It is antisemitic to equate calling for violence against Jewish settlers partaking in genocide to calling for violence against all Jews on the basis of being Jewish.
You're being antisemitic. And if you aren't Jewish, you need to shut the fuck up now. If you are, I'd be happy to explain why your position harms us as a whole.
Both involve the killing of innocent civilians based on their racioethnic group
This is reductionist. You need to wipe away of the context of a white Jewish supremacist apartheid state vs the context of being scapegoats for the nazis for your position to make sense.
Also settlers aren't civilians, settlement is part of an extended military campaign of genocide.
Yes. Still, they give both context to saying “death to Israel” because they prove that the statement is being used in a violent way.
Violence is justified against settlers, violence isn't justified against an oppressed ethnic minority. They are distinct things.
Oh, looking back you were objecting to "being a landlord isn't a job it is an investment"
We've had a semantic misunderstanding. I think what the op was trying to say is that being a landlord is a property relation, and you were saying "but if can also be a job" and if you want to analyze social relations I'd argue that it'd be confusing to call maintaining property as being a landlord. You could say that some land managers are also landlords, or that some landlords are also land managers?
This part of the post
the Holocaust of 6 million Jews and the recent terror attack that killed and took hostages of hundreds of Israeli civilians.
Makes it sound like you think they're of similar themes. Theyre not. One was a wholesale slaughter of an oppressed minority, the other was anticolonial violence directed at settlers.
You're premise is nonsense, there are anti-apartheid movements whereever apartheid states exist. There was an anti-apartheid movement in South Africa way before now.
Something can be both an investment and a job. I do not know why you were saying "it is a job not an investment" originally.
You're just not getting like, a basic political economy concept.
Regardless of whether the investor also does the job of maintaining the property, the property they invested in is an investment. Investments always require some sort of work on someone's part.
Also you were the one gatekeeping the word investment
Oh spare me the pseudo civility you genocide defending antisemitic piece of shit.
It is always an investment that requires work to be put into it, but you doing the work isn't an inherent component, you can always pay someone to do it for you.
Just rephrasing what you said in a way I think you'd agree with to repeat the point that it is always an investment.
unless we’re going to get into the weeds over some sort of pointless discussion of property ownership being horrible in general (which I tend to agree with). I shouldn’t have to explain that.
That is literally my central argument.
I'm gonna have to point out that I've repeatedly said some variation of "this isn't about landlords being evil, this is about the system that creates landlords being harmful" and you've continued to take it as a personal attack, over and over again.
The response to
"this isn't about landlords being evil, this is about the system that creates landlords"
Really shouldn't be
"but I'm not a bad landlord! Not all landlords are slumlords"
Do you think that Palestinians have been put in an environment meant to bring about early and unnatural deaths by accident?
Israeli settlers love burning Palestinian olive trees which take forever to regrow or settling in agricultural areas and then using violence to keep Palestinians out.
The average age in the gaza strip is 18 years old thereabouts.
That the population has grown is meaningless to whether Israel is trying to kill them. If the indigenous population grew for a period of ten years during manifest destiny that wouldn't be proof that it wasn't a genocide.
Settlers are humans the same way soldiers are humans and the same way civilians are humans.
Bad faith nonsense in defense of settler colonialism, how original