The postulate that anti-colonialism is behind "anti-Zionism" falls apart on multiple levels: Most obviously, Israel is not a colony, there is no distant mother-land. The "anti-Zionists" never view Arab Empires (which invaded, conquered, occupied and colonized the land in the 7th century CE) or the Ottomans (whose empire ruled this land for 400 years prior to WW I) as "colonialists". Nor were they up in arms and pushing for Palestinian self-determination between 1949-1967, when the disputed territories were in Arab hands (likewise, when Trans-Jordan "unified" with what became its so-called "West Bank", this was not viewed as "colonialism"). On an individual level, there is that same bias. If an Arab or Muslim migrated from Bosnia, Morocco, Egypt or Iraq to "Palestine", they view that as natural. But if a Jew came from those very same places, he's a "foreign" "colonist"?! Just as "Anti-Semitism" was coined as a scientific-sounding euphemism for Jew-hater, so too "anti-Zionism" is a political-sounding euphemism for Jew-hater.

Jabotinsky, not usually cited as a 'leftist', said in relation to Zionsim: "Colonization itself has its own explanation, integral and inescapable, and understood by every Arab and every Jew with his wits about him. Colonization can have only one goal. For the Palestinian Arabs this goal is inadmissible."

Rewriting history for the Arab narrative

Do you intend to give back their possessions to the 3 million german refugees from Sudetenland? What about their right of return? Their presence preceded the arab occupation of Judaea.

They were persecuted, murdered, spoliated and expelled by their muslim fellow citizens. Politically correct leftists are slamming these refugees to have taken shelter in Israel, as no other country accepted them! The arab community has even more responsibilities than the Nazis towards the population of Israel, including Castro, himself a sefardi.

After the 'Mavi Marmara' trip of Annette Groth, Inge Höger and Norman Paech research was done about anti-semitism of the German party 'The Left' by the sociologists Samuel Salzborn and Sebastian Voigt. Now the strategists of 'The Left' fought back with a trick: by nominating the so called legendary Nazi hunter Beate Klarsfeld as as Presidential Candidate. Klarsfeld was idolized in Israel while in reality a lot of her 'work' was set up by the east German intelligence apparatus. Obviously, she is of use for the Stalinists still and not deactivated yet - as the above article shows.

many of the people who are up in arms about Israel not being a colonial project are probably the same ones who argue that Britain gave the Jews all of Jordan too as a homeland. The problem is that the Arabs who lived there were no happier to have a Jewish state set up in their midst than would be the people in any other land. That is the problem with colonialism...the natives are not always agreeable to what is being done. Many ex colonial countries have gone on to resolve these differences amicably and move on. Its hard to see how this can happen in Israel if the Jewish and Arab population are still arguing about who is really a native. Its absurd to claim that some 3rd generation American, born in NYC, is more of a native than an Arab whose parents were actually born in the area. American Jews who think they belong in Israel and that Israel was not a colonial project are just a joke. It was as much a colonial project as Zimbabe was or a hundred other modern countries.

Suppose the Jews had been awarded Uganda instead of Eretz Israel. Suppose they had faced the same wars with the Africans they faced with the Arabs. Suppose that nevertheless they had built a prosperous peace-seeking democracy. Would this state be any less legitimate than the Israel built in the Holy Land? Probably not to those fond of finding metaphysical bonds between blood and soil that span millennia. To those who believe that Israel has earned its legitimacy thanks to its achievements (and must continue to do so) where a Jewish State is located is irrelevant. Zionism has earned its place among the family of nations thanks to its many merits. Were Israel benighted and corrupt whereas the Arab neighbors enlightened and prosperous, Zionism would not be credible. Regardless of who lived in Galilee 2000 years ago.

civilization and goodness is the base in human creation it was before any religion then the evil is from the same humanity religions were to return the humanity toits base of civilization here zionism is not a religion it is only like any trade association fore the benifits of its owners at first and at the end what happenes between it will be responses from allsides

Agreed: A prosperous Jewish state in Uganda would be as legitimate as New Zealand or Canada. But a Jewish state on Jewish historical soil is much more legitimate, on par with Greece, Ireland, or Korea.

The author of the article makes a serious point. Correctly, in my view, he states: " Israel has earned its legitimacy thanks to its achievements (and must continue to do so)". The debate between Zionists and anti-Zionists is a sterile one: Israel is now an established, internationally recognized nation-state. What is important is to focus on that last remark . Israel, like any country, must not be complacent. It must continually examine itself as member of the family of nations, especially those which surround it. Yes, Israel is significantly more democratic than its neighbours, but democracy must always be nurtured and open to close scrutiny. Yes, Israel has a highly developed economy with far less corruption than its neighbours, but this always requires continued monitoring. There are those - inside and outside Israel - who believe the country can do no wrong. Remembering what happened to Britain, with imperial decline, smug self-satisfaction will ultimately condemn any country to a minor role in history.

I do not know what the author was smoking ... but surely it's illegal. This man (Castro) is a provocateur or perhaps he's completely crazy.

"Colonialism" as perjorative term originated as Soviet agitprop to undermine the West. A classic example was the dual 1956 Suez/Hungary crisis. The actions of France, England and Israel in occupying Suez was condemned as "colonialism" - but the occupation of Hungary was not, even though the latter lasted decades longer it was still seen as legitimate because it was in the Soviet sphere of influence. And part of HItler's pitch to the Arabs was that Germany had no colonial empire - at least in the Arab world. Never mind that Nazi Germany was allied with Fascist Italy and Vichy France that did. Similarly the formation of France, Russia and Germany is also considered to be a form of internal colonization, yet no-one calls for the breakup of these states into their former ethnic and linquistic components. Arab colonialization in North Africa over the past few centuries has been given a pass, while Chinese colonization of Malaysia is but slightly contentious. North and South America and Australia and New Zealand were based a proud history of colonization and development. Today there is a movement to make the descendants of such people, and the descendants of those who followed feel guilty for unseating the indigenous inhabitants. The colonialist characterization is therefore applied selectively. As many posts have stated, the Jews aren't foreign colonizers, they are the indigenous people reclaiming their home from an outside hegemony. Hebrew and Judaism is native to Israel, this is where both grew together. Arabic and Islam comes from further Arabia. Native cultures such as the Copts, Berbers, Marionites, Druz, Yezidis, Mandeans and Assyrian Christians have suffered under Arab colonization for so long that many have forgotten who the true indigenes are However an alternate formulation is also available - and that is the identity of the immigrant. In this formulation Jews have immigrated back to their homeland and the vested elites feel threatened and react with xenophobia. Notwithstanding their own history of migrating back and forth within the region. Xenophobia is used to privilege the previous generation of immigrant against the next. It's one of the last acceptable prejudices. The same fears extending to successive waves of Irish, Italians and Orientals in America played out in Palestine as well. Alternatively one can point to the Muslim migration into Europe - and simply ask - is this colonization or is it emigration?