This is where this breaks down. Without support from Britain, France, and the United States the Palestinian majority would not have allowed the formation of Israel.
There are slight differences from traditional colonialism, as there are a few countries working together and the colonists aren't necessarily from those countries. But it still broadly fits that definition.
As I've addressed in previous comments: none of these nations actually helped Israel at all in its early days.
The British in fact actively fought against the formation of Israel, by forcibly preventing incoming Jewish immigration, and actively fighting against the Jewish defense groups that were to be the Jews' only defense against the Arabs who attacked them once the Brits left in 1948:
The US enforced an arms embargo against Israel starting from 1948, and only became its ally after it won a major victory in 1967, proving it to be a valuable regional ally.
Still, the main point is that this isn't colonialism, because Israel isn't a colony of any other country or power.
>Jewish immigration, and actively fighting against the Jewish defense groups that were to be the Jews' only defense against the Arabs who attacked them once the Brits left in 1948:
Yes, while they were fine maintaining their empire they opposed a Jewish state. Sometime during or after the war their policy shifted as they would rather not give such prime land over to a group certain to be bitter over their very recent mistreatment. Better to support the colonization of outsiders and make them dependent on you militarily.
And as for the US, you ignore their role in stopping the 1948 war, their role in the Tripartite alliance, and Kennedy's beginning of the military alliance.
Really not sure what you're trying to say. You admit that the Brits were opposed to the Jewish efforts to establish Israel. In other words, Israel was not established with the help of the Brits, but in fact against their opposition, contrary to your original claim.
I'm not sure what actions by the US during the 1948 war you refer to. From wikipedia:
> This situation caused the United States to withdraw its support for the Partition plan, thus encouraging the Arab League to believe that the Palestinian Arabs, reinforced by the Arab Liberation Army, could put an end to the plan for partition.
In other words, US policy actually encouraged the attack on Israel and Arab hopes that they could destroy Israel and subjugate the Jews.
The only way US was involved at any later point was as part of the UN efforts to establish a ceasefire, after the Jews successfully defended Israel against the Arab attack. In other words, after the Jews already won.
The US allied itself with Israel during the Kennedy administration, i.e. much much later, because Israel won the 1967 war.
Either way, your representation that Israel was established based on foreign powers is not supported by any facts.
As a side note, one of the most capable armed forces that attacked Israel in 1948 was the Arab Legion, a forced trained, organized, and armed by the British Empire, and commanded by British officers:
>Really not sure what you're trying to say. You admit that the Brits were opposed to the Jewish efforts to establish Israel.
Before WWII, they wanted to maintain Mandatory Palestine. As the breakup of the Empire became obvious during the war, they changed their tune and supported Israel.
>The only way US was involved at any later point was as part of the UN efforts to establish a ceasefire,
Ignoring the large amount of US arms that ended up in Israel's hands, you act like US stepping in to end the war is a small thing. Prolonging the war would not benefit Israel, and guaranteeing their gains in the aftermath is what gave them the time they needed to truly colonize.
>much much later, because Israel won the 1967 war.
Kennedy was elected in 1960, and served under a term.
> a forced trained, organized, and armed by the British Empire, and commanded by British officers:
Obviously, as before that the region was a part of the British Empire.
Much of your claims that nobody supported Israel seemed to be based on their resistance to arm the nation. Immediately following WWII, the hope was to limit the ability of such nations to wage war, and guarantee them in case they are invaded. Plus, the west's constant worst fear was arming Israel only for the Kibbutz to take control.
> As the breakup of the Empire became obvious during the war, they changed their tune and supported Israel.
So you're just going to keep repeating this claim, that is backed by zero evidence or facts, and is contradicted by established historical facts which I cited.
You claim that Britain decided to support Israel after WWII, which ended in 1945. Yet in 1948, the most powerful military force that attacked Israel was organized, trained, and armed by the British and led by acting British officers:
>So you're just going to keep repeating this claim, that is backed by zero evidence or facts, and is contradicted by established historical facts which I cited.
None of your facts mention a time past 1942, except the existence of the Arab Legion which I addressed in my last post. As for evidence, the fact that Britain allowed the creation of Israel in their territory is about all you need.
There's plenty of evidence that the Brits took anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli actions after 1942 and even 1945. This evidence is in the links I posted, and you haven't read.
> British troops intervened to stop Operation Hametz, leading to a small battle with the Irgun. The intervention succeeded in preventing a Jewish takeover of Jaffa, while it failed to expel the Irgun from Menashiya due to stiff resistance. To put pressure on Ben-Gurion to rein in the Irgun, British planes flew over Tel Aviv and also bombed Haganah positions in Bat Yam. Eventually the British issued an ultimatum to Ben-Gurion, threatening to bomb Tel Aviv if he didn't stop the Irgun offensive. The next day, an agreement was reached in which Haganah fighters would replace the Irgun in Menashiya, and the Haganah pledged not to attack Jaffa until the end of the Mandate. British troops were allowed to reoccupy the police fort in Menashiya, but the town remained in Jewish hands.
So the Brits fought directly against Jewish defense organizations, engaged them in firefights, bombed their positions, bombed Jewish civilians, and threatened to bomb civilians in Tel-Aviv - Israel's effective capital and largest city.
All that happened in April-May 1948, just as the Brits were being forced out of Israel.
Yet I'm sure you'll keep claiming that Israel was founded with the help and support of the Brits, because you aren't here to debate facts but to promote an agenda.
Operation Hametz was the British trying to stop Jewish expansion during the the partitioning they were involved with to create Israel. Looking just at that incident while ignoring the fact that Britain was creating Israel is promoting an agenda, if they truly opposed Israel they could have ended that insurgency at any point.
The British were doing it for the benefit of British interests, which don't always align with Israeli interests.
There is zero evidence that the British "were creating Israel". This is just a false propaganda point you are repeatedly trying to make, with no evidence and against available evidence.
The wikipedia pages I linked above are full of literally hundreds of examples of British forces acting against the Jewish residents trying to form their new state and defend themselves against Arab attacks. In many of these cases, British forces engaged the Jewish armed groups in direct combat, just like in Operation Hametz.
You and others are not debating honestly here. Your only goal is to spread counterfactual, false propaganda by any means at your disposal.
>There is zero evidence that the British "were creating Israel
It was British Territory, and they allowed a UN resolution through creating the original dual state solution. The petition plan you mentioned earlier was impossible without them. Britain could have ended it before it even started.
>You and others are not debating honestly here. Your only goal is to spread counterfactual, false propaganda by any means at your disposal
Stop making shit up because someone disagrees with you. I have provided plenty of factual information, and anything that goes against your narrative you ignored and go back to claiming my argument only exists out of some desire to spread anti-Israel propaganda. Notice how France and the US have completely disappeared from the discussion.
Multiple times you've completely ignored what I've said about something, and immediately brought it up again in your next post. Like in this post, just because the British opposed Israeli expansion doesn't mean they were against Israel.
Your conspiracy theory that Britain decided to give land to the Jews "to support the colonization of outsiders and make them dependent on you military" makes no sense. Israel has never been dependent on the UK for military support. The UK has even attempted to impose arms embargoes on Israel. Relations between the two countries have been strained at best for nearly all of Israel's lifetime; it was only in the 2000s that things improved. The first ever joint training session occurred in 2019.
>The UK has even attempted to impose arms embargoes on Israel.
During a period where they guaranteed Israel's border with an agreement to intervene in any war. And beyond that, what about the 1956 war? This claim is just ridiculous, not wanting to arm Israel is separate from not making them dependent on the UK military
You've asserted without evidence over and over again that Israel is somehow dependent on the UK for military support, and that this was true around the time of Israel's founding as well.
The UK opposed Israel's creation, armed its enemies, and its officers served in armies that actively attempted to crush the state, while its air force provided air support. If you somehow contest this, and claim that Israel and the UK were close allies despite everything linked to you in this discussion thus far, please provide evidence. It's pointless to continue this while you handwave away numerous and repeated historical references to actual military engagements where the two countries were on opposite sides, and provide no references of your own other than your own assertions.
The first time Israeli and UK forces even trained together was in 2019. The claim that the UK provided long-term military support from the date of Israel's founding is just totally specious.
>You've asserted without evidence over and over again that Israel is somehow dependent on the UK for military support, and that this was true around the time of Israel's founding as well.
> According to Gerald M. Steinberg, the "agreement did not prevent the Arab states from obtaining weapons through their alliance relationships with suppliers, but Israel was excluded.... Little foreign aid was provided by the United States, and Israeli military officials who sought to purchase weapons and ammunition in the United States were rebuffed."
Thus this agreement, that was aimed at stopping the Israeli-Arab arms race (which by itself is a neutral and not a pro-Israeli agenda), led in fact to Israel being blocked from purchasing weapons, while Arabs were still able to purchase them.
This is in fact yet another example of the major powers active in the area - United States, United Kingdom, and France - acting against Israel and its interests.
So I have to conclude you don't bother reading your own links, in hopes other won't as well.
>Thus this agreement, that was aimed at stopping the Israeli-Arab arms race
That is the secondary goal of the agreement. The primary one is spelt out immediately
>The Tripartite Declaration of 1950... was a joint statement by the United States, United Kingdom, and France to guarantee the territorial status quo that had been determined by the 1949 Arab–Israeli Armistice Agreements.
I never said that the countries wanted to prop up the Israeli army, they didn't want it to exist.
I think you are profoundly misinformed on this topic. Britain, in particular, was violently opposed to the formation State of Israel, and the invading armies of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan were in part led by British forces.
Similarly, although the US now is closely aligned with Israel, it disavowed the partition plan prior to the Arab invasion.
The country that (ironically, given later alliances) gave the most direct military support to Israel in 1948 was the USSR under Stalin.
This is the case. Britain had learn that the Zionists were pretty insane group. It was them that started suicide bombing the British to make them leave, so they could start the exact war they later did.
Source, please? The Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi did carry out bombings — as did many, many other groups ruled over by the British, not just Jewish ones, so why that's particularly "insane" seems hard to discern — but I don't believe any of the attacks were suicide bombings. Suicide bombings were first introduced by Hezbollah in the 1980s in Lebanon. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/suicide-terrorism
This is where this breaks down. Without support from Britain, France, and the United States the Palestinian majority would not have allowed the formation of Israel.
There are slight differences from traditional colonialism, as there are a few countries working together and the colonists aren't necessarily from those countries. But it still broadly fits that definition.