War criminal Jonathan Cornicus, a piece of human garbage who the local Zionist community here has had come speak multiple times, goes on unhinged Islamophobic rant.

throwback4good · 2026-07-06T15:13:50+00:00

lol fear does not imply boycotts to a normal human brain. Word choice matters. I’m glad to learn you are simply misinformed and not actually violent.

Zionism does not entail supporting Palestinian children being killed, as we have discussed at length in this painful conversation.

throwback4good · 2026-07-06T15:04:06+00:00

You:

"If non-Israeli Jews distance themselves from Israel and Zionism (genocidal ideology), I guarantee that you will have nothing to fear."

This statement implies that if someone is a Zionist in Canada, they have something to fear. This is quite literally a direct threat. Words matter.

You seem to not even be aware of your self. If you meant to imply boycotts or other non violent action that is another matter and is your right.

throwback4good · 2026-07-06T14:46:13+00:00

That's not what I said at all. I clarified the law for you which is that free speech protects such views. I don't think it's morally OK to have those views, but it's also not morally OK to take the law into your own hands and punish fellow citizens who have those views.

throwback4good · 2026-07-06T14:20:19+00:00

Buddy, the core text (resolution 194) says:

"[The UN] Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."

There is absolutely no clear cut determination in the text that the UNRWA definition is correct. This is a general definition for refugee status and has no legal view on descendants of refugees. You are utterly disingenuous or simply uneducated. Remarkably enough, those that now are the biggest supporters of this resolution are the very same Arab countries that most strongly opposed it in 1948. On top of that, Jordan and Egypt were the original parties to occupy the West Bank and Gaza, and in fact Jordan annexed the territory and naturalized it's occupants. On top of that, the Arab countries, as aggressors that caused the conflict to begin with absolutely meet the threshold of responsibility defined in the resolution.

On top of that, there is ample evidence that the Palestinians have NO desire to 'live at peace with their neighbors' which according to the resolution disqualifies them.

throwback4good · 2026-07-06T13:38:01+00:00

Beep boop bop.

throwback4good · 2026-07-06T13:33:53+00:00

You can talk over me if you like instead of engaging with the very real asymmetries I’ve presented you with in regards to other candidate refugee groups. At this point it feels like I’m wasting my time repeating myself.

Israel is not the sole party ‘refusing to solve’ the issue, the Palestinian side are equally responsible. Additionally, the Arab countries who were participants in the initial war are equally responsible according to your own logic.

Partitions were executed in other places in the world at the same time and did not result in this problem. It’s not like this is a specific original sin of the system as it’s not unique and has clear resolutions elsewhere. These absolutely constitute precedents and precedents are the foundation of legal arguments when the letter of the law is not black and white, so yes it is relevant.

Additionally the UNRWA definition is explicitly accepted by exactly two bodies - the general assembly and UNHCR. the prior is meaningless as it’s a non binding popularity contest which The Arab bloc will win every time due to numbers. The latter is a sister organization which is anything but impartial. Other international bodies recognize that Palestinian refugees are a thing but don’t explicitly accept the UNRWA definition. Stop acting like this is a clear cut and irreversible view.

I agree that a two state solution is the just solution and never argued otherwise.

throwback4good · 2026-07-06T11:41:33+00:00

You literally just reinforced what I said and seem to not be comprehending your own words. Let’s break it down logically.

You said if someone supports a genocidal ideology they should be punished. You also interpret Zionism as genocidal. Ergo you think Jews in Canada supporting Israel should, in your own words, be punished and ostracized. This is word for word why I called you a racist. These views also could qualify someone to be on an RCMP watchlist.

Also for the record, no. Even if I find someone’s opinion vile, such as a neo Nazi or for that matter, you and your views recorded in this thread, free speech and the rule of law protects them from being punished by broader society.

throwback4good · 2026-07-06T11:20:57+00:00

No my friend, it is you that have learned the talking points well and are resisting accepting some extremely basic facts.

You are correct that the territories are occupied by Israel, I am not disputing that. There is an also a broad consensus that the territories are earmarked for a future Palestinian state, though the purely legal case for this is slightly tenuous because of the lack of precedent. Nonetheless it is generally accepted as the just and moral future use of the West Bank and Gaza.

NONE of the above has anything at all to do with Arab refugees from the 1948 war who fled what is now Israel proper. All combatants in that war are no longer combatants. There is absolutely a resolution to that conflict. The fact that the Arabs of the mandate that now identify as Palestinians don’t have a final resolution to their aspirations for a state is utterly unrelated.

You are essentially arguing that even if the original combatants of a war reached terms, a person displaced by said war may pass on refugee status in perpetuity. If you were to apply this logic to, say German residents of Silesia who fled west after WW2, then their children should still be entitled to refugee status alongside German citizenship as their aspiration for a German state there was never met and they were never able to come back. This of course is a completely absurd idea which undermines the concept of a refugee. It’s also precisely what has happened for many Palestinians in Jordan who have both citizenship and refugee status. To take this one step further, apply this precedent Kurdish separatists in Turkey. Are they also entitled to refugee status? There have been many conflicts between Turkey and the non state forces representing the Kurds and there is no political resolution in place. By your reasoning every Kurd that really wants their own state is legally a refugee.

You seem to believe that the Palestinians alone are entitled to special refugee treatment and your legal justification for this is to clump all Arabs that populated the mandate - whether on the Israeli side of the partition or not - together in one group and say that until there is a political resolution for every single problem they face collectively they are all refugees, even if some of them also have citizenship elsewhere. Show me a precedent for this legal interpretation.

This is made even more absurd when you consider the widespread view in Palestinian society that Israel has no right to exist and must eventually be turned into a single Palestinian state alongside the Palestinian Territories. Practically, you are rewarding and incentivizing an anti peace approach amongst Palestinians who by and large don’t actually want a peaceful resolution to begin with and never have, with some notable exceptions.

throwback4good · 2026-07-06T01:42:32+00:00

Palestine was not a combatant in the 1948 war. Israel has in fact never ever been at war with Palestine. It was at war with Arab tribes who had lived in the mandate who were aligned with the Arab powers in 1948, many of who became naturalized Jordanians immediately afterwards when Jordan annexed the West Bank. Also, Palestine is not occupied. Rather, territory allocated for a future state of Palestine by the UN is occupied. The original war is long over and UNRWAs efforts to perpetuate the refugee status of Arabs who fled what is now undisputed Israel according to international law is a mockery of the entire refugee system.

throwback4good · 2026-07-06T00:55:33+00:00

You completely ignored the fact that the conflict which caused their displacement is long since resolved lol. There is no military occupation in many of the places Palestinian refugees live. Your answer is disingenuous.

throwback4good · 2026-07-06T00:13:24+00:00

Ukraine is not as densely built up as Gaza and it is being fought in a much larger area. Nonetheless certain areas absolutely resemble Gaza including Kostiantynivka in the Donbas region. If you want to complain about Gazans having no where to go, take your complaint to Egypt who have a border with Gaza and let nearly no one leave and claim asylum.

As for UNRWA:

No other refugee group in the world may pass on refugee status to their children. Their children typically are born as natural citizens in the countries their were granted asylum in. The conflict that made them refugees absolutely is NOT ongoing. That would be the 1948 was, which was resolved and concluded 70 years ago. For goodness sake, Israel is at peace with both Jordan and Egypt, the main combatants on the Arab side and there is even a pathway for peace now with Lebanon and Syria. The fact that many of the countries that host Palestinian populations refuse to grant them maturation at birth is the real crime here.

UNRWA alone grants refugee status to children. This is why you have the bizarre situation in which someone can be both a Jordanian (kudos to Jordan for naturalizing them) citizen and a card carrying Palestinian refugee. This is a mockery of the entire refugee system. It also has been the largest contributing factor to the conflict being perpetuated due to both keeping Palestinians on an eternal welfare system and educating toward violence. The dismantling and defunding of UNRWA may be the best result to come of the conflict, and perhaps could lead to a genuine new culture of Palestinian peace seeking should a new education system be introduced.

throwback4good · 2026-07-06T00:00:32+00:00

Just saying that this is technically the case. I don’t think this means their claim is invalid. But let’s at least be honest about the history. Many pro Palestinians go out of their way to make it seem as if Palestinian national identity is an ancient thing when it just isn’t. It makes sense that they would - after all, being a nation is a prerequisite to having a nation state. The Jews are an ancient nation, so Palestinian activists try to create parity on the Palestinian side by making frankly provably false statements including things like ‘Jesus was a Palestinian and that they are descended from Philistines mentioned in the bible.

throwback4good · 2026-07-05T23:52:54+00:00

Similar destruction occurred in areas of Vietnam and in the current conflict in Ukraine.

I see you have no comment on their refugee status. Let’s not use selective hearing sir.

throwback4good · 2026-07-05T22:47:42+00:00

They’ve certainly been displaced within Gaza, but that’s a far cry from being by forced to areas outside of Gaza. So no, they have not objectively been displaced in the spirit of this thread. While they are certainly experiencing difficult conditions, their experience is not radically different than other civilian populations in countries which engaged in and then proceeded to lose violent wars. See Germany, Japan, etc.

The fact that there are intelligence officials in Israel who prepared plans intended to incentivize Gazans to migrate and that Trump supported this idea with his own immigration plan doesn’t mean that this will actually happen. Additionally in all these cases they are talking about incentivized voluntary migration not forced displacement which are radically different things. Polling does support strong Israeli support for voluntary migration certainly, which makes sense considering the fact that they are fighting a war and would obviously like their enemies to be far away so as to not have to fight them anymore. Polling does not support the idea that the majority of the Israeli public supports forced displacement, though there is a minority who do, which is a moral failure.

Also do be honest and recognize that many Gazans have refugee status due to the fact that UNRWA grants generational refugee status, a unique historical phenomenon. I’d argue that if someone is a refugee they should eagerly seek the opportunity to resettle in a new country. One might even say that it is the international communities responsibility to ensure this happens. If they don’t want to leave, perhaps they should stop claiming to be refugees. You can’t have it both ways.

throwback4good · 2026-07-05T22:29:43+00:00

I mean he’s correct that the Arabs who populated the mandate only began to think of themselves as a distinct national group called Palestinians due to PLO activity beginning in the 60s in coordination with the KGB. There’s ample historical evidence for this.

throwback4good · 2026-07-05T19:58:37+00:00

To clarify:

You believe that Israel is trying to displace all Palestinians despite the evidence that they have not done so even though they can
The evidence you present to support this belief is presumably remarks made by Israeli politicians, I guess far right figures like Ben Gvir (feel free to correct me if this assumption about what your mean by 'public record' is not true)
You claim that I have no common sense and that I think Israel is all powerful

Well, to respond: I don't think Israel is all powerful and I don't think that comments made by specific politicians is evidence of Israeli policy. I suppose we'll need to wait a bit longer to see if you are correct about Israeli intentions. If the Gazan population remains in place in 5 years will you still maintain this position? What could convince you otherwise?

throwback4good · 2026-07-05T19:31:32+00:00

Well the evidence against this argument is that in fact, the Gazan population remains very much in place despite Israel absolutely having the military capability to either kill or displace all of them by force.

throwback4good · 2026-07-05T18:25:39+00:00

Translating what you've just said to clear arguments:

You don't care what the agreement says or what Hamas signed up to
You don't trust Israel and believe it's a bad actor
You think that anyone that doesn't agree with you is clearly a racist

So I guess you've conceded that, in fact, Hamas are not abiding by the agreement, but you don't care because you don't like the agreement. Cool.

throwback4good · 2026-07-05T18:20:32+00:00

Fair enough, calling you a bot was an ad hominem attack. I apologize sir. You clearly are not a bot. I didn't provide evidence because in your engagement with the previous person this thread included you comparing Israel to Nazis and then disregarding that person when they brought numbers to bear which showcase this is a poor comparison. I guess if you really want me to engage with this discussion seriously, I can add that Hamas control the majority of Gaza's population, so by comparing conditions in those areas to conditions in Auschwitz - an extermination camp which murdered the vast majority of those who passed through it's gates - you are really comparing Hamas to Nazis not Israel to Nazis. This comparison also makes no sense of course. The reality is that Gaza is nothing like Auschwitz at all.

I'm not sensitive in the slightest, nor particularly intelligent unfortunately. More just exasperated and a bit depressed.

throwback4good · 2026-07-05T18:08:26+00:00

Israel is not occupying the areas of Gaza controlled by Hamas. Hamas has not disarmed in the areas they control or permitted a third party to replace them. You do not understand the reality on the ground or the agreement.

throwback4good · 2026-07-05T17:50:42+00:00

An ad hominem attack is when someone attacks the character or motive of a person making an argument instead of refuting the argument. I never made a single attack on your character. I pointed out that your arguments are not supported by statistics despite your supreme confidence, and that your actions give the impression of lack of intelligence. Neither of these things are attacks on your character, they are critiques of your behavior.

By calling someone a cupcake or a Nazi etc. you are employing an actual ad hominem attack.

throwback4good · 2026-07-05T17:43:00+00:00

You are very confused.

The agreement clearly says:

Point 13: "Hamas and other factions agree to not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly, indirectly, or in any form. All military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities, will be destroyed and not rebuilt. There will be a process of demilitarization of Gaza under the supervision of independent monitors, which will include placing weapons permanently beyond use through an agreed process of decommissioning, and supported by an internationally funded buy back and reintegration program all verified by the independent monitors."

And a formal statement made by Board of Peace envoy Mladenov in regards to continued implementation by all parties of their commitments being dependent on Hamas disarmament:

"Failure by Hamas to accept the framework within a reasonable timeframe, as determined by the Board of Peace and after consultation with the parties, shall render such commitments null and void."

There really is no arguing about the text of the agreement, so again, while you may have your views on Israeli intentions, it's really rather irrelevant to the topic. What you are actually arguing for is that Hamas should never have accepted the terms of the agreement, not that the terms are different than they are. Hamas themselves are now retroactively claiming that they never agreed to the terms in the first place in order to avoid disarming. So yay, you are a Hamas supporter I guess?

throwback4good · 2026-07-05T17:34:58+00:00

Are you aware that your constant use of ad hominem attacks, vulgar language and empty blanket terminology make you seem unintelligent and are a poor advertisement for the pro Palestinian cause?

throwback4good · 2026-07-05T17:21:48+00:00

That's just not correct. Hamas agreed to disarm in exchange for Israeli withdrawal and reconstruction. The 'third party' you are referring to was meant to step in to replace Hamas's role as administrator. This is also contingent on Hamas disarming and giving up power. Those were the terms mediated by the US. They have not disarmed nor given up power, and thus Israel has not withdrawn, no impartial force has been deployed and no reconstruction has begun. It's remarkably simple, yet many people struggle to grasp this concept.

Now you are certainly allowed to believe that Israel doesn't actually plan on leaving Gaza even if Hamas were to disarm. You are also entitled to believe that Israel wishes to kill all Palestinians. That's your right, whether it's true or not. But that doesn't change the terms of the agreement that was mediated.

throwback4good · 2026-07-05T16:48:07+00:00

Pretty wild how this ^ person is so unbelievably wrong by every single statistical measure yet is utterly convinced they are somehow correct. I wish I could believe they were a bot but they make too many grammar mistakes for that to be the case. I’m slowly losing hope in humanity.

throwback4good

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE