3 ms·

I suppose we’re going to take Dan, Beersheba, Gath and Ashkelon out of the Bible now In 637 the non-urban population of Palestine (incl. Galilee) was still ma

I suppose we’re going to take Dan, Beersheba, Gath and Ashkelon out of the Bible now In 637 the non-urban population of Palestine (incl. Galilee) was still majority Jewish - Justinian had only turfed them out of Jerusalem. There was no genocide in 637. Furthermore, no one elected Hamas as the restoration of the caliphate and spokesperson for entire Muslim world. They’re actually not Isis.

rayiner 3y ago
I didn’t say there was a genocide in 637. But they took over the land, just like they took over large parts of the subcontinent. And it’s whiney for them to act like the victims now. It’s like if Mexico somehow took back Texas and California. How much could we really complain?
- selimthegrim 3y ago
  In Sindh the Buddhists weren't all ill-disposed to them. I know less about Bengal.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    Ones in Bengal were less thrilled, what with all the burning down Buddhist monasteries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Bakhtiyar_Khalji https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Bakhtiyar_Khalji I have no problem with Islam’s wars of conquest and civilization. I just find the victimhood mentality that’s been adopted in the 20th century to be undignified for such a culture.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      If you think of the current Israel occupation as the latest colonizer in a long line of colonizers throughout the history of Palestine, then the victimhood makes perfect sense. Colonized people often adopt the religion and sometimes even the language of their colonizers. As an example, the Irish adopted the language of the English during their colonization, and the Albanians adopted Islam when they were colonized by the Ottomans. Likewise the Palestinians adopted both the language and (mostly) the religion of the Arabs when they colonized Palestine in 637. Now when Israel is their colonizer, things are a bit different. Not only has Israel imposed a new language, culture and religion onto their lands, but they have also severely displaced them. No colonizer has done that to the Palestinians in the past, not even the British.
      - skissane 3y ago
        > Now when Israel is their colonizer, things are a bit different. Not only has Israel imposed a new language, culture and religion onto their lands, but they have also severely displaced them. No colonizer has done that to the Palestinians in the past, Modern Judaism permits conversion but refuses to promote or encourage it, and sometimes even goes out of its way to make it hard (especially some of the more conservative Orthodox). Hence, there has never been any encouragement for Palestinians to convert. It wasn’t always thus - John Hyrcanus forced the Idumeans to convert to Judaism; but that was over 2000 years ago now. By contrast, Islamic conquerors always made it easy for conquered peoples to convert to Islam, and encouraged it through a mixture of carrots and sticks. The same is true of Christianity. Possibly, this is part of what sustains the Israel-Palestine conflict; if contemporary Judaism were pro-conversion, many of the Palestinians might have already become Jews by now.
      - selimthegrim 3y ago
        Albanians are not even remotely 100% Muslim
        runarberg 3y ago
        Nor does 100% of the Irish speak English as their first language, nor are Palestinians 100% Muslims. The point is that it is not uncommon for colonized nations to adopt the language or the religion of their colonizers, even if the transition is not always—and indeed quite seldomly—complete.
      - rayiner 3y ago
        > If you think of the current Israel occupation as the latest colonizer in a long line of colonizers throughout the history of Palestine, then the victimhood makes perfect sense The Muslims are the colonizers. Israel is just taking their land back. Who built the Temple Mount the Dome of the Rock is sitting on?
        selimthegrim 3y ago
        I have a question for you. What do you think should be done with the "stranded Biharis" in Bangladesh who never took BD citizenship?

rayiner 3y ago

I didn’t say there was a genocide in 637. But they took over the land, just like they took over large parts of the subcontinent. And it’s whiney for them to act like the victims now. It’s like if Mexico somehow took back Texas and California. How much could we really complain?

selimthegrim 3y ago
In Sindh the Buddhists weren't all ill-disposed to them. I know less about Bengal.
- rayiner 3y ago
  Ones in Bengal were less thrilled, what with all the burning down Buddhist monasteries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Bakhtiyar_Khalji https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Bakhtiyar_Khalji I have no problem with Islam’s wars of conquest and civilization. I just find the victimhood mentality that’s been adopted in the 20th century to be undignified for such a culture.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    If you think of the current Israel occupation as the latest colonizer in a long line of colonizers throughout the history of Palestine, then the victimhood makes perfect sense. Colonized people often adopt the religion and sometimes even the language of their colonizers. As an example, the Irish adopted the language of the English during their colonization, and the Albanians adopted Islam when they were colonized by the Ottomans. Likewise the Palestinians adopted both the language and (mostly) the religion of the Arabs when they colonized Palestine in 637. Now when Israel is their colonizer, things are a bit different. Not only has Israel imposed a new language, culture and religion onto their lands, but they have also severely displaced them. No colonizer has done that to the Palestinians in the past, not even the British.
    - skissane 3y ago
      > Now when Israel is their colonizer, things are a bit different. Not only has Israel imposed a new language, culture and religion onto their lands, but they have also severely displaced them. No colonizer has done that to the Palestinians in the past, Modern Judaism permits conversion but refuses to promote or encourage it, and sometimes even goes out of its way to make it hard (especially some of the more conservative Orthodox). Hence, there has never been any encouragement for Palestinians to convert. It wasn’t always thus - John Hyrcanus forced the Idumeans to convert to Judaism; but that was over 2000 years ago now. By contrast, Islamic conquerors always made it easy for conquered peoples to convert to Islam, and encouraged it through a mixture of carrots and sticks. The same is true of Christianity. Possibly, this is part of what sustains the Israel-Palestine conflict; if contemporary Judaism were pro-conversion, many of the Palestinians might have already become Jews by now.
    - selimthegrim 3y ago
      Albanians are not even remotely 100% Muslim
      - runarberg 3y ago
        Nor does 100% of the Irish speak English as their first language, nor are Palestinians 100% Muslims. The point is that it is not uncommon for colonized nations to adopt the language or the religion of their colonizers, even if the transition is not always—and indeed quite seldomly—complete.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      > If you think of the current Israel occupation as the latest colonizer in a long line of colonizers throughout the history of Palestine, then the victimhood makes perfect sense The Muslims are the colonizers. Israel is just taking their land back. Who built the Temple Mount the Dome of the Rock is sitting on?
      - selimthegrim 3y ago
        I have a question for you. What do you think should be done with the "stranded Biharis" in Bangladesh who never took BD citizenship?