himself at the top. He also went the extra mile of giving them outsized positions of influence.

The point I'm trying to make here is that Israel is a diverse country and the people responsible for most of what's wrong with it are a small, corrupt minority that do not represent the general population. Just because the country started a certain way or has extremist politician today, that doesn't mean all 10 million people there are extremist as well. A lot of them don't support these things, and it would wrong to generalize any country in general.

Gosh, I wonder if that was in response to the treatment of Arabs in Palestine.

Are you seriously trying to defend these people getting ethnically cleansed because you think that this is somehow a justified reaction?

Just to refresh, these people who have no connection to Israel. These are people who have been living in their communities for centuries, for some it's literally thousands of years, and for no other reason than being Jewish they were expelled or chased out of their country and were forced to flee to Israel as refugees because they had nowhere else to go. These people lost their homes, their livelihoods, their property, their communities, and they're citizenship. They're just as much victims as the Palestinians you're trying to defend.

If you're going to sit here and wag your finger about the morality of Israel ethnically cleansing Palestinians and then turn around and justify the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the muslim world then you're nothing more than a hypocrite and your words mean nothing.

And they had no problem pushing out the Arabs (who had been living in their communities for hundreds, and for some, thousands, of years) on their way in.

Stop thinking like a Neanderthal. There's no "team" here. This mentality of tribalism is precisely the reason why this conflict is never ending. Instead think about it in terms of actions. There are actions that are morally good and actions that are morally bad. If an action is morally bad, like say ethnic cleansing, then you oppose it in all its forms and in all instances because that's the principled thing to do. When Israel ethnically cleansed Arabs during it's founding, that was bad. However, the muslim world ethnically cleansing Jews was also bad. Having moral consistency shouldn't be this difficult.

A majority of Australian colonists were sent there for committing petty crimes, such as theft. The industrial revolution left much of the working class without work, so theft in Britain rose rapidly. For the crime of trying to fees their family, over 100,000 people were forcibly transported to Australia. Their descendants now make up a very large chunk of the Australian population.

Okay, let's follow this logic. The original British settlers were colonial settlers sent by the British Empire to colonize Australia. The Aboriginal people there got the short end of the stick, and were ethnically cleansed from their lands. However, the Aborigines were not a monolith, there were many different nations and cultures and many them clashed. Australia prior to the arrival of European had a lot of wars, conflicts, discrimination, and disputes between different tribes (source).

Now, imagine some dingleberry today came along on the internet and started talking about how the Aboriginal people of Australia all peacefully coexisted for centuries, and the violence on the continent is a recent phenomenon brought by the British. How would you interpret this? The way I see it, this is just pure ignorance because both the premise and the conclusion are incorrect. The aboriginal people didn't all coexist peacefully, and the British didn't bring violence, they merely extending what was there. That's actually what the British were known for, divide and conquer. That's how they captured North America, South Africa, India, and so on. This strategy wouldn't even be possible if there was no tensions to exploit.

If we circle back to our topic, how does this same exact logic not apply here? The person that I replied had an incorrect premise and an incorrect conclusion based on that premise. I merely criticized it and provided context that proved otherwise. How does this make me deceitful? The answer is it doesn't.