I don't believe it's incidental that there have always been Jewish settlements, it's exactly the point: Muslims were fine with Jewish settlements so long as the Jews were subservient to a ruling Muslim power, but Jewish self-determination was intolerable.
I do agree that arguing about who deserves what is not constructive. 1948 was 78 years ago, there are ~10 million Israelis, and the country has nukes. The historical perspective is not very helpful here.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Individual Jews held prestigious positions in Europe as well. So what?
> Btw, as a native Arabic speaker, I find it extremely interesting how you’re using ‘dhimma’ to mean servitude, when it literally means those who were given an oath to be protected.
Yes, the literal and practical meanings differ. And of course, relying on others for protection leaves you at their mercy and locks you into a position of submission towards your "protector". Avoiding that reliance is perhaps the primary purpose of Israel.
Let's agree for a moment that there was intense bigotry and prejudice, as I'm very sure there was some amount. As we can also agree, there is human tribalism alive and well to this day between people of minimal or great differences.
Separate but equal is not enslavement or extermination. Dhimmi was the basis for peace, not equality, and I haven't found a compelling alternative narrative.
> > The violence started happening when the Zionists wanted the land for themselves, exclusive of the indigenous population (1948 nakba).
> Is ahistorical.
While I can appreciate what you're trying to say here, the post you are responding to was describing a situation within the context of the Zionist state movement of the mid 1900s. The fact that there have always been Jewish settlements throughout the historical Levant (and beyond) is incidental. Neither of these points are without merit. I'm not sure arguing past each other about who deserves what is constructive.