4 ms·
That's exactly what I wrote, so we're in agreement here. Before 1964 it wasn't driven by a Palestinian national aspirations, it was driven by religious antisem
by nivertech 6y ago
That's exactly what I wrote, so we're in agreement here.
Before 1964 it wasn't driven by a Palestinian national aspirations, it was driven by religious antisemitism/bigotry, and in a much lesser extent by pan-Arabism.
There were many massacres of the Jews (including of women and children) by the local Arabs. It wasn't something specific to Israel, it happened with many minorities all over the Middle East. My family has oral memories of one such massacre.
But I wouldn't call massacres of the civilian minority population - a "resistance".
- hpcjoe 6y agoI should clarify that I was ironically using that word. Basically the point is that this is part of a much larger history, that has pretty much nothing whatsoever to do with the formation of Israel. Unfortunately, most of the people who've been tasked with bringing the "conflict" to an end cannot seem to fathom, or more importantly, actively choose to deny the existence of these prior elements. As they would completely undermine their (only) thesis. Again, I hate giving Trump credit for stuff, but his approach of "lets make deals with parties willing to make deals, and ignore those who want to waste our time" has opened doors. It would be a tremendous shame if we walked backwards to the old (failed) peace processors viewpoint. With the current administration, I'd say that was inevitable. Lebanon could benefit from this. So could the Pals. All they have to do is stop trying to kill Israelis and destroy Israel. I have little hope of this happening in my lifetime.