This is not what the word "colonialism" means in modern times; which imperial state is exploiting the resources of the destination?

Zionism itself is the colonial movement exploiting Palestinian resources. 100% of Israel is on Palestinian land.

That isn't how that works.

But incidentally, what is Palestinian land? There has never been a recognized state of Palestine, so how would we define collective ownership of the land? Since individual Palestinians didn't own every single parcel of land.

Palestinian land is where they were before being ethnically cleansed since the Nakba.

So, anyone who had owned a plot of land was at least deserving of property rights - but given that lots of people's in the 20th century were unfairly stripped of their property rights and never compensated, I wouldn't expect anything.

As they did not possess sovereignty in the region, I don't recognize any sort of collective national claim of ownership to the overall region.

It looks like your account has been using HN primarily for political/ideological/nationalistic battle, which is not what the site is for. We ban accounts that do this, regardless of what they're battling for or against.

I'm not going to ban your account right now because I noticed at least one comment in your recent history which was on an unrelated topic, but if you'd please fix this, we'd appreciate it. HN is supposed to be for intellectual curiosity, random-access style, not pre-existing agendas, ongoing political battles, or single-purpose accounts.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

All right. And? This doesn’t describe colonialism. It might be hinting at ethnic cleansing if we look at it with the benefit of well over a century’s worth of hindsight, and ignore that it doesn’t refer to the Palestinians at all, who are not the indigenous inhabitants of that particular piece of land.

Yes, it describes ethnic cleansing. As for colonialism it doesn't need to be described, moving en masse to a country inhabited by an indigenous population to settle it is the definition of colonialism.

The Palestinians are not indigenous to Israel.

The Palestinians are absolutely indigenous to Palestine. Israel is a synthetic European creation, no one is indigenous to Israel.

Untrue. Well over half of Israeli Jews are of Middle Eastern origin, dispossessed and ethnically cleansed from the countries they called home for centuries in the late 1940s.

Palestinians are mostly Arab peoples from the surrounding countries and are not indigenous to Israel.

The assertion that no one is indigenous to Israel is false and stems from a conspiracy theory popular with neo-Nazi and tankie types, known as the “Khazar conspiracy”.

Arab Jews were encouraged to move to Israel. It’s part of the Zionist project.

The Arab countries were ethnically cleansed of Jews, and the Jews were forced to leave all their property behind.

The actual answer is it was a bit of both, but the majority of it was the rising antisemitism and anti Jewish laws in Arab countries (as a result of the Israel Palestine conflict)

This is blatantly false. Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine. No one is indigenous to Israel, which was created in 1948. Israel is a colony, defined by its non-indigenous population.

Unfortunately it isn’t. The Palestinian national identity has only sprung into being in the late 1960s. Until then they were simply Arabs, just like the Arabs from the surrounding nations. Furthermore Jewish indigeneity in Israel is well established by historical, archaeological, genetic, and scriptural evidence (it’s in the Quran!)

We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological/political/religious battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of what you're battling for or against.

See https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... for past explanations. (Single-purpose accounts aren't allowed in general, btw.)

This is both harsh and untrue. While I've allowed myself to be baited here, I've clearly discussed other topics.

This is (was?) a somewhat new account as well. How big of a buffer should I have before I'm allowed to discuss controversial topics without fearing the ban hammer?

We have no interest in being unfair, and anyone who genuinely wants to use HN as intended should have no trouble getting unbanned.

In this context, the test for whether an account is using HN as intended or not is whether it is primarily using the site for ideological/political/etc. battle. If an account is mostly using HN for the latter, which yours plainly is, then it's not using the site as intended.

I think that answers your question, no? It's not about buffer size, it's about what an account is primarily using HN for. It's supposed to be used for intellectual curiosity in a kind of meandering random walk. It's not supposed to be used for prosecuting fixed agendas, regardless of what the agenda is.

Are Palestinian Jews indigenous to Palestine or when you say “Palestinian” you mean only non-Jews?

The Palestinians are absolutely indigenous to Palestine and they were absolutely ethnically cleansed from their homeland by Zionists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba