19 minutes ago, JimCM said:

This happens regularly. This settler thief has a Brooklyn accent.

 

 

     This was posted when it was released a few years go .

It turns out that the land is legally own by an American Jewish family , the family bought the land, legally purchased the land about 100 years go .

    The Palestinian family moved into the house illegally , they just moved into the empty house , no legally documents or nothing , they didn't purchase the land , they just moved in .

    The American Jewish man is legally living there with the legal owners permission .

   The Palestinians were the illegal squatters trying to steal the land .   

HOW COME YOU ARE UNWARE OF THAT ?

9 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

     This was posted when it was released a few years go .

It turns out that the land is legally own by an American Jewish family , the family bought the land, legally purchased the land about 100 years go .

    The Palestinian family moved into the house illegally , they just moved into the empty house , no legally documents or nothing , they didn't purchase the land , they just moved in .

    The American Jewish man is legally living there with the legal owners permission .

   The Palestinians were the illegal squatters trying to steal the land .   

HOW COME YOU ARE UNWARE OF THAT ?

 

Well I think you can't blame a member who has found this video to do a background check, as those who made the video obviously know what they're talking about.

 

However obviously even dear Jacob is not aware of that because he says "if I don't steal it somebody else is going to steal it." which in my eyes is a clear confession of theft and the  justification he delivers is more than pathetic.

By the way do you have any proof for your statement? Any land papers that can back it?

If the Americans bought that house hundred years ago for how long didn't they show because according to some laws if the owner doesn't show for decades the land is vacant. Again maybe you have some Intel on that too.

 

Nevertheless that does not change the fact that Israelis keep stealing land from Palestinians as they have done for decades now. Even if this particular house was American owned that does not change that hundreds of square kilometers have been stolen by Israel which is even supported in their basic law.

 

On 10/24/2025 at 1:49 PM, JimCM said:

Arafat earned the  Peace Prize because he made a historic and politically risky decision to renounce violence, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and pursue peace through negotiation rather than conflict

 

But he was lying

10 hours ago, Somjot said:

However obviously even dear Jacob is not aware of that because he says "if I don't steal it somebody else is going to steal it." which in my eyes is a clear confession of theft and the  justification he delivers is more than pathetic.

It’s obviously theft.

 

Woman -”Yakub, you know this is not your house?”

Yakub - “yes, but if I go you don’t back”.

 

More Jewish lies.

 

 

 

 

 

20 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

     This was posted when it was released a few years go .

It turns out that the land is legally own by an American Jewish family , the family bought the land, legally purchased the land about 100 years go .

    The Palestinian family moved into the house illegally , they just moved into the empty house , no legally documents or nothing , they didn't purchase the land , they just moved in .

    The American Jewish man is legally living there with the legal owners permission .

   The Palestinians were the illegal squatters trying to steal the land .   

HOW COME YOU ARE UNWARE OF THAT ?

You are dead wrong Nick.

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2021/5/4/if-i-dont-steal-your-home-someone-else-will-jewish-settler-says

15 hours ago, Somjot said:

By the way do you have any proof for your statement? Any land papers that can back it?

If the Americans bought that house hundred years ago for how long didn't they show because according to some laws if the owner doesn't show for decades the land is vacant. Again maybe you have some Intel on that too.

 

5 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

You are dead wrong Nick.

 

He's not wrong.   Yaakov Fauci isn't the brightest bulb in the Zionist box, nor does he have a pleasant appearance. He's fat and ugly. If he had said, "If I don't occupy it, someone else is going to occupy it," the incident would never have attracted much attention.  It centers on a real estate dispute, not the theft of land.

 

Here's the full story.  Towards the end of the 19th century, Jewish families acquired land and housing units in the Sheikh Jarrah area of East Jerusalem.  It's unclear who the previous owners of the land had been, whether Palestinian Arabs, absentee landlords, a religious institution or the Ottoman Empire.   The land ownership laws of the Ottoman Empire were complex and unlike Western laws on land ownership.  At that time, not much land was in the hands of the Arabs who occupied it, but whoever owned it, Jews bought it under Ottoman law. 

 

In any case, the descendants  who had inherited the property of these early Zionist settlers were forced to leave Sheikh Jarrah during the 1948 Arab-Israel war.  According the Al-Jazeera article linked by  @JBChiangRai : 

"The 28 Palestinian families arrived at the Karm al-Jaouni area of Sheikh Jarrah as refugees in 1956. Under an agreement with the Jordanian government and the UN refugee agency UNRWA, the homes were built in exchange for a revocation of their refugee status and the promise that these families would own the homes after three years.  The promise was never fulfilled, and in 1967 Jordan lost its mandate over the West Bank and East Jerusalem after the territories were occupied by Israel."    https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2021/5/4/if-i-dont-steal-your-home-someone-else-will-jewish-settler-says

 

"In 2003, Nahalat Shimon (a company registered in Delaware) purchased the six houses, including the entire al-Kurd home, from the descendants of the pre-1948 Jewish owners. Ever since, Nahalat Shimon has been waging a legal battle to evict the Palestinian families and replace them with Jewish settlers—part of a broader Israeli campaign to alter the demographics of Jerusalem and the West Bank more broadly."

https://www.merip.org/2022/05/but-if-i-dont-steal-it-someone-else-is-gonna-steal-it-israeli-settler-colonial-accumulation-by-dispossession/
 

A separate article states:

"The company bought the Sheikh Jarrah land  underlying these six homes for $3 million in 2003 from descendants of the Jewish owners who had acquired them at the end of the 19th century."

https://forward.com/news/470181/the-money-trail-jerusalem-sheikh-jarrah-seymour-braun-shomrim/
 

The Al_Jazeera article has a few lines about a "Palestinian map expert" who claimed Jews didn't own the land at the end of the 19th century, but an Israeli court had rejected that claim.  In any case, an Israeli settler from the U.S.,  Yaakov Fauci, moved into one building in the compound occupied by the Palestinian al-Kurd family.  In 1921, he took over the entire compound on behalf of the Israeli company that Israeli courts had ruled owned it.  That's the scene portrayed in the video. a member of the al-Kurd family confronting Fauci.

 

Evicting tenants is often a  consequence of the purchase of real estate everywhere in the world.  My sister in the U.S. was evicted from an apartment where she had lived for years when a university bought the building to provide housing for staff and students.  However, this case in Jerusalem attracted attention because it involved Israelis and Palestinians. 

8 minutes ago, Evil Penevil said:

 

 

He's not wrong.   Yaakov Fauci isn't the brightest bulb in the Zionist box, nor does he have a pleasant appearance. He's fat and ugly. If he had said, "If I don't occupy it, someone else is going to occupy it," the incident would never have attracted much attention.  It centers on a real estate dispute, not the theft of land.

 

Here's the full story.  Towards the end of the 19th century, Jewish families acquired land and housing units in the Sheikh Jarrah area of East Jerusalem.  It's unclear who the previous owners of the land had been, whether Palestinian Arabs, absentee landlords, a religious institution or the Ottoman Empire.   The land ownership laws of the Ottoman Empire were complex and unlike Western laws on land ownership.  At that time, not much land was in the hands of the Arabs who occupied it, but whoever owned it, Jews bought it under Ottoman law. 

 

In any case, the descendants  who had inherited the property of these early Zionist settlers were forced to leave Sheikh Jarrah during the 1948 Arab-Israel war.  According the Al-Jazeera article linked by  @JBChiangRai : 

"The 28 Palestinian families arrived at the Karm al-Jaouni area of Sheikh Jarrah as refugees in 1956. Under an agreement with the Jordanian government and the UN refugee agency UNRWA, the homes were built in exchange for a revocation of their refugee status and the promise that these families would own the homes after three years.  The promise was never fulfilled, and in 1967 Jordan lost its mandate over the West Bank and East Jerusalem after the territories were occupied by Israel."    https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2021/5/4/if-i-dont-steal-your-home-someone-else-will-jewish-settler-says

 

"In 2003, Nahalat Shimon (a company registered in Delaware) purchased the six houses, including the entire al-Kurd home, from the descendants of the pre-1948 Jewish owners. Ever since, Nahalat Shimon has been waging a legal battle to evict the Palestinian families and replace them with Jewish settlers—part of a broader Israeli campaign to alter the demographics of Jerusalem and the West Bank more broadly."

https://www.merip.org/2022/05/but-if-i-dont-steal-it-someone-else-is-gonna-steal-it-israeli-settler-colonial-accumulation-by-dispossession/
 

A separate article states:

"The company bought the Sheikh Jarrah land  underlying these six homes for $3 million in 2003 from descendants of the Jewish owners who had acquired them at the end of the 19th century."

https://forward.com/news/470181/the-money-trail-jerusalem-sheikh-jarrah-seymour-braun-shomrim/
 

The Al_Jazeera article has a few lines about a "Palestinian map expert" who claimed Jews didn't own the land at the end of the 19th century, but an Israeli court had rejected that claim.  In any case, an Israeli settler from the U.S.,  Yaakov Fauci, moved into one building in the compound occupied by the Palestinian al-Kurd family.  In 1921, he took over the entire compound on behalf of the Israeli company that Israeli courts had ruled owned it.  That's the scene portrayed in the video. a member of the al-Kurd family confronting Fauci.

 

Evicting tenants is often a  consequence of the purchase of real estate everywhere in the world.  My sister in the U.S. was evicted from an apartment where she had lived for years when a university bought the building to provide housing for staff and students.  However, this case in Jerusalem attracted attention because it involved Israelis and Palestinians. 

Well that and the fact that Israelis buying land does not make the land they’ve bought part of Israel.

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well that and the fact that Israelis buying land does not make the land they’ve bought part of Israel.

 

East Jerusalem was captured by Israel in the 1967 war and annexed in 1980.  It has been part of Israel for 45 years.  Even the al-Kurd family didn't dispute that point.

5 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

You are dead wrong Nick.

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2021/5/4/if-i-dont-steal-your-home-someone-else-will-jewish-settler-says

 

5 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

You are dead wrong Nick.

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2021/5/4/if-i-dont-steal-your-home-someone-else-will-jewish-settler-says

 

   You just posted the same story again .

The land was legally bought by American jews in 1800's and

Palestinians took the land when.............................. read it yourself 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Jarrah_controversy

 

Summary:

2 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

Here's the full story.  Towards the end of the 19th century, Jewish families acquired land and housing units in the Sheikh Jarrah area of East Jerusalem.  It's unclear who the previous owners of the land had been, whether Palestinian Arabs, absentee landlords, a religious institution or the Ottoman Empire.   The land ownership laws of the Ottoman Empire were complex and unlike Western laws on land ownership.  At that time, not much land was in the hands of the Arabs who occupied it, but whoever owned it, Jews bought it under Ottoman law. 

 

End of 19th century in the time of the Ottoman Empire Jewish families "acquired" that land, probably bought it, it`s former owners unknown.

 

2 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

 

In any case, the descendants  who had inherited the property of these early Zionist settlers were forced to leave Sheikh Jarrah during the 1948 Arab-Israel war.  According the Al-Jazeera article linked by  @JBChiangRai : 

 

The owners left because of the 1948 war. It became part of Jordan and belonged to Jordan, same as huge parts of former Palestine mandate became part of Israel and the few Arabs, only 750.000 were driven out and lost their homes 

 

2 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

"The 28 Palestinian families arrived at the Karm al-Jaouni area of Sheikh Jarrah as refugees in 1956. Under an agreement with the Jordanian government and the UN refugee agency UNRWA, the homes were built in exchange for a revocation of their refugee status and the promise that these families would own the homes after three years. 

 

28 Palestinian refugee families arrived and Jordan agreed to revoke their refugee status under the condition that they build those homes, which they will legally own after 3 years, which would be 1959.

 

Those 28 families built these homes

 

(Sorry, your description was a bit confusing, "the homes were built in exchange for a revocation of their refugee status" somehow misses the part, where those families built the homes.)

 

2 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

The promise was never fulfilled, and in 1967 Jordan lost its mandate over the West Bank and East Jerusalem after the territories were occupied by Israel."    https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2021/5/4/if-i-dont-steal-your-home-someone-else-will-jewish-settler-says

 

Israel stole ... err .. occupied that land 11 years after those families had built the homes.

 

2 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

East Jerusalem was captured by Israel in the 1967 war and annexed in 1980.  It has been part of Israel for 45 years.  Even the al-Kurd family didn't dispute that point.

 

Israel made their theft legal in 1980.

 

And some Jews bought it.

 

Ok, not the guy with the high BMI stole it, Israel did.

 

How much compensation for the loss of the houses they had built, did the Arabs get from Israel?

The OP dug up a story from December 2024, presumably as he was googling for anything to suggest the Queen was an anti-semite.

 

Its utter garbage to suggest the reason she never visited Israel was because she hated Israelis. She visited Ireland, and shook hands with Admas, despite the murder of her incle, Louis Mountbatten, by the IRA.

 

When Rivlin was elected, sh sent a message

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/message-from-queen-elizabeth-ii-to-president-elect-of-israel-rivlin

 

It is a complete lie to suggest she never received an Israeli official. She has met a string of Israeli Presidents,  Ephraim Katzir, Chaim Herzog and Ezer Weizman, as well as conferring an honorary knighthood on former Israeli president Shimon Peres. Eliahu Elath, the second Israeli ambassador to the UK, stayed overnight at Windsor Castle; this was considered at the time a rare honour, as usually only members of HMG or Commonwealth Governments could stay there

 

Here she is with President Weizman in 1997, in Buckingham Palace.

 

 

The Queen meeting Shimon Peres, when conferring on him an honorary knighthood.

 

 

Rivlin said thse words knowing that the Queen was dead, and that the King will not respond to such charges by basically an ex-Party hack.

 

The most likely reason the Queen never visited Israel was due to the FCO.

 

https://www.jpost.com/international/historian-blasts-british-policy-on-israel

 

On 10/26/2025 at 5:23 PM, Hellfire said:

Such a superficial view.
Now back to reality. What do you offer to 8 mln Israeli Jews, 90% of whom were born in Israel and for whom this country is their only home? The offer from so called Palestinians is quite clear: leave the place or we will cut your heads off. No illusions here - it is their only offer. 
And another question: should such kind of medieval and barbaric intolerance be rewarded in the 21th century? What about consequences for the rest of the civilized world?

 

I doubt, that the Palestinians do only offer the mass murder of Israelis.

 

They have repeatedly confirmed, that they would accept an Israel in the borders before 1967.

 

Despite this common disinformation "the Palestinians have been offered peace and their own state many times, but they always refused and chose violence" still being believed by those with a blind eye for Israels crimes, the truth is, in the first decades when peace conferences took place the Palestinians weren`t even allowed, let alone invited.

 

And those "generous" offers were always something like: "We keep what we stole, take a bit more, you get your "state" which we will totally control, so it is more an excuse of a state. "

 

So that might have led to the Palestinian "medieval and barbaric intolerance" as you name it.

 

The question remains what is the excuse for the "medieval and barbaric behavior" and contempt for humanity not to speak of moral bankruptcy we have seen in the last 2 years is from Israel?

 

They really have turned into the monsters which once erased their ancestors.

1 hour ago, Roadsternut said:

The OP dug up a story from December 2024, presumably as he was googling for anything to suggest the Queen was an anti-semite.

 

The most likely reason the Queen never visited Israel was due to the FCO.

 

https://www.jpost.com/international/historian-blasts-british-policy-on-israel

 

Your assumption is based on the article from 2009 you posted and I do not think that this "One of Britain's most eminent historians, Andrew Roberts" is more than a bribed pro Israeli spokesperson and a liar in disguise of a scientist and historian.
 

In one of his books he attacked those who accuse Israel of responding "disproportionately" to provocation "as though proportionate responses ever won any victories against fascists. In the Second World War, the Luftwaffe killed 50,000 Britons in the Blitz, and the Allied response was to kill 600,000 Germans - 12 times the number and hardly a proportionate response, but one that contributed mightily to victory".

 

He compares the attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon with WW II, and plays the old and still stupid game of comparing the number of deaths in Israel by putting it in relation to the 9 times larger population in the UK and as usual completely forgetting who is the occupier (perpetrator) and who the occupied (victim).

 

Comparing 2 completely different conflicts. Might convince a child. Well, he spoke in front of 400 guests same as Netanjahu spoke in front of the US congress lying to their faces that there were only 2 dozen civilian victims in Rafah and was rewarded with more than 50 standing ovations.

 

And he called the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the perhaps Jewry's most viciously outspoken and dangerous foe since the death of Hitler,

 

Which is absolute nonsense and typical for those Israel defenders to demonize opponents by telling lies. And in this case intentionally mistaking anti-zionism with anti-semitism, a behavior we see too often these days, also here in the forum.

 

If he really was Jewry's most viciously outspoken and dangerous foe since the death of Hitler, how come there were and still are Thousands of Jews living in Iran and worshipping in their synagogues.

 

And finally, whatever the Queen did or didn`t say does not change the atrocities we see every day in Gaza.

10 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

The OP dug up a story from December 2024, presumably as he was googling for anything to suggest the Queen was an anti-semite.

 

Its utter garbage to suggest the reason she never visited Israel was because she hated Israelis. She visited Ireland, and shook hands with Admas, despite the murder of her incle, Louis Mountbatten, by the IRA.

Hating the terrorist state of Israel is not antisemitism.

She went to Ireland because of duty over personal feelings and to have peace.

She didn’t go to Israel as they are a rogue state, breaking international law, with apartheid, blockades and occupation.

16 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well that and the fact that Israelis buying land does not make the land they’ve bought part of Israel.

Or Koh Phangan or Pai

22 minutes ago, JimCM said:

Hating the terrorist state of Israel is not antisemitism.

 

Who gets to define antisemitism?  The victims or the perpetrators?  Or an outside body?  For the haters of  Israel to define antisemitism is equivalent to the Ku Klux Klan defining racism.

 

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, the world's leading institution regarding the Holocaust and antisemitism,  has a working definition of antisemitism that has been adopted by numerous countries and organizations. The IHRA states: "Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity," and  gives the following examples, among others:

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

It also states:  "However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."    

https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

On 10/25/2025 at 10:15 AM, JimCM said:

Yet she did visit Ireland but never Israel, despite her mother in law being buried there.

Princess Alice adopted the name of her husband, becoming Princess Andrew. During WWII, she sheltered one Jewish family in Athens and converted to Greek Orthodoxy. There is a lot of  human interest in the Wikipedia article. 60k Greek Jews were deported to Nazi camps, all but 2,000 were killed.

 

The Princess wanted to be buried in Jerusalem close to her aunt, a martyred Russian Orthodox saint, at the Convent of St. Mary Magdalene, an Eastern Orthodox nunnery.

 

The early Jewish settlers from 1882 lived peacefully alongside their neighbors in Muslim-majority Palestine. Zionist paramilitaries were inducted into the IDF after the Balfour Declaration. That's where the trouble started. Greed for land, we outnumber them. It was down to 'us' and 'them' and has been so ever since.

 

I applaud Lizzie's actions to not support what was happening in Israel.

 

And...how many of you visit your mother-in-law's grave??? 

17 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Well that and the fact that Israelis buying land does not make the land they’ve bought part of Israel.

 

It's their ancestral homeland, they have been there for over 3k years, they should take the land back, not buy it

17 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

East Jerusalem was captured by Israel in the 1967 war and annexed in 1980.  It has been part of Israel for 45 years.  Even the al-Kurd family didn't dispute that point.

 

5 hours ago, JimCM said:

Hating the terrorist state of Israel is not antisemitism.

She went to Ireland because of duty over personal feelings and to have peace.

She didn’t go to Israel as they are a rogue state, breaking international law, with apartheid, blockades and occupation.

 

No, she didn't go to Israel because the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is in charge of all visits by our Head of State. They took a view that it would harm British-Arab relations, which are judged as commercially more important. Whether that was a mistaken view is another matter. I have first hand knowledge of when the Queen toured the Persian Gulf. Like most of her trips, certainly from the late 70s, her role was primarily to support the Captains of Industry that used to accompany her. She was a Constitutional Monarch, with no real powers, meeting Heads of State with very real powers. No great moments of state would be achieved during these visit, no treaties, no grand alliances announced. Instead ot would be whatever Secretary of State was tagging along to announces that some order had been placed.

 

She went to Ireland essentially on the orders of the HMG. President mcAleese issued the invitation to the British Government, who took the decision to accept or not. Whether the Queen wanted to go is another matter; we will never know for sure. What you read about her is largely not fact, as she was, famously, a very private person. Her Duty, which you highlight, meant you would never know what she thought about Ireland. Underlying the nonsense by an ex-President who never met her, thinking he could mind-read, as opposed to demonstrating he has a massive chip on his shoulder towards the British. I suppose, on the occasion, he felt he had to have something interesting to say, as his Presidency wasn't exactly a glowing success for him. The context was he made these remarks as a guest speaker (ie paid) at some junket.

 

The Queens reign was exceptionally long, and covered many different phases of ' history, and with man different colours of Israeli government. Either you have a prepubescent view of the work, or your long term memory is failing, due to a maybe undetermined pathology (suggest you book yourself in for a MRI) such that your only enduring memory of Israel is during the last 10 years or so. The Queen's last overseas visit was 2015.

 

But you decided, in October 2025, to post a story that was reported in December 2024. What were you doing when looking for that bit of news that was news to you. Looking for stories about how the Queen must have hated Israel, a bit of confirmation bias?

15 hours ago, Somjot said:

 

Your assumption is based on the article from 2009 you posted and I do not think that this "One of Britain's most eminent historians, Andrew Roberts" is more than a bribed pro Israeli spokesperson and a liar in disguise of a scientist and historian.
 

 

 

Superb Whataboutism from a suspected Communist. Deflection par excellence. Accept that that former Israeli President was wrong is supposing that no Israeli official stepped into Buckingham Palace, instead of trying to deflect and hijack a thread.

14 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

 

Who gets to define antisemitism?  The victims or the perpetrators?  Or an outside body?  For the haters of  Israel to define antisemitism is equivalent to the Ku Klux Klan defining racism.

 

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, the world's leading institution regarding the Holocaust and antisemitism,  has a working definition of antisemitism that has been adopted by numerous countries and organizations. The IHRA states: "Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity," and  gives the following examples, among others:

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

It also states:  "However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."    

https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

 

EXACTLY!

 

 

 

14 hours ago, proton said:

 

It's their ancestral homeland, they have been there for over 3k years, they should take the land back, not buy it

 

One of the biggest scams to justify ethnic cleansing.

 

Who is "they"?

 

Some Jews moved away from that place, and settled in Africa, the Mediterranean and Europe.

 

Many married locals and mixed with their DNA pool.

 

Many people converted to Judaism like the Turkish Khazars.

 

What is interestingly never mentioned, is that MOST Jews stayed in the Levant, later converted to Christianity and after that to Islam, just to make life easier.

 

DNA tests have proven on many occasions that Palestinians have more Hebrew DNA than Israelis especially the Ashkenazys.

 

However all this happened in many centuries but now all of a sudden, some people from Europe, who claim to be Jewish but look nothing like Jews were described in ancient books (olive skin, dark curly hair) move over, and state that is their homeland.

 

What a BS.

 

And the western countries like Germany and the US fully support that.

 

Great! Move back from US to Europe because that continent is definitely NOT your homeland.

 

No?

 

Double standard in perfection.

 

 

 

51 minutes ago, Somjot said:

EXACTLY!

 

I'm glad you agree with that one sentence.  How about the rest of the IHRA definition of antisemitism?  Do you agree with it?

17 minutes ago, Evil Penevil said:

 

I'm glad you agree with that one sentence.  How about the rest of the IHRA definition of antisemitism?  Do you agree with it?

I do.

 

Except maybe example 3.

 

No one can foresee Israel's policy in 10, 50 or 100 years yet it implies Israel's policy can never be compared to Nazi policy.

 

For me anti-semitism is any kind of accusing or condemning or even having prejudice towards Jews as a collective.

 

Accusing or condemning single Jews or a jewish government for wrongdoings they clearly have commited and are not just made up is not anti- semitism.

 

Same goes for siding with victims of those wrongdoings.

On 10/28/2025 at 11:17 PM, Somjot said:

I do.

 

Except maybe example 3.

 

No one can foresee Israel's policy in 10, 50 or 100 years yet it implies Israel's policy can never be compared to Nazi policy.

 

For me anti-semitism is any kind of accusing or condemning or even having prejudice towards Jews as a collective.

 

Accusing or condemning single Jews or a jewish government for wrongdoings they clearly have commited and are not just made up is not anti- semitism.

 

Same goes for siding with victims of those wrongdoings.

That boat has long sailed the more they use it the less effective it becomes. It's used to smear all of Israel's enemies along with the slur blood libel. Like the racist card in western woke culture. The boy who cried wolf.