• Naevermix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Was there even a conflict in the beginning of the 18th century? As far as I’m aware, the current conflict has it’s roots in the British takeover after WW1.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Was there even a conflict in the beginning of the 18th century?

        Nope.

        As far as I’m aware, the current conflict has it’s roots in the British takeover after WW1.

        Zionists had been making moves since the start of the 20th century, mostly buying land from absentee landlords and expelling the inhabitants, but yeah their program only really got going after the British takeover.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Depends on the conflict (most relevantly the Arab-Jew beef is a 20th century thing), but also: Conflict doesn’t have to lead to tyranny or violence; it can be and in many places is resolved peacefully or mostly peacefully. There was no need or inevitability for people like Saddam or Assad to take power for example; that was America’s doing.

      • SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        You must mean the British and French who took control from the Ottomans. America had very little to do with it until much later.

        • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Both the Syrian and Iraqi dictatorships took power in American-backed coups. Before that they were democracies with varying degrees of political upheaval.