Thread by @AaronBastani

The founding of Israel took place in the context of racism, yes. Anyone familiar with Britain’s handling of Palestine in 1920s knows that.

For British politicians to say acknowledging that is anti-Semitic represents a continuation of that same racism >

In addition to the racism of Britain towards Palestinians, which was a critical factor in them not having a state of their own, let’s look at the ideology behind Zionism by the 1920s. Some quotes follow: >

Theodr Herzl, 1895:

“We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border” >

Herzl on a new Zionist state as a bulwark against lesser Asian peoples:

“(It would) form a part of a wall of defence for Europe in Asia, an outpost of civilisation against barbarism” >

Early Zionists and Christian supporters would often say “a land without people for a people without land” - from this perspective Palestine was ‘Terra nullius’, much like Australasia - local populations didn’t apparently exist >

This, by the way, is an untruth repeated today - and is itself racist. As Golda Meyer said in 1969 “Palestinians don’t exist” - this isn’t racist? To systematically deny the existence of a people which displacing them? Really? >

This is repeated by US right. Much Huckabee more recently: “there’s really no such thing as the Palestinians”.

Anyway, back to Britain and it’s colonial role >

Jabotinsky, another early Zionist leader:

“Zionist colonisation (his words) can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population - behind an iron wall which the native population cannot breach” >

The Balfour declaration describes the Palestinian people as “existing non Jewish communities in Palestine”. This was 94% of the population! The words Arab or Palestinian aren’t mentioned *once* in the declaration. You don’t think that’s racist? Really? >

Balfour declaration, like Sykes-Picot agreement, immersed in racism.

Mandate of Palestine’s pre-amble mentioned that only the Jewish people have a historical tie to the Holy Land (they do of course). Thousands of years of Arab connection? From Umayyads to Ottoman Empire? Nope >

Back to Jabotinsky:

“If you wish to colonise a land on which people are already living you must find a garrison for the land...Zionism is a colonising venture and it therefore stands or falls on armed force” >

There’s thousands of quotes like this. This is before we talk about the physical consequences.

Palestinians have suffered a century long war, from Britain & what would become Israel to other Arab states. It will go down among the cruellest fates any people has ever suffered >

It starts with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and has never been resolved. The idea that British politicians, from the country more responsible for the present situation than any other, can call an observer of these facts ‘racist’ shows their own. What stunning ignorance.

It’s possible to assess all this, the historical horror, & say “after 1945, and given what was happening before, Israel was inevitable and entirely justified” (my view). It’s also possible to hold that view while saying Zionism, as existed, was premised on racism & colonialism >

And that it reflected the dominant ideas of late 19th century European empire. It is also possible - just imagine! - to think this while opposing all kinds of racism. After all, the historic circumstances we are talking about aren’t unique. See Americas, Australia, Africa >

And to anyone saying ‘labour should just ignore this’ - I’d counter if you want to form a government you need foreign policy positions too. This isn’t a single issue campaign, but a party that wants to govern a major power.