←back to thread

873 points helsinkiandrew | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
sharpshadow ◴[] No.45374509[source]
It would be only just if the Palestinians would get their own state after this.
replies(6): >>45374689 #>>45374724 #>>45374749 #>>45375056 #>>45375089 #>>45375223 #
dotancohen[dead post] ◴[] No.45375056[source]
[flagged]
basilgohar ◴[] No.45375137[source]
Their own land, of course, where they've lived for thousands of years.
replies(2): >>45376076 #>>45376094 #
dotancohen ◴[] No.45376076[source]
Serious question, what do you think is their own land? And what exactly makes you think it is their land?

Are you aware that most of the Arabs of the Holy Land came around the same time period as the Jews? There were Arabs living here previously, of course, as were there living here Jews. Half a century before the British mandate, Jerusalem was already Jewish majority.

  > where they've lived for thousands of years.
The only reason that Jews in the West Bank are called settlers is because the Jews were ethnically cleansed from the West Bank in 1948, and that territory was free of Jews for 19 years. Other than those 19 years, the Jews had been here far longer than the Arab colonizers had been.
replies(1): >>45376422 #
basilgohar ◴[] No.45376422[source]
[flagged]
replies(3): >>45377256 #>>45377471 #>>45377669 #
1. dotancohen ◴[] No.45377471[source]
This is such a perversion of the history of the holy land that I don't even see fit to correct any of it. Any reader here is welcome to read about the Muslim conquests, of which the Muslims are extremely proud.

In fact, part of that pride is calling it an the Arab conquest, even though the colonizer - Salah AlDin - was a Kurd and not an Arab.

replies(1): >>45408861 #
2. za3faran ◴[] No.45408861[source]
We learned about the Islamic conquests, not the Arab conquests. I don't know where you got the latter from.

Salahuddin was a liberator, not a colonizer.