Talk:Palestine Jewish Colonization Association

Untitled
This should probably be merged into Jewish Colonization Association.ShulMaven (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 100% 66.44.95.66 (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Title is incorrect?
If I translate the Hebrew to my native language or the English language, it reads: "Society for Jewish Settlement in the land of Israel"

The name at the Wikipedia page as it is, "Jewish Colonization Association", which reads like someone choose it from a political point of view expressing their opinion rather than the facts. "Colonization" is a loaded name I couldn't imagine they themselves would choose at that time. DouweMeer (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * On the contrary. "The Jewish Colonization Association" was the name under which that organization was registered as a company in 1921 (Official Gazette of the Government of Palestine, No. 23, Jan 1 1921, p9.) "The Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (Edmond de Rothschild Foundation)" is the name under which that body was established by ordinance in 1924. (Official Gazette of the Government of Palestine, No. 111, Mar 15 1924, pp. 546–560.) It is also the name used by countless reliable sources. What I suspect you don't understand is that in those days the Zionist organization was completely open about being a colonizing body. For example, the minutes of the 1921 Zionist Congress (which are in German) use "Kolonisation" hundreds of times. Zerotalk 00:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. Makes me wonder whether the definition of the word has changed over time. Like how 'Antiquarian' isn't like Historian but was seen as Hoarder. I see the term, colonize, has also been used in 1900 in the US to purchase land for the Jewish population. Thanks for informing me about my misunderstanding. Peculiar. DouweMeer (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The definition is much the same now as it was then. What has changed is the world's attitude towards colonisation. In the 19th and early 20th century, colonisation was regarded by the Western world as a good thing. As well as being within the rights of "civilised people" to colonise "backward regions", it was claimed (with not a little cynicism) to be to the advantage of the "natives". Of course the attitude of the world today towards colonisation is almost uniformly negative, so the propagandists of colonising nations have to work hard to explain how their colonisation really isn't colonisation. Zerotalk 01:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)