You want quotes. You declared that the foundation of Israel was not an act of colonialism because the Jewish founders were desperate.
You also said that “Colonialism involves powerful nations and organizations imposing their will on the less affluent and powerful, on their own territory, in an exploitative relationship.” The Pilgrim settlers of Plymouth were desperate, and they were not a powerful people nor organization. They were outcasts. Thus by your definitions, they were not colonists. Which of course is ludicrous.
It is also ludicrous to think that the foundation of Israel would have been possible without the support of powerful nations that viewed the creation of a Jewish state to be in their interest at that point in time. The Pilgrim settlers had their own reasons for wanting to find a new home, but they would not have been successful without the financial and military support of England. England, in turn, was willing to support this group of religious outcasts because they saw the value and opportunity in using their religious fervor to create a new City on a Hill.
Similarly, the original settlers of Israel had their own reasons for establishing a new nation, but they would not have been successful without the backing of powerful western nations. Nations such as the US and France who decided to aid, and later arm, the large scale immigration of a select group of people into a specific territory that was already occupied by a different group of people who had called it their home for centuries, because the US and France, and other nations, saw it as advantageous to their needs to have a Jewish state created there.
The pilgrim settler story is also a complete myth. Plymouth colony was founded not for religious freedom, but for the same reason as everything else in America: cold hard cash.
Ironically, precisely because none of these major powers were willing to help pre-State Israel, the backbone of the Israeli air force in 1948 was formed of Czechoslovakian planes built out of defunct German planes.
Israel had some Spitfires, too, again purchased from Czechoslovakia.
The Arab countries had Spitfires of their own, but unlike Israel their planes were given to them by the departing British.
After the invasion: France allowed aircraft carrying arms from Czechoslovakia to land on French territory in transit to Israel, and permitted two arms shipments to ‘Nicaragua’, which were actually intended for Israel.[[110]]
I will reply to both of your questions here. I did not claim that the British assisted the Jewish settlement. I said that England, supported religious outcasts create a new City On A Hill. The City On A Hill is Boston, Massachusetts. Sort of a famous use of the term, John Winthrop quoting Jesus.
I also referred to England, not Great Britain, since Great Britain did not exist when the Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies were settled.
As for the foundation of Plymouth, there is myth but there were also people who decided to take a risk for their religion, and sometimes it got messy. Sort of like the foundation of Israel. But I also specifically said that there were some people who were involved for religious reasons, and some who were involved for reasons of value and opportunity. Again, like the foundation of Israel - some people were involved for religious reasons, and some because they had ulterior motives.
History is messy. People are messy, and often have multiple reasons for doing things. And sometimes the people on the ground aren’t even aware of some of the outside forces that are involved. Half of the original British settlers of Australia were convicts. I don’t think they viewed it as a growth opportunity. But they were colonists, and today their descendants view it as a point of pride.
But let me ask - putting aside whether it is true or not, why would it matter if outside powers had neo-colonial motives to assist the founding of Israel? Does that somehow diminish the accomplishments of the founders of Israel?
Gotcha. I misunderstood and thought you meant Britain and Israel.
Well, in that case, England definitely didn’t support the colonists out of a desire to see their city on a hill succeed. They supported the colonists because the colonies were investments, the property of English people back in England.
I have read it. I am aware of the history of the Zionist movement. Let me requote myself back to you.
some people who were involved for religious reasons
Are you claiming that nobody involved in the foundation of Israel did it for religious reasons?
Although interestingly enough, my quote was referring to the settlement of Plymouth. Which is twice you have made that mistake. So perhaps you are the one who should be reading a bit more closely.
OK, so you see we are getting closer to agreement here. You are absolutely correct that the English Crown and major English business interest weren’t very interested about founding a City On A Hill. That was the wish of a small group of very religious people. The two groups had different reasons for wanting to establish a new colony.
Similarly, there were multiple people, and nations, and groups, who were interested in the establishment of Israel. Some for religious reasons, some to establish (or reestablish) a Jewish state (whether a secular or religious Jewish state). And some nations got involved because they felt political pressure from Jewish citizens, or they were concerned about the Soviet Union taking advantage of the weakened French and British Empires and moving into the oil rich lands of the Middle East. There isn’t a single answer, and to pretend there is is just myth making.
I work at a National Park that is dedicated to religious freedom and the establishment of a New England colony. And we also frequently meet and work with the Wampanoag and other local tribes to make sure that their story is also being told. Because there are ridiculous myths about Plymouth that have taken hold because they are easier to tell, and easier to accept than the messy reality of colonization and war. That doesn’t mean that we don’t celebrate the accomplishments of those settlers, but it is balanced with multiple viewpoints and harsh truths.
This is often hard for Americans to wrap their minds around, but YES, that’s the case. If by “involved in the foundation of Israel” we mean “actively engaged in the political/military struggle for independence in the 30s and 40s”, then yes, not literally nobody, but a rounding error’s worth of folks did so for religious reasons…if by “religious reasons” we mean something like “feeling religiously obligated to create the new State of Israel, or to ensure said State was in the same place as the old one”.
Obviously it’s not a coincidence that they picked that particular piece of land to found their State on, but early Zionists would have explained that in terms of “our people’s longstanding cultural tradition”, not in terms of some literal interpretation of Deuteronomy. They saw themselves as modern nationalists, no different than French or German nationalists except for the inconvenient lack of territory; their claim to nationhood derived from a common culture and language, not from legends about some celestial tart throwing some tablets at them.
There has been a continuous Jewish presence in Palestine for 3000 years, and in the mid-19th century that community was intensely religious. From the mid-19th century on, there was always a trickle of refugees from pogroms and poverty in Eastern Europe. These folks, for the most part, were quite pious and had religious reasons for choosing to flee there in particular. But these people, although they considered it spiritually crucial to live in the Land of Israel, almost universally regarded any attempt to establish a State of Israel as a sinful distraction from Talmud study.
So, to address a point in your next post, it is not true that “some” came to establish a “religious” Jewish State. For all practical purposes, the number of people in the 1940s who wanted to establish a State based on Jewish law in Palestine, and who claimed Scripture as their authority for doing so, was zero. The malignancy known as “Religious Zionism”, which is now so prominent in Israeli politics, didn’t appear until a generation later.
Another minor point of correction: The USSR and USA were the first two countries to recognize Israel. Communists were a significant political faction in early Israel, and Israel was strictly neutral in the Cold War at first. Eventually, of course, it drifted firmly into the Western orbit, but that certainly wasn’t a predictable outcome at the time of Independence.
On further thought, I’ll walk that back a bit. There were a nontrivial number of these people, but their strategy for establishing such a State was “Pray, fast, and rend garments until a miraculous supernatural intervention occurs”. So, not a lot of practical impact on the body politic there.
You’re perfectly free to not care. But it’s kind of strange that when the Jews decided to do something about their status, suddenly you care about that a lot.
What you have previously been explained is, as a consequence of the above fact, Jewish people around the world have been the targets of endless pogroms and ethnic cleansings, culminating with the Holocaust. All in all, an enormous amount of human suffering or death. And even at the best of times, when violence wasn’t as much of a threat, Jewish people remained second class citizens.
And your response to this is “OK, but I’m not Jewish, so what do I care whether this situation continues or not?”.
Imagine a world where the British were far more hostile to the Irish, and where they conquer it much earlier, in the Middle Ages. Imagine that rather than just not prioritizing Irish lives over profits the British actively used the famines as an excuse to totally ethnically cleanse the Irish from Ireland through forced deportation to the American colonies, “Anglicizing” the land completely.
Imagine that the Irish who made it to America were treated even worse than they already were in our world, with frequent pogroms burning Irish quarters of Boston to the ground every few years. Eventually the Irish are only allowed to live in these specific parts of cities, and eventually the Americans embark on a campaign of systemic slaughter, killing millions of Irish people.
Meanwhile, the British had mellowed out over the years and started allowing Irish people back, and during the last World War had lost their empire (including Ireland) to France. And now the French are looking to get out of Ireland, so they allow more Irish people to migrate back in. And eventually they split Ireland into two independent countries, one Irish and one Anglo.
I think in that scenario I would definitely support the Irish in their homeland.
I would support the Irish in that scenario, I think–but not because it’s their ancestral homeland. That’s the part I find unpersuasive. Where your distant ancestors lived long before you were born is not relevant to modern public policy.