u/Veyron2000

This has really drawn out all the people who will insist that they are not at all racist. 

It is amazing how many people only read the headline of the article, and draw up their own racist conclusion. 

It is also ironic that the people most vocally opposed to immigration are also examples of exactly the kind of hateful, backwards, conservative culture they are supposedly against. 

I mean do you really think Reform voters contribute anything positive to the UK? 

I mean on this basis you could argue for deporting a lot of UK-born people too on the basis they are poor or young men, both of which is associated with criminality. 

I do not think they are saying “some migrants are naturally disposed towards criminality”. 

This is a bit stupid as usually migrants are either extremely keen to work (being economic migrants who literally came to the UK for jobs) or are legally banned from working, as in the case of asylum seekers. 

Indeed usually the anti-immigration politicians say that migrants are too effective at working and thus “steal UK jobs”. 

I would point out that historically the UK has been selective about immigration, but not in the way you’re proposing. 

First they gave preference to commonwealth / former-empire in the post war years which is why there was a lot of immigration from India, Pakistan, Nigeria and the Caribbean. 

Then there was immigration as part of free movement in the EU, which also allowed all those Brits to move to Spain and other countries and was part of the single market (i.e a free flow of both goods and people). 

Then (somewhat ironically) after Brexit the Conservative government tried to limit European immigration and boosted non-European immigration to compensate (as there are indeed quite a lot of jobs for which industries find it hard to find UK workers, e.g. the care home industry). 

Then there are also refugees from conflict zones like Somalia (a former British colony), Ukraine and Afghanistan. 

Generally the government has cared more about things like geopolitics or whether the migrant is going to benefit the economy than religion, probably because saying “we don’t want religious people” would upset all the UK religious conservatives (e.g. the Tories). 

If you don’t care about facts don’t be surprised if people don’t care about you. 

No it isn’t. Nor do I think anyone can even PLAUSIBLY claim it is antisemitic. 

I think literally everyone who claims “this is invoking antisemitic tropes” is deliberately lying because no one is that stupid. 

Israel 100% pushed the US into attacking Iran, and the US 100% does send billions of dollars of taxpayer money to Israel. 

Yet somehow Israel supporters, or even people who think “I’m critical of Israel” but are still loyal to Israel, refuse to ever accept that Israel could do anything wrong. 

But this ad isn’t even slightly antisemitic.

Literally everyone who claims it is antisemitic is either lying or insane. 

How?! I mean there is literally nothing wrong with the ad. 

It is so disturbing how many Democrats are still so slavishly loyal to the Israeli regime. 

This add is almost painfully inoffensive “spend money at home not subsidizing genocide”  yet still you have people like Haley Stevens denouncing it. 

For Trump I think its ego - the war massively hurts the GOP election chances but he doesn’t want to admit defeat. 

You mean AIPAC’s massive support for Mile Rogers, attempting to steal a US election? 

Racists. He means racists. 

  Now why Dumbledore, Hagrid, and the Weasely’s kept  returning  Harry to the Dursley household every summer is absolutely mystifying.

Because as Aunt Petunia was Lilly Potter’s sister the extremely powerful charm from Lilly’s sacrifice continued to protect Harry (or could be made to protect Harry) provided he still technically lived with her. This required Harry to stay with the Dursleys for at least some of the year. 

This is explained explicitly. 

The Amazon rainforest can avoid being destroyed after all (for now)

Are they agreeing that America was built by immigrants or saying that those immigrants were terrible because they cut down the trees and destroyed the landscape? 

These “both sides” headlines need to stop, all the actual reported facts show that it is entirely one sided: Israel’s government and Trump want to attack Iran for both their own insane imperialistic ambitions, for Trump’s ego, and to fire up their rabid base.  

The Zionist leadership always planned to conquer all of Palestine. They have never really supported a Palestinian state, despite occasional public statements to western backers. 

Would Israel give up a majority of Israel for a (for example) Druze state? No? 

Then clearly you realize that the conquest of most of Palestine is indefensible. 

Jewish people are also, ironically, far safer outside Israel than inside, due to the conflict sparked by the Zionist colonization project. 

What about this do you fail to understand? 

A two state solution requires two viable states. Do you dispute that? 

Israel overwhelmingly opposes any Palestinian state. Do you dispute that? 

Furthermore there are zero examples of successful, viable states that are not both: 

1. able to defend themselves, and 

2. have territory that is either contiguous or connected by sea. 

Do you dispute that? 

Hence you need points 1 through 4. 

This is not “my opinion” that is just basic practical reality lol. 

  Maybe they're not  pretending  that they have security concerns

I think jewish Israelis deserve to be safe. What I don’t agree with is the idea that ONLY jewish Israelis deserve security. 

Do you think Palestinian security concerns are totally unimportant? By any measure the security risks to Palestinians from Israel are FAR WORSE than any risk to jewish Israelis. 

It is Israel that is slaughtering thousands of people not any Palestinian group. 

It is Israel that has weapons of mass destruction, not Hamas or Iran or the PA. 

Palestinians have no Iron Dome, no US-funded defence systems, no tanks or air force. 

Either both Israel and Palestine are disarmed, or you need to give Palestine a sufficiently strong military and sufficiently strong defences that ordinary Palestinians can live their lives without the constant fear of attack and invasion by Israel.  Fears which are clearly entirely legitimate. 

  So why are East Jerusalem and the "legal right of return for victims of ethnic cleansing" red lines? Because they're existential threats to Israel, and everybody who gives this even a second's thought knows it  

Ah, see this is where you are lying again. 

Do you think that Israeli control of West Jerusalem (or Jerusalem in general) is an existential threat to Palestine? 

If not, then you clearly don’t think Palestinian control of East Jerusalem is an existential threat to Israel. 

Do you think that having non-jewish citizens in Israel is an existential threat? 

Then clearly allowing other ethnic cleansing victims their legal right of return is also not an existential threat. 

Naturally allowing more non-jews to vote in Israeli elections might be a threat to the political rule of right-wing Zionist parties, but that is no excuse to support ethnic cleansing. 

  A state with seven million Jews in it cannot absorb 6 million people

Israel literally encourages mass jewish immigration and boasts that it has space for unlimited numbers of jewish immigrants. So the “we don’t have space” argument is clearly not true. 

Also, it is not true that “the arab world eradicated its jewish population” - the backlash to the jewish and Zionist population in arab countries came IN RESPONSE to the mass ethnic cleansing Israel perpetrated in 1948, and most of the jewish population moved to Israel on the encouragement of the Israeli state as part of its demographic engineering project to replace expelled Palestinians. 

Even if you insist on keeping a 50% + 1 jewish majority (which is still an explicitly racist rather Nazi-like ideology requiring discriminatory laws and ethnic cleansing, but lets ignore that issue for the moment) that still lives room for hundreds of thousands, millions even, of Palestinian victims to return. 

Given many victims have indeed settled in other countries, you could likely give all victims the right of return enjoyed by, for example, jewish victims to Germany and still not threaten the jewish ruling majority. 

So really there is no excuse. 

  No country in its right mind would  share a capital city with a country it has been fighting on-and-off for generations. 

Either they share it or it becomes an international city as per the original partition plan, there is zero legitimate excuse for allowing Israel to just keep it. Doing that just rewards Putin-style conquest, and subjects the East Jerusalem population to continued subjugation. 

  Meanwhile, these things give Palestine nothing tangible. There's no strategic utility to a capital in East Jerusalem

This is laughably stupid 

First there is the huge Palestinian population in East Jerusalem who do not want to be subjugated by Israel. 

Second, Palestinians obviously want East Jerusalem as their capital for exactly the same reasons that jewish Israelis want Jerusalem, because of its immense religious and cultural significance and (for Palestinians) because they have long regarded it as their capital. 

There is also immense strategic value to having your capital be the most famous international city in your country. 

  there's no utility to an unlimited "right of return" except destabilizing Israel  

This is what really puzzles me about Zionists. 

You clearly consider yourself a normal person, right? With empathy etc. 

So why is it that you are ONLY able to empathize with people who are jewish? With the jewish Israelis? 

Can you not see how, for example, the Palestinian families who lived in Palestine for generations and were violent forced out at gunpoint in 1948, their homes and lands stolen, themselves forced into squalid refugee camps abroad or into overcrowded slums want both justice and to be able to return home? 

Consider it this way: currently jews enjoy a legal right of return to both Germany (for the descendants of those forced out by the Nazis) and to Spain and Portugal (for the descendants of those forced out in 1492) and Israel (based on no descent at all, but open to anyone jewish). 

Can you understand why eligible jews whose family were forced out by the Nazis from Germany might want to return home? 

Frankly, can you understand why people think ethnic cleansing is bad?   

  the majority of Palestinians do not want peaceful coexistence

That is completely wrong: Palestinians do not think that Israel wants peaceful coexistence, due to Israel’s actions over the past few decades and since 1948. 

Likewise, it is jewish Israelis who overwhelmingly support genocidal violence, as they feel they can get away with it. 

Ah I see we have the stupid kind of ethnic cleansing enthusiast here. 

Achieving a viable Palestinian state requires: 

1. Overwhelming outside pressure to force Israel, which is opposed to any Palestinian state, to change policy, via sanctions and / or military force. 

2. Either demilitarizing Israel or giving Palestine a strong enough military to deter the IDF (obviously no state can survive unless it can defend itself against its hostile neighbour). 

3. Probably giving more territory to Palestine on top of the 1967 borders. That is because there are almost no examples of viable states that consist of disconnected bits of territory with hostile states between them, at least without a sea route between them. 

4. Allow Palestine actual independence, including control over its own airspace, borders, and sea. 

And the World Zionist Congress is pretty opposed to all of that, as far as I’m aware. 

The only way to get a two state solution is to do points 1. through 4. 

If you oppose that you oppose a two state solution. 

If you demand Israel has a defensible contiguous state with a huge military, you can hardly object to demanding that Palestine AT LEAST is able to defend itself from Israel, and AT LEAST has enough territory to be viable. 

There are NO examples of viable states consisting of disconnected lumps of territory with no sea route between them and with a hostile enemy state in between. 

You know that Zionists are saying the exact opposite to each other

They say that publicly. I doubt they say that to each other because it is so obviously Israel which is the problem. 

 Which is why any reasonable leader on the Palestinian side should be making a deal

  A bit hard to make a deal with people who fundamentally want you subjugated, slaughtered, ethnically cleansed, or dead. 

Despite that, as I said, the Palestinian leadership is FAR more willing to make a deal, and far more supportive of a two-state solution, than Israel. 

Plus, the only way to get any deal is to FORCE Israel to agree to it, so saying “Israelis won’t agree” to any particular point is irrelevant - they will have to be forced into any two-state solution, so you might as well force them into a viable and just solution. 

Also don’t you think it is ridiculous that you treat all of Israel’s demands as sacrosanct red lines while saying that Palestinian demands (like East Jerusalem as a capital, their legal right of return for victims of ethnic cleansing) should be ignored? 

The original US partition plan for the ottoman empire post WWI was somewhat like this and better than Sykes-Picot. 

There is pretty strong evidence that pretty much all Zionists do NOT actually support a two state solution. 

After all, a two state solution requires two states. Achieving a viable Palestinian state requires: 

1) Overwhelming outside pressure to force Israel, which is opposed to any Palestinian state, to change policy, via sanctions and / or military force. 

2) Either demilitarizing Israel or giving Palestine a strong enough military to deter the IDF (obviously no state can survive unless it can defend itself against its hostile neighbour). 

3) Probably giving more territory to Palestine on top of the 1967 borders. That is because there are almost no examples of viable states that consist of disconnected bits of territory with hostile states between them, at least without a sea route between them. 

4) Allow Palestine actual independence, including control over its own airspace, borders, and sea. 

And the World Zionist Congress is pretty opposed to all of that, as far as I’m aware. 

  Israelis (and Jews abroad) are despairing over whether there is anyone with whom to actually reach an agreement.

I think that is simply not true. I’m not necessarily saying you are lying but Zionist leadership is definitely lying. 

The problem is overwhelmingly ISRAEL not the Palestinian side. The reason there has not been a Palestinian state and two state solution is the Israeli leadership. 

That is really obvious when you think about it: clearly Palestinians would like basic rights, so support a Palestinian state, but Israelis (and their supporters) have always resisted making any concessions, because they are the ones in the dominant position. They already have a state. 

By arguing that “oh there is no partner” or just rejected a Palestinian state Israel has had to make zero concessions, can take all the land it wants, and continue the settlement project, control over the whole area, etc. 

All current Zionists either support C) or D), oppose B) and are doing precisely nothing to achieve A) or make it even possible. 

Do you dispute that?