Anonymous #2 9w

Yea, the term got popular thanks to nazis using it to make it sound like Jews in Europe werent European, now Zionists use it to reinforce their claims to Palestine by emphasizing that they speak a semitic language, even though pretty much everyone in the region speaks a semitic language, which again would mean that under the original definition they themselves could be considered anti semitic

1

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous OP 9w

I think it’s most proper to use the word anti-semitism to refer to anti-Jewish bigotry, as that is the context in which the word became most widely used, and it is what the word means today. It’s just how we refer to the concept of anti-Jewish bigotry. Vulgar originally just meant “belonging to the common people,” but the meaning has changed. It means something else now. It is not defined by its original use.

4

Arabic and ancient Hebrew evolved from a common ancestor language, neither is really “older” than the other, that’s not how languages work. Modern vernacular Hebrew is partly an artificially constructed language, so those elements are newer, but both language cores are equally ancient.

1

The word Palestine does not date back to the Romans. The romans were drawing on an earlier Greek naming tradition. The Greek world had been calling the Levant Palestine for several centuries by that point, having named it after the Philistines. The Romans were deliberately renaming it after the genocide of the Jews, but the word Palestine has very ancient origins in the Peleset/Philistines.

1

Anonymous #2 9w

There is a very common misconception that attempts to portray Palestinians as “colonizers” who displaced the Jews in ancient times. This is incorrect, as Palestinians are predominantly local peoples (Jews, Canaanites, Samaritans, Nabateans), who adopted Greek and then Arabic religion and culture. And frankly I don’t understand what many white Americans are doing when they perpetuate the claim that “if you’re descended from colonizers it’s okay to ethnically cleanse you.” Like…do they not know?

4

Comment Deleted

0

Are modern Irish people themselves colonizers because they adopted English and Christianity, the language and faith of colonizing powers? Does Wales have the right to invade and ethnically cleanse England because of the past Anglo-Saxon conquest and the assimilation of native Britons? Also of course you had to add in some great replacement slop bs in there

6

Anonymous #2 9w

The native people were not replaced. The genetics are clear on that. They adopted Christianity under the Byzantines (particularly rapidly following the Byzantine genocide of the Samaritans), and then adopted Arabic and Islam. Were these conquests justified? Of course not. But the local people did not disappear entirely. And even if they had, is ethnic cleansing justified by ancient atrocities? You’re an American, presumably. I have a feeling you don’t want that idea applied to yourself.

3

Israel was used to describe one tribe among many Canaanite peoples in the region. Actually our earliest records for Israel and the Philistines come from Egyptian sources within a century or two from each other, though evidence suggests the philistines probably arrived from the Aegean while the Israelites were local.

4

Anonymous #2 9w

It’s just that the state of Judea, following the destruction of Israel and the end of the Babylonian exile, expanded significantly and forcibly assimilated many neighboring Canaanite groups, making them adopt Jewish culture, religion, and language (sound familiar?)

3