>If one did not know the actual history here, one might think from Matthew's
>account that Zionists just waited around until the end of WWII and the
>beginning of the period of national independence and decolonization to get
>in on the fun of starting a colonial settler state. Something took place in
>the decade leading up to 1945 which impacted particularly upon Jews, and
>that something is related to bringing Zionism from the margins to the
>center of the Jewish Diaspora, and to the founding of the state of Israel.
>But since the European crescendo of genocide against its Jews did not
>climax until this decade, we should exempt all of the earlier European
>settler states from Matthew's strictures, and yet include Israel??? Only
>the one "settler" nation-state founded by victims of European genocide must
>be dissolved??? This logic is a form of posthumous revenge for the
>architects of the Holocaust.
It's a fallacy to reply to criticism by saying that critics have done the same or even worse. An example of Tu Quoque:
"Arab states criticize Israel for oppressing Palestinians. They do the same. So there is no reason to stop oppressing them unless others stop likewise."
"Many criticize Zionists for practicing settler colonialism, but they themselves have enjoyed the fruits of settler colonialism. So there is nothing wrong with settler colonialism & no reason to abolish it."
Besides, why should Jews emulate actions taken by those who oppressed Jews by becoming settler colonialists themselves?
Yoshie