As it happens, they and the Canaanites were both Semitic peoples. In this particular point it's probably inaccurate to consider Canaanites and Hebrews as seperate people at all. The Exodus from Egypt is both largely mythological and, one might note, was probably any freed slaves returning home instead of seeking new lands.
The Semitic groups (which includes Arabs) are basically everyone not Persian or Turk in southwest Asia.
Both proto-jews and Arabs inhabited the land currently known as Isreal. It should be noted that the proto-Jews left the lands before actually becoming Jews.
Because Arabs came there only in 600year a.c. While Israely were there from 10 000 b.c. Along with other tribes, but not Arabs. But then Arabs made up Muslim and started claiming everything and being cry babis if not allowed.
I mean, the US sucks, but they don't just support settler colonial states for its own sake. They support Israel because it's strategically useful to have a US friendly state in the middle east that's small enough that they will basically do what we say (unlike Saudi Arabia). Also a significant portion of Republicans in congress think that Israel/Palestine being controlled by Jews is a necessary precondition for the Rapture. The US is more indifferent to the genocide of the Palestinians than anything, which imo is just as bad, but it's important to look at the material causes for things instead of just saying "these two countries have similar ideologies so they'll be allies".
All of that is true AND they have an ideological solidarity. Think of it like this: If there was a genuine landback movement and the Illegal Occupation of Palestine was seen as what it is, then people are going to start looking at the Americas and noticing similarities. For a country that was built on the same settler colonial genocide, claims to be democratic when it's clear they're not, and subjugation of minorities. Oops.
I don't see the distinction you're trying to make between settler-colonialism and ... what? The US is a settler-colonialist project, because it allows them to steal land, or control it via compradores, in their best material interest. Israel is no different, which is why western capitalists created and funded it: a colony run by and for white european millionaires in the ME.
This might surprise you but the bible isn't 100% accurate.
Jokes aside: scholars think that the Israelites were a group of Canaanites who lived as "outcasts" in the hinterlands and seized the cities after the bronze age collapse.
So Israelites came when the Canaanites collapsed but the causality is different than depicted in the bible. Also they weren't that foreign in the first place.
While one may oppose and even condemn particular Israeli policies or actions with regard to Palestinians or Israel’s Arab citizens, the fact remains that in no way has Israel engaged in any action with the intent to exterminate, in whole or in part, the Palestinian people.
Indeed, accusing Israel of genocide has the collateral effect diminishing real acts of genocide – such as those that occurred in the Holocaust, against Armenians, and in Rwanda.
Furthermore, it is deeply concerning that Israel is often the only country in the world accused by activist groups of contemporaneously engaging in genocide. Not only is this false as a matter of both law and fact, but it also applies a singularly demonizing double standard to Israel.
Finally, claiming as some do, that there are many “types” of genocide, and Israel is, for example, committing “cultural” genocide, is equally problematic. Regardless of how the term is applied, it is clearly heard and impacts a large audience who hear it as the legal term intended to convey the most awful of human crimes – mass murder and population expulsion – a charge that is misapplied to Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
This might surprise you but Bible is new book written not so long ago while Israely were there from 10000 b.c. Fighting other local tribes until Muslims where invented and came with all their sadistic hate to other nations and killing infants just like they behave now. No excuses. They need to be wiped out, like Russia and other tumors on Earth.
This might surprise you but Bible is new book written not so long ago while Israely were there from 10000 b.c.
Verifiably no, there's argument at to if ancient Israel ever existed or of out was a loose confederation like the early German empire.
Fighting other local tribes until Muslims where invented and came with all their sadistic hate to other nations and killing infants just like they behave now.
There's exactly zero proof of that and literally no one knows who started what or when.
No excuses. They need to be wiped out, like Russia and other tumors on Earth.
What matters isn't who came first. What matters is that no one has the right to expel a human from a land they're living in. That is the core of the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
I am pro Palestine, but have no issue with the increase of Jewish migrations in the 19th century. The problem is not Jewish migration. It is the fact that Israel expelled Palestinians from their homes, murdered them, suffocated them, and made their lives miserable.
And this is the same thing that was done to the native people of the modern day Americas.
This is an honest question, is Wikipedia just wrong on that? Because there they write that Palestine also expelled all Jews and that they moved to Israel for that reason (because they weren't allowed in Palestine). And also they write that Hamas specifically want all Jews to be gone.
If Wikipedia is wrong, where do you get your information from?
Please feel free to ask any questions! I am happy to answer them all
Can you please cite which part of Wikipedia is saying this?
"Palestine" and "Israel" are two names for the same region, so it doesn't make sense to be expelled from one into the other. I think there must be a misunderstanding here.
I bet this is referring to certain Arab States expelling Jews during the creation of Israel and the British occupation of Palestine, as a retaliation (which was horrible and stupid and I fully condemn it). But keep in mind this is well into the conflict, when Zionists and British occupation were already well into committing heinous acts and massacres, and that this is Arab States who sympathized with Palestine, not Palestine itself.
What I was referring to was treatment of Jews in Palestine before the Zionist project.
As for Hamas' anti-semitism, I think some background information is important here.
When it was founded, Hamas was not a popular group by any means. Popular Palestinian resistance groups at the time were socialist and progressive, such as the PFLP and other members of the PLO. Hamas was founded as a Muslim brotherhood affiliate, and its charter had many anti Semitic references.
Israel saw this as a huge opportunity, and it propped up Hamas while fighting off other groups. Fast forward to the 2000's, every Palestinian resistance group was left defeated, and Hamas was left as the only group left fighting. Palestinians had no choice but to support Hamas.
This was a major change for Hamas. It saw hoardes of Palestinians join its ranks, and most were not ideologically aligned with them. There are even Christians fighting among its ranks. This caused an ideological shift within Hamas. It was even reflected in its new charter in 2017, which dropped anti-semitic rhetoric and said it is fighting against Israel, not because of its religion, but because of the Zionist occupation. You can find this charter translated online easily.
Since then, many Hamas officials reiterated their position that they are not fighting to expel Jews, but against Zionist occupation.
Palestinians today see Hamas as a vehicle for their liberation, and not as an ideological alignment. But even then, most of the people in Hamas do not hold anti Semitic opinions anymore, and we should keep in mind this major shift throughout its history.
Wikipedia is kind of wrong in the sense that there's always been Palestinian Jews.
The issue is that due to Zionism, a ton of European Jews moved into the region starting at the turn of the last century and accelerating following the Holocaust.
Said Jews then set about building a thriving western-style industrialized democracy that was opposed at every turn by an Arab and Islamic population that opposed its very existence on what can only be thought of as religious grounds.
All of which can only be taken as an indication of how deeply corrupting and counter-progressive are virtually all forms of institutionalized organized religion.
Fuck all of them. Organized religion sucks ass and should rightly be seen as a vestige of the past.
Didn't Arabs and Palestinians just flat out refuse to coexist with a Jewish state from the start? The international community proposed a solution and they refused to accept it.
Certainly if they chose to fight, and lost, then they have to face the consequences which might include losing their land.
That's hardy unprecedented, the very city I live in was largely founded by seizing lands from the British during the American war of independence, because they lost...
I would say while yes it's "wrong" to kick someone off their land, both parties have to at least be reasonable and willing to compromise when you have a complex ethnic and religious issue. Otherwise conflict is inevitable.
None of which is to excuse any war crimes committed by either side. I just think it's more nuanced than "israel bad apartheid state".
Didn't Arabs and Palestinians just flat out refuse to coexist with a Jewish state from the start?
"coexist with a Jewish state" is a bit of a contradictory statement. Arabs coexisted with Jews fine prior to the Zionist project. A Jewish state is by definition a state exclusive to Jews. That's the opposite of coexistnece by definition, and yes that is exactly why Arabs (Muslims and Christians alike) refused it.
Certainly if they chose to fight,
Resist*. they chose to resist occupation, expulsion from their homes, massacre and genocide.
fight, and lost, then they have to face the consequences which might include losing their land.
Ahh, so if someone fights you for your land, destroys your home and genocides your people, then they've earned it?? Well I should not be surprised that someone who lives in a nation founded on genocide thinks this is okay.
yes it's "wrong" to kick someone off their land, both parties have to at least be reasonable and willing to compromise
"hey man, I know I just took over your home and burned your family alive in front of your eyes. But you gotta be reasonable here and be willing to compromise!"
What more of a compromise do you need beyond coexistence? That's all Palestinians have asked for, and Israel continues to deny them basic rights, no matter how peaceful they are.
And I end with: Israel bad apartheid state. It is truly that simple.
I understand and appreciate you trying to learn. I think one of the issues why nobody can really point you to a good resource is that there are no 100% neutral resources that document "the conflict". Even just where/when you start something like a timeline can be biased.
Keeping all that in mind I have found a video that gives a short simplified summary of the base history.
I liked it (might be part of my bias since I like crash course). But I'm sure there are mistakes in there and as above some details/framing might just be due to biases of the author's/presenters etc.
Yeah definitely a problem finding truly unbiased information. I'm paranoid my whole world view is shaped by western rule even though there is more free speech here than anywhere else.. or is that idea also propaganda lol
I will give that a watch when I have some time later thank you.
If you want a book, 100 Years War on Palestine does an excellent job going over everything up to 2017.
Very in-depth, full picture of everything that's happened from 1917 (what just about everyone considers to be the beginning of the modern conflict), including errors and crimes committed by both sides. The author is Palestinian and obviously not neutral, but is far from extremist, and comes at things with a historical/academic rigor.
There are many other books/resources of course, but at least as far as getting a decent idea of what actually happened thus far, it's a very good history of the conflict, major players and the geopolitics associated.
Neither party is in the right. Israel is a violent apartheid state, and Palestine is large ruled by a terrorist organization. Both Israelis and Palestinians have the right to exist, but neither side's leadership respects each other's existence.
The victims in all of this are both the Israeli and Palestinian citizens, so taking a side isn't really a sound option. I am failing to see anyone who aligns as pro-Israel or pro-Palestine make coherent arguments about what happened this week. The only reasonable alignment is to be anti-war, anti-terrorism, and anti-apartheid.
I place some — not uniformly distributed, only on those that do this — blame on the Israeli citizens that knowingly move into a recently captured area. They're literally colonizing the Palestinians land. I don't fuck with colonizers.
Honestly, trying to find a definitive 'in the right' of any large-scale conflict is tough, almost moot. Especially since moral values like 'right' and 'wrong' are subjective, and that small groups of powerful people may not represent a whole. Complex reality doesn't fall neatly into these ideals of right and wrong.
The one who lives civilian and not murder infants and not spending all money on rockets instead of developing own cities and culture. Oh, and not claiming wrong claims, not deceiving others. They are terrorist, lyers and complete garbage just as Russians and Iranians are right now.
Arabs came to those lands at 600 year while Israely ancestors were there from 10000 b.c.
Other than a small minority of religious zealots, the pro-Israel folks don't base the justification of an Israeli state on ancient history.
This is usually only brought up to rebut Palestinian claims that they were their first.
The justification for the modern state of Israel is that the entire world sat by for years while the Jewish population of Europe was slaughtered. Most countries closed their borders to fleeing Jewish refugees.
And the Holocaust was just the latest in a thousands-of-years long history of Jews being scapegoated and exiled from almost every county in Europe.
The post-Holocaust refugees needed a place to live, and needed the autonomy to self-govern and to defend themselves.
So, they worked with the international community to carve out a tiny piece of land, and tried from the beginning to create a two-state solution.
The neighboring Arab countries shot this down because they assumed that they could destroy Israel and take everything for themselves.
Which is exactly what they tried to do.
To everyone's great surprise, Israel won. And they've been fighting for there survival ever since.
Even today, Palestinians aren't asking for peaceful coexistance. They elected a government whose charter includes wiping Israel off the map.
At a certain point, Israelis military might crossed a threshold where the world is no longer concerned that Israel might not survive. And at that point they decided that Israel was no longer the underdog, and sympathy for them started to wane.
Now a lot of people who love to root for underdogs in any situation have decided that Israel is the villain.
It goes largely unnoticed by them that Israel has never once been given the opportunity to have a peace with the Palestinians with any deal in which the Palestinians did not secure Israel's total destruction.
I agree that Jews have been horribly persecuted for millenia. I understand that a bunch of countries decided that there needed to be a Jewish state to protect Jews from further persecution. The part that I don't understand is why did these countries give them land that was already settled by someone else? Why didn't these countries give them their own land?
The way I understand it now would be like me arguing that homeless individuals have been persecuted enough and they need their own home. Therefore, me and my friends have agreed that they can have my neighbor's house without my neighbor's consent.
The one argument I've heard is that the land was the ancestral home of the Jewish people. However, it seems hypocritical to me if this argument holds true for the Levant but not all of the Americas. To maintain integrity and congruence based on this argument, then I'd think Israel would be highly allied with the Native Americans to help them get their ancestral home back. Because this isn't the case, it seems to me that I have been misinformed about or misunderstood the reasoning behind giving Jewish people this land. So, what is the actual reason for this specific land??
I really just don't get it.
Note: I am not arguing that...
Jews haven't been persecuted
there shouldn't be a Jewish state
Palestinians/Hamas are right in attacking Israel
Israel can't defend itself
Palestinians should be able to defend themselves
innocent people haven't died
anything about religion
anything about terrorism
whatever else someone might assume and get heated about
I really just want to understand the reasoning with valid congruence.
Why Israel? It's because they'd already been a movement for decades before World War II by Jews to buy up that land because it was their ancestral Homeland. Also we aren't talking about a highly populated region. Half of modern day Israel is desert.
So why didn't countries give up their own land? I mean, Britain would have considered that their own land. They had possession of it, and they were the sovereign power governing it.
Why didn't Europe give up prime real estate to Jewish refugees? Because in all of history no one has been that generous to any refugees let alone Jews.
What you said would justify Israel's violence ONLY IF ALL PALESTINIANS AGREED. They do not. Pretending it's OK to run a reverse-genocide because Jews had it rough in the past is frankly pathetic. Beyond pathetic.
Do you know any Palestinians? My wife worked for a couple that were forced to leave, good highly educated folks. The wife was an attorney, when Isreal was formed she was told her law degree was worthless. She went to school, got an Israeli law degree, was then told she needed to speak Hebrew. She went back to school, learned Hebrew, was then told lol nah you can't actually practice law now. Shorty after their house was seized, it had an olive orchard that had been in their family for generations.
It goes largely unnoticed by them that Israel has never once been given the opportunity to have a peace with the Palestinians with any deal in which the Palestinians did not secure Israel’s total destruction.
The amount of disinformation in this post is unreal and would take hours upon hours to explain why. It's so easy to spread disinformation like you and people like Trump do and takes so much work and effort to refute.
Zionists are basing their irridentism on the Torah, and from what I've read, the Canaanites existed in the area before Abraham was given the land as a promised land.
So you're people are saying native Americans have every right to kill, maim and rape settler-colonialist Americans? And that they're all legitimate targets, since they're all settlers?
I get it.
Edit: OP didn't say that. People on Twitter did. I didn't separate that. It's an emotional topic, I have friends who are directly affected by HAMAS atrocities.
I see you made an edit, so I'll respond to it here.
While no one should have the right to rape anyone or murder innocent people, the only one to blame for these atrocities is the Israeli state. They are keeping millions of people in a concentration camp, massacring them slowly every day, destroying their homes, cutting off supply lines and giving them just enough living resources to experience slow death. They burn their children alive. Their soldiers brag about raping Palestinians.
So then if those people lose it and retaliate, who are you going to blame? Those trapped in the concentration camp and chose to resist? Or the ones doing it to them?
And in reality, despite all of this, Hamas has been far more humane in treating Israelis than Israel is with Palestinians. They protected their hostages, and have a history of doing so. They give mothers and the elderly special treatment.
If you are upset about rape and cold blooded murder, look no further than Israel. If you're outraged about Hamas, who's not even a fraction the concern that Israel is, your priorities are not right at all.
No such thing as a fair fight, ever. Fighting fair is called sport. Fighting is fighting, you win or you die. Winners win, losers die. Would we like that some of the losers weren't killed? Sure, but you can't bring back the dead. History will continue, and you will never see an Native American owned and run America, no matter how idealistic that might feel, because they are already culturally dead. Native Americans are 4x4 driving casino operators now, they became Americans.
This is just historically inaccurate, while smallpox blankets were give out in a couple cases most of their population died out from new European diseases across the continent before we'd ever made contact. They spread through the environment and killed millions to the West coast before we even knew what had happened.
Add to that the fact that we decided what the value of our goods were worth in their financial system, and technology was sold to certain tribes and not others (keeping in mind that colonists weren't coming into a unified system but integrating into a complex ecosocial dynamic where we gave advantages to specific groups) there was no way in hell they'd have a fair fight.