It was clear from the beginning, to any who desired to see it, that peaceful co-existence with a pre-existing non-Jewish local population could never be achieved within the context of a Jewish State. That goal could not be achieved unless the local population were subjugated or removed, and that could not be achieved without violence. Violence, therefore, was implicit in Zionism from the very beginning.
This is completely revisionist history. The aim was to establish a Jewish majority peacefully, and to improve living conditions for everybody. This turned out to be illusory, both because of Arab politics and Arab immigration, but the onus for violence should belong on those who reject all compromise and start the violence, and that was the Arabs, especially the Mufti. If the Nashishibis had won the feud instead, results might have been very different. I am so tired of these elite European arguments that retrofit the name "colonialism" on Zionism, ignoring all particulars of the case, and thereby get to put all the blame on the Jews, the "colonized" being pure victims by definition. |
