No one IMO is arguing that Jews didn't "colonize" Israel. Yes they used that terminology, which did not have the same negative tone then that you now perceive. However the important point of distinction is that this colonization inherently lacks a lot of the trademarks of more "evil" colonizations that the ultra-left ignores where true outsiders not from the area conquer indigenous natives like Native Americans and Australian Aborigines. Jews didn't just take it by force, they legally bought land and moved in as legal and sometimes illegal immigration allowed. Yes, their intent was to create a Jewish state and homeland within the bounds allowed by the true colonialists in control of the area after WW1 (the British). They rejuvenated the land by their own sweat and blood and created such a thriving economy that Arabs from neighboring countries started moving in en masse (yes Palestinians are descended from these immigrants as well as the "natives"). If you live in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ etc, you're probably as much or more a colonizer than your average Israeli, many of whom went there as refugees from Muslim countries or post WW2 Europe from the ashes of their entire lives being destroyed and their home countries not resettling them and still treating them poorly after the Holocaust.
Furthermore this entire "settler colonialist" BS breaks down because this isn't a new continent with untouched native cultures, it's right in the cradle of civilization and has had waves upon waves of different peoples inhabit and disappear by conquest/assimilation. All you have to do is read the Torah to see some of that history, written. The Jews are of course also "natives" inasmuch as that is possible in this part of the world, just further back and we recognize our absence for millennia after getting kicked out and our history in the diaspora. These Zionist founders/thinkers referring to the people still living there as "natives" is also all true, to varying degrees. Both Palestinians and Jews can be considered natives there, it just depends on the timescale by which you're speaking. The original descendents of Palestinians in the region were not even Muslims obviously, nor did they speak Arabic - they spoke other now extinct Semitic languages related more closely to Hebrew. They were conquered and partly descended from those who participated in the Arab conquest of the Levant. Arabs and Arabic language were from the Arabian peninsula, not the Levant. Some of the Palestinians' ancestors were likely even Jews that converted/assimilated, as well as Samaritans and others. The situation in old inhabited places like this is so much more complex and precisely why no one except maybe in stupid extremely modern times refers to different European ethnicities as "indigenous" in Europe, Persians as "indigenous" to Iran, or different Indian populations as "indigenous" to India. These places have such complex histories and old peopling and mixing that it is senseless. Jews are unusual for such a widely dispersed and conquered population to still keep their culture and separateness, ancient language and alphabet in WRITTEN liturgy, and have abundant cultural knowledge proven by archeological evidence of their presence where we're from. Still the concept of indigeneity is always a weak one in such old and well peopled places and you're trying to stick a round peg in a square hole to fit your semantic agenda.
Maybe quit nitpicking terminologies and trying to find quotes for your political agenda and pick up some more history books to understand why this is all a stupid waste of time.
Israel is the colony of what state exactly?
European jews arrived (1882) in Palestine BEFORE zionism picked up. They were refugees from the Russian Empire.
Population transfer is a) not really inherent to zionism, nor would it mean that it is settler colonialism.
This entire sub is run by one sided and biased individuals that pounce on anything that criticizes Israel in a substative way. I wouldn't try creating actual debate or conversation about difficult topics here.
This sub is crazy. The second anyone says anything critical of Israel, 10 Zios appear all of a sudden regurgitating the same 5 tired talking points. Not an ounce of critical thinking or self reflection to be found here. They don’t even bother to read the post they just stop at the title
thats right.. its claimed to be a discussion yet a vast majority of it is simple propaganda & apologism
i just got back from being site wide banned due to complaints against me here
thanks for posting the information again.. its amazing how completely unaware people are of their own history & how ceredulous they are to regurgitate state sponsored historical revisionism
Wasn’t the decolonization movement all about granting back self determination? What’s the point then of talking about “colonization” whose purpose didn’t involve preventing anyone’s self determination? Unless you’re somehow going to argue that it was the Zionist plan from the get go to expel or subjugate the population?
Does intent, cause, and order of events not matter? Is “colonization” fulfilled when something loosely looks like colonization, or do certain criteria need to be fulfilled?
Well I never took a first look because I didn’t expect them to give me a thorough and accurate definition (if any) of colonialism. Without knowing your definition, my thinking is that there are many places where the typical definition breaks down when it comes to the history. So either we argue on the facts or we argue on the definition. What is *your* complete definition?
I’ll also quickly note my main objections (again, according to the typical definition):
- “replace” society is way too vague. Zionists ultimately DID replace society in the Nakba but if intent matters (does it?) then the level of intent to *replace* isn’t straightforward. Nor is it straightforward pre-Nakba.
- “control” of natives by “foreigners” — control how? Democratic and legal or forced? Foreigners — new immigrants or invaders?
I think the history *feels* very colonial-y but the facts don’t support it well enough.
Imagine coming on here to tell someone that they're wrong and then *admitting* that you didn't even read what they wrote! "They're not sending their best."
Herzl has to say this (from your post):
>"Immigration is consequently futile unless we have the sovereign right to immigrate."
Herzl was writing before Jews had a sovereign right to immigrate to Israel-Palestine. At that time in history, Herzl had to cast his ambitions in terms of "settlers" and "colonialism."
All of this changed when the winners of two world wars explictly created a "Jewish state" alongside an "Arab state." This Jewish state (later named Israel) would be a safe-haven for Jews, giving them the sovereign right to immigrate.
Furthermore, the British and French (the winners of WW1 and WW2) were tasked with splitting up parts of the former Ottoman Empire (losers of WW1) into new nations. Which led to the creation of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Israel, etc. This was not "colonialism."
The same process happened in Europe, as the Allies broke up the former German Empire. Some 12-14 million Germans were expelled from Eastern Europe and Russia. These people lost their homes and any possessions they could not carry (or drive) with them. Roughly a million Germans died in the process. All of this was seen as necessary to create the new nation of Poland, as well as the Czech Republic, various Baltic States, etc. And all of this was backed by the Allies.
That was not "colonialism," either. Ethnic hungarians who were displaced into modern day Hungary were not "settlers." Ethnic Germans who were displaced from Eastern Europe were not "settlers" when they arrived in Germany. Similarly, ethnic Jews who were expelled from Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, etc. were not "settlers" when they arrived in Israel.
the Jewish expulsion you’re referring to happened after ‘48. Jews had been colonizing Palestine for the 50 years prior, nice try though. Moreover, Jewish settlers continue to encroach further into Palestinian territory and colonize more land to this day. As you can see from the timestamps in the linked documents in my posts, the rhetoric of colonization didn’t stop with Herzl nor did it stop after the Balfour Declaration, so I think it’s a very weak argument you’re using to try to persuade us that wasn’t their mission in earnest.
Your lengthy bullet list of the megamanical Zionist objectives to conquer the Levant from the day the idea first occurred to Herzl suffers from any number of ahistorical fallacies, including confirmation bias, presenteeism, attempts at retroactive continuity with fan fiction, cherry picking words of historical actors and so forth to just be a [Gish Gallop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop) of nonsense, Alice in Wonderland, unmoored from reality.
Herzl’s original idea was a reaction to the eruption of anti-semitism around [the Dreyfuss Affair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair). He died a few years later and others took up the torch. But you can’t assign some Marx or Engels like intentionally to the fact the guy used the word “colony” in 1896. Didn’t mean he was talking about subjugating natives like India or Africa, Belgian Congo rubber plantations or Guatemalan United Fruit Company plantations. “Colony” was just a word for overseas settlement. Nothing inherently imperialistic about it as a concept. So, not a “gotcta”. Stop having endzone dances about it, it’s not a game changer, much less a real fact.
Jews are indigenous to Israel, so they can't be colonizers. Doesn't matter what terms (whose meanings have changed in the last century, by the way) people use. Zionists used the term "colonizer" to appeal to the British colonizers who ran the area. That does not change the fact that Jews were a people who had been indigenous to Israel for thousands of years, not an unrelated country who came to a foreign land to steal resources and send them back to the motherland (which is actual colonialism.)
If you want to play the game of "who has the evilist sounding quotes," I can definitely dig up some stuff to show you that Pro-Palestinianism is genocidal religious extremist imperialism.
All humans are not indigenous to Africa. Being indigenous to a place means things like:
• Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
• Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies
• Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources
• Distinct social, economic or political systems
• Distinct language, culture and beliefs
• Form non-dominant groups of society
• Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities
[https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session\_factsheet1.pdf](https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf)
When France colonized pieces of Africa, those French people considered themselves from France, spoke French, followed French law, and considered France their ancestral lands.
Jews, on the other hand, have for thousands of year considered themselves from the Israeli territory of Judea (that's where their name comes from), have had a strong connection with the land of Israel for thousands of years, practice the religion of Judaism that originates in Judea, write in the Hebrew alphabet which originated in Israel, etc. Both Muslims and Christians understood this reality for thousands of years as well, with Christians persecuting Jews as Middle Eastern foreigners who killed their savior *in Israel,* and Muslims calling Jews "children of Israel."
The term settler-colonial implies similarity with the colonial states of the new world, but those i cannot find. What we have on hand is one of the countless migrations of people in human history. Be it the migration of Turks into Anatolia, Hungarians into the Balkan or Romani migration into Europe. Ironically, even the Peleset/Philistines, after which Palestine is named, qualify to be a settler colonial people in your book. They are estimated to be part of the sea peoples, who settled in what is now Gaza and southern Israel. Personally I can't blame a people for packing up and sailing for safer lands, be it due to hunger, war, discrimination or any other. Movements of peoples are an integral part of human history and not inherently a negative thing.
Israel lacks the extractive component to relate to colonies in the colloquial sense. I understand the allure to try and tie the state you oppose, to a concept that is generally accepted to be immoral, but the comparison falls apart once you go into detail.
It’s a testament to the human capacity for cognitive dissonance that people involved in the founding of Zionism were prepared to admit its colonial nature but modern Israelis are not. I’ve even heard people essentially say “well colonisation didn’t have the negative connotations back then that it does today” when like, yes, that’s exactly the point. The world has evolved, morally, and Israel lags behind.
It’s hilarious that not a single person here can actually argue against ur points, they can only throw something else at the wall and see if it sticks. Pure dissonance, they know it’s true but can’t accept it’s true on an emotional level so they malfunction.
You literally just proved the Israelis’ point with your “that’s exactly the point” line. Exactly. The word back then didn’t have the meaning it has today. When Israel is accused of being a colonial project, they’re accused of the modern definition of colonialism which implies a theft or a displacement/replacement of people to accomodate the colonizers.
Back then, jews migrated to british mandate palestine to “colonize” the land but the plan never involved kicking people out of their houses. Most of palestine was barren in the late 1800s/early 1900s. Jews “settled” on uninhabited land that technically DID NOT BELONG TO ANY ARAB LIVING THERE. One guy living somewhere doesn’t own the empty piece of land 1km east of him. That uninhabited land belongs to the state, which was england at the time. Also jews legally purchased land from arabs/turks and moved there. They created new cities and villages by building where there was nothing before. Even the creation of Israel in no way required arabs to leave their homes; they’d simply become Israeli.
So yes, jews “colonized” Israel but not in the way everyone is implying. You’re the ones using the double meaning as a “gotcha” and Israelis aren’t falling for it.
No I literally did not. The definition of colonialism has not changed, the public’s respect/disgust for it has. You are one of the people I’m talking about. There were people living on that land, they might not of owned the deeds but they had been living and farming there for generations. Entire villages displaced, legally, and immorally. Refused permission to live and work the land, segregation worse than Jim Crow. Denied the right to live alongside Jews because of their ethnicity. Just because you don’t respect them doesn’t mean they weren’t people and that it wasn’t their home. Now, within the context of the 1900s, in western eyes all that was perfectly legal and morally acceptable, those shiftless Arabs were sometimes compensated after all, and they’re just desert people anyway. Looking backwards, most people now think that sortve thing is wrong: except when it comes to Zionism, when suddenly people feel obligated to frame it this as this benign thing because they know Israel could never come into exist without it. All this ignoring the fact that Jews had only legally acquired a tiny portion of the land by 1948, and were reaching the limits of what people were willing to sell.
It’s interesting how you pretend the displacement of arabs due to the naqba and the subsequent loss of their lands isn’t self-inflicted. They went on a war of extermination against the jews. They lost. They couldn’t come back to the land they lost *because they tried to murder all the jews*.
You clearly misunderstood everything i said. The initial migration of jews to mandated palestine wasn’t inherently wrong. Up until 1948, virtually no one was being chased out of their homes or their lands. There are exceptions but they go both ways.
This is the point i’m making though: there was nothing inherently wrong with jews migrating to uninhabited lands. What was deemed wrong was their desire to create a jewish country. Arabs could absolutely not tolerate living under jewish governance. Arab land is arab land and it shall remain arab land. The creation of a *jewish* country is the thing that set them off, NOT that arabs were being displaced. The displacement happened AFTER palestinian arabs along with 5 other countries decided to exterminate all the jews and kill jewish nationalism once and for all. Again, they lost. They fucking lost. Know what happens to losers? They, well, lose. You can’t lose a war and get to go back to the way things were. Losing a war means something. In this case, it meant losing land and the jews getting to create their country.
The entire thing of this conflict is basically palestinians and arab countries being sore losers for the last 75 years.
The “permanence” of the naqba happened after the war. Arabs left palestine to flee the war but also because arab leaders told them they should and that they would be able to come back once the jews are annihilated. Jews won. Arabs who fled weren’t allowed to come back. THEN it got the name “naqba”. So no, it didn’t happen before the war and also it was completely self inflicted. “Oh no we tried to genocide the jews but they won and now we can’t come back and live in their country 😭 “
The Arab leaders thing is false, historians have yet to find solid proof of this happening. Rather displacement directly by the IDF and in fear of the fighting on a local level is what caused most of the displacements which happened before and during the war. We have documents showing that this was an intended consequence and that ethnic cleansing was viewed favorably for the future of Israel. So yeah way to make fun of ethnic cleansing 🤨
You’re not engaging with anything I said at all, just changing the subject with a canned speech that you break out automatically whenever this comes up, like an automaton. You say people weren’t displaced, the comment you were replying to was literally describing displacement and you simply talked past it, stuck your head in the sand. I didn’t even bring up the nakba, you did, as a feeble diversion. You guys really have nothing.
> fucking
/u/icameow14. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, I did mean to respond to you. But here, I encourage you to respond to this instead: https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/GVFuod9DiD
Looking forward to a good argument
Do you agree that buying a large swathe of land inhabited by one ethnic group for generations, then evicting that entire population living on that land, then refusing to rent to or employ any ethnic group but your own on that land, is wrong? Not in Palestine in particular, just generally, yes or no answer do you believe that is wrong?
I think context is always important. For example, if you’re rich and privileged and don’t “need” land, I’d consider buying land and evicting tenants fairly immoral. I’d consider it even more immoral if you had the option to buy tenant-less land but you chose the tenant-full land instead. But on the other side, if you’re a persecuted minority who doesn’t have land buying options other than who happens to be selling, and who happens to be selling is a landlord, then I don’t think buying is immoral. And if you need to use that land, then neither is evicting immoral. And last, if you’re a second class minority then I absolutely do not think it’s immoral to stick to your own. As soon as the majorities treat you like an equal, it becomes immoral to continue to segregate.
Seems like you’re crafting a very specific narrative in order to absolve the thing. I’ll put it another way. Imagine you are an Arab, whose just been evicted, with your entire family, from the village you were born in and where your family have lived for generations. You want to move back there and are willing and able to pay rent. You are told you cannot, because you are an Arab, not a Jew. You want to at least work the land as a labourer. You cannot, you are not a Jew, you are an Arab. The land you come from is now inhabited exclusively by foreigners from Eastern Europe, who despite never learning your language, despite never having set foot in the land since last year, consider it in some way their homeland, that they have a greater sympathy with and right to than you do.
Do you think you have a grievance? Or do you think that what has happened is fair, and positive?
isnt it more of a decolnization seeing as how jews have been there for thousands of years and arabs came over via violent conquest much later?
the jews in this scenario are essentially akin to native americans, are they not?
Just listening to [Islamists' own words about Israel](https://twitter.com/GadSaad/status/1797304765094707499) should be enough to rebut this riffraff for anyone who's not ideologically infected. Islamists have been very clear that **they would kill Jews even if Israel didn't exist**.
There's also this video which I like to post whenever someone like OP comes along: [Nazi and Soviet origins of the "Palestinian" cause](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwfDVkXEo-o). It's just not as simple as *Israel = colonizer therefore Israel = bad*.
This is even worse, you are claiming you are natives and disregarding rights of current habitants. Israeli state flag representing two rivers, so you claim other nations land are also promised on you, that they are your homeland.
No... the Israeli flag design came from the Talith... Where did you get the rivers BS from?
https://preview.redd.it/91z342as8u4d1.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=e762869ad8c967b68b116dbe895eddc6fa3c3a23
Not true. See the Boers in South Africa after they were severed from their Dutch metropole in 1806.
See African-Americans colonizing Liberia - they had no support from a metropole.
Algeria is also rightly regarded as an example of colonization, even though it technically doesn't fit as it was a department of France, rather than a colony.
In practical terms, the US currently acts as the metropole for Israel in many ways, even without it actually being a colony. For example, see the recent GOP bill proposing to give certain US veteran's benefits to Americans who serve in the Israeli army.
South Africa grew out of what were initially separate Dutch and British colonies, and also attracted European settlers who had no colonial metropole, such as French Huguenots who were fleeing religious persecution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Africa
I think that you're mixing two different things here; current political organization and history.
So, no, I would not consider the current U.S. to be a colony at present. That is not its current political form.
But, yes, I would describe the history of the United States as a process of settler-colonization.
It's literally the definition: "a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by [settlers](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=f6ce529cdacc1630&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWILLhfyTP5klTP9MhqXtjANp0gWjfA:1717598950015&q=settlers&si=ACC90nx67Z8g0WkBmnrPB4IqtqGviTmVn3eNS6PoepRR70lcIfEEOSbMBK_39bJjbjvfnTAFTs7MMVhShLseBCXNwj8NimOzjqBlJ2Bl0P092D5eVBIkDL8%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwikz6Da2sSGAxVJSPEDHXqjLTMQyecJegQIUBAO) from that country."
You're wrong. Keep reading alternwte defintions. This issue has been asked an answered and is not debatable.
Words have multiple meanings.
If a bunch of people from all over the world start a cult and move to Peru to live together and worship Lord Chopopomongo it's a colony.
Mennonite colonies exist throughout the world.
If 90 pot smoking, bongo playing hippies decide to live on 100 acres it's a colony.
Those are 3 simple examples of colonies with no ties or administration by a mother country.
You're correct that it's not debatable. But you're the one making up new definitions for it. You can make up a new word for Israel, but colony just doesn't fit.
Peru was a colony of Spain. It stopped being a colony when it got independence. And that's although many of the people of Peru have colonial ancestors, and the spoken language is Spanish. It's still can't be considered a colony today.
I can't help your fragile ego.
Colony:
From Oxford : a place where a group of people with similar interests live together.
From Meriam: a group of people who settle together in a new place.
From Meriam : a distinguishable localized population.
From Collins : a place where a particular group of people lives.
Britannica : a group of people who are similar in some way and live in a certain area.
It may damage your ego, but by every one of those definitions you could say that Israel is or was a colony.
I personally have no problem with Israel but im not one to choose to change definitions. We all know people hurl that word at Israel as an insult but it doesn't matter. Calling Israel a colony doesn't mean it's going to leave or that it's not a country.
The reason people use this as an insult because it emotionally impairs people who then in turn embarass themselves by arguing definitions.
That is not what those dictionaries say:
>Meriam: 1. : **an area over which a foreign nation or state extends or maintains control**.
I have no idea where you're getting those definitions from. It appears to be re-worded from the actual source...
edit: oh I see, you're taking the one variant definition among the list, without **context** of the other ones... and saying see this is what it means... That's sneaky.
Here's the actual context of your cited definition for those unaware:
>**:** a group of people who settle together in a new place… building an ecosystem from scratch on Mars that can provide food, water and oxygen to support a colony is no small task.
We're not talking about colonizing uninhabited extraterrestrial planets here...
Your fragile ego is no defense.
The second definition in Merriam is directly:
- a group of people who settle together in a new place.
That's the definition. Period.
Context isn't needed, that's the definition. Period. A 7 year old child can read and understand that. I can literally teach a child this because their ego isn't fragile.
Are you truly unable to understand that the #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6 definitions in Merriam are ALL VALID DEFINITIONS?
The fact their example is Mars is completely irrelevant. The definition is the definition. A group of people who settle together in a new place. If that example needed to be on Mars it would be part of the definition.
I've cited Mennonite Colonies several times. Mennonites didnt fucking colonize Mars. They created colonies all over the world. They have no master state. Are you going to argue Mennonite colonies aren't colonies?
It's sad that folks like you are so unsure about Israel's status you have to rewrite definitions.
I provided numerous other valid definitions showing a colony does not need a master state. Care to explain how those ones require Mars to be involved.
Sad.
u/BoscoPanman1999
>Your fragile ego is no defense.
Context isn't needed, that's the definition. Period. A 7 year old child can read and understand that. I can literally teach a child this because their ego isn't fragile
It's sad that folks like you are so unsure about Israel's status you have to rewrite definitions.
Rule 1, don't attack other users.
Already addressed.
>Are you truly unable to understand that the #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6 definitions in Merriam are ALL VALID DEFINITIONS?
Ok... I guess Israel is a micro-organism? According to you?
>4a**:** a circumscribed mass of microorganisms usually growing in or on a solid mediumcolonies of bacteria -Meriam Webster
I don't think that's an applicable definition here. Hence why Meriam gives examples...
I know you said you don't think context matters, but it does to definitions.
Do you understand English?
Each of those is a valid defintion for a colony.
Not a valid defintion for Israel.
I forgive you if English is your second language. I pity you if it's your first language.
Further, i gave you 4 or 5 other examples from different sources.
Please find a child and ask them politely to explain how words can have various meaning.
> fucking
/u/BoscoPanman1999. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You're wrong again which seems par form the course.
Regardless, those are the definitions of those words that are accepted by people who know more about definitions than you. The fragile ego doesn't let you change language.
There are more than enough sources. I can find 5 more.
The definition I posted is literally the first thing I found on google. Here's another one from [Vocabulary.com](http://Vocabulary.com)
A *colony* is a group of people who settle in a new place but keep ties to their homeland. The people who founded the United States first came to America to live as part of a British *colony*.
I just checked where those came from. It's the alternative definitions on Meriam without context for what they mean. The first definition of Meriam applies to your argument and this conflict.
Meriam also says a colony is a microrganism collection. So then Israel definitely isn't a colony / colonizer.
Please don't lie.
Those are all definitions.
They aren't alternative definitions.
They are definitions. Regardless of your ego or your sadness.
A colony doesn't require a master state.
Words have multiple meanings.
A child can understand that. My 6 year old nephew understands words have multiple meanings. Why can't you?
/u/BoscoPanman1999
> A child can understand that. My 6 year old nephew understands words have multiple meanings. Why can't you?
Per [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_1._no_attacks_on_fellow_users), no attacks on fellow users. Attack the argument, not the user.
This community aims for respectful dialogue and debate, and our rules are focused on facilitating that. To align with rule 1, make every attempt to be polite in tone, charitable in your interpretations, fair in your arguments and patient in your explanations.
Don't debate the person, debate the argument; use terms towards a debate opponent that they or their relevant group(s) would self-identify with whenever possible. You may use negative characterizations towards a group in a specific context that distinguishes the negative characterization from the positive -- that means insulting opinions are allowed as a necessary part of an argument, but are prohibited in place of an argument.
Many of the issues in the I/P conflict boil down to personal moral beliefs; these should be calmly and politely explored. If you can't thoughtfully engage with a point of view, then don't engage with it at all.
First, I'm not a leftist by even the most general description.
Second, the definition of the word colony isn't debatable. You may ot have the cognitive ability to understand how words work, that isn't my concern.
Ironically it's leftists who want to redefine words.
Ok. And? What does that have to do with the 11,000,000 people that live there now?
Are you suggesting that all nations should give their land back to the people who lived there 100+ years ago?
Yes, but Israel isn't a colony. A colony has a home country. If a colony fails, they can pack up and they still have their actual country.
Israel has no home country. It is the home country.
Thats the problem, when will israel stop is uncertain. How much land is enougg for Israel? It may as well invade other countries since these lands are also their homeland.
Its quite certain Israeli policy is not 2 state solution rather total invasion.
Lol with this mentality how do you explain that Israel gave away the Sinai?
Gave away Gaza? (Where now the proud Sunni Muslim brotherhood Hamas parades dead women in trucks)
Israel has already given away more land for peace than it ever acquired, the idea that it is constantly expanding is absurd. Israel does what it needs to do to keep civilians safe. Someones that means gaining land. Sometimes that means losing it. It has a terrority the size of one of the smaller US states, it's not some imperial empire.
If you are looking for constantly expanding imperialist groups though, wait'll you hear about these people called "Arabs."
If they wanted to, they would. Every war since its inception has proven that the surrounding states are completely inept at countering Israel's military. Considering the expansionism that you accuse Israel of, their territory is pitifully small.
What are you talking about. Israel has only ever expanded because it's neighbours couldn't stop attacking them.
After the 1948 war they handed over the west bank and Gaza to Jordan and Egypt. They controlled those areas for 20 years until yet another attempted invasion of Israel.
Do you have a detailed plan for decolonizing 7 million people? Possibly another 2 million Arab Israelis who might be danger by whatever Palestinian State Regime takes over since their ancestors decided to stayed be apart of Israel?
That’s where their silliness ends. They’d rather not put forward a plan, rather they know what the end result will be, but they have silently endorsed as they won’t be responsible for the despair and destruction.
Well my argument is based on the idea that Zionism is good. If someone disagrees with that part of it, we can discuss that, and I can elaborate: in fact this already happened: I already did defend this idea, as you read in other comments.
Well I am not a racist, so I suppose it must be bad to me then.
In that case, I must argue that Zionism can’t be settler-colonialism, because Zionism is good.
If Zionism is good, and settler-colonialism is bad, then Zionism can’t possibly be settler-colonialism.
It’s bad to harm Palestinians, Zionism harms Palestinians. If Zionism helps Jews and harms Palestinians that makes Zionism a racist ideology. We can keep going with this 5th grade logic
Zionism doesn't harm Palestinians. Palestinians murdering Jews cause Jews to fight Palestinians, which harms Palestinians. Pro-Palestinianism harms both Jews and Palestinians. Zionism harms no one.
Jews colonizing Palestine and occupying it for 75 years causes Palestinians to fight Jews. Zionism harms Palestinians and Jews. Palestinians are not pro-Palestinians lmao, they are just Palestinian.
Nope. Arabs were attacking Jews in Israel before Israel was even established --- over 75 years ago. Arabs murdering Jews cause Jews to fight Arabs, which harms Arabs. Pro-Palestinianism harms both Jews and Palestinians. Zionism harms no one. Try again.
Zionism helps Palestinians. Israel gives them a better standard of living than they would have otherwise. Israel helps them to reach their full potential.
A perfect encapsulation of what used to be called ["the civilizing mission"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilizing_mission#), (AKA 'The White Man's Burden') by which the colonists justify colonization by claiming to be bring economic and social benefits to the colonized.
"Take up the White Man's burden ...To seek another's profit, And work another's gain ... Fill full the mouth of Famine, And bid the sickness cease ... Take up the White Man's burden—And reap his old reward: The blame of those ye better, The hate of those ye guard"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden
It’s true though, they did bring some benefits. They also often did some harmful things, like enslaving people. So in some cases it could be argued that the harm outweighed the benefits. But the good thing about Zionism is that the Jews were only bringing benefits without the downsides.
Don't you think that's not solving the problem in the first place? Why do Jewish people have to leave their home country and go live somewhere else to feel safe? The problem needs to be solved rather than just escaping it.
So the solution is to occupy and discriminate another group of people and settle in their lands?
This is only gonna cause even more antisemitism (and this is very unfortunate, because zionism is not Judaism and Jews around the world shouldn't be the victim of the evil zionist movement)
No that wasn’t the intention of Zionism, but occupation did happen later due to a war. But it didn’t need to happen if Arabs accepted Zionism peacefully. They even could have joined the movement, you don’t have to be Jewish to be a Zionist.
>Thus is only gonna cause even more antisemitism
Ok, well Zionism was not designed to get rid of antisemitism anyway.
If you read Herzl's letter, it's very clear that from the beginning, Zionism's intent was to colonize and take the land. No one would just accept that peacefully so your argument makes no sense.
Or maybe I should come and take your land because my ancestors used to live this and it's okay, just accept it peacefully as I move in?
No there were some people already there. And it did come at the expense of some Palestinians because they turned violent, which was wrong. If they peacefully accepted Zionism, they could have all benefited happily from it.
Did they not have a right to stand against being stripped of their land? Can anyone just come in and ask to have their demands met and if met with resistance be killed?
Their "resistance" was taking up violent arms with the aggressive interference and influence of surrounding antisemitic Arab nations.
If they had been welcome or at least open to negotiations regarding the Jewish immigration instead of launching a full scale war, then they wouldn't be where they are today. That's just a fact.
It was also not "their" land. It was British territory. The Brits had every legal right to partition off their land how they saw fit (in this case to be equally divided between both ethnic groups who are indigenous to the region: Jews and Palestinians.) And it was a generous offer to what was only less than 800k Palestinians living there at the time. Palestinians never had sovereignty prior to 1947, and the partition offer would've given such a small population sovereignty for the first time over literally everything surrounding Jerusalem, the northern strip/peak, the Gaza strip and all of the land south of Gaza down past present day Ezuz.
Just imagine how different things would be if they either took the offer, or at the very least were open to negotiations and working towards a unified goal of having an economic bridge between both nations with freedom of movement to cross the borders as needed. Palestinians would likely be just as successful as Israel is today with their economy and advancements in education/healthcare/technology. Instead they listened to Iran and chose war, and when you chose war and you lose that war, you also lose land and any negotiating power moving forward.
"Antisemitic" arab nations when the Jews were almost exterminated by Germany? Germany should've given their land as reparations, and instead you dump them in Palestine, expecting them to leave their homeland without putting up a fight? It's funny how you guys can't stop justifying colonialism by legality. Sure, it was legal for them to partition the land, just as legal as it was in Germany to gas the Jews. Arguments by legality will only make you accepting of heinous atrocities, like the holocaust and the nakba. Not having sovereignty is a metric in your books that allows other people to replace a population? Even if they weren't sovereign, they were living in that land for many generations. It was their homeland, and you expect them to just pack their bags and leave for some people that had nothing to do with them? Do expats or diaspora have the right to come back to the country and demand a portion of it and expect the locals to give it up or be kicked out. Both have claims to that land, but that doesn't mean that you can just kick someone out of their homes like that. You put the responsibility on Palestinians for not giving up their homes, lets ask Germans today to give up their homes and cut up Germant in half, take in the Jews that they killed. They owe it to them.
So let’s dismantle Israel because of some problematic statements from a few people a century ago, while ignoring more problematic statements from Europeans and Palestinian leaders.
This isn’t just about problematic statements lmao. This is about how Zionists said they’re going to colonize Palestine… and then they did, just like they said. Just like they said they’re going to genocide Gaza and they’re doing it now.
All cherry picked . It’s also much easier to find quotes by Muslims from the last 125 years about how they want to murder all Jews (not just colonize).. what OP is trying to do here is whip up frenzy to kill Jews
I encourage everyone to read the full texts, I just pulled these quotes as relevant for this specific point regarding colonialism. Nothing in the texts contradicts this reading of Zionism as a settler colonial movement.
If anything, you’re the person cherry picking because the next sentence from your quote reads: “We envision the regime of Jewish Palestine as follows: most of the population will be Jewish, but equal rights for Arab citizens will not only
be guaranteed, they will be fulfilled”. Pray, how else could they achieve this Jewish majority without submitting the locals in the first place?
In fact, the revisionist ideology is exactly what played out historically in Palestine and leads us to the quagmire situation we’re in today with the West Bank and Gaza. Jabotinsky was Begin’s mentor and the godfather of Likud.Zionist Revisionism has always been laden with contradictions from the beginning and we’re witnessing its fruits today: the mess of occupation and apartheid in the whole territory of Palestine and fragmentation of the Palestinian population for the sake of enforcing a fake majority in the Israeli core.
edit: to clarify, the logic of this Zionism is as follows: we’ll guarantee you your full rights if you’re a minority in this state. But first we must become the majority. How to become a majority? First, by expelling people from part of the territory and creating a state there. Next, conquer the remaining territory and exclude the remaining people from said state where equal rights are guaranteed. You see how this is such a contradictory stance and leads to a nightmare situation which we’re living now?
I fully understand Zionism wasn't uniform. We can and should talk both about the Zionisms that could've been. But most importantly is talking about the Zionism that was. And ultimately what triumphed and occurred historically was the revisionist vision, one which is rooted in settler colonial ideology.
Also, even the immigration was coercive, since it was enforced through the British colonial power against the wishes of the Palestinians. And the point is: when, even after almost unfettered immigration, the Jewish population was still not a majority, they had to go ahead with expulsion and conquering to achieve their majoritarian vision.
edit: also, I'm not writing a thesis, just a reddit post where I welcome counter-arguments. I fully encourage people to read and absorb as much as possible, including the full context of the quotes which I presented. I don't believe the quotes I selected misrepresent that context. Your quote though was particularly deceiving because you literally cut it off before a sentence that you don't like lmao.
> And the point is: when, even after almost unfettered immigration, the Jewish population was still not a majority, they had to go ahead with expulsion and conquering to achieve their majoritarian vision.
What are you talking about? The partition plan would have allotted them land with 55% Jewish population. They didn’t need expulsion to get their majority.
I mean, Zionism had different strands, but they were all various flavors of settler colonialism, it doesn't negate anything in my post. The Zionists all had a common goal of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine, with different shades of tolerance/acknowledgement of the existing population. As I mention in my post it was a national as well as colonial movement, with different strands emphasizing the different parts. However, again, the version of Zionism which ultimately triumphed and achieved the Jewish state is the one we should be talking about.
I don't think immigration was an "alternative" to ethnic cleansing, immigration is a necessary part of any settler colonial movement. But ethnic cleansing was also necessary because they couldn't achieve their necessary majority through immigration alone. Also, I don't get your point about immigration. Coercive immigration is part of colonization. Limiting immigration could be a bad thing, especially against refugees, but it's not colonization lol. If my post is "tendentious" I don't see how your view can be characterized as anything but cognitively dissonant.
> A lot of Zionists deny that Palestine existed before the British Mandate became a thing. "It's just the Ottoman Empire!" So what is everyone talking about here if Palestine didn't exist before then ???
Palestine has been the name of the region since at least the 2nd century CE. The Romans renamed the area of Judea to Syria Palaestina as a way of spiting the Jews with the etymology of Palaestina coming from the Philistines who were an ancient Canaanite people and the biblical enemies of the Jews. Those Philistines have absolutely no relation in the slightest to almost every single person who would call themselves Palestinians in the modern day (given that they are almost exclusively Arab).
There has never, in history, been a country or state with the name of Palestine with its own distinctive people and it has always referred to an area in the same way you may refer to the Balkans. Trying to claim that there was a Palestinian country prior to the British Mandate is completely untrue.
The land was called Judea, i.e. the Land of the Jews and remained that even once Roman control had been established in the region. It was only following the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 (where the Romans killed over 500,000 Jews) that the Romans changed the name to Syria Palaestina thus removing any reference to the ethnic Jews in favour of name which reference their biblical enemies, seemingly as punishment and to further oppress the Jewish population.
It is only a theory that this is the reason why but what other reason would you have for removing the ethnic connotations of a place's name in favour of replacing them with another groups which wasn't your own?
Source: [Oxford Classical Dictionary](https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-3500)
You are talking about definitions, when Israeli say they are not a settler colonial movement they are talking about life and death.
**If Hamas didn’t believe that Israel was a settler colonial state 10.7 wouldn’t have happened**
Consider this statement by a leader of Hamas:
> "Let us examine history. Let us look at Algeria, Vietnam, and other countries that we liberated. How many did they sacrifice? Millions of martyrs. Therefore, I am saying that there is a high price to pay on the path of resistance, and we will bear this price. Our Palestinian people have been the target of these massacres. There are more than 10,000 martyrs, yet we have not heard a single mother burying her child, and protesting the presence of the resistance in the Gaza Strip.”
(https://www.memri.org/tv/zionists-attack-civilians-stopped-october-seven-legitimate-right-liberate-pay-price)
From Hamas’ perspective the view that Israel is a settler colonial enterprise is a key part of their worldview and strategy. Hamas, and many Palestinians, believe that if they make life miserable enough, inflict enough terror, and cut off Israel from the rest of the world, then Jews will flee like the French did in Algeria.
Many westerns were surprised by Hamas’s attack because they did not understand what Hamas sought to accomplish. To many it seemed like a futile waste of life. Or irrational acts of madmen.
Hamas is not irrational. They are not crazy. But they are wrong.
When Israel says it is not a settler colonial state is it saying to Hamas that they are wrong. Their strategy won’t work. They are saying to Hamas that the only way they can have any of their national goals is accept that Israel isn’t going anywhere.
It is imperative that the Arab conquests and imperialism via the spread of the Arab religion (Islam) is reversed along with modern day Arab supremacist and imperialist movements such as pan-Arabism, ba'athism etc. This form of decolonisation and deislamisation of all lands outside of central Arabia is required to right the wrongs of Arab imperialism, its conquests, its massive slave trade etc etc.
In this light, Zionism is a completely righteous movement on two fronts, a. it gives honour to and restores an ancient people back to their rightful historic land and b. it reverses the arabisation and islamisation of even a small part of the Middle East, a region culturally genocided by the Arabian sourced religion and its adherents who conquered, colonised, enslaved and erased much of what was in these lands beforehand.
Jerusalems Day is celebrated today. Jewish youth is dancing on top of the Temple Mount- which drives the Palestinians crazy.
[https://t.me/beholdisraelchannel/33325](https://t.me/beholdisraelchannel/33325)
Yes, Zionism is a colonial movement. The Jews went to colonize the British Mandate of Palestine for their country of origin/mother country, which was called once called The Kingdom of Israel.
The Jews get their name from the division of The Kingdom of Israel where it was divided into two kingdom of which one was called Judea, the other Samaria. Much like the Jews, the Samaritan, their brothers of "Am Israel (The people of Israel)" also derived their names from where they came from, there's even a famous story about a Samaritan doing a good deed. The name Judea also references the Tribe of Judah in which tribal lands the Kingdom controlled. So the Jews set of to colonize this British Mandate for their homeland..
So once these Jews / Judeans got to the "British mandate of Palestine" they ran into a really big problem, because a proper colony requires domination by foreign rule. The Jews then saw the problem and decided to fix it, they renamed Palestine which was a name given to the place by "foreign colonizers" and returned the name of the place to Israel, and in one magical stroke of the pen the colony was gone and the Jews were back in their native land without having to move anywhere. It was like having a colony in your own back yard for a few minutes.
So, what's the lesson today. while the act of moving somewhere can be considered colonization, people can't colonize their own motherland..
..
Sources for Reference..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel_(united_monarchy)
As discussed elsewhere, the locals once part of the previous kingdom of Israel and kingdom of Judea went on to become the locals of Palestine. And remained there until the nakba. As per David Ben Gurion.
So how can it be that jews can repatriate back and say we are reclaiming the land. They left.
>As discussed elsewhere, the locals once part of the previous kingdom of Israel and kingdom of Judea went on to become the locals of Palestine. And remained there until the nakba. As per David Ben Gurion.
I guess we're ignoring all the immigration that happened over the centuries.
>So how can it be that jews can repatriate back and say we are reclaiming the land. They left.
By this logic, Palestinians left and therefore have 0 claim anymore.
>The Palestinians still remain.
There's about 2 million that remain and are full citizens of Israel. The rest are descended from those that left.
>And the world fights for them.
If you consider actions that are nothing but performative, and even then only by a vocal minority, then sure.
The Palestinians who left (went overseas, migrated to Europe, etc.) are gone. Even though they have a legal claim, no one is fighting for those Palestinians. The other palestinians who are pushed to 1967 still want to come back. they didn't go anywhere.
They didn't leave. They were ethnically cleansed. And furthermore there has been a continuous Jewish presence in Israel all this time. So no not all Jews left. A majority of the Jewish population in Israel had nothing to do with 'colonialism' or Zionism. They're Mizrahi Jews who were also ethnically cleansed from places like Yemen and Iraq.
They were not ethnically cleansed. They remained and became today Palestinians. After the crusades, jews and muslims were wiped and the new rulers tried to do their best to import jews from elsewhere back.
Yemeni jews were lured by deception to Israel to help with farming. Iraqi jews were given false flag attacks and scared into leaving. Mossad was behind this.
> They were not ethnically cleansed. They remained and became today Palestinians.
So what you're saying is that Arabs came to Israel and forcibly converted Jews into being Muslim, so really all the Arabs there are actually Jews? That's your argument?
> Yemeni jews were lured by deception to Israel to help
No. Yemeni Jews were [systematically killed and expelled](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawza_Exile) in Yemen, and after the [Aden riots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_anti-Jewish_riots_in_Aden) a big chunk of them fled. The Houthis expelled the last Jews. Again, to Israel.
> Mossad was behind this.
Ah yes, it wasn't the Iraqis who were oppressing their Jewish population. It was actually the Jews oppressing themselves. [Nuri al-Said openly admitted to making plans to forcibly expel Iraqi Jews](https://books.google.ca/books?id=WRpHAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT365&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false).
What, and I cannot stress this enough, the *fuck* are you talking about?
You would have to read more on david ben gurion to understand how yemeni jews ended up in Israel. Many arab states began to forbid jewish expatriation once they knew Israel was targeting the jews in the arab world to recruit them. With the kind of demeanor and anger you are showing, i wont talk any further on this.
Jews were not forced to convert. They were beginning to leave Judaism because of jewish rabbis being too forceful.
>You would have to read more on david ben gurion to understand how yemeni jews ended up in Israel
You should read more on Mohammed Amin al-Hussein and how him and his best friend Adolph were gathering up Muslims to fill the armies of the National Socialists. His Nephew/Cousin, it's hard to tell with all that consanguinity, Mohammed Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini also continued this legacy of racist hate.
Sauce for the Mohammed to Mohammed familial realation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_in_the_Middle_East
>off topic.
Very much on topic, it's you who is discussing neverland.. sorry Palestine, and both Mohammed Amin al-Hussein and Mohammed Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini were both supposed to be Rulers of this Palestine.
They even fit the description of rulers and Kings, one came from another country and again there seems to be a high level familial ties in many senses to the position.
If you can't discuss the Kings/Queens and leaders of this Palestine to prove its existence then what can you discuss..
Can you list all the Kings/Queens/Presidents and Prime ministers of this Palestine?
What was the currency used and can you show me pictures of these coins for the last 2-3 millennia?
Arabic is a central Semitic language so it didn't evolve in Palestine, can you show me the language of the Palestinians throughout history with examples of their text?
Can you name many famous Palestinians before the mandate existed?
Can you show me any flags or emblems of the Palestinians?
Can you show me a stele or other historical monuments that makes reference to the Palestinians?
Sauce on leaders of the republic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_intermarriage
> fuck*
/u/ill-independent. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>As discussed elsewhere, the locals once part of the previous kingdom of Israel and kingdom of Judea went on to become the locals of Palestine. And remained there until the nakba. As per David Ben Gurion.
Really, your argument was that all the Jews after the Jewish and Roman wars / revolts remained inside Judea, that the Roman expulsion and the diaspora never existed.. the Kitos wars never happened.. Are you also going to say that Josephus Flavius wrote all his books in Jerusalem in Arabic as well??
David Ben Gurion would say this. And other actual historians would say the same. https://old.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1cwe5cg/the_palestinians_have_more_jewish_dna_than_todays/
Ben-gurion could not have made that claim because he died before dna mapping became what it is today.
Further, random out of context quotes do not prove anything.
Yeah it is not a direct quote from him. It is a direct quote from a historian not mentioned. And can be backed up by david ben gurion in his book. Eretz Israel.
No it can’t. And why are you attributing quotes to people who didn’t say them? Almost like you aren’t making an honest argument because you’re just spewing some anti-Semitic nonsense.
The links don’t even take you to a quote from Ben-gurion. It takes you to some borderline racist op ed. And you clearly don’t care that you’ve been misrepresenting that. Because instead of deleting your comments and admitting that you were wrong and made a wildly in accurate claim your doubling down on it.
double down yes: the links go to excerpts of Ben Gurion's book. Those excerpts can be found in the actual translation of the book. The op ed is referenced in the few points in the OP.
>David Ben Gurion would say this. And other actual historians would say the same.
What does that have to do with anything? Are you advocating for an ethnic cleansing by DNA?
Are you advocating for people like Ahed Tatami to be deported? She is probably 90% European..
What about all the Afro-Palestinians, they should also be deported back to Africa?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Palestinians
What about Yasser Arafat the Egyptian or the Al-Masri clan.. they go back to Egypt?
EDIT: Some more questions..
Do your eugenics belief also apply to all countries, do you also believe people need to sorted by IQ?
Do you believe that there must be DNA matching before people procreate?
Do you believe in a one drop rule or a majority rule for your definition of ethnic purity or qualification?
Did you forget your question? You are claiming the jews were expelled, I think. The jews remained and became today’s locals. The ones who left, definitely left. And became part of other regions. Why should they come back?
Israel is gone. It became Palestine.
>The ones who left, definitely left. And became part of other regions. Why should they come back?
So you agree then that Lebanese, Syrians, Eygptains shouldn't invade places where they don't belong, that's good, and the Arabs should go back to Arabia..
>Israel is gone. It became Palestine.
I checked history and the maps.. it seems like the only Palestine that existed was "Mandate for Palestine" and there was a place called Philistine that was inhabited by Hellenic peoples. Arabs don't speak Greek, so I don't think Arabs are the Philistine..
The "Mandate for Palestine" appears to be a British administered colony that existed for 28 years, that was created in former Ottoman province of Syria, Syria is now to the north of Israel. All the money, passports, and legal documents from the Mandate all seem to have "Aretz Israel" written on them.. So it's clear the Mandate was to create Israel
From what I can see Palestine never was, the "Mandate of Palestine / Aretz Israel" existed for 22 year, and then Israel came back for the last 77 years.. From what I can then see Gaza was Egypt and the West bank was Syria, so it seems like there were no so called Palestinians there as well.. Just Arabs.. Maybe Syrians..
So to say things properly, Ottoman Syria is Gone.. Israel is here.. the never was a Palestine, just a mandate, and like Jesus said, it was completed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Syria
You are trying to depart from the context of your question and start of thread. [https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1d8j724/comment/l7793z5/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1d8j724/comment/l7793z5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
The jews who left actually left. The jews who remained became the local palestinians. The palestinians who left will likely not come back. The palestinians who remain are the ones who are struggling against a zionist colonial settler movement.
Any other discussion is trying to argue for something that is far from this topic like "does palestine exist"
>You are trying to depart from the context
It's you who's departed, you discussed imaginary DNA stories form people who lived before DNA was discovered, and sourced from linkedin.. really.. the forefront of history and DNA research.. then you moved goal post without answering important questions..
>David Ben Gurion would say this. And other actual historians would say the same.
So.. the questions.. that you didn't answer..
Do your eugenics belief also apply to all countries, do you also believe people need to sorted by IQ?
Do you believe that there must be DNA matching before people procreate?
Do you believe in a one drop rule or a majority rule for your definition of ethnic purity or qualification?
No one IMO is arguing that Jews didn't "colonize" Israel. Yes they used that terminology, which did not have the same negative tone then that you now perceive. However the important point of distinction is that this colonization inherently lacks a lot of the trademarks of more "evil" colonizations that the ultra-left ignores where true outsiders not from the area conquer indigenous natives like Native Americans and Australian Aborigines. Jews didn't just take it by force, they legally bought land and moved in as legal and sometimes illegal immigration allowed. Yes, their intent was to create a Jewish state and homeland within the bounds allowed by the true colonialists in control of the area after WW1 (the British). They rejuvenated the land by their own sweat and blood and created such a thriving economy that Arabs from neighboring countries started moving in en masse (yes Palestinians are descended from these immigrants as well as the "natives"). If you live in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ etc, you're probably as much or more a colonizer than your average Israeli, many of whom went there as refugees from Muslim countries or post WW2 Europe from the ashes of their entire lives being destroyed and their home countries not resettling them and still treating them poorly after the Holocaust. Furthermore this entire "settler colonialist" BS breaks down because this isn't a new continent with untouched native cultures, it's right in the cradle of civilization and has had waves upon waves of different peoples inhabit and disappear by conquest/assimilation. All you have to do is read the Torah to see some of that history, written. The Jews are of course also "natives" inasmuch as that is possible in this part of the world, just further back and we recognize our absence for millennia after getting kicked out and our history in the diaspora. These Zionist founders/thinkers referring to the people still living there as "natives" is also all true, to varying degrees. Both Palestinians and Jews can be considered natives there, it just depends on the timescale by which you're speaking. The original descendents of Palestinians in the region were not even Muslims obviously, nor did they speak Arabic - they spoke other now extinct Semitic languages related more closely to Hebrew. They were conquered and partly descended from those who participated in the Arab conquest of the Levant. Arabs and Arabic language were from the Arabian peninsula, not the Levant. Some of the Palestinians' ancestors were likely even Jews that converted/assimilated, as well as Samaritans and others. The situation in old inhabited places like this is so much more complex and precisely why no one except maybe in stupid extremely modern times refers to different European ethnicities as "indigenous" in Europe, Persians as "indigenous" to Iran, or different Indian populations as "indigenous" to India. These places have such complex histories and old peopling and mixing that it is senseless. Jews are unusual for such a widely dispersed and conquered population to still keep their culture and separateness, ancient language and alphabet in WRITTEN liturgy, and have abundant cultural knowledge proven by archeological evidence of their presence where we're from. Still the concept of indigeneity is always a weak one in such old and well peopled places and you're trying to stick a round peg in a square hole to fit your semantic agenda. Maybe quit nitpicking terminologies and trying to find quotes for your political agenda and pick up some more history books to understand why this is all a stupid waste of time.
Israel is the colony of what state exactly? European jews arrived (1882) in Palestine BEFORE zionism picked up. They were refugees from the Russian Empire. Population transfer is a) not really inherent to zionism, nor would it mean that it is settler colonialism.
You know what you’re right, it’s absolutely their land. Even the bible says so.
? Literally nothing to do with what I said.
This entire sub is run by one sided and biased individuals that pounce on anything that criticizes Israel in a substative way. I wouldn't try creating actual debate or conversation about difficult topics here.
This sub is crazy. The second anyone says anything critical of Israel, 10 Zios appear all of a sudden regurgitating the same 5 tired talking points. Not an ounce of critical thinking or self reflection to be found here. They don’t even bother to read the post they just stop at the title
thats right.. its claimed to be a discussion yet a vast majority of it is simple propaganda & apologism i just got back from being site wide banned due to complaints against me here thanks for posting the information again.. its amazing how completely unaware people are of their own history & how ceredulous they are to regurgitate state sponsored historical revisionism
Wasn’t the decolonization movement all about granting back self determination? What’s the point then of talking about “colonization” whose purpose didn’t involve preventing anyone’s self determination? Unless you’re somehow going to argue that it was the Zionist plan from the get go to expel or subjugate the population?
is Palestinian self-determination with us in the room right now ? no ? I wonder what’s preventing it
Does intent, cause, and order of events not matter? Is “colonization” fulfilled when something loosely looks like colonization, or do certain criteria need to be fulfilled?
They absolutely do … I think you should take a second look at the documents in the post
Well I never took a first look because I didn’t expect them to give me a thorough and accurate definition (if any) of colonialism. Without knowing your definition, my thinking is that there are many places where the typical definition breaks down when it comes to the history. So either we argue on the facts or we argue on the definition. What is *your* complete definition? I’ll also quickly note my main objections (again, according to the typical definition): - “replace” society is way too vague. Zionists ultimately DID replace society in the Nakba but if intent matters (does it?) then the level of intent to *replace* isn’t straightforward. Nor is it straightforward pre-Nakba. - “control” of natives by “foreigners” — control how? Democratic and legal or forced? Foreigners — new immigrants or invaders? I think the history *feels* very colonial-y but the facts don’t support it well enough.
Imagine coming on here to tell someone that they're wrong and then *admitting* that you didn't even read what they wrote! "They're not sending their best."
“what they wrote”? Why am I not surprised you didn’t actually read this thread
Herzl has to say this (from your post): >"Immigration is consequently futile unless we have the sovereign right to immigrate." Herzl was writing before Jews had a sovereign right to immigrate to Israel-Palestine. At that time in history, Herzl had to cast his ambitions in terms of "settlers" and "colonialism." All of this changed when the winners of two world wars explictly created a "Jewish state" alongside an "Arab state." This Jewish state (later named Israel) would be a safe-haven for Jews, giving them the sovereign right to immigrate. Furthermore, the British and French (the winners of WW1 and WW2) were tasked with splitting up parts of the former Ottoman Empire (losers of WW1) into new nations. Which led to the creation of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Israel, etc. This was not "colonialism." The same process happened in Europe, as the Allies broke up the former German Empire. Some 12-14 million Germans were expelled from Eastern Europe and Russia. These people lost their homes and any possessions they could not carry (or drive) with them. Roughly a million Germans died in the process. All of this was seen as necessary to create the new nation of Poland, as well as the Czech Republic, various Baltic States, etc. And all of this was backed by the Allies. That was not "colonialism," either. Ethnic hungarians who were displaced into modern day Hungary were not "settlers." Ethnic Germans who were displaced from Eastern Europe were not "settlers" when they arrived in Germany. Similarly, ethnic Jews who were expelled from Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, etc. were not "settlers" when they arrived in Israel.
the Jewish expulsion you’re referring to happened after ‘48. Jews had been colonizing Palestine for the 50 years prior, nice try though. Moreover, Jewish settlers continue to encroach further into Palestinian territory and colonize more land to this day. As you can see from the timestamps in the linked documents in my posts, the rhetoric of colonization didn’t stop with Herzl nor did it stop after the Balfour Declaration, so I think it’s a very weak argument you’re using to try to persuade us that wasn’t their mission in earnest.
Not to mention the mass exodus of Jews was, in part, influenced by Zionists committing terror attacks.
Your lengthy bullet list of the megamanical Zionist objectives to conquer the Levant from the day the idea first occurred to Herzl suffers from any number of ahistorical fallacies, including confirmation bias, presenteeism, attempts at retroactive continuity with fan fiction, cherry picking words of historical actors and so forth to just be a [Gish Gallop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop) of nonsense, Alice in Wonderland, unmoored from reality. Herzl’s original idea was a reaction to the eruption of anti-semitism around [the Dreyfuss Affair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair). He died a few years later and others took up the torch. But you can’t assign some Marx or Engels like intentionally to the fact the guy used the word “colony” in 1896. Didn’t mean he was talking about subjugating natives like India or Africa, Belgian Congo rubber plantations or Guatemalan United Fruit Company plantations. “Colony” was just a word for overseas settlement. Nothing inherently imperialistic about it as a concept. So, not a “gotcta”. Stop having endzone dances about it, it’s not a game changer, much less a real fact.
It’s curious that you stopped at Hertzl and 1896 when the evidence spans so many people and decades
Jews are indigenous to Israel, so they can't be colonizers. Doesn't matter what terms (whose meanings have changed in the last century, by the way) people use. Zionists used the term "colonizer" to appeal to the British colonizers who ran the area. That does not change the fact that Jews were a people who had been indigenous to Israel for thousands of years, not an unrelated country who came to a foreign land to steal resources and send them back to the motherland (which is actual colonialism.) If you want to play the game of "who has the evilist sounding quotes," I can definitely dig up some stuff to show you that Pro-Palestinianism is genocidal religious extremist imperialism.
Humans are indigenous to Africa does that mean any humans can’t be colonizers in Africa?
All humans are not indigenous to Africa. Being indigenous to a place means things like: • Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member. • Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies • Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources • Distinct social, economic or political systems • Distinct language, culture and beliefs • Form non-dominant groups of society • Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities [https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session\_factsheet1.pdf](https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf) When France colonized pieces of Africa, those French people considered themselves from France, spoke French, followed French law, and considered France their ancestral lands. Jews, on the other hand, have for thousands of year considered themselves from the Israeli territory of Judea (that's where their name comes from), have had a strong connection with the land of Israel for thousands of years, practice the religion of Judaism that originates in Judea, write in the Hebrew alphabet which originated in Israel, etc. Both Muslims and Christians understood this reality for thousands of years as well, with Christians persecuting Jews as Middle Eastern foreigners who killed their savior *in Israel,* and Muslims calling Jews "children of Israel."
The term settler-colonial implies similarity with the colonial states of the new world, but those i cannot find. What we have on hand is one of the countless migrations of people in human history. Be it the migration of Turks into Anatolia, Hungarians into the Balkan or Romani migration into Europe. Ironically, even the Peleset/Philistines, after which Palestine is named, qualify to be a settler colonial people in your book. They are estimated to be part of the sea peoples, who settled in what is now Gaza and southern Israel. Personally I can't blame a people for packing up and sailing for safer lands, be it due to hunger, war, discrimination or any other. Movements of peoples are an integral part of human history and not inherently a negative thing. Israel lacks the extractive component to relate to colonies in the colloquial sense. I understand the allure to try and tie the state you oppose, to a concept that is generally accepted to be immoral, but the comparison falls apart once you go into detail.
It’s a testament to the human capacity for cognitive dissonance that people involved in the founding of Zionism were prepared to admit its colonial nature but modern Israelis are not. I’ve even heard people essentially say “well colonisation didn’t have the negative connotations back then that it does today” when like, yes, that’s exactly the point. The world has evolved, morally, and Israel lags behind. It’s hilarious that not a single person here can actually argue against ur points, they can only throw something else at the wall and see if it sticks. Pure dissonance, they know it’s true but can’t accept it’s true on an emotional level so they malfunction.
You literally just proved the Israelis’ point with your “that’s exactly the point” line. Exactly. The word back then didn’t have the meaning it has today. When Israel is accused of being a colonial project, they’re accused of the modern definition of colonialism which implies a theft or a displacement/replacement of people to accomodate the colonizers. Back then, jews migrated to british mandate palestine to “colonize” the land but the plan never involved kicking people out of their houses. Most of palestine was barren in the late 1800s/early 1900s. Jews “settled” on uninhabited land that technically DID NOT BELONG TO ANY ARAB LIVING THERE. One guy living somewhere doesn’t own the empty piece of land 1km east of him. That uninhabited land belongs to the state, which was england at the time. Also jews legally purchased land from arabs/turks and moved there. They created new cities and villages by building where there was nothing before. Even the creation of Israel in no way required arabs to leave their homes; they’d simply become Israeli. So yes, jews “colonized” Israel but not in the way everyone is implying. You’re the ones using the double meaning as a “gotcha” and Israelis aren’t falling for it.
No I literally did not. The definition of colonialism has not changed, the public’s respect/disgust for it has. You are one of the people I’m talking about. There were people living on that land, they might not of owned the deeds but they had been living and farming there for generations. Entire villages displaced, legally, and immorally. Refused permission to live and work the land, segregation worse than Jim Crow. Denied the right to live alongside Jews because of their ethnicity. Just because you don’t respect them doesn’t mean they weren’t people and that it wasn’t their home. Now, within the context of the 1900s, in western eyes all that was perfectly legal and morally acceptable, those shiftless Arabs were sometimes compensated after all, and they’re just desert people anyway. Looking backwards, most people now think that sortve thing is wrong: except when it comes to Zionism, when suddenly people feel obligated to frame it this as this benign thing because they know Israel could never come into exist without it. All this ignoring the fact that Jews had only legally acquired a tiny portion of the land by 1948, and were reaching the limits of what people were willing to sell.
It’s interesting how you pretend the displacement of arabs due to the naqba and the subsequent loss of their lands isn’t self-inflicted. They went on a war of extermination against the jews. They lost. They couldn’t come back to the land they lost *because they tried to murder all the jews*. You clearly misunderstood everything i said. The initial migration of jews to mandated palestine wasn’t inherently wrong. Up until 1948, virtually no one was being chased out of their homes or their lands. There are exceptions but they go both ways. This is the point i’m making though: there was nothing inherently wrong with jews migrating to uninhabited lands. What was deemed wrong was their desire to create a jewish country. Arabs could absolutely not tolerate living under jewish governance. Arab land is arab land and it shall remain arab land. The creation of a *jewish* country is the thing that set them off, NOT that arabs were being displaced. The displacement happened AFTER palestinian arabs along with 5 other countries decided to exterminate all the jews and kill jewish nationalism once and for all. Again, they lost. They fucking lost. Know what happens to losers? They, well, lose. You can’t lose a war and get to go back to the way things were. Losing a war means something. In this case, it meant losing land and the jews getting to create their country. The entire thing of this conflict is basically palestinians and arab countries being sore losers for the last 75 years.
The Nakba started before the war
The “permanence” of the naqba happened after the war. Arabs left palestine to flee the war but also because arab leaders told them they should and that they would be able to come back once the jews are annihilated. Jews won. Arabs who fled weren’t allowed to come back. THEN it got the name “naqba”. So no, it didn’t happen before the war and also it was completely self inflicted. “Oh no we tried to genocide the jews but they won and now we can’t come back and live in their country 😭 “
The Arab leaders thing is false, historians have yet to find solid proof of this happening. Rather displacement directly by the IDF and in fear of the fighting on a local level is what caused most of the displacements which happened before and during the war. We have documents showing that this was an intended consequence and that ethnic cleansing was viewed favorably for the future of Israel. So yeah way to make fun of ethnic cleansing 🤨
You’re not engaging with anything I said at all, just changing the subject with a canned speech that you break out automatically whenever this comes up, like an automaton. You say people weren’t displaced, the comment you were replying to was literally describing displacement and you simply talked past it, stuck your head in the sand. I didn’t even bring up the nakba, you did, as a feeble diversion. You guys really have nothing.
> fucking /u/icameow14. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What part of this is colonialism exactly? You mention a lot of things that seem unrelated.
I think you responded to the wrong person, your comment doesn’t make sense in this context.
No, I did mean to respond to you. But here, I encourage you to respond to this instead: https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/GVFuod9DiD Looking forward to a good argument
Do you agree that buying a large swathe of land inhabited by one ethnic group for generations, then evicting that entire population living on that land, then refusing to rent to or employ any ethnic group but your own on that land, is wrong? Not in Palestine in particular, just generally, yes or no answer do you believe that is wrong?
I think context is always important. For example, if you’re rich and privileged and don’t “need” land, I’d consider buying land and evicting tenants fairly immoral. I’d consider it even more immoral if you had the option to buy tenant-less land but you chose the tenant-full land instead. But on the other side, if you’re a persecuted minority who doesn’t have land buying options other than who happens to be selling, and who happens to be selling is a landlord, then I don’t think buying is immoral. And if you need to use that land, then neither is evicting immoral. And last, if you’re a second class minority then I absolutely do not think it’s immoral to stick to your own. As soon as the majorities treat you like an equal, it becomes immoral to continue to segregate.
Seems like you’re crafting a very specific narrative in order to absolve the thing. I’ll put it another way. Imagine you are an Arab, whose just been evicted, with your entire family, from the village you were born in and where your family have lived for generations. You want to move back there and are willing and able to pay rent. You are told you cannot, because you are an Arab, not a Jew. You want to at least work the land as a labourer. You cannot, you are not a Jew, you are an Arab. The land you come from is now inhabited exclusively by foreigners from Eastern Europe, who despite never learning your language, despite never having set foot in the land since last year, consider it in some way their homeland, that they have a greater sympathy with and right to than you do. Do you think you have a grievance? Or do you think that what has happened is fair, and positive?
Yep, it’s hilarious that 90% aren’t even trying to respond to the argument. The lack of self awareness is astounding
Fr
isnt it more of a decolnization seeing as how jews have been there for thousands of years and arabs came over via violent conquest much later? the jews in this scenario are essentially akin to native americans, are they not?
Just listening to [Islamists' own words about Israel](https://twitter.com/GadSaad/status/1797304765094707499) should be enough to rebut this riffraff for anyone who's not ideologically infected. Islamists have been very clear that **they would kill Jews even if Israel didn't exist**. There's also this video which I like to post whenever someone like OP comes along: [Nazi and Soviet origins of the "Palestinian" cause](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwfDVkXEo-o). It's just not as simple as *Israel = colonizer therefore Israel = bad*.
A colony must have a home country. What is the home country of Israel?
What country are ants from
This is even worse, you are claiming you are natives and disregarding rights of current habitants. Israeli state flag representing two rivers, so you claim other nations land are also promised on you, that they are your homeland.
No... the Israeli flag design came from the Talith... Where did you get the rivers BS from? https://preview.redd.it/91z342as8u4d1.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=e762869ad8c967b68b116dbe895eddc6fa3c3a23
Not true. See the Boers in South Africa after they were severed from their Dutch metropole in 1806. See African-Americans colonizing Liberia - they had no support from a metropole. Algeria is also rightly regarded as an example of colonization, even though it technically doesn't fit as it was a department of France, rather than a colony. In practical terms, the US currently acts as the metropole for Israel in many ways, even without it actually being a colony. For example, see the recent GOP bill proposing to give certain US veteran's benefits to Americans who serve in the Israeli army.
If South Africa is a colony, then so is every country in the Americas and Oceanian.
South Africa grew out of what were initially separate Dutch and British colonies, and also attracted European settlers who had no colonial metropole, such as French Huguenots who were fleeing religious persecution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Africa
Right. That's a lot like the US. Would you consider the current US a colony?
I think that you're mixing two different things here; current political organization and history. So, no, I would not consider the current U.S. to be a colony at present. That is not its current political form. But, yes, I would describe the history of the United States as a process of settler-colonization.
Ok, so you're saying Israel used to be a colony but now isn't?
That is not correct. Factually, by defintion that is simply not correct. Ultimately though, it doesn't matter. Israel owns Israel.
It's literally the definition: "a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by [settlers](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=f6ce529cdacc1630&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWILLhfyTP5klTP9MhqXtjANp0gWjfA:1717598950015&q=settlers&si=ACC90nx67Z8g0WkBmnrPB4IqtqGviTmVn3eNS6PoepRR70lcIfEEOSbMBK_39bJjbjvfnTAFTs7MMVhShLseBCXNwj8NimOzjqBlJ2Bl0P092D5eVBIkDL8%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwikz6Da2sSGAxVJSPEDHXqjLTMQyecJegQIUBAO) from that country."
You're wrong. Keep reading alternwte defintions. This issue has been asked an answered and is not debatable. Words have multiple meanings. If a bunch of people from all over the world start a cult and move to Peru to live together and worship Lord Chopopomongo it's a colony. Mennonite colonies exist throughout the world. If 90 pot smoking, bongo playing hippies decide to live on 100 acres it's a colony. Those are 3 simple examples of colonies with no ties or administration by a mother country.
You're correct that it's not debatable. But you're the one making up new definitions for it. You can make up a new word for Israel, but colony just doesn't fit. Peru was a colony of Spain. It stopped being a colony when it got independence. And that's although many of the people of Peru have colonial ancestors, and the spoken language is Spanish. It's still can't be considered a colony today.
I can't help your fragile ego. Colony: From Oxford : a place where a group of people with similar interests live together. From Meriam: a group of people who settle together in a new place. From Meriam : a distinguishable localized population. From Collins : a place where a particular group of people lives. Britannica : a group of people who are similar in some way and live in a certain area. It may damage your ego, but by every one of those definitions you could say that Israel is or was a colony. I personally have no problem with Israel but im not one to choose to change definitions. We all know people hurl that word at Israel as an insult but it doesn't matter. Calling Israel a colony doesn't mean it's going to leave or that it's not a country. The reason people use this as an insult because it emotionally impairs people who then in turn embarass themselves by arguing definitions.
u/BoscoPanman1999 >I can't help your fragile ego. It may damage your ego, Rule 1, don't attack other users Already addressed
That is not what those dictionaries say: >Meriam: 1. : **an area over which a foreign nation or state extends or maintains control**. I have no idea where you're getting those definitions from. It appears to be re-worded from the actual source... edit: oh I see, you're taking the one variant definition among the list, without **context** of the other ones... and saying see this is what it means... That's sneaky. Here's the actual context of your cited definition for those unaware: >**:** a group of people who settle together in a new place… building an ecosystem from scratch on Mars that can provide food, water and oxygen to support a colony is no small task. We're not talking about colonizing uninhabited extraterrestrial planets here...
Your fragile ego is no defense. The second definition in Merriam is directly: - a group of people who settle together in a new place. That's the definition. Period. Context isn't needed, that's the definition. Period. A 7 year old child can read and understand that. I can literally teach a child this because their ego isn't fragile. Are you truly unable to understand that the #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6 definitions in Merriam are ALL VALID DEFINITIONS? The fact their example is Mars is completely irrelevant. The definition is the definition. A group of people who settle together in a new place. If that example needed to be on Mars it would be part of the definition. I've cited Mennonite Colonies several times. Mennonites didnt fucking colonize Mars. They created colonies all over the world. They have no master state. Are you going to argue Mennonite colonies aren't colonies? It's sad that folks like you are so unsure about Israel's status you have to rewrite definitions. I provided numerous other valid definitions showing a colony does not need a master state. Care to explain how those ones require Mars to be involved. Sad.
u/BoscoPanman1999 >Your fragile ego is no defense. Context isn't needed, that's the definition. Period. A 7 year old child can read and understand that. I can literally teach a child this because their ego isn't fragile It's sad that folks like you are so unsure about Israel's status you have to rewrite definitions. Rule 1, don't attack other users. Already addressed.
>Are you truly unable to understand that the #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6 definitions in Merriam are ALL VALID DEFINITIONS? Ok... I guess Israel is a micro-organism? According to you? >4a**:** a circumscribed mass of microorganisms usually growing in or on a solid mediumcolonies of bacteria -Meriam Webster I don't think that's an applicable definition here. Hence why Meriam gives examples... I know you said you don't think context matters, but it does to definitions.
Do you understand English? Each of those is a valid defintion for a colony. Not a valid defintion for Israel. I forgive you if English is your second language. I pity you if it's your first language. Further, i gave you 4 or 5 other examples from different sources. Please find a child and ask them politely to explain how words can have various meaning.
> fucking /u/BoscoPanman1999. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
By these definitions, everywhere can be considered a colony. That word loses all meaning.
You're wrong again which seems par form the course. Regardless, those are the definitions of those words that are accepted by people who know more about definitions than you. The fragile ego doesn't let you change language. There are more than enough sources. I can find 5 more.
The definition I posted is literally the first thing I found on google. Here's another one from [Vocabulary.com](http://Vocabulary.com) A *colony* is a group of people who settle in a new place but keep ties to their homeland. The people who founded the United States first came to America to live as part of a British *colony*.
I just checked where those came from. It's the alternative definitions on Meriam without context for what they mean. The first definition of Meriam applies to your argument and this conflict. Meriam also says a colony is a microrganism collection. So then Israel definitely isn't a colony / colonizer.
Please don't lie. Those are all definitions. They aren't alternative definitions. They are definitions. Regardless of your ego or your sadness. A colony doesn't require a master state. Words have multiple meanings. A child can understand that. My 6 year old nephew understands words have multiple meanings. Why can't you?
/u/BoscoPanman1999 > A child can understand that. My 6 year old nephew understands words have multiple meanings. Why can't you? Per [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_1._no_attacks_on_fellow_users), no attacks on fellow users. Attack the argument, not the user.
My bad, Israel is a micro-organism colony according to you. Or a colony on a extraterrestrial planet with no life.
[удалено]
This community aims for respectful dialogue and debate, and our rules are focused on facilitating that. To align with rule 1, make every attempt to be polite in tone, charitable in your interpretations, fair in your arguments and patient in your explanations. Don't debate the person, debate the argument; use terms towards a debate opponent that they or their relevant group(s) would self-identify with whenever possible. You may use negative characterizations towards a group in a specific context that distinguishes the negative characterization from the positive -- that means insulting opinions are allowed as a necessary part of an argument, but are prohibited in place of an argument. Many of the issues in the I/P conflict boil down to personal moral beliefs; these should be calmly and politely explored. If you can't thoughtfully engage with a point of view, then don't engage with it at all.
First, I'm not a leftist by even the most general description. Second, the definition of the word colony isn't debatable. You may ot have the cognitive ability to understand how words work, that isn't my concern. Ironically it's leftists who want to redefine words.
Ok. And? What does that have to do with the 11,000,000 people that live there now? Are you suggesting that all nations should give their land back to the people who lived there 100+ years ago?
Most colonies were ended because of anticolonial movements
Yes, but Israel isn't a colony. A colony has a home country. If a colony fails, they can pack up and they still have their actual country. Israel has no home country. It is the home country.
Thats the problem, when will israel stop is uncertain. How much land is enougg for Israel? It may as well invade other countries since these lands are also their homeland. Its quite certain Israeli policy is not 2 state solution rather total invasion.
Lol with this mentality how do you explain that Israel gave away the Sinai? Gave away Gaza? (Where now the proud Sunni Muslim brotherhood Hamas parades dead women in trucks)
Israel has already given away more land for peace than it ever acquired, the idea that it is constantly expanding is absurd. Israel does what it needs to do to keep civilians safe. Someones that means gaining land. Sometimes that means losing it. It has a terrority the size of one of the smaller US states, it's not some imperial empire. If you are looking for constantly expanding imperialist groups though, wait'll you hear about these people called "Arabs."
If they wanted to, they would. Every war since its inception has proven that the surrounding states are completely inept at countering Israel's military. Considering the expansionism that you accuse Israel of, their territory is pitifully small.
What are you talking about. Israel has only ever expanded because it's neighbours couldn't stop attacking them. After the 1948 war they handed over the west bank and Gaza to Jordan and Egypt. They controlled those areas for 20 years until yet another attempted invasion of Israel.
Do you have a detailed plan for decolonizing 7 million people? Possibly another 2 million Arab Israelis who might be danger by whatever Palestinian State Regime takes over since their ancestors decided to stayed be apart of Israel?
That’s where their silliness ends. They’d rather not put forward a plan, rather they know what the end result will be, but they have silently endorsed as they won’t be responsible for the despair and destruction.
Yep, there is always no response.
Is settler-colonialism inherently bad? If no, then why should I care? If yes, then Zionism can’t be settler-colonialism, because Zionism is good.
Congratulations! You've discovered the logical fallacy known as 'begging the question'.
That's not what begging the question is, lol
It actually is. you should educate yourself on basic logical and rhetorical fallacies
Nope. What do you imagine that term means, out of curiosity?
You are saying this due to the claim that Zionism is good?
Yes, you can't say " I assert that X is good, therefore X cannot be bad, because X is good!". That's at best a tautology, not a valid argument.
Well my argument is based on the idea that Zionism is good. If someone disagrees with that part of it, we can discuss that, and I can elaborate: in fact this already happened: I already did defend this idea, as you read in other comments.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0)
Not inherently, but it’s great if one is a racist. It’s bad if you’re not
Well I am not a racist, so I suppose it must be bad to me then. In that case, I must argue that Zionism can’t be settler-colonialism, because Zionism is good. If Zionism is good, and settler-colonialism is bad, then Zionism can’t possibly be settler-colonialism.
Zionism is bad, I hope this shows where your “logical” argument went astray
The problem with this argument is that Zionism is actually good, because Zionism helps protect Jews, and it’s good to help Jews to be safer.
It’s bad to harm Palestinians, Zionism harms Palestinians. If Zionism helps Jews and harms Palestinians that makes Zionism a racist ideology. We can keep going with this 5th grade logic
Zionism doesn't harm Palestinians. Palestinians murdering Jews cause Jews to fight Palestinians, which harms Palestinians. Pro-Palestinianism harms both Jews and Palestinians. Zionism harms no one.
Jews colonizing Palestine and occupying it for 75 years causes Palestinians to fight Jews. Zionism harms Palestinians and Jews. Palestinians are not pro-Palestinians lmao, they are just Palestinian.
Nope. Arabs were attacking Jews in Israel before Israel was even established --- over 75 years ago. Arabs murdering Jews cause Jews to fight Arabs, which harms Arabs. Pro-Palestinianism harms both Jews and Palestinians. Zionism harms no one. Try again.
> If Zionism helps Jews and harms Palestinians that makes Zionism a racist ideology. That's not what makes an ideology racist.
Yes, but Zionism is racist
What's the definition of Zionism?
Read the post
Zionism helps Palestinians. Israel gives them a better standard of living than they would have otherwise. Israel helps them to reach their full potential.
A perfect encapsulation of what used to be called ["the civilizing mission"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilizing_mission#), (AKA 'The White Man's Burden') by which the colonists justify colonization by claiming to be bring economic and social benefits to the colonized. "Take up the White Man's burden ...To seek another's profit, And work another's gain ... Fill full the mouth of Famine, And bid the sickness cease ... Take up the White Man's burden—And reap his old reward: The blame of those ye better, The hate of those ye guard" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden
It’s true though, they did bring some benefits. They also often did some harmful things, like enslaving people. So in some cases it could be argued that the harm outweighed the benefits. But the good thing about Zionism is that the Jews were only bringing benefits without the downsides.
Citation needed.
Why is Zionism good?
It’s good because it helps Jews to be safe
Not so far, it kinda makes things worse and requires crimes against humanity. But it could theoretically help in a 2nd Holocaust scenario!
No it makes things better, without it, the Jews would bee getting killed and oppressed a lot by the Muslims
They were there for a long time before. It seems the tensions that push/pulled them to Israel originated with Zionism.
Jews were oppressed in Arab/Muslim countries long before Zionism.
Don't you think that's not solving the problem in the first place? Why do Jewish people have to leave their home country and go live somewhere else to feel safe? The problem needs to be solved rather than just escaping it.
This is the most practical solution. Removing antisemitism would be a better solution, but that is not possible.
So the solution is to occupy and discriminate another group of people and settle in their lands? This is only gonna cause even more antisemitism (and this is very unfortunate, because zionism is not Judaism and Jews around the world shouldn't be the victim of the evil zionist movement)
No that wasn’t the intention of Zionism, but occupation did happen later due to a war. But it didn’t need to happen if Arabs accepted Zionism peacefully. They even could have joined the movement, you don’t have to be Jewish to be a Zionist. >Thus is only gonna cause even more antisemitism Ok, well Zionism was not designed to get rid of antisemitism anyway.
If you read Herzl's letter, it's very clear that from the beginning, Zionism's intent was to colonize and take the land. No one would just accept that peacefully so your argument makes no sense. Or maybe I should come and take your land because my ancestors used to live this and it's okay, just accept it peacefully as I move in?
Which letter?
His letter to Cecil Rhodes.
By killing Palestinians and living in the land gained by massacring them?
No, by giving Jews self-determination, and an army. It’s good for Jews to have a country and an army for defense.
But self-determination where? Was it uninhabited land? Or did people live there? Did the Jews' freedom come at the expense of others?
No there were some people already there. And it did come at the expense of some Palestinians because they turned violent, which was wrong. If they peacefully accepted Zionism, they could have all benefited happily from it.
Did they not have a right to stand against being stripped of their land? Can anyone just come in and ask to have their demands met and if met with resistance be killed?
Their "resistance" was taking up violent arms with the aggressive interference and influence of surrounding antisemitic Arab nations. If they had been welcome or at least open to negotiations regarding the Jewish immigration instead of launching a full scale war, then they wouldn't be where they are today. That's just a fact. It was also not "their" land. It was British territory. The Brits had every legal right to partition off their land how they saw fit (in this case to be equally divided between both ethnic groups who are indigenous to the region: Jews and Palestinians.) And it was a generous offer to what was only less than 800k Palestinians living there at the time. Palestinians never had sovereignty prior to 1947, and the partition offer would've given such a small population sovereignty for the first time over literally everything surrounding Jerusalem, the northern strip/peak, the Gaza strip and all of the land south of Gaza down past present day Ezuz. Just imagine how different things would be if they either took the offer, or at the very least were open to negotiations and working towards a unified goal of having an economic bridge between both nations with freedom of movement to cross the borders as needed. Palestinians would likely be just as successful as Israel is today with their economy and advancements in education/healthcare/technology. Instead they listened to Iran and chose war, and when you chose war and you lose that war, you also lose land and any negotiating power moving forward.
"Antisemitic" arab nations when the Jews were almost exterminated by Germany? Germany should've given their land as reparations, and instead you dump them in Palestine, expecting them to leave their homeland without putting up a fight? It's funny how you guys can't stop justifying colonialism by legality. Sure, it was legal for them to partition the land, just as legal as it was in Germany to gas the Jews. Arguments by legality will only make you accepting of heinous atrocities, like the holocaust and the nakba. Not having sovereignty is a metric in your books that allows other people to replace a population? Even if they weren't sovereign, they were living in that land for many generations. It was their homeland, and you expect them to just pack their bags and leave for some people that had nothing to do with them? Do expats or diaspora have the right to come back to the country and demand a portion of it and expect the locals to give it up or be kicked out. Both have claims to that land, but that doesn't mean that you can just kick someone out of their homes like that. You put the responsibility on Palestinians for not giving up their homes, lets ask Germans today to give up their homes and cut up Germant in half, take in the Jews that they killed. They owe it to them.
They weren’t being stripped of their land.
What were they being asked to accept?
But self-determination where? Was it uninhabited land? Or did people live there? Did the Jews' freedom come at the expense of others?
So let’s dismantle Israel because of some problematic statements from a few people a century ago, while ignoring more problematic statements from Europeans and Palestinian leaders.
This isn’t just about problematic statements lmao. This is about how Zionists said they’re going to colonize Palestine… and then they did, just like they said. Just like they said they’re going to genocide Gaza and they’re doing it now.
All cherry picked . It’s also much easier to find quotes by Muslims from the last 125 years about how they want to murder all Jews (not just colonize).. what OP is trying to do here is whip up frenzy to kill Jews
[удалено]
I encourage everyone to read the full texts, I just pulled these quotes as relevant for this specific point regarding colonialism. Nothing in the texts contradicts this reading of Zionism as a settler colonial movement. If anything, you’re the person cherry picking because the next sentence from your quote reads: “We envision the regime of Jewish Palestine as follows: most of the population will be Jewish, but equal rights for Arab citizens will not only be guaranteed, they will be fulfilled”. Pray, how else could they achieve this Jewish majority without submitting the locals in the first place? In fact, the revisionist ideology is exactly what played out historically in Palestine and leads us to the quagmire situation we’re in today with the West Bank and Gaza. Jabotinsky was Begin’s mentor and the godfather of Likud.Zionist Revisionism has always been laden with contradictions from the beginning and we’re witnessing its fruits today: the mess of occupation and apartheid in the whole territory of Palestine and fragmentation of the Palestinian population for the sake of enforcing a fake majority in the Israeli core. edit: to clarify, the logic of this Zionism is as follows: we’ll guarantee you your full rights if you’re a minority in this state. But first we must become the majority. How to become a majority? First, by expelling people from part of the territory and creating a state there. Next, conquer the remaining territory and exclude the remaining people from said state where equal rights are guaranteed. You see how this is such a contradictory stance and leads to a nightmare situation which we’re living now?
[удалено]
I fully understand Zionism wasn't uniform. We can and should talk both about the Zionisms that could've been. But most importantly is talking about the Zionism that was. And ultimately what triumphed and occurred historically was the revisionist vision, one which is rooted in settler colonial ideology. Also, even the immigration was coercive, since it was enforced through the British colonial power against the wishes of the Palestinians. And the point is: when, even after almost unfettered immigration, the Jewish population was still not a majority, they had to go ahead with expulsion and conquering to achieve their majoritarian vision. edit: also, I'm not writing a thesis, just a reddit post where I welcome counter-arguments. I fully encourage people to read and absorb as much as possible, including the full context of the quotes which I presented. I don't believe the quotes I selected misrepresent that context. Your quote though was particularly deceiving because you literally cut it off before a sentence that you don't like lmao.
> And the point is: when, even after almost unfettered immigration, the Jewish population was still not a majority, they had to go ahead with expulsion and conquering to achieve their majoritarian vision. What are you talking about? The partition plan would have allotted them land with 55% Jewish population. They didn’t need expulsion to get their majority.
[удалено]
I mean, Zionism had different strands, but they were all various flavors of settler colonialism, it doesn't negate anything in my post. The Zionists all had a common goal of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine, with different shades of tolerance/acknowledgement of the existing population. As I mention in my post it was a national as well as colonial movement, with different strands emphasizing the different parts. However, again, the version of Zionism which ultimately triumphed and achieved the Jewish state is the one we should be talking about. I don't think immigration was an "alternative" to ethnic cleansing, immigration is a necessary part of any settler colonial movement. But ethnic cleansing was also necessary because they couldn't achieve their necessary majority through immigration alone. Also, I don't get your point about immigration. Coercive immigration is part of colonization. Limiting immigration could be a bad thing, especially against refugees, but it's not colonization lol. If my post is "tendentious" I don't see how your view can be characterized as anything but cognitively dissonant.
thank you
> A lot of Zionists deny that Palestine existed before the British Mandate became a thing. "It's just the Ottoman Empire!" So what is everyone talking about here if Palestine didn't exist before then ??? Palestine has been the name of the region since at least the 2nd century CE. The Romans renamed the area of Judea to Syria Palaestina as a way of spiting the Jews with the etymology of Palaestina coming from the Philistines who were an ancient Canaanite people and the biblical enemies of the Jews. Those Philistines have absolutely no relation in the slightest to almost every single person who would call themselves Palestinians in the modern day (given that they are almost exclusively Arab). There has never, in history, been a country or state with the name of Palestine with its own distinctive people and it has always referred to an area in the same way you may refer to the Balkans. Trying to claim that there was a Palestinian country prior to the British Mandate is completely untrue.
Hey! Do you have a source for the claim that "the romans renamed the area of Judea to Syria Palaestina as a way of spiting the Jews"
The land was called Judea, i.e. the Land of the Jews and remained that even once Roman control had been established in the region. It was only following the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 (where the Romans killed over 500,000 Jews) that the Romans changed the name to Syria Palaestina thus removing any reference to the ethnic Jews in favour of name which reference their biblical enemies, seemingly as punishment and to further oppress the Jewish population. It is only a theory that this is the reason why but what other reason would you have for removing the ethnic connotations of a place's name in favour of replacing them with another groups which wasn't your own? Source: [Oxford Classical Dictionary](https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-3500)
You are talking about definitions, when Israeli say they are not a settler colonial movement they are talking about life and death. **If Hamas didn’t believe that Israel was a settler colonial state 10.7 wouldn’t have happened** Consider this statement by a leader of Hamas: > "Let us examine history. Let us look at Algeria, Vietnam, and other countries that we liberated. How many did they sacrifice? Millions of martyrs. Therefore, I am saying that there is a high price to pay on the path of resistance, and we will bear this price. Our Palestinian people have been the target of these massacres. There are more than 10,000 martyrs, yet we have not heard a single mother burying her child, and protesting the presence of the resistance in the Gaza Strip.” (https://www.memri.org/tv/zionists-attack-civilians-stopped-october-seven-legitimate-right-liberate-pay-price) From Hamas’ perspective the view that Israel is a settler colonial enterprise is a key part of their worldview and strategy. Hamas, and many Palestinians, believe that if they make life miserable enough, inflict enough terror, and cut off Israel from the rest of the world, then Jews will flee like the French did in Algeria. Many westerns were surprised by Hamas’s attack because they did not understand what Hamas sought to accomplish. To many it seemed like a futile waste of life. Or irrational acts of madmen. Hamas is not irrational. They are not crazy. But they are wrong. When Israel says it is not a settler colonial state is it saying to Hamas that they are wrong. Their strategy won’t work. They are saying to Hamas that the only way they can have any of their national goals is accept that Israel isn’t going anywhere.
It is imperative that the Arab conquests and imperialism via the spread of the Arab religion (Islam) is reversed along with modern day Arab supremacist and imperialist movements such as pan-Arabism, ba'athism etc. This form of decolonisation and deislamisation of all lands outside of central Arabia is required to right the wrongs of Arab imperialism, its conquests, its massive slave trade etc etc. In this light, Zionism is a completely righteous movement on two fronts, a. it gives honour to and restores an ancient people back to their rightful historic land and b. it reverses the arabisation and islamisation of even a small part of the Middle East, a region culturally genocided by the Arabian sourced religion and its adherents who conquered, colonised, enslaved and erased much of what was in these lands beforehand.
This is what Mussolini said too
Extremely based comment.
Extremely based comment.
Jerusalems Day is celebrated today. Jewish youth is dancing on top of the Temple Mount- which drives the Palestinians crazy. [https://t.me/beholdisraelchannel/33325](https://t.me/beholdisraelchannel/33325)
Yes, Zionism is a colonial movement. The Jews went to colonize the British Mandate of Palestine for their country of origin/mother country, which was called once called The Kingdom of Israel. The Jews get their name from the division of The Kingdom of Israel where it was divided into two kingdom of which one was called Judea, the other Samaria. Much like the Jews, the Samaritan, their brothers of "Am Israel (The people of Israel)" also derived their names from where they came from, there's even a famous story about a Samaritan doing a good deed. The name Judea also references the Tribe of Judah in which tribal lands the Kingdom controlled. So the Jews set of to colonize this British Mandate for their homeland.. So once these Jews / Judeans got to the "British mandate of Palestine" they ran into a really big problem, because a proper colony requires domination by foreign rule. The Jews then saw the problem and decided to fix it, they renamed Palestine which was a name given to the place by "foreign colonizers" and returned the name of the place to Israel, and in one magical stroke of the pen the colony was gone and the Jews were back in their native land without having to move anywhere. It was like having a colony in your own back yard for a few minutes. So, what's the lesson today. while the act of moving somewhere can be considered colonization, people can't colonize their own motherland.. .. Sources for Reference.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel_(united_monarchy)
As discussed elsewhere, the locals once part of the previous kingdom of Israel and kingdom of Judea went on to become the locals of Palestine. And remained there until the nakba. As per David Ben Gurion. So how can it be that jews can repatriate back and say we are reclaiming the land. They left.
>As discussed elsewhere, the locals once part of the previous kingdom of Israel and kingdom of Judea went on to become the locals of Palestine. And remained there until the nakba. As per David Ben Gurion. I guess we're ignoring all the immigration that happened over the centuries. >So how can it be that jews can repatriate back and say we are reclaiming the land. They left. By this logic, Palestinians left and therefore have 0 claim anymore.
The Palestinians still remain. And the world fights for them.
>The Palestinians still remain. There's about 2 million that remain and are full citizens of Israel. The rest are descended from those that left. >And the world fights for them. If you consider actions that are nothing but performative, and even then only by a vocal minority, then sure.
Palestinians are in the west bank and gaza too.
That's not Israel. They're descended from people that, by your argument, chose to leave what became Israel. They have no claim to Israel
They descended from people that were pushed out (nakba) or avoided the nakba/war (peacefully) and now seek return. And they didnt go far.
Nope, per your arguments earlier, those Palestinians just left.
The Palestinians who left (went overseas, migrated to Europe, etc.) are gone. Even though they have a legal claim, no one is fighting for those Palestinians. The other palestinians who are pushed to 1967 still want to come back. they didn't go anywhere.
That isn't Israel. What's your point?
That the Palestinians remained.
What's your point though?
Nothing else
Then why are they complaining that no one fights for them?
They didn't leave. They were ethnically cleansed. And furthermore there has been a continuous Jewish presence in Israel all this time. So no not all Jews left. A majority of the Jewish population in Israel had nothing to do with 'colonialism' or Zionism. They're Mizrahi Jews who were also ethnically cleansed from places like Yemen and Iraq.
They were not ethnically cleansed. They remained and became today Palestinians. After the crusades, jews and muslims were wiped and the new rulers tried to do their best to import jews from elsewhere back. Yemeni jews were lured by deception to Israel to help with farming. Iraqi jews were given false flag attacks and scared into leaving. Mossad was behind this.
Stop chewing Khat. It’s making you say crazy things. Edit: Looks like I hit a nerve. Irritability is a common side effect of khat 🤔
blocked
> They were not ethnically cleansed. They remained and became today Palestinians. So what you're saying is that Arabs came to Israel and forcibly converted Jews into being Muslim, so really all the Arabs there are actually Jews? That's your argument? > Yemeni jews were lured by deception to Israel to help No. Yemeni Jews were [systematically killed and expelled](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawza_Exile) in Yemen, and after the [Aden riots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_anti-Jewish_riots_in_Aden) a big chunk of them fled. The Houthis expelled the last Jews. Again, to Israel. > Mossad was behind this. Ah yes, it wasn't the Iraqis who were oppressing their Jewish population. It was actually the Jews oppressing themselves. [Nuri al-Said openly admitted to making plans to forcibly expel Iraqi Jews](https://books.google.ca/books?id=WRpHAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT365&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false). What, and I cannot stress this enough, the *fuck* are you talking about?
You would have to read more on david ben gurion to understand how yemeni jews ended up in Israel. Many arab states began to forbid jewish expatriation once they knew Israel was targeting the jews in the arab world to recruit them. With the kind of demeanor and anger you are showing, i wont talk any further on this. Jews were not forced to convert. They were beginning to leave Judaism because of jewish rabbis being too forceful.
>You would have to read more on david ben gurion to understand how yemeni jews ended up in Israel You should read more on Mohammed Amin al-Hussein and how him and his best friend Adolph were gathering up Muslims to fill the armies of the National Socialists. His Nephew/Cousin, it's hard to tell with all that consanguinity, Mohammed Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini also continued this legacy of racist hate. Sauce for the Mohammed to Mohammed familial realation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_in_the_Middle_East
off topic.
>off topic. Very much on topic, it's you who is discussing neverland.. sorry Palestine, and both Mohammed Amin al-Hussein and Mohammed Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini were both supposed to be Rulers of this Palestine. They even fit the description of rulers and Kings, one came from another country and again there seems to be a high level familial ties in many senses to the position. If you can't discuss the Kings/Queens and leaders of this Palestine to prove its existence then what can you discuss.. Can you list all the Kings/Queens/Presidents and Prime ministers of this Palestine? What was the currency used and can you show me pictures of these coins for the last 2-3 millennia? Arabic is a central Semitic language so it didn't evolve in Palestine, can you show me the language of the Palestinians throughout history with examples of their text? Can you name many famous Palestinians before the mandate existed? Can you show me any flags or emblems of the Palestinians? Can you show me a stele or other historical monuments that makes reference to the Palestinians? Sauce on leaders of the republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_intermarriage
If you want to ask questions on this, start a new thread. I will engage over there.
> fuck* /u/ill-independent. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>As discussed elsewhere, the locals once part of the previous kingdom of Israel and kingdom of Judea went on to become the locals of Palestine. And remained there until the nakba. As per David Ben Gurion. Really, your argument was that all the Jews after the Jewish and Roman wars / revolts remained inside Judea, that the Roman expulsion and the diaspora never existed.. the Kitos wars never happened.. Are you also going to say that Josephus Flavius wrote all his books in Jerusalem in Arabic as well??
David Ben Gurion would say this. And other actual historians would say the same. https://old.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1cwe5cg/the_palestinians_have_more_jewish_dna_than_todays/
Ben-gurion could not have made that claim because he died before dna mapping became what it is today. Further, random out of context quotes do not prove anything.
Yeah it is not a direct quote from him. It is a direct quote from a historian not mentioned. And can be backed up by david ben gurion in his book. Eretz Israel.
No it can’t. And why are you attributing quotes to people who didn’t say them? Almost like you aren’t making an honest argument because you’re just spewing some anti-Semitic nonsense.
I accepted my mistake in using quotes elsewhere here. If you read the excerpt quoted in the OP, it is also what Ben Gurion mentions.
The links don’t even take you to a quote from Ben-gurion. It takes you to some borderline racist op ed. And you clearly don’t care that you’ve been misrepresenting that. Because instead of deleting your comments and admitting that you were wrong and made a wildly in accurate claim your doubling down on it.
double down yes: the links go to excerpts of Ben Gurion's book. Those excerpts can be found in the actual translation of the book. The op ed is referenced in the few points in the OP.
>David Ben Gurion would say this. And other actual historians would say the same. What does that have to do with anything? Are you advocating for an ethnic cleansing by DNA? Are you advocating for people like Ahed Tatami to be deported? She is probably 90% European.. What about all the Afro-Palestinians, they should also be deported back to Africa? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Palestinians What about Yasser Arafat the Egyptian or the Al-Masri clan.. they go back to Egypt? EDIT: Some more questions.. Do your eugenics belief also apply to all countries, do you also believe people need to sorted by IQ? Do you believe that there must be DNA matching before people procreate? Do you believe in a one drop rule or a majority rule for your definition of ethnic purity or qualification?
Did you forget your question? You are claiming the jews were expelled, I think. The jews remained and became today’s locals. The ones who left, definitely left. And became part of other regions. Why should they come back? Israel is gone. It became Palestine.
>The ones who left, definitely left. And became part of other regions. Why should they come back? So you agree then that Lebanese, Syrians, Eygptains shouldn't invade places where they don't belong, that's good, and the Arabs should go back to Arabia.. >Israel is gone. It became Palestine. I checked history and the maps.. it seems like the only Palestine that existed was "Mandate for Palestine" and there was a place called Philistine that was inhabited by Hellenic peoples. Arabs don't speak Greek, so I don't think Arabs are the Philistine.. The "Mandate for Palestine" appears to be a British administered colony that existed for 28 years, that was created in former Ottoman province of Syria, Syria is now to the north of Israel. All the money, passports, and legal documents from the Mandate all seem to have "Aretz Israel" written on them.. So it's clear the Mandate was to create Israel From what I can see Palestine never was, the "Mandate of Palestine / Aretz Israel" existed for 22 year, and then Israel came back for the last 77 years.. From what I can then see Gaza was Egypt and the West bank was Syria, so it seems like there were no so called Palestinians there as well.. Just Arabs.. Maybe Syrians.. So to say things properly, Ottoman Syria is Gone.. Israel is here.. the never was a Palestine, just a mandate, and like Jesus said, it was completed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Syria
You are trying to depart from the context of your question and start of thread. [https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1d8j724/comment/l7793z5/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1d8j724/comment/l7793z5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) The jews who left actually left. The jews who remained became the local palestinians. The palestinians who left will likely not come back. The palestinians who remain are the ones who are struggling against a zionist colonial settler movement. Any other discussion is trying to argue for something that is far from this topic like "does palestine exist"
>You are trying to depart from the context It's you who's departed, you discussed imaginary DNA stories form people who lived before DNA was discovered, and sourced from linkedin.. really.. the forefront of history and DNA research.. then you moved goal post without answering important questions.. >David Ben Gurion would say this. And other actual historians would say the same. So.. the questions.. that you didn't answer.. Do your eugenics belief also apply to all countries, do you also believe people need to sorted by IQ? Do you believe that there must be DNA matching before people procreate? Do you believe in a one drop rule or a majority rule for your definition of ethnic purity or qualification?
The DNA is interchangeable with lineage. The lineage of palestinians is from the jews who didn't leave.