Zionists will say shit like this, but when you go back to the source material for the earliest thinkers of Zionism to actually find the proper definition, it's even worse than what Liberal Zionists try to preach. I have more respect for the earliest thinkers of Zionism, because unlike Lib Zionists, they don't lie.
Here's what the early Zionist thinker Ahad Ha'am said about the Arabs in The Truth About Eretz Yisrael (1891), and how he felt about the Zionist project following his journey to the Land of Palestine. He recognized a collective dimension to Arab identity; their hostility to foreign intrusion was not simply a matter of local or isolated frictions, but was potentionally part of a general pattern of resistance that Zionism would one day face:
"If the time comes when the life of our people in Eretz Israel develops to the point of encroaching upon the native population, they will not easily yield their place".
And here's what other Zionist thinkers had to say:
"We should there [In Palestine] form a part of a wall of defense for Europe in Asia, an outpost of civilization against barbarism. We should as a neutral state remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence."
Should the Powers declare themselves willing to admit our sovereignty over a neutral piece of land, then the Society will enter into negotiations for the possession of this land. Here two territories come under consideration, Palestine and Argentina. In both countries important experiments in colonization have been made, though on the mistaken principle of a gradual infiltration of Jews. An infiltration is bound to end in disaster. It continues till the inevitable moment when the native population [Arabs] feels itself threatened, and forces the Government to stop the further influx of Jews. Immigration is consequently futile unless based on an assured supremacy.
-Theodor Herzl, Der Judenstaat (1896)
You are being invited to help make history. That cannot frighten you, nor will you laugh at it. It is not in your accustomed line; it doesn’t involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor, not Englishmen, but Jews. But had this been on your path, you would have done it yourself by now. How, then, do I happen to turn to you, since this is an out-of-the way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial, and because it presupposes understanding of a development which will take twenty or thirty years.
-Theodor Herzl's letter to Cecil Rhodes
And it made no difference whatever whether the colonists behaved decently or not. The companions of Cortez and Pizzaro or (as some people will remind us) our own ancestors under Joshua Ben Nun (referencing the Amalekites), behaved like brigands; but the Pilgrim Fathers, the first real pioneers of North America, were people of the highest morality, who did not want to do harm to anyone, least of all to the Red Indians, and they honestly believed that there was room enough in the prairies both for the Paleface and the Redskin. Yet the native population fought with the same ferocity against the good colonists as against the bad.
They [The Arabs] feel at least the same instinctive jealous love of Palestine, as the old Aztecs felt for ancient Mexico , and their Sioux for their rolling Prairies.
-Ze'ev Jabotinsky, The Iron Wall (1923).
izzy806
germansingergirl
discoholicmusic
prguitarman
kianamaiart
annaxmalina
