"...decolonization is always a violent event," writes Frantz Fanon in the Wretched of the Earth.

Maybe. I dunno. Certainly it often is. And therein might lay some of the critiques of the decolonization movement. Walter Laqueur wrote in his History of Zionism that Holocaust survivors & Jews in general believed that in their own country, even in the event of a defeat by Nazi-like forces, at least they would go down fighting, rather than let themselves be shipped away quietly.

I don't see how "decolonization" of Israel/Palestine would be other than a violent undertaking, but much depends on what is meant by it. Like "woke" & "genocide" its frequent evocation deprived it of meaning.

One thing:

By this time the Second World War had begun and with the discovery of the holocaust arose a new-found sympathy for the Jewish cause....

The essay you linked to is pretty good. But it segues from the above right into Israel's war of independence, implying that great power sympathy led to the creation of Israel, when really it didn't. After the victorious Allies saw firsthand all that had happened, how the reality beggared their worst fears, what did they do?

Nothing.

The US maintained its immigration quotas & Britain the White Paper restrictions. Congress enacted a Neutrality Act preventing the sale or transfer of weapons to either side in the ME, & when President Truman proposed the British allow 100,000 Jewish immigrants into Palestine on humanitarian grounds Whitehall told him to piss off.

That's why, appalled as I am at Israel's past record vis the Palestinians & Netanyahu's overreaction in Gaza, I've been & remain a Zionist.

There has to be a better solution, but no one in power right now seems sufficiently motivated to apply one.

Good piece.