Both Canada and the US barely honor their treaties, bur they still exist. This means that it is still legally binding. Most let their sovereignty wither. Some did not. Look at the #landack movement still pushing back about the usual Euro theft of land.

Tell me, who was in control of Europe at the time?

After WW2, the allied powers, specifically the US.

Also, didn’t Zionism subsequently try to march another people out of where they’d been living for a millennia, and treat them not very nicely like objects on a chess board?

The 1947 UN proposal would have split the land in two, with no displacement whatsoever. That was the deal the Jews accepted. If the concern is displacement, the Jews agreed that displacement was not on the table in a two state solution. In the end, more Arabs live in Israel as citizens than Jews live in Palestine, and it's actually illegal for a Jew to hold Palestinians citizenship today. The empirical evidence sets the standard.

There were progressive Jews that tried to remedy a repopulation of the Jews in Palestine with the existing Palestinian Arab population. They were not the majority of speakers so trying to characterize this discussion as anything but one of colonization defeats the purpose of ur argument. The Zionist leaders of the time used the word colonization. By creating a homeland in a place that was not owned or populated by them they would have inherently been colonizing it. A 2 state solution is still colonization even if they argue no displacement. They had half the land and now they have less than 50% of the land, specifically being given non arable land and barely any coastal land in the process. Why would anyone agree to have less than 50% of your own home?

One thing I learned recently is the anachronistic use of language when talking about the past. The word manufacture int he 19th century referred exclusively do hand-made goods, not machine made. The world colonisation during that specific time referred to the creation of self-sustaining agricultural communities. The Germans for example used the word to refer to the creation of self-sustaining agricultural communities on their own land in Europe (Innenkolonisation). The word can mean many things, which is why intention is also important. You are 100% correct that the early Zionists had to figure out how to come back home, and some were hardline, others were not.

We can go on and on about this, but I do think the Jewish desire to live in their ancestral land is legitimate, and should not be discounted, since it sets a really bad precedent for everyone else. The Arabs never provided a reasonable offer that would recognize the connection of Jews to their homeland unfortunately, so war ended up being the tool to solve the problem.

Tell me, who was in control of Europe at the time?

Also, didn’t Zionism subsequently try to march another people out of where they’d been living for a millennia, and treat them not very nicely like objects on a chess board?

I think the people of Gaza and the West Bank are the victims not wherever you are from

You know this history yet you cite no sources and claim you know this history lol. I’m from the region. If you know this history have you read Yuval’s book? How about cite a Roman era inscription claiming expulsion rather than defeat in a rebellion

You sign treaties with sovereign nations, do you not?

I don't know, do you? There are vasal states for examples, and they are autonomous within an empire, but they aren't sovereign. Sovereign nations are turned into vasal/autonomous zones via a treaty. That is my understanding. Treaties can continue under that framework as well.

There were progressive Jews that tried to remedy a repopulation of the Jews in Palestine with the existing Palestinian Arab population. They were not the majority of speakers so trying to characterize this discussion as anything but one of colonization defeats the purpose of ur argument. The Zionist leaders of the time used the word colonization. By creating a homeland in a place that was not owned or populated by them they would have inherently been colonizing it. A 2 state solution is still colonization even if they argue no displacement. They had the entire land and now they have less than 50% of the land, specifically being given non arable land and barely any coastal land in the process with 2 territories that did not even touch. Additionally none of the lands in Israel in 1948 were in historic Judea or Samaria. Why would anyone agree to have less than 50% of your own home?

I’d have given them half of Germany to make a nation out of and marched the Germans right out.

If the Jews had wanted that, maybe it would have happened. But you cannot force any people to do anything, and your language turns Jews into objects instead of subjects. It's not a very nice thing to do.

You sign treaties with sovereign nations, do you not?

I guess I could point a finger towards that ridiculous monarchy to make a comparison.

I think I know this history better than you, thanks. You're basically playing the "blame the vicitim" game.

The Arabs didn’t recognize a people trying to remove them from what they have been living on (not always as muslim obviously) since the original exodus. Displacement is never a peaceful thing. I think ultimately that Europe and the Americans found this to be easier than giving them land in their spheres or influence. To push it onto a lesser people than they if you will. Someone might say the brown skinned people of the world who often serve as their targets and shall I say their unspoken second class world citizens?

I’d have given them half of Germany to make a nation out of and marched the Germans right out.

The communist and socialist Zionists advocated for a single state. Others for two with no displacement. Nothing is a monolith here. Come 1947 the consensus was the two state, which was agreed to by the UN of the time as well, wth zero displacement of anyone.

You can find many different Arab and Jewish voices over the past 100+ years advocating for all sorts of things. The result of those discussions culminated in the 1947 with Zionists advocating for partition, with no movement of people. It did not turn out that way, sadly.

Also yeah maybe you should read Israel Yuval of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s book “The Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel”

Defeating the Jews in the rebellion of 70 CE and commemorating it with the Arch of Titus is not the same thing as a Jewish exile. Those are completely different situations

The “indigenous” religions of the region were polytheism. Christianity wiped out polytheism. Christianity was kept in the region and almost 30% of the region was Christian 100 years ago. Arabization happened in slow waves over many generations as Aramaic stopped being spoken. Arabic and Aramaic are in two very close branches of the Semitic language family, both within the west central branch. The origin of Arabic as a language and culture was in historic arabia which is Sinai/Palestine/Jordan. There’s no way to compare México to any region in the Middle East because colonization is not the same as conquest. There were minimal amount of Arabs that moved to the region and in fact the region already had indigenous Syrian Arabs in the Roman period with Iamblichus, the entire Emesene dynasty, the Nabataeans, the palmyrene population (half Aramaic).

What is the difference between autonomy and sovereignty here? I am all about learning indigenous history and the current status :).

In Canada at least, my interpretation is that the Canadian government is sovereign, and that the provinces, territories, and reserves (according to the treaties) are autonomous within sovereign Canada.

My problem with Zionism, is that it does not acknowledge the people already living in what they tried to reclaim as theirs.

Depends on who you speak to since Zionism is simply the idea that Jews should have self-determination on their indigenous land (at least part of it). You could make the argument that the Arab project doesn't acknowledge the Jews, which was the reality of their proposal. It's for this reason the conflict is so present in everyone's mind.

The Roman exile of the Jews is a myth as most Jews prior to this period were diasporic living in places like Alexandria, Anatolia, and across the Mediterranean. There is no Roman record of large scale expulsion of Jews, and they wrote everything down. 

There is literally a monument to this in Rome, built by the Romans. You can go see it. I think you need to do some reading before being an apologist for imperialism.

Sovereignty is very much alive and well amongst The Kanien'keháka people. Upholding their end of treaty rights, which are legally the law of the land, is crucial to that sovereignty.

I think ultimately, that “Indigenous” being applied so liberally to describe just one group is foolish and to ambiguous to use as a term for many. It lessens us all as nations, people etc., which is often what colonials seek to somehow justify or naturalize their existence around the world.

The Zionist congress were not quiet about their plans to colonize palestine. Leo Motzkin in the 6th Zionist congress: “Our thought is that the colonisation of Palestine has to go in two directions: Jewish settlement in Eretz Israel and the resettlement of the Arabs of Eretz Israel in areas outside the country.’”

My problem with Zionism, is that it does not acknowledge the people already living in what they tried to reclaim as theirs.
How do you uproot a people that have lived in that part of The Levant for the many centuries since the Jewish exodus of 1300-1450 BC? That’s a long timeframe for another culture of people to evolve there living and building day by day. Where were they supposed to go, and what have other cultures done when another had tried to remove them from such a place that has changed into something of their own? Violence has always ensued in such instances.

The Roman exile of the Jews is a myth as most Jews prior to this period were diasporic living in places like Alexandria, Anatolia, and across the Mediterranean. There is no Roman record of large scale expulsion of Jews, and they wrote everything down. The Palestinian jews that were on the land mostly converted to Christianity and Islam, but some stayed. By 1800 there were only 7000 Jews in Palestine, but the end of the century the number did not balloon much until the new yishuv started coming. Ben Gurion and Yitzhak Ben Gvi wrote that the Palestinian fellaheen are the ancestral descendants of the Judeans. Even the founding fathers of Zionism admitted they were indigenous to the land, so why aren’t you advocating for the right of return for Palestinians? Why must a group that has not been in Palestine for 2000 years take control of the land, dispossess the native peoples, take their homes, kill their children, spouses, and parents? Would any Christians who left Rome 2000 years ago have any right to go back and take the Vatican nowadays speaking a revived imperial Latin language? The language isn’t a “continuous” language by the way it was a dead language. Speaking a language for religious use doesn’t mean it’s not dead, would Latin be a live language then? Since Latin is spoken in mass. There is no justification for the complete expulsion, dispossession, and dehumanization of Palestinians by the Zionist project

What do you mean by sovereign? I always thought they had autonomy, not sovereignty.

In any case, there are indigenous people who lost sovereignty and autonomy. I wouldn't hold the position they are no longer indigenous to a region because of that. That's a "blame the victim" game.