Myth: Israel is a colonial state and therefore must cease to exist

Myth

Israel is labeled as a colonial state and therefore must cease to exist. It is argued that Israel was created by European colonialism, hence inherently guilty and illegitimate, as well as responsible for the Nakba.

Putting it in Context

By Alessandro Verdoliva

Fact:

This accusation is undoubtedly the most utilized and favored, especially by the most extremist factions which unfortunately constitute today – alas – the meager majority of public street movements.

This accusation is grave because it does not aim to incriminate Israel’s actions but rather its very existence. While a similar narrative would have previously been dismissed as evidently flawed and confined to fringe social centers, it now requires refutation.

Firstly, this accusation contradicts international law, portraying colonialism as objectively immoral, and is implicitly anti-Semitic, not merely anti-Zionist. Let’s explore why.

1. Legally, it is peculiar how a pro-Palestinian faction, which extensively appeals to international law, opposes Israel’s existence—a state born within the framework of international law. Israel’s birth occurred within the realm of international law, which the same pro-Palestinian factions Its creation was not “by European colonialism” but rather through mutual agreement with the Soviet Union of Stalin and respective socialist satellites, and in accordance with the UN Resolution 181, which also envisaged an Arab State of Palestine. However, the Arabs rejected this proposal, opting instead to violate the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force by initiating hostilities against Israel on its first day of existence. It is evident that pro-Palestinian factions exploit international law for their own ends, undermining the legitimacy of any peace negotiations by invoking it selectively to defend their positions while disregarding other aspects, such as human rights absent in pro-Palestinian coalitions, and the recognition of the State of Israel.

B)   The colonial genesis of the State of Israel, used as a premise for its abolition, presents numerous flaws

Firstly, it offers a fallacious interpretation of colonialism, a notion refuted in the “Critique of the Anti-Colonial Narrative – A. Verdoliva – 2024 – Rome”. Secondly, if all states born of colonialism were to be abolished, neighboring Arab states, contemporary to Israel and also products of colonialism, would suffer the same fate. Thirdly, overlooking the fact that the cessation of colonialism would erase not only sovereign states like Iraq, Syria, Jordan, or Lebanon, born from European mandates, but also Arab demographics in those areas, is a glaring omission. Actually, there wouldn’t even be Arab legacies throughout North Africa and the Middle East except for the Arabian Peninsula alone, which is the only geographical location where Arabs are native. If the effects of colonialism per se were to cease to exist, then the Arab- Islamic colonialism that invaded and colonized Egyptian territories would also need to be eradicated, making the indigenous people (the Copts) an irrelevant minority. The same applies to Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria, where indigenous populations (Berbers, Tamazgha, etc.) are reduced to minority status. Similarly, Palestine (a European name referring to a non-Arab population) would need to be de-Arabized, as Arab colonialism in Palestinian land is co-responsible for rendering the indigenous people, namely the Jews themselves, irrelevant, natives of the Holy Land. And so on, backward in time to the present day, rendering the significance of the discussion itself futile. Dismantling history has a strong boomerang effect.

C)  The anti-Semitic agenda concealed by anti-Zionism

 Typically, this interpretation juxtaposes Zionism with anti-Semitism.

While anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are undoubtedly distinct positions, they can intersect. Firstly, it must be asked: why should anti-Zionism have a higher moral standing than anti-Semitism? Zionism is a nationalist movement akin to Europe’s nationalistic movements, responsible for the emergence of our nations. Critically, contemporary anti-Zionism overlaps with anti-Semitism because, in the current context, the absence of an Israeli state protecting Jewish citizens undoubtedly leads to their annihilation by Arabs. This lack of doubt stems from factual observations:

 

1. Whenever Arab factions temporarily gain control over Jewish-populated territories, Jews are invariably killed or expelled, and cities are razed to the
2. Today, being Jewish in neighboring Arab countries or even in the so-called “occupied Palestinian territories” is de facto and de jure The Sephardic Jewish population was entirely expelled from Arab countries, whereas 20% of Israel’s population is Arab.
3. Arab public opinion is unequivocally hostile not only to Israel as a state but also to the Jewish population. This hostility is evident across various fields, from the language used in journalistic headlines to children’s programs, public demonstrations, and the domestic support garnered by terrorist attacks. Without Zionism, and therefore Israel, a genocide of proportions similar to the Holocaust against Jews would undoubtedly occur. Hence, under this specific circumstance, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism
4. Lastly, it is worth noting that Palestinian institutions, including the highest Palestinian authority – the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem – formed an alliance with Adolf Hitler’s regime in the 1940s, sharing similar “questionable”

D)  The Nakba Issue as a Claim of Unidirectionality

 The foundational myth of the Palestinian narrative lies precisely in the Nakba. In the absence of national historical antecedents that could legitimize its existence as a “Palestinian nation,” the Palestinian narrative, on May 15, 1998, had to legitimately equip itself with a discursive element to justify its right to existence; this element being the Nakba. The term “Nakba” itself was not coined by Arabs but by a Syrian Orthodox named Constantine Zuryak. Creating a totemic element is indispensable for nation-building before and state-building after (should they ever decide to become a legitimate sovereign state), so there is no intention here to criticize this discursive element, which is inherent to every community.

 

In fact, Jews, like Armenians, also adopt a totemic symbol as a cohesive element of their community, such as the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. Similarly, Italians have embraced an equal set of totemic discursive elements such as the myth of Rome, the Risorgimento, or battles like the Piave or Caporetto as identity markers. Therefore, it is reiterated that there is no intention to criticize the functionality of the Nakba as a discursive tool in the Palestinian narrative, but rather to reposition it within a more accurate and objective historical framework, rather than as a tool instrumental to nation-building.

The historical Nakba spans from the final stages of British mandate until the end of hostilities in 1948. It witnessed the confirmed displacement of 750,000 Arabs from the lands of Palestine, the original holders of the “refugee status.” For a proper understanding of the magnitude of the Nakba phenomenon, a comparison with similar displacements in contemporary times is necessary. Without comparison, one cannot grasp the gravity and magnitude of a phenomenon. We can observe that: in Sudan in 2023, a staggering 6 million people were displaced; between India and Pakistan in 1947, 14 million people were displaced; and contemporaneous with the Nakba, during the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948, a significant 850,000 Jews were expelled from Muslim Arab states, who now constitute the Sephardic Israelis. While not intending to diminish the horrific suffering that accompanies any war and displacement, an exercise of honesty must be undertaken by placing the Nakba within milder and more appropriate terms in relation to the real magnitude of the phenomenon, certainly painful, but of much lesser magnitude than the standards of forced displacement.

 

Today, we know, by accessing official documents from competing Arab countries, that the evacuation of the civilian population was indeed incentivized by these countries to clear the battlefield in preparation for the 1948 war. Hence, here too, we have a confirmed fact, namely the 750,000 Arabs who left Palestine, but there is a lack of unequivocal causal connection between Israeli actions and the Nakba, just as absent is the element of Israeli systematic intent to forcibly displace 750,000 Arabs. Objectively, the Nakba cannot be attributed to the interpretative framework of ethnic cleansing (also because it would be inconsistent with the existence of 2 million Arabs with equal rights in Israel). We know that these individuals left their homes in Palestine, but we do not have certainty that all of them were physically forced by Israeli forces. Instead, historical evidence suggests that a concurrent factor was the incentive from Arab countries in pre-war times to clear the battlefield to avoid friendly fire. These dynamics are well illustrated, for example, by the efforts of the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, who urged the Arabs of Haifa and Jaffa to leave their homes to be temporarily hosted in Syria, Egypt, and especially Jordan, in anticipation of a swift military victory that never materialized, forcing these people into exile.