alt Hacker NewsThis part https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
Edit: Sorry, I can't reply to your comment below, for some reason.
This part,
> Did you know that Jews lived among Muslims for over a thousand years in peace?
is revisionist because it paints second-class status for Jews as "peace". This is ridiculous, a fiction akin to "separate but equal" without even the pretense of equality.
Additionally,
> The violence started happening when the Zionists wanted the land for themselves, exclusive of the indigenous population (1948 nakba).
Is ahistorical. There have been small but continuous Jewish settlements in the region since antiquity, Jews are indigenous. Further, Zionist immigration started earlier than 1948, as early as the late 1800s, and finally, Arabs fled Israel to avoid the incoming invasion from Arab Muslim nations who, for bigoted reasons, could not tolerate a Jewish state.
Replies
who gave the jews a state? people think it was britain but britain agreed to the balfour declaration, an agreement made between zionist bankers and the british state which involved upholding the rights of the indigenous arab population and which did not involve the creation of a jewish state. how do you think jews got their state regardless? did britain change their mind and decide to give jews more than they agreed to give them?
in historical jewish states, how did they treat the people they conquered? not to mention, most jews in the muslim world lived well outside of their homeland in palestine, and that's not because the muslims pushed them out, they were there before the muslims conquered, and many times they helped the muslims conquer because they would rather have lived under muslim rule than christian rule.
It’s not clear what "revisionist" means in this context, especially when pointing to Dhimmi.
I’ve never heard of it before today. I’m aware that Jews and Muslims live in Iran today. There is historical evidence, including written accounts, that some arrangement (Dhimmi?) existed over 1,200 years ago—whether social, legal, cultural, or, most likely, a combination. Under this system, the religions coexisted without the overtones of genocide within their communities.
> is revisionist because it paints second-class status for Jews as "peace". This is ridiculous, a fiction akin to "separate but equal" without even the pretense of equality.
Let's agree for a moment that there was intense bigotry and prejudice, as I'm very sure there was some amount. As we can also agree, there is human tribalism alive and well to this day between people of minimal or great differences.
Separate but equal is not enslavement or extermination. Dhimmi was the basis for peace, not equality, and I haven't found a compelling alternative narrative.
> > The violence started happening when the Zionists wanted the land for themselves, exclusive of the indigenous population (1948 nakba).
> Is ahistorical.
While I can appreciate what you're trying to say here, the post you are responding to was describing a situation within the context of the Zionist state movement of the mid 1900s. The fact that there have always been Jewish settlements throughout the historical Levant (and beyond) is incidental. Neither of these points are without merit. I'm not sure arguing past each other about who deserves what is constructive.