4 ms·
In rough chronological arrangement: - The Balfour declaration, announced by a colonial power without permission or proofreading from the natives or landowners
by talldayo 2y ago
In rough chronological arrangement:
- The Balfour declaration, announced by a colonial power without permission or proofreading from the natives or landowners
- The consequential Arab-Israeli war
- Operation Cast Thy Bread and the introduction of ethnically targeted chemical warfare funded by the government
- The 70 collective civilian casualties from Qibya being raided by IDF
- The 400 collective civilian casualties from Rafah and Khan Yunis being raided by IDF
- Israel's routine violations of the 1949 Armistice Agreements throughout the 1950s
- The Six Day War's extended annexations and territorial reparations
- The passing of the Golan Heights law and the consequential defense of it despite international outcry
- The decades-long occupation of Lebanon and (entirely accidental) formation of Hezbollah
- The Ibrahim al-Maqadma Mosque bombing and other effects of "Dahieh Doctrine" as applied to civilian populations
- The "Blue Line" and subsequent disagreements concerning it crossing territory Israel does not possess
- The continued government support of the illegal and internationally disavowed settlement of northern Israel
Unfortunately, my family has lived too close to this conflict for a comfortable accounting. Israel' history is colonial, from the moment they were issued land by Britain (anyone remember the Raj?), to the modern day where they deploy the IDF to defend illegal settlements. Except for the US and Israel's own objections, those settled areas are unanimously not acknowledged as Israeli territory by the UN and EU.
Therefore, Israel is a colonial power. You can argue that they're one of the good colonizers if you want, but you'll need some pretty convincing evidence to justify 70 years of nationalism-fueled bloodshed concerning territories that were never part of their nation in the first place. Most Americans with internet access have started to realize that they can only support this occupation because it inherently necessitates Israel relying on American imported weapons. It's becoming a second "Pakistan situation" very quickly, and politicians are starting to realize it.
- wslh 2y agoI think you forgot thousands of history years before that. Who are the natives? If someone attacked my family in October 7th and much previous to that I will return fire without hesitation, like any nation in the world. Surprisingly you haven't mentioned the "recent" Oslo Accords. Do you think that Israel (colonial or not) should exist?
- talldayo 2y agoNothing you just said refutes the current colonial status of the Israeli state and their active defense of internationally abhorred occupations. My intention isn't to defame anyone with emotional candor, but rather to shine a light on the intractable fact that the Golan Heights are an illegally occupied colony, defended by Israeli conscripts and shielded from controversy with the threat of American soft-power. You asked how exactly Israel is a colony, and I provided a complete and internationally agreed-upon accounting of why that is considered the case. If you feel justified in killing people that intrude upon Israel without the intention of living there peacefully, then you know precisely how the natives felt when they were targeted and attacked by national defense forces at a time when Israel hardly existed. It's by no fault of today's Israelis that they live in such a terrible place. However, it is their decision to deny their sins (the occupations) and the world will judge them in accordance with those choices. Israel can still redeem itself by rejecting the nationalist notion of perpetually occupying territory they do not legally possess. It is a necessary precondition to meaningful liberal development of the Levant - the status quo is a nightmare scenario.
- wslh 2y agoIt takes two to tango: a two state solution was always supported by Israelis and Jewish people around the world.
- talldayo 2y agoI don't disagree. But two wrongs don't add up to one right, so nobody is really looking at the current situation as a net-positive. Israel is a colonial state that currently has a long way to go in renouncing the territory they do not rightfully own. It's the majority opinion, not an extremist or misconstrued take. Nobody ever had to "develop the idea" because it has been said by every single country that is not Israel or the United States.
- wslh 2y agoIsrael is not a member of the ICC, am I right?
- mr_toad 2y ago> The Balfour declaration, announced by a colonial power without permission or proofreading from the natives or landowners Right off the bat you’re implying Israel has no right to exist…
- talldayo 2y agoNo, I'm highlighting the part of Mandatory Palestine where it quite literally started out as a British colonial entity. I personally believe Israel has a right to exist. There are two fundamental claims that lie unaddressed and compromise the legitimacy of the borders Israel chooses to recognize for themselves: 1) The originally misrepresented Balfour declaration that promised land Britain had no right to administrate 2) The continued unrepentant settlement of the Golan Heights in spite of multinational, worldwide objection to the action The first issue does not make Israel inherently any more colonial than America, but does obviously start a blood feud with the native population. The second issue does make Israel inherently colonial and contradicts the idea that Zionism is not predicated on expansionist policy.
- mr_toad 2y agoYou argue that Israel’s colonial occupations in the West Bank are illegitimate, but the establishment of Israel itself, while colonial, is not illegitimate? That seems inconsistent. It seems a very common position for people to begrudge that Israel has a right to exist, but not really. Secondly, if the argument that the “native” population (which of course has always lived there, absolutely no migration) has superior rights than an immigrant population was advanced in Europe in order to get rid of said immigrants, then we don’t need to imagine what that would be called, it was a whole thing.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- aguaviva 2y agoNo, they're just explaining why they believe it is a colonial power.