View Single Post
Old 05-16-2019, 06:22 AM
clairobscur is offline
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,920
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Is there a term for people immigrating from outside an empire into an imperial province?

Very, very few of the Zionist immigrants were British citizens. Most were from Eastern and Central Europe,
That would be why I wrote "citizens from dominating powers" rather than "British citizen". The majority of the settlers in French Algeria were from southern Europe (Spain and Italy), not from France. Does that make it not a colonial entreprise?

If the USA occupies Canada and let Mexicans immigrate, that's fine and dandy and Canadians shouldn't have an issue with it?

and had no more rights than the Palestinian Arabs, nor did they receive preferential treatment from the British - except when it served their purposes. But then, a Frenchman would know about how colonialists like to play one part of the population against another.
Wait? The British got to decide who could live and who would receive preferential treatment in a foreign country? Indeed, that's totally not colonialism.

(Also, defining Mandatory Palestine as a "subjugated province" is not accurate. The British treated the locals as residents of a minor corner of an empire, just as they;d been treated for 200 years. If they were being subjugated, then so were 90% of the people in the world).
Not 90%, but a good chunk of the planet, at the time. Were they self-governing? Did they get to decide which policies to implement, for instance in this case wrt immigration? No? Then how can you assert that they weren't subjugated? Of course they were. What is your definition of "subjugated"?

In short, if the Zionists were colonialists, what country were they colonizing for? Not Britain, because they weren't British. Certainly not Russia, Poland or Germany, who didn't give a shit about them. So what? You can't be a colonist without a home country.
They were Europeans who thought it was perfectly fine and dandy to move to a remote place controled by an European power, and that the opinion of the locals on this matter was of exactly zero relevance. Like pretty much all other Europeans at the time. I don't see why many of them not being British change a thing.

And regarding the idea that this wasn't serving the interests of the United Kingdom, do you think that the Balfour declaration, for instance, was a completely random decision? That it wasn't made for a specific political reason, that was assumed to serve the interests of Britain? And wasn't it made without regard for the opinion of the locals? They definitely made a "gift", with the expectation that it would prove useful for the UK, at the expense of a population that would be soon under their control as a colonial power. Creating a Jewish state in colonized Africa was envisioned too. But creating one in the Midlands was notably never proposed.

In fact, the term you're looking for is "immigrants". The Zionists were immigrants into a country, and like any other immigrant, they had exactly the same right to the land as the natives.
Who decided they should be allowed to immigrate? Not the colonial power that had put itself in charge of the area? Why did they think that it was perfectly normal to move to an area where they knew they were unwelcome, because the colonial power in charge could impose it against the will of the population? You think that European Jews were exempt from the colonialist mentality, from the contempt Europeans had for the indigenous populations , and from the disregard for their interests and aspirations?

What makes the Polish Jew moving to Palestine with the blessing of the UK different from the Spaniard moving to Algeria with the blessing of France, exactly?
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.