Very true and very well expained. A black British politician said Jews don't suffer racism because they're white, seemingly forgetting the holocaust, and the origins of the Jewish community. Thank you for pushing back I will continue to support you. An adjustment to the ideas about slavery is also needed as you have mentioned, I recommend The Forgotten Slave Trade by Simon Webb, it goes into great detail about the european slaves of Islam that went on for a thousand years before the transatlantic trade (and carried on into the C19th). Also, you mentioned in one of your interviews that you don't understand why people in the north of Afghanistan are regarded as caucasian but people in the south are not. This is because the people in the north are largely from the Persian Sufi tradition and some of those tribes have very light/white skin, they speak Dari (similar to Farsi) and are mixed Sunni and Shia; whereas those that live in the south are almost all Sunni and their language, Pashtu, is related to Turkish. They have little in common due to the religious, ethnic, linguistic, and philosophical divide.
"Black Americans had our own version of Zionism. In the first half of the nineteenth century, roughly 5,000 black Americans—some fleeing slavery and others fleeing Northern racism—sailed to West Africa and in 1847 founded the nation of Liberia: a black ethnostate meant to be a haven for African Americans. "
Considering how the Americo-Liberians oppressed the native Africans in Liberia (even to the point of denying them the vote and subjecting them to forced labor), I'm not sure your analogy is as good a pro-Zionist argument as you think it is.
I generally agree, but unlike the US, there has been no successful civil rights movement in Israel. While mixed marriages are accepted, they are forbidden by law to take place in Israel, different groups live in different and ethnically segregated neighborhoods, and so on... My take on this is that the logic of events is gradually pushing Israel toward a de facto Apartheid-like set of arrangements, which was always a possible outcome of the Zionist project. Had the Palestine political class accepted Israel's right to exist and to work toward a win-win situation for the Palestinians both within Israel and without, I believed that sooner or later, the Zionist dream would wither away, through inter-marriage, common employment, and ethnic integration at the neighborhood level. But, in fact, Israel is further away from that of affairs than ever before.
Although it is unnecessary to critique Israel with reference to other nations, to do so in order to argue that noncritical differences relieve Israel of blame for real and serious violations of human rights against people under its control is, at the very least, disingenuous.
Why the charge of apartheid is even controversial anymore shows a surreal lack attention to fact. Proof of guilt has been accumulating for decades, so whether it exactly maps onto South Africa or not is irrelevant. That apartheid is practiced in Israel is the conclusion of multiple experts and human rights organizations. The most eminent and unimpeachable individuals who have recognized apartheid are President Jimmy Carter, Bishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela. Organizations which work without obvious bias in mulitiple countries and find Israel guilty include Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the UN through successive special rapporteurs. In Israel itself B’Tselem believes Israel has satisfied the legal definition of apartheid under the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and the Rome Statute.
There is nothing absurd about seeing Zionism as a colonial project. That is, a foreign people with a different culture and language who have strong connections to foreign lands but who have only a slim connection to an already populated land come in large numbers, dominate that land for their own benefit and suppress the indigenous people. Liberia fits that pattern well, since African Americans “came back” to the continent of Africa, but not to the country of their origin. As Americo-Liberians they became a ruling class over indigenous people, who did not even have citizenship until 1904. English is the only official language of Liberia.
The Zionist project was a Western project from the onset, highlighted by the British Balfour Declaration sent to Baron Rothschild and by the early leaders: Ben-Gurion (Polish) and Gold Meir (raised in Milwaukee). The later influx of Mizrahi Jews came after the founding of Israel. Those not open to persuasion, were sometimes panicked into leaving by false flag operations by Jewish saboteurs disguised as Arabs. Israel needed them to outnumber the Palestinians.
Arguing that Israeli military rule of the West Bank is about security instead of a slow motion takeover of land and water resources ignores the obvious problem of the settlers. Adding more and more settlements which then require more and more soldiers to defend and more roads and checkpoints which divide the Palestinians into Bantustans makes no sense in terms of security. Withdrawal across the Green Line would actually make Israel safer and easier to defend. The expansion of Israel is the clear explanation. To Israel it is not the West Bank, it is Judea and Samaria. “From the river to the sea” is actually Israel’s ambition.
Finally, the promiscuous conflation of Hamas, founded in 1985, with Palestinians, is a slippery smear widely being used to discredit any and all Palestinians and allies.
This is a reply to SLGeorge of 10:23. My android app doesn't function properly.
It is interesting that you are ignoring the main point of my post. Both Hamas and Likud are evil, their tactics are unacceptable, and they must be removed from power. Their ends don't justify their means.
Your arguments regarding colonization are based on the past. Mine, vis-a-vis Israel, are based on the present. And by the way, my argument is not with jews or even with Israel, but with the Likud party.
Let's begin in 1967 when Israel got control of the West Bank. Those lands are occupied territory where it is illegal for Israel, as the occupying power, to place settlements.
The settlers are coming from a metropole consisting of Israel proper and the Jewish diaspora. In other words, from outside the legally recognized borders of the West Bank. This is entirely consistent with a settler-colonial project. Therefore Israel is colonizing the West Bank.
That's what we have with Eretz Israel. (The territory covering the largest extent of biblical Israel.)
Sure there are differences between Eretz Israel and Jim Crow south and colonial America. But the basic drive of the process and the effect on and response of indigenous natives is much the same.
Coleman's argument is a distinction with little significant difference.
The Jewish case for colonizing Palestine was biblical authority. The US rationale was Manifest Destiny. The effects of policy count more than motives. The ends DO NOT justify the means.
Israeli Arabs do have citizenship and voting rights. It does offer them a better life. But being only 21% of the population gives them very little political power. So they are no threat to the Israeli state or its freedom of action.
The confinement of the non-citizen Arab population is analogous to Indian reservation system in the US. As a further analogy, the Oct 7 pogrom against innocent Israeli citizens happened when the "Indians" left the reservation and committed atrocities. During the American Indian Wars, viscous atrocities were committed by both sides.
The American settlers, the Boers of South Africa, and all occupying powers have legitimate security concerns. Occupied people have an inherent right to resistance. After all they are being denied self determination.
In closing I want to state unequivocally that I condemn the brutal tactics of both Hamas and the IDF.
There are two evils in the Holy Land: Hamas and the Likud party (together with its coalition partners.) Both must be driven from power.
I couldn’t find a quote to use here bc this entire article was so damn good!!!
Absolutely brilliantly explained. As usual. Thank you Colman.
Very true and very well expained. A black British politician said Jews don't suffer racism because they're white, seemingly forgetting the holocaust, and the origins of the Jewish community. Thank you for pushing back I will continue to support you. An adjustment to the ideas about slavery is also needed as you have mentioned, I recommend The Forgotten Slave Trade by Simon Webb, it goes into great detail about the european slaves of Islam that went on for a thousand years before the transatlantic trade (and carried on into the C19th). Also, you mentioned in one of your interviews that you don't understand why people in the north of Afghanistan are regarded as caucasian but people in the south are not. This is because the people in the north are largely from the Persian Sufi tradition and some of those tribes have very light/white skin, they speak Dari (similar to Farsi) and are mixed Sunni and Shia; whereas those that live in the south are almost all Sunni and their language, Pashtu, is related to Turkish. They have little in common due to the religious, ethnic, linguistic, and philosophical divide.
Excellent and succinct explanation of the situation in Israel and the difference between Hamas Palestinians and African-Americans. Thank you.
"Black Americans had our own version of Zionism. In the first half of the nineteenth century, roughly 5,000 black Americans—some fleeing slavery and others fleeing Northern racism—sailed to West Africa and in 1847 founded the nation of Liberia: a black ethnostate meant to be a haven for African Americans. "
Considering how the Americo-Liberians oppressed the native Africans in Liberia (even to the point of denying them the vote and subjecting them to forced labor), I'm not sure your analogy is as good a pro-Zionist argument as you think it is.
I generally agree, but unlike the US, there has been no successful civil rights movement in Israel. While mixed marriages are accepted, they are forbidden by law to take place in Israel, different groups live in different and ethnically segregated neighborhoods, and so on... My take on this is that the logic of events is gradually pushing Israel toward a de facto Apartheid-like set of arrangements, which was always a possible outcome of the Zionist project. Had the Palestine political class accepted Israel's right to exist and to work toward a win-win situation for the Palestinians both within Israel and without, I believed that sooner or later, the Zionist dream would wither away, through inter-marriage, common employment, and ethnic integration at the neighborhood level. But, in fact, Israel is further away from that of affairs than ever before.
Although it is unnecessary to critique Israel with reference to other nations, to do so in order to argue that noncritical differences relieve Israel of blame for real and serious violations of human rights against people under its control is, at the very least, disingenuous.
Why the charge of apartheid is even controversial anymore shows a surreal lack attention to fact. Proof of guilt has been accumulating for decades, so whether it exactly maps onto South Africa or not is irrelevant. That apartheid is practiced in Israel is the conclusion of multiple experts and human rights organizations. The most eminent and unimpeachable individuals who have recognized apartheid are President Jimmy Carter, Bishop Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela. Organizations which work without obvious bias in mulitiple countries and find Israel guilty include Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the UN through successive special rapporteurs. In Israel itself B’Tselem believes Israel has satisfied the legal definition of apartheid under the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and the Rome Statute.
There is nothing absurd about seeing Zionism as a colonial project. That is, a foreign people with a different culture and language who have strong connections to foreign lands but who have only a slim connection to an already populated land come in large numbers, dominate that land for their own benefit and suppress the indigenous people. Liberia fits that pattern well, since African Americans “came back” to the continent of Africa, but not to the country of their origin. As Americo-Liberians they became a ruling class over indigenous people, who did not even have citizenship until 1904. English is the only official language of Liberia.
The Zionist project was a Western project from the onset, highlighted by the British Balfour Declaration sent to Baron Rothschild and by the early leaders: Ben-Gurion (Polish) and Gold Meir (raised in Milwaukee). The later influx of Mizrahi Jews came after the founding of Israel. Those not open to persuasion, were sometimes panicked into leaving by false flag operations by Jewish saboteurs disguised as Arabs. Israel needed them to outnumber the Palestinians.
Arguing that Israeli military rule of the West Bank is about security instead of a slow motion takeover of land and water resources ignores the obvious problem of the settlers. Adding more and more settlements which then require more and more soldiers to defend and more roads and checkpoints which divide the Palestinians into Bantustans makes no sense in terms of security. Withdrawal across the Green Line would actually make Israel safer and easier to defend. The expansion of Israel is the clear explanation. To Israel it is not the West Bank, it is Judea and Samaria. “From the river to the sea” is actually Israel’s ambition.
Finally, the promiscuous conflation of Hamas, founded in 1985, with Palestinians, is a slippery smear widely being used to discredit any and all Palestinians and allies.
This is a reply to SLGeorge of 10:23. My android app doesn't function properly.
It is interesting that you are ignoring the main point of my post. Both Hamas and Likud are evil, their tactics are unacceptable, and they must be removed from power. Their ends don't justify their means.
Your arguments regarding colonization are based on the past. Mine, vis-a-vis Israel, are based on the present. And by the way, my argument is not with jews or even with Israel, but with the Likud party.
Let's begin in 1967 when Israel got control of the West Bank. Those lands are occupied territory where it is illegal for Israel, as the occupying power, to place settlements.
The settlers are coming from a metropole consisting of Israel proper and the Jewish diaspora. In other words, from outside the legally recognized borders of the West Bank. This is entirely consistent with a settler-colonial project. Therefore Israel is colonizing the West Bank.
History doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme.
That's what we have with Eretz Israel. (The territory covering the largest extent of biblical Israel.)
Sure there are differences between Eretz Israel and Jim Crow south and colonial America. But the basic drive of the process and the effect on and response of indigenous natives is much the same.
Coleman's argument is a distinction with little significant difference.
The Jewish case for colonizing Palestine was biblical authority. The US rationale was Manifest Destiny. The effects of policy count more than motives. The ends DO NOT justify the means.
Israeli Arabs do have citizenship and voting rights. It does offer them a better life. But being only 21% of the population gives them very little political power. So they are no threat to the Israeli state or its freedom of action.
The confinement of the non-citizen Arab population is analogous to Indian reservation system in the US. As a further analogy, the Oct 7 pogrom against innocent Israeli citizens happened when the "Indians" left the reservation and committed atrocities. During the American Indian Wars, viscous atrocities were committed by both sides.
The American settlers, the Boers of South Africa, and all occupying powers have legitimate security concerns. Occupied people have an inherent right to resistance. After all they are being denied self determination.
In closing I want to state unequivocally that I condemn the brutal tactics of both Hamas and the IDF.
There are two evils in the Holy Land: Hamas and the Likud party (together with its coalition partners.) Both must be driven from power.
Was the land of Israel ever "colonized" by Jews? The "decolonization" crowd would say yes, but if so -- what Jewish country colonized Palestine?
https://carolinacurmudgeon.substack.com/p/if-israel-deserves-to-be-decolonized