Is there any analysis why there was major violent conflict in colonial Algeria with the French, but there was not as much in Tunisia.
And quite like the settler colonies of other countries in Africa, the settler minority who held power in Algeria weren't particularly inclined to give it up to the majority they largely felt beneath them. And since it was a severe insult to national pride to let a core part of France become independent, the French government resisted to the point that it literally broke the government (the Fourth Republic fell because of it, leading to the Fifth Republic).
That was at least the feeling at the time, and we still had to do it, and it is to this day a complete mess of people brought back who don't feel French and aren't Algerians really. We'll pay for it for many decades until it finally disappear, like every subgroup that got "imported" in France and had to merge painfully since France started.
Tunisia in contrast, we really didn't care all that much, there was no cost giving it back and we lost nothing. And fast forward 70 years, we probably actually saved tons of money doing so, so we're all good.
Note that if you talk people to people, it now seems to be in the past, Algerians are proud to be Algerians, French are ashamed to have damage the country so much for so long, and we try to be good friends. I've never met an hostile Algerian, as in a recent immigrant. I've met many hostile 3rd generation immigrants from Algeria whose grandparents fled back to France, and they still have trouble accepting that uprooting. There seems to be nothing to do except wait and smile and tell them it's gonna be ok, with a glass of wine and bit of saucisson.
Do you have a source for that?
Britannica says:
> The largest proportion of Jews trace their roots to Europe (including the former Soviet Union) and North America, though some also hail from Africa (mostly North Africa), Asia, and the Middle East.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Israel/Demographic-trends
I think this is partially supported by immigration statistics:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/total-immigration-to-is...
The French invasion of Algeria has always seemed unique and odd to me: Annexing an Arab territory especially while denying equal rights to the "indigenous" population (the term that was used) was a recipe for disaster and ultimately it proved untenable.
In contrast Tunisia was only a protectorate after the French invaded from Algeria in 1881.
It began with centuries of piracy and enslavement in the Mediterranean sea, leading to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars , which in turn led to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Algiers_(1816) . All this doesn't set a path for the invader to offer equal rights to the "indigenous" population.
A military action, even a colonial invasion, to "pacify" a place and to take control of it has little to do with a full annexation. The US did not make Afghanistan a State... And even among European colonial empires Algeria is quite unique.
France had lost most of its Empire during the Revolution and Napoleonic period so was keen to rebuild one. France did not have a settled Canada or Australia, either, so perhaps this also played a role but it seems unrealistic to believe that trying that with an Arabic Muslim country could have ever worked.
Indeed. No objective is intangible. Actions taken to reduce an aggressive enemy to inaction can lead to a promising discovery (in this case, that of what would become Algeria, which was then a rich agricultural and pleasant territory occupied by non-unified tribes) leading to a desire to seize it.
Which would the US have fought harder to keep: Hawaii, or the Marshall Islands?