Sorry ,my friend, but the Zionist movement ceased to be colonialist ever since the second aliya. Ber Borochov condemned colonialism as early as 1905. The manifesto of the Poaeli Zion party (the largest Zionist political party in the 1910's), condemned colonialism as well. Furthermore the Zionist movement sent a delegation to the First Arab nation Congress held in Paris, in 1913, to offer an alliance to Arab nationalists. Ben Gurion went further by proposing the creation of a ''Semitic confederation'' uniting the Jews and the Arabs of the Middle East. As for the idea of a binational state, it was defended by marxist-Zionists who were the seconds largest political force of the Zionist movement until the 1950's. I think all this proves that Zionism was not a colonialist movement. Yes, the Jews established their state in a territory that was already populated, but they had no choice, they were a landless people. This is why it was right to allocate them a part of Palestine, because all peoples, including the Jews, are entitled to self-determination. And asking the Arabs who had a huge territorial patrimony to share a small part of it with the Jews, has nothing to do with ''colonialism''. Finally, dear Yitzhak, let me remind you a small detail. Until WW2, the Jews were not considered to be whites, but rather Semites (just like the Arabs). Herder even used to say that the Jews were Asians. This is what racial antisemtism was all about, a rejection of the Jews based on the fact that they were not ''whites'' and not ''Westerners''. Therefore, talking about the ''Westerner's role' of the Jews, when European Jewry was decimated because of the ''non-whiteness'' of the Jews, is ridiculous. Yitzhak Laor may be a good poet, but he is certainly not a good historian!
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Russian airstrikes boost ISIS in Syria, says U.S. envoy (Reuters)
from the article: Stop pretending