8 ms·

Going to pretend that Jews haven’t lived there for thousands and thousands of years, before the Arabs arrived?

by robertoandred 2y ago

gravisultra 2y ago
Zionism is a colonial ideology created by Europeans in the late 1800s.
- robertoandred 2y ago
  [dead]
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - dartos 2y ago
    > Colonialism is a leftist ideology created by college professors in the 1970s And that matters because…? > Furthermore, there is no colony without a mother country. I think you’re picking and choosing a definition of colony that fits your argument. Here’s a more applicable one: “ a body of people who settle far from home but maintain ties with their homeland; inhabitants remain nationals of their home state but are not literally under the home state's system of government” Instead of making ad hominem attacks and playing semantics, why not argue against the actual ideas?
    - jazzyjackson 2y ago
      I’m sure the people of Israel would have loved to maintain ties with their homeland but they have been run out of Europe and the Middle East. so where is this Jewish homeland that the colonists in Israel are maintaining ties to? I don’t know that I see a particular difference between ideas and semantics when the assertion is “Israel is a European colonialist project”
      - hmcq6 2y ago
        > I’m sure the people of Israel would have loved to maintain ties with their homeland Oh yeah, there's definitely no ties between the two. EU states definitely didn't send 1.76 billion euros ($1.9bn) (in arms) to Israel in exchange for the "security" Israel offers. /s But also > Israel is a society of immigrants and their offspring: 23 percent of the Jewish majority as of 2018 was foreign born, 32 percent was comprised of the second generation (Israeli born to immigrant parents), and 47 percent was third generation (Israeli born to Israeli-born parents). https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/israel-law-of-return-asylum-labor-migration https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/israel-law-of-return... So like... not only does Israel have ties with it's "mother country" but even the Israelis themselves do have ties to their own personal homelands.
        Yawrehto 2y ago
        [flagged]
        klipt 2y ago
        > 23 percent of the Jewish majority as of 2018 was foreign born You know what population is usually foreign born? Refugees! > even the Israelis themselves do have ties to their own personal homelands. What ties do Yemenite Jews who fled to Israel have to a Yemen that is ruled by the Houthis, an almost comically Nazi-like group whose flag literally has "a curse on the Jews" written on it in big letters? These people are refugees, not "colonists"
        hmcq6 2y ago
        Do you have any evidence that a large percentage of that population is refugees? What was Yaakov Fauci fleeing from? > These people are refugees, not "colonists" Many settlers in America were fleeing religious prosecution in Britain, that doesn't make them not colonizers.
        klipt 2y ago
        > Do you have any evidence that a large percentage of that population is refugees? Have you not heard of the Holocaust? The majority of Israelis descend either from refugees from Europe (Ashkenazim), or refugees from Arab/Muslim countries (Mizrahim) whose homes were stolen by Europeans or Arabs, respectively. > What was Yaakov Fauci fleeing from? American born Israelis are a small minority. > Many settlers in America were fleeing religious prosecution in Britain, that doesn't make them not colonizers. So if a Palestinian from Gaza gets asylum in the US, does that make that Palestinian a colonizer of Native American land?
  - gravisultra 2y ago
    Herzl, Zionism’s founder explicitly described Zionism as colonialism in the 1890s: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism_as_settler_colonialism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism_as_settler_coloniali...
    - jazzyjackson 2y ago
      You got me there, luckily I don't have to retract my snark because it has been deservedly flagged. Still I stand by that "colonialist" was not used as a pejorative until much more recently.
      - defrost 2y ago
        Colonial countries used it freely in the 1880s. By the 1950s it was recognised as a slur * 1955 Wall St. Jrnl. 30 Dec. 1/3 The Communist Party Boss: Again accused the West of colonialist aims. * 1958 Manch. Guardian Weekly 12 June 8/3 Mr. Bandaranaike's Government uses methods which it would denounce as ‘colonialist’ if they were employed by others. * 1959 ‘M. Derby’ Tigress ii. 85 ‘And you were ― ?’ ‘A colonialist, Madam. I exploited these unhappy natives to make a fortune for myself.‥ We colonialists thought only of private gain.’ examples taken from full O.E.D entry
      - slt2021 2y ago
        Golda Meir told explicitly to NOT send poor, old, sick, and Holocaust survivors(!!!)) Because zionists wanted only healthy strong and ideologically zionist people to settle the land. Zionists even signed agreement with Adolf Hitler (at the time when entire world boycotted Nazi regime) and opened the doors for rich German jews to escape Germany (~40k people across Germany), while completely throwing all other millions of jews to the holocaust 1. https://x.com/_ZachFoster/status/1844464179287355571 https://x.com/_ZachFoster/status/1844464179287355571 2. https://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/General/Story35114.html https://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/General/Story35...
      - panick21_ 2y ago
        Just because it wasn't used as pejorative doesn't mean that the meaning then is something we today should consider it not a problem. What they meant was the same thing we do now. Its just that we now consider it something not all that nice.
- Yawrehto 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - hmcq6 2y ago
    > Also, in what upside-down universe is a forcibly expelled indigenous people returning home 'colonial'? Because they weren't forcibly expelled from Palestine! If I get unlawfully evicted from my new apartment that doesn't give me the right to go take my old apartment by force. By your logic I can use my 23 and me to prove the whole world belongs to me (excluding Australia and Antartica). That's not how this works.
    - Yawrehto 2y ago
      I do not normally swear, but what the fuck? We absolutely were expelled (genocided, really). Or what else would you call the Romans banning us from our holy city Jerusalem (and renaming it, just like they renamed the whole region to try to deny our indigenousness, and also bulldozing our temple--you can go see it today, it's underneath the Al-Aqsa Mosque) and selling us as slaves around the empire and subsequent rulers forbidding us to return!?
      - slt2021 2y ago
        1. Romans didn't just wake up one day and decide to banish ancient israelites from Jerusalem, they responded to the brutal and murderous revolt where local roman government was murdered. 2. DNA analysis showed that european jews (especially secular zionists) have no connection to the land of Palestine, it is Palestinians, Jordanian Christians, and Samaritans who are native. 3. Slavery is bad, a lot of people were sold as slaves throughout the history. Lets talk about who owned all trans-atlantic slave trade to America? Who brought all slaves in Caribbeans and American south ? It was Dutch Jewish slave traders who were leading the slave trade Now can we talk about reparations for slavery from Israel to all the Black Americans and mixed race people who are descendants of slaves?
        Yawrehto 2y ago
- nickff 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - slt2021 2y ago
    thats not true. before the declaration of independence, there was hardly any abar jews migration to Israel for several reasons: 1. Arab jews lived peacefully among muslims and coexisted just fine, they were not subject to european disrimination and pogroms 2. Iraqi jews did not want to immigrate to Israel, so Mossad planted bombs and organized false flags to scare them and force them to immigrate (https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iraq-jews-attacks-zionist-role-confirmed-operative-police-report https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iraq-jews-attacks-zionist...) 3. Other arab countries also did not want to emigrate, Ben Gurion paid a lot of money for each family to encourage immigration. It is laughable to claim that arabs prosecuted jews, when in fact they coexisted for millennia and lived in the same neighborhoods without any segregation (that existed in Europe) 4. Mizrahi jews who immigrated to Israel suffered from severe discrimination by european ashkenazi. Only low paid jobs were given to Arab jews due to racism. Same racism is towards yemeni jews who were even subject to illegal sterilization after the Nakba situation in arab countries changed, but it was reactionary to Nakba
    - dralley 2y ago
      This is quite frankly delusional.
  - klipt 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    Yes, but it only happened after 1946. The worse part for Mizrahi Jews is that they endured tons of suffering for things they had nothing to do with, and that even in today's Israel they are kind of second-class citizens facing discrimination by Ashkenazi.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jltsiren 2y ago
It was more about local residents becoming Arabs than Arabs migrating in large numbers. Palestinian Arabs are mostly descended from ancient Canaanites. More generally, the demographics around the Eastern Mediterranean have changed surprisingly little since the Bronze Age. Most conquerors just replaced or took over the old elites. Many people died in the process, and the survivors would often adopt a new culture, language, and/or religion.
- rayiner 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - rayiner 2y ago
    The downvoters are telling on themselves.
  - piltdownman 2y ago
    Without being overly facetious, the foundations of the modern University system have a significant role to play in that; e.g. the first university in Europe was established by Arab Muslims in the year 841 in Salerno, Italy.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      I suspect it has more to do with all the invading and burning down Hindu and Buddhist temples.
- taleodor 2y ago
  > More generally, the demographics around the Eastern Mediterranean have changed surprisingly little since the Bronze Age. This type of claims only shows lack of understanding of history as a science. It is actually impossible right now to make claims about this with any significant degree of confidence.
sudosysgen 2y ago
Arab is not a race. Most Arabs never arrived from anywhere, they were locals who adopted (often violently, sometimes not) large parts of Arab culture for long enough to consider themselves Arabs. The Arabians never had the resources or population to engage in settler colonialism you are thinking of. Even if they wanted to (and perhaps they did), they just couldn't go around replacing anyone. So from the start the conception of Arab is about peoples slowly becoming Arab, not being replaced by arriving Arabs, in large part.
- seventhtiger 2y ago
  This is true of most old empires. Romans, Persians, Arabs, Mongols, early Ottomans generally don't setttle areas they conquer. They don't engage in industrial extraction either. They form a ruling class and collect taxes. Any cultural influence that have was because of longevity rather than any interest in forced conversion. People project their impressions of more modern empires to pre-industrial ones that didn't have the same aspirations or even institutions to accomplish those aspirations.
  - shenberg 2y ago
    That's really not true, e.g. the wikipedia page on population transfer in the Ottoman empire[1]. This dates way back to the Assyrian and Persian empries explicitly moving conquered peoples around in their empires in order to safeguard their rule. This book on population transfer in the Ottoman empire[2] explicitly states, with references, that the Ottomans habits were inherited from the steppe Turks, the Byzantines (=the Romans) and the Arabs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_transfer_in_the_Ottoman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_transf... [2] https://websites.umich.edu/~gocek/Work/ja/Gocek.Muge.ja.population.transfers.pdf https://websites.umich.edu/~gocek/Work/ja/Gocek.Muge.ja.popu...
    - sudosysgen 2y ago
      There were of course population transfers, but there mathematically could not move enough people from the Arabian Peninsula into conquered regions.
slt2021 2y ago
there are several flaws in your typical zionist argument: 1. jews as a minority have lived in the lands of Filistine and Jerusalem peacefully and coexisted just fine for millennia, before the zionist project. 2. the fact that small minority of jews lived there does not give an excuse to ethnically cleanse the local population of arabs. 3. the claim that modern european jews from Rhine and pale of settlement (AshkeNazi) have any connection to ancient Israelites from 2000+ years ago is laughable. Most genetic analysis proved that it is Palestinians, Jordanian Christians are native to the land, not european settlers from Poland, Lithuania, Belorussia, Ukraine with last names like Mileikowsky (Bibi's actual name), Mabovitch (golda's name) etc. 4. Filistine and Jerusalem did not have a problem with antisemitism and jew hate, UNTIL european settlers showed up. Antisemitism is purely european concept imported into Middle East. 5. All studies have shown that Israel/zionism is a colonial settler project created by Brits to secure Suez Canal from the ottomans. Later it would become American "unsinkable aircraft carrier" in the middle east to bomb and murder oil rich countries in the middle east
- woodruffw 2y ago
  Everything else about this aside: the reason most European Jews have Europeanized last names is because they were forced to adopt them throughout the 18th and 19th centuries[1]. (Also, why spell it “AshkeNazi”? That seems inflammatory with no connection to reality, since the root is Ashkenaz.) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_surname https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_surname
  - slt2021 2y ago
    I would argue there is connection to nazi regime: 1. ICC and ICJ's accusations of genocide by israel 2. israeli government led by Kahanite leaders like bezalel smotrich and ben gvir. Kahanism was recognized by USA and EU as a terrorist organization with fascist ideology and is named after terrorist meir kahane 3. public announcements by israeli leaders and journalists about "Israel needs Lebensraum"[a], dreams of conquering greater israel from Nile to Euphrates[b] stealing land from 6 other countries There are way too many similarities between nazi germany and the zionist regime a. https://archive.ph/NGnNv#selection-1153.44-1153.113 https://archive.ph/NGnNv#selection-1153.44-1153.113 b. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241120-smotrich-has-confirmed-that-the-quest-for-greater-israel-is-real/ https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241120-smotrich-has-conf...
malandrew 2y ago
In 1872, less than 4% of Palestine was Jewish. It was 17% in 1931. 33% in 1948 when Israel was formed. The vast vast majority of Jews in Israel now are Ashkenazi. Ashkenazis are from Khazaria and converted to Judaism between 740 and 920 AD. Even from this population, there is a bottleneck around 600 to 800 years ago where the population was down to 350 individuals [1]. By and large very very few Jews in Palestine/Israel are able to claim Levantine/Semitic genetic ancestry. Many Palestinians and other Levantine people in Palestine who now practice Islam are far more likely have to have ancestors that were once Jewish that actually lived in historical kingdom of Israel prior to 70 AD when Titus and Vespasian crushed a revolt there. The ancestors of these folks that today practice Islam in Palestine likely converted to Islam sometime after 637 AD when Arabs started to settle in Palestine. It's pretty commonly accepted all over the world since basically forever that ownership is bequeathed from parents to children. This means that those who are Islamic today but whose genetic ancestors practiced Judaism in the past and lived in the historical kingdom of Israel have far greater claim to the land than folks who have no genetic ancestry to the Kingdom of Israel and instead have ancestry with no genetic relationship that converted to Judaism about 1105 to 1285 years ago. [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/ashkenazi-jews-descend-from-350-people-study-finds/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/ashkenazi-jews-descend-from-35...
- copx 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - zmgsabst 2y ago
    [flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > those who are Islamic today but whose genetic ancestors practiced Judaism in the past and lived in the historical kingdom of Israel have far greater claim to the land Broadly speaking, any philosophy that rests on an oldest-claims-first metric are guaranteed to cause violence. Information degrades the further we go back; you’re prioritising the wishy-washiest sources of truth. And the nature of human migration and interbreeding means the further you go back, the less likely you are to find genetic ancestors of the people who currently control the land. The people alive on the land you want them off. People with guns. (The theory is also fundamentally based on the notion that racial migration is wrong. Immigrants to America have less claim than white Americans, who have less claim than natives, except for all the natives who were conquered each other because they moved around too.)
madaxe_again 2y ago
They are one and the same people. Only through the lens of ethnocentric histories is any distinction made.

Going to pretend that Jews haven’t lived there for thousands and thousands of years, before the Arabs arrived?

gravisultra 2y ago

Zionism is a colonial ideology created by Europeans in the late 1800s.

robertoandred 2y ago
[dead]
jazzyjackson 2y ago
[flagged]
- dartos 2y ago
  > Colonialism is a leftist ideology created by college professors in the 1970s And that matters because…? > Furthermore, there is no colony without a mother country. I think you’re picking and choosing a definition of colony that fits your argument. Here’s a more applicable one: “ a body of people who settle far from home but maintain ties with their homeland; inhabitants remain nationals of their home state but are not literally under the home state's system of government” Instead of making ad hominem attacks and playing semantics, why not argue against the actual ideas?
  - jazzyjackson 2y ago
    I’m sure the people of Israel would have loved to maintain ties with their homeland but they have been run out of Europe and the Middle East. so where is this Jewish homeland that the colonists in Israel are maintaining ties to? I don’t know that I see a particular difference between ideas and semantics when the assertion is “Israel is a European colonialist project”
    - hmcq6 2y ago
      > I’m sure the people of Israel would have loved to maintain ties with their homeland Oh yeah, there's definitely no ties between the two. EU states definitely didn't send 1.76 billion euros ($1.9bn) (in arms) to Israel in exchange for the "security" Israel offers. /s But also > Israel is a society of immigrants and their offspring: 23 percent of the Jewish majority as of 2018 was foreign born, 32 percent was comprised of the second generation (Israeli born to immigrant parents), and 47 percent was third generation (Israeli born to Israeli-born parents). https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/israel-law-of-return-asylum-labor-migration https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/israel-law-of-return... So like... not only does Israel have ties with it's "mother country" but even the Israelis themselves do have ties to their own personal homelands.
      - Yawrehto 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - klipt 2y ago
        > 23 percent of the Jewish majority as of 2018 was foreign born You know what population is usually foreign born? Refugees! > even the Israelis themselves do have ties to their own personal homelands. What ties do Yemenite Jews who fled to Israel have to a Yemen that is ruled by the Houthis, an almost comically Nazi-like group whose flag literally has "a curse on the Jews" written on it in big letters? These people are refugees, not "colonists"
        hmcq6 2y ago
        Do you have any evidence that a large percentage of that population is refugees? What was Yaakov Fauci fleeing from? > These people are refugees, not "colonists" Many settlers in America were fleeing religious prosecution in Britain, that doesn't make them not colonizers.
        klipt 2y ago
        > Do you have any evidence that a large percentage of that population is refugees? Have you not heard of the Holocaust? The majority of Israelis descend either from refugees from Europe (Ashkenazim), or refugees from Arab/Muslim countries (Mizrahim) whose homes were stolen by Europeans or Arabs, respectively. > What was Yaakov Fauci fleeing from? American born Israelis are a small minority. > Many settlers in America were fleeing religious prosecution in Britain, that doesn't make them not colonizers. So if a Palestinian from Gaza gets asylum in the US, does that make that Palestinian a colonizer of Native American land?
- gravisultra 2y ago
  Herzl, Zionism’s founder explicitly described Zionism as colonialism in the 1890s: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism_as_settler_colonialism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism_as_settler_coloniali...
  - jazzyjackson 2y ago
    You got me there, luckily I don't have to retract my snark because it has been deservedly flagged. Still I stand by that "colonialist" was not used as a pejorative until much more recently.
    - defrost 2y ago
      Colonial countries used it freely in the 1880s. By the 1950s it was recognised as a slur * 1955 Wall St. Jrnl. 30 Dec. 1/3 The Communist Party Boss: Again accused the West of colonialist aims. * 1958 Manch. Guardian Weekly 12 June 8/3 Mr. Bandaranaike's Government uses methods which it would denounce as ‘colonialist’ if they were employed by others. * 1959 ‘M. Derby’ Tigress ii. 85 ‘And you were ― ?’ ‘A colonialist, Madam. I exploited these unhappy natives to make a fortune for myself.‥ We colonialists thought only of private gain.’ examples taken from full O.E.D entry
    - slt2021 2y ago
      Golda Meir told explicitly to NOT send poor, old, sick, and Holocaust survivors(!!!)) Because zionists wanted only healthy strong and ideologically zionist people to settle the land. Zionists even signed agreement with Adolf Hitler (at the time when entire world boycotted Nazi regime) and opened the doors for rich German jews to escape Germany (~40k people across Germany), while completely throwing all other millions of jews to the holocaust 1. https://x.com/_ZachFoster/status/1844464179287355571 https://x.com/_ZachFoster/status/1844464179287355571 2. https://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/General/Story35114.html https://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/General/Story35...
    - panick21_ 2y ago
      Just because it wasn't used as pejorative doesn't mean that the meaning then is something we today should consider it not a problem. What they meant was the same thing we do now. Its just that we now consider it something not all that nice.
Yawrehto 2y ago
[flagged]
- hmcq6 2y ago
  > Also, in what upside-down universe is a forcibly expelled indigenous people returning home 'colonial'? Because they weren't forcibly expelled from Palestine! If I get unlawfully evicted from my new apartment that doesn't give me the right to go take my old apartment by force. By your logic I can use my 23 and me to prove the whole world belongs to me (excluding Australia and Antartica). That's not how this works.
  - Yawrehto 2y ago
    I do not normally swear, but what the fuck? We absolutely were expelled (genocided, really). Or what else would you call the Romans banning us from our holy city Jerusalem (and renaming it, just like they renamed the whole region to try to deny our indigenousness, and also bulldozing our temple--you can go see it today, it's underneath the Al-Aqsa Mosque) and selling us as slaves around the empire and subsequent rulers forbidding us to return!?
    - slt2021 2y ago
      1. Romans didn't just wake up one day and decide to banish ancient israelites from Jerusalem, they responded to the brutal and murderous revolt where local roman government was murdered. 2. DNA analysis showed that european jews (especially secular zionists) have no connection to the land of Palestine, it is Palestinians, Jordanian Christians, and Samaritans who are native. 3. Slavery is bad, a lot of people were sold as slaves throughout the history. Lets talk about who owned all trans-atlantic slave trade to America? Who brought all slaves in Caribbeans and American south ? It was Dutch Jewish slave traders who were leading the slave trade Now can we talk about reparations for slavery from Israel to all the Black Americans and mixed race people who are descendants of slaves?
      - Yawrehto 2y ago
nickff 2y ago
[flagged]
- slt2021 2y ago
  thats not true. before the declaration of independence, there was hardly any abar jews migration to Israel for several reasons: 1. Arab jews lived peacefully among muslims and coexisted just fine, they were not subject to european disrimination and pogroms 2. Iraqi jews did not want to immigrate to Israel, so Mossad planted bombs and organized false flags to scare them and force them to immigrate (https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iraq-jews-attacks-zionist-role-confirmed-operative-police-report https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iraq-jews-attacks-zionist...) 3. Other arab countries also did not want to emigrate, Ben Gurion paid a lot of money for each family to encourage immigration. It is laughable to claim that arabs prosecuted jews, when in fact they coexisted for millennia and lived in the same neighborhoods without any segregation (that existed in Europe) 4. Mizrahi jews who immigrated to Israel suffered from severe discrimination by european ashkenazi. Only low paid jobs were given to Arab jews due to racism. Same racism is towards yemeni jews who were even subject to illegal sterilization after the Nakba situation in arab countries changed, but it was reactionary to Nakba
  - dralley 2y ago
    This is quite frankly delusional.
- klipt 2y ago
  [flagged]
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  Yes, but it only happened after 1946. The worse part for Mizrahi Jews is that they endured tons of suffering for things they had nothing to do with, and that even in today's Israel they are kind of second-class citizens facing discrimination by Ashkenazi.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jltsiren 2y ago

It was more about local residents becoming Arabs than Arabs migrating in large numbers. Palestinian Arabs are mostly descended from ancient Canaanites. More generally, the demographics around the Eastern Mediterranean have changed surprisingly little since the Bronze Age. Most conquerors just replaced or took over the old elites. Many people died in the process, and the survivors would often adopt a new culture, language, and/or religion.

rayiner 2y ago
[flagged]
- rayiner 2y ago
  The downvoters are telling on themselves.
- piltdownman 2y ago
  Without being overly facetious, the foundations of the modern University system have a significant role to play in that; e.g. the first university in Europe was established by Arab Muslims in the year 841 in Salerno, Italy.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    I suspect it has more to do with all the invading and burning down Hindu and Buddhist temples.
taleodor 2y ago
> More generally, the demographics around the Eastern Mediterranean have changed surprisingly little since the Bronze Age. This type of claims only shows lack of understanding of history as a science. It is actually impossible right now to make claims about this with any significant degree of confidence.

sudosysgen 2y ago

Arab is not a race. Most Arabs never arrived from anywhere, they were locals who adopted (often violently, sometimes not) large parts of Arab culture for long enough to consider themselves Arabs. The Arabians never had the resources or population to engage in settler colonialism you are thinking of. Even if they wanted to (and perhaps they did), they just couldn't go around replacing anyone. So from the start the conception of Arab is about peoples slowly becoming Arab, not being replaced by arriving Arabs, in large part.

seventhtiger 2y ago
This is true of most old empires. Romans, Persians, Arabs, Mongols, early Ottomans generally don't setttle areas they conquer. They don't engage in industrial extraction either. They form a ruling class and collect taxes. Any cultural influence that have was because of longevity rather than any interest in forced conversion. People project their impressions of more modern empires to pre-industrial ones that didn't have the same aspirations or even institutions to accomplish those aspirations.
- shenberg 2y ago
  That's really not true, e.g. the wikipedia page on population transfer in the Ottoman empire[1]. This dates way back to the Assyrian and Persian empries explicitly moving conquered peoples around in their empires in order to safeguard their rule. This book on population transfer in the Ottoman empire[2] explicitly states, with references, that the Ottomans habits were inherited from the steppe Turks, the Byzantines (=the Romans) and the Arabs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_transfer_in_the_Ottoman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_transf... [2] https://websites.umich.edu/~gocek/Work/ja/Gocek.Muge.ja.population.transfers.pdf https://websites.umich.edu/~gocek/Work/ja/Gocek.Muge.ja.popu...
  - sudosysgen 2y ago
    There were of course population transfers, but there mathematically could not move enough people from the Arabian Peninsula into conquered regions.

slt2021 2y ago

there are several flaws in your typical zionist argument: 1. jews as a minority have lived in the lands of Filistine and Jerusalem peacefully and coexisted just fine for millennia, before the zionist project. 2. the fact that small minority of jews lived there does not give an excuse to ethnically cleanse the local population of arabs. 3. the claim that modern european jews from Rhine and pale of settlement (AshkeNazi) have any connection to ancient Israelites from 2000+ years ago is laughable. Most genetic analysis proved that it is Palestinians, Jordanian Christians are native to the land, not european settlers from Poland, Lithuania, Belorussia, Ukraine with last names like Mileikowsky (Bibi's actual name), Mabovitch (golda's name) etc. 4. Filistine and Jerusalem did not have a problem with antisemitism and jew hate, UNTIL european settlers showed up. Antisemitism is purely european concept imported into Middle East. 5. All studies have shown that Israel/zionism is a colonial settler project created by Brits to secure Suez Canal from the ottomans. Later it would become American "unsinkable aircraft carrier" in the middle east to bomb and murder oil rich countries in the middle east

woodruffw 2y ago
Everything else about this aside: the reason most European Jews have Europeanized last names is because they were forced to adopt them throughout the 18th and 19th centuries[1]. (Also, why spell it “AshkeNazi”? That seems inflammatory with no connection to reality, since the root is Ashkenaz.) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_surname https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_surname
- slt2021 2y ago
  I would argue there is connection to nazi regime: 1. ICC and ICJ's accusations of genocide by israel 2. israeli government led by Kahanite leaders like bezalel smotrich and ben gvir. Kahanism was recognized by USA and EU as a terrorist organization with fascist ideology and is named after terrorist meir kahane 3. public announcements by israeli leaders and journalists about "Israel needs Lebensraum"[a], dreams of conquering greater israel from Nile to Euphrates[b] stealing land from 6 other countries There are way too many similarities between nazi germany and the zionist regime a. https://archive.ph/NGnNv#selection-1153.44-1153.113 https://archive.ph/NGnNv#selection-1153.44-1153.113 b. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241120-smotrich-has-confirmed-that-the-quest-for-greater-israel-is-real/ https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241120-smotrich-has-conf...

malandrew 2y ago

In 1872, less than 4% of Palestine was Jewish. It was 17% in 1931. 33% in 1948 when Israel was formed. The vast vast majority of Jews in Israel now are Ashkenazi. Ashkenazis are from Khazaria and converted to Judaism between 740 and 920 AD. Even from this population, there is a bottleneck around 600 to 800 years ago where the population was down to 350 individuals [1]. By and large very very few Jews in Palestine/Israel are able to claim Levantine/Semitic genetic ancestry. Many Palestinians and other Levantine people in Palestine who now practice Islam are far more likely have to have ancestors that were once Jewish that actually lived in historical kingdom of Israel prior to 70 AD when Titus and Vespasian crushed a revolt there. The ancestors of these folks that today practice Islam in Palestine likely converted to Islam sometime after 637 AD when Arabs started to settle in Palestine. It's pretty commonly accepted all over the world since basically forever that ownership is bequeathed from parents to children. This means that those who are Islamic today but whose genetic ancestors practiced Judaism in the past and lived in the historical kingdom of Israel have far greater claim to the land than folks who have no genetic ancestry to the Kingdom of Israel and instead have ancestry with no genetic relationship that converted to Judaism about 1105 to 1285 years ago. [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/ashkenazi-jews-descend-from-350-people-study-finds/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/ashkenazi-jews-descend-from-35...

copx 2y ago
[flagged]
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  [flagged]
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> those who are Islamic today but whose genetic ancestors practiced Judaism in the past and lived in the historical kingdom of Israel have far greater claim to the land Broadly speaking, any philosophy that rests on an oldest-claims-first metric are guaranteed to cause violence. Information degrades the further we go back; you’re prioritising the wishy-washiest sources of truth. And the nature of human migration and interbreeding means the further you go back, the less likely you are to find genetic ancestors of the people who currently control the land. The people alive on the land you want them off. People with guns. (The theory is also fundamentally based on the notion that racial migration is wrong. Immigrants to America have less claim than white Americans, who have less claim than natives, except for all the natives who were conquered each other because they moved around too.)

madaxe_again 2y ago

They are one and the same people. Only through the lens of ethnocentric histories is any distinction made.