We cannot allow Israel to escape the legal consequences of their war crimes. The Hind Rajab Foundation has, among other things, filed a case with the ICC against 1,000 Israeli soldiers for war crimes in Gaza.
They have taken further steps in recent days, and vacations are becoming a lot more difficult for IDF soldiers, worldwide. The Hind Rajab Foundation can use our help. Please join me in making a contribution.
You might find meaningful to watch the recent interviews that Glenn Greenwald did on his Rumble platform, and Ali Abunimah of the Electronic Intifada, did with the head of this organisation, Dyad Abou Jahjah. It was very informative.
Here's a petition calling for accountability for the arrest of Ali Abunimah in Switzerland:
Yes very good historical comparisons. I have no doubt the relentless effort to drive Palestinians from historic Palestine and acquire even more land for settlements exclusively for Jews, can only be stopped by outside forces. However it seems the plans to push Palestinians into Jordan and Egypt has hit a roadblock in that even with Trump supporting the plan, the leaders of these countries have adamantly refused. Personally I believe the current regimes in Egypt and Jordan would be de-stabilized or even overthrown if this were allowed to happen. Also despite these dark times I like many have watched with awe the resilience of Palestinians who have gone through and survived a truly genocidal assault, and despite the horrors have remained steadfast in their resistance. No group of humans should be allowed to go through what they have, and this will forever remain a stain not only on Israel and its supporters, but the world at large.
Thanks for this chilling account, Avigail. It strikes me as accurate, and I hope the world can find a way to stop Israel and its allies. I've signed the petition below.
“Those capable of inflicting atrocities on others, reveal a mindset that is not limited to a particular group of scapegoats. A person or regime capable of objectifying even one human being, demonstrates a pathological absence of empathy. In other words, they are not dangerous only to their choice victim. They are universally dangerous.”
Exactly, Israelis are an existential threat to all of us. But it’s not only them that execute the atrocities that are a threat but the supporting and enablers psychopaths too.
Israelis indulge in the conceit that they are ‘chosen’, special, elevated, exceptional ad nauseam. As Avigail indicates, this is ‘old hat’ and ‘par for the course’ when it comes to empire builders and settler colonialists as far back as you can go. They always think they are special, always use some religious pretext to invade and murder and steal, always smear indigenous populations as either uncivilised or terrorists. Nothing special, just murderous ignorant thugs🤢
Excellent, informational text that brings into alignment the history of what we’re once again watching unfold. Every point right on target. A pleasure to read, and ammunition in an arsenal of peace, and understanding.
There are no citizens of Israel in the first place.. In 2018 Israel passed a law saying only Jews had nationality which means there is no Israeli citizenship, just Jewish citizenship and nationality which excludes all non-Jews like the Palestinian Muslims and Christians.
They will be the final target in Israel's Final Solution if it is allowed to get away with exterminating 6 million in Occupied Palestine. Do not be surprised to see disease break out in both the Gaza concentration camp, and what Israel calls the West Bank, but which is the rest of Occupied Palestine on pre-67 borders.
To play ball with the rest of the world, and appear ‘normal’, Israel has *Israeli citizenship*. But in Israel, citizenship is not the same as ‘nationality’, which is where you see the deception and insanity.
Most of the world has been oblivious to this, until recently. I’ve often presented my birth certificate in talks alongside a birth certificate of a Palestinian citizen of Israel, to get the point across. I have these images also in one of my past essays on Substack.
The Jewish Nation State Bill has paved the way for Israel to eventually strip the Palestinians of their citizenship, so that ‘citizenship’ and ‘nationality’ are finally aligned. Or another way of looking at it, is that only those Israel defines as Jews will be able to be citizens of that racist cult state.
It has been de-facto this way anyway, but a Palestinian child born in Israel to parents who are Israeli citizens, would be granted Israeli citizenship by law. Israel’s aim is to get rid of *all* the Palestinians and have a purely Jewish state (by their definition of Jewishness).
To read the full text of their Jewish nation bill have a look at link below. You’ll need a strong stomach:
Having worked with and for Israelis and spent time in what is called Israel and being fortunate enough to drive around Occupied Palestine when one could, I would only say, I was shocked, but not really surprised at the openly expressed bigotry of Israelis toward Palestinians in particular and by extension, non-Jews in general.
What does surprise and shock me more is the support of so many Jews around the world for the evil atrocity which is and always has been, Zionist Israel. Yes, some Jews before 1947 and after predicted the ghastly evolution of such a State, but most Jews have supported and funded Israel when it would have been easy enough for them to find out just what they were supporting and funding. Denial is a river of fear which runs through the heart of Judaism is my conclusion.
Even more surprising is how many non-Jews, Governments and individuals, who have closed their eyes and minds to the evil that is Israel for 76 years, including the unmissable atrocities and war crimes of the past 16 months. WHY?
What is going on? Does Mossad really have compromising information on just about every politician in the Western world which keeps them in line? Ditto for mainstream media, owners and staff?
Or, has the Zionist propaganda machine, spewing away for 128 years really been so effective in brainwashing not just Israelis but millions around the world?
Why have Israelis been allowed to get away with it for so long to become an even greater atrocity on the planet? You could almost believe there are forces at work which hate Jews so much if Israel did not exist they would have had to invent it.
Or is Ziorael a great lesson from the Cosmos - THIS IS THE EVIL YOU BECOME WHEN YOU BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND DO WHAT THEY DO.
You are asking very good questions and are a good observer. I have written extensively about this and so have many others. Ilan Pappé’s recent book *Lobbying for Zionism On Both Sides of the Atlantic* might answer some of your questions. Rashid Khalidi’s book *The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine* provides the history of the support for Zionism long before Israel became a state.
There is no way to understand the support for Zionism and later Israel without understanding the colonial/imperialist context. Christ Hedges’ writings on this are very illuminating (quite shocking too), and you can find many of his essays here on Substack.
Evil imperialism has been in charge in the world, since ancient history. Colonialism and settler-colonialism are grounded in racism, and exceptionalism and they are crimes committed by people with a criminal mindset. It is always been the case. The sad fact is that the criminally insane have always been in charge in the world, because ‘ordinary’ people who are always frightened keep them there.
Israel could not have enjoyed the support it does without the general colonial mindset, which contrary to what people think, did not end at the end of WWII. It is devastating and disturbing.
By the way, the Zioraelis want people to talk about how evil the colonisation of the US and other countries were in centuries past because it takes attention away from them and lets them off the hook - see, nothing to do with Zionists, Jews or Israelis, this is just a Western thing. Not our fault.
Actually, colonialism is never discussed in Israel at all in any context. It is not taught at school at all. It prevents anyone suddenly starting to make connections with Israel’s history…
Thanks, I have read a lot of Pappe but not the recent book.
I do not believe that the Zioraeli colonial project can be understood without a solid understanding of Judaism and its history and the history of Europe and the Middle East.
Israel has received the support it has because of ignorance, propaganda, religious belief, bribery, corruption and bullying by Zionists, Israelis and Jews, and a deep fear of Islam, promoted and pushed by the Zionists and Jews for more than a century.
I apply common sense when seeking answers and Occam's Razor - often the simplest answer is correct.
I do not believe it is wise to throw a blanket called colonial/imperialist over the issue of Israel since imperialist mindsets litter human history and appear in everyone, Anglo, European, African, Indian, Polynesian, everyone. Exploration, invasion, colonisation, trade are human qualities and the reason why Imperialism has always existed. The greatest/biggest empire was Asian, the Mongols.
The modern use of the term colonial/imperialist means anglo-europeans and ignores the rest. That distorts history and reality.
I think that conflating Israel with colonisations in centuries past is unwise, unfair and often dishonest. Many do this including Chris Hedges and Caitlin Johnstone and I think they are wrong. It lets Israel off the hook because it says, well, see, this is just a Western thing and it is no different to the colonisation of the US, Canada, Australia by those evil anglo-europeans.
It is very different as any study of the other colonisations will reveal. Apart from which retrofitting modern values to the past is dishonest and dysfunctional.
The first settlers to the Americas arrived in 1607. They did not arrive with a policy of genocide toward the natives, nor a belief that the land was theirs and had been stolen from them as the Zionists and Jews believed about Palestine; neither did they believe they were superior humans and the natives were subhuman and had to be exterminated or expelled as was the case with Israel, and it was nearly 400 years earlier.
When the First Fleet set sail to Australia to establish a penal colony for their convicts, the orders were in regard to the people living there - BEFRIEND, LEARN FROM AND ASSIST THEM. The British made the peoples they first called Indians, then Natives and finally Aborigines, citizens (then called subjects) immediately. Israel was founded on a policy of never allowing the native people citizenship.
It is a complex topic to discuss the colonisations of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US and here is not the place, but none of them were remotely like the colonisation of Palestine by Zionists, Jews and Israelis. On that count the Jews were and are unique. Well in modern terms. As ancient history would reveal the Israeli approach, Biblical in the extreme, was the way of it for primitive humans.
I am so sorry. But you are completely wrong. Australia granted citizenship to Aboriginal Australians and recognised them as human beings, a year after black Americans were given the right to vote.
When the British colonialists came to Australia they committed comprehensive genocide of millions of Aborigines. I read original sources from the time of colonialism and the British scientists and government officials of the time did not even refer to Aborigines as human. Last year Australians voted in a referendum and rejected the proposal to acknowledge the Aboriginal people in the Australian Constitution! The reason it went to a referendum is because it is the only way the Australian constitution can be changed. I am an Australian citizen and lived there for eighteen years before moving to Scotland. I had a good opportunity to study Aboriginal history when I was there. Some colonialist policies like removing Aboriginal children who looked a bit ‘whiter’ from their parents and hand them over to be adopted by white couples who couldn’t have children continued into the sixties. It is called the ‘stolen generation’ and there was a great deal going on about this when I lived there.
I am really sorry but some of the history you quote is very inaccurate. The history of colonialism and settler-colonialism is bloody and dreadful. White colonisers in the Americas most definitely intended to take land and resource and the indigenous people were seen as an obstacle to remove… Israel is far from special.
And you have just demonstrated why it is so wrong to conflate colonisations in the past 500 years with Israel. The ignorance on this issue is just so great. I do not profess to know as much about Canada or the US as I do the colonisation of Australia and that is why I do not comment in any substantive way.
Unfortunately in the past half century academia has been hard at work rewriting history in all three countries and seeking to target the West and those called ‘white’ by racists.
I am happy to be proven wrong if someone can cite sources showing that the first settlers in Canada and the US went with a brief from the English Crown and Government for genocide and ethnic cleansing as a policy. I know it never happened in Australia but prove to me it did in those two other countries.
I am well aware that in the 19th century there were genocidal events on the part of the American Government and I have read enough to know that the treatment of the Indians was often barbaric, but it was not an original or ongoing policy. But that was a century and more before Israel, invented in the 20th century and ongoing into the 21st, and therefore not comparative. At least as far as I know. If the Americans had a policy of genocide from the start it will be documented.
as an example, some of the documented orders for the First Fleet before it set sail to what became Australia.
Draught Instructions for Governor Phillip’, 25 April 1787. Courtesy British Public Records Office
The Instructions advised Phillip about managing the convicts, granting and cultivating the land, and exploring the country. The Aboriginal peoples’ lives and livelihoods were to be protected and friendly relations with them encouraged
You said: I am so sorry. But you are completely wrong. Australia granted citizenship to Aboriginal Australians and recognised them as human beings, a year after black Americans were given the right to vote.
Having studied the history of my country for decades I can assure you I am not wrong. Aborigines were made citizens, then called subjects, when the British arrived. When the vote was granted it went to everyone. Including aborigines. We have photos of aborigines at polling stations in 1890. Men of course.
When women in South Australia were the first in the world to get the vote, that included aboriginal women.
I can only assume you are referring to the 67 Referendum and to be fair to you, many Australians are also ignorant of the fact that it was waged on lies. I will post refutation of the myths (lies) in a piece written by an Australian constitutional legal expert, Helen Irving, so that you can correct your misinformation.
Quote: The right to vote
Another common myth is that the 1967 referendum gave the Aboriginal people the right to vote. This is incorrect. The 1967 referendum had nothing to do with this right (or “equal rights” or rights at all).
From 1949 they could vote in Commonwealth elections if they were enrolled to vote in NSW, Victoria, South Australia or Tasmania. Indigenous people who had been in military service also had the right to vote. In 1962, all other Aboriginal people became entitled to vote in Commonwealth elections.
At the State level, Aboriginal people were able to vote in South Australia, NSW, Tasmania and Victoria throughout the 20th century. In Western Australia and Queensland they gained the State vote, respectively, in 1962 and 1965.
It should also be noted that the official definition of Aboriginal has changed over time, and voting rights of individuals have therefore changed accordingly. Many Aboriginal people today would not have been excluded from the right to vote under the former laws.
In any case (with the exception of a now-spent transitional provision – section 41), neither eligibility to vote nor the franchise is mentioned in the Constitution. The right to vote is a matter for ordinary legislation. The Constitution did not need to be altered for Aboriginal people to gain the right to vote.
Citizenship
A further common myth is that the 1967 referendum gave citizenship to the Aboriginal people. This is incorrect.
Between 1788 and 1949, everyone born in Australia (or any other part of the British Empire) acquired the legal status of “British subject” (“subject” was the term used for British nationality at that time). In 1949, under new legislation every person born in Australia, regardless of race or colour, became simultaneously a British subject and Australian citizen. Subsequent changes in legislation meant that Australians are no longer British subjects.
Eligibility for Australian citizenship has changed over the years. Citizenship laws, however, have never differentiated between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal persons.
Again, citizenship is not defined in the Constitution. A referendum would not be required to amend the citizenship law.
Helen Irving was appointed Professor Emerita at Sydney Law School in 2021. Her research includes Australian and United States constitutional law and history; constitutional citizenship; comparative constitutional design and gender; the use of history in constitutional interpretation, and models of judicial review. She has just completed a three-year ARC Discovery Grant project on constitutional citizenship and allegiance, and in 2020 was awarded a three-year ARC Special Research Initiative grant, with Associate Professor Elisa Arcioni and Dr Rayner Thwaites, on Citizenship and Claims of Belonging in Australian Law and History.
You said: When the British colonialists came to Australia they committed comprehensive genocide of millions of Aborigines.
By all means provide cited sources to prove that but I know they do not exist. Murder was murder and there was no policy or comprehensive genocide of aboriginal peoples.
You said: I read original sources from the time of colonialism and the British scientists and government officials of the time did not even refer to Aborigines as human.
What cited sources? If as they did, the British made them citizens then clearly they knew they were human. They did not make kangaroos citizens.
I suspect you are referring to another lie, promoted for too long, that Aborigines were classed as Flora and Fauna? They were not. I will cite Professor Helen Irving on this myth also.
Quote: “Flora and fauna”
The myth that the Constitution included a reference to the Aboriginal people under a “flora and fauna” section is entirely erroneous. The words “flora and fauna” do not appear anywhere in the Constitution, nor did they prior to 1967. There was no “Flora and Fauna Act” either. No legislation referred to or classified the Aboriginal people in such terms.
You said: Last year Australians voted in a referendum and rejected the proposal to acknowledge the Aboriginal people in the Australian Constitution! The reason it went to a referendum is because it is the only way the Australian constitution can be changed.
The Referendum failed because to cite one group of Australians in the Constitution would be unconstitutional, undemocratic and racist. The Constitution represents all of us as Australians and does not divide us up in terms of ancestry.
Recognition in the Constitution for one small group of Australians, around 3%, most of whom are more anglo-european in ancestry than aboriginal, would have been destructive and divisive.
You said: I am an Australian citizen and lived there for eighteen years before moving to Scotland. I had a good opportunity to study Aboriginal history when I was there.
Given how wrong you are on so many things I doubt you studied deeply or original records.
You said: Some colonialist policies like removing Aboriginal children who looked a bit ‘whiter’ from their parents and hand them over to be adopted by white couples who couldn’t have children continued into the sixties. It is called the ‘stolen generation’ and there was a great deal going on about this when I lived there.
Good heavens. None of that is even true. The policy of taking into care children at risk applied to all children regardless of whether or not they had aboriginal ancestry.
Yes, some, but not many, part aboriginal children were taken into care because they were deemed to be at risk. In aboriginal cultures these children of mixed ancestry were usually killed at birth and if allowed to live, often abused and neglected. In aboriginal culture a girl could be used for sex at the age of seven. In the 19th century when many aboriginal groups were still cannibals, a half-caste child could be kept for a few years and then killed and eaten.
Women were virtual slaves in aboriginal cultures and could not protect their children. The reason why no Stolen Generations case has ever made it through a court of law is because when the case records are accessed it is discovered the children really were at risk and usually the mother signed them into care.
Fully aboriginal children, and I think this was wrong, were not taken into care if seen to be at risk in order to preserve cultures, which was 'British and then Australian Government policy.
Also worth noting, until the 1970's men were not considered capable of looking after children and so if a mother was sick, I know, I lived it, or absent, then the children were deemed to be at risk and would be taken into care. That applied to absolutely everyone except fully aboriginal kids.
If you studied it then you know the Stolen Generations theory was invented by a Brisbane academic, Peter Read, who first called his work, the Lost "Generations until his wife said stolen was more powerful. It is but Lost and Stolen mean entirely different things.
I find the ignorance on this issue truly depressing. And you have lived here so you should know better and you could easily have done real research.
It’s terrifying. Those who thinks that all this horror can be confined to the Middle East should consider the boomerang effect, as Hannah Arendt name it.
Avigail, your references to Ancient Rome are chilling and important. Thank you for this terrifying context.
We cannot allow Israel to escape the legal consequences of their war crimes. The Hind Rajab Foundation has, among other things, filed a case with the ICC against 1,000 Israeli soldiers for war crimes in Gaza.
https://www.hindrajabfoundation.org/perpetrators/hind-rajab-foundation-files-historic-icc-complaint-against-1000-israeli-soldiers-for-war-crimes-in-gaza
They have taken further steps in recent days, and vacations are becoming a lot more difficult for IDF soldiers, worldwide. The Hind Rajab Foundation can use our help. Please join me in making a contribution.
https://buy.stripe.com/cN228hbY5g7jaM84gg
You might find meaningful to watch the recent interviews that Glenn Greenwald did on his Rumble platform, and Ali Abunimah of the Electronic Intifada, did with the head of this organisation, Dyad Abou Jahjah. It was very informative.
Here's a petition calling for accountability for the arrest of Ali Abunimah in Switzerland:
https://chng.it/8D4pkxPhWS
Please sign the petition and share widely.
Just donated to the Hind Rajab Foundation. Thank you for your perseverance to remind us how important is to contribute to this cause.
Yes very good historical comparisons. I have no doubt the relentless effort to drive Palestinians from historic Palestine and acquire even more land for settlements exclusively for Jews, can only be stopped by outside forces. However it seems the plans to push Palestinians into Jordan and Egypt has hit a roadblock in that even with Trump supporting the plan, the leaders of these countries have adamantly refused. Personally I believe the current regimes in Egypt and Jordan would be de-stabilized or even overthrown if this were allowed to happen. Also despite these dark times I like many have watched with awe the resilience of Palestinians who have gone through and survived a truly genocidal assault, and despite the horrors have remained steadfast in their resistance. No group of humans should be allowed to go through what they have, and this will forever remain a stain not only on Israel and its supporters, but the world at large.
Thanks for this chilling account, Avigail. It strikes me as accurate, and I hope the world can find a way to stop Israel and its allies. I've signed the petition below.
“Those capable of inflicting atrocities on others, reveal a mindset that is not limited to a particular group of scapegoats. A person or regime capable of objectifying even one human being, demonstrates a pathological absence of empathy. In other words, they are not dangerous only to their choice victim. They are universally dangerous.”
Exactly, Israelis are an existential threat to all of us. But it’s not only them that execute the atrocities that are a threat but the supporting and enablers psychopaths too.
Israelis indulge in the conceit that they are ‘chosen’, special, elevated, exceptional ad nauseam. As Avigail indicates, this is ‘old hat’ and ‘par for the course’ when it comes to empire builders and settler colonialists as far back as you can go. They always think they are special, always use some religious pretext to invade and murder and steal, always smear indigenous populations as either uncivilised or terrorists. Nothing special, just murderous ignorant thugs🤢
Excellent, informational text that brings into alignment the history of what we’re once again watching unfold. Every point right on target. A pleasure to read, and ammunition in an arsenal of peace, and understanding.
Israel won't stop until it hits a wall it can't knock down or go around. Then it will disappear from the world.
Tragically, yes. Very likely. That’s essentially what Ilan Pappé predicts.
There are no citizens of Israel in the first place.. In 2018 Israel passed a law saying only Jews had nationality which means there is no Israeli citizenship, just Jewish citizenship and nationality which excludes all non-Jews like the Palestinian Muslims and Christians.
They will be the final target in Israel's Final Solution if it is allowed to get away with exterminating 6 million in Occupied Palestine. Do not be surprised to see disease break out in both the Gaza concentration camp, and what Israel calls the West Bank, but which is the rest of Occupied Palestine on pre-67 borders.
To play ball with the rest of the world, and appear ‘normal’, Israel has *Israeli citizenship*. But in Israel, citizenship is not the same as ‘nationality’, which is where you see the deception and insanity.
Most of the world has been oblivious to this, until recently. I’ve often presented my birth certificate in talks alongside a birth certificate of a Palestinian citizen of Israel, to get the point across. I have these images also in one of my past essays on Substack.
The Jewish Nation State Bill has paved the way for Israel to eventually strip the Palestinians of their citizenship, so that ‘citizenship’ and ‘nationality’ are finally aligned. Or another way of looking at it, is that only those Israel defines as Jews will be able to be citizens of that racist cult state.
It has been de-facto this way anyway, but a Palestinian child born in Israel to parents who are Israeli citizens, would be granted Israeli citizenship by law. Israel’s aim is to get rid of *all* the Palestinians and have a purely Jewish state (by their definition of Jewishness).
To read the full text of their Jewish nation bill have a look at link below. You’ll need a strong stomach:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/final-text-of-jewish-nation-state-bill-set-to-become-law/
Having worked with and for Israelis and spent time in what is called Israel and being fortunate enough to drive around Occupied Palestine when one could, I would only say, I was shocked, but not really surprised at the openly expressed bigotry of Israelis toward Palestinians in particular and by extension, non-Jews in general.
What does surprise and shock me more is the support of so many Jews around the world for the evil atrocity which is and always has been, Zionist Israel. Yes, some Jews before 1947 and after predicted the ghastly evolution of such a State, but most Jews have supported and funded Israel when it would have been easy enough for them to find out just what they were supporting and funding. Denial is a river of fear which runs through the heart of Judaism is my conclusion.
Even more surprising is how many non-Jews, Governments and individuals, who have closed their eyes and minds to the evil that is Israel for 76 years, including the unmissable atrocities and war crimes of the past 16 months. WHY?
What is going on? Does Mossad really have compromising information on just about every politician in the Western world which keeps them in line? Ditto for mainstream media, owners and staff?
Or, has the Zionist propaganda machine, spewing away for 128 years really been so effective in brainwashing not just Israelis but millions around the world?
Why have Israelis been allowed to get away with it for so long to become an even greater atrocity on the planet? You could almost believe there are forces at work which hate Jews so much if Israel did not exist they would have had to invent it.
Or is Ziorael a great lesson from the Cosmos - THIS IS THE EVIL YOU BECOME WHEN YOU BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND DO WHAT THEY DO.
You are asking very good questions and are a good observer. I have written extensively about this and so have many others. Ilan Pappé’s recent book *Lobbying for Zionism On Both Sides of the Atlantic* might answer some of your questions. Rashid Khalidi’s book *The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine* provides the history of the support for Zionism long before Israel became a state.
There is no way to understand the support for Zionism and later Israel without understanding the colonial/imperialist context. Christ Hedges’ writings on this are very illuminating (quite shocking too), and you can find many of his essays here on Substack.
Evil imperialism has been in charge in the world, since ancient history. Colonialism and settler-colonialism are grounded in racism, and exceptionalism and they are crimes committed by people with a criminal mindset. It is always been the case. The sad fact is that the criminally insane have always been in charge in the world, because ‘ordinary’ people who are always frightened keep them there.
Israel could not have enjoyed the support it does without the general colonial mindset, which contrary to what people think, did not end at the end of WWII. It is devastating and disturbing.
By the way, the Zioraelis want people to talk about how evil the colonisation of the US and other countries were in centuries past because it takes attention away from them and lets them off the hook - see, nothing to do with Zionists, Jews or Israelis, this is just a Western thing. Not our fault.
Actually, colonialism is never discussed in Israel at all in any context. It is not taught at school at all. It prevents anyone suddenly starting to make connections with Israel’s history…
Thanks, I have read a lot of Pappe but not the recent book.
I do not believe that the Zioraeli colonial project can be understood without a solid understanding of Judaism and its history and the history of Europe and the Middle East.
Israel has received the support it has because of ignorance, propaganda, religious belief, bribery, corruption and bullying by Zionists, Israelis and Jews, and a deep fear of Islam, promoted and pushed by the Zionists and Jews for more than a century.
I apply common sense when seeking answers and Occam's Razor - often the simplest answer is correct.
I do not believe it is wise to throw a blanket called colonial/imperialist over the issue of Israel since imperialist mindsets litter human history and appear in everyone, Anglo, European, African, Indian, Polynesian, everyone. Exploration, invasion, colonisation, trade are human qualities and the reason why Imperialism has always existed. The greatest/biggest empire was Asian, the Mongols.
The modern use of the term colonial/imperialist means anglo-europeans and ignores the rest. That distorts history and reality.
I think that conflating Israel with colonisations in centuries past is unwise, unfair and often dishonest. Many do this including Chris Hedges and Caitlin Johnstone and I think they are wrong. It lets Israel off the hook because it says, well, see, this is just a Western thing and it is no different to the colonisation of the US, Canada, Australia by those evil anglo-europeans.
It is very different as any study of the other colonisations will reveal. Apart from which retrofitting modern values to the past is dishonest and dysfunctional.
The first settlers to the Americas arrived in 1607. They did not arrive with a policy of genocide toward the natives, nor a belief that the land was theirs and had been stolen from them as the Zionists and Jews believed about Palestine; neither did they believe they were superior humans and the natives were subhuman and had to be exterminated or expelled as was the case with Israel, and it was nearly 400 years earlier.
When the First Fleet set sail to Australia to establish a penal colony for their convicts, the orders were in regard to the people living there - BEFRIEND, LEARN FROM AND ASSIST THEM. The British made the peoples they first called Indians, then Natives and finally Aborigines, citizens (then called subjects) immediately. Israel was founded on a policy of never allowing the native people citizenship.
It is a complex topic to discuss the colonisations of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US and here is not the place, but none of them were remotely like the colonisation of Palestine by Zionists, Jews and Israelis. On that count the Jews were and are unique. Well in modern terms. As ancient history would reveal the Israeli approach, Biblical in the extreme, was the way of it for primitive humans.
I am so sorry. But you are completely wrong. Australia granted citizenship to Aboriginal Australians and recognised them as human beings, a year after black Americans were given the right to vote.
When the British colonialists came to Australia they committed comprehensive genocide of millions of Aborigines. I read original sources from the time of colonialism and the British scientists and government officials of the time did not even refer to Aborigines as human. Last year Australians voted in a referendum and rejected the proposal to acknowledge the Aboriginal people in the Australian Constitution! The reason it went to a referendum is because it is the only way the Australian constitution can be changed. I am an Australian citizen and lived there for eighteen years before moving to Scotland. I had a good opportunity to study Aboriginal history when I was there. Some colonialist policies like removing Aboriginal children who looked a bit ‘whiter’ from their parents and hand them over to be adopted by white couples who couldn’t have children continued into the sixties. It is called the ‘stolen generation’ and there was a great deal going on about this when I lived there.
I am really sorry but some of the history you quote is very inaccurate. The history of colonialism and settler-colonialism is bloody and dreadful. White colonisers in the Americas most definitely intended to take land and resource and the indigenous people were seen as an obstacle to remove… Israel is far from special.
And you have just demonstrated why it is so wrong to conflate colonisations in the past 500 years with Israel. The ignorance on this issue is just so great. I do not profess to know as much about Canada or the US as I do the colonisation of Australia and that is why I do not comment in any substantive way.
Unfortunately in the past half century academia has been hard at work rewriting history in all three countries and seeking to target the West and those called ‘white’ by racists.
I am happy to be proven wrong if someone can cite sources showing that the first settlers in Canada and the US went with a brief from the English Crown and Government for genocide and ethnic cleansing as a policy. I know it never happened in Australia but prove to me it did in those two other countries.
I am well aware that in the 19th century there were genocidal events on the part of the American Government and I have read enough to know that the treatment of the Indians was often barbaric, but it was not an original or ongoing policy. But that was a century and more before Israel, invented in the 20th century and ongoing into the 21st, and therefore not comparative. At least as far as I know. If the Americans had a policy of genocide from the start it will be documented.
as an example, some of the documented orders for the First Fleet before it set sail to what became Australia.
Draught Instructions for Governor Phillip’, 25 April 1787. Courtesy British Public Records Office
The Instructions advised Phillip about managing the convicts, granting and cultivating the land, and exploring the country. The Aboriginal peoples’ lives and livelihoods were to be protected and friendly relations with them encouraged
You said: I am so sorry. But you are completely wrong. Australia granted citizenship to Aboriginal Australians and recognised them as human beings, a year after black Americans were given the right to vote.
Having studied the history of my country for decades I can assure you I am not wrong. Aborigines were made citizens, then called subjects, when the British arrived. When the vote was granted it went to everyone. Including aborigines. We have photos of aborigines at polling stations in 1890. Men of course.
When women in South Australia were the first in the world to get the vote, that included aboriginal women.
I can only assume you are referring to the 67 Referendum and to be fair to you, many Australians are also ignorant of the fact that it was waged on lies. I will post refutation of the myths (lies) in a piece written by an Australian constitutional legal expert, Helen Irving, so that you can correct your misinformation.
Quote: The right to vote
Another common myth is that the 1967 referendum gave the Aboriginal people the right to vote. This is incorrect. The 1967 referendum had nothing to do with this right (or “equal rights” or rights at all).
From 1949 they could vote in Commonwealth elections if they were enrolled to vote in NSW, Victoria, South Australia or Tasmania. Indigenous people who had been in military service also had the right to vote. In 1962, all other Aboriginal people became entitled to vote in Commonwealth elections.
At the State level, Aboriginal people were able to vote in South Australia, NSW, Tasmania and Victoria throughout the 20th century. In Western Australia and Queensland they gained the State vote, respectively, in 1962 and 1965.
It should also be noted that the official definition of Aboriginal has changed over time, and voting rights of individuals have therefore changed accordingly. Many Aboriginal people today would not have been excluded from the right to vote under the former laws.
In any case (with the exception of a now-spent transitional provision – section 41), neither eligibility to vote nor the franchise is mentioned in the Constitution. The right to vote is a matter for ordinary legislation. The Constitution did not need to be altered for Aboriginal people to gain the right to vote.
Citizenship
A further common myth is that the 1967 referendum gave citizenship to the Aboriginal people. This is incorrect.
Between 1788 and 1949, everyone born in Australia (or any other part of the British Empire) acquired the legal status of “British subject” (“subject” was the term used for British nationality at that time). In 1949, under new legislation every person born in Australia, regardless of race or colour, became simultaneously a British subject and Australian citizen. Subsequent changes in legislation meant that Australians are no longer British subjects.
Eligibility for Australian citizenship has changed over the years. Citizenship laws, however, have never differentiated between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal persons.
Again, citizenship is not defined in the Constitution. A referendum would not be required to amend the citizenship law.
Helen Irving was appointed Professor Emerita at Sydney Law School in 2021. Her research includes Australian and United States constitutional law and history; constitutional citizenship; comparative constitutional design and gender; the use of history in constitutional interpretation, and models of judicial review. She has just completed a three-year ARC Discovery Grant project on constitutional citizenship and allegiance, and in 2020 was awarded a three-year ARC Special Research Initiative grant, with Associate Professor Elisa Arcioni and Dr Rayner Thwaites, on Citizenship and Claims of Belonging in Australian Law and History.
You said: When the British colonialists came to Australia they committed comprehensive genocide of millions of Aborigines.
By all means provide cited sources to prove that but I know they do not exist. Murder was murder and there was no policy or comprehensive genocide of aboriginal peoples.
You said: I read original sources from the time of colonialism and the British scientists and government officials of the time did not even refer to Aborigines as human.
What cited sources? If as they did, the British made them citizens then clearly they knew they were human. They did not make kangaroos citizens.
I suspect you are referring to another lie, promoted for too long, that Aborigines were classed as Flora and Fauna? They were not. I will cite Professor Helen Irving on this myth also.
Quote: “Flora and fauna”
The myth that the Constitution included a reference to the Aboriginal people under a “flora and fauna” section is entirely erroneous. The words “flora and fauna” do not appear anywhere in the Constitution, nor did they prior to 1967. There was no “Flora and Fauna Act” either. No legislation referred to or classified the Aboriginal people in such terms.
You said: Last year Australians voted in a referendum and rejected the proposal to acknowledge the Aboriginal people in the Australian Constitution! The reason it went to a referendum is because it is the only way the Australian constitution can be changed.
The Referendum failed because to cite one group of Australians in the Constitution would be unconstitutional, undemocratic and racist. The Constitution represents all of us as Australians and does not divide us up in terms of ancestry.
Recognition in the Constitution for one small group of Australians, around 3%, most of whom are more anglo-european in ancestry than aboriginal, would have been destructive and divisive.
You said: I am an Australian citizen and lived there for eighteen years before moving to Scotland. I had a good opportunity to study Aboriginal history when I was there.
Given how wrong you are on so many things I doubt you studied deeply or original records.
You said: Some colonialist policies like removing Aboriginal children who looked a bit ‘whiter’ from their parents and hand them over to be adopted by white couples who couldn’t have children continued into the sixties. It is called the ‘stolen generation’ and there was a great deal going on about this when I lived there.
Good heavens. None of that is even true. The policy of taking into care children at risk applied to all children regardless of whether or not they had aboriginal ancestry.
Yes, some, but not many, part aboriginal children were taken into care because they were deemed to be at risk. In aboriginal cultures these children of mixed ancestry were usually killed at birth and if allowed to live, often abused and neglected. In aboriginal culture a girl could be used for sex at the age of seven. In the 19th century when many aboriginal groups were still cannibals, a half-caste child could be kept for a few years and then killed and eaten.
Women were virtual slaves in aboriginal cultures and could not protect their children. The reason why no Stolen Generations case has ever made it through a court of law is because when the case records are accessed it is discovered the children really were at risk and usually the mother signed them into care.
Fully aboriginal children, and I think this was wrong, were not taken into care if seen to be at risk in order to preserve cultures, which was 'British and then Australian Government policy.
Also worth noting, until the 1970's men were not considered capable of looking after children and so if a mother was sick, I know, I lived it, or absent, then the children were deemed to be at risk and would be taken into care. That applied to absolutely everyone except fully aboriginal kids.
If you studied it then you know the Stolen Generations theory was invented by a Brisbane academic, Peter Read, who first called his work, the Lost "Generations until his wife said stolen was more powerful. It is but Lost and Stolen mean entirely different things.
I find the ignorance on this issue truly depressing. And you have lived here so you should know better and you could easily have done real research.
It’s terrifying. Those who thinks that all this horror can be confined to the Middle East should consider the boomerang effect, as Hannah Arendt name it.
I am getting sick
I am sorry.