The land is as much ancestral for Palestinians as Jews.
So why can't they just share it?
Oh, yeah. Religion.
Shit.
That's really not true. What's going on here is a clash of cultures. Although Abrahamic religion does seriously exacerbate some of the worst features of humanity, like cultural supremacy and murderous tribalism.
Tom
Do you mean European culture vs. Middle Eastern culture, or are you talking about something else?
Here's what I am talking about.
Israel is the result of the vicious anti-Jewish bigotry the Abrahamic world is full of, especially Europe.
You have not demonstrated that vicious anti-Jewish bigotry existed in the Middle East before the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The only examples of vicious anti-Jewish bigotry I have found in the 4 centuries following the Ottoman conquest were the two times rebels briefly gained control and persecuted Jews who they saw as staunch allies of the Turks. And even then, Muslim neighbors sheltered Jews from the rampaging Druze.
The vicious bigotry Jews experienced in Europe was not universal. I think we tend to think that way because most of us were only taught European history and the history of European offshoots like the USA, Australia, etc.
I don't know what parts of history kids these days learn but when I was in school, if it didn't involve white people it didn't get mentioned. So we were taught that Romans conquered the area around Jerusalem, then later on Crusaders fought the Saracens for control of the 'Holy City', and then more recently the British were in charge before Israel was founded. We learned nothing about the interactions between the various faith communities when Europeans were out of the picture.
As traveling became more feasible, in the 19th century, Jews started fleeing the ugliness. They went to a back water province of the Ottoman empire, which was tottering towards the collapse that came shortly after. The trickle became a stream as the Zionists started building things that made the place habitable.
The place was already habitable. We know this because it has been inhabited for thousands of years. Cities like
Jerusalem have been continuously inhabited by the indigenous Canaanite/Palestinian population for 4-6 thousand years.
Nablus and
Jericho have been inhabited for ~9,000 years.
Zionists from Europe started building things using technology that wasn't widely available in the region, but they weren't the first to build roads, irrigation systems, libraries, or to develop profitable trade exchanges. People in the region weren't ignorant, starving beggars relying on handouts from benevolent Europeans arriving to tame the wilderness and educate the savages. They had their own well functioning society long before the First Aliyah.
Then came the paroxysms of the 30s and 40s. There were enough Jewish people to demand, and get, recognition of a state where Jews weren't in such danger from their immediate neighbors and government.
Zionists were not a representative sample of all Jews. They and their progeny are the most hard core "We're not going to take it anymore." Jews. The ones most willing to fight and die for the only sanctuary on earth for their people.
^This is the Euro-centric view. It is not one that was shared by the Palestinian Jews.
Jews from Europe had been subjected to oppression that grew into something truly monstrous in the 1930s and 1940s. It is perfectly understandable that they wanted security in a State dedicated to their welfare. It is perfectly understandable that they wanted that State to include Jerusalem and the surrounding area. It is also perfectly understandable that they held the European view of colonialism and saw little wrong with using their superior wealth and armaments to take that land by force and drive out the natives.
Palestinian Jews did not suffer from the same oppression as the Europeans. The ones descended from people who never left the region and the ones descended from
Sephardic Jews rescued by the Turks were pretty content with their lives until the Ottoman Empire fell and the riots and terrorism broke out. The Ottoman
millet system gave them a lot of autonomy and social cohesion. They weren't any more oppressed than their neighbors.
If you want to talk about the cultural factors fueling the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis you have to give serious consideration to what life was like for people living there before the 20th century.
I haven't looked much into this website so you can take this article with a grain of salt, but I think it's worth reading:
How Peace Flourished in Ottoman Palestine: a story of coexistence
When their Muslim neighbors tried to use massive military force to destroy them, they not only survived but took control of much more territory. Then they refused to allow many of the attackers to return.
The Palestinians did not attack Israel. The Zionists attacked the Palestinians, murdered thousands, and drove approximately 750,000 survivors into refugee camps, all according to
plan.
The surrounding countries responded to the ethnic cleansing and massacres of civilians by attacking the terrorist regime that had announced itself to be the new rulers of a new State. Don't even try to argue that the Irgun, Lehi, and Haganah don't fit the definition of terrorists. You know I have links to articles written by Israeli historians that more than adequately justify the use of that term.
Frankly, I don't think that's unreasonable. Not in light of the many assaults since, from foreign military forces to suicide bombers to the October '23 terrorist assault. Until their Muslim neighbors give up on Islamic supremacy in favor of peace and prosperity it's gonna stay ugly.
Tom
It's gonna stay ugly until opportunities for peace and prosperity are shared, human rights are upheld, and religious affiliation does not determine how one is treated by the government that controls their lives and their livelihoods.
