What did 'colonization' mean in the 1920s?

One of the sleights-of-language employed by pro-Arab propagandists to "prove" that Zionism is colonialism is that the Zionist themselves used that term. And the even called their kibbutzim "colonies".

One favoriate example is this section from Jabotinsky's Iron Wall:

          My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such  precedent...It does not matter at all which phraseology we employ in explaining our colonising aims, Herzl's or Sir Herbert Samuel's.  Colonisation carries its own explanation, the only possible explanation, unalterable and as clear as daylight to every ordinary Jew and every ordinary Arab. Colonisation can have only one aim, and Palestine Arabs cannot accept this aim.

As we all know, language usage alters and means one thing in one period and another in a different period.

Here is an example from this 1927 issue of a progressive magazine:

I've excerpted from one page and you can see that the term colonialization is used too describe what Russian Jews are doing in Birobyzhan, which is agricultural work. Zionism's first stage was returning Jews to their land in a very physical sense - becoming farmers. Socialist Zionists made it a "religion of labor". It did not mean intentionally taking over a country that one did nt have a claim to and ot kick the residents out but rather simply to bring the Jews back in.

The charge of settler-colonialism is false and misleading.

^

Palestinian Arabs Mentioned 1946

The Arabs of the Mandate for Palestine very rarely related to themselves as "Palestinian Arabs". The documents show that after the end of World War One and into the 1920s, they preferred to be termed Syrians and demanded that the territory of "Palestine" be "reunited with Syria". A Palestinian nationality only came into being officially in 1925, due to Zionist pressure.

Even the representative groups used the term "Arab" rather than "Palestinian", the most prominent example being the Arab Higher Committee which led the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939. I refer to the term as an example of inventivity.

"Palestinians" for the most part were the Jews.

Nevertheless, I have found the term "Palestinian Arabs" used by Arabs if very sparingly.

One additioonal source is this booklet, The Palestine Reality, by Jabir Shibli, first published in 1946 to counter the post-World War Two claims by the Zionist movement. Only 32 pages long, only two out of the three useages of "Palestinian" refer to the Arab population of the Mandate, and both are on page 23.

^

The Smol Emuni Letter on Gaza

 The Smol Emuni Letter on Gaza

A Call for Moral Clarity, Responsibility, and a Jewish Orthodox Response in the Face of the Gaza Humanitarian Crisis

(This statement was authored by Rabbi Yosef Blau and signed by many Torat Chayim rabbinic members although he is not a member and some of the others below are also not members)

​​The humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza is one of the most severe in recent history. While it began with the horrific terrorist attack by Hamas on Israel on October 7, 2023—a brutal act that justifiably demanded a strong military response and demand for the release of the hostages—this does not absolve Israel’s government from assuming its share of the responsibility for the profound suffering of Gaza’s civilian population.

Hamas’s actions have repeatedly shown a cynical disregard for the lives of the people it claims to represent, using civilians as human shields and rejecting ceasefire proposals. However, Israel’s prolonged military campaign, now approaching two years, has devastated Gaza. The death toll is rising with very significant losses of lives, and Israel’s limiting of humanitarian aid, at times completely halting the entry of food and medical supplies, has raised the specter of coming starvation. We affirm that Hamas's sins and crimes do not relieve the government of Israel of its obligations to make whatever efforts are necessary to prevent mass starvation.

There have been months when Israel blocked humanitarian convoys on the mistaken premise that increased suffering would bring about Hamas’s surrender. Instead, the result has been the deepening of despair. The justified anger toward Hamas has dangerously expanded by some extremists into blanket suspicion of the entire population of Gaza—children included—tarnished as future terrorists. Meanwhile, in Yehuda and Shomron (the West Bank), extremist settler violence has resulted in the murder of civilians and has forced Palestinian villagers from their homes, further destabilizing the region.

Amid this devastation, the absence of a clear post-war vision from Prime Minister Netanyahu has allowed the most extreme voices in the Israeli government—including ministers from the religious Zionist community—to fill the vacuum with disturbing proposals. These include the forced “voluntary” exile of Palestinians from Gaza and the sacrifice of remaining Israeli hostages in the pursuit of an elusive “total victory.”

This moment demands a different voice—one grounded in our deepest Jewish values and informed by our traumatic history of being victims of persecution. 

Orthodox Jewry, as some of Israel’s most devoted supporters, bears a unique moral responsibility. We must affirm that Judaism’s vision of justice and compassion extends to all human beings. Our tradition teaches that every person is created b’tzelem Elokim—in the Divine image. We are the spiritual descendants of Avraham, chosen to walk in the path of Hashem, “to do righteousness and justice” (Bereshit 18:19). Allowing an entire people to starve stands in stark contrast to this teaching.

As we reflect on Tisha B’Av, the words of our prophets ring with renewed urgency. The Haftorah of Shabbat Chazon reminds us: “Zion shall be redeemed through justice, and those who return to her through righteousness” (Yeshayahu 1:27). And on the morning of Tisha B’Av, the voice of Yirmiyahu echoes through our prayers: “Let not the wise glory in their wisdom...but in this: that they understand and know Me, that I am the Lord who practices kindness, justice, and righteousness on the earth—for in these I delight” (Yirmiyahu 9:23).

These are not just poetic phrases. They are the foundations of our ethical obligation—to demand policies that uphold human dignity, to provide humanitarian aid wherever possible, and to speak out when our government’s actions contradict the Torah’s moral imperatives, no matter how painful this may be to accept.

The future of Israel depends not only on its military strength but on its moral clarity. Let us be resounding voices for justice, righteousness, and peace for all people—even and especially in the hardest of times.

^

 

Evelyn Waugh on Journalism

Look at it this way. News is what a chap who doesn't care much about anything wants to read. And it's only news until he's read it. After that it's dead...

But you do think it's a good way of training oneself - inventing imaginary news?

"None better," said William.

__________________________________

Apparently they think you've been murdered. Why don't you send them some news.'

'I don't know any.'

'Well for heavens sake invent some.

__________________________________

"'They don't seem very pleased with me in London. They seem to want more news.'

'How silly. Are you upset?'

'No... Well, yes, a little.'

'Poor William. I will get you some news. Listen, I have a plan...Listen; all the journalists who were here had men in the town they paid to give them news...'

'Do you really think you can get some news.'

'Why, yes, of course."

Scoop

"You see it's rather depressing sometimes, day after day and none of one's stories getting printed. I'd like to be a foreign correspondent like you. I say, would you think it awful cheek if I showed you some of the stuff I write? In my spare time, I do it. I imagine some big piece of news and then I see how I should handle it...Shall I show it to you?'

'Please do,' said William, 'some time. But I think we ought to be going now.'

'Yes, I suppose we should. But you do think it's a good way of training oneself--inventing imaginary news?'

'None better,' said William.

^

The Arab League's Quite Useful Idiot

Ralph Wilde is an academic with expertise in public international law. He is a faculty member at University College London (UCL). His 2008 book International Territorial Administration examines international territorial administration in consideration of Third World approaches to international law and postcolonial theory. Last year, he presented an Oral Submission of the League of Arab States to the ICJ.

Just recently, I saw a very short Instagram clip (and here on X) of an interview he made in April and here are a few reactions:

Wilde insists the Mandate was the result of a "covenant of the League of Nations, part of the Versailles Treaty". Besides him slurring the name of the treaty, The Covenant of the League of Nations, he is stretching things a bit. The 1919 Treaty of Versailles indirectly impacted Palestine in that he worked for a League of Nations mandates system. "Palestine" is not explicitly mentioned in the treaty. The mandate system is.

Nevertheless, it is true that the question of Palestine was deliberated. On February 3, 1919, the Zionist Organization presented a memorandum and draft resolutions for the consideration of the Peace Conference. It was clear to European diplomats who were representing the countries that liberated the Ottoman Empire that a state of Arabia would be formed but that a Jewish state would also be created.

And so, following the 1915 Hogarth Correspondence, the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the 1919 Weizmann-Faisal meetings and, as it turned out, the tentative agreement and, finally, the 1920 San Remo Conference, British and French mandatory control over Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan and Palestine was established in 1922.

Wilde claims "a state was to be provisionally recognized".

That is very encouraging. The term state does not appear there although the British confimred that, at that time, that was their eventual intention. If Wilde says a state was to be recognized, well, his ignorance is abysmal.

And that 'state' was not to be "for a particular racial group" and "there is no legal basis for a specifically Jewish state".

The 1922 Mandate for Palestine decision does not mention Arabs at all. It does mention the need to assure the rights of "non-Jewish community" members. But it is full of the term "Jews" (4x) and "Jewish" (11x). Here's but one example:

The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home - Article 2.

The clip has him asked about Israel's longstanding historical ties and Wilde denies those and adds, there's no legal foundation to such a claim based on those ties.

Let's see what the preamble contains:

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country

Did Jews enjoy a special position, even a unique guarantee of certain rights? Article 6 reads:

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

In other words, Jews were awarded a privileged position. As they had been expelled from their homeland 1800 years previosuly and that country had been subjected to conquest, occupation, further limitations on residency, suppression of rights and economic disadvantages, they were to be assisted to repatriate and reestablish themselves in the country, recreate normal national life and reconstitute their national home.

"Reconstitute"?

See above:

recognition has thereby been given...to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country

Even Wilde knows that to reconstitute is to effect a change so that the object or thing or construct returns back into its original form. There was a tribal federation of Israel, two monarchies and a commonwealth from circa 1350 BCE until 135 CE. That geopolitical entity would be reconsituted.

Despite yielding up some 75% of historic "Palestine" territory in 1922 for it to be transferred to a Saudi Arabian refugee, agreeing to partitioning what was left in 1937 and 1947, offers twice refused by Arabs (who had identified into the 1920s and later as "Southern Syrians", not "Palestinians"), the Arabs refuse to recognize any Jewish national rights.

Wilde is a purposeful idiot.

If you agree with my brief, pithy response (there is so much more wrong and false and nonexistent in his 'facts' and 'logic'), let Wilde know.

^