No, Israel is not a settler colonial state, and here's why
- Thread starter contact
- Start date
Israel pops up new civilian communities inhabited by Israeli citizens, almost exclusively of Jewish ethnicity, built in violation of international law on lands occupied by Israel Every couple of weeks. That's the EXACT definition of a settler colonizer. Israeli settlements currently exist in the Palestinian territory of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and in the Syrian territory of the Golan Heights. East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been annexed by Israel, hOwever residents are not treated equivalently to the rest of Isreali in regard to their right to vote and own property because in the word of their prime minister of "justice" : " Israel can only be jewish or democratic but not both"
Last edited:
I can't believe we are arguing whether or not a state that regularly establishes settlement outside of its borders is colonial or no. Every international law says Israel is a colonial state. the next article is going to be something like "No, hitler did not hate jews at all"
LOL! Albert Einstein, Justice Brandeis, Jesus H. Christ, etc....or "Mena". Who to believe...
Doesn't matter who's ancestral land it was! If the native's formed a nation today and got foreign support to disposes Canadians of their land and annex it to their own country while making you second class citizens you would call them settlers. More than that, international law calls them settlers and they avoided prosecution by sheer bullying. It should scare you because one day we might be on the receiving end of this kind of injustice and we can't even rely on the law to make it right
I’m impressed. You sliced and diced the article in one sentence.
Another well informed human free from the classic dumbing down that Zionism demands of its acolytes.
Are you saying that Israel isn't the ancestral home of the Jews? if so, there's this thing called history.
If you want to argue that many Muslims in the region descended from Jews or others that converted during the Islamic expansion, you'd have a point but it doesn't seem like that is your point.
Reality is that ancient origins are irrelevant as there are millions of people living there today and the solution needs to take into account that neither group is going anywhere or has more right than the other. Sadly that solution also requires the Palestinian leadership to accept that the Jews aren't going anywhere.
Outside of the current issue with the settler movement, it is also important to realize that the conflict began as some Jews legally immigrated under the Ottomans and faced Klan like levels of hostility. It is also significant to understand that the Old City of Jerusalem (now East Jerusalem) had Jews as the largest religious group before European Zionism was even a thing and they were evicted at gunpoint by the Jordanian army.
Obviously two wrongs don't make a right but attempts to blame this entirely on Israel is at best based on a lack of knowledge.
And she didn't provide one iota of evidence to try to prove her point. Why would that be?
