[bzbarsky]

> 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.

[luffapi]

> create a homeland for the Jewish people

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.

[bzbarsky]

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?

[luffapi]

> 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.

[bzbarsky]

> 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.

[luffapi]

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).

[bzbarsky]

I don't see how open immigration solves the self-determination problem, unless the premise is that:

1) You allow open immigration.

2) You then allow a democratic vote, including by the new immigrants, to partition the existing state (the essence of self-determination).

which comes back to pretty much my original premise: that the only way for a geographically dispersed population to have self-determination is to be able to move to a single area where they can them democratically vote to have that area become autonomous or sovereign...

Needless to say, the pre-existing population of that area would likely not perceive this process favorably.

The other option I see is to posit that in modern democracies the principle of self-determination is unnecessary. I suspect a number of people in Catalonia and Scotland would disagree...

[joelbluminator]

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?

[luffapi]

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.

[joelbluminator]

> 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.

[luffapi]

Those territories weren’t “unoccupied” though. They were occupied and not consulted in the formation of Israel. It really is the root of the issue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balfour_Declarati...

[joelbluminator]

Define unoccupied. It was scarcely populated, definitely then and definitely by today's standards, and the Palestinian national movement was only in it's infancy. Most Palestinian wanted to be part of Syria back then afaik. It wasn't inconceivable that two people can create two states there then, and still isn't now. So no, I don't buy that everything was a colonialist plot. Some Zionists saw it as an expansionist enterprise and some didn't. We know for sure that on 1937 Zionism was seeking a split to the land or at least willing to make it happen. If the Palestinian agreed to the Peel committee in 1937 which offered Israel a very small state we wouldn't have been having this discussion now.