Nobody has yet mentioned Argentina. Herzl gave it serious consideration as a Jewish homeland (note, not a state - early Zionism was not concerned specifically with nation-building but rather establishing an autonomous refuge), before ultimately deciding against it. But at one time it was a going concern.
Preferentially sparsely inhabited, not uninhabited. Locals were displaced at times, just in lower numbers than would have otherwise been the case. It’s not a black or white situation (none of this is), but a lot of land was purchased from wealthy Arab landowners in places like Beirut who had zero concern for the limited number of proto-Palestinian Arab peasant tenants that actually lived on and worked the land.
I’m pretty much with Mr. Dibble here. The creation of Israel was absolutely a colonial project. It was not an attempt to exploit (such an intent is not necessary to label something colonial), but rather to create. Nonetheless at times exploit it did, here and there, intentional or not. It would be insanity to label it as fully equivalent to the Belgian Congo with its “colonial genocide” and I guess that is the sort of thing that people are arguing against. But it really isn’t necessary to invent a new term. Israel was a colonial project, full stop.
Put me in the shoes of a Jew in the 19th or early 20th century and I absolutely would have been in favor of the creation of a Jewish homeland. I probably would have favored Palestine as the best spot (though, oh to be a gaucho). The state of Israel exists and that is a good thing for a variety of reasons. But really the world is one continuous shade of grey and one should be able to acknowledge the negatives that went into creating/have derived from the creation of a noble-minded project.
The white privilege is strong here. “This member of a minority group is explaining to me why, based on his lived experience, he found my statements problematic. But because my lived experience differs from his, I am going to declare that he is wrong and then infantilize him by breaking off the conversation because he can’t discuss the history of violence and discrimination against his people without getting all emotional about it. Because, you see, I am the objective and rational one here, forming my opinions without the burden of any relevant personal experience or historical context”.
What’s wrong with that? Why is every group that claims some unique identity entitled to a “homeland”?
So for the past hundreds/thousands of years there have never been enough Jews to constitute a majority in any place they’ve lived, and they either did not care to or were not allowed to assimilate into those societies. Why should any non-Jew care?
For whatever reason and without convincing support, posters claim they felt it was not good enough to move to the US, where many Jews had established thriving communities.
After WW2, they had enough international support and enough artificial lines were being drawn around the world, that they were granted a space that other people had been occupying. OK, you don’t want to call that colonialism. Fine. Use whatever term you find preferable. Occupation? Displacement of existing residents? In that space, the Jews would be able to be the majority, laying down the law and restricting other points of view. Basically like many other not terribly tolerant nation states. Sounds like a good deal.
But I disagree with the premise that any self identifying group - Kurds, Rohingya, native Americans, etc. - is entitled to a “homeland” in which they can oppress others in many of the same manners as they have felt themselves to have been oppressed.
No reason you should (“You” meaning both you personally and white people in general). Clearly, you don’t, you never have, and you never will. That’s why we got ourselves an army.
I have read the fucking thread. Thank you very much.
My display does not show post numbers, but the slider on the right seems to indicate that you did not post between 139 and 153. If you mean post 154 - where you mention the Immigration Act, nice goalpost moving. Many prior posts (not going to check whether they were yours) go back to the 19th century to support their claim of some longstanding creation of Israel. But now that it serves your purpose, you want to draw a line at 1924. And, of course, legislation can be revised - as the 24 Immigration Act was in 1952.
Did Canada exclude and oppress Jews? I’m sure them must have, because, as I have been convincingly informed, there was NO OTHER OPTION than to seize land where someone else was living.
What you may consider convincing when preaching to the choir, may not be so to others.
Good point. In fact, maybe Israel is unique in this regard. Can anyone think of a comparable project that did not have a colonial metropole (mother country) standing behind it? (Perhaps Liberia?)
As an outsider, I definitely have the privilege of not having this cut close to home for me. That said, some of the arguments made in favor of a dedicated Jewish state/refuge are more persuasive to me than others.
Most persuasive is the horrific attacks on Jews going back thousands of years. Having a place where Jews can feel safe from bigoted violence is crucial. I don’t know that Israel is a place where Jews feel safe from bigoted violence, especially after October 7–but working toward such a place is obviously a reasonable thing to do, and it’s appalling that anyone would minimize the importance of that project.
Less persuasive is the “ancestral homeland” idea. The number of years that a person can go back and claim that a place is their homeland is exactly equal to their age. If someone lived there before you were born, and they’re your ancestor, that doesn’t make it your homeland in any sense that should impact policy. My ancestors are Irish, but that doesn’t give me any political right to return to Ireland. I think some of my ancestors left Ireland under pretty hairy conditions imposed by the British, but that doesn’t give me a right of return. If I identify as Irish and want to live there, that’s great, and to the extent that everyone ought to be able to pursue their desires, I ought to be able to pursue mine; but that doesn’t give me priority over others.
But it’s absolutely true that Jews, more than most other ethnic groups in history, have faced repeated horrific violent persecution; and it makes sense that Jews want a place they can defend and where they can feel safe from such attacks.
What goalpost moving? We were discussing whether mass Jewish immigration to the US was permitted during the period immediately before and the Holocaust – which means between 1924 and 1952.
Without checking, yes, I’m sure Canada also did restrict Jewish immigration. But feel free to sarcastically make fun of refugees being turned away without even bothering to check the facts yourself.
It’s an interesting alternate reality to think about. Utah is effectively a Mormon enclave and it creates several weird dynamics politically and culturally with its neighbors. If, say, Idaho or Nevada were a predominantly Jewish enclave that would spice up electoral maps and whatnot. Also, the current political handwringing about migrants and refugees in the US would have a different spin if there was some permanent carve out allowing unrestricted immigration of Jews to the west.
What determines ownership of land to begin with? It seems like every piece of land at some point has had conflict to determine who can reside there. What is it about the formation of certain entities that raises questions about their legitimacy when other entities that are formed with just as much if not more violence are just accepted as the way things are?
Now whether or not Israel was or wasn’t a colonial project seems to be a question of semantics at this point.
Going back to the OP, desperate people doing desperate things are not colonist you say. That will surely take a lot of worry off the mind of my Mayflower descendent wife. Hopping on a ship for a months long voyage to an unknown land to escape religious persecution at home sounds pretty desperate to me. Familiar even. Suck it up, Squanto, we’re not colonists.
I feel great. Any other guilt you can wipe away for me?
Book plug: The Yiddish Policemen’s Union by Michael Chabon is a great mystery novel set in an alternate timeline where the Israelis lost the War of Independence and the US let the survivors establish a homeland on a small piece of the Alaskan coastline.
And why is this what you are worried about at a time when thousands of people have been killed in Israel, and thousands more likely will be? Someone might think ill of Israel because of how it was founded? Heavens.
The vast majority of people in the world live in a country where land was taken by one group of people from another. Its one of the things that we as human beings do best. Israel isn’t exceptional, it’s just another country doing what it believes is in it’s best interests, and sometimes that means other people getting screwed over. That isn’t a criticism, it’s just reality.