I think history gives us a pretty good idea how it would have been treated as a “regional matter.”
Certainly British imperialism and American hegemony made the establishment and continuance of Israel possible, even if they didn’t precisely endorse it. In a “clash of civilizations” sense, it’s understandable that Palestinians might see Israel as a latter-day Crusader state.
I’m not gonna stake out a strong position here, because this is an area where I’m pretty ignorant–but “Jews aren’t Europeans” surprises me. I feel like I’ve spent my life hearing about Spanish Jews, Polish Jews, Russian Jews, German Jews, and other [European nationality] Jews. I would have thought that “European Christians are the people who spent most of the last couple thousand years” trying to kill “European Jews.”
This may be because I’m constructing identity according to American standards–but is it true that historically, most Jews living in Europe would have denied a European identity, or even an identity with the nation or kingdom that they lived in? That a Jew living in Spain would have denied that they were Spanish, for example?
Genuinely wondering, as this is new to me.
Even before then. The violence started back up in 1944.
ISTM it’s more that the countries of Europe, for most of its history, saw Jews as others, and far worse, and very rarely as fellow Europeans.
The OP makes a convincing case that the creation of Israel wasn’t a colonial project by the Great Powers of Europe. and I agree with that stance.
That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a colonial project. Jews coming from all over, not just Europe, doesn’t make it not colonial. Jews being oppressed in their countries of origin doesn’t make it not colonial. There being a very small existing Jewish population in situ doesn’t make it not colonial.
What does make it colonial is a distinct group of people moving into a region from outside and settling there, and structuring the running of the place in slanted ways for their own benefit.
Nationalism, IE the idea that we are all “Spanish”, is a pretty recent idea, all things considered. For most of history, neither Jews in Iberia nor Christians or Lusitanian Pagans would consider themselves “Spanish”.
The Dreyfus Affair was so pivotal exactly because in answered a question that was raging at the time. Can a Jew be a Frenchman? Alfred Dreyfus was a loyal French officer, but he was accused and convicted of treason because he was Jewish. Through the Dreyfus Affair, France resoundingly answered the question, “can a Jew be French”, with “NO”. This convinced many Jews who previoudly did see themselves as Europeans that this wad not possible, that their countries do not view them as natives. Thus, the need for a Jewish state.
After the Romans deported the Jews, the Levant was populated by Greek-speaking and Aramaic-speaking people, most of whom eventually converted to Christianity.
Arabic-speaking Muslims colonized the region by military conquest.
Was there significant Palestinian settlement in the region?
Of course there were Jewish communities that existed for hundreds of years in various European countries and developed their own cultures, so in that sense it certainly makes sense to talk about “Spanish Jews” or “German Jews”. And of course attitudes varied over different times and places. But the idea that everyone living in a country should be treated equally by the government is a product of the late eighteenth century Enlightenment. At least prior to that period, almost nobody in Europe would have considered Jews to be part of mainstream society. They were viewed as aliens, sometimes tolerated, sometimes not, but definitely not as integral parts of the nation they lived in.
And the Dreyfus Affair told the Jews of Europe that they were not included in that “everyone living in the country”, and that in fact the status quo of Jews being Others would continue.
If Jews has settled and been accepted elsewhere after their expulsion from the region, I’d agree with you; but they weren’t. If European Jews were allowed to become European, they’d be outsiders when they returned to the Middle East. But if we are considered “outsiders” in the middle east, “outsiders” in Europe, and “outsiders” in the Arab world, we have nowhere to go to.
Incidentally this is also why I believe the Palestinians need a country. They are outsiders in Egypt, outsiders in Jordan, outsiders in Lebanon.
One day I’d like to believe that nation-states will no longer be necessary, but in the meantime, a people with no state are endlessly victimized across the world.
That’s irrelevant to whether this instance is colonialist.“They had no where else to go” doesn’t make it not colonialism.
Hell, even some early pre-Israel Zionists openly acknowledged they were conducting colonialism.
What’s the difference between colonialism and de-colonialism them? Is de-colonialism just re-colonialism by people who happen to descend from the original population?
The flippant response here would be “Oh, you mean like the Romans did to us?”.
More seriously, I have a hard time with a definition of colonialism which doesn’t involve some element of volition on the part of the colonizing power; they could have chosen to stay home and leave those people alone, but they chose not to. That doesn’t apply here.
An analogy I’ve employed is that Israel is like a man leaping from a burning building, and Palestine is like the guy he lands on. Yes, Palestine is an innocent bystander who has been grievously harmed by Israel’s action, but those actions were neither malicious nor unnecessary. (Talking here generally about the wave of Jewish immigration and the subsequent founding of the State; I’m certainly not claiming that Israel has never done anything malicious).
Defining the Zionist project as colonialist sounds perilously close to the people who describe the arrival of large numbers of desperate immigrants at the Mexican border as “Mexico invading the US”.
If this is so, then the Jews of the late 19th and early-mid 20th centuries had to choose between colonialism or annihilation. There was nowhere on Earth they could have reasonably assumed they would have been safe.
And furthermore, if this is so, then colonialism isn’t always morally unacceptable, which I have a hard time accepting.
It’s decolonialism when *everyone who was there when it was a colony" gets to be free of the colonial power. It’s not decolonialism when you declare yourself free and then move a whole lot of people in who didn’t live there under that colonial power.
You’re saying the Zionists didn’t have volition?
Mexican immigrants don’t run America. That’s the difference.
Possibly. Even so, let me repeat myself;
It isn’t always morally unacceptable. Or … it could theoretically be done in more morally acceptable ways. Israel is for me morally grey-shading-to-lighter, but there are large parts of the colonial aspects I would prefer were not there.
Yes. I’m saying that the majority of Jewish immigrants came from places where they faced intense discrimination and were under constant threat of being murdered. So staying put wasn’t a realistic option. Sure, they didn’t have to go to Palestine in particular, but they had to go somewhere, and they weren’t going to be welcome anywhere.
The Zionists were shown very clearly that Enlightenment ideals didn’t apply to Jews. Those with foresight understood that something like the Holocaust would come. If they wanted self-determination, they had to leave.
And in 1948 if the Arab countries had held to the terms of the UN resolution that’s precisely what would have happened. Instead Israel was attacked with the goal of its enemies being the complete destruction of Israel and the killing or removal of all Jews from the region.