If they are native to the land, why did they have to massacre (Deir Yassin) and ethnically cleanse (the Nakba) the other natives? 🤔
I’m asking because Deir Yassin is the massacre that eventually convinced my grandmother’s family to leave their hometown and become refugees in Jordan, especially after the men in the village tried to fight off these “natives to the land” because they were attacking and killing everyone. Deir Yassin convinced Palestinians that they couldn’t trust these “natives”, since they don’t stick to their treaties, and go around marauding.
Deir Yassin was not officially sanctioned by the main Jewish militia, the Haganah. That was 100 people on the road to Jerusalem causing problems with travelers whereas Hamas has been terrorizing people for years and then recently had an all out marauding bloodbath 12x as bad as the one you cited. This leads me to believe that the Arabs were not liked because they are hostile. They break the treaties like the recent cease fire and cannot be trusted. Jews have always had a presence in Israel. Arabs are from Arabia and were supplanted their by the Ottomans and Romans.
Jews were killed and oppressed in the area already thousands of years ago. How is that possible if they are not natives to the land?
For example during the Levant conquest or the regular and ongoing conflicts between Arabs and Jews in the area when it was still Transjordan? These conflicts are so fucking old they are mentioned in the Koran.
It’s nonsensical to try and claim Jews aren’t native there.
Please answer my question first. If they were natives to the land, why did they have to commit massacres and ethnic cleansing against the other natives of the land?
For the same reason why people do that in every country to each other. Religion, incompatible cultural values, ideologies that go against other people, … It’s sadly something people do and have done everywhere in some way or another.
In Transjordan and the greater area between Northern Africa and Asia there were countless shifts and movements, mixing and separation of groups for all kind of reasons. But I think the separation because of different religions is probably the reason that lead to the biggest rifts, at least in that place.
I don’t see how that has anything to do with whether or not a group of people is native to or had ancestry in a land.
I think I’m not sure if you are… Israeli apartheid crimes, it all claims to do because it’s people are “native to the land”… what does that even mean if you have to butcher all the other natives? Jews who wanted to be closer to the holy lands could have had a controlled migration to Palestine without taking up arms and committing massacres. But no, there was a bigger idea, that they are “natives” of the land, so they have the right to murder and to maim.
If they are native to the land, why did they have to massacre (Deir Yassin) and ethnically cleanse (the Nakba) the other natives? 🤔
I’m asking because Deir Yassin is the massacre that eventually convinced my grandmother’s family to leave their hometown and become refugees in Jordan, especially after the men in the village tried to fight off these “natives to the land” because they were attacking and killing everyone. Deir Yassin convinced Palestinians that they couldn’t trust these “natives”, since they don’t stick to their treaties, and go around marauding.
Deir Yassin was not officially sanctioned by the main Jewish militia, the Haganah. That was 100 people on the road to Jerusalem causing problems with travelers whereas Hamas has been terrorizing people for years and then recently had an all out marauding bloodbath 12x as bad as the one you cited. This leads me to believe that the Arabs were not liked because they are hostile. They break the treaties like the recent cease fire and cannot be trusted. Jews have always had a presence in Israel. Arabs are from Arabia and were supplanted their by the Ottomans and Romans.
Jews were killed and oppressed in the area already thousands of years ago. How is that possible if they are not natives to the land?
For example during the Levant conquest or the regular and ongoing conflicts between Arabs and Jews in the area when it was still Transjordan? These conflicts are so fucking old they are mentioned in the Koran.
It’s nonsensical to try and claim Jews aren’t native there.
Please answer my question first. If they were natives to the land, why did they have to commit massacres and ethnic cleansing against the other natives of the land?
For the same reason why people do that in every country to each other. Religion, incompatible cultural values, ideologies that go against other people, … It’s sadly something people do and have done everywhere in some way or another.
In Transjordan and the greater area between Northern Africa and Asia there were countless shifts and movements, mixing and separation of groups for all kind of reasons. But I think the separation because of different religions is probably the reason that lead to the biggest rifts, at least in that place.
I don’t see how that has anything to do with whether or not a group of people is native to or had ancestry in a land.
Because people native to a land don’t tend to butcher their neighbors and then establish an apartheid state, even for ideological differences,
I am not sure if you are serious.
deleted by creator
I think I’m not sure if you are… Israeli apartheid crimes, it all claims to do because it’s people are “native to the land”… what does that even mean if you have to butcher all the other natives? Jews who wanted to be closer to the holy lands could have had a controlled migration to Palestine without taking up arms and committing massacres. But no, there was a bigger idea, that they are “natives” of the land, so they have the right to murder and to maim.