QatzelOk wrote:Terror is what created Israel, along with bribes, blackmail and genocide.
The use of the words "Palestinian" and "terrorist" in the same sentence, is used to build a racism against Arabs so that Euro-jews can kill them with no consequences.
(Notice that the WaPo article is careful to use the words "Jewish resistance groups" instead of "Jewish terror organizations?" The difference in vocabulary was obviously paid for.)
For no cost to you at all, let me offer you this: "Palestinian Resistance Groups" have all of my support against the racists who are trying to steal their stuff and destroy their culture and reputation. I would have the same opinion of First Nations Resistance groups while they were resisting the Euro-racists who eventually genocided them.
If you want to call the Irgun and Lehi Jewish terrorists I'm just fine with it. Irgun itself was eventually crushed by the Israeli state itself because it insisted on its terrorism
, something similar happened to Lehi as it did not stop its terrorist activities in Israel itself in the 1950s. If that's your argument, it's a shitty one.
They are not convicted terrorists as many have not even been charged. And the military courts are not courts, but summary justice factories.
A façade of propriety masks one of the most injurious apparatuses of the occupation. The military orders are all written by Israeli soldiers and reflect what they consider to be harmful to Israeli interests. Palestinians have no way of influencing the content of the military orders that rule their lives. The military judges and prosecutors are always Israeli soldiers in uniform. The Palestinians are always viewed as either suspects or defendants and are almost always convicted. For all these reasons, military courts are not an impartial, neutral arbitrator – nor can they be. They are firmly entrenched on one side of this unequal balance and serve as one of the central systems maintaining Israel’s control over the Palestinian people.
In the early 1980s, the Attorney General decided that Israeli citizens would be tried in the Israeli civilian court system according to Israeli penal laws, even if they lived in the Occupied Territories and the offense was committed there, against residents of the Occupied Territories. That policy remains in effect to this day.
This means people are tried in different courts, under different laws, for the same offense committed in the same place: Palestinian defendants are tried in military courts, their guilt or innocence determined according to the evidence laws followed in this court system, and their sentences according to the provisions of military orders. Israeli defendants are tried in a civilian court in Israel, exonerated or convicted under Israeli evidence laws, and sentenced under Israeli law.
Too bad many of the terrorists were taped on video carrying out the type of attacks you wish you could do but lack the guts to.
Pants-of-dog wrote:The lack of large scale emigration also does not refute the claims of ethnic cleansing and genocide. There were also periods in European history when Europeans were attempting to kill or remove Jews en masse and there were no large scale emigrations.
You mean because they just murdered them en masse?
Pants-of-dog wrote:And as explained earlier, Egypt is refusing passage to refugees because they think the IDF is conducting a program of ethnic cleansing.
And the idea that getting to Europe is easy has also been refuted.
Consequently, the counter argument of no large scale emigration also does not refute the claims.
It does refute the claim that Israel is ethnically cleansing Gaza if you can't prove there has been mass expulsion or even emigration from there.
If it's about trying, nothing stops Israel from sending ships to Gaza's shores to let Gazans go elsewhere. You know, like that old Arab propaganda about throwing the Jews to the sea.
Getting into Europe by sea isn't that hard, given there have been millions who have succeeded in doing just that this last decade.