African American goes to Israel and notes oppression similar to how US treated blacks

Translation:

Palestinians were relocated FORCIBLY due to Israeli terrorism.

Palestinians currently NEED to relocate because of Israel's military aggression.

Therefore Palestinians logically are willing to relocate VOLUNTARILY to complete Israel's vision of a wholly Jewish settler colonial state.

You make perfect sense. Naturally.

 

I never understood how
A Group of people. . . who were not in that region . .. from that region or have any claim to that region
can just come in and decide to give that region to another group.

What right did the western power have to make a state of Isreal?
It was not their land to make decisions about.

Rocket River

 

Yeah, it's a joke.

 

So they enjoyed the benefits of slavery for much longer?

 

Another lengthy recount of how an African American compares, and unconsciously downplays, every instance of inequality he encounters to slavery?

 

Clearly you read the piece.

 

You do know what a question mark is right?

 

Certainly, about as well as I recognize your transparent crap. Yay!

 

Um...It's not a mystery.

The United Kingdom took over territory from the Ottoman Empire (who once ruled the entire region) at the end of WW1, after they beat them, and rewarded those that were loyal to them, including what are now the ruling dynasties of the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, and building artificial states like Iraq that forced different people together with no common national identity. Frankly, the Palestinian Mandate and what became of it was small fries compared to the consequences of them redrawing the map of the entire region. Had they known about all that oil, I'm sure thing would have been different

Had the Turks never sided with Germany in WWI...I'm sure things would have gone differently. But either way, Jews had already built Tel Aviv a decade before the start of WW1 with Ottoman blessings, who were a lot cooler with Jews than Europeans were. It's safe to say they had every intention of being Ottoman subjects, as many of these people, like David Ben-Gurion, studied Turkish and Ottoman law in those days, and even when he declared statehood in 1948, he did it unilaterally and with great contraversy and to great surprise to most of the Jews living there at the time.

So you can blame the Turks for letting Jews settle there, blame Britain for allowing more immigration, leaving and not preventing Israel from declaring statehood, or you can blame Egypt and Jordan for annexing what was left after fighting Israel in 1948.

This is a large part of the hasbarist claim there was never a Palistinian state to begin with to "steal" -- the land had always been claimed by another power. There is some truth to that, but it's a really weaselly truth, because (without even touching the Nakba) it's used in a very disingenuous way to suggest that Palistinians were never and are not a distinct people and have no right or reason to have a state NOW.

It should have been resolved and done 35-40 years ago, at the very least within a few years of Menachim Begin agreeing to resolving the conflict "within a reasonable time" both in principle and in writing at the Camp David Accords. But here we are, arguing about it, as if the facts aren't available on wikipedia.

 

His comparisons to slavery didn't bother me as much as the whole thing read like a parody of journalism. It felt like this:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/kOV6zRvcLuY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The journalist to person ratio is probably lower in Israel than anywhere on Earth. If you're going to take on that subject you better damn well know what you're doing. He didn't do much homework and he expects his startling insight to shock and awe his readers.

 

I had a hard time reading past this part. Not because I disagreed with the sentiment per say, but because this paragraph is already indicative of some pretty serious bias.