Stephen Hawking boycotts Israeli academic conference

[The Grand Nudger]

The examples of it are almost all post 1492, post Columbus, and having to do with the Americas and Australia. There are no known examples of it in Europe or Asia. There are some well known examples such as Basques who were there so long they speak an Indo-European language.

Who cares how long they were there? If they aren't the original inhabitants of the area then those inhabitants were displaced. It doesn't matter how far back in time one has to go. Nevertheless, I'd suggest the opposite, that displacement decreased in frequency as we draw closer to the present but increased in intensity. You're focusing on what, 50 years (max 550 years going by 1450) out of a potential 200 thousand? Just, wow.

There are examples of it from Africa but not many -- which is not surprising of course. The best known the Zulus were migrating south as the Afrikaans were migrating north and both "encouraging" the original population to get out of the way.

There are examples of it from every corner of the globe stretching back the entirety of our experience as a species. People have been displaced recently with much greater ferocity though, sure. Political refugees are the original impetus for the coining of the term - and there are plenty of them worldwide. In 2009 the UNHCR released an estimate of 42 million refugees worldwide. Must I list where each and every refugee fled from? I think not. Similarly, we find no shortage of displacement in europe long before 1492, the UK is a great example of this, being a nation comprised of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes and Normans. Each group having more or less power and range at any given time - all marking the landscape until finally congealing into a singular entity. Then of course we have that wonderful mongol horde devastating the populations all across Europe and Asia. If we wanted to continue further back it becomes more difficult to identify these displacements - but not so difficult that it's impossible, que one Chris Stojanowski who just may have written a fairly definitive paper on identifying a displacement so vast that it is near total in scope by means of skeletal remains dated to the early holocene.....

Name the displacements. There was one Sennacherib bragged about. There were ruling classes imported in some cases but not actual displacements or replacements, I am very interested in reading your list of them. The supposed Hadrian expulsion is no more than religious legend.

Identify a "first peoples", and we'll have something to discuss, won't we? When you're done imagining, I'll ask you what you reckon happened to whatever older culture or peoples we find remains for in the same area. Pro-tip, they were likely displaced. We have a knack for displacing other species of animals (including other species of hominid) and of course, for displacing each other. One might even say that it goes farther than a knack...to a willing eagerness.

Of course, I know that you can't - because we're hard pressed to identify any first peoples - what with a major displacement event of some kind or another having occurred more than once in our history as a species - with profound and lasting results on a tenacious sort of evidence. The genes we carry tell a story.

If you are going to consider premeditated murder and theft as legitimate we do not share a common understanding of those words.

Strange, never saw anything in their declarations about either.

So what if it is there? They wiped Palestine off the map after 2500 or more years. No one misses Palestine. It will be no different when this first and only Israel ever to exist is gone. ALL of its problems exist because those problems are what the Zionists wanted. There is no sympathy for the fool who deliberately creates his own problems.

The same can be said of any nation built on the ashes of another, any invading peoples, the examples of which could bury our own in ash (and probably will someday). To continue along the same line - no one will miss any part of europe carved up in an effort to return it to whomever we finger as the thief that said piece of land rightly belongs to - I suggest that a significant amount of property in europe belongs to the isrealis. What say you, if any portion of Isreal belongs to the Palestinians - then surely the same assessment holds farther north. That's whats on the table, is it not, unless we're just talking about taking something from someone...and using the notion of returning something as pretext......

Or, we could drop the bullshit and insist that -they- handle their shit together, as cohabitators of a single nation - or not..make the split, but fucking handle it, rather than using it as a running excuse for extremism from either side. You know what, I just remembered that there are 42 million refugees in the world...perhaps if the Isrealis and Palestinians can't get it together we could send them there.

And if one is not pointing at the Jews, just who else is there to point to? They wanted it this way.

There are the Palestinians to point at. Something you've consistently missed or deliberately omitted. All you've got is the sins of the father and the crimes of another? Tell me you're joking......

[Tiberius]

So, calling someone a filthy (mormon) is not racist.

No, because mormonism is not a race.

calling someone a filthy (christian) is not racist.

No, because Christianity is not a race.

calling someone a filthy (muslim) is not racist.

No, because Islam is not a race.

calling someone a filthy (buddhist) is not racist.

No, because Buddhism is not a race.

calling someone a filthy (scientologist) is not racist.

No, because Scientology is not a race.

But! Calling someone a filthy (jew) is racist!

Yes, because the Jewish people are a race. So unless you meant "jew" in the religious sense (which is doubtful), calling someone a filthy jew is racist.

OK, I got it.. and by the way, the majority of the jews I've seen are not of semitic ancestry.

Ok, but the term "anti-semitic" these days refers to Jewish people, not only people of semitic ancestry.

[Minimalist]

Being against Israel's policies makes one an anti-semite?

Yea, that is bullshit, that is like if you hated Bush's policies that makes you an anti-American when you live in America.

Um...the Fox News shitwits believe that passionately.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Everyone "stole" all the land, everywhere Nony, it's a distinction which makes no difference.

We as humans should right all the wrongs we can. Sometimes things are too far in the past, but despite that, much could be done. Israel could at least indemnify the Palestinians, and begin treating them as equals with the full rights to vote. It is Israel's determination to subjugate that is their worst sin.
The jewish desire to sell their propaganda as fact is also a crime that rational men should correct.

And the only reason people do not believe their lies is because they hate Jews.

That is the common response. I first found that used by Flavius Josephus in the late 1st c. AD. Some stupid claims never die. (Against Apion, Book 1. It is a recitation of lies and you hate Jews/Judeans as the only possible explanation. It is on the web for free.)

---

So, calling someone a filthy (mormon) is not racist.

No, because mormonism is not a race.

calling someone a filthy (christian) is not racist.

No, because Christianity is not a race.

calling someone a filthy (muslim) is not racist.

No, because Islam is not a race.

calling someone a filthy (buddhist) is not racist.

No, because Buddhism is not a race.

calling someone a filthy (scientologist) is not racist.

No, because Scientology is not a race.

But! Calling someone a filthy (jew) is racist!

Yes, because the Jewish people are a race. So unless you meant "jew" in the religious sense (which is doubtful), calling someone a filthy jew is racist.

Caucasian, Mongoloid, Amerind, Australoid and three distinct races in sub-Saharan Africa. There are no Jews in the list of races. Why do you post like a Nazi? Which race was the Jew Sammy Davis Jr.?

Jews are NOT a race, period.

You can google races. There are other divisions. None of the divisions or listings included Jews as a race.

Jews are NOT a race, period.

OK, I got it.. and by the way, the majority of the jews I've seen are not of semitic ancestry.

Ok, but the term "anti-semitic" these days refers to Jewish people, not only people of semitic ancestry.

That Jews have adopted it as their own does not change the meaning nor force anyone else to go along with their usage of it.

You can also google Semitic people and find not a single one says Jews only. All make the point it is anyone who is a native speaker of a Semitic language. In fact most Jews are not semitic because most are not natives speakers of a semitic language.

Ever since Josephus Jews have been accusing people who will not believe their lies of hating Judeans/Jews. It is a very old and very silly response.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

The examples of it are almost all post 1492, post Columbus, and having to do with the Americas and Australia. There are no known examples of it in Europe or Asia. There are some well known examples such as Basques who were there so long they speak an Indo-European language.

Who cares how long they were there? If they aren't the original inhabitants of the area then those inhabitants were displaced. It doesn't matter how far back in time one has to go. Nevertheless, I'd suggest the opposite, that displacement decreased in frequency as we draw closer to the present but increased in intensity. You're focusing on what, 50 years (max 550 years going by 1450) out of a potential 200 thousand? Just, wow.

AGAIN I invite you to produce a list of displaced or replaced people. Merely repeating the assertion is worthless. I have mentioned DNA evidence going back some 6000 years so you can recite any and all going back that far.

The fact is discovering the stability of populations essentially from the beginning of settlement before recorded history was surprising to everyone. You can also produce examples from recorded history if you can find any.

There are examples of it from Africa but not many -- which is not surprising of course. The best known the Zulus were migrating south as the Afrikaans were migrating north and both "encouraging" the original population to get out of the way.

There are examples of it from every corner of the globe stretching back the entirety of our experience as a species.

Then fucking list them.

People have been displaced recently with much greater ferocity though, sure. Political refugees are the original impetus for the coining of the term - and there are plenty of them worldwide. In 2009 the UNHCR released an estimate of 42 million refugees worldwide. Must I list where each and every refugee fled from? I think not.

Of course not. You merely have to be honest that almost all of them are
1) sitting just across the border waiting the go home and
2) they were made refugees by the fellow countrymen and thus are not being replaced by anyone new.

Similarly, we find no shortage of displacement in europe long before 1492, the UK is a great example of this, being a nation comprised of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes and Normans. Each group having more or less power and range at any given time -

Yes different sovereignty. I did say sovereignty is different from ownership.

all marking the landscape until finally congealing into a singular entity.

AND living in the same geographic location as their ancestors.

Then of course we have that wonderful mongol horde devastating the populations all across Europe and Asia.

But we do not find Mongols replaced local populations. There are no pockets of Mongolian descent people living in Europe.

If we wanted to continue further back it becomes more difficult to identify these displacements - but not so difficult that it's impossible, que one Chris Stojanowski who just may have written a fairly definitive paper on identifying a displacement so vast that it is near total in scope by means of skeletal remains dated to the early holocene.....

Never heard of it. It is difficult to explain how people always on the move, hunter gatherers, can be displaced. So please tell me from memory the explanation he gave in this book you never read.

Name the displacements. There was one Sennacherib bragged about. There were ruling classes imported in some cases but not actual displacements or replacements, I am very interested in reading your list of them. The supposed Hadrian expulsion is no more than religious legend.

Identify a "first peoples", and we'll have something to discuss, won't we? When you're done imagining, I'll ask you what you reckon happened to whatever older culture or peoples we find remains for in the same area. Pro-tip, they were likely displaced. We have a knack for displacing other species of animals (including other species of hominid) and of course, for displacing each other. One might even say that it goes farther than a knack...to a willing eagerness.

So if there is no way to know who were the first then there is no way to know if they were displaced. Is that a shot through one foot or two? By description the first people were those who settled into a region to farm it. From there archaeology can show consistent culture with those in geographically related areas rising and falling in dominance.

When people left Africa there were obviously no people to displace. They were all H-Gs until farming took over. It is unclear how one can displace people who are always moving around already. When it comes to settled communities a city may be destroyed but 90+% of the population are still farmers. Again where DNA evidence from ancient times has been available they are quite close to the people living in the same place today. The DNA from mummies is essentially the same as Egyptians today.

Of course, I know that you can't - because we're hard pressed to identify any first peoples - what with a major displacement event of some kind or another having occurred more than once in our history as a species - with profound and lasting results on a tenacious sort of evidence. The genes we carry tell a story.

As above it was quite simple the first to settle down to farming. Or like the body found in a C14 dated bog the DNA is the same. I did say to look at the history also. History cannot mean anything but what was written. One does not assume it was all different before writing without additional evidence.

If you are going to consider premeditated murder and theft as legitimate we do not share a common understanding of those words.

Strange, never saw anything in their declarations about either.

Haganah, Irgun, Lehi, Stern Gang for openers. If you do not like the words of openly declared terrorists try Jabotinsky's Iron Wall. If you prefer to avoid reading and research we can do it from simple reason.

If they had not been expelled the entire Zionist Enterprise would have been voted out of existence in the first election. The only way for Zionism to succeed was to get rid of 80% of the potential voters who would have shitcanned the idea at the polls. People do not just go away upon request therefore violence would be required. That constitutes premeditated murder as deadly force would be the only way to get them to leave.

So what if it is there? They wiped Palestine off the map after 2500 or more years. No one misses Palestine. It will be no different when this first and only Israel ever to exist is gone. ALL of its problems exist because those problems are what the Zionists wanted. There is no sympathy for the fool who deliberately creates his own problems.

The same can be said of any nation built on the ashes of another, any invading peoples, the examples of which could bury our own in ash (and probably will someday).

Again you are not talking about a change in sovereignty.

To continue along the same line - no one will miss any part of europe carved up in an effort to return it to whomever we finger as the thief that said piece of land rightly belongs to - I suggest that a significant amount of property in europe belongs to the isrealis.

So far as I am aware all the claims to lost private property related to WWII have been addressed fairly in national courts particularly in Germany and Poland. What have I missed?

What say you, if any portion of Isreal belongs to the Palestinians - then surely the same assessment holds farther north. That's whats on the table, is it not, unless we're just talking about taking something from someone...and using the notion of returning something as pretext......

It think at a minimum the Palestinians should be compensated and their claims fairly adjudicated as they were in Europe.

In any event there is no linkage between the two. If there were Israel would be legally obligated to do as Europe has done instead of just morally.

Or, we could drop the bullshit and insist that -they- handle their shit together, as cohabitators of a single nation - or not..make the split, but fucking handle it, rather than using it as a running excuse for extremism from either side. You know what, I just remembered that there are 42 million refugees in the world...perhaps if the Isrealis and Palestinians can't get it together we could send them there.

To do that they will have to return first. Israel flatly refuses both return and compensation. Palestinians are certainly open to return and most would likely take compensation. Thus the intransigent side is the Jewish side.

And if one is not pointing at the Jews, just who else is there to point to? They wanted it this way.

There are the Palestinians to point at. Something you've consistently missed or deliberately omitted. All you've got is the sins of the father and the crimes of another? Tell me you're joking......

One cannot point at the Palestinians without blaming the victims of the Jews. What pray tell do you think they have done wrong besides resist and attempt to get their property back? BTW: I judge the actions of the Palestinians by the actions of the victorious good guys in WWII. They could nuke Tel Aviv without being condemned.

[The Grand Nudger]

AGAIN I invite you to produce a list of displaced or replaced people. Merely repeating the assertion is worthless. I have mentioned DNA evidence going back some 6000 years so you can recite any and all going back that far.

To which I entreat you to isolate a single group of human beings alive today that did not displace a previous group, or are not now on grounds previously occupied by another. IOW, I think the way that you phrased the question is complete bullshit.

The fact is discovering the stability of populations essentially from the beginning of settlement before recorded history was surprising to everyone. You can also produce examples from recorded history if you can find any.

I remember mentioning something about proving things door to door in another thread, it applies to more people than I mentioned, apparently.

Then fucking list them.

Reread my response. I got started with a couple obvious examples and one bit of obscure anthropology.

Of course not. You merely have to be honest that almost all of them are
1) sitting just across the border waiting the go home and
2) they were made refugees by the fellow countrymen and thus are not being replaced by anyone new.

Actually, most of them are currently residing in 1st world countries far removed from their homes (largely 3rd world shitholes), that data point comes from the same report.

Yes different sovereignty. I did say sovereignty is different from ownership.

-and with that sovereignty come immigrants..but I'm sure the new immigrant overlords of this 5 sq mile patch of land treated the natives with priority and all.....it's not as though they may have given lands to their kin that already had a claim or anything...it's not as though these continuing claims and thefts dominated the history of the region for a few centuries......or that populations shifted with the conflicts, both in genetics and location.......

nothing at all like that. Nope, no one displaced, nothing seized or stolen. We'll have to wait till 1492 and those damned jews, amiright?

AND living in the same geographic location as their ancestors.

So long as you make the geographic region significantly broad and then ignore that with the exception of the britons...none of them are "first peoples" of the UK...even remotely. The britains themselves..well, there may have been "some" peoples in the area that got the short end of that stick......but I don't mind ignoring them, they were even more different than the rest of you strange bastards are to me.

But we do not find Mongols replaced local populations. There are no pockets of Mongolian descent people living in Europe.

Nope, mostly just raiding this far afield, they seem to have been more interested in asia, another place you offered up and the reason I mentioned them.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180246/

Let wonder lead you to knowledge.

Never heard of it. It is difficult to explain how people always on the move, hunter gatherers, can be displaced. So please tell me from memory the explanation he gave in this book you never read.

Not a book, peer reviewed. Go grab it for yourself, I'm still munching through it. Buddy clued me in, the guys been pretty prolific and I'd never heard of him either.

So if there is no way to know who were the first then there is no way to know if they were displaced. Is that a shot through one foot or two? By description the first people were those who settled into a region to farm it. From there archaeology can show consistent culture with those in geographically related areas rising and falling in dominance.

It's sometimes more difficult to identify who the firsts were then it is to identify who the seconds where. Garbage heaps pile up, and beyond a point we expect evidence to get sparce. That we find evidence of displacement -even amongst hunter gatherers- isn't exactly surprising. Some hunting grounds are more fertile than others, and a few choice farming communities - the birthplaces of agriculture if you will, we now know had been inhabited in a grand way long before any farming ever took place. Perhaps they chose those sites precisely because they were fertile in the hunting and gathering sense, and resorted to agriculture to cover a gap. That method failed horribly at first, by the way, the earliest farmers were some malnourished sons of bitches.

When people left Africa there were obviously no people to displace. They were all H-Gs until farming took over. It is unclear how one can displace people who are always moving around already. When it comes to settled communities a city may be destroyed but 90+% of the population are still farmers. Again where DNA evidence from ancient times has been available they are quite close to the people living in the same place today. The DNA from mummies is essentially the same as Egyptians today.

That's what you'd be looking for, the original wave of expansion- every successive expansion that's sufficiently pervasive amounts to theft (I don;t think it does, but that's where the isreali song and dance leads..and you're committed - so own it). We could cut to the chase though, and I'd laugh at the notion that being the first there is anything to pin your nations legitimacy on in the first place. Mummies....there you go again, with that myopic view.

As above it was quite simple the first to settle down to farming. Or like the body found in a C14 dated bog the DNA is the same. I did say to look at the history also. History cannot mean anything but what was written. One does not assume it was all different before writing without additional evidence.

Hardly, and for the reasons already elaborated upon. Now I loves me some farmin buddy, but what claim does digging a trench give you that carries down in perpetuity? You're going to start believing things just because some schmuck wrote it down all of a sudden? Perhaps I'm a cynic, but I doubt that anyone would write "we weren't the first here" in the deeds they scratch into their cave walls.

Haganah, Irgun, Lehi, Stern Gang for openers. If you do not like the words of openly declared terrorists try Jabotinsky's Iron Wall. If you prefer to avoid reading and research we can do it from simple reason.

If they had not been expelled the entire Zionist Enterprise would have been voted out of existence in the first election. The only way for Zionism to succeed was to get rid of 80% of the potential voters who would have shitcanned the idea at the polls. People do not just go away upon request therefore violence would be required. That constitutes premeditated murder as deadly force would be the only way to get them to leave.

In other words, it isn't in there, but one can infer it if one were so inclined. Good reading, by the way. I knew that it was some shady shit but it's more amusing than I thought it would be. The bit about attempting to ally with Nazi Germany was a laugh riot.

Again you are not talking about a change in sovereignty.

I'm not? Of course I am. Changes in sovereignty are a great impetus for displacement, and also the reverse, with displacement you expect a change in sovereignty. You seem to think that one has to be forced off a cliff and over an ocean to be displaced. They don't. They can be moved across the river, or forced into ghettos - for example, within throwing distance of their previous homes. Displacement from an anthropologist's point of view is merely when a population of people are left with no choice but to relocate. Some of the most major instances appear to have been driven by natural causes, the worst being before the advent of agriculture. Putting the lie the that "first people are farmers" bullshit you tried to float.

So far as I am aware all the claims to lost private property related to WWII have been addressed fairly in national courts particularly in Germany and Poland. What have I missed?

Well, if the people who fled Europe to Israel immediately following the seizure of their property had their grievances handled then that's that isn't it, so long as they got what was theirs. I assume they can go back to their homes now then? Speaking of shady shit..that compensation plan..also a laugh riot of late.

It think at a minimum the Palestinians should be compensated and their claims fairly adjudicated as they were in Europe.

I suppose I have higher expectations. I expect to see the Palestinians be treated as equals, at a minimum, and watch the divide between the two groups erode into nothing through dedicated and directed effort. Whether or not there is any compensation means about as much to me as whether or not any of our folks with a greievance get their acres and mules. The acres, the mules, far less valuable than the right to participate in ones own government. If you won't participate until you get your acres and mules, I'd call you a moron. You know why? What do you imagine the best way to get the acres and mules might be....uh huh..participation.

In any event there is no linkage between the two. If there were Israel would be legally obligated to do as Europe has done instead of just morally.

That's not really how it works. We do have international law, but insisting that something be done in one country simply because it was done in another...well..shaky, at best. Self determination and all that jazz you know. On the other hand, I hope that if there ever is a compensation arrangement it;s handled better than europe handled it.

To do that they will have to return first. Israel flatly refuses both return and compensation. Palestinians are certainly open to return and most would likely take compensation. Thus the intransigent side is the Jewish side.

Of course, it;s a win/win for the Palestinian side of the debate, but thats not how progress is achieved, nor how compromise is made. What you're describing would be more like unilateral victory. Good luck with that. You know what I think, I think that any unilateral response or leverage would just be the impetus for another generation of bickering.

One cannot point at the Palestinians without blaming the victims of the Jews. What pray tell do you think they have done wrong besides resist and attempt to get their property back? BTW: I judge the actions of the Palestinians by the actions of the victorious good guys in WWII. They could nuke Tel Aviv without being condemned.

So that is all you have, tq and the fathers sins. Well tough titty bud. The victim of an assault does not have the right to then repeat the same crime upon their aggressor. Further, they do not have the right to stew about it for a generation, and then assault the children of their aggressor. That's here, that's how we've set up our laws. I think that's reasonable. You clearly disagree. Victims don't get a pass in the now for having been victims at some point in the past. I don't begrudge a person for trying to get back some thing that they've lost, but at some point it becomes a lost cause. Better to move on and better the future. You aren't doing yourself any favors clinging to an irretrievable past. That's the area where I disagree with the Israeli side of the issue the most strongly.

Skeletons in the closet? Okay, you;re an ass but we've all got them, I mean whats the US going to say about displacing people and seizing their property, eh? Would be great if you could offer some sort of compensation - but if that's off the table for whatever reason, then lets go ahead and move forward. Maybe readdress it some later time, when those involved are more amenable. -Going forward- lets not douche it up. How hard is that eh?

I mean, obviously it's nigh fucking impossible - but that's difficult for me to accept.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

AGAIN I invite you to produce a list of displaced or replaced people. Merely repeating the assertion is worthless. I have mentioned DNA evidence going back some 6000 years so you can recite any and all going back that far.

To which I entreat you to isolate a single group of human beings alive today that did not displace a previous group, or are not now on grounds previously occupied by another. IOW, I think the way that you phrased the question is complete bullshit.

I am asking you to produce evidence in support of your assertion.

You are asking to me to assume your assertion is true and find an example of it not being true.

This is pointless. i have already mentioned Amerinds and Australian Abos who displaced no one.

[The Grand Nudger]

If I'd claimed that no group of people has ever avoided displacing another then your mentioning those two groups would have been relevant - if they'd avoided doing so. I didn't - so calling a discussion that you are having with yourself pointless is probably a very accurate assessment of the situation. The natives here are a horrible example, by the way. They were very, very busy pushing each other across the landscape for a very long time - before getting a big fat boot as a group. Additionally, whether or not they were the continents first people themselves is hotly debated at the moment. I don't know much about aboriginies, except that they themselves were displaced.

You're actually just asking me to provide -more- evidence for an observation. Populations are often displaced. Somtimes by people, sometimes by other means. When two cultures meet and compete for the same resource, we see displacement with regularity. Whats so difficult to understand about this? You know, winners and losers in the great migration game. I wasn't aware that this was a controversial observation.

I've been much more interested in how this is supposed cast better light on the situation between Israel and Palestinians, personally. "My grandaddy built an outhouse here, it's mine!" No one gives a shit. My grandaddies have been building outhouses all the way from africa to where I'm at right now and they took alot of detours in between. I haven't seen any deeds or checks in the mail Nony. We certainly didn't leave a couple of those places by any freely made choice of our own...lol. Maybe I'm not seeing those deeds and checks because I'm not firing rockets at people, eh? Should I take that up as a hobby?

[A_Nony_Mouse]

If I'd claimed that no group of people has ever avoided displacing another then your mentioning those two groups would have been relevant - if they'd avoided doing so.

This started with a repetition of the Zionist claim that it is OK because everyone does just like kids say. I simply pointed out that is not true for lack of examples of it and for evidence that populations have been stable in geographic areas over thousands of years and gave one example that I remembered off hand without having to research.

Then, without the least contrary evidence but only repetition of the initial assertion I was asked to assume it was true and prove it wrong despite the fact there is no evidence it is true. That there is no evidence it is true it is clearly impossible to find contrary evidence to no evidence. There is nothing to be contrary to.

[The Grand Nudger]

It started with no such thing. Just because it happens doesn't mean it's okay, or that I'm on-board with it, something which I explicitly stated when I mentioned that I wouldn't have supported any formation of Israel personally.

You mistakenly thought that there were no examples, it's difficult to find examples of populations which haven't displaced some other group. You tried with a meager two, one of which was a bad call on your part (the other I know nothing about). I gave you one that I assumed was common knowledge, one that covered the largest continent on earth, on that dated back to the early holocene, one that bottlenecked us genetically and profoundly (I even got the do some damage to the myth of the noble savage while I was at it- and farmers as "first peoples"). Two of which direct from peer review. You were unclear on what displacement is, and how often it occurs, and that's okay.

Now you're just asking me to provide what has already been given. I'm happy to continue (mostly because 4 examples in such a vast period of time barely scratches the surface), but not until you can at least muster up the courtesy to acknowledge whats already been offered. Probably deserves it's own thread, as it's wildly off topic.

I think that you just wanted to call something Zionist, personally.

That's all you feel like responding to, from that entire post btw? I guess I'm gonna dial back the effort on this end......