Erik Haugen on Nostr: npub1kpwlx…xxzz4 oh I see! In your earlier post you said “Once the invasion was ...
npub1kpwlxpzkxfmuxjmzc2wp3rf9vjg0sgydmlhsnrgqr3maf59h86qqdxxzz4 (npub1kpw…xzz4) oh I see! In your earlier post you said “Once the invasion was announced (that is, the international community of jews, along with the UN,”, so pretty clearly 1947. (there was no UN at the time of Balfour Declaration) So I thought that’s what you meant by the numbers you gave.
Aside: You know, I’m having a hard time following you. You obfuscate a lot – e.g. calling something “illegal immigration” when you really mean “The British shouldn’t have encouraged Jewish immigration or even been there at all”. I mean, I see your point, and I even agree with you (of course I agree with you) that the British shouldn’t have colonized 99% of the world generally and made this problem a lot worse – in more ways than just that! – specifically. But like it took an awful long time for me to nail down what it was you were talking about! I took you at your word and was thinking you’re saying the Ottomans weren’t enforcing their immigration laws or something.😂 It’s exhausting! in a conversation like this it sure would be easier to follow if we were speaking a bit more precisely.
OK so you really are all in on this “refugee immigration” == “invasion” rhetoric. Like, deliberately. Well, that is disappointing.
“they had to get those people out” – so you understand how awful that would have been at that point, in 1947, right? I mean, even if you think the initial immigration was a terrible thing, a huge chunk of those people were born in Palestine, even. It’s like the Soviet relocations – I guess you’re thinking of Jewish immigration to Palestine as if it was like that – this was absolutely horrible that they did that, but what are you going to do about the situation in Crimea and other places like that 100 years later?
You object to this multi-generational refugee immigration under various empires, and as a result you want the solution in 1947 to be to solve it basically with ethnic cleansing. I mean, there’s a lot going on there, but that is disgusting.
Aside: You know, I’m having a hard time following you. You obfuscate a lot – e.g. calling something “illegal immigration” when you really mean “The British shouldn’t have encouraged Jewish immigration or even been there at all”. I mean, I see your point, and I even agree with you (of course I agree with you) that the British shouldn’t have colonized 99% of the world generally and made this problem a lot worse – in more ways than just that! – specifically. But like it took an awful long time for me to nail down what it was you were talking about! I took you at your word and was thinking you’re saying the Ottomans weren’t enforcing their immigration laws or something.😂 It’s exhausting! in a conversation like this it sure would be easier to follow if we were speaking a bit more precisely.
OK so you really are all in on this “refugee immigration” == “invasion” rhetoric. Like, deliberately. Well, that is disappointing.
“they had to get those people out” – so you understand how awful that would have been at that point, in 1947, right? I mean, even if you think the initial immigration was a terrible thing, a huge chunk of those people were born in Palestine, even. It’s like the Soviet relocations – I guess you’re thinking of Jewish immigration to Palestine as if it was like that – this was absolutely horrible that they did that, but what are you going to do about the situation in Crimea and other places like that 100 years later?
You object to this multi-generational refugee immigration under various empires, and as a result you want the solution in 1947 to be to solve it basically with ethnic cleansing. I mean, there’s a lot going on there, but that is disgusting.