How is this relevant to 2025?

Because it borderline sounded like you claimed Jews simply appeared there during WW2 and started occupying whatever they could. That is factually wrong as there is a deep Jewish history to said region. And before you throw some genetic argument at me about how those are Europeans that migrated here, understand that Jews are ethnoreligious group, not a genetic group like slavs. It doesn’t matter if you, a muslim, were born in opposite side of the world. There is a place where it will be always sacred for you, a home, written in blood and history, a home disregarded by many, but then those many keep finding Jewish artifacts there.

Your upcoming quote pretty much confirmed what I’m trying to say.

Does it make sense to go near 2000 years to justify a genocide when the modern settlers aren’t even from the region?

I was quite clear about “both sides are terrible”. That is in no way justification for any of their actions, it roughly translates to “This shit is fucked up so hard from all sides that I can’t get morally invested in this for my own sanity and rather focus on my own region”. If you actually assumed that I’m supporting Israel’s actions, then you haven’t been following what I’m saying.

There’s more a more recent genetic and historical presence in Eastern Europe for Russians than there is for Zionist settlers in Palestine.

But the thing is, that argument is never used in real life, by anyone, and so you’re not hearing counter-arguments. No one is saying that Russia wants to take over Baltics because genetic or historical presence. That is simply not an argument here, and I don’t think you fully understand what “Slav” is, as it’s not some Russian origins. At least I’m not aware of it. I also never claimed that about Israel and Gaza (you keep assuming things, falsely). Israel has expanded far beyond what is theirs.

Not sure why you are lyao. Wikipedia has a whole article about it:

Did you even read the article? It clearly states what I stated. islam allows religious minorities that fall under “people of the book” label (aka, monotheistic Abrahamic religions) to exist under islam, not as equals but as inferior second class citizens with limited rights. This article just states that the persecution was worse for Jews in Christian Europe, not that things were good in Iberia. There are even a few historians in this very article that argue that this label for this time period doesn’t actually align with reality.

You are engaging in historical revisionism. Jews weren’t persecuted or expelled in Iraq

The Farhud of Baghdad, took place in 1941, that’s before the establishment of Israel (1948) and before the end of WWII (19450). Everything that I said, you could easily find in this article or any article about this event:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhud

Zionism and Jewish migration to Palestine predate WW2 and the Holocaust, and the Mossad in various forms was active before 1948.

Yes, but Mossad didn’t try to get Jews in other countries to migrate to Israel until after Israel was established after the 1948 war.

Zionist gangs had already committed massacres against the Palestinians in the 1930s.

And vice versa.

Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

The Iraqi government tried to prevent Jews from leaving. Iraq at the time was also under British mandate, it wasn’t an independent state.

You keep repeating this like a broken record, but all your doing is demonstrating your ignorance. The Iraq government forbade Jews from emigrating to Israel AFTER the 1948 war. The farhud happened in 1941, that’s 7 years prior. Also, this policy last two years and the Iraqi government reversed it in 1950, this was the called de-naturalization law

https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/psup/pir/article/1/2/392/390094/The-Denationalization-of-Iraqi-Jews-The-Legal-and

Iraq at the time was also under British mandate, it wasn’t an independent state.

The British mandate ended in 1932. Again, you keep spreading misinformation that can easily be fact checked with a single 10 second google search.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Iraq

I suggest reading what Avi Shlaim

He was born in 1945, the farhud happened in 1941. I know for a fact you didn’t read his memoir and you have no idea who this guy is. It doesn’t take an acadmic to figure that the article you posted is propaganda that bastardized his work. First of all, his memoir, Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew, mainly talks about the events AFTER 1948 when Israel was established and he talks about how he and his family were forced to migrate to Israel 1951 (He was 6 at the time). He states that during this time, Mossad was did a bunch of operations that tried to force Jews to migrate to Israel, and if you actually scroll up and read, you’ll see that I have mentioned all of these details.

The Nazis sure, but the Arab Muslims? That’s an ignorant take.

Don’t call something ignorant when you have no idea what you’re talking about. This isn’t some hidden secret or some controversial opinion, it’s literally fact. You can scroll through this list or the lists that continue it and find hundreds of examples of the Arab muslim world trying to get rid of Jews:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_antisemitism

This is also relevant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world#Arab_world_perceptions_of_Hitler_and_Nazism

You ignore 1500 years of Jewish history in the Arab and Muslim world and the influential role they played. And instead claim Muslims wanted to exterminate Jews based on violence that happened in reaction to Zionism

That’s precisely the issue, you’re ignoring 1400 (that’s how old islam is) of history for a bullshit narrative that’s not based in reality. This is a good example of that. The Farhud in Baghdad had NOTHING to do with zionism. You’re such a dunce that you cannot comprehend that antisemtism in the muslim world has existed LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG before the creation of Israel, and I literally gave you an example with the farhud. You’re not willing to accept the reality. If you think antisemtism in the muslim world started as a reaction to zionism, then your understand of this region is nonexistent.

European Jewish migration to Palestine started before WW2. Zionist violence against Palestinians was already a common occurrence in the 1930s. Zionists were already trying to lure Arab Jews to Palestine before the end of WW2.

I already covered this, so I’m going to move on to the next thing.

How does that justify the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestine? Palestinians had no say in the matter. Palestinians don’t owe Jewish people reparations for what happened to them in Egypt, Iraq or elsewhere.

The entire point why I brought these people up is to showcase how these people are victims who ended up in Israel as a product of circumstance that was beyond their control. They weren’t there for “reparations” or as voluntary “colonialists” as your narrative likes to portray. This is like saying the Vietnamese refugees who fled to the US in the 70s and 80s after Vietnam’s neighboring countries kicked them out, only went to North America to colonize the Native Americans. It’s just an ignorant take on something that’s clearly more complex.

Arabs aren’t some generic people. If you were from Iraq, you should know that Iraq on its own is diverse with different factions with varying and conflicting interests.

Yes and no. You are correct in the sense that Arab culture is diverse and the ethnic groups that were Arabized through islamic imperialist conquest still remain distinct. However, Arab is still an ethnicity itself. It’s important to understand that despite the diversity, Arabs still view themselves as one. This is less true today because we’ve had around a century of Arabic states being independent, but after WWI, this was very much the case. Arabs back then didn’t see themselves as Saudi, Iraqi, or Syrian, etc. They thought of these new states as fake and they just saw themselves as Arabs in the Arab nation. It’s not inaccurate to talk about Arabs as a cohesive group, especially during the time period we’re discussing, because they did think and act as one nation.

Palestine isn’t Iraq. What happened in Iraq doesn’t justify what’s happening in Palestine, even if you insist that the attacks weren’t false flags, which they were.

You’re right in the first half, but you’re still missing the point in the second. It doesn’t matter if they were false flags, real flags, or no flags. What matters is that these events happened, and as a result of them, innocent people who done absolutely nothing wrong ended up in Israel by no fault of their own. What happened to the Palestinians during the Nakba was wrong, but what happened to the Jews in rest of Palestine and the muslim world at large was also wrong. These people and their descendants who are in Israel today deserve to be there as much as Palestinians deserve to be there. That’s why this conflict isn’t black and white.

In the conflict between Israel and Palestine. there’s an aggressor and a victim. A colonizer and a colonized. What happened to Jews in Europe or other countries is not relevant and doesn’t justify the crimes and genocide they inflicted upon Palestinians.

And this framing is wrong. It might be true today in the West Bank, it might be true back when Zionism was still only a movement, but from that point until today so much has happened that makes this narrative a gross misrepresentation of history. I’ll give you an example to demonstrate how using oversimplified revisionist narratives is bullshit. Anatolia for most of history was split between Armenians in the east and Greeks in the West. Then the Turks came in from central Asia and they committed a bunch genocides, colonized Anatolia, and became what is today Turkey. Turkey has yet to stop it’s colonization and genocidal efforts, and the effects of o all these events (past and present) can still be felt today.

Yet despite this, so much has happened in Turkey’s history that trying to boil it down to “Turkey bad” where the aggressor and the colonizer and Greece, Armenia, Kurdistan, etc are victims and the colonized is just ignorant. It ignores all the wars waged on by Greece or the Kurds or Armenia or the persecutions the Turks faced or the people who were forced to seek refugee in Turkey like Circassians and Tatars. It also ignores the fact that the Turks have been there for generations or that the people and government are not the same thing even if a portion of society supports the government. It doesn’t justify Turkey’s past or present atrocities, nor does it justify the atrocities against it, but you can’t operate from a narrative driven framework that’s not based in reality. The same applies here.

he is far more qualified than someone who parrots Zionist propaganda and historical revisionism.

History is not zionist propaganda. Though I suppose to someone who consumes nothing but propaganda such as yourself, actual history does seem like revisionist propaganda. Regardless, everything that I have said can easily be verified and sourced. If I forgot to source something, then just show me the claim and I’ll provide a source.

I recommend you read and watch what Avi Shlaim has to say about it. As an Iraqi Jew who has lived through that turbulent time

He literally hasn’t… how can he possibly experience an event when he wasn’t even born? Here’s a real account from an Iraqi Jew that did actually live through event:

https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2021/03/22/the-farhud-massacre-and-the-jews-of-baghdad-through-the-eyes-of-a-child-survivor-march-23/

Your argument seems to be that the Hadith is totally irrelevant. Hamas and the person you’re replying to seem to think otherwise. Maybe it isn’t irrelevant just because it isn’t in the Quran and has a passage about shouty trees in it? Religions are hardly consistent, especially at the fringes.

And fuck him, all I am saying is that the history that led up today is more complex than you people are making it out to be. From Israel’s foundation until today, there is a lot that happened that wasn’t foreseen by this guy or anybody. It’s like how the US was founded similar principles but ended up being something that’s vastly different from it’s founders imagined, the same goes for other places like Turkey or New Zealand or Brazil or even Palestine. You can’t boil down one of the world’s oldest regions with the richest history during one it’s most turbulent times to a narrative made by western activists who boil down everything to “this side good that side bad lol”, that’s ignorance.

And I’ll say it again, you’re not speaking history, you’re speaking narrative and ideology. You don’t seem to understand that it doesn’t matter what the founding ideology is, what matters is what actually happened. The fact that you think you can boil this conflict down to “good vs bad” shows that your ignorance on the subject. There are a lot of conflicts in history that could be that simple, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a good example, but this is not one of those conflicts.

History is meant to be something that’s factual, because you’re retelling what happened. You’re not supposed to be taking sides and digest information from the perspective of a side, that defeats the whole purpose of being objective.

I’ll give you an example, during the 20th century, around 1 million Jews in the muslim world were forced out from their countries for no other reason than being Jewish. These people didn’t do anything wrong, they had nothing to do with the creation of Israel but they found themselves stripped of their property, communities (some of which are thousands of years old) and were forced to go there as that was the only place that would accept them. These people are as much victims as the victims of the Nakba, except this was even larger in scale… yet people like you don’t even acknowledge it’s existence.

Here’s another example, before the creation of Israel and Palestine, the British Mandate had a population of around 750k in the 1920s, and around 10% of those were Jewish. Those Jews were very religious, as opposed to many zionist Jews that migrated there. These Jews were vocal against the creation of Israel, but they became citizens anyway when Israel was established. Those Jews also happen to be from sects that have consistently had the highest birthrates over the decades, and so their descendants today can trace their roots back for thousands of years having never left the region. These people clearly don’t fit the narrative you are trying to paint, but again, you don’t acknowledge their existence.

Here’s yet another example, the Palestinian national identity formed around in the 1920s and 1930s, around the same time the Israeli national identity formed, and both became official after the 1947 partition plan. Prior to the British Mandate, there was no such thing as a Palestinian nation. The term “Palestine” was a colloquial one that loosely referred to the region that made up the “holy land”. The borders and identity that we associate with Palestine today didn’t exist during the Ottoman period, these are literally British inventions. The region was divided differently and the people there saw themselves differently. The region was filled with Turks, Jews, Christians, Arabs, and bunch of other ethnic and religious groups. They all saw themselves as natives to the region and they primarily identified with their ethnic/religious group first and then as Ottoman second. The same applies to Mamluks before the Ottoman Empire. In this case, the Arabs in the region saw themselves as a part of al bilad al sham (the Levant or greater Syria) which was a part of al ummah al arrabiya (the Arab nation). This is because until the British and the French drew random borders, the Arab world saw itself as a single nation. When people talk about the native nation of Palestine, they have no idea what they’re talking about.

I could keep going, but you get the idea. Like I said, it doesn’t matter how something was intended to happen, what matters was what actually happened. These are all events things that were not foreseen by Zionist philosophers living in god knows where. This is precisely why you can’t develop narratives based on narratives, what you will end up with is a distorted image of reality. I agree with you that what the Israeli government today is doing in Gaza and the West Bank is reprehensible and I agree with you that Zionist philosophers were pro-colonialism, but what I am saying is that only using these two points of the regions history or using a single perspective (especially a biased one) will blind to everything else that happened.

If you would like something to read, a good and free place to start would be this chapter of israeli historian Avi Shlaim’s book “Genocide in Gaza: Israel’s Long War on Palestine”, which is publicly available right here.

Some relevant excerpts about Jabotinsky specifically:

The Zionist mainstream settled on Palestine as the location of this state because of the territory’s resonance in Jewish history and culture. How large should the state be, what should be its character, how could it be realised – such questions provoked heated controversies within the Zionist movement. But almost the full spectrum of Zionist opinion cohered around the essential goal of establishing a state in Palestine populated by an overwhelming Jewish demographic majority.

This objective almost inevitably provoked conflict in Palestine between Zionist newcomers and the territory’s existing inhabitants, who were overwhelmingly not Jewish. Palestinian Arabs had no political stake in an endeavour that sought, as the leading Zionist diplomat Chaim Weizmann put it, to render Palestine “as Jewish as England is English”. On the contrary, Palestinians reasonably feared that Zionism could succeed only by dispossessing them of house and homeland. Palestinian opposition to Zionism was therefore as comprehensive as it was consistent. This fundamental clash of interests was spotlighted by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the ever-candid leader of Revisionist Zionism. In his seminal 1923 article, “The Iron Wall”, Jabotinsky argued that Palestinians would never “voluntarily consent to the realisation of Zionism” because “every native population in the world resists colonists”. This meant “Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population” behind “a power that is independent” of them. Zionism for many Jews was a movement for collective assertion as well as defence through national self-determination. Zionism for Palestinians was a violent colonial imposition.

and later

As Jabotinsky prophesied, expanding Jewish settlement frequently provoked Palestinian opposition as well as resistance. Such opposition was typically overruled by means of discriminatory administration while resistance was suppressed by force. In the Mandate period, the Zionist leadership rejected the democratic principle of majority rule in Palestine so long as Jews comprised a minority, on the correct assumption that an Arab electoral majority would vote to end Jewish immigration and settlement. Between 1936 and 1939, British armed forces along with Jewish paramilitaries viciously crushed a Palestinian national revolt. After the 1948 War, Israel subjected some 90 percent of its Arab citizens to military rule. This emergency regime facilitated the destruction of Arab property and expropriation of Arab land until it was lifted in 1966, by which time the state’s demographic objectives within the Green Line had been substantially accomplished. The pattern repeated in the OPT from the following year. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have lived under Israeli military rule since 1967: three-quarters of Israel’s lifespan as a state. The occupation has been enforced through harsh repression including deportation, arbitrary detention, collective punishment, and unlawful killings. By one estimate, Israel jailed more than 800,000 Palestinians from the OPT between 1967 and 2016; those detained were “routinely subjected to torture”.

Fuck off.

I’m sorry that I offended you. I was genuinely trying to be helpful in pointing out how what you said could be misconstrued.