Yes, let’s focus on that Jewish extremist group the “just” NY Times delights in pointing out

[Roudy]

I am posting exactly what the Zionists stated they planned to do. They also stated the same thing in 1896. The European Jews clearly stated their plan to colonize and dispossess the native Palestinians at that time.

Zionists plan to colonize Palestine in 1899 NY Times

and, in 1899 stating that the English Zionist Federation were planning to "re-establish Judea as an independent state". What do you think they were planning for the native Christians and Muslims back in 1899? Of course it was a sinister plan. It was a stated plan to dispossess that native people of Palestine confirmed in print as a newspaper

They have little understanding that the Jewish people were encouraged to come to live permanently in a in the territory under the Mandate (immigrate);

They were encouraged to colonize

as oppose to being sent to enter Palestine so place it under the subjugation of the Colonial Power (invade).

colonialism

What are you babbling on about, montelatici used the correct term.

Who cares! Just because a bunch of islamists and Nazis call it a colony doesn't make it so. These are all lame attempts at delegitimizing Israel, which never works. But that's all they got, meaningless labels, unsubstantiated accusations.

Who cares!
Apparently you care.

These are all lame attempts at delegitimizing Israel, which never works. But that's all they got, meaningless labels, unsubstantiated accusations.
Words have meanings, much to your chagrin, which is quite telling in and of itself.

Israel started out as a colony. It achieved statehood. But continues to colonize outside its recognized borders. If that in any way delegitimizes Israel.........well. You are awfully sensitive about it.

Israel is the ancient religious, spiritual, and cultural homeland of the Jewish people. Jews have maintained a presence in their holy land for the last 2000 years. Israel has the more significance to the Jewish people than the Vatican does to Catholics or Mecca does to Muslims. Nobody but you morons calls Israel a "colony". The Jewish people reestablishing a modern state in their ancient homeland cannot be a colony.

And what al of this has to do with NY Times pushing their liberal leftist agenda of appeasing IslamoNazi by demonizing Jews only?

The Zionist Jews called Israel a colony, what are you talking about. Your case of cognitive dissonance is truly extraordinary.

No they didn't. They were simply stating that they were going back to join their brethren in their religious and spiritual holy land. Again, can you show us one country that calls Israel a colony? No you can't. Which country or empire is Isrsel a colony of, dufus? And what does this constant historical BS revisionism have anything to do with the topic of why NY Times constantly bashes Israel?

 

[montelatici]

They clearly stated they planned to colonize Palestine. They used the word colonize. Why would they make such statements if they did not mean it?

Most people consider Israel a colonial project. No one calls Algeria a colony, but it certainly was a colonial project at one time. Rhodesia was not called a colony, but at one time it certainly was a colonial project. You have a real problem thinking lucidly when discussing Israel.

There are several historical texts covering the issue. It seems the main question is whether Israel was a colonial or post-colonial project since it was established when most colonies were in the process of becoming independent.

 

[Roudy]

Who except you IslamoNazis consider Isrsel a colony? You can't name one country can you. You have a problem with Israel not being ruled by Muslims. Get used to it, it never again will be.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

You don't understand this at all. In 1899, there was on political subdivision called "Palestine." It was still under the Ottoman Empire. And this article that you periodically post is nothing more than a long term vision that might someday come true. But it is not a decree from a government entity.

I am posting exactly what the Zionists stated they planned to do. They also stated the same thing in 1896. The European Jews clearly stated their plan to colonize and dispossess the native Palestinians at that time.

Zionists plan to colonize Palestine in 1899 NY Times

Zionists plan to colonize Palestine in 1899 NY Times - World Bulletin

(COMMENT)

You are taking a private 19th Century organizational vision statement (not a government agency and not an official organization yet supported and introduced by a state or national government) and acting like it has some relevance in the 21st Century. This statement came 15 years before the Balfour Declaration was even drafted, and 18 years before the Mudros Armistice, which ended the hostilities in the Middle Eastern theatre of war between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies.

You are taking this out of temporal context and the capacity to actually achieve this in the next century (which failed to happen). The WZO did asked to submit its proposals regarding Palestine to the 1919 Paris Peace conference. Damn near all of the proposal was rejected, but used a background information. One of the proposals was that:

"All inhabitants continuing to reside in Palestine who on the day of 19 , have their domicile in Palestine, except those who elect in writing within six months from such dale to retain their foreign citizenship, shall become citizens of Palestine, and they and all persons in Palestine or naturalized under the laws of Palestine after the day of, 19 shall be citizens thereof and entitled to the protection of the Mandatory Power on behalf of the Government of Palestine."
​

This was the a concept adopted at the 1920 San Remo Convention where the Mandate for Palestine was crafted.

Don't over dramatize a 100 year old state and try to show some practical relevance today. Yes they used the word "colonize," but it certainly wasn't the (of a Britain or its citizens) send a group of settlers to (Palestine) and establish political control over it. That had not been decided yet; and wasn't decided for another half century. The Jewish National Home was not, in any way, a colonial resource of the United Kingdom.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Once independent, a territory is no longer a colony. Are you really that dense. Rhodesia was a colonial project before it became independent Israel was a colonial project, just as the Zionists declared it was. I don't understand why this is so controversial when the Zionist Jewish leaders clearly stated they were colonizing Palestine. What is the matter with you, are you so brainwashed you can't even read the text that reports what the Zionist Jews actually said, or do you think they were lying.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

You don't understand this at all. In 1899, there was on political subdivision called "Palestine." It was still under the Ottoman Empire. And this article that you periodically post is nothing more than a long term vision that might someday come true. But it is not a decree from a government entity.

I am posting exactly what the Zionists stated they planned to do. They also stated the same thing in 1896. The European Jews clearly stated their plan to colonize and dispossess the native Palestinians at that time.

Zionists plan to colonize Palestine in 1899 NY Times

Zionists plan to colonize Palestine in 1899 NY Times - World Bulletin

(COMMENT)

You are taking a private 19th Century organizational vision statement (not a government agency and not an official organization yet supported and introduced by a state or national government) and acting like it has some relevance in the 21st Century. This statement came 15 years before the Balfour Declaration was even drafted, and 18 years before the Mudros Armistice, which ended the hostilities in the Middle Eastern theatre of war between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies.

You are taking this out of temporal context and the capacity to actually achieve this in the next century (which failed to happen). The WZO did asked to submit its proposals regarding Palestine to the 1919 Paris Peace conference. Damn near all of the proposal was rejected, but used a background information. One of the proposals was that:

"All inhabitants continuing to reside in Palestine who on the day of 19 , have their domicile in Palestine, except those who elect in writing within six months from such dale to retain their foreign citizenship, shall become citizens of Palestine, and they and all persons in Palestine or naturalized under the laws of Palestine after the day of, 19 shall be citizens thereof and entitled to the protection of the Mandatory Power on behalf of the Government of Palestine."
​

This was the a concept adopted at the 1920 San Remo Convention where the Mandate for Palestine was crafted.

Don't over dramatize a 100 year old state and try to show some practical relevance today. Yes they used the word "colonize," but it certainly wasn't the (of a Britain or its citizens) send a group of settlers to (Palestine) and establish political control over it. That had not been decided yet; and wasn't decided for another half century. The Jewish National Home was not, in any way, a colonial resource of the United Kingdom.

Most Respectfully,
R

The fact that the Zionists colonized Palestine is clearly important. It is a fact. Your deflection and clown dancing is cute, but doesn't change the facts, as confirmed by the Zionists.

You are so hilarious, "they used the word colonize, but it certainly wasn't". It is extraordinary the lengths people go to justify the Zionist colonial project. What was it, they were going to Palestine on holiday?

What do you think "the re-establishment of Judea as an independent State" in the 1899 article means in terms of establishing political control?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

They didn't know that --- more than a century later --- "montelatici," would be around to make the suggestion that some gaggle of Jewish people would flock to the Middle East, the former Turkish Vilayets of Syria and Beruit (plus Independent Sanjuk of Jerusalem) and start building nests; and these nests would have a relationship to Colonial Powers all over the world.

They clearly stated they planned to colonize Palestine. They used the word colonize. Why would they make such statements if they did not mean it?

(COMMENT)

They were not writing a manifesto in period diplomatic language. We do not even know that they used the word "colony;" or even what language it was even spoken. We have a truncated newspaper article that writes in infotainment style.

And your assigning some "sinister" motive to it all.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Israel was no more a colonial project to expand England than Trans-Jordan or Iraq.

Once independent, a territory is no longer a colony. Are you really that dense. Rhodesia was a colonial project before it became independent Israel was a colonial project, just as the Zionists declared it was. I don't understand why this is so controversial when the Zionist Jewish leaders clearly stated they were colonizing Palestine. What is the matter with you, are you so brainwashed you can't even read the text that reports what the Zionist Jews actually said, or do you think they were lying.

(COMMENT)

The Administration of a Mandate is a very different animal then a Colonial Establishment or the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.

At no time did the Mandatory not have oversight from a higher authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Of course it was a colonial project, it was a self-declared colonial project. Just saying it wasn't doesn't change the fact that it was a colonial project.

Rhodes establishment of a mining operation with his mining company was not intended to expand England, either, in fact, the British specifically did not want anything to do with what was to become Rhodesia, yet it was a colony though the British government nor the military were involved.

Of course the Mandatory had oversight from a higher authority as per Article 22 of the League of Nations:

"ARTICLE 22.

In every case of mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.

The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.

A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates."

I am trying to figure out if you are stupid or are purposely lying and deflecting to try to justify the actions of the Zionists.

 

[Roudy]

Which country, nation or empire was it a colony of?

 

[montelatici]

Europe in general, that's where it received the most support and funding. The British relationship was more formal through the issuance of the Balfour Declaration.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

You have to ask ASK YOURSELF: What does it mean to be a colony of a Colonial Power? Today, in a post-Colonial Period, we have to differentiate "Colonialism" from "Imperialism;" and determining what is necessary and sufficient to be a "Colonial Power" with control over a distant "Colony."

We also have to remember that in the post-War period of 1918 onward, no one really knew what a "Jewish National Home" was... There had not been anything even remotely resembling a "Jewish State" in over two millennium; not since the Herodian Period (37 BCE - 70 CE). It would be hard to find an Oh so distinctive and productive culture -- that has survived as long as the Jewish Culture and People without having has at least one nation-state associated with it.

Of course it was a colonial project, it was a self-declared colonial project. Just saying it wasn't doesn't change the fact that it was a colonial project.

Rhodes establishment of a mining operation with his mining company was not intended to expand England, either, in fact, the British specifically did not want anything to do with what was to become Rhodesia, yet it was a colony though the British government nor the military were involved.

Of course the Mandatory had oversight from a higher authority as per Article 22 of the League of Nations:

"ARTICLE 22.

In every case of mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.

The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.

A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates."

I am trying to figure out if you are stupid or are purposely lying and deflecting to try to justify the actions of the Zionists.

(COMMENT)

When we look at the situation and ground truth of the modern day State of Israel, we have to ask:

• Is there a relationship between an indigenous (mostly Arab) majority and a minority (Jewish) foreign immigrant population?
• Is there a relationship between either the indigenous (Arab) and the Foreign (Jewish) populations.
• Was the Jewish immigration a process of European Settlement and political control over the territory over which the Mandate applied? OR Was the establishment of Settlements unique --- permanent; a territory defendable against all enemies.

Modern Day Israel is a refuge for all the remaining Jewish People worldwide. A safe haven in which they may retreat from the intolerant. It is a place for survivors, as there have been since 580 BC (Second Iron Age) and the destruction of the First Temple by Nebuchadnezzar when Judea is conquered?

Settler colonialism involves large-scale immigration, often motivated by religious, political, or economic persecution. But it is first and foremost, an expansionist activity. The Jewish migration is a survivalist program to avoid the 19 major events recorded in history just in the last Century; about the time discussions started over the possibility of a place for the Jewish People.

You may adjust the definition and intent of Colonialism all you wish. But relative to the immediate post-Holocaust Period in Europe, when the determination was made for a two-State solution that would craft a solution having the best chance of protecting and preserving the culture and remaining people; the intent is clear. It has nothing to do at all with the extension of a Colonial Power.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Rocco, you sure are hard-headed. It does not matter how admirable the reason for the colonial project was, it was a colonial project. A large group of people decided to go and dispossess native people of the land they were living on. We live with the result of that bad decision to this day, and instead of Jews in Europe suffering, we have transferred the suffering to the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.

What is moral about that?

Just to cut to the chase. The Americo-Liberians colonized a part of Africa they felt was their homeland, displacing and subjugating the native people. The American Colonization Society established in 1815 was essentially the same as the Zionist Society. They both envisioned going to a place on another continent, displace the native people and create a state of their own. The native people of Liberia were subjugated for over 150 years, only after the recent civil war, and the massacre of many Americo-Liberians, have the native people gained any real rights. The Americo-Liberians were escaping slavery, did they have the right to dispossess and subjugate the natives?

It was colonization. It did not matter that it was not a government sponsored enterprise or that it wasn't the expansion of U.S. territory.

Game, set, match.

 

[Shusha]

Some Zionist have no recourse for their arguments except to attack the person, same as Zionist do, its a Zionist trademark (either physically, verbally or written )

Assigning "trademarks" (aka stereotypes) to Jews is antisemitism. Its important to note it when it is seen, especially in so obvious a form.

 

[montelatici]

Some Zionist have no recourse for their arguments except to attack the person, same as Zionist do, its a Zionist trademark (either physically, verbally or written )

Assigning "trademarks" (aka stereotypes) to Jews is antisemitism. Its important to note it when it is seen, especially in so obvious a form.

Zionists are not all Jews, there are Christian Zionists, how can her comment be anti-semitic?

 

[Roudy]

Europe in general, that's where it received the most support and funding. The British relationship was more formal through the issuance of the Balfour Declaration.

Europe in general! Ha ha ha ha OMG what a numbskull. Do you have a document by EUROPE IN GENERAL that Israel is their colony? Hold on, I'm gonna hold my breath for that one, mr antisemite historian. LOL

Europe in general. I'm still laughing at how ignorant and stupid a person can be. Thanks.

 

[Roudy]

Some Zionist have no recourse for their arguments except to attack the person, same as Zionist do, its a Zionist trademark (either physically, verbally or written )

Assigning "trademarks" (aka stereotypes) to Jews is antisemitism. Its important to note it when it is seen, especially in so obvious a form.

Zionists are not all Jews, there are Christian Zionists, how can her comment be anti-semitic?

That's because both Christianty and even Islam are Zionist. Keep up.

 

[Roudy]

Rocco, you sure are hard-headed. It does not matter how admirable the reason for the colonial project was, it was a colonial project. A large group of people decided to go and dispossess native people of the land they were living on. We live with the result of that bad decision to this day, and instead of Jews in Europe suffering, we have transferred the suffering to the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.

What is moral about that?

Just to cut to the chase. The Americo-Liberians colonized a part of Africa they felt was their homeland, displacing and subjugating the native people. The American Colonization Society established in 1815 was essentially the same as the Zionist Society. They both envisioned going to a place on another continent, displace the native people and create a state of their own. The native people of Liberia were subjugated for over 150 years, only after the recent civil war, and the massacre of many Americo-Liberians, have the native people gained any real rights. The Americo-Liberians were escaping slavery, did they have the right to dispossess and subjugate the natives?

It was colonization. It did not matter that it was not a government sponsored enterprise or that it wasn't the expansion of U.S. territory.

Game, set, match.

So you do you have a country that considers Israel a colony, or is it just your endless blabbering?

 

[montelatici]

Why would any country consider Israel a colony now? It was a colonial project that eventually became an independent state, like Rhodesia, South Africa etc.

 

[Roudy]

So the answer would be no. You can't name which country Israel is a supposedly a colony of, and you can't name a single country that considers Israel a colony.

No more questions.