• ???@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • ???@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Because people native to a land don’t tend to butcher their neighbors and then establish an apartheid state, even for ideological differences,

          • ???@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.