[Pants-of-dog]

Did they form the majority of the population, or did they have their own national government?

No, but others did, and these subsequent systems also had effects that negated or superseded effects from the Roman era, culminating in the one change that does have an impact on today: the beginnings of Zionism.

[wat0n]

We can also say the same about the First Nations in Canada, can't we?

It seems like an arbitrary distinction, one to be used when @Pants-of-dog finds it convenient.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, all those groups that came after Canada over the last few thousand years and dismantled the Canadian government long ago.

————-

Back in the real world:

Other than causing the initial diaspora, it is difficult to draw a causative link between Roman times and the current conflict. Things like the Ottoman Empire, European imperialism, the USA closing its doors to Jews, the Balfour Declaration, and traditional European antisemitism all have far more impact and whose historical effects are far more clear and significant.

[Potemkin]

Yes, all those groups that came after Canada over the last few thousand years and dismantled the Canadian government long ago.

————-

Back in the real world:

Other than causing the initial diaspora, it is difficult to draw a causative link between Roman times and the current conflict. Things like the Ottoman Empire, European imperialism, the USA closing its doors to Jews, the Balfour Declaration, and traditional European antisemitism all have far more impact and whose historical effects are far more clear and significant.

If the Romans had not expelled the Jews from Judea, renamed the entire country ‘Palestine’, and repopulated it with their own colonists, then there would never have been any such thing as Zionism, and indeed the Palestinian people themselves would likely not exist. That’s rather a significant effect, wouldn’t you say, @Pants-of-dog?

[Pants-of-dog]

If the Romans had not expelled the Jews from Judea, renamed the entire country ‘Palestine’, and repopulated it with their own colonists, then there would never have been any such thing as Zionism, and indeed the Palestinian people themselves would likely not exist. That’s rather a significant effect, wouldn’t you say, @Pants-of-dog?

No, I disagree.

Zionism could easily have come along through a slightly different method. It could even have existed if enough Jews emigrated from a hypothetical Israel where Jews were never a minority.

Nor does the Romans naming it Palestine have any relevance. If the Israelis had ended up calling their country Palestine, the population of locals dealing with settler colonialism would just have chosen another name.

I accept that this act created an initial condition, but other factors since then have had effects that were more significant.

[Potemkin]

No, I disagree.

Zionism could easily have come along through a slightly different method. It could even have existed if enough Jews emigrated from a hypothetical Israel where Jews were never a minority.

Nor does the Romans naming it Palestine have any relevance. If the Israelis had ended up calling their country Palestine, the population of locals dealing with settler colonialism would just have chosen another name.

I accept that this act created an initial condition, but other factors since then have had effects that were more significant.

Okay, so you’ve finally accepted that the Romans started the whole thing. And calling it “created an initial condition” is something of an understatement. It was ethnic cleansing on a massive scale. Zionism was created specifically to reverse that “initial condition”, which of course would also involve ethnic cleansing on a massive scale.

[Verv]

If the Romans had not expelled the Jews from Judea, renamed the entire country ‘Palestine’, and repopulated it with their own colonists, then there would never have been any such thing as Zionism, and indeed the Palestinian people themselves would likely not exist. That’s rather a significant effect, wouldn’t you say, @Pants-of-dog?

I'd argue that they would exist but would likely be referred to as Gazans.

The West Bank Palestinians theoretically have enough lapover with Jordanians to be Jordanians, but even then, I balk at it. They may feel greater kinship to Gazans and treat their familial and ethnic identity as revolving around Jerusalem, and I would not be surprised to hear that their speech patterns could also be reflective of that...

"of Gaza," "the Gazan," etc. were popular enough identifiers for a while.

The Sinai Desert is significant a natural barrier to ensure their uniqueness.

... I've never heard it postulated that these people would also be Lebanese.

[Pants-of-dog]

Okay, so you’ve finally accepted that the Romans started the whole thing. And calling it “created an initial condition” is something of an understatement. It was ethnic cleansing on a massive scale. Zionism was created specifically to reverse that “initial condition”, which of course would also involve ethnic cleansing on a massive scale.

I have mentioned that Rome caused the initial diaspora several times. And it should also be noted that during the Byzantine era and during parts of Arab occupation, Jews were free to travel back to Palestine. So the question seems to become: why did Zionism not become a significant demographic until shortly after WWI?

Zionism was created for many reasons that are more significant and more closely related in time and through the causal chain than the Roman occupation.

For example, US immigration policy in 1924 greatly reduced Jewish immigration to the USA and thereby greatly increased immigration to Palestine. This was one of the main reasons that Zionism was successful at the time.

[Tailz]

The destruction reminds me of the Six-Day War when Israeli forces captured towns and villages. A lot of infrastructure and housing were destroyed to create a situation where refugees after the conflict would not return because there was nothing to return to.

BBC News: Half of Gaza water sites damaged or destroyed, BBC satellite data reveals

BBC News: At least half of Gaza's buildings damaged or destroyed, new analysis shows

Meanwhile, on the Egyptian side of the border, are they prepping an area to become a giant refugee camp?
BBC News: Israel Gaza war: Satellite images show construction on Egypt's border

On the other side of the fence, Israeli ministers have attended a conference calling for the ‘voluntary migration’ of Palestinians...
Haaretz: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-28/ty-article/ministers-from-netanyahus-party-join-thousands-of-israelis-at-resettle-gaza-conference/0000018d-512f-dfdc-a5ad-db7f35e10000

[Tailz]

I have mentioned that Rome caused the initial diaspora several times. And it should also be noted that during the Byzantine era and during parts of Arab occupation, Jews were free to travel back to Palestine. So the question seems to become: why did Zionism not become a significant demographic until shortly after WWI?

The Romans created the diaspora situation, but the diaspora population didn't really invest in their return over the hundreds of years - and countless persecutions around the world - to return to Palestine/israel until the 1930's with the advent of Zionism. The reasons why, I suspect as manyfold, the cost of travelling such distances in an age before planes, trains, and automobiles. Communication to rally the masses of the diaspora population - and most importantly - the diverging interests and opinions of various diaspora groups which I doubt all saw eye to eye on a range of subjects.

Certainly, there were waves of immigration by select communities, but never the whole as happened under Zionism - which I suspect could only have occurred because of such an existential threat (the Nazis) and mass communication to get the message out.

Wiki: Aliyah

However, conflict is always inevitable when an immigrant population seeks to displace an established population.

Zionism was created for many reasons that are more significant and more closely related in time and through the causal chain than the Roman occupation.

For example, US immigration policy in 1924 greatly reduced Jewish immigration to the USA and thereby greatly increased immigration to Palestine. This was one of the main reasons that Zionism was successful at the time.

If I remember my history, during the Second World War the World Zionist Congress lobbied the US and UK governments to reduce Jewish immigration from Europe to the US and UK to redirect it to Palestine in order to bulk up the Jewish population.

[wat0n]

The Romans created the diaspora situation, but the diaspora population didn't really invest in their return over the hundreds of years - and countless persecutions around the world - to return to Palestine/israel until the 1930's with the advent of Zionism. The reasons why, I suspect as manyfold, the cost of travelling such distances in an age before planes, trains, and automobiles. Communication to rally the masses of the diaspora population - and most importantly - the diverging interests and opinions of various diaspora groups which I doubt all saw eye to eye on a range of subjects.

Certainly, there were waves of immigration by select communities, but never the whole as happened under Zionism - which I suspect could only have occurred because of such an existential threat (the Nazis) and mass communication to get the message out.

Wiki: Aliyah

There was Jewish immigration, at lower levels than in the 1930s for obvious technological reasons, throughout the Middle Ages and Ottoman rule. Furthermore, the diaspora communities also donated to the Jewish communities in the region throughout that time.

That connection was always there, even if Jews were too militarily weak to actually get a state.

However, conflict is always inevitable when an immigrant population seeks to displace an established population.

Or when a diaspora returns.

If I remember my history, during the Second World War the World Zionist Congress lobbied the US and UK governments to reduce Jewish immigration from Europe to the US and UK to redirect it to Palestine in order to bulk up the Jewish population.

This was decided at the Évian conference in 1938, in which Jewish communities - Zionist or not - were just ignored. Even the Jewish Agency was only there as an observer only.

[wat0n]

So Biden just threatened to withhold further arms deliveries if Israel moves onto Rafah without a credible evacuation plan. Right now, Israel seems to be taking control of the Gaza-Egypt border and encircling Rafah.

Stupid call electorally but probably the right call as far as American and even Israeli long term interests, not to mention the interests of Gazan civilians. I don't find it that surprising, and this is Biden's "Reassessment Memo" moment.

[Pants-of-dog]

Conflict is not inevitable when a diaspora returns.

Many countries have had diasporas, and later had peaceful returns. Even Palestine is an example of this prior to Zionism, when returning Jews were able to live there peacefully.

[wat0n]

...Except when they would be massacred/plundered periodically whenever there was political upheaval (even if they didn't take any sides). But sure, if they accepted this inferior status in what was arguably their ancestral lands, they would live peacefully according to the dominant group.

[Rich]

Okay, so you’ve finally accepted that the Romans started the whole thing.

But they didn't. You've can't deny it the Jews sure are good at selling the big lie.

Look I'm no expert on Jewish history, but I know there were huge diaspora communities long before Bar Kokhba. As I say I'm not an expert so I can't say anything definitive but the Jews of Palestine may well have been a minority of the Jews in the world, before Herod's ass so much as touched the Judean throne. Judaism as we know it really begins with Josiah. He centralised the religion, tore down the high places. This was when the Deuteronomic law was created and the Deuteronomic history written. However Judaism was a total failure as a native religion.

Judaism was an aggressive, racist, genocidal, expansionist, militarist religion. Well what's wrong with that? The problem was that Judea was a tiny backwards shithole of a state that seemed to think it was a super power. They just kept losing. To the Babylonians, to Alexander, to the Seleucids and then twice to the Romans. When Jews had wise leaders and allied themselves with a great power they did well, but their God Yahweh had serious delusions of grandeur. Their God Yahweh, a celestial nobody seemed to think he was the creator of the universe. The Judeans were the ancient version of the Islamic State. Fanatical millenarism is all very well, but needs to be tempered with some level of realism, or it will all end in tears.

But while Judaism failed as a native religion, it proved absolutely brilliant as a diaspora religion. Its uncompromising separatism and superiorism stopped it from being assimilated. Its extreme racist superiorism, its emphasis on health and discipline of the individual, the loyalty of the individual to the Jewish community, but above all else its strong emphasis on literacy and the cultivation of the intellect allowed Jews to occupy a huge share of the non manual middle class positions in Ancient / Medieval societies. Under Christianity and Islam, where thinking for one self was a crime punishable by death, it thrived even better.

[Pants-of-dog]

...Except when they would be massacred/plundered periodically whenever there was political upheaval (even if they didn't take any sides). But sure, if they accepted this inferior status in what was arguably their ancestral lands, they would live peacefully according to the dominant group.

Yes, that also happened. But that was not due to a returning diaspora. That was due to tribalism, antisemitism, ongoing wars, and all the other violence associated with that era in history.

———————

In the modern era, tens of thousands have had to flee Rafah, many of whom have gone to places like Khan Younis, despite the lack of any necessary infrastructure.

The lack of bombings and shootings is the main draw.

[wat0n]

Yes, that also happened. But that was not due to a returning diaspora. That was due to tribalism, antisemitism, ongoing wars, and all the other violence associated with that era in history.

This doesn't help your case at all. Also, was this a result of settler colonialism?

[Pants-of-dog]

This doesn't help your case at all.

It shows that the Roman imposed diaspora was impermanent and was negated to a degree by layer events. And these later events were negated by ones that came even later. Often these superseding events were a reaction to previous events, and sometimes they were reactions to things outside Palestine.

Also, was this a result of settler colonialism?

I do not know. Was it?

------------

With the invasion of Rafah, the IDF and Israeli government show that they are not interested in a ceasefire nor are they interested in getting hostages back, since both of these objectives will be much harder to achieve with the invasion of Rafah.

As for the eradication of Hamas, the 80 000 who have fled probably included many militants, thereby assuring that Hamas was not defeated by this invasion.

[wat0n]

It shows that the Roman imposed diaspora was impermanent and was negated to a degree by layer events. And these later events were negated by ones that came even later. Often these superseding events were a reaction to previous events, and sometimes they were reactions to things outside Palestine.

"To a degree"? That negated the Jews their self-government, even as a vassal. This is like saying that the expulsion of Native Americans from places like Georgia was not important for those peoples, because they can always stay in the reservations or move back to Georgia with the difference that, even in their case, they can still vote and are legally equal to other Americans. Yet in this case, you still insist in the "settler colonialism" stuff.

I do not know. Was it?

Based on your standards, it should be.

With the invasion of Rafah, the IDF and Israeli government show that they are not interested in a ceasefire nor are they interested in getting hostages back, since both of these objectives will be much harder to achieve with the invasion of Rafah.

How so? Hamas only agreed to releasing hostages "dead or alive", so they may as well execute them and then release them.

As for the eradication of Hamas, the 80 000 who have fled probably included many militants, thereby assuring that Hamas was not defeated by this invasion.

Yet the inability to hold their last major fixed position would make it a lot harder for Hamas to recover. This is like saying ISIS was not defeated just because there are still some cells operating, even though they lost their ability to rule. Making it impossible for Hamas to rule Gaza is exactly how defeat looks like.

Having said that, as long as Netanyahu refuses to hold territory and come up with a post-war arrangement, Hamas will have the possibility of ruling again. It seems Netanyahu and the Israeli right do not want to win, even if they don't want to lose either.

[Pants-of-dog]

The goal was not to defeat Hamas but to eradicate Hamas. This is not any closer with this invasion.