7 ms·

Nobody is fighting over theological differences, they are fighting over land. Specifically, land that was conquered by the British who promised it to both parti

Nobody is fighting over theological differences, they are fighting over land. Specifically, land that was conquered by the British who promised it to both parties, failed to manage a compromise, tossed the problem to the UN who drew up horrible borders, then allowed Israel to settle beyond those borders without consequence. The entire history of this issue is roughly 100 years old and almost entirely due to imperialism and mismanagement, not some ancient bickering over who has the most correct supernatural beliefs. That’s a line we are taught to feel ok about ignoring the issue, which conveniently benefits Israel.

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
I am aware of all of the context you have provided, thanks. You're mostly right, but I don't think it's correct to say that the "entire history of this issue is roughly 100 years old". At least in the minds of many of the people in the riots — because this isn't exclusively a conflict between militants — it is about who owned the land first. Who's right here? Well, it's disputed. That's… why there's a war.
barbacoa 5y ago
Majority of the Jewish immigrants after the creation of Israel were ethnic Arab Jews that were expelled from their Islamic Arab countries. This conflict go back much more than 100 years.
Google234 5y ago
Sorry, I’m not buying that you can just ignore religion. There’s a reason that there are essentially no Jews left in any of the other Arab states in that area.
tomp 5y ago
The belief that without Western / British "imperialism and mismanagement", Jews, Muslims (Shia and Suni) (and Christians) would just peacefully co-exist in Jerusalem is ... wishful thinking at best.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Well, the violence in the Levant was certainly lower when the Ottomans were in charge. https://history.stackexchange.com/a/28531 https://history.stackexchange.com/a/28531
  - Mediterraneo10 5y ago
    Lack of violence doesn’t necessarily mean a just peaceful coexistence. It sometimes means that one side in a multiethnic state has such overwhelming force that the other ethnicities, though they suffer injustice, try to avoid rocking the boat lest they become targets of violence. This is certainly the case with the Christians of the Levant, who had to accept various restrictions that were not imposed on the Muslim population (e.g. restrictions on symbolism displayed on the outside of places of worship, the prohibition of accepting converts), in order to avoid sparking sectarian conflict.
mr_toad 5y ago
> The entire history of this issue is roughly 100 years old and almost entirely due to imperialism and mismanagement There were four empires who controlled the region over a period of thousands of years. There is a long long history of ethnic violence in the region, going so far back it’s literally prehistoric. You’re just cherry picking facts to support one side of the story.
incadenza 5y ago
They quite literally are. I would encourage you to listen to the arguments put forth by the Israelis currently settling across the internationally recognized borders in the West Bank.
- Mediterraneo10 5y ago
  It is a misunderstanding that Israeli settlements are a mainly religious thing. Yes, there are ideologues for expansion who believe in a God-given right to that land and they make a lot of noise and appeal to (some) religious voters. However, a lot of the political support for settlements is based not on religion, but on the idea that Israel is too narrow in its current borders to be easily defended in the long term, so it supposedly has to take the West Bank. Also, the actual residents of settlements are often non-religious or even outright anti-religious Israelis who were simply priced out of homeowning in Israel proper. There are entire streets in settlements inhabited by families who immigrated from the former USSR for better economic prospects on the basis of Jewish ancestry, but who have absolutely no attachment to Judaism the religion, and they certainly aren’t going to claim a Torah-granted right to anything.
  - incadenza 5y ago
    It really depends on the settlement, but yeah they're not exclusively religious fanatics of course. In any case, the parent comment claimed nobody was fighting over theology, not "mainly".
xdennis 5y ago
You conveniently start the issue at 100 years ago to frame the issue against Israel. But it didn't start with the British, nor the Turks before them, nor the Mamluks, Crusader Kingdoms, Arabs or Byzantines. It started when the Romans defeated the Jews 2000 years ago and exiled many of them.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago

I am aware of all of the context you have provided, thanks. You're mostly right, but I don't think it's correct to say that the "entire history of this issue is roughly 100 years old". At least in the minds of many of the people in the riots — because this isn't exclusively a conflict between militants — it is about who owned the land first. Who's right here? Well, it's disputed. That's… why there's a war.

barbacoa 5y ago

Majority of the Jewish immigrants after the creation of Israel were ethnic Arab Jews that were expelled from their Islamic Arab countries. This conflict go back much more than 100 years.

Google234 5y ago

Sorry, I’m not buying that you can just ignore religion. There’s a reason that there are essentially no Jews left in any of the other Arab states in that area.

tomp 5y ago

The belief that without Western / British "imperialism and mismanagement", Jews, Muslims (Shia and Suni) (and Christians) would just peacefully co-exist in Jerusalem is ... wishful thinking at best.

Apocryphon 5y ago
Well, the violence in the Levant was certainly lower when the Ottomans were in charge. https://history.stackexchange.com/a/28531 https://history.stackexchange.com/a/28531
- Mediterraneo10 5y ago
  Lack of violence doesn’t necessarily mean a just peaceful coexistence. It sometimes means that one side in a multiethnic state has such overwhelming force that the other ethnicities, though they suffer injustice, try to avoid rocking the boat lest they become targets of violence. This is certainly the case with the Christians of the Levant, who had to accept various restrictions that were not imposed on the Muslim population (e.g. restrictions on symbolism displayed on the outside of places of worship, the prohibition of accepting converts), in order to avoid sparking sectarian conflict.

mr_toad 5y ago

> The entire history of this issue is roughly 100 years old and almost entirely due to imperialism and mismanagement There were four empires who controlled the region over a period of thousands of years. There is a long long history of ethnic violence in the region, going so far back it’s literally prehistoric. You’re just cherry picking facts to support one side of the story.

incadenza 5y ago

They quite literally are. I would encourage you to listen to the arguments put forth by the Israelis currently settling across the internationally recognized borders in the West Bank.

Mediterraneo10 5y ago
It is a misunderstanding that Israeli settlements are a mainly religious thing. Yes, there are ideologues for expansion who believe in a God-given right to that land and they make a lot of noise and appeal to (some) religious voters. However, a lot of the political support for settlements is based not on religion, but on the idea that Israel is too narrow in its current borders to be easily defended in the long term, so it supposedly has to take the West Bank. Also, the actual residents of settlements are often non-religious or even outright anti-religious Israelis who were simply priced out of homeowning in Israel proper. There are entire streets in settlements inhabited by families who immigrated from the former USSR for better economic prospects on the basis of Jewish ancestry, but who have absolutely no attachment to Judaism the religion, and they certainly aren’t going to claim a Torah-granted right to anything.
- incadenza 5y ago
  It really depends on the settlement, but yeah they're not exclusively religious fanatics of course. In any case, the parent comment claimed nobody was fighting over theology, not "mainly".

xdennis 5y ago

You conveniently start the issue at 100 years ago to frame the issue against Israel. But it didn't start with the British, nor the Turks before them, nor the Mamluks, Crusader Kingdoms, Arabs or Byzantines. It started when the Romans defeated the Jews 2000 years ago and exiled many of them.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]