A Few Facts About The Palestinians

[Boston1]

Who is denying anyone's right to self-determination?

In 1948, Zionists stood up and declared Israel an independent nation, when they were only 30% of the population. Didn't the majority 70% of the population have a right to determine who should rule them?

Certainly not me. I have championed the rights of BOTH peoples since day one on this forum, denying no one. In fact, virtually 100% of my time here has been spent countering people who are actively denying the rights of the Jewish people to that same self-determination, including you.

I know you have. You're one of the good guys. It takes a lot of courage to be a moderate on this issue, considering "your side" has a history of executing them (Rabin).

I AGREE wholeheartedly that the right to self-determination can not be lost and can not be given away. I AGREE wholeheartedly that it is an inalienable right for ALL people. INCLUDING the Jewish people.

And I agree with that, including Jews.

But the discussion here revolves around whether or not borders and specific territory can be claimed unilaterally in a region with two competing and overlapping claims to sovereignty via that inalienable right to self-determination.

No they cannot. You have to have been a resident of Palestine to claim the right of self determination for that area (ie, Palestinian-Arabs, Palestinian-Jews). Not European Jews.

It is my claim that it can not.

We agree.

Where there are two competing and overlapping claims to sovereignty (especially where one is realized and the other is not) -- the final borders can only be set by negotiation and treaty.

I'm not against that.

Further, I am arguing that people of the "wrong" group CAN NOT be made to move (ethnically cleansed) after negotiation of territory and certainly not before. And I apply this criteria equally to both sides.

That's a little more complex issue to discuss.

Bilbo ;--)
LOL once again you have completely failed to offer a single reference or citation.

Shusha
There is no RIGHT to return. Its a a privilege afforded civilian populations that they SHOULD be allowed to return to their homes or be compensated by the responsible parties. The palestinians are neither a civilian population nor have any right to return. Their civilian status is as of yet undetermined given that the UN never segregated combatants from noncombatants. The right to return diatribe is pure revisionist nonsense

 

[Shusha]

In 1948, Zionists stood up and declared Israel an independent nation, when they were only 30% of the population. Didn't the majority 70% of the population have a right to determine who should rule them?

So only majority populations have the right of self-determination?

And I agree with that, including Jews.

No, you don't. You limit Jewish rights to self-determination by limiting which Jews who have a right to self-determination. Part of the rights to self-determination include the rights to self-identify. The group decides who is and who is not part of the group, not outsiders.

No they cannot. You have to have been a resident of Palestine to claim the right of self determination for that area (ie, Palestinian-Arabs, Palestinian-Jews). Not European Jews.

You have to have been a resident WHEN? If you are forceably removed does your right to self-determination or inclusion in the group end?

But even so, if there is a group of Jewish people in the territory, still they have a right to self-determination in that territory, yes? And they have the right to include whoever they want in that territory, yes?

Where there are two competing and overlapping claims to sovereignty (especially where one is realized and the other is not) -- the final borders can only be set by negotiation and treaty.

I'm not against that.

Awesome. Though I am surprised. In most of our conversations, it sure sounds like you are.

Further, I am arguing that people of the "wrong" group CAN NOT be made to move (ethnically cleansed) after negotiation of territory and certainly not before. And I apply this criteria equally to both sides.

That's a little more complex issue to discuss.

Well, there are two issues to resolve here. One is the moral issue. That is the easiest possible of issues to discuss. The idea that there can be none of "those" people in this State is vile. The idea that it is illegal for one of "those" people to buy a house here is vile. The idea that all of "those" people have to be removed is vile. Do we agree?

However, in light of the particular hostility of the Palestinians toward Israelis (read: Jews) there are practical considerations. For the safety of the Jewish people, some ethnic cleansing will likely be necessary. Its still vile. But what can you do?

 

[Shusha]

Shusha
There is no RIGHT to return. Its a a privilege afforded civilian populations that they SHOULD be allowed to return to their homes or be compensated by the responsible parties. The palestinians are neither a civilian population nor have any right to return. Their civilian status is as of yet undetermined given that the UN never segregated combatants from noncombatants. The right to return diatribe is pure revisionist nonsense

I agree with you. The right of return, as a legal concept, simply does not exist. And any existence which might come to be originated with the Palestinian quest for the destruction of the state of Israel. (It is actually fascinating to watch how legal concepts are altered in popular opinion, political opinion and even judicial opinion when it comes to discussing Israel. Entire concepts such as occupation, apartheid, right of return, illegal settlements, borders vs. armistice lines, boycotts, country of origin labelling have been re-worked to exclude or deny Israeli rights).

My argument is a moral one, demonstrating the inconsistency of the arguments of the anti-Israel crowd in denying the rights of the Jewish people while demanding the rights of the Palestinian people. It is meant to illuminate the inherent disparity and inequality in their arguments.

I actually believe for most, it is an unintentional anti-semitism. They actually feel entirely justified in their unequal treatment of the Jewish people. But, as you would know from your history, justifications for unequal treatment can be dangerous.

 

[Boston1]

Shusha
There is no RIGHT to return. Its a a privilege afforded civilian populations that they SHOULD be allowed to return to their homes or be compensated by the responsible parties. The palestinians are neither a civilian population nor have any right to return. Their civilian status is as of yet undetermined given that the UN never segregated combatants from noncombatants. The right to return diatribe is pure revisionist nonsense

I agree with you. The right of return, as a legal concept, simply does not exist. And any existence which might come to be originated with the Palestinian quest for the destruction of the state of Israel. (It is actually fascinating to watch how legal concepts are altered in popular opinion, political opinion and even judicial opinion when it comes to discussing Israel. Entire concepts such as occupation, apartheid, right of return, illegal settlements, borders vs. armistice lines, boycotts, country of origin labelling have been re-worked to exclude or deny Israeli rights).

My argument is a moral one, demonstrating the inconsistency of the arguments of the anti-Israel crowd in denying the rights of the Jewish people while demanding the rights of the Palestinian people. It is meant to illuminate the inherent disparity and inequality in their arguments.

I actually believe for most, it is an unintentional anti-semitism. They actually feel entirely justified in their unequal treatment of the Jewish people. But, as you would know from your history, justifications for unequal treatment can be dangerous.

It would appear intentional.

The end goal being the to further weaken Israel's defense against palestinian aggression.

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually it does.

No it doesn't. See the partition plan.

The last legally binding instrument in the disputed territories is the British mandate, which specially states that the area is to be used for the creation of a Jewish national homeland. Israel cannot be occupying land set aside for its own creation.

The problem with that is the Mandate had a caveat Zionists were in breach of from the very beginning...

it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine​

...and by denying them the right of self determination, you are prejudicing their rights.

Also there is the issue of who's land they are occupying ?

The people who have been living there for the past 2000 years.

Jordan was by treaty not allowed east of the Jordan. So they were actually illegally occupying the area.

Jordan didn't seize this land in a war.

However the Israeli's not only acquired the land through defensive action

I keep asking you to show me the international law that say's this. Why can't you provide this evidence? Why do you keep repeating yourself, without backing up what you claim? Why can't you prove this is legal?

BTW, invading a sovereign nation is not a defensive action. And that's exactly what Israel did.

and not only were NOT ORDERED TO ABANDON IT by resolution 242.

I want you to read the following out loud 3 times.



What part of this don't you understand?

But are in fact not occupying anyone elses dirt by virtue of the simple fact that it wasn't legally anyone elses.

Again, it doesn't matter who's "dirt" it is; all that matters is that it is not Israel's "dirt".

You can pretend all the international law you want,

What international law was "pretended"?

And quite frankly, since you can't come up with any yourself, you're not even qualified to make a statement like that. WTF do you know about international law (aside from the fact you're unable to provide any)?

and of course you provide no citations supporting your claims,

Constantly repeating this, will not make it true.

but the simple fact remains. Israel is not occupying anything. It is governing a disputed territory. Disputed only because the international community is stuck in a PR war.

You're right and the whole world is wrong?

You're a lunatic!

Love the way you point those UN resolutions ASSUMING they say anything about vacating "palestinian" land. They don't. It's a call to negotiate with the countries from whom the land was taken.. NOT a palestinian "deed" to any property..

 

[flacaltenn]

And since Jordan has renounced claim to "their captured lands" and the Palis therein --- That means that Israel has pretty much complied that that thar "resolution"..

 

[Roudy]

My My... All these military experts around here. "an occupying force has no right of self-defense" huh ??

I'm sure you're in great company with the PLO who attacked Jordan or the folks in Baltimore/Ferguson or even the virulent anti-war Americans that felt that way about Afghanistan and Iraq..

One fact about Palestinians (that IS the topic) is that they never see themselves as anything BUT "an occupied people" -- no matter WHO's government is running the place. Places them at a fatal disadvantage when it comes to any hopes of self-determination or self-government. Much like the warring Chipewas and Cherokees in this country who had issues with organization and vision for the preservation of their heritage..

Who are you responding to? Who has said that an occupying force does not have a right to self defense?

By the way, your comment regarding the native americans was revealing, you are one of those that still believe that the genocide of the native americans was just, and a part of manifest destiny. I thought most of those people had disappeared.

Please do not be offended, but to discuss the I/P issue with someone with your mindset is not fruitful. You come from a position that is so over the top, there is no possible way to discuss the issue rationally.

Now that's funny, Monte accusing someone else of having an "over the top mindset"!

 

[Roudy]

Never have I stated that the Occupying Power does not have a right to defend itself. What I said is that the occupied people have a right to employ armed resistance, under International Law, and that the Occupying Power has a duty to protect non-combatants.

You are projecting. I never post anything that is not backed by a neutral source, usually from source documents from recognized official archives. The problem is, so much Zionist propaganda has been absorbed by most Americans, when the facts are presented and the sources are impeccable, cognitive dissonance sets in. The zealots are those that continue repeating propaganda that has been proven to be false, e.g. the Palestinians don't exist or they were invented in the 1960s. Even when official correspondence between the Palestinian Delegation and the British Colonial Office is presented, showing that in 1922, the Palestinians were pleading with the British for independence and the adoption of a secular constitution with rights for all Palestinians, the zealots claim the Palestinians did not exist. The Palestinians were united and ready for statehood before the Jordanians, the Syrians or the Egyptians. With their large westernized Christian population which held many of the leadership positions, they were the most suitable people to establish an independent state. The British prevented this in order to allow the Zionists to colonize the land before a Palestinian state could be established.

In any case, the success of latter day European colonial projects where the colonists were unable to destroy the native populations is negligible. The native people have all been able to secure independence from the colonizers in every case except Palestine, because of the unnatural level of support it has from the U.S. That support will not last forever and as stated, the demographics favor the native people in Palestine. The non-Jews of Palestine are not going away and Israel's decision to not allow the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state when they had the chance The Swiss cheese offer with the equivalent of Crusader castles manned by the IDF which had control within the proposed state made any the offer DOA.

Problem is most of your stuff is from propaganda sites, and the ones that are from "neutral sources" actually disprove your claims.

 

[Roudy]

How can a colonial invader not be the aggressor? Did not the European Zionists go to Palestine (a place on another continent) where native people were already living?

Wow ... you must literally live under a rock.

There was much dislocation following WW2. In fact, between 1944 and 1948 about 31 million people - including some 12 million ethnic Germans - were expelled from Central and Eastern European countries.

Many left the continent entirely but evidently your problem is with the Jewish refugees ... and only with the Jewish ones.

I'm not surprised.

Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In fact all the Muslim shitholes that were carved out of the a Ottoman Empire at the same time, doesn't bother the antisemites. Just the one jewish state that sits on less than 1% of the land given to Arab Muslims.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So, you claim that state.gov has stated that Gaza is ruled by "Islamic terrorist animals"? Can you provide a link for that.

Keep digging, idiot:

Foreign Terrorist Organizations

Foreign Terrorist Organizations

Bureau of Counterterrorism

Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) are foreign organizations that are designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended. FTO designations play a critical role in our fight against terrorism and are an effective means of curtailing support for terrorist activities and pressuring groups to get out of the terrorism business.

Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations

Date Designated

Name

10/8/1997 Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)

10/8/1997 Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)

10/8/1997 Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group) (IG)

10/8/1997 HAMAS

Now DIG!

So you link to a propaganda site.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The UN has specific guidelines for segregating refugees from combatants at the point of entry into the camps. But if they ( the UN ) don't do that then UNWRA says its the host nations responsibility. Either way the UN failed to separate the two and now we have a mosh of refugee and combatant descendants all being treated like refugees and offered aid even if they are still actively engaged in combat. Which is illegal under all kinds of international law.

Palestinian's have every legal right in the world to resist the belligerent occupation by a foreign force.

There is no belligerent occupation, Israel came to be the governing power in the region through defensive action. I don't think you comprehend the meaning of the term belligerent

Or are you arguing that none of the three major acts of war against the Israeli nation was initiated by the Arab nations or peoples?

If those foreigners stayed in Europe there would not be any problems.

 

[P F Tinmore]

How can a colonial invader not be the aggressor? Did not the European Zionists go to Palestine (a place on another continent) where native people were already living?

Jews had been living on that land for over 2000 years. Read your bible.

Not the criminals who came out of Europe.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The problem is, so much Zionist propaganda has been absorbed by most Americans, when the facts are presented and the sources are impeccable, cognitive dissonance sets in. The zealots are those that continue repeating propaganda that has been proven to be false...
...The non-Jews of Palestine are not going away and Israel's decision to not allow the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state when they had the chance The Swiss cheese offer with the equivalent of Crusader castles manned by the IDF which had control within the proposed state made any the offer DOA.

The irony of one such as you whining about propaganda and cognitive dissonance is massive and obvious but clearly you can't see it.

I'm not surprised.

You conveniently forget that not only did the Arabs reject the UN proposed partition in 1947 that could have established a Pal State, they continued to reject statehood in any of the following 20 years (until June, 1967) in which they had the unfettered opportunity to create a Pal State - without Israeli involvement - on all or any of the land they controlled (including all of Jerusalem).

Needless to say, those hapless "refugees" consistently eschewed their chance at statehood for the honor of life in squalid "refugee" camps and of tossing generation after generation of their kids into the fire just to satisfy the Jihadists among them and the global Nazi types for whom those "refugees" are the front line of their war against the hated Joooo.

You conveniently forget that not only did the Arabs reject the UN proposed partition in 1947 that could have established a Pal State, they continued to reject statehood in any of the following 20 years​

Not true. They rejected giving most of their country to foreign colonists.

 

[P F Tinmore]

LOL your funny.

Thats land Jordan LOST in an aggressive war against Israel. Why do you think that precious security council of yours adopted UNR242 under tittle VI instead of VII ?

How many times do you have to be told, you cannot lose land in a war. That has been illegal since the end of WWII. That's the very definition of cognitive dissonance.

242 backs up that law by telling Israel to get the fuck off that land it seized during that war.

Yup cognitive dissonance again. We've been over this. 242 was adopted under article VI in which case its a suggestion not a binding legal demand. Its a suggestion because it was determined that Israel was NOT THE AGGRESSOR. Israel was simply defending itself and is allowed to maintain that defensive posture.

Also under what presence did Jordan actually own the disputed territories that makes you think they can't lose that land in war ? The simple truth is they never owned it in the first place and its last legal standing was as a protectorate for the establishment of a national Jewish homeland. ;--) which is exactly what Israel is doing with it now.

Best of luck with that.

Indeed, Jordan was the Uncle Tom of the Arab world.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yeah we've seen a lot of that in the First Peoples of the America's. Its not always easy to jump into a new way of doing things but its essential if you want to play the game.

Things change, life moves on. No reason to whine or complain is what I tell my fellow native americans, get over it and live, be strong, succeed. Embrace the new age.

They are working hard at winning back their land -- one roll of the dice at a time... THEY have a plan.. And they now understand "the system"..

Yes and they have given up armed resistance. My own people fought to the bitter end and are one of the few who've maintained at least a segment of their original homeland. But that is unusual, and irrelevant. Today native tribes are doing better than they've done in a long time. Education is up, alcoholism is down. Average income is increasing, and yes, some tribes are taking advantage of their sovereign status in that they allow activities not generally allowed in the USA. And its all happening because the people realize we must play the game to survive.

If the palestinians want to be treated like respectable citizens, they are going to have to act like it. End the outrageous acts against innocent civilians, stop the random rocket fire, quit trying to run over pedestrians and start acting like adults.

A peaceful solution is the only solution

That is why I support BDS.

 

[Hollie]

The UN has specific guidelines for segregating refugees from combatants at the point of entry into the camps. But if they ( the UN ) don't do that then UNWRA says its the host nations responsibility. Either way the UN failed to separate the two and now we have a mosh of refugee and combatant descendants all being treated like refugees and offered aid even if they are still actively engaged in combat. Which is illegal under all kinds of international law.

Palestinian's have every legal right in the world to resist the belligerent occupation by a foreign force.

There is no belligerent occupation, Israel came to be the governing power in the region through defensive action. I don't think you comprehend the meaning of the term belligerent

Or are you arguing that none of the three major acts of war against the Israeli nation was initiated by the Arab nations or peoples?

If those foreigners stayed in Europe there would not be any problems.

Oh, of course not. The Islamist world has always been a beacon of tolerance and coexistence.

 

[Hollie]

The problem is, so much Zionist propaganda has been absorbed by most Americans, when the facts are presented and the sources are impeccable, cognitive dissonance sets in. The zealots are those that continue repeating propaganda that has been proven to be false...
...The non-Jews of Palestine are not going away and Israel's decision to not allow the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state when they had the chance The Swiss cheese offer with the equivalent of Crusader castles manned by the IDF which had control within the proposed state made any the offer DOA.

The irony of one such as you whining about propaganda and cognitive dissonance is massive and obvious but clearly you can't see it.

I'm not surprised.

You conveniently forget that not only did the Arabs reject the UN proposed partition in 1947 that could have established a Pal State, they continued to reject statehood in any of the following 20 years (until June, 1967) in which they had the unfettered opportunity to create a Pal State - without Israeli involvement - on all or any of the land they controlled (including all of Jerusalem).

Needless to say, those hapless "refugees" consistently eschewed their chance at statehood for the honor of life in squalid "refugee" camps and of tossing generation after generation of their kids into the fire just to satisfy the Jihadists among them and the global Nazi types for whom those "refugees" are the front line of their war against the hated Joooo.

You conveniently forget that not only did the Arabs reject the UN proposed partition in 1947 that could have established a Pal State, they continued to reject statehood in any of the following 20 years​

Not true. They rejected giving most of their country to foreign colonists.

Simple answers from the simpleton. What the Arabs-Islamists rejected was any consideration for a Jewish presence. What you won't acknowledge are the insensate Joooooooo hatreds that are a built-in component of Islamic ideology.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The problem is, so much Zionist propaganda has been absorbed by most Americans, when the facts are presented and the sources are impeccable, cognitive dissonance sets in. The zealots are those that continue repeating propaganda that has been proven to be false...
...The non-Jews of Palestine are not going away and Israel's decision to not allow the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state when they had the chance The Swiss cheese offer with the equivalent of Crusader castles manned by the IDF which had control within the proposed state made any the offer DOA.

The irony of one such as you whining about propaganda and cognitive dissonance is massive and obvious but clearly you can't see it.

I'm not surprised.

You conveniently forget that not only did the Arabs reject the UN proposed partition in 1947 that could have established a Pal State, they continued to reject statehood in any of the following 20 years (until June, 1967) in which they had the unfettered opportunity to create a Pal State - without Israeli involvement - on all or any of the land they controlled (including all of Jerusalem).

Needless to say, those hapless "refugees" consistently eschewed their chance at statehood for the honor of life in squalid "refugee" camps and of tossing generation after generation of their kids into the fire just to satisfy the Jihadists among them and the global Nazi types for whom those "refugees" are the front line of their war against the hated Joooo.

You conveniently forget that not only did the Arabs reject the UN proposed partition in 1947 that could have established a Pal State, they continued to reject statehood in any of the following 20 years​

Not true. They rejected giving most of their country to foreign colonists.

Simple answers from the simpleton. What the Arabs-Islamists rejected was any consideration for a Jewish presence. What you won't acknowledge are the insensate Joooooooo hatreds that are a built-in component of Islamic ideology.

Indeed, they have always rejected the Zionist colonization.

 

[Hollie]

The problem is, so much Zionist propaganda has been absorbed by most Americans, when the facts are presented and the sources are impeccable, cognitive dissonance sets in. The zealots are those that continue repeating propaganda that has been proven to be false...
...The non-Jews of Palestine are not going away and Israel's decision to not allow the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state when they had the chance The Swiss cheese offer with the equivalent of Crusader castles manned by the IDF which had control within the proposed state made any the offer DOA.

The irony of one such as you whining about propaganda and cognitive dissonance is massive and obvious but clearly you can't see it.

I'm not surprised.

You conveniently forget that not only did the Arabs reject the UN proposed partition in 1947 that could have established a Pal State, they continued to reject statehood in any of the following 20 years (until June, 1967) in which they had the unfettered opportunity to create a Pal State - without Israeli involvement - on all or any of the land they controlled (including all of Jerusalem).

Needless to say, those hapless "refugees" consistently eschewed their chance at statehood for the honor of life in squalid "refugee" camps and of tossing generation after generation of their kids into the fire just to satisfy the Jihadists among them and the global Nazi types for whom those "refugees" are the front line of their war against the hated Joooo.

You conveniently forget that not only did the Arabs reject the UN proposed partition in 1947 that could have established a Pal State, they continued to reject statehood in any of the following 20 years​

Not true. They rejected giving most of their country to foreign colonists.

Simple answers from the simpleton. What the Arabs-Islamists rejected was any consideration for a Jewish presence. What you won't acknowledge are the insensate Joooooooo hatreds that are a built-in component of Islamic ideology.

Indeed, they have always rejected the Zionist colonization.

Indeed, yet another humiliation for islamism. The earlier colonization by the Ottoman Crusaders was superseded by the Jews taking back their ancestral lands.

 

[Boston1]

The UN has specific guidelines for segregating refugees from combatants at the point of entry into the camps. But if they ( the UN ) don't do that then UNWRA says its the host nations responsibility. Either way the UN failed to separate the two and now we have a mosh of refugee and combatant descendants all being treated like refugees and offered aid even if they are still actively engaged in combat. Which is illegal under all kinds of international law.

Palestinian's have every legal right in the world to resist the belligerent occupation by a foreign force.

There is no belligerent occupation, Israel came to be the governing power in the region through defensive action. I don't think you comprehend the meaning of the term belligerent

Or are you arguing that none of the three major acts of war against the Israeli nation was initiated by the Arab nations or peoples?

If those foreigners stayed in Europe there would not be any problems.

Nonsense

Its always the claim that if the Jews had just done this or the Jews had just done that we could have had peace.. Lets just hold on a moment and look at the situation. Arabs Muslims have something like 99% of N Africa as it was partitioned yet they constantly whine and complain about that 1% as if they got screwed in the deal or something.

Next we constantly hear about those damn Jewish interlopers colonizing us innocence who've always been here and need more room. Brilliant argument. Roughly 50% of the Judaic people in Israel today were expelled from those loving N African countries and returned to their native homeland, Israel. About 35% fled Europe after we all know what and returned to their native lands. But you blame them. Brilliant, simply brilliant.

I'm always amazed at how people justify their hatred

[/QUOTE]
Indeed, they have always rejected the Zionist colonization.[/QUOTE]

The term colonization used in this context is disingenuous at best. A colonizer is not one returning to their native lands. But branching out from one. Lets look at the definition of colonization

1. 
   Colonization is the act of setting up a colony away from one's place of origin.
   colonization - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com
   www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/colonization

We all know the Judaic people didn't originate in Europe. They originated from the Hyksos which were an ancient group known form the mid to late bronze age to inhabit the Canaan valley area. SO to insist that Judaic people returning from Europe to their native lands were "colonizing" is to be polite about it. Disingenuous.

The interesting thing within the revisionists narrative however is that the Arab Muslim invasion does fit the description of colonization.

Lets look at that definition from a few other sources

Quote
col·o·ni·za·tion
(kŏl′ə-nĭ-zā′shən)
n.
The act or process of establishing a colony or colonies.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
col·o·ni·za·tion
(kŏl′ə-nĭ-zā′shən)
Ecology
The spreading of a species into a new habitat.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of Student Science, Second Edition. Copyright © 2014 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
End Quote

So unless you are arguing that the Judaic people didn't originate in Judea/Canaan then you are incorrectly using the term colonize.

Lets look at another definition

From Wiki

Quote
Colonization (or colonisation) is an ongoing process of control by which a central system of power dominates the surrounding land and its components (people, animals etc.).

The term is derived from the Latin word colere, which means "to inhabit".[1] Also, colonization refers strictly to migration, for example, to settler colonies in America or Australia, trading posts, and plantations, while colonialism deals with this, along with ruling the existing indigenous peoples of styled "new territories".
End Quote

The term can be accurately applied to a people branching out FROM their place of origin, but not returning to it. That would be called returning. Shall we go ver the definition of returning next ?