by invalidname | 2025-06-27 08:58:45+00:00
> > Some would might consider it racist. > > How come whoever pointing out the fact that those who're emigrated later to modern Israel for the past century since the Israel - Palestinian conflicts started are actually outside immigrants, they themselves can be considered racist?

I explained it. It ignores the fact the Judea/Israel existed historically. It ignores the fact that Jews were prohibited from immigrating back to their homeland. It classifies Jews as immigrants and ignores the fact that Palestinians also immigrated mostly in recent centuries on the wings of the Ottoman empire. You effectively define a start/end date for homeland validity that conveniently leaves out Jews.

> Actually most people would consider artificial emigration en mass based on the dubious promised land claim of the holy book of one single race religion in this case Jewish, is the act of racism itself.

Again, deeply problematic. First off, there's historical facts that show the Jewish land in Israel. It's evident in the archeology and history, it isn't up for debate.

The "promised land" narrative and relation between Jews and Israel is in the Quran and Bible. I suggest reading them. In fact when talking to people from Muslim countries they sometimes don't connect the narrative of Israel and Judea etc.

Do you even know why Jews lost their land? Why it was called Palestine which was never a country?

The Roman emperor got tired of the rebellions coming out of Judea and decreed that every Jew in the area would be put to death. For the final f*ck you to the Jews he renamed the territory and picked a name based on the old enemies of the Jews: Philistines. Based on Jewish writings from the time roman horses waded in rivers of blood up to their necks... It worked.

> However, when the new immigrants govt started forcefully displacing

Again. Deeply false narrative.

First mistake is that a government displaced people. Nope. You're mixing between the occupied territories which are not a part of Israel and Israel. The Palestinians who stayed within Israel after 1948 are Israeli Arabs and have full citizenship. Not displaced. Those who ran away due to the war aren't the responsibility of Israel, that was a war Israel didn't choose and the consequences of the war aren't its fault.

> the original native people

Second mistake. They are not. They try to claim it and some people back that claim, but there is no evidence of that. There is no archeological evidence and no Palestinian people in history. They have no history in common and that's one of the big problems they have. Unlike Jews who unified and came together despite the long exile, Palestinians still slaughter each other to this day. Looking at them as a single people is deeply ignorant of who they are. If they were a single people they would have had a country ages ago. They would have followed a leader just like Begin yielded to Ben Gurion and enabled unity.

> out of the home without proper land purchase transactions and agreements of the local native populations

Third mistake. When Jews started immigrating to Israel they bought lands en-mass. 7% of the land was purchased until Palestinian leaders and the British put a stop to that.

Most of the land had problematic ownership history during those times. After the war and the formation of Israel the status of many areas became in flux as many people were displaced on both sides. Due to that war Jews who were living in Muslim majority countries had to flee their homes and come to Israel while losing everything. That's 40% of the immigration to Israel. They too lost everything. Not to mention the Jews who were displaced/murdered in the holocaust.

This was not unique or special in any way: https://www.news18.com/opinion/opinion-why-muslim-world-shou...

> This very act is even more problematic beyond racism and under international law it can be considered apartheid

You provided the wrong link. It also very clearly states that this is not the case:

"inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them."

When Israel was formed in 1948 all Arab residents that remained instantly became citizens with full rights. So there's no racial aspect here. Was there discrimination? Sure. But that's not apartheid and not systemic.

Notice that after that and most following wars Palestinians still had most of the territory the UN assigned to them. But they were occupied by Jordan and Egypt. In the 6 day war Israel was surrounded with the purpose of obliteration, the running joke in Israel was "The experiment is over, the last one out turn off the lights" (there are still people living today who remember the level of existential dread this brought). Instead of crumbling Israel attacked and took over the occupied territories. But unlike historic cases it didn't annex them because the Arab population was much larger. This is the source of most of the problems we have today.

Had Israel been an apartheid state or interested in ethnic cleansing the Palestinians would be gone in 67. It wasn't interested in that then and isn't interested in that now although there are people in the extreme right-wing who are pushing for that and getting traction because the attempts at peace failed.

In the occupied territories you could try and argue an apartheid based on that definition. But that's not technically true. It's not a part of Israel and Israel literally left Gaza (removing its citizens) and tried to leave the West bank. There's a problem there for sure, but using existing terms like that is intentionally misleading.

> Since your ancestors are from Morocco, imagine if the Jewish and the Muslim of Morocco in the near future start claiming back Spanish lands by emigrating en mass, and forcefully displacing the local native Spanish just because their ancestors have once lived and ruled Iberian peninsular for several hundreds years. Is this hypothetical situation is fine with you?

Jews came back to Israel when it was ruled by the Ottoman and British empires. Unlike your example, there was no country to "invade". It seems that you accept hate toward immigrants... Are you OK with hate toward other immigrant populations that aren't Jews?

Are you comparing Palestinians to MAGA?

> Fun facts, now Spain is allowing and inviting the expelled Jewish descendants in Morocco to come back to Spain and become Spanish citizen [3]. Why do you think that they're not extending this goodwill offers to Muslim descendents that were also expelled alongside Jewish population from Spain?

This was old news and has ended by now. You should ask the Spain why they didn't provide it to Muslims. I don't see the relevance here. Spain/Portugal etc don't have enough birth rate to sustain population and needs immigration to keep the economy going, this is an incentive for that.

Why do you think this is relevant to the situation in Israel which is radically different in every regard?