The Balfour Declaration was a request from a banker so powerful that he could order the British government to create a new colony. It has nothing to do with anti-semitism.
Anti-semitism has nothing to do with the movement to create a homeland for the Jewish people (which then tried to garner the support of various governments, which is where the Balfour Declaration comes in)? It has everything to do with it.
Were there various colonialism-related issues involved too, of course. But pretending like that's the entire story is quite disingenuous.
This is clearly colonialism by definition. It’s the entire story because there is no justification for oppressing and colonizing others, even if the people doing it also face discrimination. It’s not an excuse and shouldn’t be part of the conversation.
I think there's an interesting argument to be had here about the point at which "self-determination" becomes "colonialism". A group that is sufficiently geographically diffuse does not have a right to self-determination (ipso facto, because it's not the majority anywhere). Your position seems to be that an attempt by such a group to concentrate geographically somewhere in order to exercise the right to self-determination is fundamentally illegitimate because any such attempt is "colonialism".
Is that an accurate representation of your views? If not, what is?
> Your position seems to be that an attempt by such a group to concentrate geographically somewhere in order to exercise the right to self-determination is fundamentally illegitimate because any such attempt is "colonialism".
If that relocation involves creating a new state or otherwise taking power over the region, then yes that’s my definition of colonialism.
> If that relocation involves creating a new state
Creating a new state is what the right to self-determination is all about, yes.
It sounds like we have some fundamental disagreements on definitions here, though I would be interested in your take about how you feel the right to self-determination can be meaningfully exercised by a geographically dispersed group, if at all.
I don’t think a new state can ethically be created without a democratic choice to do so by the existing population of a region.
I think a humanitarian route would be to lobby for open immigration in existing democracies. For instance, I think we all would have been a lot better off if instead of creating the state of Israel, we offered US citizenship to anyone who needed it after WWII. I’m also a proponent of a modern day open border policy for the US (where I’m a citizen).
Its really not though, the declaration never went into specifics on what parts will become Jewish exactly for this reason. It said a Jewish home IN Plaestine, not that all of Palestine will become Jewish. And even if it is "the definition of colonialism", what does it have to do with anything now?
A colony is the establishment of a new state on or in territory occupied by someone else. This is as textbook a case of colonialism as there is.
> And even if it is "the definition of colonialism", what does it have to do with anything now?
It’s literally the basis for every problem we’re discussing. Israel didn’t magically become not a colony, it’s enforced its apartheid state since it was created by western superpowers.
> A colony is the establishment of a new state on or in territory occupied by someone else
That's you interpreting Balfour / Zionism the way you see fit, there were movements in Zionism that wanted to split the land, in fact the main movement wanted to split the land since 1937 for sure (agreeing to the Peel committee split plan) and maybe even before that.
But the declaration itself just says - a national Jewish home in Palestine. There were unoccupied territories in Palestine 100 years ago. In fact there still are, even when this tiny land inhabits 15 million people and not just 1.5 millions like 100 years ago.
If Balfour wanted to say explicitly that all of Palestine is to become Jewish he would have said so.
It doesn't even say a state or a country, just a "national home". You're attributing to Balfour more than what was written.
Why is the Balfour Declaration a main point in your argument? It could have not happen and yet Jews would still have been desperate to find a state of their own. I am not sure how it relates to anything besides it being a piccant topic (a powerful banker!)
Anti-semitism has nothing to do with the movement to create a homeland for the Jewish people (which then tried to garner the support of various governments, which is where the Balfour Declaration comes in)? It has everything to do with it.
Were there various colonialism-related issues involved too, of course. But pretending like that's the entire story is quite disingenuous.