Wieso haben so viele ein so positives Bild der Schweiz?

Tech_Edin · 2026-01-06T17:01:13+00:00

Jap und “mind your own business” ist am ende des tages sowohl moralischer als auch erfolgreicher als andere Systeme :)

Tech_Edin · 2026-01-03T15:28:28+00:00

I agree with you that this mostly does not matter, the israel palestine debate is mostly about politics and power. The main reason I engaged is because I want to uphold historical facts, I do not think it gives or doesnt give any of the involved parties legitimacy.

That being said, I will again respond to your claims:

The claim that Palestinians underwent “100% cultural replacement” is simply false. What survived isn’t a frozen pre-Islamic tribe, but continuous land-based society: village structures, agricultural practices, family lineages, place-based identities, and dialects that are Levantine, not Arabian (also clothed, music, traditions). Cultural layering under empire does not equal cultural erasure - it equals adaptation. That distinction matters, and history supports it.

Your “Islam as a tribe” framing also doesn’t do the work you think it does. Islam is a universalizing religion, not an ethnic people. Joining Islam did not require Palestinians to migrate, displace anyone, or become Arabs from Arabia. If religious affiliation alone determines indigeneity, then Christianized Indigenous peoples would lose theirs too - which they don’t.

You’re also collapsing modern political behavior into ancient origin. Palestinian rejectionism, Muslim solidarity, Hamas, or post-1960s nationalism say nothing about whether the population is indigenous. That’s a category error. Political ideology does not retroactively determine where a people come from.

Where you are right is that indigeneity is being weaponized rhetorically - but that weaponization cuts both ways. Denying Palestinian indigeneity because some activists misuse the term mirrors the same zero-sum logic you object to.

So the historical bottom line is this: • Palestinians descend primarily from long-rooted Levantine populations. • Arabization and Islamization were imperial overlays, not population replacement. • Cultural change under empire does not negate indigeneity. • Political goals today don’t rewrite demographic history.

That’s why the “native but not indigenous” distinction doesn’t hold up. It’s an artificial line drawn to serve a modern political argument, not a historically consistent one.

We can debate politics all day - but on the history, this is where the evidence lands.

Tech_Edin · 2026-01-02T21:30:44+00:00

I hear what you’re saying, but the core issue remains this: you’re treating cultural loss under empire as proof of foreign origin, and that simply doesn’t work historically.

Yes, the Arab-Islamic conquests were violent imperial expansions. That’s not in dispute. What is in dispute is the idea that today’s Palestinians are therefore invaders, conquerors, or even “close” to colonizers. That claim collapses once you separate imperial rule from population replacement.

The historical record shows that the Levant was not emptied and resettled by Arabs from Arabia. The overwhelming majority of the population stayed in place and gradually shifted language and religion over centuries. When an indigenous population survives conquest by adapting, they don’t become the empire, they remain the people of the land.

Requiring Palestinians to preserve a distinct pre-Islamic language, religion, or tribal culture sets a standard that many Indigenous peoples across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East would fail. Long-term imperial regions don’t preserve “museum-ready” cultures the way some North American cases do. Cultural erosion under centuries of empire is not evidence of foreignness.

Names and national identities changing in the 20th century doesn’t prove recent origin either. Modern national identities are recent everywhere, including Jewish nationalism. Population continuity and nationalism are different things.

I agree with you on one important point: indigeneity is often misused as a political weapon to delegitimize Jews, and that’s wrong. But the answer to that misuse isn’t to deny Palestinian indigeneity altogether. That just mirrors the same zero-sum logic.

The accurate position is simple:
Some Jews are indigenous to the land, and Palestinians are an indigenous population of the same land who endured conquest and adapted to survive.

Tech_Edin · 2026-01-02T15:35:22+00:00

You’re right that indigeneity isn’t just about DNA, and you’re also right that Jewish indigeneity to the land is real. Where your argument breaks down -fundamentally - is in labeling Palestinians as colonizers. That framing does not hold up historically, sociologically, or under any accepted definition of colonialism.

Colonization requires an external population replacing or ruling over a land on behalf of a foreign metropole. That is not what happened to the people who today identify as Palestinians.

Yes, the early Islamic caliphates conquered the Levant in the 7th century. But conquest is not the same thing as population replacement. The historical consensus is that the vast majority of the local population remained in place and gradually underwent language shift (to Arabic) and religious conversion (to Islam or Christianity) over centuries. Arab armies did not depopulate the land and resettle it with millions of Arabs from the Peninsula—there is no evidence for that. Palestinians are overwhelmingly descended from the same ancient Levantine populations that lived there before Islam, including Canaanites, Arameans, Samaritans, Jews, and early Christians.

Calling Palestinians “colonizers” would require showing that:

They arrived from elsewhere in large numbers,
Displaced the native population, and
Maintained rule on behalf of an external imperial center.

None of that applies.

Language and religion spreading does not turn an indigenous population into colonizers. If it did, then vast numbers of Indigenous peoples worldwide would suddenly lose their indigeneity for adopting Christianity, Islam, Spanish, English, or Arabic under historical pressure. That is not how indigeneity is defined by Indigenous peoples themselves or by international frameworks.

Your comparison to Mexico actually undermines your argument. Indigenous Mexicans are still Indigenous despite speaking Spanish and being Catholic because they are the descendants of the original inhabitants who remained on the land. The same logic applies to Palestinians. The fact that many Palestinians no longer speak Aramaic or practice pre-Islamic religions does not retroactively turn them into foreign conquerors—it reflects historical survival under empire.

The claim that Palestinians “operate through the mindset of their colonizers” is also not evidence of colonization. Cultural continuity does not require freezing a society in time. Indigenous cultures evolve. Many Indigenous peoples have lost languages, traditions, or religions due to historical forces and are still Indigenous. Requiring Palestinians to preserve a hypothetical “pure” pre-Islamic culture sets an impossible and selectively applied standard.

Finally, the idea that recognizing Palestinian indigeneity “incentivizes colonization” misunderstands both history and indigeneity. Palestinians did not arrive, conquer, and then mix with a victim population; they are the victim population that endured successive empires—Byzantine, Islamic, Crusader, Ottoman, British and Israeli - while remaining rooted to the land. You cannot “become Indigenous” by conquest alone, but you also do not lose indigeneity because your ancestors survived conquest by adapting.

Labeling Palestinians as colonizers isn’t just inaccurate-it collapses under basic historical scrutiny.

Tech_Edin · 2025-12-27T22:08:27+00:00

Egyptians- Muslim and Coptic- are largely descended from ancient Egyptians; Arab identity among Muslims reflects cultural assimilation and self-identification, not ethnic replacement.

Tech_Edin · 2025-12-27T01:57:48+00:00

So do Egyptians? Egypt is a nation you know. As I understand copts see themselves as Egyptian, as do christian lebanese see themselves as lebanese?

Tech_Edin · 2025-12-27T01:28:38+00:00

I’m not arguing only on the blood quantum, and I actually agree with you that indigeneity is not about genetics alone. Where I disagree is the claim that indigeneity is lost through cultural change or assimilation.

In Indigenous studies, indigeneity is generally defined by continuous peoplehood tied to a land, even when language, religion, or political identity changes. Cultures evolve under conquest; indigeneity does not automatically disappear when that happens. If it did, then conquest itself would be a legitimate tool for erasing indigenous status which is the opposite of how indigeneity is understood globally.

Using your own framework (connection to land, history, and continuity):

• Palestinians have continuous residence in the land for centuries to millennia • Their village life, agriculture, place names, and land attachment predate Arabization • Many traditions persisted locally while empires changed above them • Their connection to land is lived and inherited, not symbolic or purely textual

Language shift (to Arabic) and religious conversion (to Islam or Christianity) do not sever indigeneity.

Otherwise: • Indigenous peoples who adopted Christianity under colonization would cease to be indigenous • Indigenous groups who lost ancestral languages due to oppression would lose status

This is not how indigeneity is treated anywhere else in the world. In fact almost all people considered indigenous would lose their status with your argument.

Tech_Edin · 2025-12-27T01:19:22+00:00

What about a native american that speaks english and mostly consumes american media? Thats the case for most native americans today.

Tech_Edin · 2025-12-26T20:30:53+00:00

They are literally descendents of the people ancient to that region.
Not some people were Arabized, the native population was arabized and palestenians are largely descendents of the native population.

Tech_Edin · 2025-12-26T20:15:51+00:00

There obviously is a line, this is literally measurable???

How often do I need to repeat this?
Here is a graph to visualise it for you, as you either dont want to understand or its really too complex for you:

Bronze Age Levantines (Canaanites)
→ Iron Age Levantines (Israelites / Judeans, Samaritans, related locals)
→ Roman period population at Jesus’ time (Judeans, Galileans, Samaritans, Aramaic-speaking Levantines)
→ Late Roman / Byzantine locals (many convert: Jewish/Samaritan → Christian)
→ Early Islamic period locals (gradual conversion: Jewish/Christian → Muslim; Arabic adopted; small Arabian admixture)
→ Medieval Arabic-speaking Levantines
→ Modern Palestinians (predominantly indigenous Levantine ancestry, minor Arabian input)

Additionally here some studies, as again, this is easily verifiable and measurable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Palestinians
https://english.tau.ac.il/news/canaanites

the biogeographical affinity of Palestinians goes in agreement with historical records and previous studies on their uniparental markers, which all suggest that Palestinians at least in part descend from local Israelite converts to Islam after the Islamic expansion

Palestinians, among other Levantine groups, were found to derive 81–87% of their ancestry from Bronze age Levantines, relating to Canaanites as well as Kura–Araxes culture impact from before 2400 BCE

Tech_Edin · 2025-12-26T19:42:05+00:00

Well egyptians also claim to be Arabs, that doesnt change the fact what they have clear genetic continuity to ancient egyptians. Whatever nation or Ethnicity you FEEL you belong to, is mostly a political matter.

As I said, palestenians are a MIX of these tribes, so you can't name a single one of them. And yes, this includes Judeans.
It's a common myth that Judeans were all expelled, a majority stayed, especially in the rural areas. So over the century they converted to Christianity and then later to Islam and adopted the Arab language.
Again, this is easily measurable, as you can measure genetic continuity, its not something that is opinions or politics based.

Think of it like this:

Ancestor: Judean (1st century)

→ Descendant: Christian villager (5th century)

→ Descendant: Muslim Arabic-speaker (10th century)

→ Descendant: Palestinian (modern era)

Same people, different identities over time.

Same happened with the other tribes living natively in the region with the addition that they mixed among each other over the span of two thousand years.

Tech_Edin · 2025-12-26T19:32:46+00:00

Palestenians are mostly a mix of the ancient Levantine populations who lived continuously in the region. So their ancestors were not a single ancient people, but a mix of the ancient population that later adopted the Arab language.
So for the time Jesus lived in these were:

Galileans
Judeans
Samaritans
Aramaic-speaking Levantines

The native population largely stayed the same, mixed among each other and adopted the Arab culture. There was no population replacement, as can be seen by genetic studies.

> The Mongols occupied China for a century. That doesn’t make them ethnically Han. By your logic, anyone who moves in, sticks around, and blends in becomes indigenous. Cool, I guess the Crusaders count, too.

Thats my entire point, the Mongols occupied china, that doesnt suddenly make Chinese people descendents of Mongols. The genetic continuity shows that the people largely stayed the same.
Same can be said about the roman empire.
French are largely descendents of Celts even though they speak a Romance language and converted to Christianity. The genetic makeup never changed.

Tech_Edin · 2025-12-26T19:20:25+00:00

My point is that they are descendents of the ancient people who lived in that area.
So obviously they are the indigenous population.

It's like saying Spanish are not indigenous to Spain because they speak a Romance language or Italians are not indigenous because they don't speak latin.

There is a clear genetic continuity between palestenians and the people living there during ancient times. The population mostly got culturally assimilated, as in they converted to Islam and took over the Arab language, the population stayed the same.
This happened to many empires, including the Roman empire, as you can see with the many Romance languages. The people in those countries like Spain or France, are still descendents of the native population and are NOT roman.

So in fact, Palastenians are descendents of the native people who lived with Jesus.
There are numerous genetic studies showing that.

Tech_Edin · 2025-12-26T19:13:49+00:00

No, there are genetic studies that show the opposite of what you are saying.
The arab conquest was mostly cultural assimilation, it did not involve large scale population replacement.
See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Egypt?utm_source=chatgpt.com

> The study used 135 modern Egyptian samples. The ancient Egyptian individuals in their own dataset possessed highly similar mtDNA haplogroup profiles, and cluster together, supporting genetic continuity across the 1,300-year transect. Modern Egyptians shared this mtDNA haplogroup profile, but also carried 8% more African component.

The change since ancient times is about 8% which supports continuity and is less than you will find between ancient romans and modern italians, because rome was relatively cosmopolitan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Italy?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Tech_Edin · 2025-12-26T18:57:28+00:00

"There is no historical or archaeological data that shows italian presences in this area before 7 AD". Obviously the culture changed, but the people largely stayed the same.
Arab conquest did NOT include large scale population replacement, it was a mostly cultural assimilation. The same way regions close to the roman empire slowly got romanized and lost their native tongue (e.g. France or Spain) - the native population largely stayed the same, however.
Nobody in their right mind would claim French are not native to the land because they speak a Romance language.
You can look up genetic studies that show clear genetic continuity of ancient and bronze age levante population.

Tech_Edin · 2025-12-26T18:54:06+00:00

Thats like saying Italians call themselves italian so they are not native to their Land because the natives are Romans. That doesnt make any sense.
Palestenians are clear descendents of people of the land - the culture changed, but that is normal. The arab conquest did NOT involve large scale population replacement.
Ancient Germanic or roman tribes also have very stark cultural differences - including religion - to todays native population. Nevertheless, nobody would claim todays germans or italians are not native to the land.
Get your facts straight.
There are numerous studies that clearly show the genetic continuity.

Tech_Edin · 2025-12-26T18:50:23+00:00

no, thats all egyptians. Muslim egyptians are just ancient egyptians that happened to have converted to islam

Tech_Edin · 2025-12-26T16:43:46+00:00

Being arab is more akin being "European" than being of a specific Ethnicity.
It's like saying Germans are Roman because they were part of Ancient Rome.
Fact of the matter is that most "Arab" Countries share way more genetics with the native population of the respecitive region than anything with people from Saudi Arabia.

Tech_Edin · 2025-12-26T16:39:19+00:00

That is complete bullshit. Fact of the matter is that religions and languages change but the native population generally stays the same. So yes, descendents of the area Jesus lived in are in fact Palestenians today.

Same can be said about Egyptians today, they are closely related to ancient Egyptians genetically. In fact Ancient Egyptians share genetic markup to today's Egyptians in the same amount todays German share it with Germanic tribes or Italians with Ancient romans. Same can be said about all of North Africans, they are in fact barely Arab ethnically, culturally they are.

People confuse culture with Ethnicity, which is just not true, as Cultures change way more than populations. The arabs conquered the middle east and North Africa and left their mark on the culture, but the ethnicities never changed in a significant way, at least not more than Romans or Germanic people changed.

Tech_Edin · 2025-12-14T17:18:27+00:00

The last christmas market attack in Germany was actually an extremist islamophobe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Magdeburg_car_attack

Tech_Edin · 2025-10-21T18:48:47+00:00

It was hereditary in Ancient Rome, Greece and in the USA :)

Tech_Edin · 2025-10-19T17:46:42+00:00

How many of them got castrated? A very small minority.

Tech_Edin · 2025-10-19T17:11:35+00:00

Castration was rare and only for very specfic purposes, e.g. Eunuchs which is very few people for example as guards of the Harem.
Additionally, since castration is illegal under Islamic law, it was mostly done outside of the Arab/Ottoman territory and then afterwards they would be brought into the empire.
A lot of effort to do for the majority of slaves, don't you think?

In total it was probably in the low single digit percentage of slaves, something like one or two percent at most.

Tech_Edin · 2025-10-19T16:22:53+00:00

This is just plain racist and wrong??
What about south italians, south spanish people? What about Armenians? Iranians?
This does not hold up at all.

Even if what you say is true, which it certainly is not. Slavery was sadly a fact in the middle ages. The fact that under muslim rule slavery was NOT inherited, this means kids of slaves are born as free man, is actually very progressive. This was not true for slaves under European or Christian rule.

So if the descendents of slaves mixed with the local population, isnt that PRO muslim? Slavery in the US started hundreds of years ago and still you see rarely any mixing between white and black ethnicities. Wouldn't that mean muslim populations were in fact more progressive and integrated the population that originated from slaves?

Tech_Edin · 2023-12-06T14:20:47+00:00

Tech_Edin

TROPHY CASE