You've taken this down a path that, imo, doesn't really have any probative value - the question is whether the Jews that declared independence were "European". I've shown that they most certainly weren't. So calling Israel a European colonialist enterprise is a non-starter.

So all of the following is sort of redundant. But, keeping in mind that this is all to determine whether or not the founding of Israel fits into the definition of "colonialism", it's with discussing to get a better understanding about where we are coming from.

the post hoc ergo propter hoc applies to your rhetorical question that suggested there was no Israel before Europeans came:
The fact that there was no Israel before Europeans came does not mean that the Europeans' arrival created Israel. But your premise is untrue anyway. A Jewish nation-state of Israel existed more than once in history. No organized Muslim nation-state has ever existed in what is now Israel. So historical rights are already Jewish. The question is whether they are superior to possession rights as held by the inhabitants of Israel before the modern re-establishment of the state. That's a legal question, and would require a tangent not worth getting into right now.

I posted that link to show that Jews are certainly indigenous to Israel, which you seem to understand and I appreciate that. Its refreshing to see someone actually open to reasonable discussion here. I don't think Mr. Bellerose's article is infallible - in fact, I reject his notion that anyone "gave" Israel to the Jews. The Jews declared their own independence, the Europeans did not declare it for them. If you're willing to suffer a little international customary law, foreign entities do not declare states to exist. They merely recognize states who declare independence bilaterally, if the recognizer is inclined to do so. The General Assembly resolutions (notably 181) are not legally binding unless agreed upon by all parties. As we know, the Arab states rejected it and it is of no legal force and effect. But I'll answer your questions. So:

Nobody. They reclaimed their land and that reclamation was recognized. This is the return of an indigenous people to their homeland and the re-establishment of their nation.

Not in a political sense. There were certainly several hundred thousand Arabs, Jews, Druze, Bedouin Arabs, Ba'ha'i and Christians living all over Israel, but they were far from an organized political entity.

Yes - that was colonialism. However, you are falsely equating the British/French colonization of the Ottoman Empire to the formation of the State of Israel, as if the former were an instrument of the latter. Again, the formation of the State of Israel was an example of indigenous people fighting against colonization by foreign entities. I already showed you that, while the British recognized the Jewish connection to Israel, in practice the colonizing British made it very difficult for the Jews, so it would be fairly disingenuous to say they were instruments of the same colonial enterprise.

The third paragraph does not follow from the first two. Let's review:

Colonialism, from your definition (which is hardly canonical), requires:
1) Indigenous population majority, foreign invader minority.
2) Relationship characterized by fundamental decisions affecting the lives of the colonized people being made and implemented by the colonial rulers in pursuit of interests that are often defined in a distant metropolis.
3) Rejecting cultural compromises with the colonized population, the colonizers are convinced of their own superiority and their ordained mandate to rule.

So all three are required.
1) Calling an indigenous people "foreign invaders" is fairly disingenuous, even if they were born outside of their homeland. The Zionists were not foreign invaders - as I've shown, they were an indigenous people returning to their homeland.
2) This is where it really falls apart. In the pursuit of whose interests were the decisions of the Jews made? In which distant metropolis? For sure the British Mandate was colonial in nature, but the Jewish state? Hardly. It was for the benefit of its own citizens and living on the land - not for some distant metropole.
3) It goes without saying that the State of Israel had no intention to rule over others - in fact, arguably it was exclusivist and avoided ruling over others to avoid becoming an actual apartheid state (as opposed to whatever the Israel-haters think an apartheid state is).

...which is why I think I owe you a well-reasoned response.

Until the last sentence, I agreed. The appeal to the Brits was important, since the Brits were the colonizers who controlled the land. It is colonization to appeal to a ruling authority to make political gains? Does that delegitimize the gains inherently? Does that turn an indigenous people into colonizers by virtue of pragmatic dealings with the actual colonizers? In any event, Jewish Zionist repatriation to Israel began long before the British Mandate - indeed 35 years before. Israel was an inevitability, regardless of the British Mandate, imo. if anything, the Mandate made it harder.

Suggesting that the ugliness only ensued the Brit/Jewish involvement is to completely ignore the history of how Jews had been treated by both parties up until then. I'll have a more detailed post in reply to thekid345 above.

In the meantime, here's a relevant Wikipedia article. It's Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt.

Dude seriously. 67 war was 45 years ago, how the hell Israel avoided ruling over others?

What else do you do with a population that long ago abandoned any aspiration for self rule in favor of achieving the absolute destruction of a neighboring population?

Unilateral disengagement has already shown itself to be an utter failure, twice. and just allows an enemy time to regroup, rearm and try again with better weapons better tactics and the experience of the past.

It's like they're hell spawn or something.

Hamas charter (bolded added by me)

Article 1 describes the Movement's program as "Islam".
Article 2 of Hamas' Charter defines Hamas as a "universal movement" and "one of the branches of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine".
Article 3 the Movement consists of "Muslims who have given their allegiance to Allah".
Article 5 Demonstrates its Salafist roots and connections to the Muslim brotherhood.
Article 6 Hamas is uniquely Palestinian, and "strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine"
Article 7 describes Hamas as "one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders" and links the movement to the followers of the religious and nationalist hero Izz ad-Din al-Qassam.
Article 8 The Hamas document reiterates the Muslim Brotherhood's slogan of "Allah is its goal, the Prophet is the model, the Qur'an its constitution, jihad its path, and death for the sake of Allah its most sublime belief."
Article 9 adapts Muslim Brotherhood's vision to connect the Palestinian crisis with the Islamic solution and advocates "fighting against the false, defeating it and vanquishing it so that justice could prevail".
Article 11 Palestine is sacred (waqf) for all Muslims for all time, and it cannot be relinquished by anyone
Article 12 affirms that "Nationalism, from the point of view of the Islamic Resistance Movement, is part of the religious creed" .
Article 13 There is no negotiated settlement possible. Jihad is the only answer.
Article 14 The liberation of Palestine is the personal duty of every Palestinian.
Article 15 "The day that enemies usurp part of Muslim land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Muslim". It states the history of crusades into Muslim lands and says the "Palestinian problem is a religious problem".
Article 20 Calls for action "by the people as a single body" against "a vicious enemy which acts in a way similar to Nazism, making no differentiation between man and woman, between children and old people".
Article 22 Makes sweeping claims about Jewish influence and power.
Article 28 Conspiracy indictment against "Israel, Judaism and Jews".
Article 32 Hamas condemns as co-plotters the “imperialistic powers”. References The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The preamble states: ″Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it″

What about the PLO tho?

Hamas is not representative of all Palestinians let alone all of the folks in Gaza. The problem is Palestinians in Gaza not only live in refugee camps but are also at risk of death/injury due to the IDF along with some of the Hamas folks. In reality, Hamas came to power because of the troubles between Israel and Palestine. Israel is to blame in part for the creation of Hamas as some of the (religiously motivated just like Hamas)policies of the Shas and UTJ parties of the Israel Knesset, and the Hesder military Program of the past/present are responsible for negative actions toward innocent Palestinians.

Problems come from both sides,

In any event what about the nature of Zionism ? Gamblor or chabibi some folks claim Zionism( the word Zionism does not appear in the Torah) was somehow a part of the Jewish religion, what are your thoughts on this?

Here is the wiki view,

Zionism (Hebrew: ציונות‎, Tsiyonut; Arabic: صهيونية‎, Ṣahyūniyya) is the national movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the creation of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the Land of Israel

Israel should have been more secular in its modern day founding back in 1949 rather then make Zionism such an important factor in its founding like it did. Because the word "Zionsim" is closely associated with Israel, not to mention how the religion of Judaism is closely associated with Israel, it would be extremely unfair to say that Israel is somehow better(human/economic rights) then a nation like the UAE. These 2 nations are on the same field and this is not a bad thing.



The facts are currently Jews control Israel, they have the military/economic power to do so and I see no logical reason why they would relinquish a large piece of land to anyone. But this is not the problem, the problem is folks from/in Palestine do live in refugee camps, some of which is based on their families being removed from their homes during the Nakba, along with the troubles which have arisen time and time again since 49'.

Not to mention the Jewish home party, 12 seats in Knesset. This is now over 30/120 seats in the Knesset which include religion as part of its stated policies. I have no issue with this in itself except when folks claim Israel is somehow above(in terms of being secular along with human rights) the GCC states(excluding Saudi Arabia) or Jordan, Lebanon and other Muslim majority nations.

http://baityehudi.org.il/

First of all, Hamas is the elected representative government in gaza, elected by the people. I'm sure there are some loyalties to fatah (if they weren't all killed by Hamas) but when a sovereign government (especially an elected one) declares war or in this case declares a stated commitment to genocide then that sovereign is responsible for its actions. To this day I have seen no popular movements or protests against hamas' stated goals in Gaza, like in Ukraine for example. Its a fair assumption that a sizable majority in gaza support and approve of the declaration "There is no negotiated settlement possible. Jihad is the only answer".


Fatah is no better

I included the entire hamas charter earlier, but the bolded is what I am concerned about. If the palestinians want an islamic theocracy that is their prerogative. the fact that that inevitably includes subjugation of women and non muslims and the eradication of homosexuals means nothing to me. The fact is that both fatah and hamas have explicitly stated (and continue to state) that their supreme goal is the destruction of Israel and eradication of the jews

Zionism has always treated jews and jewish identity in a secular view as a nationalist movement of a distinctive ethnicity. Israel as the jewish state is no different than The Arab Republic of Egypt, or The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
Now if you want to say israel is not different than these countries that's fine. In practice israel does a much better job guaranteeing the rights of its minority citizens, despite the fact that many of them are openly hostile.

As far as those still sitting in refugee camps across the arab world, i sympathize with them and I dont. I sympathize with the fact that they have been used as cheap dispensable pawns by arab governments. if they want to one day fight back against this oppression i will get behind that. I don't sympathize with the fact that they supported a foreign invader, participated in the fight or left thinking once the massacre is over they can double up on the loot.
Like every single displaced person since the beginning of time (including my family), if you cant go back, then you move on. every single refugee in the world that doesn't return within two years is no longer a refugee, with the exception of the palestinians. do you not find it curious that all refugees fall under one UN organization UNHCR, except for Palestinians who get UNRWA?

By their (and your) logic, the amount of money, property and compensation that i am entitled to from Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Germany and Iraq would make your eyes bulge out like a character from a bugs bunny cartoon. but I, and more importantly my grandparents live in reality, we have moved on.

It really doesn't matter neither Hamas or Fateh have the means to harm Israel.
Israel on the other hand have the capability to flatter the WB and Gaza ten times over.
Also eradication of the Jews wasn't mentioned in Fatah's Constitution imho.

Also the PLO charter became obsolete in 1998

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palesti...ional_Covenant

Here the new one
http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/osc/fatah-charter.pdf

And Jews who claim a right to return based on centuries ago.

The big difference is that dispossession did not stop in '48 or '67. People are still being uprooted in the West Bank. And the settlements are protected by a permanent military occupation -- becoming a refugee isn't the only form of oppression.

"calling Israel a European colonialist enterprise is a non-starter."

You're saying that the settlers weren't European and therefore the Zionist movement wasn't colonial in nature. I'm saying the creation of a homeland for the Jews in Palestine as a colonial venture because of the European sponsors of it, namely the British.

Where there was an Israel before the Balfour Declaration depends, I suppose, on your definition of Israel. I'm not concerned with whether there was a Jewish people; for the purpose of this discussion, I'm willing to concede the point, although I think it's not as clear as you seem to. The Zionists wanted sponsorship by one of the European colonial powers. They wanted a homeland and/or a state. No European sponsor, no state of Israel. No Balfour Declaration.

I disagree that the land was not given to the Jews. They certainly could not have become the majority population there without the British Mandate and the Balfour Declaration.

I'm also not concerned with the fact that there had once been a Jewish nation-state in what the Balfour Declaration called Palestine. I'm doubtful, since what we generally define as a nation-state certainly antedates anything BCE. I would also argue--but not here--against a "nation-state" asserting it's right of "return" to its "homeland" after thousands of years, but again, I'm willing to concede those points in the interest of concentrating on the points at hand.

I find your dissembling--my characterization, but I think justified--over the contemporary indigenous population ("not in a political sense") telling. I believe it was a contributor to the problems that ensued. It was, and is, a distinctly European colonial mentality that unless the natives have the political institutions that "civilized" countries have, they're not really politically important. Or not important at all. Which is why and how the Zionists presented themselves as agents of European modernism to be exported into an ocean of Asiatic backwardness.

In the sense that European rule over the other continents was inevitable, then Zionist success was inevitable. Without European domination, another thousand years could have passed without a Jewish state. Or certainly without one where it is located today.

Thank you for the compliment about being open to reasonable discussion. I used to know a lot more about the history than I remember now. But it seems to me that blaming the other side exclusively stands in the way of any progress and has always stood in the way. And understanding the history as what it was--a tragedy that was doomed from the start by assumptions on both sides that negated the legitimacy of the other side--could go a long way towards humanization of the "other."

The above is an unsourced, unsupported, convenient narrative, but unfortunately (especially for the Palestinian Arab political advocacy), its simply untrue.

The bald facts are that the Zionist movement was long established and progressing before European powers even got involved in the Levant.

To establish the facts: European involvement in the Middle East really was formalized in 1917 or so, with the Sykes-Picot Agreement. The British Mandate began in 1922.

Though Jews had continuously yearned to return to their homeland since the exile a thousand years prior, the repatriation movement really began to take off with Jews in Europe really as a result of the Dreyfuss Affair and Emile Zola's 1896 article J'Accuse, which really publicized the truly anti-Semitic nature of 19th century Europe, long before Hitler was a gleam in his father's eye.

Admittedly, it took that affair, in 1897, for European intellectuals to support Zionism and the movement took off with the First Zionist Congress in . But a return of the exiled Jews was always underlying Jewish religious and cultural thought. To say that it is a "colonial" enterprise, as if it was some effort by foreigners to take over the land of some other indigenous people, ignores and ultimately disrespects the entirety of Jewish history and culture.

But make no mistake - in 1897, Europeans were not controlling the Middle East, and Jews were already self-governing and developing a proto-state by 1900, 17 years before the European powers even turned their minds to the crumbled Ottoman Empire.

So this European "colonialism" narrative is simply false. Massive numbers of Jews were migrating back to Israel long before the British Mandate was even in the discussion. And a state was a de facto reality, if not de jure, long before the Mandate.

Fair. I'll agree to disagree here - but only to the extent that the previous "state" was not a forerunner to the current one; clearly, the Jews had a "self-governing organized political entity" or as close to a modern state as existed in those times.

I wouldn't say I'm dissembling there but this is a reasonable argument - the question is whether the Zionist presentation to Europeans for political support was congruent with the reality. As I'm sure you can guess, my view is that it is not. In any event, I haven't addressed the "contemporary indigenous population" to any extent - I'm merely pointing out that the mindless memetic repetition of "Zionism = colonialism" is taking the most superficial of views.

From the above, simply, no. Again: the Zionist enterprise had already established its proto-state long before the European colonial powers even got involved.

This is the truest paragraph you've written - especially about blame and humanization. Unfortunately, I'm not blaming or dehumanizing the Palestinians. And you've misread my intentons - my argument is that any reasonable solution must be based not on bull**** political narratives, but on fact and reality. If we try to find a basis for a negotiated settlemnt in what is fundamentally a lie (like "colonial Israel" and "apartheid Israel") it will be impossible to find common ground.

In a recent, stark example, Saeb Erekat, the lead negotiator for the PLO, claimed a couple weeks ago that heis the proud son of Canaanites in Jericho from 5500 years earlier than the prophet Joshua, who existed (we assume) 4000 years ago.. So Saeb Erekat is saying that his family was in "Palestine" nearly 10,000 years ago.

Well, he was certainly born in Abu Dis, near Jerusalem, but the Erekat clan, which Saeb is a proud member, migrated from Saudi Arabia and Jordan:
The senior negotiator is peddling an easily provable lie. Is this how trust is built?

Don't even get me started on who the real "Palestinians" are.

Here we are: there are Arab families with long, significant histories in Israel. And we aren't going to simply ignore people that deserve a chance to have a better life.

If we can respect the history and the facts, we can begin to respect the reality - that there are two groups of people with competing interests, different cultures, and varying histories in this land, we might get to the point where we can figure out how we're going to move forward together.

All these mindless pages and twisting of information....when all it boils down to is that Israel is a military occupation which took over Palestinian land. Do we believe that people should be allowed to go back to biblical times to claim land? No. What Israel should now do is give the Palestinians their basic human rights and not force them into ghettos. A Palestinian state would be the best security for Israel. However, expanding the boarders and putting people into desperate situations, while morally wrong, is also detrimental to Israels security. Then again, war man Netanyahu doesn't give a damn about peace. It is a real shame what happened to Yitzhak Rabin, maybe the good do sometimes die young.

Now I will leave the people (especially of the pro-Zionist persuasion) to carry on trying to twist things.

While I am not keen an any religious state (as I am for states for all), I would probably support a Jewish state which was say, part of Germany. After the crimes Germany committed against the Jewish people, the Jews should have taken half of that country (which would make more sense than going to occupy Palestine).

Pretty much end of thread.

lol, maybe just let the adults talk this one out. if there is a better example of complete ignorance masked by fancy human rights language like "dispossession", "occupation", and "oppression", I've never seen it.

What it boils down to is that people really think like this, pretending that what they read in a newspaper narrative bears any resemblance to reality.

It is the assumption, based on nothing more than some journalist's words, that the legal right to land belongs to the "Palestinians", whoever they are (Jew? Arab? Muslim? the PLO? Hamas?).

It is the ridiculous language of "ghettos" and "human rights" that are misused and only applicable to the side you like.
It boils down to the blind assumption that if Israel just ethnically cleanses hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes and sticks its neck out, we can assume that the Palestinians will simply say "ok, we're happy" and peace will reign.

It is the impossible assertion that Netanyahu is some kind of warmonger vis-à-vis Rabin, when Rabin was explicitly against the two-state solution.

And, finally, nobody here mentioned any sort of biblical right, so I don't know why you brought that up. The closest anyone (i.e. me) came was citing the bible as a written example of the Jewish cultural interest in Israel. It's a refection of attitudes. It's not a legal document in the contemporary sense.
Everything is simple when you don't know anything.

Gamblor, if not biblical, what right does Israel have to that land? As for human rights, it is not about 'whatever side you like', human right should apply to all. Israel is a military super power, they have hundreds of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. They have the most ruthless intelligence services. What do the Palestinians have? Thus it is on Israel to provide the basic human rights to the Palestinians. The way to defeat terrorism is to stop pouring gasoline onto the fire. Israel continues with the building of settlements.

As said, I do not support any religious states for Jews, Muslims, or Christians etc. I just support democratic states for all. However, given the crimes suffered by Jews at the hands of the Nazis, I would support a Jewish state in Germany. It would have made more sense to take half of Germany after the war, rather than occupy Palestine.

Seriously? I literally just said it. It has to do with the fact that Jews are not merely a religion but a nation in every sense of the word. And with nationhood comes national moral and customary legal rights, including having rights to land lost by way of conquest - even centuries earlier - that are superior to those who take interim adverse possession of the land. That right subject to certain criteria (including maintaining their claim, which I also showed Jews having done).

Of course. What about where the human rights of one group conflict with the human rights of another group? Oh I see you answer this:

What? Are you saying that if A has $10 and B has $5, only B has human rights?

Huh? How is that so? It is a legal and moral obligation for all people to just give everything they to the people who don't have such that everyone is equal? Do you play poker?

The idea that building a house is equivalent to blowing up in a supermarket is absurd, and the myth that settlements are an obstacle to peace has been debunked several times here. The most obvious reason is that the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, when Israeli settlement growth rates were at their highest.

That's fine. But literally zero people in the Middle East outside Israel want heterogeneous ethnic states. The Middle East outside Israel is rife with violence on the basis of skin colour, race, religion, everything. It is the political move of first resort. So no, there are no democratic liberal states in the middle east outside israel.

I have literally zero words at how senseless this is. I can't keep repeating how out in left field these arguments are. Try reading about the history of Jews in Israel.

Hmm, European borders would look really weird. In other words, you can't be serious.

I hope Mexico gets California back.

I didn't say I advocated irredentism. I only said that there are legitimate Jewish rights that compete with the narrative he proposed (that its "Palestinian" land).

Here's a book that sets out the legalities of the issue better than I could in a twoplustwo post.

One of the posts I've been meaning to make is about the claim that's been repeated several times here (most notably by thekid345) that Muslims were perfect gentlemen to the Jews prior to the establishment of Israel.

How true is it? Let's look at the reality. Before Zionism, before pro-Israel blah blah blah.

Here's a book rom 1676 entitled The Present State of the Jews. The book discusses the Jews of the Barbary, which is old-timey speak for North Africa:
The author is hardly a fan of the Jews - he closes the book with a plan for converting them to Christianity. So, despite thekid345's mantra, it sounds like the Jews never had it easy in Muslim-land.

Moving to the 18th Century Palestine, Giovanni Mariti wrote "Travels through Cyprus, Syria, and Palestine; with a general history of the Levant", and it was translated into English in 1792.

In the book there are descriptions of the everyday Jew-hatred in Palestine.
Carl Ritter, in 1866 writes The Comparative Geography of Palestine and the Sinaiatic Peninsula, Page 322:
[quote]


And, in Three Weeks in Palestine and Lebanon, written in 1846, on page 75:


I'm not comparing Muslim and Arab antisemitism to Christian and European antisemitism throughout history, nor am I saying that Muslim anti-Semitism didn't increase as Jews in Palestine started demanding rights - rights to return to their homeland, rights to buy land, rights of self-determination. All these rights that would be considered laudable for any people except the Jews.

The Arab and Muslim world at large has always regarded Jews as weak, spineless, second class people. Only when Jews demanded to be treated with respect - something that they had lacked for centuries under Muslim rule - did Muslims really increase their hate.

It's fashionable to blame Muslim antisemitism on Jews (via Zionism). But it doesn't jive with the facts.

It's somewhat irrelevant to me as an argument anyways. Israel is there now and it's not going anywhere, whether it was legitimately started or not.

Someone had to say this.

And it's true. Actually it's true for just about every country in existence.

Some really big ones don't even trace back that far, every country in Americas for example.

I obviously agree. My point (repeated from above) is that:
I'm not here to blame or dehumanize the Palestinian Arabs. My argument is that any reasonable solution to the conflict must be based on the truth - not the bull**** false political narratives like "colonial Israel" and "apartheid Israel". like "apartheid and colonialsm". If you aren't going to recognize that Jews are indigenous to Israel, that they've been persecuted for centuries literally everywhere else, and dismiss their existence in Israel as "colonial", or parrot any of the other nonsense bull**** narratives about this conflict, there's no way anyone is going to convince Israeli voters to support any sort of conciliatory peace initiative.

Israelis know better than anyone that there are Arab families/tribes/people/whatever with long, significant histories in Eretz Israel. And we aren't going to simply ignore people that deserve a chance to have a better life.

If we can respect the history and the facts, we can begin to respect the reality - that there are two groups of people with competing interests, different cultures, and varying histories in this land, we might get to the point where we can figure out how we're going to move forward together.

There are two theories of ownership at play here. In one, land is claimed by a national, ethnic group as a collective. In another, ownership is established individually through deeds and the rule of law. If you base land ownership on ethnic claims, you get endless conflict. In the case at hand, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have had their deeds abrogated since 1948 and it is continuing. This is justified not on real estate records of the British mandate and since, but on extralegal nationalist sentiment. As gets reaffirmed from Sudan to Rwanda to Palestine, nationalism is a trap of misery. Whether the call is for a greater Israel, or a Palestine from the Jordan to the sea, allowing nationalism to trump law means you prefer war to negotiation.