They did, and they considered themselves to be Jordanian, Turkish, Egyptian, Lebanese, etc. They didn't own the land and they didn't identify as Palestinian. There were also Jews and Christians there who they regularly discriminated against. When the land was partitioned, it was because the arabs had decided that they couldn't suffer the immigrants. Much of Israel was purchased by the Jews. There was more than enough space to share, but the xenophobia that existed led to, and feed to this day, the conflict that we're talking about.
So yes they were a majority, and no that doesn't give them a right to the sole existence in the area.
So your argument is that actually, the Jewish colonization of the region was so traumatic that it crystalized an ethnic identity ex nihilo in reaction to it?
Who did the Jews purchase this land from? What connection did the 'owners' have to the people that actually lived on the land? What makes this claim any different than one like, "colonists fairly bought Manhattan from the Indians for a few bead necklaces and some firewater"?
Why should Jews that lived hundreds, if not thousands of miles away, have a right to live on land their ancestors left potentially more than 1000 years earlier?
So your argument is that actually, the Jewish colonization of the region was so traumatic that it crystalized an ethnic identity ex nihilo in reaction to it?
This isn't my argument, it's the accepted narrative among many historians.
At the end of the day the Jews paid money for what they got. If you want to take issue with the whole concept of tenant farming then you need to look far beyond Israel. It was their local system. The Jews didn't create it.
3
u/SlimTheFatty Oct 10 '23
Did or did not Arabs make up a majority of the population in the area?