Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Jabotinsky was arguing for forceful colonization, not outright genocide, but "colonization" was the other term that you objected to. And yes, of course, there are different brands of Zionists - but the fundamental believe of that ideology is that Jews are entitled to have a state of their own on that territory; Jabotinsky was simply the one who pointed out the obvious consequences of that desire and denounced those who believed that they could somehow come and take the land and get no pushback so it'd all be peaceful.

It should also be noted that the ruling party, Likud, is specifically a Revisionist Zionist organization, with an explicit historical link to Betar, and founded by Begin who was a Jabotinsky disciple. So this isn't just some kind of random coincidence; what we're seeing Israel doing in Gaza today is a direct consequence of taking Jabotinsky's main premise and running it to conclusion.



The assertion was 'if it's colonisation, it's colonisation with about a dozen caveats'. Some of the caveats that come to mind:

- when the colonists began colonizing, there were already a minority of jews in the region

- many of the colonizers believed themselves, with some reason, to be native to the land

- most israelis today, through no fault of their own, were born in israel

- when zionists came to colonize israel, it was already colonized (twice over)

- the initial colonization was carried out 'legally' (though, in hindsight, what that means is questionable)

- many of the colonizers were fleeing persecution and, especially around the holocaust, had no nations willing to accept them as immigrants


> many of the colonizers were fleeing persecution and, especially around the holocaust, had no nations willing to accept them as immigrants

So they take over someone else's land and massacre and displace the locals? Sounds about right /s




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: