But Jews weren’t 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 didn’t go on behalf of the British government, and after WW2, it was the UN, not the British that partitioned a two state solution.
But Jews weren’t 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 didn’t 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 weren’t nations until the European’s installed monarchs until the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WW1.
My point, you can’t 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 didn’t. But one could make a link from colonialism to the founding of Israel. It’s 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 wasn’t a form of colonialism. That said, no point in arguing because it’s a distinction without a difference.
Additionally, I would think the European model of dividing the ME would be closer to imperialism. They didn’t 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 it’s 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...:)
But Jews weren’t 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 didn’t 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 weren’t nations until the European’s installed monarchs until the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WW1.
My point, you can’t 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 didn’t. But one could make a link from colonialism to the founding of Israel. It’s 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 wasn’t a form of colonialism. That said, no point in arguing because it’s a distinction without a difference.
Additionally, I would think the European model of dividing the ME would be closer to imperialism. They didn’t 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 it’s 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...:)