I agree that Israel has a lot of settler-colonial features but other settler-colonial states that have granted citizenship and at least formal legal equality to native and historically disenfranchised groups (the US, Canada, Australia etc) don't have their political systems challenged in the same way--nor should they--because despite ver…
I agree that Israel has a lot of settler-colonial features but other settler-colonial states that have granted citizenship and at least formal legal equality to native and historically disenfranchised groups (the US, Canada, Australia etc) don't have their political systems challenged in the same way--nor should they--because despite very real flaws they are far closer to being genuine liberal democracies. They don't deny citizenship to large swaths of native-born people just because they're not of the dominant ethnic/religious/racial group.
Have you considered that the actual reason why Israel doesn't just hand all Palestinians citizenship is because of the genocidal wars Palestine and its allies has waged against Israel, not to mention all the terrorism? Just some food for thought.
"Have you considered that the actual reason why the United States doesn't just hand all American Indians citizenship is because of the genocidal wars American Indians and their allies have waged against white Americans, not to mention all the terrorism? Just some food for thought."
Settler colonial state. Really? May I suggest Professor Beinart and Ms. Gill and many others on this site do the research or at least read the research. There is a lot out there. And you might be surprised.
While it is hard to pin down the actual population of Palestine in the 19th century most people (John McCarthy is best known) posit somewhere between 250,000 and 275,000 between 1800 and 1850. That number ballooned to almost twice that by 1900. How did that happen? Given that most Palestinians at the time were poverty stricken, often intra tribal fighting, earthquakes (1837) and just plain lawlessness not to mention that more than 75% had a permanent version of Trachoma (even in 1924 when the British surveyed the land) it was not a natural doubling of the population.
So where did they come from :
1. An Egyptian invasion in 1832 which upon withdrawal left somewhere between 30,000 and 75,000 behinds. Mostly near Gaza, Jaffa had a significant Egyptian population by 1900.
2. The contraction of the Ottoman Empire led to a significant, in the many thousands of additional Moslems from Algeria, Libya, Bosnia, Circassia. All to be resettled some in Syria, Some in Trans Jordan and many in Palestine (not yet Palestine). They were supported by the Ottoman Empire, and they were indeed colonial enterprise!
3. Also a significant number of Kurds and Bedouin tribes were also moving in and out of Palestine. Even Sudanese who came with the Egyptian army stayed and farmed water buffalos in the many swamps in the Sharon and Hula.
In fact there were more than twice as many new Arab villages established in the 19th century then Jewish ones. (Kirk and Grossman).
As Jews came in especially in the 20th century and created not only an industrial base a significant number of more Arabs simply walked across the British Mandate Borders.
The fact is the original Arab population of 250,000 was itself made up of differing people who also came in at different times. For example, two warring Arabian tribes the Qais and Yamens (you can read about them in Aryeh Avneri’s book also Dowty’s book and the comments of a British consulate Finn who described some of these horrific battles in teh 1850s.
None of these people are indigenous to the area. And while I think the concept of indigenous people is not particularly helpful (after all what are you all doing in America do you consider yourself indigenous?) while you are on the subject, I do think that you need to take into account that Jews were indigenous and returned in great numbers in the 19th and 20th century. Jews were in the area continuously although they were not Zionists. Jerusalem's population in 1900 had a majority Jewish component.
My point is simply that a great many people came in at once. To single out the Jews as external colonial enterprise is both anti-Semitic and is showing your terrible lack of knowledge.
You need to read up. You all remind me of the 60s when we were educating our fellow students about Vietnam our mantra then was: “Show me your sources”. Stop the BS and get some knowledge. Its a lot more complicated than many of you think.
I wondered how long it would take for Joan Peters to come up. I provided sources and Joan Peters was not among them. I don’t want to discuss Peters because I did not read her book thinking she was discredited but I do know now that she had good data and that she misused it in some of her analysis.
My sources for external inputs for:
1. Egyptian invasion with well over 100,000 many conscripts who upon withdrawal almost 8 years later decided to stay is well established. This event occurred and is historical.
2. The contraction of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century is also well known and it led to an import of significant number of Moslems from the entities that the Ottomans gave up. This too is well known and is even mentioned in general histories of Palestine. And yes, they were funded by Ottoman Turkey and provided with land, often villages vacated by others due to Bedouin attacks and intra tribal battles. See below.
3. Palestine even before it was an entity was porous and many others from the neighborhood often came and often left depending on strife and level of lawlessness. British Mandate Data has shown that and is routinely cited by researchers.
One source, especially for no.2 above, would be David Grossman Rural Arab Demography and Early Jewish Settlement in Palestine. Ruth Kark has written much about this as have many others. General introductions to Palestine all bring up these issues for example Gudrun Kramer A history of Palestine.
But we also have primary sources in the form of visitors and government officials like James Finn a British consul general in the 1850s and 60s. Travelers like Tristram Henry Baker (a 19th century British explorer and clergy man) who described the disappearance of villages and how all of sudden people from Algeria and Libya for example took over certain villages.
My point was that many people showed up in the 19th century and even more showed up in the 20th century—the Jews “were not Johnnys come lately”. Most of the Arab population also came there recently; certainly the majority were not there from Canaanite/Philistine times. I know this does not conform to the current narrative of Jew usurping the land, but narratives can change over time.
Even if you’re not citing Joan Peters, you’re recycling her basic point by reframing the ongoing conflict as a question of whether Jews or Arabs have a greater claim of indigeneity to the eastern coast of the Mediterranean. Even if they had only lived in their homes for a matter of decades, the permanent displacement of over 700,000 non-Jewish residents during the civil war of the late 1940s would still be unjustified, and neither would the Kafkaesque bureaucracy of the Civil Administration since 1967 in the West Bank.
The fact of the matter is that both Jews and Arabs have lived in the region since antiquity, and claims that some Arabs’ tenure was illegitimate because it may not have dated more than a generation or two before the late 1940s make it absurd to suggest that the tenure of Israeli Jews making Aliyah is somehow more legitimate than the tenure of the Arabs who were displaced.
In all likelihood, *both* Jews and Arabs are indigenous to the eastern Mediterranean. In all likelihood, Mizrahi Jews have significant shared ancestry with the non-Jewish Arabs with whom they have cohabitated for thousands of years. And anyway the Israeli doesn’t use ancestry to determine eligibility for Aliyah; they only care whether a given individual is considered halachically Jewish according to the Chief [Orthodox] Rabbinate, a point which has proven contentious, e.g. with the evacuation of Beta Israel from Ethiopia from the late 1970s onward. What does the Aliyah of Beta Israel have to do with the demographics of the late Ottoman Empire? Nothing!
Elsie, If you look over my earlier piece, I was clear that I find the concept of indigenous people as a true measure of rights unhelpful (as I often point out we are all here in America and not indigenous). All you have to do is read David Reich Who we are and how we got here to understand that. Unfortunately, it is something that is constantly being used and is part of the false narrative of “settler colonial enterprise”. Namely, the Jews came and displaced the Arabs who had been there forever.
The data is clear that the Jews did not displace the Arabs. More Arab towns were created in the 19th century than Jewish ones and many more Arabs came in to Palestine as the Jews came in.
Arabs farmers (fellahin) were displaced by an onerous tax system put in place by the Ottomans and rapacious theft by their village chiefs, and the wealthy Arab class who literally took ownership of the land and sold it from underneath them. While it is said they were absentee landlords, just about all the members of the eventual Palestinian leadership sold land to the Jews. But before you pity the poor fellahin, the farming they engaged in was simply unsustainable and when offered new land or cash they always opted for cash.
It is true that 700,000 Arabs were displaced in the aftermath of the 1948 war. What is not true is that they were all or mostly expelled. If you go back and read the commentary at the time, particularly Arab commentary, before it was buried, massaged and replaced by today’s narrative. You will find that the notables (as they were called) class (74,000) left overnight and left with their funds. That send a powerful signal to many others who followed in their footsteps. Certainly, there were atrocities committed by both sides and had been for more than just the 1948 war and that was enough to set many in motion. As often happens in a war. European Jews found out in the aftermath of WWII that they could not return to their homes!
Also, when we talk about how the Arabs who came to Palestine came recently, which is true, the fact is that many simply returned to where they came from. From the 1918 British occupation until 1948 more than 100,000 came from neighboring countries they too are now considered refugees.
It is also true that the Arabs in Palestine were offered numerous chances at some form of statehood even prior to the partition plan. And I am quite sure if they were offered the partition plan today, they would grab it. All were always rejected. As for post 1967 I am in full agreement that Israel needs to vacate the lands but I also don’t see an Arab leadership ready to negotiate that departure. They are hoping Peter Beinart’s concept will take hold.
There's notifications in the top right corner of Substack that let you know if someone has responded to you.
I'm not sure what your point is about moving from the US to Scotland, but I'm glad you don't seem to disagree that Israel isn't a settler colonial state.
Yes, the United States and Canada are garbage-tier democracies. And as a white American, I feel comfortable saying that Israel is just as garbage-tier as we are!
OK, then, take it with Peter Beinart who seems to think the US is significantly better than Israel. I'm happy to agree with you that Israel is just as liberal and democratic as the United States and Canada.
I agree that Israel has a lot of settler-colonial features but other settler-colonial states that have granted citizenship and at least formal legal equality to native and historically disenfranchised groups (the US, Canada, Australia etc) don't have their political systems challenged in the same way--nor should they--because despite very real flaws they are far closer to being genuine liberal democracies. They don't deny citizenship to large swaths of native-born people just because they're not of the dominant ethnic/religious/racial group.
Have you considered that the actual reason why Israel doesn't just hand all Palestinians citizenship is because of the genocidal wars Palestine and its allies has waged against Israel, not to mention all the terrorism? Just some food for thought.
"Have you considered that the actual reason why the United States doesn't just hand all American Indians citizenship is because of the genocidal wars American Indians and their allies have waged against white Americans, not to mention all the terrorism? Just some food for thought."
What genocidal wars?
What terrorism?
Also they are called Native Americans now. And they HAVE citizenship. You are a moron as well as a racist.
You really aren’t familiar with US history are you lol.
I guess not, please educate me about some of the genocidal wars waged by the Native Americans against the USA.
Settler colonial state. Really? May I suggest Professor Beinart and Ms. Gill and many others on this site do the research or at least read the research. There is a lot out there. And you might be surprised.
While it is hard to pin down the actual population of Palestine in the 19th century most people (John McCarthy is best known) posit somewhere between 250,000 and 275,000 between 1800 and 1850. That number ballooned to almost twice that by 1900. How did that happen? Given that most Palestinians at the time were poverty stricken, often intra tribal fighting, earthquakes (1837) and just plain lawlessness not to mention that more than 75% had a permanent version of Trachoma (even in 1924 when the British surveyed the land) it was not a natural doubling of the population.
So where did they come from :
1. An Egyptian invasion in 1832 which upon withdrawal left somewhere between 30,000 and 75,000 behinds. Mostly near Gaza, Jaffa had a significant Egyptian population by 1900.
2. The contraction of the Ottoman Empire led to a significant, in the many thousands of additional Moslems from Algeria, Libya, Bosnia, Circassia. All to be resettled some in Syria, Some in Trans Jordan and many in Palestine (not yet Palestine). They were supported by the Ottoman Empire, and they were indeed colonial enterprise!
3. Also a significant number of Kurds and Bedouin tribes were also moving in and out of Palestine. Even Sudanese who came with the Egyptian army stayed and farmed water buffalos in the many swamps in the Sharon and Hula.
In fact there were more than twice as many new Arab villages established in the 19th century then Jewish ones. (Kirk and Grossman).
As Jews came in especially in the 20th century and created not only an industrial base a significant number of more Arabs simply walked across the British Mandate Borders.
The fact is the original Arab population of 250,000 was itself made up of differing people who also came in at different times. For example, two warring Arabian tribes the Qais and Yamens (you can read about them in Aryeh Avneri’s book also Dowty’s book and the comments of a British consulate Finn who described some of these horrific battles in teh 1850s.
None of these people are indigenous to the area. And while I think the concept of indigenous people is not particularly helpful (after all what are you all doing in America do you consider yourself indigenous?) while you are on the subject, I do think that you need to take into account that Jews were indigenous and returned in great numbers in the 19th and 20th century. Jews were in the area continuously although they were not Zionists. Jerusalem's population in 1900 had a majority Jewish component.
My point is simply that a great many people came in at once. To single out the Jews as external colonial enterprise is both anti-Semitic and is showing your terrible lack of knowledge.
You need to read up. You all remind me of the 60s when we were educating our fellow students about Vietnam our mantra then was: “Show me your sources”. Stop the BS and get some knowledge. Its a lot more complicated than many of you think.
You do realize that Joan Peters is completely discredited, right?
I wondered how long it would take for Joan Peters to come up. I provided sources and Joan Peters was not among them. I don’t want to discuss Peters because I did not read her book thinking she was discredited but I do know now that she had good data and that she misused it in some of her analysis.
My sources for external inputs for:
1. Egyptian invasion with well over 100,000 many conscripts who upon withdrawal almost 8 years later decided to stay is well established. This event occurred and is historical.
2. The contraction of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century is also well known and it led to an import of significant number of Moslems from the entities that the Ottomans gave up. This too is well known and is even mentioned in general histories of Palestine. And yes, they were funded by Ottoman Turkey and provided with land, often villages vacated by others due to Bedouin attacks and intra tribal battles. See below.
3. Palestine even before it was an entity was porous and many others from the neighborhood often came and often left depending on strife and level of lawlessness. British Mandate Data has shown that and is routinely cited by researchers.
One source, especially for no.2 above, would be David Grossman Rural Arab Demography and Early Jewish Settlement in Palestine. Ruth Kark has written much about this as have many others. General introductions to Palestine all bring up these issues for example Gudrun Kramer A history of Palestine.
But we also have primary sources in the form of visitors and government officials like James Finn a British consul general in the 1850s and 60s. Travelers like Tristram Henry Baker (a 19th century British explorer and clergy man) who described the disappearance of villages and how all of sudden people from Algeria and Libya for example took over certain villages.
My point was that many people showed up in the 19th century and even more showed up in the 20th century—the Jews “were not Johnnys come lately”. Most of the Arab population also came there recently; certainly the majority were not there from Canaanite/Philistine times. I know this does not conform to the current narrative of Jew usurping the land, but narratives can change over time.
Even if you’re not citing Joan Peters, you’re recycling her basic point by reframing the ongoing conflict as a question of whether Jews or Arabs have a greater claim of indigeneity to the eastern coast of the Mediterranean. Even if they had only lived in their homes for a matter of decades, the permanent displacement of over 700,000 non-Jewish residents during the civil war of the late 1940s would still be unjustified, and neither would the Kafkaesque bureaucracy of the Civil Administration since 1967 in the West Bank.
The fact of the matter is that both Jews and Arabs have lived in the region since antiquity, and claims that some Arabs’ tenure was illegitimate because it may not have dated more than a generation or two before the late 1940s make it absurd to suggest that the tenure of Israeli Jews making Aliyah is somehow more legitimate than the tenure of the Arabs who were displaced.
In all likelihood, *both* Jews and Arabs are indigenous to the eastern Mediterranean. In all likelihood, Mizrahi Jews have significant shared ancestry with the non-Jewish Arabs with whom they have cohabitated for thousands of years. And anyway the Israeli doesn’t use ancestry to determine eligibility for Aliyah; they only care whether a given individual is considered halachically Jewish according to the Chief [Orthodox] Rabbinate, a point which has proven contentious, e.g. with the evacuation of Beta Israel from Ethiopia from the late 1970s onward. What does the Aliyah of Beta Israel have to do with the demographics of the late Ottoman Empire? Nothing!
Elsie, If you look over my earlier piece, I was clear that I find the concept of indigenous people as a true measure of rights unhelpful (as I often point out we are all here in America and not indigenous). All you have to do is read David Reich Who we are and how we got here to understand that. Unfortunately, it is something that is constantly being used and is part of the false narrative of “settler colonial enterprise”. Namely, the Jews came and displaced the Arabs who had been there forever.
The data is clear that the Jews did not displace the Arabs. More Arab towns were created in the 19th century than Jewish ones and many more Arabs came in to Palestine as the Jews came in.
Arabs farmers (fellahin) were displaced by an onerous tax system put in place by the Ottomans and rapacious theft by their village chiefs, and the wealthy Arab class who literally took ownership of the land and sold it from underneath them. While it is said they were absentee landlords, just about all the members of the eventual Palestinian leadership sold land to the Jews. But before you pity the poor fellahin, the farming they engaged in was simply unsustainable and when offered new land or cash they always opted for cash.
It is true that 700,000 Arabs were displaced in the aftermath of the 1948 war. What is not true is that they were all or mostly expelled. If you go back and read the commentary at the time, particularly Arab commentary, before it was buried, massaged and replaced by today’s narrative. You will find that the notables (as they were called) class (74,000) left overnight and left with their funds. That send a powerful signal to many others who followed in their footsteps. Certainly, there were atrocities committed by both sides and had been for more than just the 1948 war and that was enough to set many in motion. As often happens in a war. European Jews found out in the aftermath of WWII that they could not return to their homes!
Also, when we talk about how the Arabs who came to Palestine came recently, which is true, the fact is that many simply returned to where they came from. From the 1918 British occupation until 1948 more than 100,000 came from neighboring countries they too are now considered refugees.
It is also true that the Arabs in Palestine were offered numerous chances at some form of statehood even prior to the partition plan. And I am quite sure if they were offered the partition plan today, they would grab it. All were always rejected. As for post 1967 I am in full agreement that Israel needs to vacate the lands but I also don’t see an Arab leadership ready to negotiate that departure. They are hoping Peter Beinart’s concept will take hold.
I turned off email alerts for this thread because it was stressing me out.
Anyway it sounds like we agree that the current mess can be blamed squarely on the British.
"In all likelihood, *both* Jews and Arabs are indigenous to the eastern Mediterranean"
Fantastic, so Israel isn't a settler colonial state.
If I move from the US to Scotland and evict some, idk, British Asian family from their home so I can live there instead, that still... isn't great.
(If you respond at this point, I probably won't see it, just I like I didn't see this for like two weeks, either.)
There's notifications in the top right corner of Substack that let you know if someone has responded to you.
I'm not sure what your point is about moving from the US to Scotland, but I'm glad you don't seem to disagree that Israel isn't a settler colonial state.
US and Canada: *slaughters millions of indigenous people and forces the remainder into reservations*
Peter Beinart: "Well they give the few survivors citizenship so they're genuine liberal democracies!"
Absurd. Completely absurd.
Yes, the United States and Canada are garbage-tier democracies. And as a white American, I feel comfortable saying that Israel is just as garbage-tier as we are!
OK, then, take it with Peter Beinart who seems to think the US is significantly better than Israel. I'm happy to agree with you that Israel is just as liberal and democratic as the United States and Canada.
I would agree that Peter is overly sanguine where the US is concerned.