When academics call Israel a "settler colonial" state, it is meant to isolate the Jewish state from the legitimate family of nations. Yet historically, colonies have related to a mother country. The Puritans saw themselves as English, Afrikaaners as Dutch, Muslim conquerors as Arabs. They spoke the mother country's language and attempted to transfer its culture to their new land.
The early, pre-state Zionists, however, sought to escape Europe, not to replicate it. They rejected Yiddish and adopted an old Middle East language - Hebrew - which they updated for modern purposes, while changing their German or Russian-sounding names.
Central to the Zionist enterprise was the conviction that they were returning home. No other transplanted society made such a claim. Jews had lived in the area continuously for thousands of years. The Hebrew language is Semitic, not Indo-European. Ancient Jewish artifacts could be found everywhere.
It is therefore more accurate to see Zionism as a form of nationalism - and Zionists as fulfilling a people's aspiration for self-determination in what they regard as their own land.
(full article online)
***
www.haaretz.com
Of course its nationalism. Colonial settlers? Well, they don't allow Palestinians to return to their ancestral homes.
The Arab Muslims have 80% of the Mandate for Palestine, all of which is the Jewish Homeland.
What part of the ancient Jewish Homeland is the Palestinian ancient homeland, or homes?
They Arab Muslims and Christians were the majority in Jerusalem and Palestine for 2000 years. What do you want to do with them?
Live with them. In Peace.
Being the majority by conquest does not give those Christian and Muslim invaders sovereignty over the Jewish ancient homeland, or any other indigenous land in the world.
I did not see a response to my question.
Let us agree that some Canaanite Tribes had Arab origin.
Did they still identify themselves as their tribal name when the Romans conquered the land, or had they melted into the rest of the population?
Did they convert to Christianity or Islam?
When the Muslims invaded, did they meet with this ancient Arab tribes which had been there for centuries?
Are they referred to by the Romans, the Byzantine, the Muslims?
Are there any descendants of those tribes which continue to identify themselves by those tribal names?
If so, those descendants, and only those descendants , would have a right to their ancient ancestral land in Canaan, be it in Gaza, Israel, Judea, Samaria or TransJordan.
Instead, we have the Palestinian leaders saying that :
1) Arabs had a mass migration to Canaan 10,000 years ago
2) The Arabs were in Canaan since Abrham's time, not before. (3800 years ag
3) their ancestors were in Ancient Canaan, and belonged to those few tribes made of Arabs.
4) They are descendants from the Philistines where the word Palestine comes from
5) The Hebrews were Arabs
6) There is no Jewish History on the Temple Mount, only Christian and Muslim
--------------
So, I ask......did the invading Kurdish Muslim meet with the ancient tribes that already lived on the land?
Did the 2nd Muslim wave of Arabs meet with the descendants of those ancient Arabs when they reached Jerusalem?
Can any Arab tribes today retrace their history to those tribes, which in those days fought with Israel, King David and dealt with the Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans, and therefore were part of the history of the area before the Muslim invasion?
What is the archeological and historical proof which is lacking in the Palestinian Museum?