I have begun reading Wang Huning's America Against America and there's one section where he talks about the intial colonization of the Americas and the difference between settler colonies and enslavement colonies. He cites Li Qiren's argument that the native americans were expelled and exterminated because they had not reached a high enough stage of development to be worth enslaving rather than just stealing their land. Meanwhile in Asia and africa and such the societies had reached a high enough stage of development to be worth enslaving.

I hadn't really thought about it, but it is odd to me. I don't fully buy Li's argument here because of the existence of Israel. To my knowledge palestine wasnt much different materially from other Arab areas like Jordan, Iraq, etc. Obviously zionism was a genuine ideology and movement (I don't think there were many advocates for settlement of Saudi Arabia) but beyond that it feels like it should have probably followed the same playback as the other middle eastern colonies like Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, etc.

There is of course the unsinkable aircraft carrier/interference justification argument, but that feels more like a reason for staying rather than a reason for doing it in the first place, especially since the colonization already started under Britain all the way back during the first world war, where they already controlled a lot of land there and thus wouldn't have needed to do this for that purpose.

I mean, they're probably correct, I just don't know enough to be sure or not on this.