In Gaza and Ukraine right now, the colonial powers simply want the territory, and are largely indifferent or are openly hostile to the continued physical existence of the people who live there.
In Ukraine, since the point is controlling the land and not replacing the original population, non-violent resistance would not have stopped Russia but would have saved the Ukrainians most if not all the suffering and bloodshed.
Bucha would like to have a word with you.
Remember that the Russian aggression effectively started a decade ago after several successive country-wide popular uprisings in Ukraine which, despite violent crackdowns, strived for and put the country on the path towards democracy, westernization and reduction of oligarchic and Russian influence. Without wide popular support, the hundreds of thousands of soldiers and a large proportion of the population involved in the war effort would be just as, if not more, likely to turn on their own government. As a matter of fact, this is exactly what the Russians expected on the eve of their invasion, when the Ukrainian state was supposed to fold as a stack of cards and the Ukrainian people were supposed to accept their "liberators" without a hitch. Instead, Russia was instantly bogged down and pushed back by a determined popular resistance and a massive popular mobilization and the Ukrainian people are determined to keep fighting even after massive destruction of their infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of casualties.
Of course, the reasons for the foreign involvement in the war have much more ominous undertones and, especially in the case of the US, geopolitics are a major factor. However, one would have to be extremely misguided to pretend that motivations of the amorphous US political apparatus reflect the motivations of the Ukrainian (or even American) people in any way.
Not disputing the atrocities of Bucha but an episode (a war crime at that) is not enough to call a war genocidal.
Also worked in Poland with Solidarity against the Communists. Also worked in the Philippines with People Power:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Power_Revolution
Etc:
> They focused on cases of “nonviolent mass mobilization featuring at least one thousand observed participants seeking maximalist (country level) goals [such as the overthrow of a government or territorial independence, (see p.13] from 1900 to 2006 [now updated to 2019]. We did not count smaller campaigns, or reform movements” (p. xx). It took them two years to put the data set together, but it was well worth it – after analyzing those data, in 2011 they published their results in their highly acclaimed book, Why Civil Resistance Works, which received the prestigious Woodrow Wilson Prize of the American Political Science Association. Chenoweth and Stephan found that “[m]ore than half of the campaigns that relied primarily on nonviolent resistance succeeded, whereas only about a quarter of the violent ones did” (p. xx).
* https://www.peacejusticestudies.org/chronicle/review-of-civi...
- The Balfour declaration, announced by a colonial power without permission or proofreading from the natives or landowners
- The consequential Arab-Israeli war
- Operation Cast Thy Bread and the introduction of ethnically targeted chemical warfare funded by the government
- The 70 collective civilian casualties from Qibya being raided by IDF
- The 400 collective civilian casualties from Rafah and Khan Yunis being raided by IDF
- Israel's routine violations of the 1949 Armistice Agreements throughout the 1950s
- The Six Day War's extended annexations and territorial reparations
- The passing of the Golan Heights law and the consequential defense of it despite international outcry
- The decades-long occupation of Lebanon and (entirely accidental) formation of Hezbollah
- The Ibrahim al-Maqadma Mosque bombing and other effects of "Dahieh Doctrine" as applied to civilian populations
- The "Blue Line" and subsequent disagreements concerning it crossing territory Israel does not possess
- The continued government support of the illegal and internationally disavowed settlement of northern Israel
Unfortunately, my family has lived too close to this conflict for a comfortable accounting. Israel' history is colonial, from the moment they were issued land by Britain (anyone remember the Raj?), to the modern day where they deploy the IDF to defend illegal settlements. Except for the US and Israel's own objections, those settled areas are unanimously not acknowledged as Israeli territory by the UN and EU.
Therefore, Israel is a colonial power. You can argue that they're one of the good colonizers if you want, but you'll need some pretty convincing evidence to justify 70 years of nationalism-fueled bloodshed concerning territories that were never part of their nation in the first place. Most Americans with internet access have started to realize that they can only support this occupation because it inherently necessitates Israel relying on American imported weapons. It's becoming a second "Pakistan situation" very quickly, and politicians are starting to realize it.
Surprisingly you haven't mentioned the "recent" Oslo Accords. Do you think that Israel (colonial or not) should exist?
You asked how exactly Israel is a colony, and I provided a complete and internationally agreed-upon accounting of why that is considered the case. If you feel justified in killing people that intrude upon Israel without the intention of living there peacefully, then you know precisely how the natives felt when they were targeted and attacked by national defense forces at a time when Israel hardly existed.
It's by no fault of today's Israelis that they live in such a terrible place. However, it is their decision to deny their sins (the occupations) and the world will judge them in accordance with those choices. Israel can still redeem itself by rejecting the nationalist notion of perpetually occupying territory they do not legally possess. It is a necessary precondition to meaningful liberal development of the Levant - the status quo is a nightmare scenario.
For example it is not untrue to say that Yemen successfully fought the UK to gain independence (at least South Yemen). In Rhodesia (now Zambia and Zimbabwe) and Nyasaland (Malawi) calls for independence (by ANC, NAC, etc.) was met with crackdown by the white Rhodesian army (who ruled south Rhodesia post independence with apartheid). In Kenya the Mau Mau rebellion was brutally suppressed by the British Army, with over 35000 insurgents killed by British colonial forces. The Mau Mau lost, and Kenya peacefully gained independence a few years later.
Even though most former British colonies got their independence by voting in a pro-independence government who negotiated for independence between the mid 1960s and the 1980s, which the British peacefully accepted (with rare exceptions), the years prior, any independence prospects were definitely met with various tactics to prevent their success, including violent and armed colonial warfare.
Israel is still on track to increase one-state annexation because there isn't a majority of Israelis who desire two-state enough to throw them out.
Their new Minister of Defense, Israel Katz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Katz#Peace_and_security
The new Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gideon Sa'ar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_Sa%27ar#Likud_leadershi...
Israel has a responsibility to end their colonial ambitions regardless of how other nations feel about it. If they do not rise above the conditions of unjust political persecution that necessitated the creation of Israel in the first place, they are bound to succumb to it's failures as an unsustainable double standard.
Israel is not abiding to UN resolutions, nor ICJ arbitration, and it is non-violent resistance have so far been met with violence by the occupier. That does not leave many option for Palestinians, does it. And I would certainly say Palestinians have fought, and tried to get rid of the occupation that way. Personally, I really wished Israel would have responded to the non-violent option. A lot of lives would have been spared. And, that is sort of the point of the UN in the first place.
[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/unsealing-secret-hamas-papers-...
Iran does not recognize Hamas as a terrorist group, they don’t have any laws nor international agreements where they promised they wouldn’t send Hamas money. They may be breaking US law by this, but that is not comparable to Israel breaking the fourth Geneva convention on the rights and obligation of occupied territories. Israel has signed the fourth Geneva convention and have promised not to move citizens to and from occupied territories, they have also promised to keep occupation as a temporary state.
And to stay on topic of colonization. Moving money to a terrorist group is not a colonial behavior. Prolonging occupation, annexing occupied territories, and settling occupied territories is textbook colonization through military conquest.
EDIT: And on the topic of funneling money to foreign agents. International law is pretty clear that you are supposed prevent genocide, and that complicity with genocide is punishable equal to genocide (1948 genocide convention; Article III (e)). The USA giving money and weapons to Israel is not only breaking the Genocide convention, but also several of their own laws, including the Leahy Law.
I think you were gonna try a gatcha with me and accuse me of a double standard, but it is hard to find a more clear case of double standard as withing USA, and how they apply their own laws in foreign policy.
Surely you must understand how this entitled anecdotal "whataboutism" doesn't revise or justify the nationalist actions Israel took. You haven't denied or even expressed regret at any of the relevant accusations made in this thread; if the UN Ambassador of Israel acted this way, their peers would probably take it as an admission of guilt.
I personally believe Israel has a right to exist. There are two fundamental claims that lie unaddressed and compromise the legitimacy of the borders Israel chooses to recognize for themselves:
1) The originally misrepresented Balfour declaration that promised land Britain had no right to administrate
2) The continued unrepentant settlement of the Golan Heights in spite of multinational, worldwide objection to the action
The first issue does not make Israel inherently any more colonial than America, but does obviously start a blood feud with the native population. The second issue does make Israel inherently colonial and contradicts the idea that Zionism is not predicated on expansionist policy.
Secondly, if the argument that the “native” population (which of course has always lived there, absolutely no migration) has superior rights than an immigrant population was advanced in Europe in order to get rid of said immigrants, then we don’t need to imagine what that would be called, it was a whole thing.