He is completely ignoring the history of Mizrahi Jews. The Jews never left. Period.

The charge of colonialism is baseless.

See the title for a clue as to Marshall's point.

He should quit pretending he's a social scientist.

Eleminationism and supremicism have nothing to do with oppression. Those beliefs are culturally and religiously based and are largely disconnected with current reality.

have zero influence on how Palestinians view Jews and the state of Israel.

Marshall is a liberal and not racist towards Palestinians. Which means the rightwing supporters of Israel will not like what he says.

People who view the Palestinians as rabid animals will not agree with this:

Consider this: How many independent Muslim states continue with the stance he attributes to the Palestinian Muslims?

A sense of triumphalism pervaded the Ottomans when they were ascendant; they had things to lose.

Egypt still is nasty to the Copts.

The Sa'udis have a dispensation from heaven to be oppressive.

The Jordanians are vicariously oppressive having few local Xians and no local Jews to oppress.

The Turks can't decide if it's Allah or their Turkic roots they worship more, and are terrified of an "amen" out of the wrong mouth in the Blue Mosque lest it be reclaimed by that monolithic bloc known as "Xians."

The Salafists in Syria and Iraq have a messianic complex shared by groups from Indonesia through Thailand and India and Pakistan/Afghanistan through to Sinai and Egypt south to Somalia and west into Cyrenaica, thence to al Maghrib and south into Fula territory. Oddly similar rules based on oddly similar fiqhs, but viewed as utterly independent and unrelated because otherwise we'd be forced to critique our own stunted viewpoints.

These are oppressed only in the sense that there are still people with superior standards of living who flout the idea that the Muslims are the best people and should naturally be in charge; their sensibilities are hurt because others do as they want and not as the ummah is commanded and would command.

Albeit a minority at times, yet not out of the mainstream at other times, oppression seems to not be the problem.

They have common enemies--Iran, Hezbollah.

So, things can change.

He agrees with Jeff Goldberg that the real driving force is Arab/Muslim supremacism/chauvinism/antisemitism. But he argues that creating a state will be more likely to reduce those feelings than continued occupation. Maybe, but consider:

1. There is no prior hostility that is such a virulent combination of national, political, historical, and religious motives. What if the Palestinians really do want to subjugate the Jews more than they want a state?

2. The local historical examples aren't favorable. Once the Iranian mullahs took over, they exported revolution and terror. Same with ISIS. Same with Hezbollah.

3. Once the Palestinians have a state they have a much stronger power base. People with increased power use it, and they tend to use it on those deeply held beliefs that drove them in the first place.

4. The Palestinian leadership is on record as stating that obtaining a state in the West Bank and Gaza would just be the "first stage" in the war against the Jewish state.

5. The target of the hostility is the Jews, and that means that the usual rules of conflict and conflict resolution don't apply. People and nations do all sorts of completely irrational things when they think that their enemy is the Jews.