Excellent article with so much great info; thank you.
I love "Decolonization advocates depict all European-derived nations as settler-colonial projects. But though their language is designed to delegitimize, even ethnic studies majors have enough political sense to know that Americans and Australians are not going to self-deport . . . Hence the appeal of Israel as a target: It is small, was founded relatively recently, and already goes unrecognized by much of the Muslim world."
Of course, Israel also offers the added attraction of demonizing the Jews, which seems to be the age-old hobby of choice.
The Arabs, who complain loudest about so-called Israeli settler-colonialism, are among the biggest practitioners of conquest and colonialism. Why is Islam the predominant religion in North Africa and parts of SE Asia if not for conquest and colonialism? Why are there Arabs in Tunisian, Libya, Morocco, Algeria if not for conquest and colonialism? What happened to Constantinople, once the capital of the Christian Byzantine Empire, and why is it now called Istanbul if not for colonialism and conquest? Where are all the Christians that once lived in Constantinople? Converted, exiled, or more likely slaughtered.
Ben Koan says he is “writing to the sound of no hands clapping,” well, I hope he heard me tap the “like” button. Extremely good info written extremely well. Thank you.
Pay attention to the language. Westerners like to use the term 'Settlers' to describe the Zionist-inspired return to Israel. For an American, the term 'Settlers' connects to wagon trains, homesteaders, felling trees for logs to build farms, cowboys-and-indians, fending off attacks, etc. But the term that is used by Israelis to reference those individuals returning to the land is 'Mitnachalim' -- and therein lies the difference. The Hebrew word 'Mitnchalim' is a noun [plural] based on the root meaning a 'stream' [Nahal] that is formed in the reflexive family -- a stream being a flowing body of water, less than a river. Combining the notion of a stream with a self-referential form yields the concept of 'inheritance' and the Mitnachalim themselves as 'inheritors' of the land -- not foreign settlers.
A classic story is the one where the early Zionists assumed the land of Israel was empty -- clearly a huge mistake. But not far off. A Turkish census from 1902/1903 showed roughly 100,000 Arabs and 20,000 Jews. The British census in 1920 soon after establishing their mandate, shows roughly 600,000 Arabs and about 80,000 Jews. No secret where the increase in the Jewish population came from: immigration. Where did the six-fold increase in the Arab population in 20 years come from? Also immigration! Why? Because between the influx of Jews [many small business folks], the completion of the Turkish railroad in the region, the influx of the British Army and administration and their need for camps, supplies, etc. Add in the endemic poverty of the area -- 90% of Egyptians were living below the poverty level. So it is not surprising to find a heavy influx of Arabs from Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Iraq, etc. etc. So do these academics want to portray all of this Arab immigration as 'Colonization' ? Clearly the Arab population in the region cannot be viewed as indigenous -- everyone came for better lives for their families.
I assume your “land of Israel was empty” story is a reference to the line about “a land without a people for a people without a land.”
First, this quip was made not by Zionists but by mid-19th century Christians who believed that the Jews should be restored to their historical homeland - giving their movement the name “Christian Restorationism”.
“The earliest recorded use of this phrase is owed to a clergyman of the Scottish Church named Alexander Keith. In 1843 he published a book titled ‘The Land of Israel According to the Covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob’, and in it he wrote the following about the Jews:
“a people without a country; even as their own land, as subsequently to be shown, is in a great measure a country without a people”.
The more familiar wording ‘a land without a people and a people without a land’ appeared one year later, in a review of the book in The United Secession Magazine. It is worth noting that Alexander Keith wrote on the matter from first-hand experience as he journeyed twice to the Holy Land. The first time was in 1839 as part of a church mission, and the second time was in 1844 with his son who also documented the journey visually.”
The only Zionist who might have used the formulation and over a half-century later was Israel Zangwill. But the idea was, quite obviously, not original to him nor was it a particularly influential concept in the Zionist mindset.
The land of Israel was the ancestral Jewish homeland and, as Herzl’s book made clear, the thought of peaceful coexistence was the movement’s original understanding.
Obviously, as Arab resistance mounted for a variety of reasons, but mainly as a theological anti-Jewish imperative, the Zionists followed several strategies but none was based on any fantasy that the land was empty.
Second, the reference to “people” was not to individuals - everyone knew the land was populated - but to a group of individuals who self-identified as a people, something the Jewish people did for millennia (am yisrael - the People of Israel) but the local Bedouin and clan-based Arabs did not. And when Keith first penned the concept, the modern idea of “nationalism” was in the air.
The misuse of the quotation by anti-Zionists, including its misattribution, can only be seen as deliberate and part of a well-oiled disinformation program. That’s the obvious strategy to follow when the facts are not on your side.
As for being on the side of indigenous people taking back their land, the marxists flip the script when it comes to Israel. If it's their belief that one is considered a colonizer or indigenous purely based on their ancestry even if they were born in America, then certainly Jews born in Europe who immigrated to Israel are to be considered indigenous to Israel and the "palestinian" descendants of Arab conquerors are the actual colonizers even if they were born there. Don't expect them to explain the inconsistency.
Excellent discussion of the dangers of one facet of factually incorrect Marxist theory and how its proponents distort reality and get people hurt and killed. I agree with all the author’s conclusions. My only very minor point of contention might be using Jared Diamond’s work as part of the basis for the discussion. Most of his work is good, but there are some glaring inaccuracies to some of his explanations of the Spanish conquest of the New World, which is irrelevant for the purposes of this article . Those don’t affect the validity of this author’s arguments. Israel is not a colonial project. And Jews are not colonizers. The Arabs on the other hand have colonized many nations and peoples, including the disputed land of Israel. They are in fact doing it now in Europe, North and South America and down under. Just because they don’t have marching armies and tanks doesn’t mean they aren’t colonizing you. Eurabia is happening in front of our eyes. In the end, as far as this type of activity goes, the peoples and nations with the best military capacity and moral/social cohesion will prevail or survive. Suicidal Leftist academics, and their political cadres, most of whom suffer from psychological pathology and corruption, are sacrificing their countries and themselves ultimately for theories that are based on nonsense and overt lies. The UN manifests all this garbage pseudo-intellectual rationalization in its despicable perversion of its mission with constant attacks on Israel. Dealing with this barrage is complicated, because people get killed. Understanding the lies is simple. These are Communists allied with Islamists.
The conqueror/colonization model existed in the Americas before and during the European colonization of the continent. Many of the indigenous tribes of North America conquered lesser tribes, kidnapping others for adoption into their tribe to increase the populations.
Consider this also, no mater where my ancestors went I was born as they were born, a Jew. Wherever they were they they were Jews regardless of location. So is location important for any reason other than to man's laws. I think not. I am a jew and I was promised by Yahweh the land of my forefathers. No matter where I am I am an alien living to please ayahqeh in some special way.
I agree with this article wholeheartedly. However, for those who moved to Baka, Rehavia, The German Colony, etc. and never learned Hebrew, I could potentially see an argument.
excellent analysis... thanks for clarifying and pointing out the hypocrisy and historical ignorance of the protagonists...
chanukah sameach
Zionism is unique. It cannot be squeezed into academic mood swings.
Excellent article with so much great info; thank you.
I love "Decolonization advocates depict all European-derived nations as settler-colonial projects. But though their language is designed to delegitimize, even ethnic studies majors have enough political sense to know that Americans and Australians are not going to self-deport . . . Hence the appeal of Israel as a target: It is small, was founded relatively recently, and already goes unrecognized by much of the Muslim world."
Of course, Israel also offers the added attraction of demonizing the Jews, which seems to be the age-old hobby of choice.
Again, thank you for this scholarship.
The Arabs, who complain loudest about so-called Israeli settler-colonialism, are among the biggest practitioners of conquest and colonialism. Why is Islam the predominant religion in North Africa and parts of SE Asia if not for conquest and colonialism? Why are there Arabs in Tunisian, Libya, Morocco, Algeria if not for conquest and colonialism? What happened to Constantinople, once the capital of the Christian Byzantine Empire, and why is it now called Istanbul if not for colonialism and conquest? Where are all the Christians that once lived in Constantinople? Converted, exiled, or more likely slaughtered.
Exactly…. The Ottoman Empire tried to claim Europe but the Carpathian mountains were a natural barrier.
Well if you ask them they say they never forcibly converted anybody. People willingly converted to Islam because it was just so awesome.
Ben Koan says he is “writing to the sound of no hands clapping,” well, I hope he heard me tap the “like” button. Extremely good info written extremely well. Thank you.
Pay attention to the language. Westerners like to use the term 'Settlers' to describe the Zionist-inspired return to Israel. For an American, the term 'Settlers' connects to wagon trains, homesteaders, felling trees for logs to build farms, cowboys-and-indians, fending off attacks, etc. But the term that is used by Israelis to reference those individuals returning to the land is 'Mitnachalim' -- and therein lies the difference. The Hebrew word 'Mitnchalim' is a noun [plural] based on the root meaning a 'stream' [Nahal] that is formed in the reflexive family -- a stream being a flowing body of water, less than a river. Combining the notion of a stream with a self-referential form yields the concept of 'inheritance' and the Mitnachalim themselves as 'inheritors' of the land -- not foreign settlers.
A classic story is the one where the early Zionists assumed the land of Israel was empty -- clearly a huge mistake. But not far off. A Turkish census from 1902/1903 showed roughly 100,000 Arabs and 20,000 Jews. The British census in 1920 soon after establishing their mandate, shows roughly 600,000 Arabs and about 80,000 Jews. No secret where the increase in the Jewish population came from: immigration. Where did the six-fold increase in the Arab population in 20 years come from? Also immigration! Why? Because between the influx of Jews [many small business folks], the completion of the Turkish railroad in the region, the influx of the British Army and administration and their need for camps, supplies, etc. Add in the endemic poverty of the area -- 90% of Egyptians were living below the poverty level. So it is not surprising to find a heavy influx of Arabs from Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Iraq, etc. etc. So do these academics want to portray all of this Arab immigration as 'Colonization' ? Clearly the Arab population in the region cannot be viewed as indigenous -- everyone came for better lives for their families.
I assume your “land of Israel was empty” story is a reference to the line about “a land without a people for a people without a land.”
First, this quip was made not by Zionists but by mid-19th century Christians who believed that the Jews should be restored to their historical homeland - giving their movement the name “Christian Restorationism”.
https://hebrewmonk.com/a-land-without-a-people-without-a-land/
The relevant passage follows:
“The earliest recorded use of this phrase is owed to a clergyman of the Scottish Church named Alexander Keith. In 1843 he published a book titled ‘The Land of Israel According to the Covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob’, and in it he wrote the following about the Jews:
“a people without a country; even as their own land, as subsequently to be shown, is in a great measure a country without a people”.
The more familiar wording ‘a land without a people and a people without a land’ appeared one year later, in a review of the book in The United Secession Magazine. It is worth noting that Alexander Keith wrote on the matter from first-hand experience as he journeyed twice to the Holy Land. The first time was in 1839 as part of a church mission, and the second time was in 1844 with his son who also documented the journey visually.”
The only Zionist who might have used the formulation and over a half-century later was Israel Zangwill. But the idea was, quite obviously, not original to him nor was it a particularly influential concept in the Zionist mindset.
The land of Israel was the ancestral Jewish homeland and, as Herzl’s book made clear, the thought of peaceful coexistence was the movement’s original understanding.
Obviously, as Arab resistance mounted for a variety of reasons, but mainly as a theological anti-Jewish imperative, the Zionists followed several strategies but none was based on any fantasy that the land was empty.
Second, the reference to “people” was not to individuals - everyone knew the land was populated - but to a group of individuals who self-identified as a people, something the Jewish people did for millennia (am yisrael - the People of Israel) but the local Bedouin and clan-based Arabs did not. And when Keith first penned the concept, the modern idea of “nationalism” was in the air.
The misuse of the quotation by anti-Zionists, including its misattribution, can only be seen as deliberate and part of a well-oiled disinformation program. That’s the obvious strategy to follow when the facts are not on your side.
As for being on the side of indigenous people taking back their land, the marxists flip the script when it comes to Israel. If it's their belief that one is considered a colonizer or indigenous purely based on their ancestry even if they were born in America, then certainly Jews born in Europe who immigrated to Israel are to be considered indigenous to Israel and the "palestinian" descendants of Arab conquerors are the actual colonizers even if they were born there. Don't expect them to explain the inconsistency.
Excellent discussion of the dangers of one facet of factually incorrect Marxist theory and how its proponents distort reality and get people hurt and killed. I agree with all the author’s conclusions. My only very minor point of contention might be using Jared Diamond’s work as part of the basis for the discussion. Most of his work is good, but there are some glaring inaccuracies to some of his explanations of the Spanish conquest of the New World, which is irrelevant for the purposes of this article . Those don’t affect the validity of this author’s arguments. Israel is not a colonial project. And Jews are not colonizers. The Arabs on the other hand have colonized many nations and peoples, including the disputed land of Israel. They are in fact doing it now in Europe, North and South America and down under. Just because they don’t have marching armies and tanks doesn’t mean they aren’t colonizing you. Eurabia is happening in front of our eyes. In the end, as far as this type of activity goes, the peoples and nations with the best military capacity and moral/social cohesion will prevail or survive. Suicidal Leftist academics, and their political cadres, most of whom suffer from psychological pathology and corruption, are sacrificing their countries and themselves ultimately for theories that are based on nonsense and overt lies. The UN manifests all this garbage pseudo-intellectual rationalization in its despicable perversion of its mission with constant attacks on Israel. Dealing with this barrage is complicated, because people get killed. Understanding the lies is simple. These are Communists allied with Islamists.
The conqueror/colonization model existed in the Americas before and during the European colonization of the continent. Many of the indigenous tribes of North America conquered lesser tribes, kidnapping others for adoption into their tribe to increase the populations.
The same in Africa! The Caribbean islands as well. As historians will note, groups overtaking other groups is human nature and in our genetic makeup.
A member of Substack threatened to murder a “Kike” and use his skin to decorate his home and Substack did nothing about it.
https://substack.com/@guidelinesnotenforced/note/c-88687078?r=569wkl&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
I like articles of this nature. Ai many thoughts.
Consider this also, no mater where my ancestors went I was born as they were born, a Jew. Wherever they were they they were Jews regardless of location. So is location important for any reason other than to man's laws. I think not. I am a jew and I was promised by Yahweh the land of my forefathers. No matter where I am I am an alien living to please ayahqeh in some special way.
Very interesting article. It would have been a great article had it been written in English.
I agree with this article wholeheartedly. However, for those who moved to Baka, Rehavia, The German Colony, etc. and never learned Hebrew, I could potentially see an argument.
That was odd to me…