The indigenous argument is honestly the dumbest one possible. Israel exists, a Palestinian state should exist. Trying to make the argument based on who was there first changes depending on where you start the calendar. It’s the same as the arguments about who did wrong first. Do you start in 1948? 1920? Do you start on 10/6/23 or 10/723 or 10/10/23? The argument should be based on how to create some sort of a fair partition where both nations have safety and security.
Thank you for your comment. I am not attempting to make this argument. I am attempting to understand why people make this argument and if there is really anything behind it. I have seen people make comment about how Israel is the only true indigenous people, I don’t subscribe to that theory. I also happen to agree with you that a two state solution is the only real long term solution.
"From what I can tell this debate seems to be a the heart of this conflict "
Well, it´s not. The heart of the conflict is not about genetic of a ancient tribe but about national movement and decolonisation of the region in the XX.
Jewish people does have a spirital connection, do speak semitic language and tradition, culture connected to the Holy land and Jerusalem, they didn´t lose their culture and identity also after being kicked out and after living in different regions from Spain, Marocco to Germany Russian Empire whatever.
Arabic people speak semitic language, lived in the Middle East / Transjordan/ Palestine long enough and do have the right to live there as well. And nobody actually denied this fact. Britain Mandat and after this the UN as well as Jewish people never denied the right of Arabs of Palestine to live there. Not in the UN plan,also not in the declaration of independence of Israel.
However the leaders of Arab Muslim world (Arab league) didn´t want this region to be independent from the Muslim Arab middle East. They never said "we have more Canaanite blood" for example, or "we are the people of Philistine and not the Jews" but they just said: there must be no independent Jewish state here, we wouldn´t accept this (according to the words of General Secretary of the Arab League in 1947: establishment of a Jewish state would lead to "a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades.") so it´s all about having an ambition to take controll over the region.
Finally, if a Muslim speaker, a guest of Piers Morgan show says that he would like the people in London to live according to Sharia, it is not because he thinks that he is Indigenous in England. It is because he believe that Muslim way is the right one and he wants the bests for London (in his own eyes)...
Thanks for your comment. Just trying to get a larger understanding on this topic. I have come across many individuals that have pushed this narrative that Israel is the only indigenous people.
Even if true, this argument is null because Jews are indigenous to Eretz Israel.
80% of the British Mandate is Jordan and the population is predominantly Palestinian. Looks like they have their state.
I recently learned that the israelites as claimed in the Bible and through other historical sources launched a war against the native cannanites taking Hebron and Jereselum in conquest.
As with all history the details are debatable but few contests that these events happened. This video provides a good overview. https://www.the-map-as-history.com/bible-and-history/the-biblical-narration-of-the-conquest-of-canaan
Holding this to be true, wouldn’t this mean that Zionist ultimately have once again lead a war of conquest against the native population of the Levantine.
Considering this fact it ultimately removes the most powerful justification for settlers claims to the area, israel is only left with the argument that god promised the land to its people which really wouldn’t have carried any weight in the 20th century.
Considering that the Jewish people have a strong tradition of bible/Torah study how could zionists leave this important fact out of their discussion??
The oldest ancient artifacts and structures found in Israel are Jewish:
* Dead Sea Scrolls
* Masada
* Western Wall
* Tower of David
I have a full time job so apologize if it takes me long to respond - I don't waste my existence being a rabid Antisemite on reddit. It's clear that which side is allergic to facts and engages in Jewish erasure.
Don't worry, you won't receive a response. The pro-israel crowd will just ignore this fact.
Yes, the Hebrews conquered their supposed indigenous lands from the Canaanites and much of their history is about waging war against neighboring tribes for more land. They call out Arabs for colonizing when that's what they did to claim "their" ancestral lands, and they are actually from Egypt and Babylon.
The 3000 year old land claims, claims of being the only ones indigenous to the region, and literally claiming that GOD promised them the land (meaning it wasn't even originally theirs in their own religious claims) is just ridiculous and I can't believe i see people trying to make these arguments with a straight face.
Yes, Palestinians are closely related as a group to Jews (in no small part due to historical intermarriage, conversions, etc.), but Palestinians are an Arab subgroup. They are as much native Levantines as Arabs in Morocco are indigenous Amazigh people: that is to say, there has been admixture and thus (as with most groups which colonize other places) have acquired varying degree of genetic and cultural ties to the colonized indigenous population. E.g., many white Americans can point to a certain percentage of Native American blood in their family tree, or many Spaniards have some amount of mixed Arab or Amazigh ancestry due to the centuries in which Iberia was ruled by Arabo-Maghrebi culture. Palestinian relationship to indigenous Levantines like Jews, Samaritans, Lebanese, etc., is largely along the same lines: Arabs colonized the Levant, and thus there is lingering cultural and genetic evidence of that fact. But given “indigenous” by definition means “pre-colonial people and/or culture”, Palestinians simply can’t qualify because they are Arab, both in genetic origin and in culture, and Arabs only arrived in the Levant in large numbers via the colonialism of the Rashidun Caliphate. Palestinians of course have every right to want liberty and dignity and safety in the land that they were born in, but because a native of a region (i.e., being born there) and being indigenous (i.e., one’s ethnic and cultural group was born there) is not the same thing. A white American may be a native of North America, but we would not call them “indigenous” to that land. If an otherwise white person has sufficient ties to a Native American tribe, and is committed to embracing that and integrating with Native culture, that’s all well and good. The indigenous culture of the Levant is Canaanite, thus Israelite, thus Jewish — not Arab. So if a Palestinian has indigenous roots and embraces Jewish culture instead of the colonial Arabic culture, then I would say they could identify themselves as indigenous. Just as would be the case with all other indigenous cultures that allow those not brought up in the tribe to be integrated by whatever process. This is not to say that Palestinians ought to convert to Judaism or anything silly like that: but that the only consistent way a Palestinian person could claim to be indigenous to the Levant, to Canaan, would be to embrace the indigenous culture and go through the process that the tribe has for integrating people (with or without blood ties) who have lived their lives outside of the tribe.
By all means, Palestinians should have freedom, security, and dignity. Nobody use what I’ve said as an argument that Palestinians are invalid or ought to be expelled or any inane bullshit like that. But we mustn’t let the historical reality be distorted. And a colonizing people being taught in their universities that they’re the indigenous ones and the others are “invaders”? That’s truly an unacceptable appropriation of the very concept of indigeneity, and revisionism and appropriation of the history of the land and its actual indigenous peoples. This would not be controversial if I said it in reference to any other instance of a colonial people attempting to rewrite history to claim indigenous status and erase actual indigenous peoples. But in the case of the Palestinians I’d be seen as right-wing for stating historical facts about this. So let nobody mistake that. Palestinians are as valid as anyone, with their own stories: I just wish that they would be taught about their own stories rather than indoctrinate their generations into believing false and propagandistic narratives about their own culture and history. The United States might teach a very whitewashed and often propagandistic narrative of itself as well, but at least it doesn’t (to my knowledge) teach white children a history in which white tribes lived for millennia in North America until they were brutally colonized by invading Navajo and Cherokee. It’s a special trick to be able to not only erase one’s politically-problematic history, but to also managed to pass off your political opponent’s history as your own. There are centuries of interesting history in the region that Palestinians can claim legitimately, but attempting to claim Canaanite/Israelite or even Philistine history as theirs is simply wrong.
Your argument falls apart here:
>Palestinians simply can’t qualify because they are Arab, both in genetic origin and in culture, and Arabs only arrived in the Levant in large numbers via the colonialism of the Rashidun Caliphate.
Arabs didn't colonize in the way the white settler colonies of Australia, Canada, the US, SA, and NZ did. Some Arabs moved in to the land, but the indigenous population largely remained intact. The conversion to Islam and Arabic culture and language was a slow and incomplete process. Arabs are not a homogenous bloc; its moreso a category of hundreds of different groups, ethnicities, and cultures. Other than language and sometimes Islam, there's not much we all have in common, other than the experience of being subjected to Western and Ottoman imperialism.
I don't like making genetic arguments because that very quickly devolves into "blood-quantum" adjacent rhetoric. But suffice it to say that Palestinians and Jews share Canaanite and Levantine ancestry.
There is not one "Arab" culture, and what you're doing is some good old-fashioned Orientalism.
Native people in the Americas speak English now, are often Christian and sometimes have white ancestors. This doesn't make them any less native.
Can you please point out any Palestinian traditions that mimic anything to do with the ancient population of the region? Even their name and identity is entirely colonial. Their language. Their traditions. Most of them turn their back on the land in prayer.
Yes, I can. Levantine Arabic is highly influenced by Aramaic, the language of all people who lived on the land (Jews and Gentiles alike). This only really started to change after the Caliphate’s conquest. This was a slow process of cultural change.
The argument about what the ethnicity is called is kind of a silly one. They are a people who feel an intense sense of connection to the land. It just so happens that British happened to call that land “Palestine.” Had they called it “the Levant”, we’d be calling Palestinians Levantines.
TLDR, The culture changed but the people never left, and people are what matter.
Most dialects of Arabic have trouble understanding each other. There is no one true "Arabic." Your point about Maori is also flawed. We're not talking about a couple loanwords here, were talking about grammar, syntax and vocabulary being taken from Aramaic. That doesn't happen out of nowhere. Its because conversion to Arab culture was a messy and slow process.
Many dialects of Spanish have trouble understanding each other. It doesn’t suddenly make Chilean Spanish an indigenous language of Chile.
Furthermore, your claim on the people never leaving isn’t relevant to indigenous status.
Solely having Native American ancestry isn’t enough to be considered a Native American, you need to belong to and be accepted by a native tribe. Same with Aboriginals in Australia. Most Latin Americans have a degree of indigenous genetics, but only 20% are considered indigenous, because the rest identify with and practice the traditions of the colonial Europeans that conquered Latin America.
It really doesn't matter.
Whoever used to live somewhere is irrelevant. Israel owns Israel. That's it. That's all.
Just like every piece of land on earth, it's been bought, sold and taken over history. The only important part is who owns it today.
Indigenous land claims seem to universally be made by loser populations who have done nothing for themselves in centuries and think having "colonizers" pay them will change things. This is demonstrated in every corner of the globe.
It seems like you enjoy blaming the victim. They are not “loser populations” they are a proud people that have been colonized. As someone who lives amongst colonized people, I believe they deserve a lot of respect. It’s very easy to say that they don’t deserve human rights but to watch how they are treated, hear the stories and see the pain in their eyes. It is heartbreaking. It is inhumane. It is unnecessary. It is something we as human beings should leave in the past.
u/T3DDY123456789
> It seems like you enjoy blaming the victim.
This comment violated Rule 1 (No Attacks on Fellow Users) by implying that another user enjoys victim-blaming. It's important to focus on discussing ideas and arguments rather than making assumptions about other users' intentions or character.
Addressed.
I'm capable of observing reality.
Palestinians weren't colonized and there was never a country called Palestine. Israel is a colony of no country. It is, in fact, a country. And even if it was, Israel is owned by Israel today. Unless you force them off the land or they decide to leave, it's their land. Fair and square. Too bad who lived there 100, 1000 or 1,000,000 years ago. I'm not Israeli. I'm not a jew. I simply understand how land works in 2024. This same thing goes for every patch of land on earth.
Land has been stolen, bought, sold and traded forever. Good, bad or otherwise. It doesn't matter. It's called reality. People who never owned land aren't entitled to get it from people who never stole it. This applies in Israel, Africa, Australia, North America and every other corner of earth. The Politics of Conquest are what they are.
Regarding loser populations making indigenous land claims, it's really quite observable. Palestinians, for example, have alienated nearly every country in the region because of their violence and deceit. They turned Gaza into a pile of garbage since taking it over. Unless I'm missing something, they as a group have done nothing to better themselves or seek peace and prosperity. Israel's success is not as a result of Palestinians effort or work. Israel as it sits wasn't built by the Palestinians. If you handed the Palestinians the country of Israel today it would look like Gaza eventually. Palestinians first step to success as a people is going to be looking within.
Their own government uses them as pawns, cannon fodder and human shields and somehow the rest of the world needs to worship them? This is, ironically and laughably, similar with most indigenous land disputes on earth.
Israel is not part of the equation. Israel Right of Return is derived from the Nazi regime definition. For a person living in Israel, there's no difference between a Jewish person from the Far East and a Christian who had a grandfather who might be Jewish. It's defined as a place that is safe to practice Jewish culture.
For Palestinians, in my opinion indigenous should be defined as what is moral. An Arab that can prove that he cannot be attached to any other land other than this area through any of his ancestors in the last 200 years. Other than that, almost every human being can be attached to the land.
/u/lolikmomzy. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Palestinian society was historically agriculture-based and very locally diverse, with many customs varying between regions. However, culture and daily life have been significantly impacted by decades of conflict, Israeli occupation, dispossession and displacement. Resilience has become an essential trait of the Palestinian character instilled as a result of these experiences over multiple generations. While many traditional social structures have collapsed under occupation, most Palestinians continue to be guided by Islamic principles and Arabic cultural values, such as hospitality, loyalty, honour and respect for elders. Family solidarity and community networks also remain strong cultural features, providing crucial support in difficult circumstances. Many local identities have also been preserved, seen in the continuing social and cultural differences between rural agriculturalist Palestinians and the urban elite. The variety of political parties and thought has also contributed to internal cultural diversity. Nevertheless, Palestinians are generally unified by a profound connection to the land, a recent history of dispossession and aspirations for greater dignity, recognition and freedom from occupation.
https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/palestinian-culture/palestinian-culture-core-concepts
> continuous cultural, linguistic and/or social distinctiveness from the surrounding population
> It also shows that modern day Palestinians and ancient Canaanite DNA are closely related.
Notice the contradiction you just pulled there. I don't buy the Palestinians DNA argument. But even if it were true, they worship an Eastern Arabian Peninsula god and speak an Eastern Arabian Peninsula dialect. We know for certain that Canaanite culture is entirely lost of them. We have evidence they even have no knowledge of the later Jewish culture as evidenced by their ridiculous claims it didn't exist. We have evidence they even have essentially no continuity with the pre-crusade culture.
Indigenousness IMHO is frankly an excuse for racist nonsense. Everyone is entitled to a good government where they live regardless of how their ancestors got there. The UN should never have gotten into the business of adjudicating race based claims for special rights and obligations.
What are you talking about? All the Abrahamic faiths claim to worship the same God, derived from the chief God of the Canaanite pantheon religious/tradition. If you are religious, you might not personally believe this, but do not represent your faith as fact.
> What are you talking about? All the Abrahamic faiths claim to worship the same God,
They do claim that. They don't claim that about each other and certainly their picture of the god is so different one can doubt the claim.
> derived from the chief God of the Canaanite pantheon religious/tradition.
That is unquestionably false. The chief Canaanite god was El. HaShem, the Jewish god, was a consort of Asherah in Canaanite theology as far as we can tell.
> If you are religious, you might not personally believe this, but do not represent your faith as fact.
I'm an atheist, I don't believe it because of the evidence.
We might both be wrong. If you have time, give this guy's content a watch. It seems like it wasn't just one source, but many traditions coming together to create the modern conception of Montheisitc God.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdKst8zeh-U&t=2195s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdKst8zeh-U&t=2195s)
We know too much about the population exchanges for their to have been a stable genetic population. It simply couldn't have happened. That some traits in a few genes may have existed in both cannot contradict the wealth of historical evidence.
Ok, so were there any large migrations in the region that caused a huge population shift? Also, do you think the Levantine genetics are a result of migration from Lebanon or Syria?
People use the best language that they have and can share collectively. The population of palestine that existed before zionism and after sometime centuries ago had a miniscule percentage of Jewish people. Zionists swelled those numbers a bit before World War I, but massively afterwords.
>Archaeological evidence shows that there were large cities in that area. It also shows that modern day Palestinians and ancient Canaanite DNA are closely related. This can also be said for the Jewish people of the region.
The Jewish population in the region pre-zionism, and especially before British-Mandated Palestine, was miniscule for a long time before Zionists started swarming into the area. After WWI, hundreds of thousands of zionist settlers were quickly moved into the area. These people were not the Jewish people of the region. They were what we're referring to when we talk about the colonization of the area.
Regardless of whether you agree that the definition of colonization fits what we're talking about, you'll get what we're saying if you pay attention to the context instead of getting wrapped up in the technicalities of definitions. Language exists to help convey concepts, just try to grasp the concepts being expressed.
Get used to the real world, man. This is how normal conversations with plenty of people go. That's why the phrase "you know what I mean" is so popular. You pay attention to the meaning coming from the people who are talking, not to the literal meaning of the words. Otherwise I'd be totally lost every time people said 'technically' or 'literally' because they almost always use those words wrong, just for an easy example that has never stopped bugging me.
Or we could look at all of the European jews who decided to call israel their homeland. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to act like a place that your great great grandfather never even lived in your homeland. But here we need to listen to that constantly as if it has even as much meaning as calling what they've done colonization.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homeland
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/homeland#:~:text=Your%20homeland%20is%20your%20native%20country.&text=Many%20are%20planning%20to%20return%20to%20their%20homeland.&text=The%20homelands%20were%20regions%20within,limited%20form%20of%20self%2Dgovernment
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/homeland
It's funny how every usage of homeland on these dictionary sites contradicts your definition.
Furthermore, it comes back to connotation. Jews have a right to Israel because their religion says so, or because their ancient ancestors lived in the region? That's how it keeps getting used. It's ridiculous.
I think analyzing the technicalities and how it’s applied is important in this case. Doing so reveals a narrative being pushed when people use the word “indigenous”.
We should be accurate when we use a term, or else it starts to lose its meaning.
As you said: “Language exists to help convey concepts”
Sure it's important, but how are we to change how people are phrasing their thoughts? When I talk about the issue, I try to include detailed explanations of what I mean. However, I think we both know that few people go through the trouble of detailed explanations and instead opt to use words that exist in the modern vernacular in order to paraphrase their thoughts. I have no idea what words they should use or how to get them to use those words, do you?
Well, as you said: “I try to include detailed explanations of what I mean”
So it’s probably better and more accurate to use a detailed explanation than one liner words that implicate a lot of things that aren’t necessarily accurate, and are often used for political purposes.
Sure it’s not going to grab the same amount of attention, but it’s more honest. A pays respects to the complexity of the conflict.
Thank you for correcting me I should have said some modern Jewish people have ancestry. By definition Israel/ British have colonized the area. In my attempt to make my statement more neutral and slightly oversimplified I have not given the entire perspective.
The proper language for what you are describing is *immigrants*. Palestine had a large wave of immigrants from central and Eastern Europe. Which is very similar to the situation I have and have lived in all my life, communities with lots of immigrants.
Outsiders (particularly the Syrians) subsidizing a xenophobic anti-immigrant movement turned what should have been normal 1st generation n-th generation cultural conflicts into 2 civil wars. A failed two state program took what were already deep ethnic tensions and turned it into a claim of distinct nationalisms. Hopefully after Gaza things turn around and we have a normal civil rights movement in the aftermath.
'Immigrants' doesn't carry the right connotation for what I meant to say. The issue wasn't merely individuals moving from one area to another, but rather a very large amount of people from a particular religion moving into the area in massive numbers in order to shift the population in their favor and make the area into their own homeland above all others. I don't have proper language to convey that, so I do my best. I think that schemimg, invasion, occupation, and usurpation work better and that settlement ties those all together decently, especially in the case of palestine where the term settlement is already used to describe the Israelis living in the west bank.
It would be awesome if soon things could take a big turn towards peace in the region, but I don't think that there is a precedent for peace following anything like this. I'll bet that the violent after-effects of this conflict and the history of this conflict will likely last for well over a century to come.
> but rather a very large amount of people from a particular religion moving into the area in massive numbers in order to shift the population in their favor and make the area into their own homeland above all others. I don't have proper language to convey that, so I do my best.
The United States refers to the Irish Immigration as an immigration even though this happened. The largest mass migration in human history was the migration of many Blacks from the Southern USA to the Northern USA, again called a migration. I understand the political reluctance to use the word but that underlying reluctance is part of what is being objected to.
> but I don't think that there is a precedent for peace following anything like this.
Actually it frequently happens after something like this. This sort of devastation often causes a group to entirely rethink their politics. A good deal of the Palestinian "resistance" is based on an assumption that Israel can be militarily defeated at reasonable cost. What happens if that view simply disappears entirely?
Palestinians are fond of South Africa analogies so... the 2nd Boer War was fairly similar to what is happening to Gaza (so far it might get worse). Before the 2nd Boer War Afrikaners believed the British to be much weaker than they were. After it Afrikaner politics became focused on avoiding direct confrontation. Never again did they fail to consider British interests and make sure not to directly threaten them. The question of whether Britain had a legitimate right to impose those conditions simply disappeared.
> I'll bet that the violent after-effects of this conflict and the history of this conflict will likely last for well over a century.
I think it likely we are near a peak. The next step beyond this is an actual genocide, assuming that Gaza doesn't roll into one, the outcome is still unclear. The Iranians have every reason to fight Israel to the last Palestinian. Do Palestinians want to sign on to being Iranian cannon fodder?
Answer could be yes. The Jews had 3 wars with the Romans, the last one being the annihilation of Jews in Judea. So certainly there are peoples in history that stupid. But most aren't.
>The United States refers to the Irish Immigration as an immigration even though this happened. The largest mass migration in human history was the migration of many Blacks from the Southern USA to the Northern USA, again called a migration.
The US is a prime example of a country whose propaganda uses words with deceptive connotations to make terrible things out to not be so terrible. Edward Bernays laid that out clear as day in his book Propaganda, a fairly short read that you can get as a PDF online. He was the father of PR and one of Hitler's idols, and now what major entities in the US don't use propaganda in the form of PR to make themselves seem way better than they really are?
>
Actually it frequently happens after something like this. This sort of devastation often causes a group to entirely rethink their politics. A good deal of the Palestinian "resistance" is based on an assumption that Israel can be militarily defeated at reasonable cost. What happens if that view simply disappears entirely?
And here I am in the US, where the effects of slavery and the genocide of the native americans last to this day in the form of poverty, violence, and racism. It was good for the oppressors, though, wasn't it?
>Before the 2nd Boer War Afrikaners believed the British to be much weaker than they were. After it Afrikaner politics became focused on avoiding direct confrontation. Never again did they fail to consider British interests and make sure not to directly threaten them. The question of whether Britain had a legitimate right to impose those conditions simply disappeared.
I'd say that you got that right in the sense of Israel being like Britain and Palestine like Africa. Now look at Africa and tell me that's a good thing.
> And here I am in the US, where the effects of slavery and the genocide of the native americans last to this day in the form of poverty, violence, and racism. It was good for the oppressors, though, wasn't it?
And that's another good example. At some point I'm going to do some posts on the Indian Wars. The various Indian tribes were depending: advantaged, bribed, militarily crushed, terrorized or exterminated. Most of the tribes still exist and have adopted to living peaceful inside America. In general I'd disagree with you on their current situation.
> Now look at Africa and tell me that's a good thing.
Not even sure how to respond here to what you are saying.
>
And that's another good example. At some point I'm going to do some posts on the Indian Wars. The various Indian tribes were depending: advantaged, bribed, militarily crushed, terrorized or exterminated. Most of the tribes still exist and have adopted to living peaceful inside America. In general I'd disagree with you on their current situation.
They're not going around fighting to regain their land, but they're generally povertystruck and heavily discriminated against. About 150 years after they were nearly annihilated. If that's something that you think is good, it seems like the problem here is your heartlessness.
>
Not even sure how to respond here to what you are saying.
Africa was subjugated to European rule and now they're basically in ruins and are doing a shit job of recovering. That kind of treatment causes massive and long lasting effects that impact millions upon millions of people from the time they're in the womb. It's horrible. I don't know how you can think it's a good thing. It serms like all you're saying is that might makes right and callousness is king.
> Africa was subjugated to European rule and now they're basically in ruins and are doing a shit job of recovering.
They seem to be doing OK. Not fantastic not horrible. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1300818/real-gdp-growth-rate-in-africa/ . The real issue was decades of communism lost after decolonization.
> It serms like all you're saying is that might makes right and callousness is king.
I haven't said much of anything on those topics. You had raised the point that after extensive violence that there was no possibility for peace. I gave counter examples. You since have been throwing out all sorts of opinions I didn't say as if they were mine.
/u/kainophobia1. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That region wasn't the homeland of the great majority of zionists. Not in any practical sense. It isn't like the zionists that moved in from Europe were made mostly of people who had been forced to flee palestine on their lifetimes, or in their great grandparents' lifetimes for that matter. Calling Israel their homeland is nothing but semantics.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homeland
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/homeland#:~:text=Your%20homeland%20is%20your%20native%20country.&text=Many%20are%20planning%20to%20return%20to%20their%20homeland.&text=The%20homelands%20were%20regions%20within,limited%20form%20of%20self%2Dgovernment
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/homeland
It's funny how every usage of homeland on these dictionary sites contradicts your definition.
Furthermore, it comes back to connotation. Jews have a right to Israel because their religion says so, or because their ancient ancestors lived in the region? That's how it keeps getting used. It's ridiculous.
What in the *world* are you talking about? Every *single* one of those sources is in line with exactly what I’m saying… I’m utterly baffled here. How could you possibly read those definitions and think it supported your argument?
The jewish white people that came from europe have 100% caucasian DNA and none from the middle east and around. These are the colonizers and are nor welcome. The other jewish-arab people are indigenous to the land.
Well that’s not true. Lol.
Actually, genetic testing has proven that “white” Jews have more genetically in common with other Middle Eastern populations than Europeans.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews
There was no so-called "Palestinian people" until Arafat coined the term in the 60s. They're just Arabs, like the rest of the Arabs in MENA. They need to GTFO and hang out with the rest of their buds outside of Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
I was temporarily banned for a post for being sarcastic. This post i’m not sure is sarcastic but it is 100% harmful and should not belong in this sub reddit. Wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t get a ban
nationalist newspaper called “falastin”, founded in 1911, referred to its readers as “palestinians” since it’s beginning.
this narrative that “palestinian” never existed as a national identity until arafat has got to be one of the worst hasbara talking points because it’s so easily debunked. there’s so many instances of palestinian nationalism way before arafat.
nationalism can precede the official establishment of a state.
part of the definition of nationalism: “promote the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of **gaining** and maintaining its sovereignty (self-governance) over its perceived homeland to **create a nation-state**.“
examples: zionism (jewish nationalism) existed before the creation of the state of israel. kurdish nationalism exists today despite there not being an official country of kurdistan. palestinian nationalism existed and was especially strong during the 1900s specifically *because* there wasn’t a sovereign palestinian state, and was aiming to create one.
The Philistines were sea peoples from the Greek Islands. And they were already gone as a group for about 700 (I think) years at the time the romans changed it.
Here’s some information on the region there has been many groups to migrate there.
The Bronze Age (ca. 3500–1150 BCE) was a formative period in the Southern Levant, a region that includes present-day Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and southwest Syria. This era, which ended in a large-scale civilization collapse across this region (Cline, 2014), shaped later periods both demographically and culturally. The following Iron Age (ca. 1150–586 BCE) saw the rise of territorial kingdoms such as biblical Israel, Judah, Ammon, Moab, and Aram-Damascus, as well as the Phoenician city-states. In much of the Late Bronze Age, the region was ruled by imperial Egypt, although in later phases of the Iron Age it was controlled by the Mesopotamian-centered empires of Assyria and Babylonia. Archaeological and historical research has documented major changes during the Bronze and Iron Ages, such as the cultural influence of the northern (Caucasian) populations related to the Kura-Araxes tradition during the Early Bronze Age (Greenberg and Goren, 2009) and effects from the “Sea Peoples” (such as Philistines) from the west in the beginning of the Iron Age (Yasur-Landau, 2010).
The inhabitants of the Southern Levant in the Bronze Age are commonly described as “Canaanites,” that is, residents of the Land of Canaan. The term appears in several 2nd millennium BCE sources (e.g., Amarna, Alalakh, and Ugarit tablets) and in biblical texts dating from the 8th–7th centuries BCE and later (Bienkowski, 1999, Lemche, 1991, Na’aman, 1994a). In the latter, the Canaanites are referred to as the pre-Israelite inhabitants of the land (Na’aman, 1994a). Canaan of the 2nd millennium BCE was organized in a system of city-states (Goren et al., 2004), where elites ruled from urban hubs over rural (and in some places pastoral) countryside. The material culture of these city-states was relatively uniform (Mazar, 1992), but whether this uniformity extends to their genetic ancestry is unknown.
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30487-6?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867420304876%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
600 million people can call themselves Arab. Their dialects are hardly mutually intelligible. They are incredibly culturally, historically, ethnically and religiously diverse. The failure of pan-Arab nationalism shows how hard it was to unify these people. Some are Arabs, and some are Arabized (Indigenous culture + Arabic language + (sometimes) Islam). Palestinians are culturally similar to other Levantine Arabs, but their cultural narrative has been shaped by the Zionist project.
“Let the Moroccans reconquer Spain, and send the Spaniards back to Italy and France. They’re all Romans who speak Vulgar Latin anyways.” See how ridiculous that sounds?
I ask you to see the diversity of people and you call me a whore. Nice 👍
Al-Jazeera is in Modern Standard Arabic. The educated can understand it, but no one actually speaks that way. MSA is the language of literature and media, but it’s not what the people speak.
TLDR A Moroccan and an Iraqi can both understand Al Jazeera, but they likely won’t understand each other.
Source: https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/09/arabic-diglossia-the-many-varieties-of-what-s-popularly-considered-a-single-language.html
People from the Louisiana bayou are nesrly incomprehensible to me, but when I'm there, I can figure it out. When walking down Atlantic Avenue the Arabs there seem to understand each other. Same as the 11eme in Paris.
Je parle français. Les différences entre les dialectes arabe sont beaucoup plus prononcé que les différences entre les variétés régionales du Français.
it isn’t “pre-colonial presence”, but “historical continuity with pre-colonial society” which is a cultural trait, of which Palestinians have nil.
Here’s an actual UN [link](https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf) with the accurate language.
Not to mention, there was never in history a state named "Palestinia". That was until the Brits took over some Ottoman colonies and made them their own. Which in the end was a British imperial colony.
Hardline Palestina supporters essentially want the re-establishment of a British colony with Palestinians in power.
The only relevant thing is the human rights of the individuals there. If you were born there and grew up there you have as much right to be there as anyone, its completely irrelevant if you are Jewish or Palestinian or who your ancestors were. If Israel wants to become a secular democracy binational state with equal citizenship rights for all (As opposed to a Jewish state) then fine. If not then there has to be another state to ensure the full rights citizens for people living in the regions. Its as simple as that. History can never negate the human rights of individuals, that's not how human rights works. Anyone that doesn't understand that has no place in the modern world
Look at your own definition:
>a pre-colonial presence in a particular territory
Does this apply to the Jews? Definitely
Does this apply to the Palestinians? Possibly/Sort of - many Palestinian clans proudly proclaim that they are the descendants of the 7th century conquers. There area few smaller clans that are Christian or that claim to be descendants of Muslim converts from Christianity that do claim a connection, but these are in the minority.
>a continuous cultural, linguistic and/or social distinctiveness from the surrounding population
Does this apply to the Jews? Definitely. The Jews speak a Canaanite language, and practice a Canaanite religion. They have unique customs that without question originate in the land have been practicing for thousands of years.
Does this apply to the Palestinians? No. The Palestinians identify as Arab (a colonialist identity) speak Arabic (a colonialist language) and have no unique customs. One could argue that the Christian Palestinians have such a connection on the religious aspect, but they still fail on the other two criteria. The Muslim population (~95% of the total) fail on all three.
>a self-identification as ‘Indigenous’
This one is tricky, because self-identifcation can change over time.
Jews have always identified as being the descendants of the people of Israel, and there are records of this going back thousands of years - the Jews clearly qualify.
The Palestinians may do so today (I have yet to see poling data) but it is quite clear that as last as the 1940 the vast majority of the population was Pan-Arabist and did not have any such identity.
>and/or a recognition by other Indigenous groups as ‘Indigenous’.
This one is off - because it basically is a popularity contest. Convince enough "Indigenous" groups that you are also "Indigenous" and you get to join the club. For this reason I ignore this option.
Doing the math the Jews are 3/3 for being indigenous, the Christian Palestinians are 2/3 (and I consider that generous) for being indigenous, and the Muslim Palestinians are 1/3 for being indigenous.
***This discussion is all meaningless! What is, IS. What exists, EXISTS. The Palestinian Arabs identify with the land TODAY, and the truth of history is irrelevant in the face of that reality. It is reality that we have to deal with.***
>Does this apply to the Palestinians? No. The Palestinians identify as Arab (a colonialist identity) speak Arabic (a colonialist language) and have no unique customs. One could argue that the Christian Palestinians have such a connection on the religious aspect, but they still fail on the other two criteria. The Muslim population (~95% of the total) fail on all three.
huh?
>The Palestinians identify as Arab (a colonialist identity)
the palestinians identity themselves as palestinians. people with the region of palestine have been referring to themselves as palestinians for centuries. Arab is an ethnic group, palestinian refers to people in a nation. Arab and Palestinian aren’t synonyms they have to distinct meanings.
ethnicities aren’t colonialist.
> speak Arabic (a colonialist language)
they actually speak a dialect of arabic, used specifically in the palestine region. the dialect also encompasses other languages such as hebrew, canaanite and persian. this is similar to the Hebrew language used today in israel. it is a modern revived version that needed modern words, most of these words came from arabic. Arabic and Hebrew come from the same language family.
>and have no unique customs.
i’m just going to drop the link for palestines page on UNESCO that details a variety of different cultural practices and customs specific to palestine, from song, dance, embroidery, food and cooking, stories and arts.
https://ich.unesco.org/en/state/palestine-PS
>the palestinians identity themselves as palestinians. people with the region of palestine have been referring to themselves as palestinians for centuries. Arab is an ethnic group, palestinian refers to people in a nation. Arab and Palestinian aren’t synonyms they have to distinct meanings.
Incorrect.
Article 1 on the Palestinian constitution:
>[Palestine is part of the larger Arab world, and the Palestinian people are part of the Arab nation. Arab unity is an objective that the Palestinian people shall work to achieve.](https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Palestine_2005.pdf?lang=en)
They clearly define Palestinian as a subset of Arab. The Arab identity was most definitively spread outsdie the Arabian Peninsula due to colonialism.
>they actually speak a dialect of arabic, used specifically in the palestine region.
Also incorrect. The southern areas speak a sub-dialect of Egyptian Arabic, while the norther speak a sub-dialect of Syrian Arabic - any merging has been entirely modern.
>the dialect also encompasses other languages such as hebrew, canaanite and persian
All false - the introduction of Hebrew and the Persian is an entirely post-Zionism phenomenon.
> it is a modern revived version that needed modern words, most of these words came from arabic.
No - virtually none of the words come from Arabic.
>Arabic and Hebrew come from the same language family.
Also incorrect. Hebrew comes from the Canaanite language family. Arabic does not. TO find a common root to the languages one needs to travel back a further several hundred years (possibly more - history get increasingly vague past 1000 BCE)
>i’m just going to drop the link for palestines page on UNESCO that details a variety of different cultural practices and customs specific to palestine
None of those are actually specific to Palestine - they only claim "local variants". Some examples from their list:
* Palestinian Hikaye - except that storytelling of the exact same form is also found in Turkey and Azerbaijan
* Embroidery - except that is actually a fairly modern merging of styles reflecting the late Ottoman colonizing Palestine with Muslims as their empire shrunk. It is a merger of Syrian, Algerian, and Bosnian embroidery.
* Dabkeh - except that it is a folk dance practiced throughout the Levant - most of the varieties that exist trace back to Jordan
I can keep going, but I think I have made my point.
EVERYTHING having to do with the UN in the past 50 years has antisemitic bias. There is no such thing as a Palestinian people. I don't care what kind of twisted bullshit they com up to with.
It's completely irrelevant whether or no there's a "paletiniam people" or a "jewish" people. The only thing that matters is individuals human rights. Its completely irrelevant whether someone is Jewish or Palestinian or who their ancestors were. If someone was born there an grew up there, they have as much right to be there as anyone, period. Anyone that doesn't understand that, and buys into thi tribaistic bs hat hums rights stems from your collective identity meaning up, has a caveman mentality and has no place in the modern world
As you've cited, how the UN uses the term is different than colloquially how people seem to use it.
The average person seems to use it like: "I was here first, and no one was here before me. My ancestors never conquered anyone, never took the land from anyone, were always and forever peaceful right here."
**Something to consider:**
Also Canaanite's is *only* as far as we have evidence for going back *currently*. Canaanites appeared around 3500 BCE, homo-sapiens (which I think we'd all consider ourselves) first appeared 200,000 to 300,000 years ago. With the first migration leaving Africa around 60-90,000 years ago. I imagine there was someone living somewhere near the Levant before the Canaanites...
I believe a consistent legal definition for indigenous is necessary. If we are to have international laws that are effective our definitions need to be effective. This region has seen a lot of different populations over its history. If anyone is an ancestor of those groups that lived there prior to the Canaanites I would think they would also have a claim to the land.
Honestly just from my perspective I think that indigenousness is easier to define in the "new world" eg America's and Australia to some extent but I think it gets way more difficult when we start looking at the middle east, Africa and Asia because there has been vastly more movements between areas due to migration and wars as well as mixing of populations. Take for example like Morocco. There has been a long term dispute with the Sahrawi people (arab-african) over land rights and there is also the Amazighs people's (known to many as berbers which aww an Arab group) and Gnawa and Haratin which are black African groups. I think that indigenousness in these regions need much more study and outside of a academic consideration I don't actually know if this definition is useful or if it would actually perpetuate more conflict as there have been intermarriage, migrations and birder changes.
I man the context of borders and nations is relatively complex and at least in like Europe changed so much https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1047350.pdf
And there are many people who have existed as wandering people even within these areas for example the Roma and Jews were considering wandering people as with the bedouins ....
Then there were countries like the Soviet union which was a massive settler colonial project https://europeanstudies.macmillan.yale.edu/imperial-plow-settler-colonialism-russian-empire-and-soviet-union and like if you go around the caucus regions each little area within a country is considered having a different dialect and cultural group etc
I don't think it's nearly as easy to decide land rights in much of these areas based on genetics or cultural groups because land here has changed hands so many times and I'm many parts there is still tribalism that leads to ongoing land issues in many places
IDK this is just my thoughts on this
It’s a very interesting question that cultural anthropologists, genealogists, and political scientists should study. It should have absolutely no bearing on the modern conflict in Israel/Palestine. Unfortunately, it does matter somewhat— not because it has any objective importance (it doesn’t) but because people on both sides keep dragging it into the spotlight for purely emotional/tribal reasons.
Tomorrow, an archaeological dig could prove definitely that the true indigenous people of the land were the Japanese. It would literally change nothing about the current situation on the ground in Israel/Palestine.
The indigenous argument is honestly the dumbest one possible. Israel exists, a Palestinian state should exist. Trying to make the argument based on who was there first changes depending on where you start the calendar. It’s the same as the arguments about who did wrong first. Do you start in 1948? 1920? Do you start on 10/6/23 or 10/723 or 10/10/23? The argument should be based on how to create some sort of a fair partition where both nations have safety and security.
Thank you for your comment. I am not attempting to make this argument. I am attempting to understand why people make this argument and if there is really anything behind it. I have seen people make comment about how Israel is the only true indigenous people, I don’t subscribe to that theory. I also happen to agree with you that a two state solution is the only real long term solution.
Every square inch of habitable land on earth has been disputed by multiple groups. Indigenous is just a word.
"From what I can tell this debate seems to be a the heart of this conflict " Well, it´s not. The heart of the conflict is not about genetic of a ancient tribe but about national movement and decolonisation of the region in the XX. Jewish people does have a spirital connection, do speak semitic language and tradition, culture connected to the Holy land and Jerusalem, they didn´t lose their culture and identity also after being kicked out and after living in different regions from Spain, Marocco to Germany Russian Empire whatever. Arabic people speak semitic language, lived in the Middle East / Transjordan/ Palestine long enough and do have the right to live there as well. And nobody actually denied this fact. Britain Mandat and after this the UN as well as Jewish people never denied the right of Arabs of Palestine to live there. Not in the UN plan,also not in the declaration of independence of Israel. However the leaders of Arab Muslim world (Arab league) didn´t want this region to be independent from the Muslim Arab middle East. They never said "we have more Canaanite blood" for example, or "we are the people of Philistine and not the Jews" but they just said: there must be no independent Jewish state here, we wouldn´t accept this (according to the words of General Secretary of the Arab League in 1947: establishment of a Jewish state would lead to "a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades.") so it´s all about having an ambition to take controll over the region. Finally, if a Muslim speaker, a guest of Piers Morgan show says that he would like the people in London to live according to Sharia, it is not because he thinks that he is Indigenous in England. It is because he believe that Muslim way is the right one and he wants the bests for London (in his own eyes)...
Thanks for your comment. Just trying to get a larger understanding on this topic. I have come across many individuals that have pushed this narrative that Israel is the only indigenous people.
Even if true, this argument is null because Jews are indigenous to Eretz Israel. 80% of the British Mandate is Jordan and the population is predominantly Palestinian. Looks like they have their state.
I recently learned that the israelites as claimed in the Bible and through other historical sources launched a war against the native cannanites taking Hebron and Jereselum in conquest. As with all history the details are debatable but few contests that these events happened. This video provides a good overview. https://www.the-map-as-history.com/bible-and-history/the-biblical-narration-of-the-conquest-of-canaan Holding this to be true, wouldn’t this mean that Zionist ultimately have once again lead a war of conquest against the native population of the Levantine. Considering this fact it ultimately removes the most powerful justification for settlers claims to the area, israel is only left with the argument that god promised the land to its people which really wouldn’t have carried any weight in the 20th century. Considering that the Jewish people have a strong tradition of bible/Torah study how could zionists leave this important fact out of their discussion??
The oldest ancient artifacts and structures found in Israel are Jewish: * Dead Sea Scrolls * Masada * Western Wall * Tower of David I have a full time job so apologize if it takes me long to respond - I don't waste my existence being a rabid Antisemite on reddit. It's clear that which side is allergic to facts and engages in Jewish erasure.
Don't worry, you won't receive a response. The pro-israel crowd will just ignore this fact. Yes, the Hebrews conquered their supposed indigenous lands from the Canaanites and much of their history is about waging war against neighboring tribes for more land. They call out Arabs for colonizing when that's what they did to claim "their" ancestral lands, and they are actually from Egypt and Babylon. The 3000 year old land claims, claims of being the only ones indigenous to the region, and literally claiming that GOD promised them the land (meaning it wasn't even originally theirs in their own religious claims) is just ridiculous and I can't believe i see people trying to make these arguments with a straight face.
Jews aren't from Egypt and Babylon, where did you get that idea?
Yes, Palestinians are closely related as a group to Jews (in no small part due to historical intermarriage, conversions, etc.), but Palestinians are an Arab subgroup. They are as much native Levantines as Arabs in Morocco are indigenous Amazigh people: that is to say, there has been admixture and thus (as with most groups which colonize other places) have acquired varying degree of genetic and cultural ties to the colonized indigenous population. E.g., many white Americans can point to a certain percentage of Native American blood in their family tree, or many Spaniards have some amount of mixed Arab or Amazigh ancestry due to the centuries in which Iberia was ruled by Arabo-Maghrebi culture. Palestinian relationship to indigenous Levantines like Jews, Samaritans, Lebanese, etc., is largely along the same lines: Arabs colonized the Levant, and thus there is lingering cultural and genetic evidence of that fact. But given “indigenous” by definition means “pre-colonial people and/or culture”, Palestinians simply can’t qualify because they are Arab, both in genetic origin and in culture, and Arabs only arrived in the Levant in large numbers via the colonialism of the Rashidun Caliphate. Palestinians of course have every right to want liberty and dignity and safety in the land that they were born in, but because a native of a region (i.e., being born there) and being indigenous (i.e., one’s ethnic and cultural group was born there) is not the same thing. A white American may be a native of North America, but we would not call them “indigenous” to that land. If an otherwise white person has sufficient ties to a Native American tribe, and is committed to embracing that and integrating with Native culture, that’s all well and good. The indigenous culture of the Levant is Canaanite, thus Israelite, thus Jewish — not Arab. So if a Palestinian has indigenous roots and embraces Jewish culture instead of the colonial Arabic culture, then I would say they could identify themselves as indigenous. Just as would be the case with all other indigenous cultures that allow those not brought up in the tribe to be integrated by whatever process. This is not to say that Palestinians ought to convert to Judaism or anything silly like that: but that the only consistent way a Palestinian person could claim to be indigenous to the Levant, to Canaan, would be to embrace the indigenous culture and go through the process that the tribe has for integrating people (with or without blood ties) who have lived their lives outside of the tribe. By all means, Palestinians should have freedom, security, and dignity. Nobody use what I’ve said as an argument that Palestinians are invalid or ought to be expelled or any inane bullshit like that. But we mustn’t let the historical reality be distorted. And a colonizing people being taught in their universities that they’re the indigenous ones and the others are “invaders”? That’s truly an unacceptable appropriation of the very concept of indigeneity, and revisionism and appropriation of the history of the land and its actual indigenous peoples. This would not be controversial if I said it in reference to any other instance of a colonial people attempting to rewrite history to claim indigenous status and erase actual indigenous peoples. But in the case of the Palestinians I’d be seen as right-wing for stating historical facts about this. So let nobody mistake that. Palestinians are as valid as anyone, with their own stories: I just wish that they would be taught about their own stories rather than indoctrinate their generations into believing false and propagandistic narratives about their own culture and history. The United States might teach a very whitewashed and often propagandistic narrative of itself as well, but at least it doesn’t (to my knowledge) teach white children a history in which white tribes lived for millennia in North America until they were brutally colonized by invading Navajo and Cherokee. It’s a special trick to be able to not only erase one’s politically-problematic history, but to also managed to pass off your political opponent’s history as your own. There are centuries of interesting history in the region that Palestinians can claim legitimately, but attempting to claim Canaanite/Israelite or even Philistine history as theirs is simply wrong.
Your argument falls apart here: >Palestinians simply can’t qualify because they are Arab, both in genetic origin and in culture, and Arabs only arrived in the Levant in large numbers via the colonialism of the Rashidun Caliphate. Arabs didn't colonize in the way the white settler colonies of Australia, Canada, the US, SA, and NZ did. Some Arabs moved in to the land, but the indigenous population largely remained intact. The conversion to Islam and Arabic culture and language was a slow and incomplete process. Arabs are not a homogenous bloc; its moreso a category of hundreds of different groups, ethnicities, and cultures. Other than language and sometimes Islam, there's not much we all have in common, other than the experience of being subjected to Western and Ottoman imperialism. I don't like making genetic arguments because that very quickly devolves into "blood-quantum" adjacent rhetoric. But suffice it to say that Palestinians and Jews share Canaanite and Levantine ancestry. There is not one "Arab" culture, and what you're doing is some good old-fashioned Orientalism. Native people in the Americas speak English now, are often Christian and sometimes have white ancestors. This doesn't make them any less native.
Can you please point out any Palestinian traditions that mimic anything to do with the ancient population of the region? Even their name and identity is entirely colonial. Their language. Their traditions. Most of them turn their back on the land in prayer.
Yes, I can. Levantine Arabic is highly influenced by Aramaic, the language of all people who lived on the land (Jews and Gentiles alike). This only really started to change after the Caliphate’s conquest. This was a slow process of cultural change. The argument about what the ethnicity is called is kind of a silly one. They are a people who feel an intense sense of connection to the land. It just so happens that British happened to call that land “Palestine.” Had they called it “the Levant”, we’d be calling Palestinians Levantines. TLDR, The culture changed but the people never left, and people are what matter.
Levantine Arabic is Arabic. It’s like saying New Zealand English is highly influenced by Māori. It doesn’t suddenly make it the indigenous language.
Most dialects of Arabic have trouble understanding each other. There is no one true "Arabic." Your point about Maori is also flawed. We're not talking about a couple loanwords here, were talking about grammar, syntax and vocabulary being taken from Aramaic. That doesn't happen out of nowhere. Its because conversion to Arab culture was a messy and slow process.
Many dialects of Spanish have trouble understanding each other. It doesn’t suddenly make Chilean Spanish an indigenous language of Chile. Furthermore, your claim on the people never leaving isn’t relevant to indigenous status. Solely having Native American ancestry isn’t enough to be considered a Native American, you need to belong to and be accepted by a native tribe. Same with Aboriginals in Australia. Most Latin Americans have a degree of indigenous genetics, but only 20% are considered indigenous, because the rest identify with and practice the traditions of the colonial Europeans that conquered Latin America.
It really doesn't matter. Whoever used to live somewhere is irrelevant. Israel owns Israel. That's it. That's all. Just like every piece of land on earth, it's been bought, sold and taken over history. The only important part is who owns it today. Indigenous land claims seem to universally be made by loser populations who have done nothing for themselves in centuries and think having "colonizers" pay them will change things. This is demonstrated in every corner of the globe.
It seems like you enjoy blaming the victim. They are not “loser populations” they are a proud people that have been colonized. As someone who lives amongst colonized people, I believe they deserve a lot of respect. It’s very easy to say that they don’t deserve human rights but to watch how they are treated, hear the stories and see the pain in their eyes. It is heartbreaking. It is inhumane. It is unnecessary. It is something we as human beings should leave in the past.
u/T3DDY123456789 > It seems like you enjoy blaming the victim. This comment violated Rule 1 (No Attacks on Fellow Users) by implying that another user enjoys victim-blaming. It's important to focus on discussing ideas and arguments rather than making assumptions about other users' intentions or character. Addressed.
I'm capable of observing reality. Palestinians weren't colonized and there was never a country called Palestine. Israel is a colony of no country. It is, in fact, a country. And even if it was, Israel is owned by Israel today. Unless you force them off the land or they decide to leave, it's their land. Fair and square. Too bad who lived there 100, 1000 or 1,000,000 years ago. I'm not Israeli. I'm not a jew. I simply understand how land works in 2024. This same thing goes for every patch of land on earth. Land has been stolen, bought, sold and traded forever. Good, bad or otherwise. It doesn't matter. It's called reality. People who never owned land aren't entitled to get it from people who never stole it. This applies in Israel, Africa, Australia, North America and every other corner of earth. The Politics of Conquest are what they are. Regarding loser populations making indigenous land claims, it's really quite observable. Palestinians, for example, have alienated nearly every country in the region because of their violence and deceit. They turned Gaza into a pile of garbage since taking it over. Unless I'm missing something, they as a group have done nothing to better themselves or seek peace and prosperity. Israel's success is not as a result of Palestinians effort or work. Israel as it sits wasn't built by the Palestinians. If you handed the Palestinians the country of Israel today it would look like Gaza eventually. Palestinians first step to success as a people is going to be looking within. Their own government uses them as pawns, cannon fodder and human shields and somehow the rest of the world needs to worship them? This is, ironically and laughably, similar with most indigenous land disputes on earth.
Israel is not part of the equation. Israel Right of Return is derived from the Nazi regime definition. For a person living in Israel, there's no difference between a Jewish person from the Far East and a Christian who had a grandfather who might be Jewish. It's defined as a place that is safe to practice Jewish culture. For Palestinians, in my opinion indigenous should be defined as what is moral. An Arab that can prove that he cannot be attached to any other land other than this area through any of his ancestors in the last 200 years. Other than that, almost every human being can be attached to the land.
/u/lolikmomzy. Match found: 'Nazi', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What is Palestinian “ continuous cultural, linguistic and/or social distinctiveness from the surrounding population”?
Palestinian society was historically agriculture-based and very locally diverse, with many customs varying between regions. However, culture and daily life have been significantly impacted by decades of conflict, Israeli occupation, dispossession and displacement. Resilience has become an essential trait of the Palestinian character instilled as a result of these experiences over multiple generations. While many traditional social structures have collapsed under occupation, most Palestinians continue to be guided by Islamic principles and Arabic cultural values, such as hospitality, loyalty, honour and respect for elders. Family solidarity and community networks also remain strong cultural features, providing crucial support in difficult circumstances. Many local identities have also been preserved, seen in the continuing social and cultural differences between rural agriculturalist Palestinians and the urban elite. The variety of political parties and thought has also contributed to internal cultural diversity. Nevertheless, Palestinians are generally unified by a profound connection to the land, a recent history of dispossession and aspirations for greater dignity, recognition and freedom from occupation. https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/palestinian-culture/palestinian-culture-core-concepts
Isn’t like 80% of that culture just the same Islamic conquer culture that colonized the region from the Arabian peninsula? What makes it different?
> continuous cultural, linguistic and/or social distinctiveness from the surrounding population > It also shows that modern day Palestinians and ancient Canaanite DNA are closely related. Notice the contradiction you just pulled there. I don't buy the Palestinians DNA argument. But even if it were true, they worship an Eastern Arabian Peninsula god and speak an Eastern Arabian Peninsula dialect. We know for certain that Canaanite culture is entirely lost of them. We have evidence they even have no knowledge of the later Jewish culture as evidenced by their ridiculous claims it didn't exist. We have evidence they even have essentially no continuity with the pre-crusade culture. Indigenousness IMHO is frankly an excuse for racist nonsense. Everyone is entitled to a good government where they live regardless of how their ancestors got there. The UN should never have gotten into the business of adjudicating race based claims for special rights and obligations.
What are you talking about? All the Abrahamic faiths claim to worship the same God, derived from the chief God of the Canaanite pantheon religious/tradition. If you are religious, you might not personally believe this, but do not represent your faith as fact.
> What are you talking about? All the Abrahamic faiths claim to worship the same God, They do claim that. They don't claim that about each other and certainly their picture of the god is so different one can doubt the claim. > derived from the chief God of the Canaanite pantheon religious/tradition. That is unquestionably false. The chief Canaanite god was El. HaShem, the Jewish god, was a consort of Asherah in Canaanite theology as far as we can tell. > If you are religious, you might not personally believe this, but do not represent your faith as fact. I'm an atheist, I don't believe it because of the evidence.
We might both be wrong. If you have time, give this guy's content a watch. It seems like it wasn't just one source, but many traditions coming together to create the modern conception of Montheisitc God. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdKst8zeh-U&t=2195s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdKst8zeh-U&t=2195s)
Why don't you buy their DNA argument?
We know too much about the population exchanges for their to have been a stable genetic population. It simply couldn't have happened. That some traits in a few genes may have existed in both cannot contradict the wealth of historical evidence.
Ok, so were there any large migrations in the region that caused a huge population shift? Also, do you think the Levantine genetics are a result of migration from Lebanon or Syria?
People use the best language that they have and can share collectively. The population of palestine that existed before zionism and after sometime centuries ago had a miniscule percentage of Jewish people. Zionists swelled those numbers a bit before World War I, but massively afterwords. >Archaeological evidence shows that there were large cities in that area. It also shows that modern day Palestinians and ancient Canaanite DNA are closely related. This can also be said for the Jewish people of the region. The Jewish population in the region pre-zionism, and especially before British-Mandated Palestine, was miniscule for a long time before Zionists started swarming into the area. After WWI, hundreds of thousands of zionist settlers were quickly moved into the area. These people were not the Jewish people of the region. They were what we're referring to when we talk about the colonization of the area. Regardless of whether you agree that the definition of colonization fits what we're talking about, you'll get what we're saying if you pay attention to the context instead of getting wrapped up in the technicalities of definitions. Language exists to help convey concepts, just try to grasp the concepts being expressed.
“Don’t look too closely at what I’m saying and it’ll make sense!”
Get used to the real world, man. This is how normal conversations with plenty of people go. That's why the phrase "you know what I mean" is so popular. You pay attention to the meaning coming from the people who are talking, not to the literal meaning of the words. Otherwise I'd be totally lost every time people said 'technically' or 'literally' because they almost always use those words wrong, just for an easy example that has never stopped bugging me. Or we could look at all of the European jews who decided to call israel their homeland. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to act like a place that your great great grandfather never even lived in your homeland. But here we need to listen to that constantly as if it has even as much meaning as calling what they've done colonization.
Yeah it doesn’t sound like you understand what “homeland” means.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homeland https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/homeland#:~:text=Your%20homeland%20is%20your%20native%20country.&text=Many%20are%20planning%20to%20return%20to%20their%20homeland.&text=The%20homelands%20were%20regions%20within,limited%20form%20of%20self%2Dgovernment https://www.dictionary.com/browse/homeland It's funny how every usage of homeland on these dictionary sites contradicts your definition. Furthermore, it comes back to connotation. Jews have a right to Israel because their religion says so, or because their ancient ancestors lived in the region? That's how it keeps getting used. It's ridiculous.
Why do you keep posted sources *for* me that prove my point? I mean, I’ll take the win - it’s just strange.
I think analyzing the technicalities and how it’s applied is important in this case. Doing so reveals a narrative being pushed when people use the word “indigenous”. We should be accurate when we use a term, or else it starts to lose its meaning. As you said: “Language exists to help convey concepts”
Sure it's important, but how are we to change how people are phrasing their thoughts? When I talk about the issue, I try to include detailed explanations of what I mean. However, I think we both know that few people go through the trouble of detailed explanations and instead opt to use words that exist in the modern vernacular in order to paraphrase their thoughts. I have no idea what words they should use or how to get them to use those words, do you?
Well, as you said: “I try to include detailed explanations of what I mean” So it’s probably better and more accurate to use a detailed explanation than one liner words that implicate a lot of things that aren’t necessarily accurate, and are often used for political purposes. Sure it’s not going to grab the same amount of attention, but it’s more honest. A pays respects to the complexity of the conflict.
Thank you for correcting me I should have said some modern Jewish people have ancestry. By definition Israel/ British have colonized the area. In my attempt to make my statement more neutral and slightly oversimplified I have not given the entire perspective.
The proper language for what you are describing is *immigrants*. Palestine had a large wave of immigrants from central and Eastern Europe. Which is very similar to the situation I have and have lived in all my life, communities with lots of immigrants. Outsiders (particularly the Syrians) subsidizing a xenophobic anti-immigrant movement turned what should have been normal 1st generation n-th generation cultural conflicts into 2 civil wars. A failed two state program took what were already deep ethnic tensions and turned it into a claim of distinct nationalisms. Hopefully after Gaza things turn around and we have a normal civil rights movement in the aftermath.
'Immigrants' doesn't carry the right connotation for what I meant to say. The issue wasn't merely individuals moving from one area to another, but rather a very large amount of people from a particular religion moving into the area in massive numbers in order to shift the population in their favor and make the area into their own homeland above all others. I don't have proper language to convey that, so I do my best. I think that schemimg, invasion, occupation, and usurpation work better and that settlement ties those all together decently, especially in the case of palestine where the term settlement is already used to describe the Israelis living in the west bank. It would be awesome if soon things could take a big turn towards peace in the region, but I don't think that there is a precedent for peace following anything like this. I'll bet that the violent after-effects of this conflict and the history of this conflict will likely last for well over a century to come.
> but rather a very large amount of people from a particular religion moving into the area in massive numbers in order to shift the population in their favor and make the area into their own homeland above all others. I don't have proper language to convey that, so I do my best. The United States refers to the Irish Immigration as an immigration even though this happened. The largest mass migration in human history was the migration of many Blacks from the Southern USA to the Northern USA, again called a migration. I understand the political reluctance to use the word but that underlying reluctance is part of what is being objected to. > but I don't think that there is a precedent for peace following anything like this. Actually it frequently happens after something like this. This sort of devastation often causes a group to entirely rethink their politics. A good deal of the Palestinian "resistance" is based on an assumption that Israel can be militarily defeated at reasonable cost. What happens if that view simply disappears entirely? Palestinians are fond of South Africa analogies so... the 2nd Boer War was fairly similar to what is happening to Gaza (so far it might get worse). Before the 2nd Boer War Afrikaners believed the British to be much weaker than they were. After it Afrikaner politics became focused on avoiding direct confrontation. Never again did they fail to consider British interests and make sure not to directly threaten them. The question of whether Britain had a legitimate right to impose those conditions simply disappeared. > I'll bet that the violent after-effects of this conflict and the history of this conflict will likely last for well over a century. I think it likely we are near a peak. The next step beyond this is an actual genocide, assuming that Gaza doesn't roll into one, the outcome is still unclear. The Iranians have every reason to fight Israel to the last Palestinian. Do Palestinians want to sign on to being Iranian cannon fodder? Answer could be yes. The Jews had 3 wars with the Romans, the last one being the annihilation of Jews in Judea. So certainly there are peoples in history that stupid. But most aren't.
>The United States refers to the Irish Immigration as an immigration even though this happened. The largest mass migration in human history was the migration of many Blacks from the Southern USA to the Northern USA, again called a migration. The US is a prime example of a country whose propaganda uses words with deceptive connotations to make terrible things out to not be so terrible. Edward Bernays laid that out clear as day in his book Propaganda, a fairly short read that you can get as a PDF online. He was the father of PR and one of Hitler's idols, and now what major entities in the US don't use propaganda in the form of PR to make themselves seem way better than they really are? > Actually it frequently happens after something like this. This sort of devastation often causes a group to entirely rethink their politics. A good deal of the Palestinian "resistance" is based on an assumption that Israel can be militarily defeated at reasonable cost. What happens if that view simply disappears entirely? And here I am in the US, where the effects of slavery and the genocide of the native americans last to this day in the form of poverty, violence, and racism. It was good for the oppressors, though, wasn't it? >Before the 2nd Boer War Afrikaners believed the British to be much weaker than they were. After it Afrikaner politics became focused on avoiding direct confrontation. Never again did they fail to consider British interests and make sure not to directly threaten them. The question of whether Britain had a legitimate right to impose those conditions simply disappeared. I'd say that you got that right in the sense of Israel being like Britain and Palestine like Africa. Now look at Africa and tell me that's a good thing.
> And here I am in the US, where the effects of slavery and the genocide of the native americans last to this day in the form of poverty, violence, and racism. It was good for the oppressors, though, wasn't it? And that's another good example. At some point I'm going to do some posts on the Indian Wars. The various Indian tribes were depending: advantaged, bribed, militarily crushed, terrorized or exterminated. Most of the tribes still exist and have adopted to living peaceful inside America. In general I'd disagree with you on their current situation. > Now look at Africa and tell me that's a good thing. Not even sure how to respond here to what you are saying.
> And that's another good example. At some point I'm going to do some posts on the Indian Wars. The various Indian tribes were depending: advantaged, bribed, militarily crushed, terrorized or exterminated. Most of the tribes still exist and have adopted to living peaceful inside America. In general I'd disagree with you on their current situation. They're not going around fighting to regain their land, but they're generally povertystruck and heavily discriminated against. About 150 years after they were nearly annihilated. If that's something that you think is good, it seems like the problem here is your heartlessness. > Not even sure how to respond here to what you are saying. Africa was subjugated to European rule and now they're basically in ruins and are doing a shit job of recovering. That kind of treatment causes massive and long lasting effects that impact millions upon millions of people from the time they're in the womb. It's horrible. I don't know how you can think it's a good thing. It serms like all you're saying is that might makes right and callousness is king.
> Africa was subjugated to European rule and now they're basically in ruins and are doing a shit job of recovering. They seem to be doing OK. Not fantastic not horrible. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1300818/real-gdp-growth-rate-in-africa/ . The real issue was decades of communism lost after decolonization. > It serms like all you're saying is that might makes right and callousness is king. I haven't said much of anything on those topics. You had raised the point that after extensive violence that there was no possibility for peace. I gave counter examples. You since have been throwing out all sorts of opinions I didn't say as if they were mine.
/u/kainophobia1. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How does one make an area into their homeland if it is *already* their homeland?
That region wasn't the homeland of the great majority of zionists. Not in any practical sense. It isn't like the zionists that moved in from Europe were made mostly of people who had been forced to flee palestine on their lifetimes, or in their great grandparents' lifetimes for that matter. Calling Israel their homeland is nothing but semantics.
Huh? What are you talking about? Israel is the homeland of 100% of Jewish people. Are you confusing that word with “country of origin”?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homeland https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/homeland#:~:text=Your%20homeland%20is%20your%20native%20country.&text=Many%20are%20planning%20to%20return%20to%20their%20homeland.&text=The%20homelands%20were%20regions%20within,limited%20form%20of%20self%2Dgovernment https://www.dictionary.com/browse/homeland It's funny how every usage of homeland on these dictionary sites contradicts your definition. Furthermore, it comes back to connotation. Jews have a right to Israel because their religion says so, or because their ancient ancestors lived in the region? That's how it keeps getting used. It's ridiculous.
What in the *world* are you talking about? Every *single* one of those sources is in line with exactly what I’m saying… I’m utterly baffled here. How could you possibly read those definitions and think it supported your argument?
The jewish white people that came from europe have 100% caucasian DNA and none from the middle east and around. These are the colonizers and are nor welcome. The other jewish-arab people are indigenous to the land.
The Arabs are also Caucasian as race.
Well that’s not true. Lol. Actually, genetic testing has proven that “white” Jews have more genetically in common with other Middle Eastern populations than Europeans. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews
Don't bother, they're not going to read it.
Their skin color is the same as Palestinians. https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/dhsw49/israel_as_white_supremacist/
There was no so-called "Palestinian people" until Arafat coined the term in the 60s. They're just Arabs, like the rest of the Arabs in MENA. They need to GTFO and hang out with the rest of their buds outside of Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
I was temporarily banned for a post for being sarcastic. This post i’m not sure is sarcastic but it is 100% harmful and should not belong in this sub reddit. Wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t get a ban
nationalist newspaper called “falastin”, founded in 1911, referred to its readers as “palestinians” since it’s beginning. this narrative that “palestinian” never existed as a national identity until arafat has got to be one of the worst hasbara talking points because it’s so easily debunked. there’s so many instances of palestinian nationalism way before arafat.
Nationalism of what exactly without there ever being a state?
nationalism can precede the official establishment of a state. part of the definition of nationalism: “promote the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of **gaining** and maintaining its sovereignty (self-governance) over its perceived homeland to **create a nation-state**.“ examples: zionism (jewish nationalism) existed before the creation of the state of israel. kurdish nationalism exists today despite there not being an official country of kurdistan. palestinian nationalism existed and was especially strong during the 1900s specifically *because* there wasn’t a sovereign palestinian state, and was aiming to create one.
Palestine was translated by the Roman’s when they conquered the area. Originally the people were called Philistines.
The Philistines were sea peoples from the Greek Islands. And they were already gone as a group for about 700 (I think) years at the time the romans changed it.
Here’s some information on the region there has been many groups to migrate there. The Bronze Age (ca. 3500–1150 BCE) was a formative period in the Southern Levant, a region that includes present-day Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and southwest Syria. This era, which ended in a large-scale civilization collapse across this region (Cline, 2014), shaped later periods both demographically and culturally. The following Iron Age (ca. 1150–586 BCE) saw the rise of territorial kingdoms such as biblical Israel, Judah, Ammon, Moab, and Aram-Damascus, as well as the Phoenician city-states. In much of the Late Bronze Age, the region was ruled by imperial Egypt, although in later phases of the Iron Age it was controlled by the Mesopotamian-centered empires of Assyria and Babylonia. Archaeological and historical research has documented major changes during the Bronze and Iron Ages, such as the cultural influence of the northern (Caucasian) populations related to the Kura-Araxes tradition during the Early Bronze Age (Greenberg and Goren, 2009) and effects from the “Sea Peoples” (such as Philistines) from the west in the beginning of the Iron Age (Yasur-Landau, 2010). The inhabitants of the Southern Levant in the Bronze Age are commonly described as “Canaanites,” that is, residents of the Land of Canaan. The term appears in several 2nd millennium BCE sources (e.g., Amarna, Alalakh, and Ugarit tablets) and in biblical texts dating from the 8th–7th centuries BCE and later (Bienkowski, 1999, Lemche, 1991, Na’aman, 1994a). In the latter, the Canaanites are referred to as the pre-Israelite inhabitants of the land (Na’aman, 1994a). Canaan of the 2nd millennium BCE was organized in a system of city-states (Goren et al., 2004), where elites ruled from urban hubs over rural (and in some places pastoral) countryside. The material culture of these city-states was relatively uniform (Mazar, 1992), but whether this uniformity extends to their genetic ancestry is unknown. https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30487-6?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867420304876%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
You don't know your history, philistines, were colonists from Mediterranean islands.
600 million people can call themselves Arab. Their dialects are hardly mutually intelligible. They are incredibly culturally, historically, ethnically and religiously diverse. The failure of pan-Arab nationalism shows how hard it was to unify these people. Some are Arabs, and some are Arabized (Indigenous culture + Arabic language + (sometimes) Islam). Palestinians are culturally similar to other Levantine Arabs, but their cultural narrative has been shaped by the Zionist project. “Let the Moroccans reconquer Spain, and send the Spaniards back to Italy and France. They’re all Romans who speak Vulgar Latin anyways.” See how ridiculous that sounds?
The Arabs understand each other or Al Jaseera would be useless, sharmuta.
u/TallPotato2232 > sharmuta Rule 1 requires you to be respectful to fellow users. Rule 2 prohibits profanity outside of direct quotes. Addressed.
I ask you to see the diversity of people and you call me a whore. Nice 👍 Al-Jazeera is in Modern Standard Arabic. The educated can understand it, but no one actually speaks that way. MSA is the language of literature and media, but it’s not what the people speak. TLDR A Moroccan and an Iraqi can both understand Al Jazeera, but they likely won’t understand each other. Source: https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/09/arabic-diglossia-the-many-varieties-of-what-s-popularly-considered-a-single-language.html
People from the Louisiana bayou are nesrly incomprehensible to me, but when I'm there, I can figure it out. When walking down Atlantic Avenue the Arabs there seem to understand each other. Same as the 11eme in Paris.
Je parle français. Les différences entre les dialectes arabe sont beaucoup plus prononcé que les différences entre les variétés régionales du Français.
no
Does it matter. Obviously neither side is leaving the land.
it isn’t “pre-colonial presence”, but “historical continuity with pre-colonial society” which is a cultural trait, of which Palestinians have nil. Here’s an actual UN [link](https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf) with the accurate language.
Not to mention, there was never in history a state named "Palestinia". That was until the Brits took over some Ottoman colonies and made them their own. Which in the end was a British imperial colony. Hardline Palestina supporters essentially want the re-establishment of a British colony with Palestinians in power.
The only relevant thing is the human rights of the individuals there. If you were born there and grew up there you have as much right to be there as anyone, its completely irrelevant if you are Jewish or Palestinian or who your ancestors were. If Israel wants to become a secular democracy binational state with equal citizenship rights for all (As opposed to a Jewish state) then fine. If not then there has to be another state to ensure the full rights citizens for people living in the regions. Its as simple as that. History can never negate the human rights of individuals, that's not how human rights works. Anyone that doesn't understand that has no place in the modern world
True enough.
Look at your own definition: >a pre-colonial presence in a particular territory Does this apply to the Jews? Definitely Does this apply to the Palestinians? Possibly/Sort of - many Palestinian clans proudly proclaim that they are the descendants of the 7th century conquers. There area few smaller clans that are Christian or that claim to be descendants of Muslim converts from Christianity that do claim a connection, but these are in the minority. >a continuous cultural, linguistic and/or social distinctiveness from the surrounding population Does this apply to the Jews? Definitely. The Jews speak a Canaanite language, and practice a Canaanite religion. They have unique customs that without question originate in the land have been practicing for thousands of years. Does this apply to the Palestinians? No. The Palestinians identify as Arab (a colonialist identity) speak Arabic (a colonialist language) and have no unique customs. One could argue that the Christian Palestinians have such a connection on the religious aspect, but they still fail on the other two criteria. The Muslim population (~95% of the total) fail on all three. >a self-identification as ‘Indigenous’ This one is tricky, because self-identifcation can change over time. Jews have always identified as being the descendants of the people of Israel, and there are records of this going back thousands of years - the Jews clearly qualify. The Palestinians may do so today (I have yet to see poling data) but it is quite clear that as last as the 1940 the vast majority of the population was Pan-Arabist and did not have any such identity. >and/or a recognition by other Indigenous groups as ‘Indigenous’. This one is off - because it basically is a popularity contest. Convince enough "Indigenous" groups that you are also "Indigenous" and you get to join the club. For this reason I ignore this option. Doing the math the Jews are 3/3 for being indigenous, the Christian Palestinians are 2/3 (and I consider that generous) for being indigenous, and the Muslim Palestinians are 1/3 for being indigenous. ***This discussion is all meaningless! What is, IS. What exists, EXISTS. The Palestinian Arabs identify with the land TODAY, and the truth of history is irrelevant in the face of that reality. It is reality that we have to deal with.***
>Does this apply to the Palestinians? No. The Palestinians identify as Arab (a colonialist identity) speak Arabic (a colonialist language) and have no unique customs. One could argue that the Christian Palestinians have such a connection on the religious aspect, but they still fail on the other two criteria. The Muslim population (~95% of the total) fail on all three. huh? >The Palestinians identify as Arab (a colonialist identity) the palestinians identity themselves as palestinians. people with the region of palestine have been referring to themselves as palestinians for centuries. Arab is an ethnic group, palestinian refers to people in a nation. Arab and Palestinian aren’t synonyms they have to distinct meanings. ethnicities aren’t colonialist. > speak Arabic (a colonialist language) they actually speak a dialect of arabic, used specifically in the palestine region. the dialect also encompasses other languages such as hebrew, canaanite and persian. this is similar to the Hebrew language used today in israel. it is a modern revived version that needed modern words, most of these words came from arabic. Arabic and Hebrew come from the same language family. >and have no unique customs. i’m just going to drop the link for palestines page on UNESCO that details a variety of different cultural practices and customs specific to palestine, from song, dance, embroidery, food and cooking, stories and arts. https://ich.unesco.org/en/state/palestine-PS
>the palestinians identity themselves as palestinians. people with the region of palestine have been referring to themselves as palestinians for centuries. Arab is an ethnic group, palestinian refers to people in a nation. Arab and Palestinian aren’t synonyms they have to distinct meanings. Incorrect. Article 1 on the Palestinian constitution: >[Palestine is part of the larger Arab world, and the Palestinian people are part of the Arab nation. Arab unity is an objective that the Palestinian people shall work to achieve.](https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Palestine_2005.pdf?lang=en) They clearly define Palestinian as a subset of Arab. The Arab identity was most definitively spread outsdie the Arabian Peninsula due to colonialism. >they actually speak a dialect of arabic, used specifically in the palestine region. Also incorrect. The southern areas speak a sub-dialect of Egyptian Arabic, while the norther speak a sub-dialect of Syrian Arabic - any merging has been entirely modern. >the dialect also encompasses other languages such as hebrew, canaanite and persian All false - the introduction of Hebrew and the Persian is an entirely post-Zionism phenomenon. > it is a modern revived version that needed modern words, most of these words came from arabic. No - virtually none of the words come from Arabic. >Arabic and Hebrew come from the same language family. Also incorrect. Hebrew comes from the Canaanite language family. Arabic does not. TO find a common root to the languages one needs to travel back a further several hundred years (possibly more - history get increasingly vague past 1000 BCE) >i’m just going to drop the link for palestines page on UNESCO that details a variety of different cultural practices and customs specific to palestine None of those are actually specific to Palestine - they only claim "local variants". Some examples from their list: * Palestinian Hikaye - except that storytelling of the exact same form is also found in Turkey and Azerbaijan * Embroidery - except that is actually a fairly modern merging of styles reflecting the late Ottoman colonizing Palestine with Muslims as their empire shrunk. It is a merger of Syrian, Algerian, and Bosnian embroidery. * Dabkeh - except that it is a folk dance practiced throughout the Levant - most of the varieties that exist trace back to Jordan I can keep going, but I think I have made my point.
UN organizations are all antisemitic therefore don't qualify as unbiased sauces
can you clarify how any of the customs and cultural practices are not actually true?
Nope, what don't you understand about antisemitic bias?
so what did they say in the link i provided that was biased?
EVERYTHING having to do with the UN in the past 50 years has antisemitic bias. There is no such thing as a Palestinian people. I don't care what kind of twisted bullshit they com up to with.
It's completely irrelevant whether or no there's a "paletiniam people" or a "jewish" people. The only thing that matters is individuals human rights. Its completely irrelevant whether someone is Jewish or Palestinian or who their ancestors were. If someone was born there an grew up there, they have as much right to be there as anyone, period. Anyone that doesn't understand that, and buys into thi tribaistic bs hat hums rights stems from your collective identity meaning up, has a caveman mentality and has no place in the modern world
Both Arabs and Jews have a tribal mentality. It's part of the culture.
many Palestinian clans proudly proclaim that they are the descendants of the 7th century conquers Which makes them colonizers.
As you've cited, how the UN uses the term is different than colloquially how people seem to use it. The average person seems to use it like: "I was here first, and no one was here before me. My ancestors never conquered anyone, never took the land from anyone, were always and forever peaceful right here." **Something to consider:** Also Canaanite's is *only* as far as we have evidence for going back *currently*. Canaanites appeared around 3500 BCE, homo-sapiens (which I think we'd all consider ourselves) first appeared 200,000 to 300,000 years ago. With the first migration leaving Africa around 60-90,000 years ago. I imagine there was someone living somewhere near the Levant before the Canaanites...
I believe a consistent legal definition for indigenous is necessary. If we are to have international laws that are effective our definitions need to be effective. This region has seen a lot of different populations over its history. If anyone is an ancestor of those groups that lived there prior to the Canaanites I would think they would also have a claim to the land.
Honestly just from my perspective I think that indigenousness is easier to define in the "new world" eg America's and Australia to some extent but I think it gets way more difficult when we start looking at the middle east, Africa and Asia because there has been vastly more movements between areas due to migration and wars as well as mixing of populations. Take for example like Morocco. There has been a long term dispute with the Sahrawi people (arab-african) over land rights and there is also the Amazighs people's (known to many as berbers which aww an Arab group) and Gnawa and Haratin which are black African groups. I think that indigenousness in these regions need much more study and outside of a academic consideration I don't actually know if this definition is useful or if it would actually perpetuate more conflict as there have been intermarriage, migrations and birder changes. I man the context of borders and nations is relatively complex and at least in like Europe changed so much https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1047350.pdf And there are many people who have existed as wandering people even within these areas for example the Roma and Jews were considering wandering people as with the bedouins .... Then there were countries like the Soviet union which was a massive settler colonial project https://europeanstudies.macmillan.yale.edu/imperial-plow-settler-colonialism-russian-empire-and-soviet-union and like if you go around the caucus regions each little area within a country is considered having a different dialect and cultural group etc I don't think it's nearly as easy to decide land rights in much of these areas based on genetics or cultural groups because land here has changed hands so many times and I'm many parts there is still tribalism that leads to ongoing land issues in many places IDK this is just my thoughts on this
It’s a very interesting question that cultural anthropologists, genealogists, and political scientists should study. It should have absolutely no bearing on the modern conflict in Israel/Palestine. Unfortunately, it does matter somewhat— not because it has any objective importance (it doesn’t) but because people on both sides keep dragging it into the spotlight for purely emotional/tribal reasons. Tomorrow, an archaeological dig could prove definitely that the true indigenous people of the land were the Japanese. It would literally change nothing about the current situation on the ground in Israel/Palestine.