Another rough day in Gaza

A Mandate is NOT a colony. The point of the League of Nations Mandate was to provide "administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone". Britain had no intention of permanent control over the territory. Even if you did consider the Mandate to be a colony then it ceased to be a colony once the British left and it was divided up by war into the newly established State of Israel and the territory taken by Jordan and Egypt.

Pointing out that there was zionist terrorism against the British shows how much you're not clearly thinking about the issue you're discussing. You claimed that Israel is basically a British colony. But zionist terrorism against the British just proves that the British and the zionists weren't on the same side. If it's really true that the British left in 1948 mainly in response to zionist terrorism then it clearly proves that the British weren't trying to help the zionists set up their own state.

I'm well aware of the idea that after the Holocaust a Jewish state should have been established in Germany. Trying to do that would have presented its own large problems. Israel was hardly "created" by other countries. The most those other countries did was vote in favor of the Partition Plan. The involvement of these other countries was almost entirely passive. They provided no material support to help the zionists establish a state. They didn't care enough about the issue of a Jewish state to do any real work to help establish one. Doing the hard work of carving out a piece of German territory for a Jewish state was out of the question for them.

You also ignore the fact that there were already half a million Jews in the British Mandate with an established social and economic infrastructure as well a quasi-government and quasi-military by the end of World War II. It made little sense to try to move all of that to somewhere in Germany. Establishing a Jewish state in Germany meant starting completely from scratch. Instead, a Jewish state was established in the land of Israel after the Holocaust because it was by far the easiest place to do it at that time. There was nothing "foolish" about what the zionists did. If they didn't establish a state then the Arabs would have pushed them into the Mediterranean. Establishing a state was a matter of survival for them.

I'm well aware that it's popular to apply the 'apartheid' label to Israel but there's no real basis for it. The article I linked to explains that 'apartheid' is actually a legal term with strong historical connotations and a specific definition and it explains why Israel doesn't meet those standards. You point to a book written by Jimmy Carter to prove Israel is 'apartheid' but he's no expert on the subject and simply doesn't understand the real standards that define it.

I never blamed Egypt for anything happening in Gaza. I simply pointed out that Egypt isn't allowing any Gazans into Sinai to show that there's no ethnic cleansing. Unarmed people are unfortunately killed in every war. Even the Allies killed at least 600,000 unarmed civilians in Axis countries by bombing.

There's been destruction and disrespect of places of worship for a long time on both sides of the Israeli-Arab conflict. The Arabs destroyed 34 out of 35 synagogues in East Jerusalem's Old City when they gained control of it during the Israeli War of Independence. The very presence of the most important mosque in the entire land of Israel is itself an act of gross disrespect towards Jews because it was built on the most sacred site for Jews.

The Israelis would seem a lot greater to you if you compared them to the surrounding Arab countries. 80 years ago, there were 100,000 Jews in the 4 Arab countries bordering Israel. Today it's down to 332. 32! There's 29 Jews in Lebanon, 3 Jews in Egypt and zero Jews in either Jordan or Syria. Compare that to Israel, whose population includes over 1 million Muslims. Israel is the most tolerant and diverse country in the Mideast.

I can't read that Haaretz article because it's behind a paywall. Have you even read it? All I can see is the first 2 sentences about Bezalel Smotrich. The article I linked to explains why there's no real basis for applying the 'apartheid' label to Israel:

https://www.thetower.org/article/the-apartheid-libel-a-legal-refutation/

'Apartheid' is actually a legal term with strong historical connotations and a specific definition and the article I linked to explains why Israel doesn't meet those standards. The writer of that Haaretz article, Michael Sfard, doesn't necessarily understand those standards. For all I know he's just applying that label because he's seen others do the same thing.

It's not my opinion. It's just a fact. I cited nothing but facts to prove that Arab opposition to Israel is all about Islam. You can't deny the facts. The Jimmy Carter book doesn't disprove the fact that Arab opposition to Israel is all about Islam.