eeeeeeeeergh

EDDIE? Where’s EDDIE?

Open to giving them podkolzin Rathbone and a 3rd if they retain 50%

Im just going to come out and say it Drance is Bald.

This is a work of art, put it in a frame and send it to the louvre

Here’s how we’re currently pacing: Conor garland: 82 goal szn boeser: 82 goal szn Canucks: 250 goals for, 0 against demko: 82 shutouts good stats

Genuinely don’t think the game is watchable with audio imagine trying to watch the game and someone’s scraping their nails on a chalkboard interspersed with wet flatulence every 27 seconds this audio is worse than that

Nucks giving Edmonton NOTHING

Suck it, Drance! I have no reason for saying this I just wanted to

Some super slick moves and nice passes

Okay so new plan - every one of our players files a trade request before next game and we’ll have 22 goals

Very clean, straight over. Beautiful.

This game is completely unwatchable with sound on mute for the next 3 hours

yep this is extremely poignant. Sadly I just don’t think most people have the desire to dig deep enough to put themselves in the shoes of oppressed people, so the circle of violence just continues. Americans cheered on the invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the coalition of the willing was never truly held accountable for the millions of civilians who died as a consequence of those invasions. I think it’s rooted in tribalism - it’s human nature to want to pick a side, and stick by it. But it often results in the dehumanizations of other people just like us - who have mothers and fathers, children, celebrate their birthdays, who tell jokes, who smile and cry, feel pain and joy, all of that. my heart goes to the people murdered in israel by Hamas, and to the Palestinians getting massacred in gaza right now. I’m praying everyday that when this is over I’ll hear from my friends in Palestine and that they’re okay, but this time I don’t think they’re all going to make it.

Yep. I don’t agree with all of it, particularly the fact that he doesn’t see the Brit’s/Zionist settlers as colonizers, but overall this is a very good read for anyone who’s just discovering this conflict for the first time. this is the best quote of it all: "Hamas would absolutely execute the ACAB lefties cheering on horrific violence against Israelis if they lived in Gaza & U.S. right-wingers blindly cheering on Israeli subjugation of Palestinians would rebel twice as violently if Americans were subjected to similar occupation."

much love, i appreciate the openness and respect with which youve approached this. its a rare thing to find.

I dont disagree with you that theres nothing that can be done. My point here wasnt to do that. It was to show that the Palestinian people currently in Gaza and in the West Bank had their land stolen and colonized by foreigners. If you accept that to be the case, then we are in agreement. I understand that we are well past the point of being able to decolonize, but I would like to see recognition from people who have objectively reviewed all the facts that Israel is in fact a settler-colonial country, and therefore has moral and legal obligations for the well being and care of the indigenous people that they depopulated, who are still very much alive and at this moment, living in extreme poverty due to a crippling blockade. I hope this also sheds light on the nature of Palestinian anger - if a Canadian was in their shoes, having had their homes stolen, now having their children killed in air strikes, while foreigners settled in their homes, I think any canadian would be pretty angry. Recognition of the legitimacy of this anger is the first step to addressing their grievances and hopefully finding a peaceful way forward.

1. This is partially correct - but theres context required. First of all - the league of nations was founded on a few key principles, one of which was "self determination". This is what Woodrow Wilson said when the principle was enshrined as part of the League of Nations core purpose: "National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. 'Self determination' is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action." Its also worth noting that the league of nations was founded by the allied powers- so they were free to do and say as they wished, including making declarations that directly conflicted with this. So when I say that the purpose of a mandate was administrative, not to occupy, its in reference to the founding principles of the league of nations and what the mandate tool was actually designd for, not how the allies chose to implement it in this particular case. In this case - yes- the allies doublespoke. On one hand they promised arabs independence in the letters I shared, and on the other, they promised the jews a homeland in Palestine. However, again I'd compare this to the Canadian example. If the British, who recently discovered Canada, make a declaration promising me land in Canada, but that land is in fact lived on by someone else, and I take it by evicting that indigenous person, does that constitute a legitimate transfer of property rights? Lets also add this - in the balfour declaration and the mandate (1917) - note there were no specifics in the areas that would constitute the jewish state. It was also explicitely stated that no civil and religious rights of non jewish communities are allowed to be violated. Yet - in order to take the areas that the state of israel chose, it chose exterminate villages. So even if you accept that the British had a right to make this offer to the Jewish people (which I do not, as it wasn't their land to give), the condition of not violating any rights of non jewish communities was clearly violated. What MAY have been permissable in the mandate was for jewish settlers to take up residence in completely unpopulated areas and build new towns. Thats clearly not what happened. 2. Not exactly accurate. World War 2 started in 1939, the holocaust happened obviously after that in the 1940s, but between 1918 and 1939, 400,000 north american/european jewish settlers had already moved. The "fleeing from arab countries" is also a myth. Very few Jews moved from the arab world between 1918-1930 (they had no reason to, they lived in relative harmony). The mass migration from the arab world began in the late 1940s, after the state of israel had been declared, and after palestinians had been removed from their towns/villages. You can verify my claims here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world#cite_note-FOOTNOTEPicard20184-3 3. Will supply you with some reference materials to back up my claims here, this is all public record, I dont think Israelis even dispute this. Here is a list of the villages that the jewish terrorist groups destroyed and depopulated:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_towns_and_villages_depopulated_during_the_1947–1949_Palestine_war And heres the details of one i referenced earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

Okay lets go through point by point: To point 1: Theres a huge difference between expropriating land for public purpose and providing just compensation and going door to door massacring people to drive them out of their homes. One invokes a legitimate transfer of property rights, one does not. To point 2: The point is not "what would you do". Of course we'd lose to the US. The point is- from a property rights perspective - do you lose your moral right to your home? International law says no, and morality says no. My argument here is that inviting european settlers into occupied land, and letting them massacre locals, then move into their houses does not constitute a legal or moral transfer of property rights. To Point 3: again title isn't the point. These people were farmers and peasants from the ottoman empire. Many didn't read or write. They did however have homes, farms, that they built with their own hands. From a legal and moral perspective, these homes belonged to the locals. Irgun stormed villages, kicked open doors, and threw a grenade in. They did this across hundreds of villages in 1947-1948. So the palestinians fled their homes in those villages that Irgun and others targeted. I dont care what permissions the British gave european/north american jews, the Palestinians who were evicted and forced out of their villages have the legitimate claim to that land. Heres the thing - what the Palestinians are asking for is: the right to return to those villages and towns that they provably lived in, which are now part of Israel. Israel however cant/wont let them do so, because if they do, that would be too many non-jewish people living in Israel. FYI this is not a Palestinian Principle - this is an idea proposed by a UN Mediator in 1948 working on the conflict: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_right_of_return#:~:text=The Palestinian right of return,property they themselves or their

To point 1 - no thats not exactly correct. The territory known as "Palestine" was part of the ottoman empire. The arab residents revolted against the Ottoman Turks, supported by British Troops - The British told the arab residents that if they did, they would receive independence. Britain didn't exactly "occupy" palestine. In 1922, 4 years after the ottoman turks were overthrown, the british recieved a league of nations "mandate" for palestine. The purpose of a mandate was NOT to occupy and control. It was to "administer areas of the defunct ottoman empire until such time as they were able to stand alone". Its important to note that at this point in history, a few things had happened: 1. The british had unequivocally promised the arabs independence 2. There was a minority population of indigenous jewish people, along with a minority of christians, and a majority muslim population Between 1922 and 1948, the British government facilitated mass migration of european and north american jews to the Palestinian territories. Its also important to note that in the balfour declaration AND in the league of nations mandate, there was nothing specific about the details of a "jewish home in Israel". The 62% came in 1947 by the United Nations, not the league of nations, when partition was being proposed. The part of what you say that I dispute is that "the jews had every right to create a state in Palestine". The British inviting foreign people to cleanse the indigenous population doesn't give them the right to do so. Just like the British crown granting permission to destroy the indigenous people in canada didn't "give them the right". When I'm refering to ethnic cleansing, Im refering to the period in 1947-1948, when the european/north american jewish population that recently arrived took up arms and destroyed the homes and towns, to drive the residents out of the cities that now make up Israel (Haifa, Jaffa are two of the biggest, for example). I'll take all the facts and put them in Canadian context to outline in terms that we are all intimately familiar with and care deeply about: > British government "discovers" Canada > British government invites europeans to migrate and move to Canada. Declares a "homeland" for europeans in Canada. > europeans who arrive depopulate the towns going door to door massacring the locals all across the country and move into the houses of those who fled. > the refugees that fled a few years prior are told they can never return back to their homes in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Ontario, or the Maritimes. They are instead offered BC and Alberta, but the europeans who arrived are entitled to everything else East of there (lets call it 65/35) > the refugees that remain refuse the deal because most want to go back to their homes in Ontario and QC, the fight resumes, and now they're driven out of Alberta and most of BC, and crammed into Prince George > The new country of canada refuses to allow the refugees back into the rest of Canada, and keeps them contained to Prince George, because letting them come back to their hometowns would destroy the "cultural homogeneity" of Canada

Sorry what are you talking about? I'm talking about Hebron, a city in the West Bank (PALESTINE) where PALESTINIANS are not allowed to walk, but if you have an Israeli Passport you can. NOT a city in Israel.

I respect that hes engaging and not using ad-hominem attacks, even if I fundamentally oppose basically everyting he stands for on this issue.

Right so can you explain then why there are streets in Hebron where Palestinians are not allowed to pass, but Israeli settlers are allowed? How about the fact that anyone with Jewish heritage can get citizenship and move to Haifa, but if your Palestinian grandparent fled his home in Haifa when his neighbors were executed, hes not allowed to return?

Sorry I should clarify - I haven't seen anybody else in this forum specifically engage and process the information presented by the palestinian side like EP has Im openminded- but i am still waiting for someone to tell me exactly why it was ok for european and north american settlers to move into populated villages, burn them down, claim the land as their own, and then submit the dehomed population to apartheid conditions.

To me what justifies the existence of Israel is exactly what you said + the fact that multiple generations have already been born in Israel. Those people did not commit the sins that their fathers did. They don't deserve to be evicted from their homes, regardless of what their fathers did to the local arab population. Israelis, like all of us, didn't choose where they were born.

Its a fair question - but the question I'd ask you is, as a home owner in Canada, who owns your land - Canada, or you? If America conquered Canada tomorrow, do we as home owners lose the right to our homes, to the extent that the American government has a right to shove us all into Point Roberts and bring in some Californians to live in our homes? The UN declaration of human rights enshrines the right to private property. If the British wanted to remove and replace the local residents, they would have had to enter into negotiations with those people. I don't think that fleeing a massacre constitutes "forfeiting" of property rights. In international law, but particularly in the case of a "mandate" which Palestine was, private property rights extend beyond change in government. This is why we recognize this land we live in today as unceded territory of the indigenous peoples that lived here before we arrived. Canada "conquering" the land and depopulating regions to make way for settlers was illegitimate and illegal.