[reliabilityguy]

> and also you cannot marry between faiths, all the hallmarks of apartheid.

Marriage laws have nothing to do with apartheid, a system that uses race to differentiate peoples.

There are plenty of countries where marriage is done on religion basis and there is no civil marriage at all. What does it have to do with Palestinians?

[7sigma]

Because it is imposed by a a colonial population on the native Palestinians in order to maintain a jewish majority in the ethnostate.

[reliabilityguy]

> Because it is imposed by a a colonial population on the native Palestinians in order to maintain an ethnic majority.

So, the jews who fled from pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe to Ottoman Palestine in 1900s are colonizers? I thought that people whole flee violence are refugees. Why do you have a different standard for them?

Jews that moved to Ottoman Palestine, btw, were buying land from locals. Are you saying that buying land is an act of colonialism if jews are doing that?

Why are you twisting the facts to fit your narrative?

[7sigma]

> So, the jews who fled from pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe to Ottoman Palestine in 1900s are colonizers? I thought that people whole flee violence are refugees. Why do you have a different standard for them?

Whether you are a refugee or not, the act of displacing the native population (and Jews from eastern Europe and Russia are not native to Palestine), and maintaining that displacement and subsequent subjugation is colonialism. In fact, organisations like the Jewish Colonisation Fund existed for the purpose of facilitating immigration to Palestine.

> Jews that moved to Ottoman Palestine, btw, were buying land from locals. Are you saying that buying land is an act of colonialism if jews are doing that?

> Why are you twisting the facts to fit your narrative?

If this is how you characterise the birth of Israel, then you are sorely misinformed. Israel was created through a terrorist campaign of ethnic cleansing starting in early 1948 with the forced depopulation hundreds of thousands of native Palestinians from their villages accompanied by massacres like Deir Yassin, i.e. the Nakba. This was the culmination of the Zionist rhetoric of "transfer" of Palestinians from their land and in effect has continued to this day.

Zionism is a replication of white European colonialism, but performed by Jewish European people, and partly encouraged by European powers primarily for geopolitical and also partly religious purposes (see Christian Zionism). It uses the dubious Jewish ancestral claim to the land as well as past oppression to create a Jewish ethno state and oppress a people who is probably more related in ancestry to the original Jewish people than most Jews (except those that had been there for generations).

[reliabilityguy]

> Whether you are a refugee or not, the act of displacing the native population (and Jews from eastern Europe and Russia are not native to Palestine), and maintaining that displacement and subsequent subjugation is colonialism.

But they did not displace the population. They arrived to the area in the beginning of 1900s. The war of 1948 was much later.

> In fact, organisations like the Jewish Colonisation Fund existed for the purpose of facilitating immigration to Palestine.

The same way numerous NGOs help migrants today to move and settle in the EU. I am willing to bet $100 you do not see them as colonizers, right?

> If this is how you characterise the birth of Israel, then you are sorely misinformed. Israel was created through a terrorist campaign of ethnic cleansing starting in early 1948 with the forced depopulation hundreds of thousands of native Palestinians from their villages accompanied by massacres like Deir Yassin, i.e. the Nakba. This was the culmination of the Zionist rhetoric of "transfer" of Palestinians from their land and in effect has continued to this day.

You are twisting facts and lying again. The purchase of lands happened way before the British mandate even. Are you saying it never happened?

> Zionism is a replication of white European colonialism, but performed by Jewish European people, and partly encouraged by European powers primarily for geopolitical and also partly religious purposes (see Christian Zionism). It uses the dubious Jewish ancestral claim to the land as well as past oppression to create a Jewish ethno state and oppress a people who is probably more related in ancestry to the original Jewish people than most Jews (except those that had been there for generations).

How can jews be white when they were never considered the same class citizens in Europe at the time? LOL

Man, why are you like that? Why do you ignore any historical evidence that does not fit your narrative? Why do you apply different standards to jews and not jews in the same situations?

[7sigma]

> But they did not displace the population. They arrived to the area in the beginning of 1900s. The war of 1948 was much later.

Yes they did, this was the Nakba, as documented by Israeli historians like Illan Pappe and Bennhy Morris

The purchase of the land up to 1948 resulted in only 6% of palestine being occupied and upon Palestinians clamouring for their own state, it was decided to take territory by force.

White supremacy is not really about being white or not. Italians and southern europeans were not considered white in the early 20th century US. Its about who is considered the top of a hierarchy of a racial hierarchy or not.

> Man, why are you like that? Why do you ignore any historical evidence that does not fit your narrative? Why do you apply different standards to jews and not jews in the same situations?

You are talking to a Jewish former zionist, with grandparents who survived the holocaust, who has rejected the myths of Zionism. The narrative is based on historical evidence. I'm applying the same standards to Jews as I would do to Nazis.

[reliabilityguy]

> Yes they did, this was the Nakba

Gotcha. So, refugees are colonizers then, right?

> The purchase of the land up to 1948 resulted in only 6% of palestine being occupied

Palestinians owned about 8%. The rest was owned by the Ottomans and later by the British mandate.

> White supremacy is not really about being white or not. Italians and southern europeans were not considered white in the early 20th century US. Its about who is considered the top of a hierarchy of a racial hierarchy or not.

You are contradicting yourself. White supremacy is either about race (ie white) or not. If it’s not about race at all, then how can it determine racial hierarchy???

> You are talking to a Jewish former zionist, with grandparents who survived the holocaust, who has rejected the myths of Zionism.

I don’t care who you are. I argue about your claims, and not ethnic or cultural or ancestral background. You can be the Moses himself and still be wrong.

> The narrative is based on historical evidence.

You are not.

> I'm applying the same standards to Jews as I would do to Nazis.

What does it even mean? Are you saying Jews are nazis?