Israel was a colonialist project from the outset, and so remains today

Do colonialists have rights?

Link?

Wait, what?! Are you saying there are groups of peoples who do NOT have inherent human rights? Do tell? Which peoples? Which rights?

Colonial powers deny others inherent human rights, pretty straight forward stuff really.

That is not what Tinmore said, though. He asked if colonialists HAVE rights. Do they have inherent human rights?

In other words do colonialists actively engaged in depriving others of their inherent human rights have inherent human rights.

And you need help with that.
 
Do colonialists have rights?

Link?

Wait, what?! Are you saying there are groups of peoples who do NOT have inherent human rights? Do tell? Which peoples? Which rights?

Colonial powers deny others inherent human rights, pretty straight forward stuff really.

That is not what Tinmore said, though. He asked if colonialists HAVE rights. Do they have inherent human rights?

In other words do colonialists actively engaged in depriving others of their inherent human rights have inherent human rights.

And you need help with that.

I think it is VERY dangerous territory to claim that some people have no inherent human rights.
 
Do colonialists have rights?

Link?

Wait, what?! Are you saying there are groups of peoples who do NOT have inherent human rights? Do tell? Which peoples? Which rights?

Colonial powers deny others inherent human rights, pretty straight forward stuff really.

That is not what Tinmore said, though. He asked if colonialists HAVE rights. Do they have inherent human rights?

In other words do colonialists actively engaged in depriving others of their inherent human rights have inherent human rights.

And you need help with that.

I think it is VERY dangerous territory to claim that some people have no inherent human rights.

Which is what colonialism does.
 
Wait, what?! Are you saying there are groups of peoples who do NOT have inherent human rights? Do tell? Which peoples? Which rights?

Colonial powers deny others inherent human rights, pretty straight forward stuff really.

That is not what Tinmore said, though. He asked if colonialists HAVE rights. Do they have inherent human rights?

In other words do colonialists actively engaged in depriving others of their inherent human rights have inherent human rights.

And you need help with that.

I think it is VERY dangerous territory to claim that some people have no inherent human rights.

Which is what colonialism does.

But again, that is not what you wrote. You wrote: ... do colonialists ... have inherent human rights?

Of course they do. We all do. That is why they are inherent.
 
Colonial powers deny others inherent human rights, pretty straight forward stuff really.

That is not what Tinmore said, though. He asked if colonialists HAVE rights. Do they have inherent human rights?

In other words do colonialists actively engaged in depriving others of their inherent human rights have inherent human rights.

And you need help with that.

I think it is VERY dangerous territory to claim that some people have no inherent human rights.

Which is what colonialism does.

But again, that is not what you wrote. You wrote: ... do colonialists ... have inherent human rights?

Of course they do. We all do. That is why they are inherent.

Thanks, I recall:

In other words do colonialists actively engaged in depriving others of their inherent human rights have inherent human rights.

And you need help with that.
 
Let's talk about these inherent human rights, then. What rights are we talking about?

Do the Arab Palestinians have a right to self-determination in their homeland?
Do the Jewish people have a right to self-determination in their homeland?
Does either party have an exclusive right to the homeland without the presence of the other group (an ethnically homogeneous territory)?

My answers: yes, yes, no, but...there has to be enough homogeneity to not threaten self-determination.
 
Let's talk about these inherent human rights, then. What rights are we talking about?

Do the Arab Palestinians have a right to self-determination in their homeland?
Do the Jewish people have a right to self-determination in their homeland?
Does either party have an exclusive right to the homeland without the presence of the other group (an ethnically homogeneous territory)?

My answers: yes, yes, no, but...there has to be enough homogeneity to not threaten self-determination.

Who's doing the colonizing?
 
Let's talk about these inherent human rights, then. What rights are we talking about?

Do the Arab Palestinians have a right to self-determination in their homeland?
Do the Jewish people have a right to self-determination in their homeland?
Does either party have an exclusive right to the homeland without the presence of the other group (an ethnically homogeneous territory)?

My answers: yes, yes, no, but...there has to be enough homogeneity to not threaten self-determination.

Who's doing the colonizing?

No one
 
Let's talk about these inherent human rights, then. What rights are we talking about?

Do the Arab Palestinians have a right to self-determination in their homeland?
Do the Jewish people have a right to self-determination in their homeland?
Does either party have an exclusive right to the homeland without the presence of the other group (an ethnically homogeneous territory)?

My answers: yes, yes, no, but...there has to be enough homogeneity to not threaten self-determination.

Who's doing the colonizing?

No one

Who is engaged in seeking to deprive the so called rights of the other?
 
Let's talk about these inherent human rights, then. What rights are we talking about?

Do the Arab Palestinians have a right to self-determination in their homeland?
Do the Jewish people have a right to self-determination in their homeland?
Does either party have an exclusive right to the homeland without the presence of the other group (an ethnically homogeneous territory)?

My answers: yes, yes, no, but...there has to be enough homogeneity to not threaten self-determination.

Who's doing the colonizing?

No one

Who is engaged in seeking to deprive the so called rights of the other?

The only people even suggesting it on this thread are you and Tinmore.
 
Let's talk about these inherent human rights, then. What rights are we talking about?

Do the Arab Palestinians have a right to self-determination in their homeland?
Do the Jewish people have a right to self-determination in their homeland?
Does either party have an exclusive right to the homeland without the presence of the other group (an ethnically homogeneous territory)?

My answers: yes, yes, no, but...there has to be enough homogeneity to not threaten self-determination.

Who's doing the colonizing?

No one
Both Britain and the Zionists called it colonialism during the Mandate period.

Now you want to refute the horse's mouth.
 
Both Britain and the Zionists called it colonialism during the Mandate period.

Sure it was the term in general use at the time to mean immigration, especially when referring to land which was not in use.

It does not have the same meaning as you mean it here -- where a colonial power sends its own citizens to a foreign territory.

You can't colonize your own homeland.
 
Let's talk about these inherent human rights, then. What rights are we talking about?

Do the Arab Palestinians have a right to self-determination in their homeland?
Do the Jewish people have a right to self-determination in their homeland?
Does either party have an exclusive right to the homeland without the presence of the other group (an ethnically homogeneous territory)?

My answers: yes, yes, no, but...there has to be enough homogeneity to not threaten self-determination.

Who's doing the colonizing?

No one
Both Britain and the Zionists called it colonialism during the Mandate period.

Now you want to refute the horse's mouth.

You poor, dear. Your tender islamo-feelings are hurt.

Muhammedan hoards invaded, conquered and settled the area of Pal'istan. They forced their retrograde cultural practices, their politico-religious ideology and sharia laws on the population at the end of a sword. They imposed their own brand of Islamic fascism via dhimmitude. Yet, you whine like a fascist Islamist because the Mandate encouraged Jewish immigration. It's comical that you presume colonization by the muhammedan hoardes is acceptable and yet, you then screech that the Islamist colonizers are being colonized because the Mandate provided for the Jewish National Home on land that the Ottoman Turks released rights and title to.

Your shrill screeching is causing all the dogs in my neighborhood to start barking.
 
Both Britain and the Zionists called it colonialism during the Mandate period.

Sure it was the term in general use at the time to mean immigration, especially when referring to land which was not in use.

It does not have the same meaning as you mean it here -- where a colonial power sends its own citizens to a foreign territory....
Not in use?
Acre Subdistrict
See also: Acre Subdistrict
Beersheba Subdistrict
See also: Beersheba Subdistrict
Beisan Subdistrict
See also: Beisan Subdistrict

OK, buddy, whatever you want tot believe.

louie888 - Please do not post entire articles - post a small to medium section (per the rules) - Edited by Mod
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's talk about these inherent human rights, then. What rights are we talking about?

Do the Arab Palestinians have a right to self-determination in their homeland?
Do the Jewish people have a right to self-determination in their homeland?
Does either party have an exclusive right to the homeland without the presence of the other group (an ethnically homogeneous territory)?

My answers: yes, yes, no, but...there has to be enough homogeneity to not threaten self-determination.

Who's doing the colonizing?

No one

Who is engaged in seeking to deprive the so called rights of the other?

The only people even suggesting it on this thread are you and Tinmore.

Look, your discussion point here is moot. “Endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights” is a bullshit phrase and empty propaganda tool in american society and history. Theater and illusion, nothing else, look at the history of this place. A group of colonial aristocrats (“a”) had a pissing match with a group of British aristocrats (“b”); group “a” wished to be “free” from group “b”. That’s all the empty rhetoric was ever about. Group “a” saw these “certain unalienable rights” as for themselves, but once free from group “b”, never passed that on to those they ruled over. Only well heeled land owning white males were “granted” the vote (so much for “all [even men] men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights”. And the senate was appointed by the aristocracy, not voted upon. The those here prior to “discovery”, “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights”, were functionally genocided off of the land mass, and Africans, “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights”, were subjected to enslavement. And even now, today, as you wish to attempt some feckless mental masturbatory exercise on “rights” we all ostensibly have been granted by some supernatural being, these “rights” are always a function of the leverage power (economic/military/political), violence, oppression, resource/wealth extraction, and the willingness to engage in usurping the “rights” of others.
 
Both Britain and the Zionists called it colonialism during the Mandate period.

Sure it was the term in general use at the time to mean immigration, especially when referring to land which was not in use.

It does not have the same meaning as you mean it here -- where a colonial power sends its own citizens to a foreign territory.

You can't colonize your own homeland.

Sure it was the term in general use at the time to mean immigration, especially when referring to land which was not in use.

i.e., land not being "used" in the manner the guy with the biggest and most brutal military wants to use it. Jesus what a rationale; americans can justify anything, and this is the clown positing we all have inalienable rights and shit.
 
Both Britain and the Zionists called it colonialism during the Mandate period.

Sure it was the term in general use at the time to mean immigration, especially when referring to land which was not in use.

It does not have the same meaning as you mean it here -- where a colonial power sends its own citizens to a foreign territory....
Not in use?
Acre Subdistrict
See also: Acre Subdistrict
Beersheba Subdistrict
See also: Beersheba Subdistrict
Beisan Subdistrict
See also: Beisan Subdistrict
Gaza Subdistrict
See also: Gaza Subdistrict
Haifa Subdistrict
See also: Haifa Subdistrict
Hebron Subdistrict
See also: Hebron Subdistrict
Jaffa Subdistrict
See also: Jaffa Subdistrict
Jenin Subdistrict
See also: Jenin Subdistrict
Jerusalem Subdistrict
See also: Jerusalem Subdistrict
Nazareth Subdistrict
See also: Nazareth Subdistrict
Ramle Subdistrict
See also: Ramle Subdistrict
Safad Subdistrict
See also: Safad Subdistrict
Tiberias Subdistrict
See also: Tiberias Subdistrict
Tulkarm Subdistrict
See also: Tulkarm Subdistrict
OK, buddy, whatever you want tot believe.

Colonialism's/capitalism's classic rationale, "oh, well you all weren't 'using it', so it's ours now".
 

Forum List

Back
Top