----- Original Message -----
From: "Trent Shipley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 1:43 AM
Subject: Re: Resolved: War is immoral.
> In short, Israel looks like a colonial project to me. How could it be
> otherwise. In 1900 Jews were a minority with no state in Palestine. In
1950
> Jews were a majority in enough of Palestine to include more than half the
> country in the state of Israel. If done by means other than an
intentional
> colonial project either my debating partner is:
Well, I would argue that you are forcing this into that model. There are a
number of differences from the paradigm of colonies. I cannot think of
another case where the "colonialists"
1) Were an people who held land for centuries.
2) Were forced off the land by an empire
3) Lived as a persecuted minority in that empire and in the nation states
that were the daughters of
that empire
4) Realized that the persecution might end up as extermination
5) Walked across continents, dying along the way to get to the last place
where they had their own land.
I can think of two paradigm colonies. The first is the British colony such
as India. Britain ruled India for its own goals, as part of its empire.
The colony was run for the benefit of the mother country.
The second is the American British colonies where the British landed in
numbers to take over the land. In this case, they pushed the natives off
the land instead of ruled the natives. What's important is that the British
who did this considered themselves British citizens as they did this.
Later, the American revolution broke off to form a new nation.
In short, this is a case that is unique, and does not fit a given paradigm.
Dan M.
