6 ms·

Nope, it doesn't really. I did some research[0] to get to the bottom of it, and it goes back to the Zionism of the late 19th century. Before that, the Jewish

• mptest 3y ago
  >why downvotes with no explanation I'd wager people aren't likely to be as methodical in their analysis of comments' verity on this topic as they might be normally. I thought US politics was polarizing, israel palestine legit seems to drive people to even further extremes
  • xenophonf 3y ago
    I downvoted out of principle as their only source is a procedural generator for natural language text, as opposed to peer-reviewed historiography.
    • mptest 3y ago
      That's fair, I shouldn't have made a comment asserting the minds' of the downvoters. I wonder, if the chat is wholly correct factually, what bearing that might have on your opinion of the source? What if in the generative response it cited the historical sources? I am not trying to make any statements on the truth of either comment, I am woefully uneducated when it comes to Israel/palestine. Just interested in the value of chat gpt convo as a source in the abstract. It feels just somewhat like when I was told not to use wikipedia in my early school days.
      • tsimionescu 3y ago
        How would you know if the chat is "wholly correct factually", unless you look at other spurces? It is not uncommon for even it's citations to simply not exist. Wikipedia sometimes has similar problems, but it has generally gotten pretty good over the years on many topics. I still wouldn't cite Wikipedia on something so politically charged as the Israel-Palestine conflict.
        • mptest 3y ago
          Definitely should've said "use as a source" not "cite". Like you note, wikipedia, and chatgpt for that matter are great not for "i need 100% confidence this is correct" queries but "i want to know where to dig deeper" queries. I wouldn't cite wikipedia itself, but I also wouldn't be shied away from a primary source found from wikipedia. And that to me makes wikipedia as useful if not more useful than the primary source itself, because if I can't find the primary source what good is it? Tree falling in the forrest and all that.
          • tsimionescu 3y ago
            Sure, but the point stands that the original poster actually cited ChatGPT as their research, which is where all the reactions cam from. They didn't say "I found these sources from ChatGPT", they just gave us a ChatGPT log as a source.
      • xenophonf 3y ago
        > value of chat gpt convo as a source in the abstract The ChatGPT conversation has zero value as a source in the abstract. > It feels just somewhat like when I was told not to use wikipedia in my early school days. Do you understand why you should not cite Wikipedia?
        • mptest 3y ago
          >The ChatGPT conversation has zero value as a source in the abstract. If your objective is to get only first hand accounts, sure. But like wikipedia it's good as a source to find where to look deeper. I disagree there's zero value there. I often use it to generate a few things I go look at more serious sources for. Surely that's some value when web search's well has been well (heh) poisoned by ads? >Do you understand why you should not cite wikipedia If you find the primary source through wikipedia, did wikipedia provide "zero value as a source"? I don't think so. Bad analogy I suppose - I meant like how wikipedia was seen as not trustworthy to use even if you just used it to find the primary sources. I guess I should've said "use as a source" wikipedia not "cite" it.
    • OrderlyTiamat 3y ago
      I cannot believe someone could honestly wade into the fraught topic of the political history of Israel with full confidence armed only with a transcript of a chatgpt chat and calling it "research". This has to be a troll attempt right?
    • saulpw 3y ago
      I mean is there any value to sources beyond "peer-reviewed historiography"? For instance here's a Vox video about the conflict which says much the same thing as the above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRYZjOuUnlU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRYZjOuUnlU
• rayiner 3y ago
  How did Arab Muslims get there?
  • saulpw 3y ago
    Muslim Arab armies conquered the region in the 7th century A.D. and treated the existing population relatively well, compared with other conquered populations anyway. From the transcript: > The animosity that characterizes the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict has roots in the late 19th and 20th centuries and shouldn't be projected onto earlier epochs. The current conflict is influenced by nationalist movements, territorial disputes, and political developments of the last two centuries, rather than solely religious differences.
    • rayiner 3y ago
      The current conflict arises directly from the Muslim Arab armies conquering what was the Jewish homeland. Because that’s what made it impossible for the Jews to have a country of their own—something that most people want, and most Arabs have—without coming into conflict with the descendants of those Arab conquerors. Imagine if the Cherokee fought the US government and somehow captured part of Tennessee. That would surely create hostilities between the Cherokee and displaced Tennesseans. But would you say those hostilities arose from what the Cherokee did, or the original conquest of the land by Americans?
      • p3rls 3y ago
        The Muslim Arab armies did not conquer a Jewish homeland, they conquered Eastern Roman (Byzantine territory). The Jews, as a population, i.e., the diaspora had been expelled hundreds of years earlier during the big three revolts against the Roman Empire. Jews were banned from even entering Jerusalem (except for the day of Tisha B'Av) until the Arab armies marched in and took it from the Christians.
        • rayiner 3y ago
          It doesn’t matter if the Muslim Arab armies conquered it directly, or after others had already done so. They’re the ones who are there now, not the Romans or Babylonians.
• thrway63245 3y ago
  You managed to miss the Crusades in their entirety.
  • kridsdale3 3y ago
    My man didn't even mention the battle of Uggg vs Gruggg in the region in 38,000 BC.
  • thrway63245 3y ago
    Re: grugg. Wow, we have a comedian. Do you do birthday parties? Someone saying with a straight face "no, I really checked and it goes no further than this" about the Holy Land seems unbelievably naive, no?
    • rayiner 3y ago
      It’s not naive, it’s willfully blind. You’re supposed to pretend history started in 1850 and ignore certain other wars of conquest.
      • smegger001 3y ago
        And not everything goes back to the crusades some like this goes back farther still see the Roman siege of Jerusalem in 70 ad. Or you could look back farther still to the Babylonian conquest and captivity. History is deep that way trying to trace back to first causes is an exersise in futility. If the religions of both sides are to believed on this it goes back to an inheritance despute over the blessing of their mutual patriarch about 3500 years or so ago in a episode of religious history that reads more like bronze age episode of the Maury Povitch show.
        • rayiner 3y ago
          We’re not talking about ancient history that recedes into mythology here. The Arabs conquered a whole bunch of land during a specific period of time that’s well documented in written history. When the Jews came back to their ancestral homeland, it wasn’t the Romans or Babylonians they found there. That matter fact is directly related to that former fact.
• znpy 3y ago
  Chatgpt is research now?
  • saulpw 3y ago
    To a first degree, yes. Its answers made sense, they comport with other things I've read and other people I've talked with. I have seen nothing that appears incorrect, either grossly or subtly. If the information I got from this session is factually wrong I would love to know, but so far it seems accurate to the level of understanding I was aiming for.
    • mburns 3y ago
      What you describe isn’t research, even to a first degree. Whether that conversation happens to be accurate or not and to what degree, I don’t know, because the link fails to load.
    • JayPalm 3y ago
      Did you ask ChatGPT to define research before it after you had it write this comment?
• emmelaich 3y ago
  It goes back at least to the early 1800s and builds from there. Colonisation and nationalism, plus world wars led to increased friction between Jews and others in North Africa, the Ottoman Empire, Arabia, and elsewhere. Jews were pushed and pulled towards the future Israel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_...
  • skissane 3y ago
    > It goes back at least to the early 1800s and builds from there. I read the Wikipedia article you cited, and I can’t find anything in it about conflict between Jews and Muslims in the early 1800s. The vast majority of the conflict of that nature it describes is 20th century; it mentions a few things happening in the second half of the 19th century, but I’m struggling to find anything in it about that in the early 19th century
    • emmelaich 3y ago
      Probably not noteworthy enough for historical records, but living under Dhimmi is not exactly tension free. Dhimmi also means "protected" but you may ask protected from what?
      • steve76 3y ago
        [dead]
      • rshaban 3y ago
        compare Noahideen
        • skissane 3y ago
          > compare Noahideen That's not a standard English term, I think you mean to say "Noahide". I am guessing you are getting your information from non-English sources. In contemporary use, "Noahide" primarily refers to a religious movement which is a sort of "Judaism lite", of people who accept Orthodox Judaism's theological beliefs without formally converting to Judaism, and without following the vast majority of Orthodox Judaism's rules and rituals. But, I think what you are actually referring to, is the concept in Jewish religious law (halacha) of "ger toshav", which is a non-Jew permitted to reside in the land of Israel. Formally speaking, contemporary Noahides by religion do not have the legal status of "ger toshav". It is true that there are some clear parallels between "ger toshav" and "dhimmi" status. However, at the same time, there is a very fundamental difference – the Jewish laws of "ger toshav" have not been enforced in practice since the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 CE. The Rabbis engaged in a lot of development of those laws (as an abstract intellectual exercise, not a practical matter) since 70 CE, and so those laws as they currently exist in Orthodox Judaism have never been enforced in practice, and for all we know their pre-70 precursors were rather different. The State of Israel has never recognised the laws of "ger toshav", and the majority of Orthodox Rabbis believe they are impossible to apply in the current scenario (in which the Jewish Temple no longer exists, etc). Indeed, the majority of Orthodox Rabbis believe that the laws of "ger toshav" are not to be put into practice until the Messiah comes. There is a small minority of Jews who believe they can and should be applied today (such as the followers of Rabbi Meir Kahane), but that minority has never had the political power to put their beliefs into effect. By contrast, dhimmi status has been a real thing in the Islamic world, not just a theoretical thing, for many centuries. There are a lot of disagreements between different schools of Islamic law (madhabs) on what the exact rules of dhimmi status are, and very often what Islamic scholars have insisted should be done in theory has had little to do with what actually happened in practice. Still, it doesn't really make sense to compare what has been, for the past 2000-odd years, a purely theoretical/hypothetical legal construct, with a legal construct which has actually been implemented in practice (to varying extents and in varying ways) in many societies for more than half of those 2000-odd years.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• inglor_cz 3y ago
  "it goes back to the Zionism of the late 19th century" Which, in itself, was a reaction to other developments. Zionists argued that Jews needed their own homeland in order to be safe from pogroms and potential extermination at the hands of European nationalists; the Zionist idea, obscure and fringe at first, only gained traction with the increase of anti-Semitic attitudes after the Great War. To a big degree, current existence of Israel is a strange echo of the vicious nationalisms of pre-WWII Europe.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]