Whatever Palestine ever existed as a state of not is completely irrelevant. The fact is that Palestinians was living on there land and foreigners came and forced a state on them then ethnically cleanse them two and not they are ethnically cleansed a third time
It’s not though. The point that I was trying to make is that this region never had sovereignty until very recently with the two modern states. Prior to this, the region was always controlled by foreign empires like the British, Ottoman, Malmuk, Ayyubid, and so on. Every one of these empires came and forced a state on to the region.
But we have to contextualize what this means. Back during the days of the Ottoman Empire, there was an infamous system in place called sürgün that kept everybody the boot and the Turks were at the top. They did this by radically shifting demographics of all the regions they conquered. They would forcibly deport entire ethnic and religious groups that they viewed as threat to their rule to other regions of the empire that they felt were safer, and vice versa.
For example, the Ottoman empire famously did this with the Christians in Southeastern Europe. The Ottomans moved millions of Christians Europeans to Anatolia and the Levant, and relocated just as many muslims and Turks to southeastern Europe. This is why countries like Bulgaria, Albania, Bosnia, etc have such large muslim populations and why Turkey and the Levant region have so many people who are ethnically European. This of course includes the region of Israel/Palestine. A lot of prominent figures in the Palestinian movement were ethnically European. For example, Amin al-Husseini was ethnically Bosnian.
The Israel/Palestine region meant a lot to the empire as it was a strategic location, but also contained important islamic sites that the empire uses to derive its legitimacy as the muslim empire. To ensure this, they wanted to make sure that the region stayed firmly in islamic hands, and so they tried their best change the demographics. The Empire forcibly relocated muslims and Turks from all over empire to settle in the region, they forcibly relocated Jews to other parts of the empire like Cyprus and Anatolia, they placed restrictions to prevent Jews from migrating to key cities in the region like Jerusalem and Hebron, and they use dubious reasons to depopulate Jewish areas by forcing them to evacuate from a nearby battle for example, but then the empire would give the okay for muslims to return but not Jews. They did the same to Christians in the region, but to a lesser extent. What this means is that a lot of the inhabitants of the region were moved out and replaced by other people not from the regions via imperial policy
The point is that this region was always controlled and populated by foreigners. This idea that the region of Israel/Palestine was inhabited by Natives like North America was when the Europeans arrived is simply false. The region’s population was pretty cosmopolitan and dynamic, though not by choice. This doesn’t excuse the ethnic cleansing campaigns that happened afterwards, but I do think there’s value in maintaining a historically accurate understanding of the region rather than repeating misinformed online narratives.
You have right to hate religions but please do not excuse settler colonialism, creating famine and the murder of children because of it.
This is a very myopic and historically inaccurate view of history. While some elements of Israel’s establishment can be classified as settler colonialism, it’s not accurate to say that all of it is. For example, when Israel was established. The muslim world started committing pogroms in mass against their Jewish communities even though they had nothing to do with Israel. These people who been living in their communities for hundreds, and for some, thousands, of years were forced to abandon everything, including their citizenship, and flee to Israel because that’s the only place that took them in. The total number of people from the exodus total around 1 million people. These people and their descendants now make up a very large chunk of the Israeli population, if not an outright majority.
The term “colonialism” implies intent, but in reality these people were refugees who ended up in Israel due to circumstance. This is a stark difference from European Jews, who were also refugees, but they actually migrated to the region with the intent of settling and creating their own state.
Let’s not also forget that the 2 world wars didn’t happen because of religion and the European colonial powers had the most bloody colonization history.
This is true, but these are also different regions with different histories.
You would not dare to infer that Europeans are natural savages that are always bloody like you are trying to portray all Muslims and jews
Except I never made such claims, I merely pointed out the historically accurate fact that this region has been fought over constantly for thousands of years. A bunch of major religions claim this region to be the holy land, and so it has always been the center of different people fighting for control.
You demonstrate a good enough understanding of the history that you clearly know that you are being deceitful.
While some elements of Israel’s establishment can be classified as settler colonialism, it’s not accurate to say that all of it is.
Is there any colonised country that this doesn’t apply to? Colonisation is a core principle of Zionism. It’s so central to Zionism that it’s in the introductory paragraph on it’s Wikipedia page. Many of the early Zionist leaders said that their goals could only be achieved through the displacement of Arabs, and the migration of Jews was, and still is, strongly encouraged by Zionists.
For example, when Israel was established. The muslim world started committing pogroms in mass against their Jewish communities even though they had nothing to do with Israel.
Gosh, I wonder if that was in response to the treatment of Arabs in Palestine.
These people who been living in their communities for hundreds, and for some, thousands, of years were forced to abandon everything, including their citizenship, and flee to Israel because that’s the only place that took them in.
And they had no problem pushing out the Arabs (who had been living in their communities for hundreds, and for some, thousands, of years) on their way in.
The total number of people from the exodus total around 1 million people. These people and their descendants now make up a very large chunk of the Israeli population, if not an outright majority.
Before they started settling in Palestine it used to be that less than 5% of the population were Jewish.
A majority of Australian colonists were sent there for committing petty crimes, such as theft. The industrial revolution left much of the working class without work, so theft in Britain rose rapidly. For the crime of trying to fees their family, over 100,000 people were forcibly transported to Australia. Their descendants now make up a very large chunk of the Australian population.
You demonstrate a good enough understanding of the history that you clearly know that you are being deceitful.
I’m not being deceitful. I just stated historical facts to bring necessary context to something that you’re intentionally trying to oversimplify.
Is there any colonised country that this doesn’t apply to?
Actually it goes beyond that, it applies to all the modern states. The point I was trying to make is that you can’t water down history to narrative driven soundbites.
Colonisation is a core principle of Zionism. It’s so central to Zionism that it’s in the introductory paragraph on it’s Wikipedia page.
Wikipedia is not a source for anything related to modern conflicts because it’s prone to manipulation. This article in particular has been edited so much that it’s literally unrecognizable from a few years ago.
Many of the early Zionist leaders said that their goals could only be achieved through the displacement of Arabs, and the migration of Jews was, and still is, strongly encouraged by Zionists.
And you would be correct, and this notion that pushes ethnic cleansing is wrong. However, there’s nuance that can’t be overlooked. For example, Israel is a secular, democratic country, and because of this, there are a lot of people with a lot of different views. The current government of Israel is very unpopular among Israelis, and the majority of people oppose it. The current government is considered far right and extremist by Israeli standards, and the most don’t support their actions.
The far right factions, like Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit and Smotrich’s Religious Zionist party, are responsible for the vast majority of things people associate negatively with Israel. Here’s a short list:
They are responsible for starting unprovoked aggression against their neighbors like Syria and Lebanon (excluding the Hezbollah conflict)
They keep sabotaging peace deals to keep the Gaza war going for as long possible
They go to extreme lengths to defend war crimes and war criminals
They’re the ones are aggressively expanding and creating illegal settlements in the West Bank
They’re the ones who encourage and defend discrimination and bigotry
They want to erase Israel’s secular and democratic institutions so they can turn into a theocracy
They’re horrible people. They follow a specific ideology called Kahanism, which is basically Jewish fascism. This ideology is so extreme that the US and Israel both designated the original founder of the ideology and his party as terrorists. The entire far right Kahanist coalition only got 10.84% of the vote in the 2022 election, and they only got 14/120 seats. A lot of their voters were the illegal settlers in the West Bank. By all accounts, these parasites shouldn’t have sniffed any significant position in power, but Netanyahu, being the corrupt war criminal that he is, decided incorporate them into his wing so he could form a government with himself at the top. He also went the extra mile of giving them outsized positions of influence.
The point I’m trying to make here is that Israel is a diverse country and the people responsible for most of what’s wrong with it are a small, corrupt minority that do not represent the general population. Just because the country started a certain way or has extremist politician today, that doesn’t mean all 10 million people there are extremist as well. A lot of them don’t support these things, and it would wrong to generalize any country in general.
Gosh, I wonder if that was in response to the treatment of Arabs in Palestine.
Are you seriously trying to defend these people getting ethnically cleansed because you think that this is somehow a justified reaction?
Just to refresh, these people who have no connection to Israel. These are people who have been living in their communities for centuries, for some it’s literally thousands of years, and for no other reason than being Jewish they were expelled or chased out of their country and were forced to flee to Israel as refugees because they had nowhere else to go. These people lost their homes, their livelihoods, their property, their communities, and they’re citizenship. They’re just as much victims as the Palestinians you’re trying to defend.
If you’re going to sit here and wag your finger about the morality of Israel ethnically cleansing Palestinians and then turn around and justify the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the muslim world then you’re nothing more than a hypocrite and your words mean nothing.
And they had no problem pushing out the Arabs (who had been living in their communities for hundreds, and for some, thousands, of years) on their way in.
Stop thinking like a Neanderthal. There’s no “team” here. This mentality of tribalism is precisely the reason why this conflict is never ending. Instead think about it in terms of actions. There are actions that are morally good and actions that are morally bad. If an action is morally bad, like say ethnic cleansing, then you oppose it in all its forms and in all instances because that’s the principled thing to do. When Israel ethnically cleansed Arabs during it’s founding, that was bad. However, the muslim world ethnically cleansing Jews was also bad. Having moral consistency shouldn’t be this difficult.
A majority of Australian colonists were sent there for committing petty crimes, such as theft. The industrial revolution left much of the working class without work, so theft in Britain rose rapidly. For the crime of trying to fees their family, over 100,000 people were forcibly transported to Australia. Their descendants now make up a very large chunk of the Australian population.
Okay, let’s follow this logic. The original British settlers were colonial settlers sent by the British Empire to colonize Australia. The Aboriginal people there got the short end of the stick, and were ethnically cleansed from their lands. However, the Aborigines were not a monolith, there were many different nations and cultures and many them clashed. Australia prior to the arrival of European had a lot of wars, conflicts, discrimination, and disputes between different tribes (source).
Now, imagine some dingleberry today came along on the internet and started talking about how the Aboriginal people of Australia all peacefully coexisted for centuries, and the violence on the continent is a recent phenomenon brought by the British. How would you interpret this? The way I see it, this is just pure ignorance because both the premise and the conclusion are incorrect. The aboriginal people didn’t all coexist peacefully, and the British didn’t bring violence, they merely extending what was there. That’s actually what the British were known for, divide and conquer. That’s how they captured North America, South Africa, India, and so on. This strategy wouldn’t even be possible if there was no tensions to exploit.
If we circle back to our topic, how does this same exact logic not apply here? The person that I replied had an incorrect premise and an incorrect conclusion based on that premise. I merely criticized it and provided context that proved otherwise. How does this make me deceitful? The answer is it doesn’t.
I wouldn’t usually continue to engage, but you don’t actually come across as a hasbarist. I do agree with quite a few of the things you’ve said, but the conclusions you seem to come to regarding modern Israel are, at the very least, confusing.
If you understand Zionism’s history then you must understand that the modern state of Israel would not exist without Zionism. One of Zionism’s core principles is colonisation^. Therefore, Israel is a settler-colonial state. The circumstances and motivations of the individual settlers are irrelevant when the outcome is the same. Knowing this yet still claiming that Israel is not a settler-colonial state is deceitful.
^Wikipedia is not an ideal source of information, but that particular page cites more than enough quality sources that clearly show this to be the case.
The views I have expressed are mostly directed specifically at the state, not every single individual. Anyone with any sense understands that no group of people consists of identical individuals. You have made a lot of assumptions about my views. Just because I can see why something happened does not mean that I agree with it.
These issues and events existed well before Netanyahu, and whether or not the citizens like him is largely irrelevant when polls repeatedly show that the vast majority approve of the general treatment of Palestinians.
While my comment about Australia was facetious, the intent was to point out that, regardless of the history, the treatment of the local populations in both situations is wrong, but in Australia amends are slowly being made. I don’t think the comment you’re referring to meant “peaceful coexistence” in the sense that there was absolutely no conflict (they did say “no major conflict”), but were more likely thinking along the lines of “peaceful enough to coexist”, whereas that is not how I would describe the current situation at all.
At the end of the day, most zionists at that time was europeen recent immigrant that came to palestine forced a state on the people by ethenically cleaning them from the region. It was imposible to create israel without ethenic cleansing since jew only has 9% of the land and was spread out and not contiguous. There was even a suggestion to have a one state from thr begining by arabs but israel refused and wanted an etheno state on the whole land. All your bullshit is irelevant thst you just use to portray jews and muslims as savages. You are no different from a non religious version of Tuck Carlson and Nick Fuentes
It’s not though. The point that I was trying to make is that this region never had sovereignty until very recently with the two modern states. Prior to this, the region was always controlled by foreign empires like the British, Ottoman, Malmuk, Ayyubid, and so on. Every one of these empires came and forced a state on to the region.
But we have to contextualize what this means. Back during the days of the Ottoman Empire, there was an infamous system in place called sürgün that kept everybody the boot and the Turks were at the top. They did this by radically shifting demographics of all the regions they conquered. They would forcibly deport entire ethnic and religious groups that they viewed as threat to their rule to other regions of the empire that they felt were safer, and vice versa.
For example, the Ottoman empire famously did this with the Christians in Southeastern Europe. The Ottomans moved millions of Christians Europeans to Anatolia and the Levant, and relocated just as many muslims and Turks to southeastern Europe. This is why countries like Bulgaria, Albania, Bosnia, etc have such large muslim populations and why Turkey and the Levant region have so many people who are ethnically European. This of course includes the region of Israel/Palestine. A lot of prominent figures in the Palestinian movement were ethnically European. For example, Amin al-Husseini was ethnically Bosnian.
The Israel/Palestine region meant a lot to the empire as it was a strategic location, but also contained important islamic sites that the empire uses to derive its legitimacy as the muslim empire. To ensure this, they wanted to make sure that the region stayed firmly in islamic hands, and so they tried their best change the demographics. The Empire forcibly relocated muslims and Turks from all over empire to settle in the region, they forcibly relocated Jews to other parts of the empire like Cyprus and Anatolia, they placed restrictions to prevent Jews from migrating to key cities in the region like Jerusalem and Hebron, and they use dubious reasons to depopulate Jewish areas by forcing them to evacuate from a nearby battle for example, but then the empire would give the okay for muslims to return but not Jews. They did the same to Christians in the region, but to a lesser extent. What this means is that a lot of the inhabitants of the region were moved out and replaced by other people not from the regions via imperial policy
The point is that this region was always controlled and populated by foreigners. This idea that the region of Israel/Palestine was inhabited by Natives like North America was when the Europeans arrived is simply false. The region’s population was pretty cosmopolitan and dynamic, though not by choice. This doesn’t excuse the ethnic cleansing campaigns that happened afterwards, but I do think there’s value in maintaining a historically accurate understanding of the region rather than repeating misinformed online narratives.
This is a very myopic and historically inaccurate view of history. While some elements of Israel’s establishment can be classified as settler colonialism, it’s not accurate to say that all of it is. For example, when Israel was established. The muslim world started committing pogroms in mass against their Jewish communities even though they had nothing to do with Israel. These people who been living in their communities for hundreds, and for some, thousands, of years were forced to abandon everything, including their citizenship, and flee to Israel because that’s the only place that took them in. The total number of people from the exodus total around 1 million people. These people and their descendants now make up a very large chunk of the Israeli population, if not an outright majority.
The term “colonialism” implies intent, but in reality these people were refugees who ended up in Israel due to circumstance. This is a stark difference from European Jews, who were also refugees, but they actually migrated to the region with the intent of settling and creating their own state.
This is true, but these are also different regions with different histories.
Except I never made such claims, I merely pointed out the historically accurate fact that this region has been fought over constantly for thousands of years. A bunch of major religions claim this region to be the holy land, and so it has always been the center of different people fighting for control.
You demonstrate a good enough understanding of the history that you clearly know that you are being deceitful.
Is there any colonised country that this doesn’t apply to? Colonisation is a core principle of Zionism. It’s so central to Zionism that it’s in the introductory paragraph on it’s Wikipedia page. Many of the early Zionist leaders said that their goals could only be achieved through the displacement of Arabs, and the migration of Jews was, and still is, strongly encouraged by Zionists.
Gosh, I wonder if that was in response to the treatment of Arabs in Palestine.
And they had no problem pushing out the Arabs (who had been living in their communities for hundreds, and for some, thousands, of years) on their way in.
Before they started settling in Palestine it used to be that less than 5% of the population were Jewish.
A majority of Australian colonists were sent there for committing petty crimes, such as theft. The industrial revolution left much of the working class without work, so theft in Britain rose rapidly. For the crime of trying to fees their family, over 100,000 people were forcibly transported to Australia. Their descendants now make up a very large chunk of the Australian population.
I’m not being deceitful. I just stated historical facts to bring necessary context to something that you’re intentionally trying to oversimplify.
Actually it goes beyond that, it applies to all the modern states. The point I was trying to make is that you can’t water down history to narrative driven soundbites.
Wikipedia is not a source for anything related to modern conflicts because it’s prone to manipulation. This article in particular has been edited so much that it’s literally unrecognizable from a few years ago.
And you would be correct, and this notion that pushes ethnic cleansing is wrong. However, there’s nuance that can’t be overlooked. For example, Israel is a secular, democratic country, and because of this, there are a lot of people with a lot of different views. The current government of Israel is very unpopular among Israelis, and the majority of people oppose it. The current government is considered far right and extremist by Israeli standards, and the most don’t support their actions.
The far right factions, like Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit and Smotrich’s Religious Zionist party, are responsible for the vast majority of things people associate negatively with Israel. Here’s a short list:
They’re horrible people. They follow a specific ideology called Kahanism, which is basically Jewish fascism. This ideology is so extreme that the US and Israel both designated the original founder of the ideology and his party as terrorists. The entire far right Kahanist coalition only got 10.84% of the vote in the 2022 election, and they only got 14/120 seats. A lot of their voters were the illegal settlers in the West Bank. By all accounts, these parasites shouldn’t have sniffed any significant position in power, but Netanyahu, being the corrupt war criminal that he is, decided incorporate them into his wing so he could form a government with himself at the top. He also went the extra mile of giving them outsized positions of influence.
The point I’m trying to make here is that Israel is a diverse country and the people responsible for most of what’s wrong with it are a small, corrupt minority that do not represent the general population. Just because the country started a certain way or has extremist politician today, that doesn’t mean all 10 million people there are extremist as well. A lot of them don’t support these things, and it would wrong to generalize any country in general.
Are you seriously trying to defend these people getting ethnically cleansed because you think that this is somehow a justified reaction?
Just to refresh, these people who have no connection to Israel. These are people who have been living in their communities for centuries, for some it’s literally thousands of years, and for no other reason than being Jewish they were expelled or chased out of their country and were forced to flee to Israel as refugees because they had nowhere else to go. These people lost their homes, their livelihoods, their property, their communities, and they’re citizenship. They’re just as much victims as the Palestinians you’re trying to defend.
If you’re going to sit here and wag your finger about the morality of Israel ethnically cleansing Palestinians and then turn around and justify the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the muslim world then you’re nothing more than a hypocrite and your words mean nothing.
Stop thinking like a Neanderthal. There’s no “team” here. This mentality of tribalism is precisely the reason why this conflict is never ending. Instead think about it in terms of actions. There are actions that are morally good and actions that are morally bad. If an action is morally bad, like say ethnic cleansing, then you oppose it in all its forms and in all instances because that’s the principled thing to do. When Israel ethnically cleansed Arabs during it’s founding, that was bad. However, the muslim world ethnically cleansing Jews was also bad. Having moral consistency shouldn’t be this difficult.
Okay, let’s follow this logic. The original British settlers were colonial settlers sent by the British Empire to colonize Australia. The Aboriginal people there got the short end of the stick, and were ethnically cleansed from their lands. However, the Aborigines were not a monolith, there were many different nations and cultures and many them clashed. Australia prior to the arrival of European had a lot of wars, conflicts, discrimination, and disputes between different tribes (source).
Now, imagine some dingleberry today came along on the internet and started talking about how the Aboriginal people of Australia all peacefully coexisted for centuries, and the violence on the continent is a recent phenomenon brought by the British. How would you interpret this? The way I see it, this is just pure ignorance because both the premise and the conclusion are incorrect. The aboriginal people didn’t all coexist peacefully, and the British didn’t bring violence, they merely extending what was there. That’s actually what the British were known for, divide and conquer. That’s how they captured North America, South Africa, India, and so on. This strategy wouldn’t even be possible if there was no tensions to exploit.
If we circle back to our topic, how does this same exact logic not apply here? The person that I replied had an incorrect premise and an incorrect conclusion based on that premise. I merely criticized it and provided context that proved otherwise. How does this make me deceitful? The answer is it doesn’t.
I wouldn’t usually continue to engage, but you don’t actually come across as a hasbarist. I do agree with quite a few of the things you’ve said, but the conclusions you seem to come to regarding modern Israel are, at the very least, confusing.
If you understand Zionism’s history then you must understand that the modern state of Israel would not exist without Zionism. One of Zionism’s core principles is colonisation^. Therefore, Israel is a settler-colonial state. The circumstances and motivations of the individual settlers are irrelevant when the outcome is the same. Knowing this yet still claiming that Israel is not a settler-colonial state is deceitful.
^Wikipedia is not an ideal source of information, but that particular page cites more than enough quality sources that clearly show this to be the case.
The views I have expressed are mostly directed specifically at the state, not every single individual. Anyone with any sense understands that no group of people consists of identical individuals. You have made a lot of assumptions about my views. Just because I can see why something happened does not mean that I agree with it.
These issues and events existed well before Netanyahu, and whether or not the citizens like him is largely irrelevant when polls repeatedly show that the vast majority approve of the general treatment of Palestinians.
While my comment about Australia was facetious, the intent was to point out that, regardless of the history, the treatment of the local populations in both situations is wrong, but in Australia amends are slowly being made. I don’t think the comment you’re referring to meant “peaceful coexistence” in the sense that there was absolutely no conflict (they did say “no major conflict”), but were more likely thinking along the lines of “peaceful enough to coexist”, whereas that is not how I would describe the current situation at all.
At the end of the day, most zionists at that time was europeen recent immigrant that came to palestine forced a state on the people by ethenically cleaning them from the region. It was imposible to create israel without ethenic cleansing since jew only has 9% of the land and was spread out and not contiguous. There was even a suggestion to have a one state from thr begining by arabs but israel refused and wanted an etheno state on the whole land. All your bullshit is irelevant thst you just use to portray jews and muslims as savages. You are no different from a non religious version of Tuck Carlson and Nick Fuentes