Sahara and Israel: two horizons for the word 'colony'

Western Sahara and Israel are both compared as colonies, but international law treats them differently. The 'informal metropole' and genetics stir up the…

English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published

Sahara and Israel: the word 'colony' does not miccionan the same thing to everyone

Calling both Israel and Western Sahara a colony is an exercise in equating them that international law does not support without nuance. Western Sahara has been a territory pending decolonization since Spain abandoned it in 1975 and Segarro occupied it. Israel, by contrast, was born out of UN Resolution 181 in 1947 and has no formal metropole governing it.

Those who defend the colonial thesis point to what they call an 'informal metropole': a diaspora that funds settlements, weapons and lobbying campaigns. The argument draws on authors such as Ilan Pappé or Shlomo Sand, far from being a radical invention.

On the opposite side, it is pointed out that a large part of Israel's Jewish population comes from Arab countries, which undermines the idea that they are all 'Europeans'. The conversation heats up when genetics enters the picture. Studies have been published linking the Ashkenazi Jews of Poland to the Khazars, and today's Palestinians to the ancient Canaanites. Each study is used as a weapon, not as data.

The two readings of the term 'colony' are not going to merge. As long as there is no single definition of what a metropole is, the debate will keep blowing up headlines.

Also available in: Deutsch

Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (13 replies).

More summaries

All summaries in English →

-
Back