"Gaza Island"

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

As I said, there are different types of colonialism. You are fixating on a specific model; however in practice, there are many variations.

Palestine is an example of "settler colonialism." The fundamental purpose of Zionist colonization was to create the "home country," and the raw material it supplied was land.

Settler colonialism

Congrats you've just found the correct term. Note that article makes a clear distinction between settler colonialism and Colonialism.

I'm sorry I've been a pain on some of the terminology.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Its just a subtle thing. You are right that the Arab revolt did more in the scheme of things during the first world war. I'm just pointing out that this was the first point when Jews began to favor working with the British, it becomes a much bigger driving force in the 1930s and 40s...you could call it the seed of things to come.

My understanding is that it could have been very easy for the people (Jewish) to reject Britain at this time. Long story short many Jews especially in Russia saw Germany as an ally and therefore by association perhaps the Ottomans. If they had fought on the wrong side I don't think there would be an Israel.

I think that Lord Balfour would have something to say about that.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Congrats you've just found the correct term. Note that article makes a clear distinction between settler colonialism and Colonialism.

I'm sorry I've been a pain on some of the terminology.

No, words in this context can have great meaning. For example, this is a from a article reporting on the excavation of Tell As-Safi (Gath) on Fox.com, http://www.foxnews.c...uys/?test=faces

Crusaders arriving from Europe in 1099 built a fortress on the remains of Gath, and later the site became home to an Arab village, Tel el-Safi, which emptied during the war surrounding Israel's creation in 1948. Today Gath is in a national park.

Here is the history of the matter from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_es-Safi:

In 1948, Tell es-Safi was the destination for the women and children of Qastina, sent away by the menfolk of Qastina at this time, but they returned after discovering there was insufficient water in the host village to meet the newcomers' needs.^[15]

On 7 July Givati commander Shimon Avidan issued orders to the 51st Battalion to take the Tall al-Safi area and "to destroy, to kill and to expel [lehashmid, leharog, u´legaresh] refugees encamped in the area, in order to prevent enemy infiltration from the east to this important position." According toBenny Morris, the nature of the written order and, presumably, accompanying oral explanations, probably left little doubt in the battalion OC's minds that Avidan wanted the area cleared of inhabitants.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I think that Lord Balfour would have something to say about that.

"Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely

Arthur James Balfour"

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

"Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely

Arthur James Balfour"

We know how well that worked out didn't it? White man does indeed speak with forked tongue (McMahon vs. Sykes-Picot Agreement, FTW). Land without a people, people without a land. Don't worry there's nobody that matters in Palestine and we'll just give them some smallpox-laden blankets to keep them quiet. We won't even bother to give them a name. It's not like they have Gandhi or anything, so don't worry about it.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Congrats you've just found the correct term. Note that article makes a clear distinction between settler colonialism and Colonialism.

I'm sorry I've been a pain on some of the terminology.

What article are you reading ??? The page I linked begins with a definition exactly in line with what I said:

Settler colonialism is a specific colonial formation whereby foreign family units move into a region and reproduce. Land is thus the key resource in settler colonies, whereas natural (e.g. spices, cotton, oil) and human (e.g. labour, existing trade networks, convertible souls) resources are the main motivation behind other forms of colonialism. Colonialism typically ends, whereas settler colonialism lasts forever, except in the rare event of complete evacuation, or settler decolonization. The historian of race and settler colonialism Patrick Wolfe writes "settler colonialism destroys to replace", and insists that "invasion", in settler colonial contexts, is "a structure, not an event".

After that, it gives the alternate opinion which you keep insisting on (the view that settler colonialism is not a type of colonialism) - introducing it with the words “This definition, by contrast, comes from the Settler Colonial Studies website”

Settler colonialism

So far, you’ve claimed that the Nakba was actually a “civil war” between “gangs on both sides” with “typical refugees;” denied that there was ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians pre-1967; and denied that the Zionist project was colonialism...

As has been wisely suggested already:

Please read the history from reliable sources.

Cheers!!!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

What article are you reading ??? The page I linked begins with a definition exactly in line with what I said:

After that, it gives the alternate opinion which you keep insisting on (the view that settler colonialism is not a type of colonialism) - introducing it with the words “This definition, by contrast, comes from the Settler Colonial Studies website”

Settler colonialism

So far, you’ve claimed that the Nakba was actually a “civil war” between “gangs on both sides” with “typical refugees;” denied that there was ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians pre-1967; and denied that the Zionist project was colonialism...

As has been wisely suggested already:

Here: "And settler colonialism is not colonialism: settlers want Indigenous people to vanish (but can make use of their labour before they are made to disappear)"

Here: "But even if colonialism and settler colonialism interpenetrate and overlap, they remain separate as they co-define each other."

And Here: "Colonialism typically ends, whereas settler colonialism lasts forever"

It somewhat ironic that I generally agree with you about the current day situation on the ground and yet you insult me as a "whacko" (thats that little emoticon your using...) One might almost think that you are on here for the sake of argument itself.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Sousuke

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Here: "And settler colonialism is not colonialism: settlers want Indigenous people to vanish (but can make use of their labour before they are made to disappear)"

Here: "But even if colonialism and settler colonialism interpenetrate and overlap, they remain separate as they co-define each other."

And Here: "Colonialism typically ends, whereas settler colonialism lasts forever"

Dude. You are taking the article all out of context. The first two quotes you just cut and pasted are taken from the second "alternate" definition. If that was the most widespread scholarly opinion, it would be given first.

The third quote you cut and pasted is lifted from the first definition, which I already posted in full. Taken in context with the whole passage, it is clearly stating the opinion that settler colonialism is a type of colonialism.

The best you could say for your position on settler colonialism is that it is an alternate to the mainstream opinion. However, your definition is one that is heavily pushed in the Zionist narrative....

Here's the whole thing, as it appears in the article I linked:

Settler colonialism is a specific colonial formation whereby foreign family units move into a region and reproduce. Land is thus the key resource in settler colonies, whereas natural (e.g. spices, cotton, oil) and human (e.g. labour, existing trade networks, convertible souls) resources are the main motivation behind other forms of colonialism. Colonialism typically ends, whereas settler colonialism lasts forever, except in the rare event of complete evacuation, or settler decolonization. The historian of race and settler colonialism Patrick Wolfe writes "settler colonialism destroys to replace", and insists that "invasion", in settler colonial contexts, is "a structure, not an event".[1]

This definition, by contrast, comes from the Settler Colonial Studies website[2]:

Settler colonialism is a global and transnational phenomenon, and as much a thing of the past as a thing of the present. There is no such thing as neo-settler colonialism or post-settler colonialism because settler colonialism is a resilient formation that rarely ends. Not all migrants are settlers: settlers come to stay, and are founders of political orders who carry with them a distinct sovereign capacity. And settler colonialism is not colonialism: settlers want Indigenous people to vanish (but can make use of their labour before they are made to disappear). Sometimes settler colonial forms operate within colonial ones, sometimes they subvert them, sometimes they replace them. But even if colonialism and settler colonialism interpenetrate and overlap, they remain separate as they co-define each other.

So stop trying to misrepresent.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Dude. You are taking the article all out of context. The first two quotes you just cut and pasted are taken from the second "alternate" definition. If that was the most widespread scholarly opinion, it would be given first.

The third quote you cut and pasted is lifted from the first definition, which I already posted in full. Taken in context with the whole passage, it is clearly stating the opinion that settler colonialism is a type of colonialism.

The best you could say for your position on settler colonialism is that it is an alternate to the mainstream opinion. However, your definition is one that is heavily pushed in the Zionist narrative....

Here's the whole thing, as it appears in the article I linked:

So stop trying to misrepresent.

Your talking about a wikipedia article...one that has been tagged for a lack of neutrality, original research, and unverified claims and you honestly expect us to believe the first definition is the "most widespread" If anything the first definition contradicts itself.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Your talking about a wikipedia article...one that has been tagged for a lack of neutrality, original research, and unverified claims and you honestly expect us to believe the first definition is the "most widespread" If anything the first definition contradicts itself.

Well you're the one who quoted it trying to support your position. Now that you FAIL you try to blame the source

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Well you're the one who quoted it trying to support your position. Now that you FAIL you try to blame the source

I did? You posted it??

Why are you so mean spirited may I ask?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

We interrupt this program for an update on the topic...

The Israeli Knesset has passed a law banning any calls for boycotts of Israel or its illegal settlements... this is kicking up quite a controversy....

Israel passes law banning calls for boycott

I did? You posted it??

Why are you so mean spirited may I ask?

Yes. I linked the article. And then you quoted it, saying that it supported your argument.

What makes you think I'm mean spirited ?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

We interrupt this program for an update on the topic...

The Israeli Knesset has passed a law banning any calls for boycotts of Israel or its illegal settlements... this is kicking up quite a controversy....

Israel passes law banning calls for boycott

Yes. I linked the article. And then you quoted it, saying that it supported your argument.

What makes you think I'm mean spirited ?

What you've written seems mean spirited to me...

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

What you've written seems mean spirited to me...

And I even put smiley faces on my posts trying to be friendly...

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

So back to the latest on the boycott and Israel's new law...

According to the law, a person or an organization calling for the boycott of Israel, including the settlements, can be sued by the boycott's targets without having to prove that they sustained damage. The court will then decide how much compensation is to be paid. The second part of the law says a person or a company that declare a boycott of Israel or the settlements will not be able to bid in government tenders.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-passes-law-banning-calls-for-boycott-1.372711

Of course many in Israel are calling it unconstitutional.... even the U.S. spokesperson didn't quite know what to say about it when asked to comment. There is speculation that Netanyahu's coalition will try to shut down many of the NGOs and human rights organizations there next.

It's interesting that as the Arab spring brings the promise of freedom and democracy for oppressed peoples in the region, the self-proclaimed "only democracy" in the Middle East is swinging further and further away from the concept.