Explanation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

[Phoenall]

Undermining the historic context.
Americans never had a kingdom in America, didn't have their ancestors' tombs or a temple.

No one cleansed or converted anyone in Israel.- that's a fact-there're 6 million of balestinians today.

There were hundreds of thousands Christians and Muslims cleansed from what is now Israel.

When and why ? The answers are easy to find in the net if you are honest

 

[Phoenall]

Colonist is as accurate a term as "Pilgrim".

col·o·nize
ˈkäləˌnīz/
verb
verb: colonize; 3rd person present: colonizes; past tense: colonized; past participle: colonized; gerund or present participle: colonizing; verb: colonise; 3rd person present: colonises; past tense: colonised; past participle: colonised; gerund or present participle: colonising

1. (of a country or its citizens) send a group of settlers to (a place) and establish political control over it.
   "the Greeks colonized Sicily and southern Italy"
   synonyms: settle (in), people, populate;More
   occupy, take over, seize, capture, subjugate
   "the Germans colonized Tanganyika in 1885"
   • come to settle among and establish political control over (the indigenous people of an area).
     "a white family that tries to colonize a Caribbean island"
   • appropriate (a place or domain) for one's own use.
   • Ecology
     (of a plant or animal) establish itself in an area.
     "mussels can colonize even the most inhospitable rock surfaces"

Of course, if the purpose in your use of the term "colonization" is to illicitly attach all the imperialist baggage that is associated with colonialism, then certainly, "pilgrim" doesn't serve that purpose.

Right?

There is certain amount of "imperialist baggage" that applies. The Zionist movement sought to occupy a land already populated, and re-create an ancient state based on one ethnicity/religion. Pilgrims are travelers who journey to sacred places for religious reasons.

Both fit, no?

I suppose the Zionist movement is like Imperial colonization, in much the way a dolphin is like a fish.

Maybe you suppose wrong then.

How is it different, say, than the colonial experiences of the U.S.? Not just it's founding but it's expansion across the continent and it's treatment of the indiginous peoples?

The only major difference is that military conquest was not illegal then. It was illegal in the 20th century.

Israel has no land that was not conquered by military force.

\then the same can be said of every nation in the world, as every land has been conquered. But it does not change the reality that the Jewish National Home was granted under existing International law in 1923, and that arab nationalism has tried ever since to destroy it.

 

[Phoenall]

I don't think Moroccans believe that they are Palestinians or Syrians. Arab is a cultural denomination they have a similar language and most the same religion. It is most similar to Hispanics, a Colombian is not a Spaniard or Argentine.

They do when they migrate to Palestine to fight against the Jews

 

[Phoenall]

There is certain amount of "imperialist baggage" that applies. The Zionist movement sought to occupy a land already populated, and re-create an ancient state based on one ethnicity/religion. Pilgrims are travelers who journey to sacred places for religious reasons.

Both fit, no?

I suppose the Zionist movement is like Imperial colonization, in much the way a dolphin is like a fish.

Maybe you suppose wrong then.

How is it different, say, than the colonial experiences of the U.S.? Not just it's founding but it's expansion across the continent and it's treatment of the indiginous peoples?

The only major difference is that military conquest was not illegal then. It was illegal in the 20th century.

Israel has no land that was not conquered by military force.

Israel has lands that were bought.

The Jews had purchased about 5% of the land before partition. The non-Jews owned 85% or more of the land before partition.

OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY


SUPPLEMENT No. 11



UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE



REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

VOLUME 1





Lake Success
New York
1947

"164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. The provisions of the land transfer regulations of 1940, which gave effect to the 1939 White Paper policy, have severely restricted the Jewish efforts to acquire new land."


A 364 of 3 September 1947

Possession does not mean owned legally, as you can posses stolen goods but you can never own them

 

[Phoenall]

There is certain amount of "imperialist baggage" that applies. The Zionist movement sought to occupy a land already populated, and re-create an ancient state based on one ethnicity/religion. Pilgrims are travelers who journey to sacred places for religious reasons.

Both fit, no?

I suppose the Zionist movement is like Imperial colonization, in much the way a dolphin is like a fish.

Maybe you suppose wrong then.

How is it different, say, than the colonial experiences of the U.S.? Not just it's founding but it's expansion across the continent and it's treatment of the indiginous peoples?

The only major difference is that military conquest was not illegal then. It was illegal in the 20th century.

Israel has no land that was not conquered by military force.

Israel has lands that were bought.

Jews owned about 7% of Palestine by 1948.

Israel had nothing.

They had International law of 1923 that gave them sovereignty over the land

 

[Phoenall]

jews bought the lands as You said. Then comes 48 and all those lands are submitted to
the state becoming official Israel lands. What's mine I can give to anyone.
Whats trivial?

But that was only about 7% of the land.

The other 93% was held in trust by the LoN until such time as the inhabitants declared independence. This is what you refuse to accept

 

[Phoenall]

jews bought the lands as You said. Then comes 48 and all those lands are submitted to
the state becoming official Israel lands. What's mine I can give to anyone.
Whats trivial?

You just have to realize that taking land and evicting the people that lived on those lands does not endear the people that lived and owned that land to the people who took the land and evicted the people living there.

They will have hostility towards the people that came from somewhere else and dispossessed them. It is just human nature. They don't care if the people that dispossessed them claim to have ancestors that lived there 2000 years ago. The Roma came from India, they say. If after WW2 the British decided that the Roma had an historical tie to Delhi and the province and signed a declaration that indicated that a Roma home was to be established in Delhi, do you think the Indians would have agreed?

\irrelevant when you consider that the arab muslims were hell bent on taking the land and evicting/mass murdering/enslaving the Jews who had sovereignty over the land. The arab muslims also came from somewhere else and had disp[ossessed the Jews many times in the last 1400 years-

OFF TOPIC and DEFLECTION as the British are not sovereign owners of India. A better comparison would be if the US government gave your property to a first Nations family

 

[montelatici]

I suppose the Zionist movement is like Imperial colonization, in much the way a dolphin is like a fish.

Maybe you suppose wrong then.

How is it different, say, than the colonial experiences of the U.S.? Not just it's founding but it's expansion across the continent and it's treatment of the indiginous peoples?

The only major difference is that military conquest was not illegal then. It was illegal in the 20th century.

Israel has no land that was not conquered by military force.

Israel has lands that were bought.

The Jews had purchased about 5% of the land before partition. The non-Jews owned 85% or more of the land before partition.

OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY


SUPPLEMENT No. 11



UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE



REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

VOLUME 1





Lake Success
New York
1947

"164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. The provisions of the land transfer regulations of 1940, which gave effect to the 1939 White Paper policy, have severely restricted the Jewish efforts to acquire new land."


A 364 of 3 September 1947

Possession does not mean owned legally, as you can posses stolen goods but you can never own them

Possession means legal ownership and is further confirmed by the results of the analysis depicted in the Survey of Palestine.

Survey of Palestine Vol. 2 page 566

A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner

 

[Phoenall]

Maybe you suppose wrong then.

How is it different, say, than the colonial experiences of the U.S.? Not just it's founding but it's expansion across the continent and it's treatment of the indiginous peoples?

The only major difference is that military conquest was not illegal then. It was illegal in the 20th century.

Israel has no land that was not conquered by military force.

Israel has lands that were bought.

The Jews had purchased about 5% of the land before partition. The non-Jews owned 85% or more of the land before partition.

OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY


SUPPLEMENT No. 11



UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE



REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

VOLUME 1





Lake Success
New York
1947

"164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. The provisions of the land transfer regulations of 1940, which gave effect to the 1939 White Paper policy, have severely restricted the Jewish efforts to acquire new land."


A 364 of 3 September 1947

Possession does not mean owned legally, as you can posses stolen goods but you can never own them

Possession means legal ownership and is further confirmed by the results of the analysis depicted in the Survey of Palestine.

View attachment 42797

Survey of Palestine Vol. 2 page 566

A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner

So if I steal your car and it is in my possession then I own it do I. Then why is there laws against theft..

Possession is not ownership look up the definition

 

[P F Tinmore]

The only major difference is that military conquest was not illegal then. It was illegal in the 20th century.

Israel has no land that was not conquered by military force.

Israel has lands that were bought.

The Jews had purchased about 5% of the land before partition. The non-Jews owned 85% or more of the land before partition.

OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY


SUPPLEMENT No. 11



UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE



REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

VOLUME 1





Lake Success
New York
1947

"164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. The provisions of the land transfer regulations of 1940, which gave effect to the 1939 White Paper policy, have severely restricted the Jewish efforts to acquire new land."


A 364 of 3 September 1947

Possession does not mean owned legally, as you can posses stolen goods but you can never own them

Possession means legal ownership and is further confirmed by the results of the analysis depicted in the Survey of Palestine.

View attachment 42797

Survey of Palestine Vol. 2 page 566

A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner

So if I steal your car and it is in my possession then I own it do I. Then why is there laws against theft..

Possession is not ownership look up the definition

That's what I have always been saying.

 

[Phoenall]

Israel has lands that were bought.

The Jews had purchased about 5% of the land before partition. The non-Jews owned 85% or more of the land before partition.

OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY


SUPPLEMENT No. 11



UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE



REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

VOLUME 1





Lake Success
New York
1947

"164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. The provisions of the land transfer regulations of 1940, which gave effect to the 1939 White Paper policy, have severely restricted the Jewish efforts to acquire new land."


A 364 of 3 September 1947

Possession does not mean owned legally, as you can posses stolen goods but you can never own them

Possession means legal ownership and is further confirmed by the results of the analysis depicted in the Survey of Palestine.

View attachment 42797

Survey of Palestine Vol. 2 page 566

A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner

So if I steal your car and it is in my possession then I own it do I. Then why is there laws against theft..

Possession is not ownership look up the definition

That's what I have always been saying.

But ownership is possession and Israel possesses the land it owns

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Jews had purchased about 5% of the land before partition. The non-Jews owned 85% or more of the land before partition.

OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY


SUPPLEMENT No. 11



UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE



REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

VOLUME 1





Lake Success
New York
1947

"164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. The provisions of the land transfer regulations of 1940, which gave effect to the 1939 White Paper policy, have severely restricted the Jewish efforts to acquire new land."


A 364 of 3 September 1947

Possession does not mean owned legally, as you can posses stolen goods but you can never own them

Possession means legal ownership and is further confirmed by the results of the analysis depicted in the Survey of Palestine.

View attachment 42797

Survey of Palestine Vol. 2 page 566

A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner

So if I steal your car and it is in my possession then I own it do I. Then why is there laws against theft..

Possession is not ownership look up the definition

That's what I have always been saying.

But ownership is possession and Israel possesses the land it owns

You just said it wasn't. Make up your mind.

 

[LOki]

I still think you mean to say they were "pilgrims." Pilgrims from numerous nations (primarily European) who settled in "Palestine proper." Pilgrims who settled in Palestine for the purpose of realizing, and living in, a Jewish nation.

You can go further to say that they were: Pilgrims from numerous nations (primarily European) settled in "Palestine proper" for the purpose of realizing, and living in, a Jewish nation; under the direction of the Zionist Organization; of which Dr. Chaim Weizmann was president.

Of course, if your purpose--and I mean your purpose, Pumpkin--in your use of the term "colonization" is to illicitly attach all the imperialist baggage that is associated with colonialism, then certainly, "pilgrim" doesn't serve that purpose.

"Pilgrim" is the proper term (regardless of whoever used an improper term previously), and it's the precise term someone interested in conveying accurate information would use; it's the term someone with intellectual integrity would use.

After all, just because Dr. Weizmann was sloppy with his vocabulary, it does not follow that you must also be so sloppy. Correct?

But, if you disagree, you need only identify the European nation these so-called "colonists" were citizens of. Be specific, Cupcake.

No colonists. No colony. No colonization.

Colonist is as accurate a term as "Pilgrim".

col·o·nize
ˈkäləˌnīz/
verb
verb: colonize; 3rd person present: colonizes; past tense: colonized; past participle: colonized; gerund or present participle: colonizing; verb: colonise; 3rd person present: colonises; past tense: colonised; past participle: colonised; gerund or present participle: colonising

1. (of a country or its citizens) send a group of settlers to (a place) and establish political control over it.
   "the Greeks colonized Sicily and southern Italy"
   synonyms: settle (in), people, populate;More
   occupy, take over, seize, capture, subjugate
   "the Germans colonized Tanganyika in 1885"
   • come to settle among and establish political control over (the indigenous people of an area).
     "a white family that tries to colonize a Caribbean island"
   • appropriate (a place or domain) for one's own use.
   • Ecology
     (of a plant or animal) establish itself in an area.
     "mussels can colonize even the most inhospitable rock surfaces"

Of course, if the purpose in your use of the term "colonization" is to illicitly attach all the imperialist baggage that is associated with colonialism, then certainly, "pilgrim" doesn't serve that purpose.

Right?

There is certain amount of "imperialist baggage" that applies. The Zionist movement sought to occupy a land already populated, and re-create an ancient state based on one ethnicity/religion. Pilgrims are travelers who journey to sacred places for religious reasons.

Both fit, no?

I suppose the Zionist movement is like Imperial colonization, in much the way a dolphin is like a fish.

Maybe you suppose wrong then.

How is it different, say, than the colonial experiences of the U.S.?

The English Empire sent colonists to North America to expand the English Empire. England--not merely some collection of Englishmen--declared sovereignty over the territory it laid claim to; over the colonies it created; over the colonists it sent.

-There was no Jewish Empire.
-There were no citizens of some "Jewish Empire."
-No citizens of some "Jewish Empire" were sent anywhere.
-The non-existent "Jewish Empire" was not expanded by the European Jews who settled in "Palestine."
-Organized Jewish "Palestinians" (Israelis) stood up as the valid sovereign organization on the eve that Great Britain abandoned its administrative control of the region.
​

There was no Jewish Empire; there was no Jewish nation that acquired and settled "Palestine" as part of an imperial, or national expansion. The region known as "Palestine" was patently "up for grabs" when the British mandate expired--evidenced not only by the action of the Jewish Agency, but also by the behavior of the nations surrounding the region. The nation of Israel proclaimed its sovereignty, and validated such sovereignty by successfully defending itself against hostile foreign nations and the belligerents those nations sponsored within Israel.

​

Not just it's founding but it's expansion across the continent and it's treatment of the indiginous peoples?

The nation of the United States of America expanded primarily through the purchase of territory from other sovereign nations, through annexation, through cession, through treaty, and through conquest of existing nations. The U.S. treated the "indigenous" peoples of North America with equal disregard, regardless of the attitude those people presented to the U.S.

-The nation of Israel has expanded it's holdings somewhat, as a result of military conflict with the surrounding nations hostile to the existence of Israel. It maintains those holdings through settlement by Israeli citizens.
-The nation of Israel treats non-belligerent indigenous citizens of Israel the same as they treat the non-belligerent naturalized citizens of Israel. Israel asserted at it's founding, a commitment to "foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; ... be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; ... ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture;..." The U.S.? No so much.
​

I think it's appropriate to assert that generally speaking, belonging to Israel is substantially about being a Jew. You see, regardless of how you wish to parse the term "indigenous", it is inarguable that Jews (not all, obviously) are indigenous to "Palestine"; and Palestinian Jews are just as "indigenous" as Palestinian Arabs. Israel had (and has) an entirely different attitude regarding the "indigenous" peoples of "Palestine", than the U.S. has for the "indigenous" peoples of North America.

So, I think I'll just stand by my earlier statement with regard to your questions: "I suppose the Zionist movement is like Imperial colonization, in much the way a dolphin is like a fish."

 

[LOki]

Of course, if the purpose in your use of the term "colonization" is to illicitly attach all the imperialist baggage that is associated with colonialism, then certainly, "pilgrim" doesn't serve that purpose.

Right?

There is certain amount of "imperialist baggage" that applies. The Zionist movement sought to occupy a land already populated, and re-create an ancient state based on one ethnicity/religion. Pilgrims are travelers who journey to sacred places for religious reasons.

Both fit, no?

I suppose the Zionist movement is like Imperial colonization, in much the way a dolphin is like a fish.

The Zionist colonization is the same as any other colonization project. More like a shark is like a shark

What nation were these "colonists" citizens of? You neglect to tell. Again. Still.

Several European nations, just as the colonists of South Africa were.

Europe is not a sovereign nation, Cupcake.

While I admit that Netherlands is in Europe, Europe sent no colonists anywhere... not even to South Africa.

So. What nation were these Jewish "colonists" you refer to citizens of? You neglect to tell. Again. Still.

 

[LOki]

Colonist is as accurate a term as "Pilgrim".

col·o·nize
ˈkäləˌnīz/
verb
verb: colonize; 3rd person present: colonizes; past tense: colonized; past participle: colonized; gerund or present participle: colonizing; verb: colonise; 3rd person present: colonises; past tense: colonised; past participle: colonised; gerund or present participle: colonising

1. (of a country or its citizens) send a group of settlers to (a place) and establish political control over it.
   "the Greeks colonized Sicily and southern Italy"
   synonyms: settle (in), people, populate;More
   occupy, take over, seize, capture, subjugate
   "the Germans colonized Tanganyika in 1885"
   • come to settle among and establish political control over (the indigenous people of an area).
     "a white family that tries to colonize a Caribbean island"
   • appropriate (a place or domain) for one's own use.
   • Ecology
     (of a plant or animal) establish itself in an area.
     "mussels can colonize even the most inhospitable rock surfaces"

Of course, if the purpose in your use of the term "colonization" is to illicitly attach all the imperialist baggage that is associated with colonialism, then certainly, "pilgrim" doesn't serve that purpose.

Right?

There is certain amount of "imperialist baggage" that applies. The Zionist movement sought to occupy a land already populated, and re-create an ancient state based on one ethnicity/religion. Pilgrims are travelers who journey to sacred places for religious reasons.

Both fit, no?

I suppose the Zionist movement is like Imperial colonization, in much the way a dolphin is like a fish.

Maybe you suppose wrong then.

How is it different, say, than the colonial experiences of the U.S.? Not just it's founding but it's expansion across the continent and it's treatment of the indiginous peoples?

The only major difference is that military conquest was not illegal then. It was illegal in the 20th century.

Israel has no land that was not conquered by military force.

Well, that's patently disingenuous.

Israel has no sovereign holding that is not maintained and enforced through military force.

Just like every other nation.

 

[Phoenall]

Possession does not mean owned legally, as you can posses stolen goods but you can never own them

Possession means legal ownership and is further confirmed by the results of the analysis depicted in the Survey of Palestine.

View attachment 42797

Survey of Palestine Vol. 2 page 566

A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner

So if I steal your car and it is in my possession then I own it do I. Then why is there laws against theft..

Possession is not ownership look up the definition

That's what I have always been saying.

But ownership is possession and Israel possesses the land it owns

You just said it wasn't. Make up your mind.

No I said that possession is not ownership, but ownership is possession. You can own your possessions but you cant possess what you don't own.

What this means is the arab muslim possess the land but don't own it while Israel possesses the land it owns

 

[Coyote]

Let's see, bozo says no colonists and Weizmann says he plans to colonize, not only Palestine but Trans-Jordan too. Who should we believe? A clown, or the first president of Israel? That's the thing about ideologues they are able to ignore fact.

"
Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committ

“Due to the success of our colonization work in Palestine proper, it is possible that eventually our colonization work will be extended beyond the frontiers of Transjordania. It is true that the Palestine government has not taken a clear stand in regard to its economic policy, but well founded demands have every prospect of being agreed to. A great deal has been achieved during the last months,” Dr. Weizmann said.
July 25, 1926

Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier Weizmann Tells Actions Committ Jewish Telegraphic Agency

So where is the link showing that this was put in place and actioned ?

Do you need a link to Israel? Proof that it was put in place and "actioned".

I still think you mean to say they were "pilgrims." Pilgrims from numerous nations (primarily European) who settled in "Palestine proper." Pilgrims who settled in Palestine for the purpose of realizing, and living in, a Jewish nation.

You can go further to say that they were: Pilgrims from numerous nations (primarily European) settled in "Palestine proper" for the purpose of realizing, and living in, a Jewish nation; under the direction of the Zionist Organization; of which Dr. Chaim Weizmann was president.

Of course, if your purpose--and I mean your purpose, Pumpkin--in your use of the term "colonization" is to illicitly attach all the imperialist baggage that is associated with colonialism, then certainly, "pilgrim" doesn't serve that purpose.

"Pilgrim" is the proper term (regardless of whoever used an improper term previously), and it's the precise term someone interested in conveying accurate information would use; it's the term someone with intellectual integrity would use.

After all, just because Dr. Weizmann was sloppy with his vocabulary, it does not follow that you must also be so sloppy. Correct?

But, if you disagree, you need only identify the European nation these so-called "colonists" were citizens of. Be specific, Cupcake.

No colonists. No colony. No colonization.

Colonist is as accurate a term as "Pilgrim".

col·o·nize
ˈkäləˌnīz/
verb
verb: colonize; 3rd person present: colonizes; past tense: colonized; past participle: colonized; gerund or present participle: colonizing; verb: colonise; 3rd person present: colonises; past tense: colonised; past participle: colonised; gerund or present participle: colonising

1. (of a country or its citizens) send a group of settlers to (a place) and establish political control over it.
   "the Greeks colonized Sicily and southern Italy"
   synonyms: settle (in), people, populate;More
   occupy, take over, seize, capture, subjugate
   "the Germans colonized Tanganyika in 1885"
   • come to settle among and establish political control over (the indigenous people of an area).
     "a white family that tries to colonize a Caribbean island"
   • appropriate (a place or domain) for one's own use.
   • Ecology
     (of a plant or animal) establish itself in an area.
     "mussels can colonize even the most inhospitable rock surfaces"

So which Jewish country in Europe sent its Jews to colonise Palestine ? This is what your definition says is the meaning

Please review the definition of colonize - in particular, the highlighted part.

 

[montelatici]

There is certain amount of "imperialist baggage" that applies. The Zionist movement sought to occupy a land already populated, and re-create an ancient state based on one ethnicity/religion. Pilgrims are travelers who journey to sacred places for religious reasons.

Both fit, no?

I suppose the Zionist movement is like Imperial colonization, in much the way a dolphin is like a fish.

The Zionist colonization is the same as any other colonization project. More like a shark is like a shark

What nation were these "colonists" citizens of? You neglect to tell. Again. Still.

Several European nations, just as the colonists of South Africa were.

Europe is not a sovereign nation, Cupcake.

While I admit that Netherlands is in Europe, Europe sent no colonists anywhere... not even to South Africa.

So. What nation were these Jewish "colonists" you refer to citizens of? You neglect to tell. Again. Still.

A colonial enterprise need not be undertaken by a nation, sweetie. But the Zionist colonists were of various European nationalities, as you well know who were facilitated/financed by Britain and the Jewish Colonial Trust.

The British South Africa Company financed the colonization of a large part of Africa and populated the colony with citizens of nearly every nationality known.

Your dog won't hunt I'm afraid.

 

[Coyote]

The only major difference is that military conquest was not illegal then. It was illegal in the 20th century.

Israel has no land that was not conquered by military force.

Israel has lands that were bought.

The Jews had purchased about 5% of the land before partition. The non-Jews owned 85% or more of the land before partition.

OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY


SUPPLEMENT No. 11



UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE



REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

VOLUME 1





Lake Success
New York
1947

"164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. The provisions of the land transfer regulations of 1940, which gave effect to the 1939 White Paper policy, have severely restricted the Jewish efforts to acquire new land."


A 364 of 3 September 1947

Possession does not mean owned legally, as you can posses stolen goods but you can never own them

Possession means legal ownership and is further confirmed by the results of the analysis depicted in the Survey of Palestine.

View attachment 42797

Survey of Palestine Vol. 2 page 566

A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner

So if I steal your car and it is in my possession then I own it do I. Then why is there laws against theft..

Possession is not ownership look up the definition

Haven't you ever heard of the term [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_possidetis']uti possidetis?[/URL] You can't equate land with complex claims to a modern car. Much of America was taken from the indiginous peoples through that principle.

 

[Coyote]

Colonist is as accurate a term as "Pilgrim".

col·o·nize
ˈkäləˌnīz/
verb
verb: colonize; 3rd person present: colonizes; past tense: colonized; past participle: colonized; gerund or present participle: colonizing; verb: colonise; 3rd person present: colonises; past tense: colonised; past participle: colonised; gerund or present participle: colonising

1. (of a country or its citizens) send a group of settlers to (a place) and establish political control over it.
   "the Greeks colonized Sicily and southern Italy"
   synonyms: settle (in), people, populate;More
   occupy, take over, seize, capture, subjugate
   "the Germans colonized Tanganyika in 1885"
   • come to settle among and establish political control over (the indigenous people of an area).
     "a white family that tries to colonize a Caribbean island"
   • appropriate (a place or domain) for one's own use.
   • Ecology
     (of a plant or animal) establish itself in an area.
     "mussels can colonize even the most inhospitable rock surfaces"

Of course, if the purpose in your use of the term "colonization" is to illicitly attach all the imperialist baggage that is associated with colonialism, then certainly, "pilgrim" doesn't serve that purpose.

Right?

There is certain amount of "imperialist baggage" that applies. The Zionist movement sought to occupy a land already populated, and re-create an ancient state based on one ethnicity/religion. Pilgrims are travelers who journey to sacred places for religious reasons.

Both fit, no?

I suppose the Zionist movement is like Imperial colonization, in much the way a dolphin is like a fish.

Maybe you suppose wrong then.

How is it different, say, than the colonial experiences of the U.S.?

The English Empire sent colonists to North America to expand the English Empire. England--not merely some collection of Englishmen--declared sovereignty over the territory it laid claim to; over the colonies it created; over the colonists it sent.

-There was no Jewish Empire.
-There were no citizens of some "Jewish Empire."
-No citizens of some "Jewish Empire" were sent anywhere.
-The non-existent "Jewish Empire" was not expanded by the European Jews who settled in "Palestine."
-Organized Jewish "Palestinians" (Israelis) stood up as the valid sovereign organization on the eve that Great Britain abandoned its administrative control of the region.
​

There was no Jewish Empire; there was no Jewish nation that acquired and settled "Palestine" as part of an imperial, or national expansion. The region known as "Palestine" was patently "up for grabs" when the British mandate expired--evidenced not only by the action of the Jewish Agency, but also by the behavior of the nations surrounding the region. The nation of Israel proclaimed its sovereignty, and validated such sovereignty by successfully defending itself against hostile foreign nations and the belligerents those nations sponsored within Israel.

There doesn't NEED to be an empire to colonize. That's the fallacy in your argument. The region - up for grabs - as you say, had indiginous peoples already there with claims, again like the Americas.

From Wikipedia (note - the entry has some notes about it's research and lack of enough sourcing but this particular paragraph seems well sourced):

In 1967 the French historian Maxime Rodinson wrote an article later translated and published in English as Israel: A Colonial Settler-State?[16] Lorenzo Veracini describes Israel as a colonial state and writes that Jewish settlers could expel the British in 1948 only because they had their own colonial relationships inside and outside Israel's new borders.[17] Veracini believes the possibility of an Israeli disengagement is always latent and this relationship could be severed, through an "accommodation of a Palestinian Israeli autonomy within the institutions of the Israeli state" (Veracini 2006)[18] Other commentators, such as Daiva Stasiulis, Nira Yuval-Davis,[19] and Joseph Massad in the "Post Colonial Colony: time, space and bodies in Palestine/ Israel in the persistence of the Palestinian Question".[20] have included Israel in their global analysis of settler societies. Ilan Pappé describes Zionism and Israel in similar terms.[21] Scholar Amal has stated, "Israel was created by a settler-colonial movement of Jewish immigrants".[22]​

Israel continues to act like a colonial power with it's encourgement of Jewish immigration, refusal to return occupied territories and it's expansion of "settlers" into those occupied territories. It mirrors the American experience only instead of Manifest Destiny and the expansion of Christianity, it's Zionism and the expansion of Judaism as the expense of the original inhabitants.

​

Not just it's founding but it's expansion across the continent and it's treatment of the indiginous peoples?

The nation of the United States of America expanded primarily through the purchase of territory from other sovereign nations, through annexation, through cession, through treaty, and through conquest of existing nations. The U.S. treated the "indigenous" peoples of North America with equal disregard, regardless of the attitude those people presented to the U.S.

-The nation of Israel has expanded it's holdings somewhat, as a result of military conflict with the surrounding nations hostile to the existence of Israel. It maintains those holdings through settlement by Israeli citizens.
-The nation of Israel treats non-belligerent indigenous citizens of Israel the same as they treat the non-belligerent naturalized citizens of Israel. Israel asserted at it's founding, a commitment to "foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; ... be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; ... ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture;..." The U.S.? No so much.​

​

On the paper, that sounds just super but in practice and in the actual legal and political system, it is false.

This is evident by the inequities in the justice system, building and expansion permits, educational funding, ability to travel, family reunification, immigration, where they can live, and the different levels of citizenship.

​

I think it's appropriate to assert that generally speaking, belonging to Israel is substantially about being a Jew. You see, regardless of how you wish to parse the term "indigenous", it is inarguable that Jews (not all, obviously) are indigenous to "Palestine"; and Palestinian Jews are just as "indigenous" as Palestinian Arabs. Israel had (and has) an entirely different attitude regarding the "indigenous" peoples of "Palestine", than the U.S. has for the "indigenous" peoples of North America.

So, I think I'll just stand by my earlier statement with regard to your questions: "I suppose the Zionist movement is like Imperial colonization, in much the way a dolphin is like a fish."

I absolutely agree that indiginous Palestinian Jews are as indiginous as indiginous Palestinian Arabs. And no, Israel does not have an "entirely different attitude" regarding indigenous peoples as the US - only when those indiginous peoples are Jews. The building and expansion of settlements (and the comparable squeezing and curtailing of any expansion of Arab villages, restrictions on where they are allowed to live and demolishing of their homes) is not too different than the American treatment of indiginous people. Palestinians are being squeezed into ever more fragmented areas. It kind of resembles the reservation system or even the "black homeland" system of aparthied South Africa - both, a common attribute of colonialism.