Gandhi's Letter to Hitler (1940)

In rough chronological arrangement:

- 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.

I think you forgot thousands of history years before that. Who are the natives? If someone attacked my family in October 7th and much previous to that I will return fire without hesitation, like any nation in the world.

Surprisingly you haven't mentioned the "recent" Oslo Accords. Do you think that Israel (colonial or not) should exist?

Nothing you just said refutes the current colonial status of the Israeli state and their active defense of internationally abhorred occupations. My intention isn't to defame anyone with emotional candor, but rather to shine a light on the intractable fact that the Golan Heights are an illegally occupied colony, defended by Israeli conscripts and shielded from controversy with the threat of American soft-power.

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.

It takes two to tango: a two state solution was always supported by Israelis and Jewish people around the world.

I don't disagree. But two wrongs don't add up to one right, so nobody is really looking at the current situation as a net-positive. Israel is a colonial state that currently has a long way to go in renouncing the territory they do not rightfully own. It's the majority opinion, not an extremist or misconstrued take. Nobody ever had to "develop the idea" because it has been said by every single country that is not Israel or the United States.

Israel is not a member of the ICC, am I right?

Well, let it never be said that I didn't attempt to explain it in good faith.

I appreciate that.

Israel is a member of the UN and the ICJ, the UN has several resolutions ordering Israel to stop their colonial conduct, and the ICJ has a couple of rulings ordering the same. Most relevant here is Israel’s participation of the fourth Geneva convention which forbids moving civilian populations to and from occupied areas, this makes all Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the Golan Heights (and probably also East Jerusalem) illegal. The ICC does not need to rule on this as the criminal conduct here is government policy, and Israel needs to stop it.

Supported by some Israelis and Jewish people. Remember, their Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated by the Israeli far-right because they were fiercely against the Oslo Accord negotiations with Palestinians. Netanyahu doesn't believe in a two-state solution, because Ben-Gvir is in his cabinet, he dismissed Gallant, a two-state moderate, and just promoted two fierce one-state supporters to the next highest levels in cabinet.

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...

Do you know what other countries are not respecting UN resolutions? So, Israel is part of many countries not accepting UN resolutions, and instead of saying "Israel needs to stop it" you should mention every country that is not respecting UN resolutions and acting similarly.

Nobody here is trying to appeal to higher authority, really. The UN is relevant insofar as it represents the concerns of the rest of the world, and the decorum they consider acceptable for international conduct. You don't have to defend Israel's digressions here, but it certainly would help make your argument more accessible. Defending everything Israel and the IDF has done is not something even the most die-hard Zionist apologists will do.

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.

I don't see the world in that way. I think that if you really want a change you should go and fight or be a political incumbent to influence on an outcome.

The thing about an occupation, is there is no political avenue for the occupied to get rid of the occupation, except via the UN through resolutions, or via an arbitration through the ICJ. The only other alternative here is direct action, including violent and non-violent resistance.

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.

Now, that it is clear that your arguments give the UN the top hand on international legal issues, I understand that you will support legal cases like this in case they win [1], is that right? One of the proof that the conflict goes beyond Palestinians and Israelis.

[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/unsealing-secret-hamas-papers-...

I’m confused, this is a private suite filed at the US federal courts about alleged donations to a terrorist group. It is not an arbitration settling disputes between states where one state has violated multiple agreements they have signed.

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.

You've taken this discussion entirely off the rails. This started by you facetiously asking for an explanation of how Israel is a colonial power despite knowing fully well that it is one. When it was explained to you, you didn't try refuting the colonial accusations but instead tried to push the blame on the rest of the world. This is unacceptable; Israel is responsible for their own actions regardless of who they answer to.

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.

> The Balfour declaration, announced by a colonial power without permission or proofreading from the natives or landowners

Right off the bat you’re implying Israel has no right to exist…

No, I'm highlighting the part of Mandatory Palestine where it quite literally started out as a British colonial entity.

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.

You argue that Israel’s colonial occupations in the West Bank are illegitimate, but the establishment of Israel itself, while colonial, is not illegitimate? That seems inconsistent. It seems a very common position for people to begrudge that Israel has a right to exist, but not really.

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.

No, they're just explaining why they believe it is a colonial power.