You packed a lot of confusion into four sentences, Ezra, so let me untangle it slowly.
First, this line:
"So where is Israel's ancestral homeland if not Israel?"
You are doing what Zionism always does.
You take a religious or mythic claim that some Jews have a spiritual connection to a piece of land and you inflate it into a modern property deed for a 21st-century ethnostate.
Ancestry is not a land title.
If it were, half the planet would be on ships going back to somewhere else.
Most Jews alive today do not have continuous, lived, generational ties to that land.
Most Palestinians do.
That is the difference you keep skipping.
"Ancestral homeland" for you is a slogan.
For them it is the house key, the family orchard, the graveyard, and the village your side turned into a pine forest.
Second:
"They don't have a right to exist you suggest?"
No state on earth has a mystical "right to exist."
States are political arrangements.
They are born, split, reunify, collapse, get renamed.
People have the right to exist.
People have the right to safety, dignity, and return.
When someone asks "Does Israel have a right to exist," what they usually mean is:
"Do Jews have the right to live in Palestine without being slaughtered or expelled?"
The answer to that is obviously yes.
But that is not what your slogan is doing.
"Right to exist" in this context means:
"Does a self-defined Jewish state have the right to maintain a demographic majority and political supremacy even if it requires dispossession, siege, and permanent second-class status for the original inhabitants?"
That is not a right.
That is a demand for eternal impunity.
You can have equal rights for everyone between the river and the sea.
Or you can have a Jewish ethnocracy.
You cannot have both.
The "right to exist" language is just your way of avoiding saying out loud which one you choose.
Third:
"Palestinians have long lived alongside Israel in Gaza strip for millennia"
Israel has not existed for millennia.
Gaza has not always been a fenced-in strip.
You are mashing words together to hide the timeline.
For millennia, there were people living in that land: Canaanites, Philistines, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Arabs, and many others in between.
What you call "Israel" today is a modern state built in 1948 on top of their continuity.
Gaza as we know it now is not some cute example of coexistence.
It is the concentrated result of ethnic cleansing.
It is where many of the refugees from the villages your side emptied ended up.
They did not "live alongside Israel."
They were fenced, bombed, starved, and periodically massacred by it.
So let me answer you plainly.
Israel's "ancestral homeland" is the same soil where Palestinians planted their olive trees, buried their parents, and passed down their houses long before your state had a flag.
I am not saying Jews have no place there.
I am saying no group gets to turn myth into a weapon, erase the people already living there, and then hide behind the sacred phrase "right to exist" every time someone points to the bodies.
If Palestine truly stood as a free, equal land for all its inhabitants, from river to sea, Israel as an exclusivist project would not "stop existing."
It would simply lose its alibi.
Why the snide ‘even’ about Singh-Watson voting for @jeremycorbyn,
@dpcarrington? Was this you or an editor shoe-horning in a standard Guardian anti-Corbyn tone? May I remind you that more people voted for Corbyn than any other Labour leader this century?
https://t.co/R8T3MlrHLA
“Here is a [Labour] party that…is criminalising a non-violent activist group, using the most repressive parts of the state to protect the profit margins of arms manufacturers.
If these aren’t red lines for you, then frankly you don’t have any.”
https://t.co/5vysGLWrLX
Should Sir Keir Starmer at least expel the Israeli ambassador - Tzipi Hotovely from the UK - as a first response to Israel's escalation of the ongoing Zionist GENOCIDE?
Please RT after voting - thank you.
@culladgh @Tom1Powell84 @ThatTurkishGuy_ So each piece of evidence you maintain persuaded you of Letby's guilt has been shown by experts to be unsafe, Ally.
Why do you continue to insist that she was responsible rather than just in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Do you have some sort of 'feeling'?
@culladgh @Tom1Powell84 @ThatTurkishGuy_ The Insulin Test Used to Convict Lucy Letby in Babies’ Deaths Was Unreliable, Experts Say
https://t.co/LOX6UAadY2
@culladgh @Tom1Powell84 @ThatTurkishGuy_ She was working in an understaffed unit taking extra shifts as she saved for a deposit on a house. She was statistically more likely to be present when children died. The unit was Level 2 often operating at Level 3, and reduced to Level 1 around the time Letby was suspended.
@culladgh @Tom1Powell84 @ThatTurkishGuy_ Nobody is disputing the tragedy suffered by the parents of extremely ill babies at the neonatal unit. They are seeking to rationalise the death of their child, and Letby is an easy target to blame.
@culladgh @Tom1Powell84 @ThatTurkishGuy_ That’s not how the justice system is supposed to work though, is it? The fact is that the supposed evidence used to convict Letby has been found to be unsafe.
@culladgh @Tom1Powell84 @ThatTurkishGuy_ Bunch of people who are actually experts in the fields of neonatology and statistics. Yes, they know more than the jury and it seems more than the rather suspect expert fielded by the prosecution.
https://t.co/PNC3C6NwAr