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.
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 were native to the land, how do you explain Deir Yasdin or the Nakba?
??? What does that have to do with the fact that Israel is a country founded for people who are native to the land?
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.
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.