It does of course, depend on when you start counting.
But if we, say, pick 1947, when there were already large numbers of Jews living in the area and the UN suggested the partition, it was Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan that invaded.
Of course, the Jews then extended the area they had during the following conflicts, and the current people in charge are power-hungry idiots. But there have been Jewish people living there for a remarkably long time.
But there have been Jewish people living there for a remarkably long time.
But it wasn't until European and American settlers moved in, displacing the locals, and making it clear that they believed they had more right to the country than the locals did, based on a religious justification, that trouble started.
We'd agree, I think, that if First World settlers move in on a Third World country and try to take it over and run it to their liking that this is an aggressive move, even if the white settlers are waving the Bible about and claiming that the Bible gives them the right to do this.
We'd agree, I think, that if First World settlers move in on a Third World country and try to take it over and run it to their liking that this is an aggressive move, even if the white settlers are waving the Bible about and claiming that the Bible gives them the right to do this.
If I can snip this down to a more general statement: If settlers move in on a country and try to take it over and run it to their liking then this is an aggressive move.
Absolutely. But the whole situation in Northern Africa is sadly like this. Made more complex because there were very few actual countries there - there were tribes and towns and the occasional city sprinkled about, but by and large there weren't countries in the European sense (although in many ways concrete countries in Europe is a new concept too).
The European habit of drawing straight lines across areas and then handing control of them to a particulat tribe because they happened to be friendly is to blame for a lot of the problems over there. Not that I think the situation would be good otherwise, just different.
While the site is biased I was interested by the figures here showing that Palestine was largely made up of a vast commingling of different groups.
While the site is biased I was interested by the figures here showing that Palestine was largely made up of a vast commingling of different groups.
Well, the Israeli version of Palestinian history taught in Israeli schools is just that: ignore the people who have lived there for centuries, claim that most of the inhabitants moved in in the 19th century. That this is false by all historical accounts of Palestine that pre-date Israel doesn't seem to worry these revisionists.
What appears to be generally agreed on is that until the 20th century, Jews were less than 6% (http://www.palestine-net.com/history/bhist.html) of the population of Palestine: one religious group among others. The massive increase in the Jewish population of Palestine in the first half of the 20th century (well, okay, until 1948) was entirely European and American immigrants moving in, with the intention of taking over.
And yes, I consider this an aggressive act - while appreciating the historical context in which it happened. Nevertheless, the people against whom this aggression was directed were not the people who had been persecuting the Jews in the countries from which they came.
I feel about Israel the way I used to feel about South Africa. It was impossible to argue that the white South Africans ought to "go home": South Africa was their home and had been for generations. Nevertheless, they were descended from colonists who had moved in and were taking over. Israel isn't (yet) an apartheid state to the extent that South Africa was for more than forty years - but it's clearly heading in that direction, and informally, considering the discrimination faced by Arab Israelis, it already is.
Israel achieved its right to exist by an act of aggression by the neighbouring Muslim countries - not their invasion in 1948, but the expulsion of Middle Eastern Jews into Israel at about that time. From then on, Israel ceased to be uncomplicatedly a new colonialist nation, white settlers driving out natives, and became a much more realistic Middle Eastern country - though from what Israelis tell me, Middle Eastern Jews were and are also discriminated against. (In fact, there is effectively a four-tier social structure: the European/American Jews at the top, the Middle Eastern Jews underneath, the black Jews from Ethiopia third rung down,and at the very bottom, legally discriminated against in many ways, the Israeli Arabs.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
But if we, say, pick 1947, when there were already large numbers of Jews living in the area and the UN suggested the partition, it was Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan that invaded.
Of course, the Jews then extended the area they had during the following conflicts, and the current people in charge are power-hungry idiots. But there have been Jewish people living there for a remarkably long time.
no subject
But it wasn't until European and American settlers moved in, displacing the locals, and making it clear that they believed they had more right to the country than the locals did, based on a religious justification, that trouble started.
We'd agree, I think, that if First World settlers move in on a Third World country and try to take it over and run it to their liking that this is an aggressive move, even if the white settlers are waving the Bible about and claiming that the Bible gives them the right to do this.
At least, I hope we'd agree.
no subject
If I can snip this down to a more general statement:
If settlers move in on a country and try to take it over and run it to their liking then this is an aggressive move.
Absolutely. But the whole situation in Northern Africa is sadly like this. Made more complex because there were very few actual countries there - there were tribes and towns and the occasional city sprinkled about, but by and large there weren't countries in the European sense (although in many ways concrete countries in Europe is a new concept too).
The European habit of drawing straight lines across areas and then handing control of them to a particulat tribe because they happened to be friendly is to blame for a lot of the problems over there. Not that I think the situation would be good otherwise, just different.
While the site is biased I was interested by the figures here showing that Palestine was largely made up of a vast commingling of different groups.
no subject
Well, the Israeli version of Palestinian history taught in Israeli schools is just that: ignore the people who have lived there for centuries, claim that most of the inhabitants moved in in the 19th century. That this is false by all historical accounts of Palestine that pre-date Israel doesn't seem to worry these revisionists.
What appears to be generally agreed on is that until the 20th century, Jews were less than 6% (http://www.palestine-net.com/history/bhist.html) of the population of Palestine: one religious group among others. The massive increase in the Jewish population of Palestine in the first half of the 20th century (well, okay, until 1948) was entirely European and American immigrants moving in, with the intention of taking over.
And yes, I consider this an aggressive act - while appreciating the historical context in which it happened. Nevertheless, the people against whom this aggression was directed were not the people who had been persecuting the Jews in the countries from which they came.
I feel about Israel the way I used to feel about South Africa. It was impossible to argue that the white South Africans ought to "go home": South Africa was their home and had been for generations. Nevertheless, they were descended from colonists who had moved in and were taking over. Israel isn't (yet) an apartheid state to the extent that South Africa was for more than forty years - but it's clearly heading in that direction, and informally, considering the discrimination faced by Arab Israelis, it already is.
Israel achieved its right to exist by an act of aggression by the neighbouring Muslim countries - not their invasion in 1948, but the expulsion of Middle Eastern Jews into Israel at about that time. From then on, Israel ceased to be uncomplicatedly a new colonialist nation, white settlers driving out natives, and became a much more realistic Middle Eastern country - though from what Israelis tell me, Middle Eastern Jews were and are also discriminated against. (In fact, there is effectively a four-tier social structure: the European/American Jews at the top, the Middle Eastern Jews underneath, the black Jews from Ethiopia third rung down,and at the very bottom, legally discriminated against in many ways, the Israeli Arabs.)
no subject