Frothers Unite! UK

Citizen Sade wrote:A more apt, though imperfect, comparison would be with Liberia. Should its establishment be classed as American colonialism?

I would say absolutely yes. There's so much crap said about this obviously colonial mess.

It claims to be the only African country that has never been a European colony. Bullshit! The area was Portugese until the USA dumped loads of ex-slaves that it didn't want anymore and it became the American colony of Liberia.

Duff wrote:So now we know, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia, most of South America and pretty much all of the Caribbean aren't the result of European Colonialism. And you wonder why people don't think your arguments are rational Broney.

Er no I don't actually. Not my problem if they are incapable of rational thought

Just one logical fallacy after another.

You need to get your colonialisms sorted out.
Most 'European Colonialism' wasn't 'Settler Colonialism' -ie the mass immigration and occupation of a country - it was economic domination to nick the 'colonised' territories wealth. The USA was mixed - an early refuge, rebellion against the reluctance of the European state to expand and THEN settler colonialism- initially 'internal' later bringing in a second wave of Europeans as immigrants into a 'cleared' country. Canada -more complex but look at how sparsely populated Canada was (and remains). Australia - not intended for mass migration for about 100 years.
New Zealand - accidental settler colonialism. Africa - economic not settler - except for a small Boer population in SA pushed northwards by British economic imperialism. Rhodesia - no - whites only ever about 5% max of population-after the post war influx - before that about 1%. Not really a 'settler' colony. Caribbean - economic - see the Western Design with a touch of religious mania about it from a Brit point of view but the Spaniards, Dutch and French wanted Gold and Silver. South America - initially economic moving more to settler as disease destroyed the native populations. Mixed - still many populations predominantly indigenous with colonial overlay, complicated by Roman Catholicism. India? Economic SE Asia? Economic.
So where does that leave Israel?
Certainly not in the 'European Colonial' model.
As I said, superficially much more akin to a mass migration settler/religious model. Except 'colonialism' involves taking land belonging to someone else. The area had been under Imperial control since the Romans. Jews had managed to survive and expand there despite Roman, Byzantine and Muslim attempts to destroy them at various times. If there had never been any Jews there, if they had all been turfed off 20,000 years ago and then come back, it would be colonialism. It wasn't. The UN offered mostly the Negev and a few other bits. We accepted. If the Palestinians had done the same they would have had a homeland for the first time since...well ever. They didn't. We're still working to get them something that isn't going to wipe out Israel.

And with that use of the word "Most", you destroy your own argument.

Duff wrote:And with that use of the word "Most", you destroy your own argument.

Why? 'Most' simply acknowledges that there were one or two mixed motive colonisations. The vast majority make the model not the minor exceptions.

The thing I'm principally arguing for here is precision of nomenclature. If there were a unifying reason for European colonisation it was economic profit for the state with a thin covering of religious conversion and 'cultural improvement'. Jews had no state, no desire to convert anyone and no desire to culturally improve anybody. There is no comparison whatsoever between 'European Colonisation' and the formation of Israel. All we wanted was land. Some of our land to live in again and be safe.

Bronshtein wrote:The area had been under Imperial control since the Romans. Jews had managed to survive and expand there despite Roman, Byzantine and Muslim attempts to destroy them at various times. If there had never been any Jews there, if they had all been turfed off 20,000 years ago and then come back, it would be colonialism. It wasn't. The UN offered mostly the Negev and a few other bits. We accepted. If the Palestinians had done the same they would have had a homeland for the first time since...well ever. They didn't. We're still working to get them something that isn't going to wipe out Israel.

We? From which Zionist apology site are you draining to provide this unutterable shite?

So, by extension, any group of people that has a remnant of the original population at any time can absurdly claim squatter's rights? Land was historically stolen by conquest and usurped throughout history at the point of a blade. The Jews were one of scores of groups that lost out. What makes the re-animation of Israel so extraordinary is that it was a recent (post 45) political confection that disenfranchised and disinherited another group of people at a stroke.

What makes it even worse is that Israel is completely disinterested in 'working to get Palestinians a homeland'. Israel is completely obsessed with stealing and building on as much land as possible, in the cynical conclusion that the UN isn't going to evict ensconced settlers with political backing.

Bronshtein wrote: All we wanted was land. Some of our land to live in again and be safe.

I thought 'you' were already living there? So who'd 'you' get the land off - the cat's mother?

Bronshtein wrote:All we wanted was land. Some of our land to live in again and be safe.

'All I wanted was to drive someone else's really nice car very fast late at night through South Yorkshire while a lass with a haircut like a pineapple noshed me off, your honour. Was that too much to ask for?'

'Case dismissed!'

Pat

Oh, and also

Bronshtein wrote: and be safe.

that's your definition of somewhere safe?
Pat

Sane Max wrote:

Bronshtein wrote:All we wanted was land. Some of our land to live in again and be safe.

'All I wanted was to drive someone else's really nice car very fast late at night through South Yorkshire while a lass with a haircut like a pineapple noshed me off, your honour. Was that too much to ask for?'

'Case dismissed!'

Pat

Seems like an equitable redistribution of wealth and privilege from the Capitalist class to the proletariat. I can see why the Judge was impressed.

Sane Max wrote:Oh, and also

Bronshtein wrote: and be safe.

that's your definition of somewhere safe?
Pat

Safer than Belzec.

Sane Max wrote:
Pat

Actually now you put it like that I can see the error of my ways. God! How wrong I've been!
Look at mighty Israel threatening all those tiny little Arab states.
How appalling!
Israel should try and make them feel safer at once.