It's an incredibly complicated history but at least part of the reason why Israel was created was because Britain took over that part of the world, which was obviously colonialism.
It's an incredibly complicated history but at least part of the reason why Israel was created was because Britain took over that part of the world, which was obviously colonialism.
But Jews werenтАЩt allowed to return under British rule, the reason Zionists went to war with the British in Palestine prior to WW2.
I agree with your assessment, but Jews didnтАЩt go on behalf of the British government, and after WW2, it was the UN, not the British that partitioned a two state solution.
And quite frankly, the Europeans divided the entire ME. Saudi Arabia, Iraq and modern day Iran werenтАЩt nations until the EuropeanтАЩs installed monarchs until the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WW1.
My point, you canтАЩt call Jews colonialists; it defies logic..:)
IIRC, Iran doesn't fall into the same category as Iraq and the like since it wasn't part of the Ottoman Empire. To be sure, there was a lot of European meddling (Russia and UK), but not created by European map-makers in the same way.
As to Colonialism, I think it depends on how the term is being used. Personally I think it is way too broad to use it both for things like Jamestown on one end and the protectorates established after WWI from the former Ottoman Empire. Sure, maybe they both fit under imperialism, and I really don't want to whitewash things, but colonialism to me applies much more to places established from the 1500's through the late 1800's. Maybe its a distinction without a difference though.
I didnтАЩt. But one could make a link from colonialism to the founding of Israel. ItтАЩs not crazy. And obviously the Europeans dividing up the ME was colonialism too.
You can make the link if you change the definition, but it wasnтАЩt a form of colonialism. That said, no point in arguing because itтАЩs a distinction without a difference.
Additionally, I would think the European model of dividing the ME would be closer to imperialism. They didnтАЩt occupy the country, they just installed monarchs for economic control over their resources.
Of course it was imperialism. Why are you making such a big distinction with colonialism? No, Brits didn't move to Palestine en masse to settle it. Yes, it's a distinction without a difference. They're basically the same thing.
If of course it was imperialism then just say so. I only said itтАЩs a distinction without a difference because I constantly hear people confuse the two. There is a difference, yet to our youth, they make no distinction...:)
It's an incredibly complicated history but at least part of the reason why Israel was created was because Britain took over that part of the world, which was obviously colonialism.
But Jews werenтАЩt allowed to return under British rule, the reason Zionists went to war with the British in Palestine prior to WW2.
I agree with your assessment, but Jews didnтАЩt go on behalf of the British government, and after WW2, it was the UN, not the British that partitioned a two state solution.
And quite frankly, the Europeans divided the entire ME. Saudi Arabia, Iraq and modern day Iran werenтАЩt nations until the EuropeanтАЩs installed monarchs until the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WW1.
My point, you canтАЩt call Jews colonialists; it defies logic..:)
IIRC, Iran doesn't fall into the same category as Iraq and the like since it wasn't part of the Ottoman Empire. To be sure, there was a lot of European meddling (Russia and UK), but not created by European map-makers in the same way.
As to Colonialism, I think it depends on how the term is being used. Personally I think it is way too broad to use it both for things like Jamestown on one end and the protectorates established after WWI from the former Ottoman Empire. Sure, maybe they both fit under imperialism, and I really don't want to whitewash things, but colonialism to me applies much more to places established from the 1500's through the late 1800's. Maybe its a distinction without a difference though.
Agreed and well said..:)
I didnтАЩt. But one could make a link from colonialism to the founding of Israel. ItтАЩs not crazy. And obviously the Europeans dividing up the ME was colonialism too.
You can make the link if you change the definition, but it wasnтАЩt a form of colonialism. That said, no point in arguing because itтАЩs a distinction without a difference.
Additionally, I would think the European model of dividing the ME would be closer to imperialism. They didnтАЩt occupy the country, they just installed monarchs for economic control over their resources.
Of course it was imperialism. Why are you making such a big distinction with colonialism? No, Brits didn't move to Palestine en masse to settle it. Yes, it's a distinction without a difference. They're basically the same thing.
If of course it was imperialism then just say so. I only said itтАЩs a distinction without a difference because I constantly hear people confuse the two. There is a difference, yet to our youth, they make no distinction...:)