I don't think you understand the word colonizer. The Muslims conquered and lived among the people. They created a civilization which non-Muslim minorities were a part of. This is very different from European colonialism that extracted resources from the lands and people they conquered for the exclusive benefit of the Empire.
This is a false portrayal of the conflict. Israel wants to finish ethnically cleansing the west bank (as they have been doing and continue to do until this day) and want to either keep Gaza as a concentration camp or ethnically cleanse it as well. Palestinians want implementation of international law and UN resolutions which require a return to 67 borders and a right for Palestinian return. There IS a right and wrong side here and portraying the conflict as both sides just wanting to kill each other is obfuscating with the intent of portraying both sides equally at fault and thus the conflict hopelessly unsolvable.
Everything from "..continue to be oppressed" until the end.
But again, the main point is how does your example have anything to do with the framing of the current conflict in Palestine and what the Palestinian people are undergoing?
If we can all agree that UN resolutions and international law should allowed to be implemented, that would be a path forward better than what's currently happening.
Your argument is that my statement framing the current conflict in Palestine as "A people were ethnically cleansed from the lands they lived on for centuries and those people continue to be oppressed and subjugated till this day, not only denied to return back to the lands they were expelled from, but continue until now to be forcibly expelled from the small amounts they remain on" applies to either side. I charge that you haven't provided any evidence that it applies to the Jews. You bring an example of Jewish expulsion from other parts of the world after 1948 (which does not fit the full description of the statement anyway) but then admit that it has nothing to do with the Palestinian plight or the current conflict.
What are the "other number of events"? Please be specific. Regarding what happened in various Arab countries in the 40s and 50s (which by the way is after the nakba so the tit-for-tat theory doesn't hold up) what does this have to do with Palestinians being ethnically cleansed? Are you justifying one for the other? It's no different than saying because of the European Holocaust or European antisemitism, the Palestinians deserve to be ethnically cleansed.
It's not complicated at all. The party of this conflict which is the settler-colonizer would like everyone to believe it's complicated but it's quite simple: A people were ethnically cleansed from the lands they lived on for centuries and those people continue to be oppressed and subjugated till this day, not only denied to return back to the lands they were expelled from, but continue until now to be forcibly expelled from the small amounts they remain on.
Hamas started this last flare up only if history begins on Oct 7. In fact, Hamas's action on that day is an inevitable reaction to decades of systemic oppression, unprovoked aggression and ethnic cleansing.
Which Jews within Israel were displaced in the conflict? Rather, it was a net gain for the Jews in Israel. People, including Golda Meir the first prime minister, simply moved into existing homes of people who had to flee because of the murderous Zionist mobs and pogroms. Compensating refugees and descendants doesn't solve the problem that they don't have legal status in the land they were born in / driven from. They must be let back to their native land. Israel uses this same logic - although spanning 2k years and reliant on mythology as proof - to let any Jew from anywhere in the world immigrate and gain citizenship in Israel. So if you're committed to being equitable to both sides, why aren't Palestinians given the same right of return to their homeland?
If you agree that you have to let them back as per Geneva, then the solution is obvious: let the 7million refugees back to the lands they were ethnically cleansed from in 1948 and onwards.
The laws discriminate against non-jews. Below is a list which includes things like restricting who can emigrate or gain residency, who land can be distributed or leased to, restricting commemoration of ethnic cleansing that the state was founded on, etc.
Your argument is not convincing in the least. Are all the Jewish people who criticize Israeli policies anti-Semitic as well? Being against apartheid and for the implementation of UN resolutions doesn't mean one hates the Jewish people.
I used to be an FBA seller and made an exit via sale to private equity (i.e. an aggregator). The FTC will likely fail on all or most fronts imo. Amazon's price fixing helps consumers because they simply don't show you the product if it's not the best price on the web. FBA fees are not "profits" taken by Amazon because logistics is not a profit-center for their business. Copying successful third party sellers' products, as annoying as it is (it happened to me more than once), doesn't appear to break any laws. Advertising costs keep rising yes, but again, how is that illegal? At some point, there may be an opportunity for some young entrepreneurial minded person to create their own marketplace open to third party sellers and undercut Amazon's commission (currently 15pct in most categories) and have cheaper advertising costs due to lower competition. The reason why currently this is likely not viable is that FBA is still faster and cheaper than any other existing fulfillment service last I checked. The margin difference between lower commission+cheaper advertising vs more expensive (and slower) fulfillment is still - I believe - in Amazon's favor. FBA, by the way, is open to use even if you sell on your own website. The service is called Amazon MCF (multi channel fulfillment), but the cost and speed is not as good as real FBA. I often wondered what Amazon gains by offering MCF and can't help but think it has something to do with making the appearance of not being anti-competitive.
Funny because alot of sellers are complaining about high fba fees eating into their profits. If you remove the subsidy (assuming there is one which I doubt) those fees would rise to hurt sellers more.
This only describes one model of selling on Amazon i.e. as a vendor. The vast majority of sellers are not vendors and manage their own inventory quantities. The way the system qorks changed several times over the years, and was notably very constrained during COVID, but these days Amazon just provides a recommended qty per sku and an overall hard limit on total square footage each seller can use. The limit is determined by sales volume, so higher volume sellers get more space. If product doesn't move, the seller pays storage fees and eventually (more expensive) long term storage fees.
"Success" is a part of it but that usually comes packaged with other things like similar level of education and similar type of things the two find interesting. Income is a good (but far from perfect) indicator of social compatibility.