I was banned from patriots.win for pointing out a political figure's (Jewish) background.
(Jewish) power has such control over the national dialogue AND methods of communication that even referencing a political figure's connections to (Jewish) heritage results in a ban. Think about that. Merely stating facts ends the conversation and results in permanent ban - from right-wing conservatives! NOT from woke liberals!
This is coming from Patriots.win, the SAME group that left reddit.com over censorship - now they enact tyrannical censorship at even the reference or HINT of (Jewish) power.
Why is this? Probably because the MODs are Jewish. Perhaps because Patriots.win is run by Israeli interests. This is telling example of the extend that (Jewish) power reaches to and it's ability to dominate the dialogue.
Perfect example of your zionist bias in the first sentence, thanks for making it so easy for me and obvious for everyone else:
The fact that you think this is a valid argument is laughable. Israel didn’t exist until 70 years ago. Whatever you think of Palestinian statehood, their claim to the land is undeniably stronger than some hook nosed European terrorists who only started squatting there yesterday.
You disqualify yourself from being capable of talking about bias, with just these words quoted here.
You have nothing but bias; no rationale, no reason. You lack the sense you were born with. Hopefully that remains confined to just this one issue, of which you have no understanding.
(Yap Emoji)
"States" are relatively easily cognizable entities. Why yes, Israel wasn't a state of any kind for a long time since Judaea Province, 135. But peoples are much harder to cognize, and the chains from Judaea to Israel, and from Palaestina to Palestine, are both hotly contested and so I don't make presumptions about them or their claims as you do.
It may well be that a limited-recognition member state disacknowledged by 28/193 members has certain disadvantages over an observer nonmember state disacknowledged by 47/193 members. A member state can get judged by the ICC, for instance. There's a good case for moral equivalence, which is what I've sought to uphold. I don't know how to judge land claims without both parties agreeing to a mediator or to war.
Two questions again. What is Zionism? How have I met your definition? You seem to be defining Zionism and land claims along lines as subjective as those people, whom I name, who defined "racism" (Hirschfeld) and "genocide" (Lemkin).
Zionism is ethnonationalism for jews (aka Ashke-nazism), and yes you have met the definition because you’ve explicitly supported the ethnic cleansing/genocide of the locals
"Ethnonationalism"? Is that like declaring that whites have a continuing right to cultivate the majority culture of America? Is the American version different from declaring that racial Jews have a continuing right to cultivate the majority culture of Israel? It would seem by that definition that 146 UN member nations are Zionist.
But I haven't explicitly supported ethnic cleansing or genocide, nor have I supported the deaths that have occurred in this conflict. I said the jury is still out about them and I haven't gotten enough info to make a judgment. I'm sure not going to make the judgment the way it was made about our involvement in say Iraq where the MSM fed us death numbers every minute. I said if there were evidence of Israeli atrocities I'd look into it; but somehow I didn't get the links that were more than airy rumor. You had free rein to post data, you're posting more as we speak, and it doesn't support your implied or stated thesis. Maybe we found one atrocity where both sides were heard and the IDF description was found wanting? I don't remember, I just remember that these counts of myriads don't seem any different from any other war on the other side of the world. Honestly, the Brooklyn bathhouse abuses were worse than the data you showed so far.
Look, to humor you I did a quick search and found that the Sde Teiman camp saw a reservist charged with aggravated abuse, apparently reported on the IDF's own initiative. If the charges are true, well, that's an atrocity. There are suspicions of very much bad behavior there, enough so that there are also suspicions that not all accusations are true. I could be a conspiracist and immediately hold that all kinds of satanic abuse occur there, but the evidence is much more lacking than in a number of other conspiracies about the same. I could be an uber-Zionist and hold that no abuse occurs there, that the charges are false, but there's no reason for that either. So I bide my time. Should I storm Sde Teiman based on rumor? No, if I were of that mind I would storm some local site, or I would go help people in North Carolina. But I can't take abuses conducted in wartime and make them a "genocide" by the slippery Jewish definition. Rather, I trust that abuses will be corrected, first by the organization responsible, and then by outsiders if necessary. I call on God for reparation of all wrongs. But I'm also sensitive to when certain wrongs are being played up so gigantically at the cost of imbalance about many other wrongs.
So your definition doesn't work, your charges don't stick, you're not proving your points with any evidence, you're finding things nowhere in your provided sources, and I have no idea what you want me to do about it.