No. of Recommendations: 4
Your disavowal of the term "colonizers" for the Jews that moved to modern day Israel is a distinction without a difference. Use any term you like, but people with a perceived religious link to the area moved to the area and displaced tens of thousands forcibly to make room for themselves.Again, that's false and flattens the history of the area. Many of the Jews that moved to the area, inarguably the ones that moved there from the 1880's through 1914, just
legally moved there. It was no different than what we see with any other legal immigrant flows. During the Ottoman years, Jews were simply allowed to move to the area - they weren't driving anyone out, just adding to the population growth in the region.
Prior to the mass immigrations post WW11, there was relative harmony in the area with no real ethnic or religious tension.That's just....
staggeringly wrong. I mean - just
incredibly wrong. The area was in a constant state of conflict just shy of open warfare, starting almost immediately after the beginning of the Mandate in 1920, even before the British were assigned it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercommunal_confli...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tel_Haihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riotshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riotshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Ar...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_insurgency_in...There was
massive ethnic and religious tension, because the Sykes-Picot powers had made mutually inconsistent and irreconcilable promises to both the Jews and various Arab groups that they would have their own countries in exchange for their help during WWI. The whole region was inflamed in the aftermath of the end of the Empire and the revelation of Sykes-Picot and the Balfour Declaration.
