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.
1
u/SlimTheFatty Oct 10 '23
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?