Scum Hamas Terrorists Slaughter Jews In Israel

[ALBIONSAINT]

1 hour ago, W6er said:

 

I don't approve of that. The government should not ban a political demonstration because some of the demonstrators might be anti-Semitic. Everyone should be able to express any non-violent opinion, IMHO. I would say the same if it was a pro-Israel demonstration. 

I suspect there might be more terror attacks now in Europe, unfortunately.

The problem with this suggestion is that it tends to incite those who are religious zealots with mental health problems.

[W6er]

2 minutes ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

The problem with this suggestion is that it tends to incite those who are religious zealots with mental health problems.

I think not allowing people's voices to be heard is more likely to encourage this sort of thing. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK.

Of course, sending British armed forces to support Israel also makes us appear complicit, which is likely to antagonise some people and the more mentally unstable ones may do things like this. Why do we get involved? Israel destabilises the Middle East. There should be serious international pressure applied to Israel to vacate the West Bank and instead of financing Israel's military we, i.e. the West, should finance the building of a Palestinian state. I'm not suggesting that will quell the ill-feeling completely, but it will surely help assuage the anger. A stable Middle East will benefit us in the long-term.

[Eric Arthur Blair]

 

 

[shull]

 

[shull]

 

[Jockmd]

 

[ALBIONSAINT]

 

[ALBIONSAINT]

Oh the irony. She is very proud of her Zambian heritage, I wonder how it would go down in Zambia if she decried the government and country she lives and works in? Not very well I would imagine given their terrible human rights record. Ain’t she lucky to live in such a wonderful democracy as Britain. 

[ALBIONSAINT]

Despicable! 

 

[beyond our ken]

We are almost at the point where the point of taking about this will be lost as escalation is a near certainty now

Would Israel blow up a Gaza hospital and blame it on Hamas? Absolutely 

Would Hamas blow up a hospital to try an denigrate Israel? Very possibly 

would either of them own up to a botched operation? No f**kkin chance 

The fact that Israel has pointed the finger at third party is very suspicious 

Nobody in the Arab world is buying Israel’s version of events according to Sky news 

 

Edited October 17, 2023 by beyond our ken

[faraway saint]

1 minute ago, beyond our ken said:

We are almost at the point where the point of taking about this will be lost as escalation is a near certainty now

Would Israel blow up a Gaza hospital and blame it on Hamas? Absolutely 

Would Hamas blow up a hospital to try an denigrate Israel? Very possibly 

Nobody in the Arab world is buying Israel’s version of events according to Sky news 

 

100%, the attack by Hamas has opened the gates for both sides to take things to a completely different, and unacceptable, level.

Countries that have picked a side should really be ashamed as the civilians on both sides are the losers.

[beyond our ken]

15 hours ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

Oh the irony. She is very proud of her Zambian heritage, I wonder how it would go down in Zambia if she decried the government and country she lives and works in? Not very well I would imagine given their terrible human rights record. Ain’t she lucky to live in such a wonderful democracy as Britain. 

Well, she is Zimbabwean, not Zambian.  The human rights issues are the same, if not worse, though.  Is there any irony around being proud of where you come from and still being opposed to colonialism and the treatment of Palestinians?  Absolutely not, you can be proud of your home, family and heritage without agreeing with all of the issues that go along with your background.  Only people who have hope and care about a society can effect change, would you not agree?

And she really didn't tell any lies in anything you have re-quoted.  It's all valid and up for discussion.

I would agree that the terms of her employment probably make it at least inadvisable and at worst forbidden to post personal views such as these but actually holding them is not in itself a massive sin.

So what do we have, a selective screengrab from Guido-F that you have used to suggest that she is lucky to be here, for what purpose?  Do you suggest that if she wants to live in the UK she shouldn't criticise it just because of where she originally came from?  You and I both have that right and we have both used it.  I know my origins are from beyond these shores and would hazard a guess that at least some of yours are from another country, it's almost inevitable in this country.

I'll say again, her views seem to be less than radical and grounded in facts, so I will ask, what is the basis for singling this woman out?  Is she just too recent an arrival in the UK?  Is she from the wrong sort of place? Is it her deeper beliefs that bring her holding of these views into question?

[ALBIONSAINT]

8 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

Well, she is Zimbabwean, not Zambian.  The human rights issues are the same, if not worse, though.  Is there any irony around being proud of where you come from and still being opposed to colonialism and the treatment of Palestinians?  Absolutely not, you can be proud of your home, family and heritage without agreeing with all of the issues that go along with your background.  Only people who have hope and care about a society can effect change, would you not agree?

And she really didn't tell any lies in anything you have re-quoted.  It's all valid and up for discussion.

I would agree that the terms of her employment probably make it at least inadvisable and at worst forbidden to post personal views such as these but actually holding them is not in itself a massive sin.

So what do we have, a selective screengrab from Guido-F that you have used to suggest that she is lucky to be here, for what purpose?  Do you suggest that if she wants to live in the UK she shouldn't criticise it just because of where she originally came from?  You and I both have that right and we have both used it.  I know my origins are from beyond these shores and would hazard a guess that at least some of yours are from another country, it's almost inevitable in this country.

I'll say again, her views seem to be less than radical and grounded in facts, so I will ask, what is the basis for singling this woman out?  Is she just too recent an arrival in the UK?  Is she from the wrong sort of place? Is it her deeper beliefs that bring her holding of these views into question?

Oh this is a doozy, I am busy the now but will come back to it 👍🏻

[beyond our ken]

2 minutes ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

Oh this is a doozy, I am busy the now but will come back to it 👍🏻

Whatever

[W6er]

8 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

Well, she is Zimbabwean, not Zambian.  The human rights issues are the same, if not worse, though.  Is there any irony around being proud of where you come from and still being opposed to colonialism and the treatment of Palestinians?  Absolutely not, you can be proud of your home, family and heritage without agreeing with all of the issues that go along with your background.  Only people who have hope and care about a society can effect change, would you not agree?

And she really didn't tell any lies in anything you have re-quoted.  It's all valid and up for discussion.

I would agree that the terms of her employment probably make it at least inadvisable and at worst forbidden to post personal views such as these but actually holding them is not in itself a massive sin.

So what do we have, a selective screengrab from Guido-F that you have used to suggest that she is lucky to be here, for what purpose?  Do you suggest that if she wants to live in the UK she shouldn't criticise it just because of where she originally came from?  You and I both have that right and we have both used it.  I know my origins are from beyond these shores and would hazard a guess that at least some of yours are from another country, it's almost inevitable in this country.

I'll say again, her views seem to be less than radical and grounded in facts, so I will ask, what is the basis for singling this woman out?  Is she just too recent an arrival in the UK?  Is she from the wrong sort of place? Is it her deeper beliefs that bring her holding of these views into question?

There does seem to be something slightly hypocritical about bemoaning colonialism and choosing to live in a foreign country, on a different continent, which relatively recently had an Empire. That's especially true of a Zimbabwean, given that until the late 1970s it was relatively prosperous and known as the 'Breadbasket of Africa' and, of course, Rhodesia. Having deposed Ian Smith and replacing him with the charming Robert Mugabe, recipient of an honorary degree from Edinburgh University and an honorary knighthood, you'd think she would have been happy in her free, native land.

I'd have thought, with the exception of immigrants post-WW II, most people's ancestors would come almost exclusively from the British Isles, at least back until the Norman invasion. There may be a few exceptions - e.g. Jews and Huguenots. Certainly mine do, as does my partner's. It's actually quite interesting to do and I would highly recommend it if you have the time. I used ancestry.com and found all sorts of really interesting facts that I was hitherto unaware of. 

[Slarti]

There does seem to be something slightly hypocritical about bemoaning colonialism and choosing to live in a foreign country, on a different continent, which relatively recently had an Empire. That's especially true of a Zimbabwean, given that until the late 1970s it was relatively prosperous and known as the 'Breadbasket of Africa' and, of course, Rhodesia. Having deposed Ian Smith and replacing him with the charming Robert Mugabe, recipient of an honorary degree from Edinburgh University and an honorary knighthood, you'd think she would have been happy in her free, native land.
I'd have thought, with the exception of immigrants post-WW II, most people's ancestors would come almost exclusively from the British Isles, at least back until the Norman invasion. There may be a few exceptions - e.g. Jews and Huguenots. Certainly mine do, as does my partner's. It's actually quite interesting to do and I would highly recommend it if you have the time. I used ancestry.com and found all sorts of really interesting facts that I was hitherto unaware of. 

You're really an Aborginal African Eskimo Pygmy Jew, aren't you.

[W6er]

3 minutes ago, Slarti said:

 

 

You're really an Aborginal African Eskimo Pygmy Jew, aren't you.

 

😆

No, but I have an ancestor from Ireland who came, presumably, to escape the famine. My great-grandfather, whom my mother knew, lost two of his three siblings and his father in childhood and yet was a devout Christian, even becoming a lay preacher. One of my ancestors was recruited into the Royal Navy aged just 14 and, presumably as a result of being malnourished, stood at just 5 foot tall - of course he still would probably tower over @faraway saint, though! 

My grandmother's brother, who she never talked about, succumbed to wounds he had sustained in WWII in 1947. I had a great-great grandmother condemned to spend he final year in a poor house - the humiliation and sadness of that really struck me. The poverty and illiteracy (many just seemed to guess their date of birth and spelt their names differently on each census) is plain to see. I also have a great-great-great grandfather who was a preacher and used to preach in Glasgow Green!  

 

[Slarti]

[emoji38]
No, but I have an ancestor from Ireland who came, presumably, to escape the famine. My great-grandfather, whom my mother knew, lost two of his three siblings and his father in childhood and yet was a devout Christian, even becoming a lay preacher. One of my ancestors was recruited into the Royal Navy aged just 14 and, presumably as a result of being malnourished, stood at just 5 foot tall - of course he still would probably tower over [mention=2846]faraway saint[/mention], though! 
My grandmother's brother, who she never talked about, succumbed to wounds he had sustained in WWII in 1947. I had a great-great grandmother condemned to spend he final year in a poor house - the humiliation and sadness of that really struck me. The poverty and illiteracy (many just seemed to guess their date of birth and spelt their names differently on each census) is plain to see. I also have a great-great-great grandfather who was a preacher and used to preach in Glasgow Green! [emoji4] 
 

Irish? Is that not what I said? [emoji16]

[beyond our ken]

12 hours ago, W6er said:

There does seem to be something slightly hypocritical about bemoaning colonialism and choosing to live in a foreign country, on a different continent, which relatively recently had an Empire. That's especially true of a Zimbabwean, given that until the late 1970s it was relatively prosperous and known as the 'Breadbasket of Africa' and, of course, Rhodesia. Having deposed Ian Smith and replacing him with the charming Robert Mugabe, recipient of an honorary degree from Edinburgh University and an honorary knighthood, you'd think she would have been happy in her free, native land.

I'd have thought, with the exception of immigrants post-WW II, most people's ancestors would come almost exclusively from the British Isles, at least back until the Norman invasion. There may be a few exceptions - e.g. Jews and Huguenots. Certainly mine do, as does my partner's. It's actually quite interesting to do and I would highly recommend it if you have the time. I used ancestry.com and foun

12 hours ago, W6er said:

There does seem to be something slightly hypocritical about bemoaning colonialism and choosing to live in a foreign country, on a different continent, which relatively recently had an Empire. That's especially true of a Zimbabwean, given that until the late 1970s it was relatively prosperous and known as the 'Breadbasket of Africa' and, of course, Rhodesia. Having deposed Ian Smith and replacing him with the charming Robert Mugabe, recipient of an honorary degree from Edinburgh University and an honorary knighthood, you'd think she would have been happy in her free, native land.

I'd have thought, with the exception of immigrants post-WW II, most people's ancestors would come almost exclusively from the British Isles, at least back until the Norman invasion. There may be a few exceptions - e.g. Jews and Huguenots. Certainly mine do, as does my partner's. It's actually quite interesting to do and I would highly recommend it if you have the time. I used ancestry.com and found all sorts of really interesting facts that I was hitherto unaware of. 

d all sorts of really interesting facts that I was hitherto unaware of. 

If someone is accepted to live and work in a country, pay taxes and vote there then their ability to comment on government should not be challenged on the basis of where they came from.

British society is still a better place to live than Zimbabwe even though it needs a substantial upgrade in foreiegn policy, human rights and civic freedoms, or perhaps you haven't noticed the erosion of rights and freedoms that our governnent has enacted?

As for ancestry, there are more with Irish ancestry than not in Scotland, even if it is not dominant and going back millenia the indigenous population was supplemented by migrants.

[W6er]

48 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

If someone is accepted to live and work in a country, pay taxes and vote there then their ability to comment on government should not be challenged on the basis of where they came from.

British society is still a better place to live than Zimbabwe even though it needs a substantial upgrade in foreiegn policy, human rights and civic freedoms, or perhaps you haven't noticed the erosion of rights and freedoms that our governnent has enacted?

As for ancestry, there are more with Irish ancestry than not in Scotland, even if it is not dominant and going back millenia the indigenous population was supplemented by migrants.

Nobody's saying she shouldn't be allowed to comment on the government, at least I didn't say that. I said it's hypocritical of her. As I'm sure you know, Zimbabwe has deteriorated rapidly since the country was freed from British influence. Mugabe was initially lauded as a hero, hence his honorary degree and  knighthood, but his land reform, in which he dispossessed white farmers of their land, coupled with his economic mismanagement, has ruined the country. Not to mention the mass graves that were found.

Can you not see the irony in a Zimbabwean fleeing the country after its liberation...and moving to the land of her people's oppressors, and then moaning about colonialism? If, as you imply, she's just come here for the economic benefits and still bears a seething resentment of British society (and perhaps British people), then I'm not sure how that's supposed to be 'good'.

The Irish are not foreigners. Whilst the Irish have established a republic and severed ties with the British state, they did so in 1922 after ~700 years of British rule. Would you consider the English people to be foreign if Scotland gained independence?

Indeed, if you were to go back far enough, then the British Isles was settled by people who migrated after the ice retreated following the last Ice Age. Then, as in all continents, there was tribal conflict and migration in Europe. Scotland was said to have been unified in 843 AD.

Of course, if you go back far enough all people come from Adam and Eve:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

If you go way back to the start of life on earth, >3 billion years ago, we were all microscopic organisms. How does any of that negate the existence of Scotland or the Scottish people? 

[beyond our ken]

3 hours ago, W6er said:

Nobody's saying she shouldn't be allowed to comment on the government, at least I didn't say that. I said it's hypocritical of her. As I'm sure you know, Zimbabwe has deteriorated rapidly since the country was freed from British influence. Mugabe was initially lauded as a hero, hence his honorary degree and  knighthood, but his land reform, in which he dispossessed white farmers of their land, coupled with his economic mismanagement, has ruined the country. Not to mention the mass graves that were found.

Can you not see the irony in a Zimbabwean fleeing the country after its liberation...and moving to the land of her people's oppressors, and then moaning about colonialism? If, as you imply, she's just come here for the economic benefits and still bears a seething resentment of British society (and perhaps British people), then I'm not sure how that's supposed to be 'good'.

The Irish are not foreigners. Whilst the Irish have established a republic and severed ties with the British state, they did so in 1922 after ~700 years of British rule. Would you consider the English people to be foreign if Scotland gained independence?

Indeed, if you were to go back far enough, then the British Isles was settled by people who migrated after the ice retreated following the last Ice Age. Then, as in all continents, there was tribal conflict and migration in Europe. Scotland was said to have been unified in 843 AD.

Of course, if you go back far enough all people come from Adam and Eve:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

If you go way back to the start of life on earth, >3 billion years ago, we were all microscopic organisms. How does any of that negate the existence of Scotland or the Scottish people? 

So in need of an argument that you are taking implicitions from what i said that simply aren' t there, knock yersel' out.

The bottom line is that she liked a post that referred to Israel as a vile colonnial alliance, I can understand that viewpoint and even many that support Israel will concede that the inauguration of he state was one of the biggest cock-ups and ill-thought out escapades in anglo-american dealmaking history.

She describes herself as a student of  decolonisation, quite a valid acivity for someone who originates from (did she really"flee") a country that was colonised and is sorting out the problems that colonnialism caused half a century after we got out.  So Irony?  I just dont see it.

And as for Guido's final comment, she stated that she had one hope before posting a Palestinian flag.  But maybe she also posted that the hope was around peace, reconciliation or just fairness.  I don't know if she did but GF has a history of posting only things that suit their own agenda.  Apparently the tweets are now removed so it will be hard to check.

As for all the other stuff, so what.  Try telling people from the Island of Ireland that they are from the British Isles and see how far you get.  In fact, throw in the term "mainland" then run like feck.   It doesn't change my opinion that people are rounding on someone new to this country who has pointed out something that the UK was complicit in decades ago as being wrong.  History has proven it as such since Israel in it's current form is not a sustainable indepenedent state and is entirely dependent on foreign money and arms which it uses to support it's chosen method of dealing with Palestine, which is simply oppressive.

At no point does she decry the UK, it's government at the time she is living here or the British people, as Albion Saint states without offering any evidence.  The whole basis of using the word "irony" seems to be that she is Zimbabwean by birth and therefore less entitled to these views than someone who is born in the UK.  And is she a hypocrite when she left a place that is bad and has the temerity to suggest that her new place needs a bit of work (although she doesn't seem to say that, even indirectly)?

[W6er]

18 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

So in need of an argument that you are taking implicitions from what i said that simply aren' t there, knock yersel' out.

The bottom line is that she liked a post that referred to Israel as a vile colonnial alliance, I can understand that viewpoint and even many that support Israel will concede that the inauguration of he state was one of the biggest cock-ups and ill-thought out escapades in anglo-american dealmaking history.

She describes herself as a student of  decolonisation, quite a valid acivity for someone who originates from (did she really"flee") a country that was colonised and is sorting out the problems that colonnialism caused half a century after we got out.  So Irony?  I just dont see it.

And as for Guido's final comment, she stated that she had one hope before posting a Palestinian flag.  But maybe she also posted that the hope was around peace, reconciliation or just fairness.  I don't know if she did but GF has a history of posting only things that suit their own agenda.  Apparently the tweets are now removed so it will be hard to check.

As for all the other stuff, so what.  Try telling people from the Island of Ireland that they are from the British Isles and see how far you get.  In fact, throw in the term "mainland" then run like feck.   It doesn't change my opinion that people are rounding on someone new to this country who has pointed out something that the UK was complicit in decades ago as being wrong.  History has proven it as such since Israel in it's current form is not a sustainable indepenedent state and is entirely dependent on foreign money and arms which it uses to support it's chosen method of dealing with Palestine, which is simply oppressive.

At no point does she decry the UK, it's government at the time she is living here or the British people, as Albion Saint states without offering any evidence.  The whole basis of using the word "irony" seems to be that she is Zimbabwean by birth and therefore less entitled to these views than someone who is born in the UK.  And is she a hypocrite when she left a place that is bad and has the temerity to suggest that her new place needs a bit of work (although she doesn't seem to say that, even indirectly)?

 

I simply responded to a post on here. I haven't looked to see what the woman said, so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick. However, if she was criticising the UK for it's colonial history then she is unquestionably being a hypocrite - I will leave that for you and @ALBIONSAINT to conclude. 

Let's examine the facts:

1) She's opposed to colonialism. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume she wanted the British out of Zimbabwe. Now, whilst Rhodesia had declared independence from the United Kingdom some years before, Ian Smith governed the country until 1979, when he was deposed by Mugabe. Colonial rule ended in 1979!

2) Mugabe committed genocide in 1982 (1) and ultimately turned the relatively prosperous and safe country he bequeathed, which was a net exporter of food, into a ruinous country where there are food shortages. 

3) At some point under Mugabe's rule, this individual fled the post-colonial Zimbabwe for the United Kingdom as a refugee.

4) If she has obtained citizenship after January 2004 (2) she would have pledged an oath of allegiance to the Queen (and her successors) as well as pledging her loyalty the UK. (3)

So to summarise:

She has fled a country that deteriorated after the end of British colonial rule, which is something she presumably supported, and sought sanctuary in the UK. She has then pledged her fidelity to the UK, taken an oath of allegiance to the Monarchy which is symbolic of colonialism (Queen Victoria was the Empress of India (4), after all)...and then she denounces it for its colonial past!

Can you really not see the hypocrisy in that? 

 

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gukurahundi

(2) https://immigrationbarrister.co.uk/british-citizenship-the-citizenship-ceremony/

(3) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c9f4ded915d6969f462e6/oathofallegiance.pdf

(4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_of_India

 

 

As for Ireland. I have told Irish people that their island is part of the British Isles, because it is! https://www.britannica.com/place/British-Isles The generalisation that Irish people are aggressive and will lynch me for stating a fact is totally alien to my experience. I take it you've encountered hostility when raising the term, have you? Aye, some people are too ignorant or stupid to differentiate between the geographical term, British Isles, and the British state. It's a term that is no longer used in Ireland much and certainly not in Republican circles. It's akin to telling a  Brexiteer he's European. He very much is a European, whether or not the UK is a member of the EU.  

Finally, we come to Israel. If you read the Balfour Declaration you will see that it states (my emphasis):

Quote

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

Source: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/balfour.asp#:~:text

 

The deal was reneged on by fanatical Zionists who waged a war on the British to get them out of Palestine so they could found their Jewish state.

Have you never heard of the King David Hotel bombing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

Here's a list of attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks

 

Israel was literally founded as a result of terrorism. Unfortunately at that time the Empire was coming to an end, which I'm sure you'll agree is a good thing, and we withdrew from Palestine.

[Slarti]

The Jewish inhabited state of Israel existed over 3000 years ago along with Judea. It was after the Roman invasion and their renaming of the area as the province of Syria Palestine that "Palestine" came into existence. Therefore, Israel is much older than Palestine. The claim that Jews are usurping land that is rightly Palestinian is based on shaky foundations. The whole thing depends on how far you want to go back. The Israelites invaded the land of others over 3000 years ago. Those people probably kicked out previous inhabitants prior to that. How far do you gp back to determine who's land it is?

The whole debacle could be sorted if they all just respected the rights of others to have differing opinions, treated everyone equally and didn't think violence was the answer.

[W6er]

23 minutes ago, Slarti said:

The Jewish inhabited state of Israel existed over 3000 years ago along with Judea. It was after the Roman invasion and their renaming of the area as the province of Syria Palestine that "Palestine" came into existence. Therefore, Israel is much older than Palestine. The claim that Jews are usurping land that is rightly Palestinian is based on shaky foundations. The whole thing depends on how far you want to go back. The Israelites invaded the land of others over 3000 years ago. Those people probably kicked out previous inhabitants prior to that. How far do you gp back to determine who's land it is?

The whole debacle could be sorted if they all just respected the rights of others to have differing opinions, treated everyone equally and didn't think violence was the answer.

All true. However, the vast majority of Jews were expelled from the land around 1,900 years ago. The Jewish state(s) are established historical fact, and there has always been a Jewish presence in the territory now, though it declined to just a few percent of the total population. As you say, the problem is it's impractical to go and reclaim territory that you vacated (even if forced to do so) ~1,800 years later. 

The Palestinians have been usurped from land that they have possessed for literally 18 centuries. Is that reasonable? I don't think it is. 

[beyond our ken]

3 hours ago, W6er said:

 

I simply responded to a post on here. I haven't looked to see what the woman said, so apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick. However, if she was criticising the UK for it's colonial history then she is unquestionably being a hypocrite - I will leave that for you and @ALBIONSAINT to conclude. 

Let's examine the facts:

1) She's opposed to colonialism. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume she wanted the British out of Zimbabwe. Now, whilst Rhodesia had declared independence from the United Kingdom some years before, Ian Smith governed the country until 1979, when he was deposed by Mugabe. Colonial rule ended in 1979!

2) Mugabe committed genocide in 1982 (1) and ultimately turned the relatively prosperous and safe country he bequeathed, which was a net exporter of food, into a ruinous country where there are food shortages. 

3) At some point under Mugabe's rule, this individual fled the post-colonial Zimbabwe for the United Kingdom as a refugee.

4) If she has obtained citizenship after January 2004 (2) she would have pledged an oath of allegiance to the Queen (and her successors) as well as pledging her loyalty the UK. (3)

So to summarise:

She has fled a country that deteriorated after the end of British colonial rule, which is something she presumably supported, and sought sanctuary in the UK. She has then pledged her fidelity to the UK, taken an oath of allegiance to the Monarchy which is symbolic of colonialism (Queen Victoria was the Empress of India (4), after all)...and then she denounces it for its colonial past!

Can you really not see the hypocrisy in that? 

 

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gukurahundi

(2) https://immigrationbarrister.co.uk/british-citizenship-the-citizenship-ceremony/

(3) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c9f4ded915d6969f462e6/oathofallegiance.pdf

(4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_of_India

 

 

As for Ireland. I have told Irish people that their island is part of the British Isles, because it is! https://www.britannica.com/place/British-Isles The generalisation that Irish people are aggressive and will lynch me for stating a fact is totally alien to my experience. I take it you've encountered hostility when raising the term, have you? Aye, some people are too ignorant or stupid to differentiate between the geographical term, British Isles, and the British state. It's a term that is no longer used in Ireland much and certainly not in Republican circles. It's akin to telling a  Brexiteer he's European. He very much is a European, whether or not the UK is a member of the EU.  

Finally, we come to Israel. If you read the Balfour Declaration you will see that it states (my emphasis):

 

The deal was reneged on by fanatical Zionists who waged a war on the British to get them out of Palestine so they could found their Jewish state.

Have you never heard of the King David Hotel bombing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

Here's a list of attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks

 

Israel was literally founded as a result of terrorism. Unfortunately at that time the Empire was coming to an end, which I'm sure you'll agree is a good thing, and we withdrew from Palestine.

If

Assuming

Pish!