Israel’s a bit different, wouldn’t you agree? Because it is perceived as a homeland, and more importantly as a potential place of refuge. It is viewed not just as the place of one’s roots but also a place to which one might desire to return at some undefined point in the future.
And let’s face it, no other nation can drum up anything as powerful as AIPAC to pursue its interests in Washington.
Except for all the posts that briefly attempt to refute his points but then fall back on childish insults and transparent bigotry.
As to that Dual Loyalty meme that you love to emphasize, I still find that puzzling. Here you are repeatedly arguing that people whose views are solidly pro-Israel have suspect patriotism based on their ethnic backgrounds.
At the same time you possess virulently one-sided views that run counter to decades of American foreign policy (established long before there were Evil Neo-Cons and organizations like the PNAC) and conflict with a broad spectrum of American opinion. And your positions (i.e. disengagement from U.S. support of Israel) are viewed with delight by entities such as Hamas, various governments in the Middle East which are hostile towards the U.S. (such as Iran, Syria and Libya) and of course al-Queda and other anti-American terrorist organizations.
If we’re going to single out people for disloyalty and serving non-American interests, we should definitely look at folks like you. Maybe a call to Homeland Security is in order. :dubious:
Of course, as I mentioned earlier this kind of tactic represents a revolting smear which should have no place in the debate. Probably elucidator on some level realizes this, even though he got into the Dual Loyalty bit earlier. Back in the '60s, when elucidator was burning his draft card and marching against the war in Vietnam (or at least watching people do it on TV), he no doubt fumed indignantly when pro-war advocates claimed that protestors were giving aid and comfort to the enemy. In fact, I seem to recall him waxing indignant about the Bushites intimating a lack of loyalty on the part of Americans questioning their foreign policy and anti-terrorist goals. Yet he seems willing to use the same strategy against those who disagree with him on Middle East policy.
Very strange.
See, this is the problem: the attempt to single out Israel (and thus Jews) as different, more worthy of notice and comment than other ethnicities, the implication (stated or not) being that their possible ethno-nationalism is somehow more illegitimately smacking of racism and dual-loyalty.
Most American Jews do not view Israel as their ‘homeland’, any more than most German-Americans view Germany as their ‘homeland’. They may (or may not) feel sympathy for Israelis, who share in some cases a common ancestry, but they generally do not wish to “return” to live there (“return” being a misnomer as few actually originated from Israel - most have ancestors from Eastern Europe). It would be sort of awkward if they did, given that the Jewish population of America is approximately equal to that of Israel - each Israeli would have to welcome in an American lodger.
So no, I do not agree.
But they sort of are, unless you can name another group of less than 20 million people who have as much influence for good or bad on the rest of the world, as they do.
No, in fact my problem is he distorts and spins both facts and any opposing argument, and collapses all disagreement into a black hole of “racism” and accusations, veiled and indirect as often as not, of anti-Semitism. That is both substance and form.
His last response regarding the Mandate on my comments is a prime example, whereas my argument had been on the ambiguity of the Mandate and objecting to it being presented as The Objective of the Mandate (versus a rather ambiguous and self-contradictory document that it is), he spins it to imply some anti-Semitic intent as a ‘game’.
It becomes tiresome to even bother to argue with such a trollish creature.
He is, in short, a dishonest ideologue, and on top of that rather nasty and poorly socialised. There were rather enough comments by disinterested observers, Sleeps, Kimstu, etc to the later effect so as to make it I think a given fact.
Of course that one has to “share” a side of an argument with Ivan makes the entire thing even more unpleasant and pointless.
No. Not “indignant”. Mournful. Because to some degree, it was true. My position was then, and remains, that no man can honor his country by assiting it in a dishonorable cause.
What I objected most strenuously was the suggestion that such “aid and comfort” was the primary motivation, rather than an unfortunate effect of a very tough moral choice. I don’t regret my choice, I regret having to make the choice, and I still find it hard to forgive the men who forced such a choice upon me.
And so it goes.
In an oblique way, that informs my understanding of divided loyalties. Note: “understand” is neither condone nor condemn, it is just what it is, to understand.
I understand how American lefties might be inclined to assist the Soviets during WWII, I can further understand that such sympathy might lead them to cross a line, as many did. Very few of them considered their actions treasonous, and I understand. Not condone, understand.
Or for another example, take the Irish Republican Army. Which would almost certanly have folded its cards much sooner if it were not for the aid and financial support offered by Americans of Irish descent or ethnicity. If you put a fine point on it, since America supported England, this was contrary to our nations policy. Is it more likely that a man named O’Brien would be “suspect” than a man named DuChamp or Sokolovsky? Sure, so what?
I think American policy tilts too much in favor of Israel, even as I believe that some of that tilt is wholly justifiable, I consider myself a friend of Israel. Happily, I make that choice for myself, and need not apply to Finn for validation.
Is it more likely that a man named Goldstein is more likely to favor Israel to a degree I disapprove of more than a man named O’Brien? Sure, but again, so what? Its not about taking another man’s inventory and making judgements on his “true” motivation. Its more about acknowledging the unfortunate truth that only a fool offers blind loyalty to anything or any cause.
Oh, and Jack? About this?
Bite me.
Oh noes, wmfellows doesn’t want to be my friend either!
snuffle! sniff! 
Sorry for the delayed reply, Malthus. Even we wild-eyed racists have to eat lunch.
My point has never been that “we gotta keep an eye on them Jews.” That is Finn and Jackmannii’s distortion of my point.
My mention of ethnicity and religion was to say that I understand why a Jew might feel strongly about Israel, not that all Jews are automatically suspect. (There are of course many American Jews who do not support Israel in general or its more aggressive policies in particular.)
On the other hand, an individual who goes from writing policy papers for Israel (including asserting the policy goal for Israel of removing Saddam from power) to working in a position of power within the US government (which government then proceeds to carry out removal of Saddam from power) does give me pause. Legitimately so, I believe. That is not of the same character as a “we gotta watch out for them Jews” argument.
I assume you are correct. However, some do, apparently. Finn refers to Israel as a Jewish homeland.
Israel refers to the “right of return” when in fact, most of those “returning” to Israel didn’t originate there, and I was using “return” in the same sense. As for whether American Jews in general have a desire to “return” there, I’m sure for the most part they do not. However, I think many if not most American Jews are happy to have Israel there as a potential refuge should violent anti-semitism rear its head. That is, I imagine, the reason for the strong “rooting interest” some may have for Israel (as expressed for example through AIPAC).
Hrmm…let’s see if that’s true? Did you in fact say that any Jew who has different political opinions than you (like Jack and myself) were potential traitors and we needed to keep our eyes on any Jew in politics?
Why, yes, yes you did, JAQing Offing your, emphasis mine.
Obviously, you were only saying that we must closely watch all those potential Traitor Jews, not that we needed to keep our eyes on them. Totally different! Astute readers will also note that your Conspiracy Theory was not that Jews will just kinda be so controlled by their ethnicity/religion that they can’t be trusted to offer a political opinion that’s different than yours, but that Jews in politics would represent an example of “Israel going beyond lobbying”.
It’s the old racist two step “All Jews aren’t bad, there are some Jews, ya know, the ones who agree with me. But those who don’t? Well, we need to watch them!” As Jack pointed out, you’re just selling an updated version of Lindbergh’s racism.
No, it’s just because of your anti-Jewish paranoia. Well, and your characteristic dishonesty. It’s been pointed out to you, numerous times, that what they actually said was that Israel should stand on its own from US military and economic aid, and that Sadaam was a security risk (the fact of which you can’t disagree with, so you just JAQ Off about the implications of recognizing such a fact). And from there, you JAQ Off about the possibility that those people who advised Israel to stand on its own and not use US aid or military support somehow infiltrated the US government and then caused us to remove Sadaam from power.
And you claim that it isn’t a conspiracy theory.
It should also be noted that your racism is exactly the same sort that I cited above, that nearly led to the total destruction of an American Jew’s military career because he was Jewish. You’re terrified of Jewish Israeli conspirators controlling the US Government because they wrote a position paper saying that Israel should stand on its own and work with its regional neighbors, with no help from the US, to neutralize Sadaam who was a security threat. The racists at the defense department were terrified that a Jew was friendly with an Israeli (who was ordered to be at his facility) or that he’d gone to Israel several times (as he was ordered to do by the military). It’s just the same old, same old, still alive and well from Dreyfus’ time.
And ironically enough, it’s the same racism that spawned Zionism as a powerful defensive ideology and still makes Jews wonder, if the Dual Loyalty canard is alive and well in the modern world, how safe is it really? You call it a slippery slope in a dishonest attempt to hide what effects viewing Jews as a dangerous, potentially treacherous and thoroughly foreign entity have always had.
And you have the nerve to point to the valid fears that your racism brings up in some innocent Jewish people and ask, “Why, if they’re so afraid of being treated like dangerous foreign agents for being Jews and having the ‘wrong’ political opinions and they think they might need a refuge, doesn’t that show that they might just be Traitor Jews?”
Again a nice trap.
And naturally, you only spin your racist conspiracy theories about Jews. You will be able to provide exactly zero posts of yours going on and on about how we can’t trust anybody of Ango-Saxon descent if they support NATO more than you do, or how we can’t trust any blacks if they support African debt relief, or what have you. You have a monomaniacal focus on Jews and Jewish Treachery, and you wonder why anybody would view it as racist. :rolleyes:
You’re making that up.
I pointed out that the British Mandate was designed to set up a Jewish homeland (which it clearly was). I’ve pointed out that Israel is a Jewish State. But it’s just your desire to slime your political opponents with the racist charge of dual loyalty that causes you to claim I’ve ever referred to modern day Israel as “the Jewish homeland”. You are simply inventing non-truths to sell your narrative. Which is part of the point.
Now, all of your ‘mistakes’ might be overlooked, if someone was feeling generous towards you. But they’re not the only ones, and it’s quite obvious that you’re fanatically partisan against Israel.
When Carter’s book was brought up (by you) it was pointed out that it was filled with agenda-driven lies, and all of those lies, invariably, were used to cast Israel as an aggressor who wanted nothing to do with peace and the Palestinians as blameless and only waiting for Israel to stop being so evil so they could have peace. And that, a view which discards facts which get in the way and speaks fictions to prop up a narrative is, by definition, a bigoted point of view.
Your response has, so far, been to dodge, evade and obfuscate. You claimed that they were all just ‘honest mistakes’, even though a book requires months of research and some of the ‘mistakes’ were non-truths that Carter knew were not true, others were untruths that Carter should have and would have known if he exercised the barest amount of due diligence and a desire to present the actual facts. You could not answer how so many ‘honest mistakes’ entered his book or how they all, without fail, served to demonize one side and absolve the other. When caught on that fact, you tried to evade by JAQing Off, suggesting that maybe there were also a lot of anti-Palestinian ‘honest errors’ in the book. Of course you could cite a grand total of zero such errors. Then you claimed that even though he used agenda-driven lies to support a bigoted narrative, we could not trust the evidence placed before us, because he also was a philanthropist. When it was pointed out to you that one could be both a philanthropist and prejudiced, you knew you were beaten on your last evasion, and so instead pretended that any example, at all, of a prejudiced philanthropist would be assigning the exact same sort of prejudice to Carter. It’s a neat little trap, Carter’s either blameless due to his philanthropy or unfairly smeared due to any possible other philanthropist being used as an example to debunk you dodge. It’s a neat trap, but it’s not very honest.
Which, again, is the point.
You claim that vast amounts of land in Palestine were “Palestinian” and that the land laws which had been in place for roughly 500 years by 1967, were analogous to Ireland. When asked what exactly you objected to, personal ownership of land, state ownership of land, Palestinian ownership of land for personal use, Palestinian ownership of land as landlords or what, you remained mute. When told that you could chose any point, any point at all over the last 1,000 years to identify a group of people who’d had their land rights stripped, and that you could even disregard the law of the time if you needed to, your response was not just to avoid but to claim that asking a question that doesn’t have a snappy answer is a logical fallacy and in fact, virtually every possible question is a logical fallacy. So luckily nobody can ever be challenged on their own claims, ever. :rolleyes:
Your behavior is not that of someone who is honest. Nor that of someone who is straight forward. Nor that of someone who is interested in the facts. Nor that of someone who cares about accuracy. It’s just that of someone selling an agenda. And when that agenda is focused around supporting bigoted liars who demonize Israel, like Carter, and alleging that we have to keep an eye on potential Traitor Jews in politics (and on message boards :smack:), and lying and claiming that those who criticize Israel don’t tolerate any criticism at all if they don’t agree with your politics or they point out that your arguments are full of shit? Well, your protestations of innocence don’t sound very convincing.
The lands have been contested since the year dot. Arabs and Jews wont share the land peacefully, so the decision should be taken out of their hands by secular, more rational minds.
Here are what I think two interesting videos on two separate issues of the ME conflict.
The first one speaks to the close relation between the Israeli hard right (Bibi, Likud, etc.) and the whole Neocon movement – something spoke has brought up from time to time here.
While I don’t endorse the views expressed in their totality, I do find them a good primer into the relationship, including the difference in agendas between the Neocons and the current US Administration led by President Obama.
Netanyahu allied with US neo-cons who believe in permanent war - conflict with Obama real
The second deals with International Law and how some segments of Israeli Government have used their influence as to avoid any outside “interference” into investigations of the last Gaza invasion:
The fight against Israeli “impunity”
I should think it needless to say, but since the subject of this bottomless Pitting resorts over and over to cries of “antisemitism” and “bigotry” (amongst the litany of insults that construe a not so insignificant part of each of his posts/tirades) that I consider Jews no different to any other ethnicity/nationality – though what exactly being ‘Jewish’ entails, I admit to finding a bit perplexing as per some discussions had on this very MB. However, I should think it also rather clear that I am very much against the policies put in place by the Israeli Right Wing as I am against the status quo.
OTOH, none of the above implies that Palestinians are exempt from criticism, particularly when it comes to using violence in order to further their legitimate nationalist claims. That said, I also strongly disagree with those that tend to group them into a single entity with only one objective: hatred and the end of Israel. Not only is this view openly racist, it is also not founded in reality for diversity is not the purview of any one nationality/tribe but rather the essence of mankind.
Lastly, as I wrote in my last post, while I’ll keep bringing what I feel are relevant cites and opinions to this thread, I will not be engaging the subject of the thread itself…for the very reasons he is being Pitted. I can, however, recommend that he obtain a legal prescription for Xanax – or any other mood stabilizer – and wish him well in his recovery.
Missed the edit window: This article constitutes a good follow-up on the first video of my prior post:
Problem with this one is that the lead guy in it appears to be actively crazy.
’
Huh? I’m no fan of Bibi, but in one’s wildest dreams no-one could seriously contend he’s the “chief architect” of the “recolonization of the world”. What does “recolonization of the world” even mean?
Are we supposed to take this stuff seriously as a “primer” on the situation? The rest of the piece isn’t much more coherent.
The issue seems to be the attempted use of “universal jurisdiction” to try Israeli leaders in the courts of foreign nations for alleged war crimes and genocide. Not surprisingly, Israeli leaders are not in favour of it. The fact that no conflict is ever going to be solved by bringing prosecutions in Belgium seems to have escaped these excessive fans of international law. So far, I have yet to see J.W. Bush brought before a Belgian court …
Oh how surprising, another long bit of invective, insinuations and direct accusations of racism as the subject uffers thinks useful…
And as usual, anyone disagreeing with his particular POV is dishonest, racist and other disreputable things. Elvis was spot on in that respect.
But, on something closer to home:
This rather escapes me as the Irish comparison has nothing whatsoever to do with types of land ownership as a point of objection as such, but rather with the broad and not-irrelevant analogy to how British colonial rule - oddly enough protectorate - exploited arguments that are not without relation to … well the Finn argument (including the “nationality in quotes” type thinking that I find quite, quite revealing myself).
Of which, the non-recognition of traditional rights outside of the formal legal system to enable dispossession of small holders exercising traditional or group exploitation rights, an ethno-linguistic settlement approach with a view to marginalising and slowly squeezing out of the non-desirable / non-collaborating ‘other.’
While the historical analogy - as all such are - is inexact, neither its strong nor weak points relate in any way how any laws were in place nor an objection to legal form. The argument clearly refers to the exploitation of either legal form and the denial of traditional, but non-formalised rights by an occupying power of a different (perceived) ethnic and religious composition. To the extent spoke mention that as an analogous argument (and I rely on memory here, not being so OCD as to bother with a search), this … is a Look at the Wookie response.
It is rather illustrative, however, of Finnagain&again&again method of response (which perhaps makes more sense if we look at said responses in their deranged and distorted detail obsessiveness and monomania in the context of functional autism) in homing in on some incidental detail and trying to advance it (among reams of other hateful invective) as a means to cast doubt on the argument / critique.
Not that I would say that the analogy is perfect nor that it is a perfect critique.
No the British Mandate was designed to serve British Empire (by the British as it was not internationally negotiated in the fashion of some mandates) interests [although your framing is very revealing of why you assert disagreement is lying], and Empire interests in the view of some parts of Whitehall saw a Jewish homeland - the concept itself was left attractively ambiguous and the historical record shows that the Empire felt quite free in making contradictory promises to various parties, as needed.
Of course, it is not clear either Jewish homeland meant to Whitehall writers anything like a Jewish State, versus some useful Jewish idiots to advance Empire interests in the area. (Surely this will engender at least 3 pages of hateful invective, and maybe he’ll get back to such so very moral accusations that I am a child molester, for the sin of disagreeing with him relative to his passionate OCD obsession).
Ah well, this is going to go on for another God knows how many pages with the usual hand waving and nastiness.
Not that the nastiness does not serve the extremes, it serves the extremes very well indeed.
I must say I’m kinda scratching my head here. What exactly are the two of you arguing about? What’s the thesis?
Dude, it’s Red. All he cares about is that it has the appropriate level of hatred for Israel and doesn’t let any facts get in the way of such bile. If he gets drunk enough again he’ll even drop his pretense about the “Israel lobby” and admit that he really thinks it’s the “Jewish Lobby”. It’s one of his favorite tactics. First he’ll pretend that anybody, ever, has said that Israel can do no wrong, and then he’ll go Jew Hunting to find Traitor Jews. I’m not sure if it’s Red’s racist side or his drunken side that makes him include an Greek Orthodox Christian like Tenet with his role call of Traitor Jews, but it’s also pretty obvious that Red’s not exaaaaactly being honest when he says that he’s got no problem with Jews. It’s the same racism that spoke likes to use. Jews who are in positions of power and who have political opinions that differ from yours are probably evil Traitor Jews who are more loyal to a foreign nation than to their own homes. Same old, same old.
The only important part of it that should be a “primer” is that “Israel = bad!!!”. Sure, it’s incoherent lunacy, but it’s anti-Israel incoherent lunacy, which is all that matters.
WM is just up to his normal games, waxing bombastic without a clue as to what he’s talking about. Much like his claims about that the British Mandate didn’t aim at setting up a Jewish homeland (when it repeats that about half a dozen times including in the second sentence)… Unfortunately, WM didn’t let the fact that he hadn’t read the mandate get in the way of arguing about it.
Now he’s spewing nonsensical rhetoric about another topic he’s never read up on. Evidently the Ottomans’ legal code which was upheld by the British, and the Jordanians after them, was about "the non-recognition of traditional rights outside of the formal legal system to enable dispossession of small holders exercising traditional or group exploitation rights, an ethno-linguistic settlement approach with a view to marginalising and slowly squeezing out of the non-desirable / non-collaborating ‘other.’ " Or something.
It’s like having an enraged sophomore poli-sci student, who hasn’t bothered to do the assigned reading for that week’s class, vomit angrily in your direction.
Anyways, his spew is based on the fact that I pointed out that the vast majority of land in Palestine was never privately owned, and most of of it was Miri, Waste Land, etc… so it was inaccurate to say that it was all “Palestinian land” (as Red Fury lied while saying that a shocking 90% of it was, something that no historian has ever claimed because it’s an obvious fiction.)
Spoke then claimed that the situation was somehow analogous to Ireland in an attempt to deflect the conversation from land ownership in the region to a history and context half the world away while trying to equate British policies relating to Ireland with, I’m still not exactly sure, maybe Ottoman policies relating to the Ottoman Empire.
In any case, I then asked Spoke what exactly it was he had a problem with wrt land ownership under the Ottoman Empire.
Was it private ownership of land, and anybody who rented land gained ownership rights? Was it state ownership of land, and anybody who lived on state land gained ownership rights? Was his objection even intellectually honest, and did he in fact object to Palestinians who did own their land under the Ottoman land codes, and/or to those Palestinians who owned land and had other Palestinians living on it as renters?
I also asked him to identify any point, at all, during the last 1000 years when there was a group who he considered had valid property rights that were stripped. I allowed him to totally disregard the laws under any of the conquering powers who held the region if he needed, in order to make his point.
Rather predictably, spoke could not back up his claims and tried to change the subject. And now wm wants to babble about ‘traditional rights’ or some such nonsense. Evidently the roughly 450 years of Ottoman rule aren’t a tradition. Which, naturally, is why I asked about any of the roughly 550 years proceeding them. Yet to receive a factual reply, go figure.
Anyways, on to Red’s last binge of drunken posting:
Rather than linking to a video, why don’t you claim what those actual violations were. Cite the 4th Geneva Convention or any other relevant documents you believe support your case. Or don’t, and thereby admit that you have nothing, at all, to back up your claims.
Well, gee, paranoid, racist fantasies about how the Jews are inherently untrustworthy since they are a foreign ‘other’ with ethnic/religious ties to Global Jewry and potential spies you have no problem with, but pointing out the facts about Palestinian society (not every individual Palestinian, as you’d prefer to claim), now that’s racist!
Sorry, won’t fly. The facts show you’re full of shit. The Palesitinan Authority has a history of indoctrinating children towards the goals of racism and violence.School textbooks echo Hamas genocidal racism and both promote murder and anti-Semitism.Official PA television teaches children to aspire to kill and die.PA and Hamas glorify genocide and racism.
The PA and Hamas deny Israel’s right to exist and state that they will destroy it via violence.
And so on, and so on, and so on. To claim that every single Palestinian agrees is nonsense (and nobody has, you’re just attacking a strawman). To claim that Palestinian society as a whole does not have serious problems with racism and genocidal incitement is to lie.
Yes yes, it’s the same reason ever time I show that you’re full of shit and/or lying in Great Debates. You claim that I’m oh-so-very-wrong, but my evil Zealot Rays make it impossible for you to prove it. The reason you won’t address me is because you’re a vile anti-Israel partisan for whom the truth is a mere stumbling block.
Speaking of which, any retraction yet on your lie that 90% of Palestine was owned by the Palestinians? Or, barring that, your ground-breaking historical research that will surely win you international recognition for upturning centuries of understanding about the Ottoman Empire and Jordan’s continuation of its land laws?
Here is my original post that has Finn waving his arms:
(Post 523 if you’re keeping score.)
Finn seemed to be arguing that mere occupation of Palestine by Palestinians didn’t give the Palestinians any nationalist claim because they never technically owned the land.
Which seems to me somewhat analogous to claiming that once the Irish were reduced to mere tenancy in Ireland (while the land was technically owned by English landlords), it was really no longer Ireland. If the Irish didn’t own the land, long term occupancy gives them no nationalist claim, right?
At that point, Finn demanded I produce a 500 page thesis on ownership rights in the Middle East over the centuries, or else my argument was invalid. (Which demand I promptly ignored.)
Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Based on what he said in the interview he came off as quite rational to me…
Perhaps a “primer” on a “primer” of what the Neocon movement was (is) all about might be in order. But I think that should be a whole new thread.
For now, I’ll just provide this quote:
In said context, perhaps you’re able to glimpse the importance and input Netanyahu has/had into the whole Neocon world-model? “Chief Architect”? It’s one man’s view – one that I neither endorse nor disclaim for as much as I have studied the Neocon movement, starting with PNAC way back in '01/'02, clarity is not their biggest asset. Meaning that it’s hard to say, precisely, what their organigram, top to bottom, looks like.
You may do as you like of course. But I beg to differ.
Disclaimer: I don’t know this gentleman’s ideology nor agenda; I simply watched that interview and happened to agree with much of what he said. That’s as far as I go.
The search for justice and equality is a never-ending process. The fight is long, arduous and often futile. Does that we mean we should abandon all hopes of actually getting there one day?
I don’t think so.
I’d also like to add that while it is obvious we come at this issue from diametrically different perspectives (or so it seems thus far) I appreciate you keeping it civil. I have no problem doing likewise.
You really never do stop lying, do you?
How stupid do you have to be to lie about something that’s not only in this thread, but that I’ve repeatedly tried to get you to answer, again and again?
Contrary to your lie (which you know is a lie because I’ve quoted the actual question at you something like a dozen times now), what I actually said was:
You dodged the question not because it would require “500 pages”, but because you’re full of shit who was simply making stuff up and trying to equate the British dominating Ireland with Ottoman administration of the Ottoman Empire, and you could not point to any point, at all, in 1000 years where valid property rights were stripped. Because you made it up.
I see.
The problem with this analogy is historical.
The English in Ireland supported English settlement and settlers in Ireland, naturally enough; the Turkish government did not have reason to support Jewish settlement in Palestine.
The English came to Ireland as invaders, imposing their domination over pre-existing Irish nationalit(ies); the Turks did not impose their domination over a pre-existing Palestinian nationality - indeed, they took Palestine from the Mamluks who took it in turn from the Crusaders, who took it from Fatimids, who in turn displaced Byzantines … both Jews and Arabs were a mixture of folks who were “always” there, and folks who drifted in from abroad after the Turks owned the place. Palestine was always a multi-ethnic mix, there was no real nationalism prior to the practically simultaneous development of Zionism and Arabic nationalism towards the end of the 19th beginning of the 20th century.
In short, there appears less injustice in applying Turkish laws to Palestine, then in applying English laws in Ireland.