Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Settler colonialism is a relatively new term. I don't believe it is mentioned in international law. However, the process of settler colonialism violates the universal rights of a people. The right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity are all violated by settler colonialism. So, the term settler colonialism merely consolidates these violations into a single term.RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ rylah, et al,
Yes! → The cry of "colonialism" is just a theme. It is an emotional plea from the immature Arab Palestinian Activists and complainants to induce sympathy from those that really don't understand the meaning of "colonial." Those that understand the international law meaning behind that terminology know that the Arab Palestinians, and those that support pro-Arab Palestinians position, misunderstand colonialism as a synonym for imperialism.
(COMMENT)But that's only marginal outcome, this trend makes Israel into a leading middle eastern country in a fashion You westerners don't realize, the more You go against Israel in Europe and US, the more the cry about "foreign colonialism" becomes irrelevant and self defeating.
Israel was not then and is not now a political-economic and/or a political-military extension of a parent country's sovereignty over the territory (formerly under the Mandate); a territory established through the settlement of colonies or administrative dependencies on the parent. But because of the misleading ways, the Anti-Israeli Lobby presents the facts relative to the Applied Powers Mandate to facilitate Jewish Immigration for establishing of a Jewish National Home (not an imperial colony).
Most Respectfully,
R
And remember, both Britain and the Zionists openly used the term colonialism to define the Zionist project.
You are confused by some simple terms. Migration is where someone goes to your country and moves into the house next door. Colonialism is where someone goes to your country and moves into your house,However, the process of settler colonialism violates the universal rights of a people. The right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity are all violated by settler colonialism. So, the term settler colonialism merely consolidates these violations into a single term.
Nearly every country in the world has been touched by 'settler colonialism' (otherwise known as 'migration'). There are VERY few ethnically homogeneous nations in existence in the world untouched by waves of cultural migration. (Japan? Korea? Denmark? Fiji?)
Assuming that these historical and modern migrations actually ARE violations of the rights to self determination, independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity (and I'm inclined to agree with you that they are), what is to be done with a world -- 194 States, give or take the odd few -- which has developed as a product of these violations? At least up until ~100 years ago when it began to be rejected?
The problem with your arguments is that you don't seem to be able to construct an objective, comprehensive, reasonable and fairly applied structure to answering these questions. (Not the least of which is how to determine which peoples rights are being violated). Instead, you reverse engineer "how can I delegitimize the Jewish people's rights", which results in a standard you apply to no State, no matter how "settler colonized", except Israel.
If we apply your basic concept of a "violation of universal rights" to France or Spain or Canada or Australia or Brazil or Mexico or the US or Morocco or Britain -- what would you suggest would be the corrective measures to take?
You are confused by some simple terms. Migration is where someone goes to your country and moves into the house next door. Colonialism is where someone goes to your country and moves into your house,However, the process of settler colonialism violates the universal rights of a people. The right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity are all violated by settler colonialism. So, the term settler colonialism merely consolidates these violations into a single term.
Nearly every country in the world has been touched by 'settler colonialism' (otherwise known as 'migration'). There are VERY few ethnically homogeneous nations in existence in the world untouched by waves of cultural migration. (Japan? Korea? Denmark? Fiji?)
Assuming that these historical and modern migrations actually ARE violations of the rights to self determination, independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity (and I'm inclined to agree with you that they are), what is to be done with a world -- 194 States, give or take the odd few -- which has developed as a product of these violations? At least up until ~100 years ago when it began to be rejected?
The problem with your arguments is that you don't seem to be able to construct an objective, comprehensive, reasonable and fairly applied structure to answering these questions. (Not the least of which is how to determine which peoples rights are being violated). Instead, you reverse engineer "how can I delegitimize the Jewish people's rights", which results in a standard you apply to no State, no matter how "settler colonized", except Israel.
If we apply your basic concept of a "violation of universal rights" to France or Spain or Canada or Australia or Brazil or Mexico or the US or Morocco or Britain -- what would you suggest would be the corrective measures to take?
The Palestinians did not invite settlers.You are confused by some simple terms. Migration is where someone goes to your country and moves into the house next door. Colonialism is where someone goes to your country and moves into your house,However, the process of settler colonialism violates the universal rights of a people. The right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity are all violated by settler colonialism. So, the term settler colonialism merely consolidates these violations into a single term.
Nearly every country in the world has been touched by 'settler colonialism' (otherwise known as 'migration'). There are VERY few ethnically homogeneous nations in existence in the world untouched by waves of cultural migration. (Japan? Korea? Denmark? Fiji?)
Assuming that these historical and modern migrations actually ARE violations of the rights to self determination, independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity (and I'm inclined to agree with you that they are), what is to be done with a world -- 194 States, give or take the odd few -- which has developed as a product of these violations? At least up until ~100 years ago when it began to be rejected?
The problem with your arguments is that you don't seem to be able to construct an objective, comprehensive, reasonable and fairly applied structure to answering these questions. (Not the least of which is how to determine which peoples rights are being violated). Instead, you reverse engineer "how can I delegitimize the Jewish people's rights", which results in a standard you apply to no State, no matter how "settler colonized", except Israel.
If we apply your basic concept of a "violation of universal rights" to France or Spain or Canada or Australia or Brazil or Mexico or the US or Morocco or Britain -- what would you suggest would be the corrective measures to take?
But I invited my brother to colonize my house, and liberate it from foreign rule,
I even gave him my offspring to marry, my yard, food and money to do so,
what's the problem in that?
The Palestinians did not invite settlers.You are confused by some simple terms. Migration is where someone goes to your country and moves into the house next door. Colonialism is where someone goes to your country and moves into your house,However, the process of settler colonialism violates the universal rights of a people. The right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity are all violated by settler colonialism. So, the term settler colonialism merely consolidates these violations into a single term.
Nearly every country in the world has been touched by 'settler colonialism' (otherwise known as 'migration'). There are VERY few ethnically homogeneous nations in existence in the world untouched by waves of cultural migration. (Japan? Korea? Denmark? Fiji?)
Assuming that these historical and modern migrations actually ARE violations of the rights to self determination, independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity (and I'm inclined to agree with you that they are), what is to be done with a world -- 194 States, give or take the odd few -- which has developed as a product of these violations? At least up until ~100 years ago when it began to be rejected?
The problem with your arguments is that you don't seem to be able to construct an objective, comprehensive, reasonable and fairly applied structure to answering these questions. (Not the least of which is how to determine which peoples rights are being violated). Instead, you reverse engineer "how can I delegitimize the Jewish people's rights", which results in a standard you apply to no State, no matter how "settler colonized", except Israel.
If we apply your basic concept of a "violation of universal rights" to France or Spain or Canada or Australia or Brazil or Mexico or the US or Morocco or Britain -- what would you suggest would be the corrective measures to take?
But I invited my brother to colonize my house, and liberate it from foreign rule,
I even gave him my offspring to marry, my yard, food and money to do so,
what's the problem in that?
You are confused by some simple terms. Migration is where someone goes to your country and moves into the house next door. Colonialism is where someone goes to your country and moves into your house,
You are confused by some simple terms. Migration is where someone goes to your country and moves into the house next door. Colonialism is where someone goes to your country and moves into your house,However, the process of settler colonialism violates the universal rights of a people. The right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity are all violated by settler colonialism. So, the term settler colonialism merely consolidates these violations into a single term.
Nearly every country in the world has been touched by 'settler colonialism' (otherwise known as 'migration'). There are VERY few ethnically homogeneous nations in existence in the world untouched by waves of cultural migration. (Japan? Korea? Denmark? Fiji?)
Assuming that these historical and modern migrations actually ARE violations of the rights to self determination, independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity (and I'm inclined to agree with you that they are), what is to be done with a world -- 194 States, give or take the odd few -- which has developed as a product of these violations? At least up until ~100 years ago when it began to be rejected?
The problem with your arguments is that you don't seem to be able to construct an objective, comprehensive, reasonable and fairly applied structure to answering these questions. (Not the least of which is how to determine which peoples rights are being violated). Instead, you reverse engineer "how can I delegitimize the Jewish people's rights", which results in a standard you apply to no State, no matter how "settler colonized", except Israel.
If we apply your basic concept of a "violation of universal rights" to France or Spain or Canada or Australia or Brazil or Mexico or the US or Morocco or Britain -- what would you suggest would be the corrective measures to take?
The Palestinians did not invite settlers.You are confused by some simple terms. Migration is where someone goes to your country and moves into the house next door. Colonialism is where someone goes to your country and moves into your house,However, the process of settler colonialism violates the universal rights of a people. The right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity are all violated by settler colonialism. So, the term settler colonialism merely consolidates these violations into a single term.
Nearly every country in the world has been touched by 'settler colonialism' (otherwise known as 'migration'). There are VERY few ethnically homogeneous nations in existence in the world untouched by waves of cultural migration. (Japan? Korea? Denmark? Fiji?)
Assuming that these historical and modern migrations actually ARE violations of the rights to self determination, independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity (and I'm inclined to agree with you that they are), what is to be done with a world -- 194 States, give or take the odd few -- which has developed as a product of these violations? At least up until ~100 years ago when it began to be rejected?
The problem with your arguments is that you don't seem to be able to construct an objective, comprehensive, reasonable and fairly applied structure to answering these questions. (Not the least of which is how to determine which peoples rights are being violated). Instead, you reverse engineer "how can I delegitimize the Jewish people's rights", which results in a standard you apply to no State, no matter how "settler colonized", except Israel.
If we apply your basic concept of a "violation of universal rights" to France or Spain or Canada or Australia or Brazil or Mexico or the US or Morocco or Britain -- what would you suggest would be the corrective measures to take?
But I invited my brother to colonize my house, and liberate it from foreign rule,
I even gave him my offspring to marry, my yard, food and money to do so,
what's the problem in that?
How is this bad for Israel?It is true that Democrats, as a party, still support Israel. However, individual Democrats are moving away from that position. Bernie supporters are moving him away from his staunch support of Israel. About 30 members of congress skipped Nutandyahoo's speech. About 19 members have signed on to the No Way to Treat a Child initiative.
A short decade ago none of this could have happened.
Some decades ago it wasn't even a central topic of the world inner politics.
Just remember that for any seemingly opposition there's a step forward in opportunities and business models, the more #BDS-holes go on the streets the more advanced will be the investments in the Israeli market.
But that's only marginal outcome, this trend makes Israel into a leading middle eastern country in a fashion You westerners don't realize, the more You go against Israel in Europe and US, the more the cry about "foreign colonialism" becomes irrelevant and self defeating.
Rather desperate, dumping the same YouTube video in multiple threads.
Zionist trolls take the same dump on multiple threads.
Nice duck.
The Palestinians did not invite settlers.You are confused by some simple terms. Migration is where someone goes to your country and moves into the house next door. Colonialism is where someone goes to your country and moves into your house,However, the process of settler colonialism violates the universal rights of a people. The right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity are all violated by settler colonialism. So, the term settler colonialism merely consolidates these violations into a single term.
Nearly every country in the world has been touched by 'settler colonialism' (otherwise known as 'migration'). There are VERY few ethnically homogeneous nations in existence in the world untouched by waves of cultural migration. (Japan? Korea? Denmark? Fiji?)
Assuming that these historical and modern migrations actually ARE violations of the rights to self determination, independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity (and I'm inclined to agree with you that they are), what is to be done with a world -- 194 States, give or take the odd few -- which has developed as a product of these violations? At least up until ~100 years ago when it began to be rejected?
The problem with your arguments is that you don't seem to be able to construct an objective, comprehensive, reasonable and fairly applied structure to answering these questions. (Not the least of which is how to determine which peoples rights are being violated). Instead, you reverse engineer "how can I delegitimize the Jewish people's rights", which results in a standard you apply to no State, no matter how "settler colonized", except Israel.
If we apply your basic concept of a "violation of universal rights" to France or Spain or Canada or Australia or Brazil or Mexico or the US or Morocco or Britain -- what would you suggest would be the corrective measures to take?
But I invited my brother to colonize my house, and liberate it from foreign rule,
I even gave him my offspring to marry, my yard, food and money to do so,
what's the problem in that?
Of course P F Tinmore they did, it was the central theme of the Jewish community, and they were promised that by law.
Birthright walkout is met with vitriolic rage in Israel — ‘Radicals’ ‘You will get raped’
The former congressman Brian Baird once said that when you criticize Israel even privately to Israeli officials, they flip out on you, even if you’re a congressman; and this is the most important takeaway of the wonderful Birthright walkout that happened yesterday and that is now all over the Jewish press. A group of five young American Jewish women on their free propaganda trip to Israel kept demanding information about the occupation, and at last left the trip to join a tour of occupied Hebron by the Israeli dissident group Breaking the Silence. And the Israelis went crazy.
Birthright walkout is met with vitriolic rage in Israel — ‘Radicals’ ‘You will get raped’
Perhaps the highest profile concealment effort currently going on is the suppression of Al Jazeera’s undercover documentary, The Lobby – USA, exposing some of the inner workings of the US Israel lobby.
In March, The Electronic Intifada exclusively published the first concrete details of what is in the film.
The film reportedly identifies a number of lobby groups as working directly with Israel to spy on American citizens using sophisticated data gathering techniques. The documentary is also said to cast light on covert efforts to smear and intimidate Americans seen as too critical of Israel.
Perhaps the highest profile concealment effort currently going on is the suppression of Al Jazeera’s undercover documentary, The Lobby – USA, exposing some of the inner workings of the US Israel lobby.
In March, The Electronic Intifada exclusively published the first concrete details of what is in the film.
The film reportedly identifies a number of lobby groups as working directly with Israel to spy on American citizens using sophisticated data gathering techniques. The documentary is also said to cast light on covert efforts to smear and intimidate Americans seen as too critical of Israel.
