[tptacek]

I don't know what any of this is trying to say. You brought up Sykes-Picot as if it was a part of Zionism; it is not, and, moreover, it is the reason there is a Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon today. You implied that Sykes-Picot displaced nation states that previously existed; I don't believe that's true, that's not how the Ottoman Empire functioned.

If you're asking me for a long thread about why British, French, and Russian colonialism in MENA was good, sorry, I don't have that for you. But somehow, it only ever seems to be Israel we're talking about when we discuss this stuff. Israel is no less legitimate than its neighbors, some of which have in the last 5-10 years laid a much stronger claim to the word "genocide" as well.

I would suggest maybe you not lead with Sykes-Picot next time you try to formulate this argument.

[flandish]

You conveniently ignored the “Balfour” part of my comments, too. They were contemporary actions by the British who had no business, at all, to do what they did. “Ends and means” and all of that.

[tptacek]

You'll note that I responded to your point about Sykes-Picot, and suggested maybe you stop trying to name-drop Sykes-Picot to make the point you're trying to make, and left it at that.

[flandish]

Right. But you’ll notice they happened contemporary to each other by the same actor.

That’s kind of important.

Still doesn’t justify Zionists doing a fucking genocide against people who have been overrun by the same zionists given “power” by … that nation doing the sykes-picot and balfour thing.

Stop pretending these are separate events.

[tptacek]

Not only are they separate events, but the first one you cited undercuts your argument.