Israel / Palestine News Thread

[zazen]

3 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

People always say this about colonialism, when it's obvious that's not the case. Colonialism is when a foreign power invades and settles in foreign lands, as the English, Ottomans, Spanish, Mongols, Romans, etc. did, keeping the polis as its center.

What happened in Israel was that there was massive immigration to a stateless land by a population originally from that land. It's a fact; you may like it or not, but you have to accept it because It's absolutely stupid to dedicate your life and the lives of your children to fighting against that fact. It shows that your life is so empty and stupid that you can't think of anything better.

If you were a slave in Egypt, forced to drag stones with whips to build pyramids, or an African in Louisiana, it's understandable. But if you're a Palestinian who's horrified because there are desecrations on the Al-Aqsa esplanade and you offer your child as a martyr, you're simply mentally retarded. It's very difficult to communicate with mentally retarded people. You have to use a language they understand, a loud one. 

 

Settler colonialism isn't merely interested in the resources of new lands, but also in the land itself in which to carve out a new homeland. The obvious issue is that if people already inhabit the land you must create a justification for displacing them from it. The common ''a land without a people for a people without a land“ slogan.

Settler colonialism is when: people from elsewhere arrive to permanently settle, they aim to replace or subordinate the existing population, they establish political dominance, they're backed by imperial/colonial power (Britain). That's exactly what Zionism was: European and other Jews immigrating, explicitly aiming to create a Jewish-majority state (requiring demographic replacement), backed by British colonial power (Balfour Declaration, British Mandate), establishing political structures (Yishuv institutions) to govern independently of existing population

Herzl who is one of the founders of political Zionism wrote to Cecil Rhodes in 1902 (a notorious colonizer) framing the issue as a colonial project that Britain should get behind:

“You are being invited to help make history,” he wrote, “It doesn’t involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor ; not Englishmen, but Jews . How, then, do I happen to turn to you since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial.”

Revisionist Zionist Vladimir Jabotinsky, in an essay titled The Iron Law (1925) wrote that:

“A voluntary reconciliation with the Arabs is out of the question either now or in the future. If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, or find some rich man or benefactor who will provide a garrison on your behalf. Or else-or else, give up your colonization, for without an armed force which will render physically impossible any attempt to destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is impossible, not difficult, not dangerous, but IMPOSSIBLE!… Zionism is a colonization adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important… to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot – or else I am through with playing at colonizing.”

Zionism as a ambition for a homeland is noble, but the logistical reality of the land in which they want to make home already being inhabitated requires viewing Palestinians as obstacles to be removed, subordinated, or in your own words treated as "mentally retarded" people who need violence to understand that they aren't truly being oppressed like slaves.

Every piece of land on Earth has been inhabited by different groups over millennia. A connection from 2,000 years ago doesn't override the rights of people currently living there. The Jewish immigrants coming in the 1900s-1940s were Europeans (Ashkenazi), Middle Eastern (Mizrahi), and others who had lived elsewhere for generations. They weren't "returning home" in any meaningful sense - their great great great grandparents many many many generations back may have lived there, but they didn't.

From AI

''If Native Americans were persecuted, fled, and returned 1,000 years later, would that be colonialism? It depends on how they return.

Scenario A (not colonialism):

Native Americans return

Integrate into existing American society

Seek minority rights, cultural recognition, maybe some land back through negotiation

Live alongside current inhabitants

Scenario B (colonialism):

Native Americans return with European backing

Declare they're creating a "Native American state"

Start immigrating en masse to achieve demographic majority

Establish separate institutions

Use force to expel or subordinate current inhabitants

Create a state where only Native Americans have full rights or are the majority where they can politically dominate

Scenario B is colonialism, even if they're "indigenous." Because what matters isn't where your ancestors lived 1,000 years ago - it's what you're doing now to people currently living there. And Zionism was Scenario B.

Strip away the narrative and look at material reality:

- People (many from Europe) arrived

 - To a place where other people lived

- With explicit goal of creating a state where they'd be majority

- Backed by colonial power (Britain)

- Displaced existing population to achieve demographic dominance

- Used force to maintain it

That's colonialism, regardless of ancient ancestry claims.''

Ancient claims don’t override the rights of current inhabitants - otherwise every border on Earth becomes contestable. Religious affiliation isn’t a land title either. Judaism spread as a religion, not a single ethnic line, so the idea of a universal '‘Jewish return'’ often means people whose ancestors converted to Judaism claiming territory on religious grounds.

That’s like saying two billion Muslims have a right to ‘'return'’ to the holy land of Saudi Arabia for some of that oil wealth - clearly absurd. Jews from Poland, Russia, or Ethiopia claiming automatic right of return to Palestine on religious grounds raises the same issue.

Most early Zionist settlers were Ashkenazi Jews who’d lived in Europe for over a thousand years - yet ancestry alone can’t justify displacing others. Building states based on genetic ancestry leads to ethnonationalism and exclusion of others based on genetics such as Hitlers Germany.

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Chatgpt:

2. The violence began for political and religious reasons The conflict arose when Arab nationalist and Islamist leaders incited the population against the Jewish immigrants. They argued that the Jews wanted to "seize the land" and "desecrate Muslim holy sites." Tensions grew due to rumors, religious discourse, and fear of losing political power. The first attacks (Nebi Musa, 1920, Jaffa, 1921, Hebron, 1929) were massacres of defenseless Jews, not responses to any expulsions. --- 🔹 3. The Arab expulsions came later (1947–1949) During the Israeli War of Independence (1947–1949): Many Arabs fled out of fear or on the orders of their own leaders, and others were expelled by the Israeli army in combat zones after almost 30 years of previous violence against Jewish communities.

Note how all those incidents occurred after the introduction of a particular idea (Zionism) backed by a colonial power.

From AI

''There were political and religious elements. But why were those effective in mobilizing people? Because there was a real, material threat to address.

You can't incite a population to violence against a threat that doesn't exist. Arab leaders pointed to Jewish immigration and said "they're coming to take the land and create a state" - and they were right. That wasn't paranoid incitement - that was accurate description of the Zionist project's explicit goals.

From the First Zionist Congress (1897), the stated aim was creating a Jewish homeland/state in Palestine. By the 1920s, this wasn't hidden - it was public Zionist policy. So when Arab leaders said "they want to seize the land," that wasn't a lie or distortion. It was literally true.

Religious framing (threats to holy sites, etc.) was the mobilization tool, but the underlying cause was the political reality of settler colonialism.''

 

Edited October 7, 2025 by zazen

[zazen]

@Breakingthewall

Under Israel’s Law of Return (1950), any Jew - including converts - has the automatic right to immigrate to Israel and receive citizenship. That includes you in Spain papi - even with no ethnic or genealogical connection to the region.

Meanwhile a Palestinian whose family can trace continuous residence in Jerusalem, Jaffa, or Haifa for hundreds of years has no such right to return if they were expelled or fled in 1948. 

That’s why many scholars and critics describe the system as ethnoreligious privilege built into a settler-national framework.

That’s how we get Jacob from Brooklyn settling his ass all the way in the Middle East:

 

Edited October 7, 2025 by zazen

[Breakingthewall]

12 minutes ago, zazen said:

Meanwhile a Palestinian whose family can trace continuous residence in Jerusalem, Jaffa, or Haifa for hundreds of years has no such right to return if they were expelled or fled in 1948. 

So the Palestinians could legitimately fight for the return of the exiles or for a state, but their fight is for Israel's disappearance. It has always been this way since 1948. The moment they accept Israel's existence, and so do other Muslim countries, the door to negotiation will be open.

For example the president of Indonesia 

 

Edited October 7, 2025 by Breakingthewall

[_Archangel_]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

There is a large peace push by the US currently.

I am going to suggest most of the UN assembly walking out on Netanyahu speaking was the final catalyst, among a hundred other factors.

Well, that's a big L for Netanuahu and his gov. And a big L for Hamas too, since i'm reading that they are accepting a disarmament.
Really hard to predict if they're both gonna be sticking to the peace plan.

[Twentyfirst]

On 10/5/2025 at 5:04 PM, BlueOak said:

Nobody living in Israel was around for its founding. They didn't create the conditions of their birth. The hatred they were born into surrounding them and threatening them every day. Yes they don't help themselves by escalating and their methods are barbaric, they remind me of Russia, but they have to defend themselves, or they'll be dead. Much like the Russians feel they need to do. 

They could leave and return to Europe. It's not just war against poor innocent people versus them dying. They can leave

If I was born in a place and they told me "your parents stole this land, now you have to shoot this kid in the face and you may die yourself" then I would just leave altogether. I'm not a monster or a dumbass

Edited October 7, 2025 by Twentyfirst

[Twentyfirst]

America’s obsession with Middle East | EXPLAINED | Dr.Roy Casagranda | Bidon Waraq Podcast

[gettoefl]

1 hour ago, _Archangel_ said:

Well, that's a big L for Netanuahu and his gov. And a big L for Hamas too, since i'm reading that they are accepting a disarmament.
Really hard to predict if they're both gonna be sticking to the peace plan.

It's either Nobel Peace Prize or all hell breaks loose. Either one is good in terms of poll numbers for me as president.

Edited October 7, 2025 by gettoefl

[Nivsch]

[zazen]

3 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

So the Palestinians could legitimately fight for the return of the exiles or for a state, but their fight is for Israel's disappearance. It has always been this way since 1948. The moment they accept Israel's existence, and so do other Muslim countries, the door to negotiation will be open.

For example the president of Indonesia 

 

AI:

''In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) formally accepted Israel’s right to exist on the 1948 borders and recognized UN Resolution 242, which calls for peaceful coexistence. That’s the basis of the Oslo Accords (1993).

Since then, the Palestinian Authority has officially recognized Israel and sought a two-state solution.

Hamas, yes, originally rejected Israel’s legitimacy—but even Hamas has, in later statements, accepted a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders as a “long-term truce,” implicitly recognizing Israel’s existence within those limits.''

All members of the Arab League and later the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)  which includes 57 Muslim majority countries have adopted the Arab Peace Initiative in 2002 which includes recognition of Israel in exchange for Palestine statehood just as the Indonesian president says in his speech. They've maintained this position till today. No one at a serious level is calling for the disappearance of Israel or that it doesn't have the right to exist.

But I get what you mean in terms of there being a lot of hate and rage against Israel among every day people - this is true. And now this rage isn't only in the Middle East or among Muslims but now in much of the world. The difference is that states behave differently to people - so the rhetoric we hear on the streets shouldn't be extrapolated out to the level of the state. I actually wrote about this before here:

On 6/5/2025 at 9:37 AM, zazen said:

I think there's a lesson here in clarifying the discrepancy between societal talk vs state actions. On one level we can have maximalist aspirations and rejectionist emotional rhetoric expressed on the street, whilst having more balanced pragmatic actions taken at the state - politics level. We see this in how Gulf nations take steps towards Israel (such as the Abraham accords) even though locals are unhappy with it  - because at a state level your operating via diplomacy, pragmatism, and state interests that are bound and checked by global norms, alliances, economic pressure, and military risk.

In Israels case however, societal aspirations do translate a lot more to state actions - because the usual realpolitik and structural incentives that are supposed to be there to constrain them, are instead pushed to their limits and exceeded thanks to being enabled by the worlds superpower the US. Israel gets to act on its darkest societal instincts a lot more than other states would otherwise.

A lot of the fear around a Palestinian state can rightly be pointed to the anger and maximalist positions they may hold at a societal level, despite at a organisational one being more pragmatic (such as expressed by the PLA or today by Hamas). But that fear misses how states function differently than stateless societies. Once Palestinians have a state with defined borders, international recognition, economic incentives, and responsibilities, their behavior will shift - not because their pain disappears, but because statehood tames maximalism. That emotion will be channeled into diplomacy, law, and survival strategy - just like it has for other national or liberation movements ie IRA in Ireland.

It's the absence of a state that keeps that maximalism alive. Statelessness breeds desperation while statehood breeds accountability - to allies, trade partners and global norms. Once Palestine is on the map, its government would be forced to prioritize stability, legitimacy, and international support, not slogans. Meanwhile, Israel which is already a state - has no excuse for its behavior. Its atrocities and massacres aren’t theoretical or projection, but fact.

Just see how at a societal level many Palestinians in the following videos hold maximalist positions, whilst at a higher level of state or political organisation they are tamed into diplomatic pragmatism in order to further the interest of their own people, even against their peoples own maximalism:

 

 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2025 by zazen

[Nivsch]

[Raze]

7 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

People always say this about colonialism, when it's obvious that's not the case. Colonialism is when a foreign power invades and settles in foreign lands, as the English, Ottomans, Spanish, Mongols, Romans, etc. did, keeping the polis as its center.

 

Quote

Many of the fathers of Zionism themselves described it as colonisation, such as Vladimir Jabotinsky who said "Zionism is a colonization adventure".[10][11][12]Theodore Herzl, in a 1902 letter to Cecil Rhodes, described the Zionist project as "something colonial". Previously in 1896 he had spoken of "important experiments in colonization" happening in Palestine.[13][14][15] In 1905 Max Nordau said, "Zionism rejects on principle all colonization on a small scale, and the idea of 'sneaking' into Palestine", and that instead it advocates "that the existing and promising beginnings of a Jewish colonization shall be looked after and maintained till the movement will be possible on a large scale".[16] Major Zionist organizations central to Israel's foundation held colonial identity in their names or departments, such as Jewish Colonisation Association, the Jewish Colonial Trust, and The Jewish Agency's colonization department.[17][18]

[Breakingthewall]

@Raze

 

🔹 What is colonialism?

Colonialism means that a foreign power (for example, Britain, France, or Spain) conquers, exploits, and governs another territory, usually for economic or strategic benefit to the colonizing country.

Clear examples:

The British Empire in India.

The French Empire in Algeria.

The Spanish Empire in the Americas.

Common features:

A metropolis (a center of power outside the territory).

Economic exploitation of local resources.

Political subordination of the local population.

🔹 The case of the Jews in Palestine

The Jews who immigrated to Palestine between the late 19th century and 1948 did not represent any foreign empire.

They were not conquering on behalf of a colonial power.

They had no metropolis supporting or profiting from them.

They came as a dispersed people (the Jewish diaspora) seeking to rebuild a national home after centuries of persecution.

Moreover:

They legally purchased large tracts of land from Arab and Ottoman landowners.

They were farmers, artisans, and intellectuals who founded agricultural communities (kibbutzim), not extractive colonies.

There was no external Jewish empire benefiting economically.

🔹 Why the term “colonialism” is used today

The phrase “settler colonialism” is used today mainly as a political slogan, not as a historical description.
Activists, especially from postcolonial or anti-imperialist movements, use it to equate the creation of Israel with European colonialism in Africa or the Americas.
But the analogy breaks down because:

There was no metropolis,

no imperial conquest,

and the Jewish people are native to that land, with an unbroken presence in Jerusalem, Safed, and Hebron for over 3,000 years.

🔹 Summary

CriterionClassical colonialismJewish return to Israel

Foreign metropolisYesNo

Economic exploitationYesNo

Displacement of native populationOftenPartly, only after modern wars

Historical link to the landNoYes, millennia-old

MotivationImperial expansionNational self-determination

💬 Conclusion:
The process of populating Israel with Jews is not colonialism in any historical or political sense.
It was a national movement of return, not an imperial conquest —a movement rooted in historical, cultural, and spiritual ties to the land.

 

Edited October 7, 2025 by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) formally accepted Israel’s right to exist on the 1948 borders and recognized UN Resolution 242, which calls for peaceful coexistence. That’s the basis of the Oslo Accords (1993).

 

 

🔹 1. What the Oslo Accords established

Signed between Yitzhak Rabin (Israel) and Yasser Arafat (PLO) under U.S. mediation (Bill Clinton), the Oslo Accords (1993–1995) aimed to create a gradual path toward peace and a Palestinian state.

They had three main pillars:

Mutual recognition:

The PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist.

Israel recognized the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

Progressive Palestinian autonomy:

Israel would gradually withdraw from parts of Gaza and the West Bank.

The territories would be divided into three zones:

Area A: full Palestinian civil and security control.

Area B: Palestinian civil control, joint Israeli security control.

Area C: full Israeli control.

Final-status negotiations within five years (by 1999):

To decide issues such as borders, Jerusalem, refugees, and security.

🔹 2. Why Israel did not fully comply

Ongoing terrorism (1994–2001):

After Oslo, suicide bombings by Hamas and Islamic Jihad increased sharply.

More Israelis were killed in terror attacks in the five years after Oslo than in the five years before.

This made much of Israeli society lose trust in the Palestinian leadership’s intentions.

Domestic political change:

In 1995, Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish extremist.

In 1996, Netanyahu (Likud) came to power, opposed to Oslo’s approach.

From then on, right-wing governments slowed or froze further withdrawals.

Unresolved issues:

Israel demanded full security guarantees before further concessions.

The PLO failed to dismantle its armed factions.

Key topics like Jerusalem and settlements were postponed indefinitely.

🔹 3. Why the Palestinians also failed to comply

The PLO never formally recognized Israel as a Jewish state.

Terrorist groups continued to operate —often tolerated or supported by the Palestinian Authority.

The Palestinian Authority did not build democratic institutions; corruption and internal power struggles weakened it.

🔹 4. The outcome

Between 1993 and 2000, there were economic improvements and some cooperation,
but no political progress.

In 2000, Arafat rejected the Camp David offer, which included a Palestinian state on about 92% of the West Bank and all of Gaza.
Soon after, the Second Intifada broke out (2000–2005), killing more than 4,000 people.

🔹 5. Summary

ActorWhat they failed to doReason

IsraelComplete withdrawals, freeze settlementsTerrorism, political shifts, loss of trust

Palestinian Authority (PLO)Stop terrorism, accept final peaceInternal divisions, Islamist pressure

ResultCollapse of trust and of the peace process

💬 Conclusion:
Israel partially complied (withdrawals from Gaza and Jericho, creation of the Palestinian Authority)
but halted the process after waves of terrorism and political change.
The PLO did not stop violence or build credible governance.
Both sides broke the mutual trust that Oslo required —and the peace process collapsed.

 

Edited October 7, 2025 by Breakingthewall

[Raze]

@Breakingthewall

I also don’t know what prompt you were using, because I got this
Result:

The question of whether Zionism was or is a colonial movement is a complex and deeply contested issue, depending on how one defines colonialism, as well as the political, historical, and moral lens one applies. Here's a breakdown of the main perspectives:

✅ Arguments That Zionism Was a Colonial Movement

Settler Colonial Framework:

Some scholars and critics describe Zionism as a form of settler colonialism, similar to European colonial projects in the Americas, Australia, or South Africa.

This argument holds that European Jews settled in Palestine, displaced indigenous Palestinians, and sought to build a new state, often with the backing of imperial powers (e.g., Britain via the Balfour Declaration of 1917).

Support from Colonial Powers:

Zionist goals were facilitated by British imperial support during the Mandate period.

Critics argue that Zionism benefited from colonial systems and worked within them to establish a Jewish homeland.

Displacement of Indigenous Population:

The Nakba ("catastrophe" in Arabic), in which around 700,000 Palestinians were displaced during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, is often cited as evidence of a colonial logic of replacement, where a new settler population displaces a native one.

 

❌ Arguments That Zionism Was Not a Colonial Movement

Jews as Indigenous or Returning People:

Supporters of Zionism argue that Jews are not foreign colonizers, but a people with ancient historical and religious ties to the land of Israel/Palestine.

From this view, Zionism is a national liberation movement of a historically exiled and persecuted people, not a colonial enterprise.

Lack of Metropole:

Classic colonialism typically involves a metropole (e.g., Britain, France) extracting resources and exercising control over a colony.

Zionists were not acting on behalf of a mother country, and Jewish immigrants were escaping persecution rather than expanding a state’s power.

Persecution in Europe:

Jews in Europe were marginalized, discriminated against, and later subjected to the Holocaust.

Zionism, from this angle, was a survival response to anti-Semitism, not an effort to dominate foreign lands.

🔄 Hybrid or Nuanced Views

Some scholars argue that Zionism had colonial elements (such as land acquisition and settler logic) while also being a national liberation movement.

Others use terms like “post-colonial settler nationalism” or refer to Zionism as a “unique case” that doesn’t fit neatly into colonial or anti-colonial categories.

Edited October 7, 2025 by Raze

[Raze]

@Breakingthewall

Here I asked it

If person A says (your post), and Person B says (my post), who is right? 

and got this:

To determine who is "right" between Person A and Person B, we need to break this down carefully and honestly. This isn’t just a matter of historical facts — it’s also a matter of how definitions are applied and interpreted, especially around charged terms like colonialism and Zionism.

✅ Person A’s Claim:

“Colonialism is when a foreign power invades and settles in foreign lands, as the English, Ottomans, Spanish, Mongols, Romans, etc. did, keeping the polis as its center.”

This is a narrow, classical definition of colonialism — the kind often used to describe European imperialism from the 15th to 20th centuries. It emphasizes:

A foreign state power,

Invasion and settlement of foreign land,

Extraction or dominance, with the "polis" (home nation or metropole) as the center of power.

This model fits cases like:

British India, where Britain controlled India from London.

Algeria under France, where Algeria was governed as part of France.

However, this definition doesn’t account for settler colonialism or non-state actors initiating colonial movements — concepts widely accepted in modern academic discourse.

✅ Person B’s Claim:

Quotes early Zionist leaders describing Zionism as a form of colonization, uses names of historical Zionist institutions with terms like “colonial” or “colonization.”

This argument relies on:

Historical self-description: Key Zionist figures used the terms "colonization" or "colonial" to describe their efforts.

Documented language: The existence of institutions like the Jewish Colonisation Association.

Evidence from Zionist archives and writings.

This supports the idea that early Zionists themselves saw their project in colonial terms — at least tactically or structurally. These were not just opponents calling it colonial; these were Zionists themselves.

It aligns with modern scholarly interpretations of Zionism — especially settler colonial theory, which sees Zionism as:

A movement of settlers from abroad (mostly Europe),

Aiming to establish a new homeland in an already-inhabited territory (Palestine),

Leading to the displacement and domination of the native population (Palestinians).

📌 So, who is “right”?

Historically and academically, Person B's description aligns with how many scholars today define and analyze Zionism — especially using settler colonialism as a framework. It also aligns with how early Zionists themselves described their activities.

Person A is using a limited and outdated definition of colonialism that doesn’t accommodate modern understandings like settler colonialism, which is academically distinct from imperial colonialism but still considered a form of colonialism.

So in historical, academic, and even primary-source terms, Person B is more accurate.

[zazen]

@Breakingthewall @Raze  Adding to your conversation from AI (battle of the AI’s lol)

1. Colonialism evolved beyond the outdated 19th-century definition

Classical colonialism (Britain–India, France–Algeria) involved imperial control from a metropolis.

But by the 20th century, scholars recognized a distinct form: settler colonialism, where the settlers themselves are the colonizing force, often backed by imperial sponsorship rather than direct rule.

Key examples:

United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa.

None of these were “metropolis-based” empires by the end — they were settler projects that displaced indigenous populations to build new sovereign homelands.

Israel’s case parallels those, not the British Raj.

2. Zionism had imperial sponsorship — the “no metropolis” claim is false

While Zionists weren’t acting “for” an empire, their success was enabled by one:

The British Empire’s Balfour Declaration (1917) explicitly endorsed “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.

Britain administered Palestine under a League of Nations mandate, which institutionalized Zionist immigration and land acquisition while restricting Arab political autonomy.

That is a colonial relationship: a foreign empire facilitating settlement by a non-indigenous group against the will of the local population.

3. “They legally purchased land” — factually partial

Yes, some land was purchased, but most of it was:

Bought from absentee Ottoman landlords, not from the peasants living on it.

Later acquired through force after 1948, when 700,000+ Palestinians were expelled or fled (Nakba).

By 1949, Zionist forces controlled 78 % of Mandatory Palestine, far beyond the partition allocation — achieved not by “legal purchase” but by military conquest.

4. The indigenous presence argument

Continuous Jewish presence in small numbers does not make 20th-century European migration a “return” in the political sense.

Using ancient ancestry as justification for modern displacement is like:

Italians claiming Tunisia because Rome once ruled it,

or Hindus claiming Afghanistan because of ancient Gandhara.

Historical connection ≠ political entitlement.

5. The correct academic classification

Modern historians and political theorists (Patrick Wolfe, Lorenzo Veracini, Rashid Khalidi, Ilan Pappé, among others) classify Zionism as settler colonialism because it meets the structural criteria:

- External migration backed by imperial power.

- Establishment of exclusive sovereignty.

- Displacement and replacement of the native population.

- Creation of separate legal and political systems privileging settlers.

Whether motivated by religion, nationalism, or survival doesn’t change the structure.

_____

 

[Breakingthewall]

39 minutes ago, Raze said:

Displacement of Indigenous Population:

The Nakba ("catastrophe" in Arabic), in which around 700,000 Palestinians were displaced during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, is often cited as evidence of a colonial logic of replacement, where a new settler population displaces a native one.

Seems that your AI forgot that the nakba was a consequence of the war declared to the Jews to expulse them. 

You can use the word colonialism if you want. We can also say we want to colonize Mars even though no one is there, but when we talk about colonialism, we're usually referring to the colonialism of great powers to dominate another country, not the colonialism of people who arrive to settle in a land.

[Yimpa]

3 hours ago, gettoefl said:

It's either Nobel Peace Prize or all hell breaks loose. Either one is good in terms of poll numbers for me as president.

Lol.

(Law of Losers)

Edited October 7, 2025 by Yimpa

[Breakingthewall]

17 minutes ago, zazen said:

By 1949, Zionist forces controlled 78 % of Mandatory Palestine, far beyond the partition allocation — achieved not by “legal purchase” but by military conquest.

You know that this was after a was declared by the Arabs, right? When you declare a war and you loose , then you shouldn't complain of the military conquest, that was precisely your goal

[Raze]

23 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Seems that your AI forgot that the nakba was a consequence of the war declared to the Jews to expulse them. 

I already answered this multiple times to you, once again you refuse to process information.

Let’s try it again:

Result:

🔍 Analyzing the Claim:

“The Nakba was a consequence of the war declared to the Jews to expulse them.”

This statement implies that:

Arab states (or Palestinians) started a war with the specific goal of expelling Jews, and

The Nakba (Palestinian displacement) was a natural result of that aggression.

🟢 What is true:

Several Arab states did invade Israel after its declaration of independence, with the stated goal of preventing the establishment of a Jewish state.

Some Arab rhetoric and propaganda at the time were hostile and inflammatory.

In the chaos of the war, mass displacement occurred, affecting both Arabs and Jews (though far more Arabs).

🔴 What is misleading or false:

The Nakba began before the Arab states invaded, during civil conflict between Jewish and Arab communities. Many Palestinian villages were depopulated by Jewish paramilitary actions (e.g., Plan Dalet) before May 1948.

The intent behind the Arab invasion was not necessarily a genocidal expulsion of Jews, but the prevention of partition and the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state or a united Arab Palestine.

Israeli forces expelled or caused the flight of many Palestinians, sometimes deliberately. In other cases, people fled out of fear or were encouraged by Arab leaders, but there's strong historical evidence of forced expulsions.

Prompt: If someone says “the nakba was a consequence of the war declared to the Jews to expulse them.” After claiming to study the relevant topics, what can we conclude about their intellectual integrity, how informed they are on the subject, and if they should be considered a trustworthy opinion?

Result: 

🔍 1. Intellectual Integrity

❌ Red Flags:

Over-simplification of a deeply complex and heavily documented historical event.

Use of loaded language (e.g. “to expulse them”) without historical nuance.

Ignoring a broad scholarly consensus that recognizes multiple causes of the Nakba, including deliberate expulsions by Zionist forces, chaotic war conditions, and broader geopolitical forces.

🟡 What It Suggests:

If they’ve truly studied the topic and still present it this way, they may be:

Distorting facts to fit an ideological narrative.

Cherry-picking sources that reinforce preexisting biases.

Demonstrating a lack of academic honesty or openness to complexity.

In short, it likely reflects a lack of intellectual integrity, at least in how they engage with this topic.

📚 2. How Informed Are They?

Possible explanations:

They may have only studied one-sided or ideological sources (e.g., nationalist accounts or politically motivated literature).

They might lack exposure to key historians (like Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappé, Rashid Khalidi, etc.) who provide more rigorous, nuanced, and well-documented views.

They may confuse political rhetoric (e.g. from Arab leaders in 1948) with the full historical record.

🔎 Assessment:

If they genuinely believe that the Nakba was purely the result of Arab aggression, and have dismissed or ignored the evidence of expulsion, village destruction, and Israeli military planning, it suggests:

Partial or poor understanding.

Lack of engagement with primary sources or critical historiography.

A possible reliance on ideological rather than academic frameworks.

🤝 3. Trustworthiness of Their Opinion

Given the above, their opinion should be approached with caution or skepticism:

They may be politically motivated rather than historically grounded.

They likely lack the balance and critical thinking expected from someone who claims to have studied the subject.

Their judgment may not be dependable in historically or morally complex matters, especially those involving competing narratives and significant human suffering.

23 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

 

You can use the word colonialism if you want. We can also say we want to colonize Mars even though no one is there, but when we talk about colonialism, we're usually referring to the colonialism of great powers to dominate another country, not the colonialism of people who arrive to settle in a land.

That would be settler colonialism. I didn’t use the word, I quoted the pioneering zionists themselves saying it.

Edited October 7, 2025 by Raze