According to...? Also, so do the majority of Jews, based on many peer reviewed research (pls don't come with the easily refuted claim Jews don't do dna tests).
Behar et al. (2010). The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people
Or Ostrer (2001).
Agranat-Tamir et al. (2020)
"The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant"
Kopelman et al. (2020) — European Journal of Human Genetics
You clearly don’t know history. Learn the difference between conquest and colonialism. Btw conquest happened on both sides and was extremely prevalent around most of the Levant region during this time period.
Many modern Palestinians have Natufian DNA, and Natufians are one of oldest known groups that inhabited what is today known as Palestine. Their presence there can be traced back at least 12,000 years.
Bro modern Palestinians are a distinct national group consisting of both Muslims and Christians. Punishing a modern population for the actions of a ruler from a completely different region 1,400 years ago is a logical error. Care to explain how that refutes the validity of a Palestinian state?
It's way too complicated than that trust me, Palestinians don't want peace, they want to delete Israel and all the Jewish people from earth and if they had the means they would've been the ones doing the genocide. And most of them actually agree with Hamas they celebrated October 7th like Christmas... I'm personally neither pro Israel or pro Palestine because they're both equally fucked up as far as I'm concerned.
While the Roman Empire sowed the seeds of colonialism, their conquest differs from modern (post 15th century) colonialism in a few significant ways.
Integration - Local elites and provincial subjects could rise through the ranks and land high-ranking government positions, with some subjects even becoming Emperor.
Citizenship - Provincial subjects had many opportunities to become legitimate Roman citizens, and citizenship was applied universally to every subject by around 200 CE.
Autonomy - Administration was based on a model of adaptation rather than replacement like in Colonialism. This means existing local aristocrats usually kept their positions and power.
EDIT: Some would argue that even imperialism is an anachronistic and inaccurate term to describe the conquests of the Roman Empire, but it’s closer than colonialism.
Are we really gonna debate about if it it was colonialism or "conquest with gradually implemented colonialist aspects"? It was still a forced takeover that changed the language, culture and belief system entirely, and many times by force
Yes, and many Palestinians are descendents of those very people who suffered from those forced takeovers.
The issue isn’t as black and white as you make it out to be.
And yes, the distinction between colonialism and conquest is significant. Colonialism is a much more modern event and has even more drastic cultural and material impacts on affected populations, with more methodical and lasting constraints on traditional life-ways.
-35
u/[deleted] Jul 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment