May 26, 2021Liked by But What For?

I think your description of Israel under Roman control leaves out a few key factors - in establishing that existence of ancient (Jewish) Israel does not justify a claim to the modern land, you leave out a series of important events, namely the Jewish-Roman wars and their aftermath.

Though only temporarily successful, they led the Roman empire to begin an anti-Semitic project of disconnecting the Jewish culture from the land itself. They renamed Judeah to Syria Palestina, expelled Jews from Jerusalem (and renamed it Aelia Capitolina), barred their entry into Jerusalem, and instituted the Fiscus Judaicus.

These efforts represent a determined anti-Semitic project on the part of the Romans, incensed by the revolts, to remove the Jewish culture from the region. The demographic change was actually quite intentionally anti-Semitic even in ancient times.

The assertion that, since there was still an ethnic majority under Roman rule, glides over this topic, despite that it's very relevant to understanding how the region stopped being 'Jewish'. This was the original goal of the Romans, to remove the Jewish identity of the region, which is now used by critics as Israel as justification of its lack of legitimacy.

By this same logic, one might imagine that 1000 years from now, a hypothetical native American country in Massachusetts would also be considered an 'illegitimate state' as long as Caucasians continue to occupy it long enough.





Expand full comment