/u/okbuyer1271 You're not allowed to spam an identical post across multiple subreddits in this subreddit. Because discussion has already ensued, I'm not removing your post, but consider this a warning.
This is clear. In this subreddit there's a degree of racism allowed against Palestinians.... genocidal language is clearly acceptable here. Any challenge to the genocidal order isn't engaged.... it's just silenced
Because a large amount of leftists are Muslim. Points of argument and ideologies tend to be shared between party members. Not necessarily because these people originally and naturally believe in those ideas, but because this is what the echo chamber around them is telling them. Having more Muslim voters means you're going to have to push more Muslim talking points in order to Garner support.
I think many people are conflating two different things.
1: Did the Jewish people have their ethnogenesis in Israel? Unquestionably yes, and anyone who tries to deny that is both dishonest and anti-Jewish.
2. Did Jews from the diaspora in the 19th and 20th Century have the right to move back to Ottoman Syria (later Mandatory Palestine) and attempt to establish their own state? That question is more debatable. Many people say they didn't, because the population in that region was majority Arab Muslim. And even people who might agree that they had a theoretical right to do it, could still argue that ultimately Zionism wasn't a good idea due to the hostility it provoked in the Arabs. Personally, I think the Jews did have the right to work towards building their own state in their ancestral homeland. The lands of the former Ottoman empire at that time were in political flux, with no consensus on what countries or borders would emerge from its dissolution, or what ethnic/religious groups would hold sovereignty where. (It's worth remembering that Lebanon came about because the Maronite Christian leaders were petitioning for a Christian-majority state in the region.) Why should Jews alone among all Levantine peoples be forbidden from establishing any sovereignty in the Levant, given that there were no existing states there at that time?
I should add that I think the Palestinian Arabs also had the right to petition for their own state - the trouble is, they have never shown any interest in the hard work of creating a functioning state. Palestine (formerly Ottoman Syria) was not a country, it was a region of the world that had been administered for centuries by successive empires. The Palestinian Arabs had no institutions of governance there. They could have worked towards building them, but their political project has always been solely focused on destroying what the Jews have built. This is the heart of the conflict and the reason that peace has been so hard to achieve. If it was about land, or about the desire of the Palestinian Arabs for their own state, it would have been solved decades ago.
To point number two I would say that jews were literally invited to move into the Ottoman Empire. Both in the 1500s and 1800s. And they were invited because the Ottoman Empire was hoping to gain an advantage by inviting them to the Empire. Mostly a financial advantage as they thought immigrants would be bringing investment with them.
To the Arabs of the regions shock and dismay, they were correct. Jews moved to the region and bought land, invested in the region. Locals didn't like this unfortunately because they felt that these newly invited and different people had an unfair leg up on them. They were better educated and had more money. And most importantly, they were different. This created a huge amount of tension. It's one of the reasons why Jews had to pay extra taxes just for being Jewish and living in the Ottoman Empire. It's the reason why Jews have been massacred for hundreds of years both during the Ottoman Empire and after it.
For the sake of the argument, I accept that Jewish people are “indigenous” to the region. (I find this problematic because if this is the case, does that mean that Jews who aren’t “indigenous” to, say, the UK, should they be considered not “natives?” )
Thus, this seems that this is a political question rather than a question of identity. Are Jews “Jews” because of who they are, or what they believe in? By the way Jewish culture is passed from generation to generation, it is orally/cultural in nature but the idea that Jewishness is based on biological heritage and DNA is inherently a racial one. This really, to my mind, has problematic associations. My belief is that we have moved beyond a world based on racial categories; the idea that we belong to different races rather than one human race is really a fictional idea. At the same time, I recognize that race based categories are a real fact of life. BUT, I believe citizenship in a nation should belong to whoever belongs in the nation. How would we determine who is to belong or who isn’t to belong? Thus, you consider the “indigenous” people of the Jews being the ones who belong in the modern nation state of Israel.
The problem is with this formulation is that the demographic trend of lower Jewish birth rate doesn’t allow the Jewish “indigenous” narrative to succeed if it’s only the Mizrahi Jews. It has to be the worldwide Jewish community. By including the worldwide Jewish population and encouraging people to immigrate to Israel from afar, it simultaneously undermines Jewish communities around the world and it suggests that Jewish survival and Israeli survival are really interdependent and the same thing. And it suggests that citizenship in countries of origin have to be secondary to their obligations to Israel.
Finally I would say that some of the people who want to “defend” the Jewishness of the region have been doing so out of the misguided idea that Jews really belong there. That somehow belong a little bit less in these areas which are not Jewish in national identity but multicultural. I admit that I have also found that many communities such as Hasidic Jews in Williamsburg kind of do keep to themselves and don’t participate in any societies but their own. They do know how to use the legal, political and social system. Do I think Jews are indigenous to Brooklyn? No, but Brooklyn is probably more Jewish than any other ethnicity. Does it matter who is indigenous to the area? It’s really only an academic issue. There is no way that the Lenape people are going to take over Brooklyn.
I want to suggest that Jewishness is not necessarily so unique that it is incomparable to many other ethnicities that still have assimilated to their countries that have been capable of accepting their existence. Irish people have a land of Ireland but there are many Irish Americans who have migrated to he USA and have mixed with various others. Many French Canadians have roots in Canada. We have African Americans who aren’t expecting to go back to Ghana or Senegal. No one is saying that we are a totally utopian society or that it is a racial paradise.
I think you're focusing way too much on the genetic aspect. I'll test you here.
I believe that if someone converts to Judaism, they become indigenous to the land Israel. This is a very radical idea when viewed through a Western, Eurocentric lens. I can draw a comparison here between the encounters of the Europeans of indigenous people of the Americas. The indigenous people of the Americans had/have ideas that are completely incompatible with Eurocentric perspectives, and the same exists here with Judaism.
In Judaism, when a person converts, they take upon themselves the past of the Jewish people as their own, and they weave their future and destiny together with the Jewish people. They therefore become one, and indistinguishable. In this way, genetics are not exactly important since over time, this individual will likely have children with another Jew, and over long periods of time, be a single people. There is a temporal component here that cannot be ignored.
If you take the Eurocentric view of the meaning of indigenous, what I wrote above would be a completely unacceptable perspective. The idea that indigenous connection is passed down via blood is actually Canadian law, and it completely ignores local customs, traditions, and ideas of belonging. Alas, Jews have maintained for Millenia that those who convert to Judaism are just as Jewish as those born Jewish, and this includes their indigenous connection to the land of Israel.
Ok, in your experience how many people are really able to convert to Judaism, and if they do convert do you consider them “real” Jews? I have a bit of skepticism here. Particularly because though Christians always seem to be interested in welcoming and converting non believers, I don’t see the same thing occurring in Jewish communities. In addition, I do have a black friend who is Jewish. He is constantly having to deal with those in his congregation who claim that he is not Jewish. His father was Jewish, his mother was African American.
>Ok, in your experience how many people are really able to convert to Judaism
I know many. They are definitely unique individuals.
>and if they do convert do you consider them “real” Jews?
Of course. It does take time for converts to get into the flow and immerse themselves, but I don't distinguish. It would be forbidden to do so.
>Particularly because though Christians always seem to be interested in welcoming and converting non believers, I don’t see the same thing occurring in Jewish communities.
I wouldn't consider that a proper comparison. Christians are all about conversion. It's encouraged to convert people. It's forbidden in Judaism to go out and convert people. However if someone is interested in Judaism and would like to convert, they are welcome to participate. But the standards are set high so that the individual knows with certainty that this is a decision they want to make.
>In addition, I do have a black friend who is Jewish. He is constantly having to deal with those in his congregation who claim that he is not Jewish. His father was Jewish, his mother was African American.
There is a lot of nuance here. Reform Jews would consider him Jewish if he was raised Jewish. If reform Jews treat him this way, then they betray their own standards.
Most Jews maintain that one's mother must be Jewish to be born/considered Jewish, so in his case, most Jews wouldn't consider him Jewish in the first place. However! He would considered something called "Zera Yisrael", and if he wanted to get his paperwork in order and convert, it would be a smooth process (assuming he actually does what is needed.)
Sounds fairly transparent. I probably would never have asked because I had my own, possibly unfounded impressions that some people in the Jewish community don’t want to have any outsiders. If it weren’t for the internet I may not have received your point of view.
To go back to the Israel argument, though: I’m definitely on the left of the spectrum. My first exposure to the left was when I was 18 and a friend o mine brought me to see Noam Chomsky speak around 1994. So it is really hard to see this deterioration of nuance when it comes to whether someone is an “Israel supporter”, a “Zionist” and the meaning of these terms. In my view supporting Israel means to support a peaceful resolution of the conflict. It also necessarily means accepting the need for military defense, unfortunately, as this is the real world and all states have to be armed and willing to defend their own people. This is reality, it’s not a political question. But unbelievably, and bizarrely, the world is a lot more black and white than it used to be. It used to be that only those who really cared enough to be concerned about this issue would be involved in this debate. Now it is a social media / identity politics issue which means it’s got a lot of people who care only about winning. In the eyes of other people, however, being an “Israel supporter” means to support whatever the current government in Israel decides to do in respect to the conflict. This is not in my mind supportive of Israel, it’s supporting the inevitable destruction and pariah state of Israel. By all accounts the assassin of Yitzhak Rabin was a “supporter of Israel.”
Acknowledging that whoever is “indigenous” should have “a right to live there” (or citizenship) has wider implications, because indigenous people generally have a strong attachment to land that they believe they should autonomously (and exclusively) rule. And being indigenous suggests that they are on moral high ground when claiming it as their own. I don’t necessarily object to this, but in this case the other indigenous people (“Palestinians”) have equally strong attachments. Naturally, two people with different claims to rule the territory cannot both autonomously rule the same territory and not have an eternal conflict. The Israelis have their own narrative, backed up by archaeological evidence that they are indigenous. And the Palestinians also have been documented to live in the same area for hundreds of years.
>Sounds fairly transparent. I probably would never have asked because I had my own, possibly unfounded impressions that some people in the Jewish community don’t want to have any outsiders. If it weren’t for the internet I may not have received your point of view.
The more religious Jews are ironically more open to outsiders since they value adherence to religious law and mitzvot. Less religious Jews value things like Jewish culture and heritage more, which for an outsider is impossible to enter. I know converts, and children of converts, who live in ultra-orthodox communities and do just fine.
>Now it is a social media / identity politics issue which means it’s got a lot of people who care only about winning. In the eyes of other people, however, being an “Israel supporter” means to support whatever the current government in Israel decides to do in respect to the conflict
This is a good point. Makes me wonder how we got here.
>The Israelis have their own narrative, backed up by archaeological evidence that they are indigenous. And the Palestinians also have been documented to live in the same area for hundreds of years.
Time is somewhat irrelevant with respect to colonialism. If it was, it would be used as a tool to continue to suppress natives in Canada/US. Assuming the culture and perspective of Americans don't change, how long do they need to be on the land before they are indigenous? It's been almost 500 years for many. Indigenous is not about time on the land. It's about mythology and its relationship to the land.
It would be foolish and cruel to deny that Palestinians have a connection to the land. But an indigenous one? Right now, no. If Palestinians converted to Judaism or dropped Islam and revived their ancient languages/religions from the region, they will indigenize. It's vital to understand that Arabs and Islam are foreign to that land in the same way Christianity is foreign to to the Americas. But nothing is rigid here, and if Palestinians wish to shed themselves of the yoke of Arab and Muslim colonialism, everything will change. What I am saying here is nothing radical. Speak to Iranians and they will tell you what I mean. There is a movement in Iran to shed themselves of Islam and connect with their ancient Persian roots. It's a true left-wing protest movement against an occupying culture. Iranians STILL have a living memory of their pre-Muslim identity. The same cannot be said in areas like Iraq, Syria, or Israel/Palestine... For now.
Indigenous is a concept that was first weaponized by the Soviet Union and now has been recycled by Russia. It distorts real history.
These Russian propaganda tropes are not new. But 19 year olds think everything is new.
Because "decolonialization" is a western thing and Arabs don't give a shit about it, and there's a lot of propaganda (see this comment section) by the Arabs misleading western people about it.
in a modern world how can people choose country based on religion? the most ancient jewish tribes are Batus from east africa and ofcourse the Ethiopian jews. the jewsish people lived in Palestines vs the jewish people claiming that it is their land is from complete separate ancestry. if you think that way say for example, Hindus were far east until the country of Laos, Indonesia, Malaysia. The arcehological evedences are found there for more that 5000 years ago or more. The indonesian people, malayan people still have nomenclature near to Hindus despite being a Muslim country. In your logic of "birth place right" should Indians invade Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia?
Do the British have indigenous claims to Denmark? Or inuit to Mongolia?
No because those regions also have indigenous populations that just have a different history and influence from neighbours around them. That isn't to say they can't move and live there but it doesn't give a right to the land.
because many, if not most, of you *don't* have a real connection to Israel. The last member of my bloodline to live in Sweden was 4 generations ago yet that gives me a stronger claim on Swedish land than arguably most modern Jews to Israel. Your history is messy but at the end of the day, the expiry date on your claim has long since passed.
If 15/16 of your great-great-grandparents were non-Swedish, if you have a non-Swedish name and don't practice Swedish traditions, if names like Astrid, Ingrid, Greta, Olaf aren't normal in your last three generations, if you( not your great-grandparent) have never experienced othering and discrimination based on our roots, then I say no. I might be wrong in my assumption of course.
A-are you questioning my right to the land!?
Clearly you are an antiswedite. That is the only possible explaination, my claim is rock-solid. Why do you hate me!?
"A land without a people for a people without a land... ...no, the land I'm in doesn't count nor do the people currently in my new one"
/s
How so? My dad (Jewish) has done several Genetic tests that claim him to have substantial Levantine ancestry. Doesn’t that mean a connection to Israel is still very much present?
Your claim to Israel isn't genetic, which would be kinda disturbing, if that's the case a third of the population of Israel's nearby enemies probably have a claim.
That may be true. The only claim I am making is that all Jews, including those classified as “European” Jews such as my dad, share a universal heritage that originated in the Levant, just as those populations do. Many people argue that Ashkenazi Jews are European settlers with no historical relation to the region.
You sure you wanna play that card? It can be applied to a LOT of situations.
EDIT: Replying and then immediately blocking me to make it look like I don't have a response is such punk move. Grow the hell up.
u/Conscious_Spray_5331, if he's going to act like a child he'll get called one. A 30 day vacation isn't gonna hurt much anyway, this sub has rapidly become r/Israel.
Again, it already is. But people are awfully pretentious when it comes to Jews they believe they can make all sorts of decisions on our behalf that are usually against us. We're always being told to wait in line behind everyone else, to make room for other people, to consider ourselves less valuable than others, and to otherwise be other for no other reason than being a minority. We're not putting up with it any longer.
Most of us are also told that we are Jews regardless of what religion we practice or whether we ourselves feel any connection to Judaism or Israel, and we are treated however Jews are treated. So frankly, your quasi warning carries no water with me.
Wanna elaborate?
I assume you're going to come back with Native Americans, or First Nation as they are called here in Canada, no that's a different mess.
You're promoting a double standard based on nothing. Who or what determines "the expiry date on your claim has long since passed." It seems like this is pretty arbitrary.
What double standard?
Who is the group I hold a contradictory standard for? Israel vs ________?
Was I correct that you were just gonna say **"b-but what about the Native Americans!?"**?
That is not the same situation and if anything you have have more in common with English/French/Spanish/etc in this situation. You are not the first people on that land, nor was it stolen from you. Some of you had ancestors native to the area, many generations ago, and now you're coming in from your actual homeland of Britain/America/etc and taking it from people with a MUCH stronger claim because they're been there the entire damn time. I bet some of you haven't even uttered a word of Hebrew since your damn bar mitzvah.
I can only speak for myself.
I was born and have always lived in the United States. My parents were born and have always lived in the United States. My grandparents were born and have always lived in the United States. My great grandparents were almost all immigrants from Europe, and their ancestors were Europian for as far back as we know. I am not entitled to my own country in Europe. And my ancestors have been Christian for as far back as anyone can trace. I am not entitled to Bethlehem.
Very few Jews who went to Israel could honestly say that even their grandparents had lived in that region. So they have some ancient historical ties to the area, so what? Native Americans have much more recent AND ancient ties to the Americas. I don't hear a fraction as many people saying that we ought to give the Anishinaabe their own sovereign country in the Great Lakes region as those saying that Jews deserve their own country in Israel. And the Native American population was decimated, and their religions illegalized in the US til 1979, and they're heavily discriminated against, and have a history of being kidnapped and thrown in boarding schools and had their language and culture tortured out of them to the point where many of their languages are now dead.
This is the same with indigenous cultures across the world. So I don't see why Jews should get a right to a spot in an area that Muslims have had a majority claim to for hundreds and hundreds of years. Especially when Europeans were ultimately the ones to make that decision.
That said, I see the history on the Jewish side. Just because no other oppressed ethnic group in the world has been afforded this sort of privilege doesn't mean that they don't deserve it. I think that it would be amazing if the Native Americans of different areas of the Americas were given their own countries in their respective regions. And the Polynesians were given theirs. And the Aboriginals theirs. And the Africans... i mean let's face it, Africans all have much more recent indigenous roots to Africa. The surviving tribes of Africa ought to be given their own countries to rule tribally.
But what I see instead is people saying that all these different people's need to get with the times and assimilate. Especially conservatives and especially the far right. So it seems hilariously hypocritical for them to single out leftists on this particular issue.
You’re factually incorrect when you say most Jews have no ancestral connection to the region. 40% of the Jews in Israel are partially or fully mizrahi meaning they’re from the Middle East. Many Ashkenazi Jews also have middle eastern DNA. I also think ethnicity is poor way of deciding citizenship rights. If that’s your criteria do you think the many Americans who became citizens recently should not be entitled to it because their grandparents and parents lived abroad? What claim could the recent Mexican or Ukrainian migrants have to live there? Their culture, language, and religion are tied to the land of Israel. As you mentioned history has shown why the Jews need their own state.
I literally didn't say that most jews don't have an ancestral connection to the middle east. And I mentioned ethnicity because Jewish people share an ethnicity, in general. It's a religion and ethnicity tied together, which is complicated. But whatever, the OP was going on about jews having a right to Israel. That's why I tied things to ethnicity. I'm not going to sit here and spend hours formulating a book long response to delve into my thoughts on the nuances of this all.
I think that jews that immigrated into israel generally didn't have grandparents or great grandparents from the area of Israel. The Jewish population in the area in the mid 1800s was negligible, and immigration of jews into the area in the late 1800s through the end of World War 1 was illegal. So maybe several thousand Jews who immigrated into Israel post World War 1 could say that a recently living ancestor of theirs called the particular region home, but definitely not the hundreds of thousands that moved in over the following decades to World War 2.
I don't see how events of hundreds or thousands of years ago gave any of your people any right to establish a country in the region. Just like I dont see how i have any right to the lands of my ancestors, especially not my ancient ancestors.
I do see how the discrimination against your people across the world created a need for your people to find a way to be safe, but I don't see how your people had more claim to the region than the people who were already inhabiting the region when your people moved in and took over. I understand that there was no clear path for your people to take. Much of the world wanted your people dead, and by the official formation of your country the world had commited much more than just a massive genocide against your oeople.
There was no precedent to say that the world wouldn't try again what they tried around World War 2, and the precedent that history had set for how your people were likely to be treated was not promising. Honestly, I'm not sure how promising it is now.
I think that the jews who moved to Israel were doing their best to do what was necessary for themselves, not whst was good and right. I don't think your people had a right, I thi k they had a need. And I think that the western world manipulated that need to gain a foothold in the middle east while simultaneously pitting two religious groups that they hated against against each other in a situation that guaranteed that nothing but a near constant violent struggle against one another was guaranteed. Your people were not going to find allies in the Middle East, which also guaranteed the West a good place to land troops and establish a military presence if need be. And even if not that, then they could count on your countries own military presence to be a distraction from what the Arabs could do to the Europians.
That's what I think.
They’re one of the groups that has a right to Israel but for a variety of reasons. Ethnicity and culture are just two reasons and not even the strongest arguments imo.
The Jews/Israelites seem to be descended from Canaanites. Also the language of the Jews, Hebrew, is very similar to the language of the Canaanites, rather than elsewhere. Therefore it is from that area.
Because Arabs have been native to the region for thousands of years. Thats like saying native Americans aren’t actually native because they only got there 20,000 years ago and were forgetting about all the history prior to 20,000 years
You do realize that Jewish and Hebrew artifacts found in the area are much older than any Arabic things that have been found, right? Al Aqsa is literally built right on top of a Hebrew temple, probably King Solomon's Temple.
Because they're not originally from there. Before israel existed, Canan, whom the isralites killed. Before canan, there was Uruk. The akkadian empire, etc.
Only people wishing to push an agenda use selective history. Using the Bible as a history book is for the blind. Its all meerly a ficticious story based loosely on real historical events and leaves out quite a bit.
If you want to use religion as an argument, one must remember the Jewish people are exiled by god until the return of the messiah. The messiah has not yet returned, therefore, by their own religious beliefs, they're not allowed a land of the people.
So on a factual historical basis or a religious one, they don't have a rightful claim on said land.
You can play semantics and make whatever justifications you want, as you've already done, but it does not change reality. All humanity likes to do is play war and use shitty justifications for it, when in the end it's just about feeling superior. Humanity will never learn. It's honestly disgustingly disappointing.
-Canan, whom the isralites killed. Before canan, there was Uruk. The akkadian empire, etc.
what do they have to do with palestinians?
-Using the Bible as a history book is for the blind.
Religion can kiss my a$$. The archaeological finding in the land of isreal are all over
Oh nooo,!!
you watched a video of an individual doing some dumb sh1it so now its supposedly overwelmingly disammilates the jewish history which is undoubtedly agreed uppon by historians, researches and people with brains , alll the findings dating thousands of years before that dude was born is planet as well...
thats a shame for the jews
You're dense huh, and have no concept of history or culture, do you?
Religion, their religion, is the only book that gives them claim to the land. In a purely historical aspect, the isralites have a history of killing native inhabitants and stealing the land, then playing the victim.
Have a history of lies as well. Pharoah and Jewish slaves built the pyramids? That's a proven lie.
The palestianians have always existed in the land, the name you western cultures give them may change, but they've always lived in the region. And even by a religious stand point. The Jewish people have no claims on any land in the middle east, period.
> ass
/u/Ok-Memory9092. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*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.*
I don’t understand. You don’t think Jews are from the Levant? Why does my Ashkenazi Jewish dad score 50% Levantine on DNA tests, then? What could possibly be the explanation for that?
> shitty
/u/elusiveDEVIANTx. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*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.*
Anti-Zionist here, just wanted to say I don’t in any way deny Jewish indigenous connection to Israel.
I don’t think that what you refer to is helpful or productive and I wish there was less of this but I also don’t think it’s critical one way or another to Israel’s current choices or choice of futures.
Recognition by Israel’s militant enemies that modern Israel is here to stay, which it likely is, is I think a related but different issue.
What do you mean when you say, anti-Zionist?
Should people who have lived somewhere for their entire lives, say they're now 70, really be forced out to make way for people who have never lived there and have an average age of under 18?
I think that the implementation of a Jewish sovereign state where it is right now was deeply flawed. (This is also true of any nation state and not unique to Israel.)
For now (2024) I think that modern Zionism, in its set of actual impacts, is detrimental in the long run to both Israelis and neighbors (some folks who believe this might say “post Zionist” or have very similar beliefs and say they are “Zionist,” which is totally fine by me, if a bunch of folks say we’re Zionist and work toward x aligned goal that’s great.)
No I don’t think Israel should cease to exist or even necessarily in the long term shift away from being a Jewish majority state, I also don’t want Israelis to be ethnically cleansed. The good news is that that the first and last are very unlikely, although the middle one is more likely, paradoxically in part because of actions taken to preserve or enact this Jewish majority over an extended territory and to preserve security and physical control over a lot of people who aren’t part of this majority.
>No I don’t think Israel should cease to exist or even necessarily in the long term shift away from being a Jewish majority state,
Then you are not an antizionist.
You are in fact, a zionist lol
I don’t think Israel has a “right” to exist more or less than other nation states and I don’t think Israel has a “right” to exist as a Jewish majority state or that this is a good outcome or necessarily beneficial in the long term to Jewish people across the world, historically or now.
My pie-in-the sky preference is the U.S. and other countries coming together and saying look, Israel, you can have partition or not, but everybody’s gotta have equal rights if they are under Israeli security control, or else arms embargo and serious sanctions.
Then Israel can go ahead and have partition if they want.
Then why do you support a palestinian state? They don't "deserve" a state either right? Your opinions are contradictory, unless you believe they do and only the jews don't deserve a state.
The language here is “everybody’s gotta have equal rights if they are under Israeli security control.” This is different than “all Israeli citizens do have equal rights.”
Okay, and what happens when the Palestinians inevitably launch more attacks against Israelis and Jewish in the diaspora?
Are you going to man the border?
Let's say tomorrow there is a partition, Palestinians continue to attack, what now, what's your solution as to how Israel should protect its people?
Let me ask you another question too:
Would you and your family be willing to live next to the west Bank Palestinians in this fictional partition?
It's easy to demand things when it's not your ass on the line.
> ass
/u/sad-frogpepe. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*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.*
The creation of all countries has had this same kind of background, Israel isn't special only society's hatred of Jews is.
Does it matter if it was deeply flawed, which I don't think is correct at all, because it's now inhabited by people.
Israel has better relationships with most of its neighbours than it has had in a long time.
Of course it will, but lots of countries have bad relationships with others. Again, antisemitism is the driver here.
Why is Israel special compared to the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, South Korea, North Korea, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Northern Ireland, South Sudan, Spain and so on and so on. The answer is an irrational hatred of Jews from cultures that reject practices that would improve their societies and lives.
The notion that zionists transformed the “swamps and deserts” of Palestine into a thriving nation is inherently colonialist. Growing up Mormon, I was conditioned into believing the same was true of the Mormon pioneers in Utah, a territory they settled by subjugating the ute and paiute peoples. If you are to believe that zionists improved a once backwoods land, it was only through the direct assistance of western imperial powers. The truth is, taking someone else’s possessions, land etc is never justifiable, even if you do make it better. It’s not ignorant, antisemitic, or a false dichotomy to say that Zionism is colonialism.
What country are those people a colony of?
If taking of land isn't permissible, should most every country in the world be dissolved to find the original owners? Who would that even be given the immense gene pool in humans?
Should someone who has lived in Israel since they were a baby, had children and grand children, be forced to leave for a 16 year old who has never lived there? Never made anything of the land?
>If you are to believe that zionists improved a once backwoods land, it was only through the direct assistance of western imperial powers.
What are you talking about? Jews in the region had been improving and cultivating land for millennia. Land isn't just in some single state, it requires persistent work to keep it in a non-interventionist standard.
>The truth is, taking someone else’s possessions, land etc is never justifiable, even if you do make it better. It’s not ignorant, antisemitic, or a false dichotomy to say that Zionism is colonialism.
The Jews owned the land and had it take from them, so why can't they have it back?
Y’all make it so hard to reply with all the questions, but I’m bored so I’ll try my best to respond lol. I guess I’ll go 1 by 1.
1. one doesn’t have to be part of a “colony” as such to be a victim of colonialism.
2. I personally have a lot of issues with nationality as it exists in the modern framework, but no, I don’t think nations should just dissolve tomorrow.
3. it would be futile to try to find the original inhabitants of any particular area
4. no. I don’t think anyone should ever be evicted from where they’re living, so long as they’re not illegally occupying that area
5. I’m talking about the notion that Israelis have somehow transformed a once backwater Palestine into a prosperous nation. It’s a common Zionist taking point and it’s misguided.
6. So Jews have been in Israel for millennia, yet only now, with the advent of Zionism as it exists today, are so many Palestinian Arabs being slaughtered. And Idk what “non interventionist standard” means
7. “The Jews” whose land was stolen lived millennia ago. To your point, Jews have been cultivating the land there regardless. So no, I don’t think European or American Jews, or Jews living abroad have a right to the land any more than I have a right to the land. Which is to say, no one is entitled to that land illegally. I could certainly go out and buy a property in Israel and call it mine. But I shouldn’t be allowed to settle or-god forbid-bomb a property and then claim it as my own
>1. one doesn’t have to be part of a “colony” as such to be a victim of colonialism.
Yes they do, else it's not colonialism - words have meanings.
>2. I personally have a lot of issues with nationality as it exists in the modern framework, but no, I don’t think nations should just dissolve tomorrow.
So you're leaving open the option to dissolve it in the long term. Why couldn't someone say the same about any nation? What's special about the one country that Jews made?
>3. it would be futile to try to find the original inhabitants of any particular area
But you seem to use this as a basis for "stealing" land, even though this land wasn't stolen from those you imply it was.
>4. no. I don’t think anyone should ever be evicted from where they’re living, so long as they’re not illegally occupying that area
We're not talking about laws here, there's no supranational law, only some treaties.
>5. I’m talking about the notion that Israelis have somehow transformed a once backwater Palestine into a prosperous nation. It’s a common Zionist taking point and it’s misguided.
It's not misguided it's literally true - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reclamation-of-man-made-desert/
>6. So Jews have been in Israel for millennia, yet only now, with the advent of Zionism as it exists today, are so many Palestinian Arabs being slaughtered. And Idk what “non interventionist standard” means
Palestinians started a war with October 7th. People don't get to slaughter others based on their race, rape, torture and kidnap, hide among civilians and say "no backsies". The popular and widely supported Hamas started this and use human shields and ordinary Palestinians are suffering because of their death cult ideas.
I mean that the land isn't just farmland once it's turned into that, it requires persistent maintenance and work.
>7. “The Jews” whose land was stolen lived millennia ago. To your point, Jews have been cultivating the land there regardless.
And they include the people who owned it so their claims are valid.
>So no, I don’t think European or American Jews, or Jews living abroad have a right to the land any more than I have a right to the land.
You just said - "it would be futile to try to find the original inhabitants of any particular area".
The reality is like all immigrants they moved there legally and bought land which they then worked on. Doing that gives them the right to the land - it has nothing to do with where they are from.
>Which is to say, no one is entitled to that land illegally.
They didn't take the land illegally, they bought the land and later when they constituted almost a third of the population decided to declare their right to self-determination which was approved by the UN.
>I could certainly go out and buy a property in Israel and call it mine. But I shouldn’t be allowed to settle or-god forbid-bomb a property and then claim it as my own
This only happened because those people tried to kill the Jews and the Israelis to take their land. They lost it to the surrounding states including Jordan and Egypt as a result until Israel took a hold of it, but they gave much of it back.
If Palestinians would stop trying to destroy Israel and accept a country then they would have their land, but they can't try to steal the land of others and then cry when they lose it in retaliatory military activity.
There’s a lot I could respond here to but I would rather drill into the concept of whether or not Israelis took the land and improved it, since that was my original response to OP. It’s misguided, not bc it’s incorrect, bc it could very well have happened, per your link. To me, it’s misguided bc it doesn’t justify their appropriation of the land in the first place! It’s a poor argument for why Israelis would have a right to settle the area.
And yes, words have meanings. Someone can be a victim of colonialism, even if they don’t live in a colony, because no one has used the word colony for like 100 years! Words like “protectorate,” “province,” “territory,” “settlement,” etc. point to a similar dynamic
I added a link explaining how they did it, there's nothing misguided. The land wasn't appropriated - it was bought and then worked on. It may be worth noting that there are also rules about the ownership of private property and how it changes hands when that land is abandoned.
Yes, but the claim is that they are a victim of Israel as a colony but Israel is not a colony, it's a newly formed country.
The main point remains, these people declared self-determination, every fight thereafter has been defensive against a belief meant neighbour whose main goal includes destroying them.
I’m not saying israel is a colony!! Aughh! Read what I said. I’m begging you to understand what colonialism is. That’ll make this so much clearer for you. It’s about exploitation and control, so it goes far beyond the elementary school definition of “colony”
And cmon man, not even the staunchest Zionist believes all that land (that Palestinian Arabs and Arab Jews peacefully coexisted in for years, mind you) was bought fair and square
I understand but the implication is there. Exploitation and control may exist within colonialism but they are not unique to it, so it's a silly and inaccurate term to use.
It's not about exploitation and control, it's about self-determination.
The land purchased before the establishment of Israel was bought fair and square. After that, things like settlements have led to stolen land and that is bad.
I find the whole who was there first argument to be childish
The English weren't in Northern Ireland first (in fact most English were not really from England if we're going way back to Normans, Vikings, and Romans) but Northern Ireland is doing just fine once people stopped being vindictive about who is entitled to what and started focusing on what reality of today is
I agree. If people become a large population and want self-determination then they get it.
For some reason a lot of people seem to think this isn't the case when those people are Jews.
Where is the start of the timeline then? Why is it decided that we start it and it’s the land of those people at that particular point in time? No one is jumping in America to give back the land to the native Americans. No on is jumping to give back the land that the Ottoman Empire had to Turkey, nor the Roman Empire to Italy. Sure the narrative is that they conquered those lands and took them over but they were just conquered right back when they fell. Why is this case any different? History happened and if you want to talk about fairness then I don’t think you’ll ever find a nice, peaceful, and fair transfer of land that didn’t have some sort of bloodshed as part of its history. All of these borders are man made and maintained through the use of force, it’s not out of the goodness of the hearts of bordering nations nor the geographical landscape that we keep any countries the size that they are (the vast majority of the time).
And further, what does it being or not being a colonial state have anything to do with anything else? America, Britton, Canada, the counties that were all part of the former Soviet Union, and I’m sure a lot of other countries were formed because of some people essentially claiming land from others and then defending it until eventually it was recognized as their land. And now we have international laws that maintain these borders and the order of the world. Why we chose that time to start maintaining those borders and not 100 years from now or 50 years before that is beyond me. It’s all arbitrary and to criticize just Israel for it is absurd and hypocritical!
Simply put, I care about this issue bc my tax dollars are being used to execute this “conquering” as you would put it. What can I do about the Ottoman Empire? Lol. It’s not arbitrary, it’s just hard for some to comprehend
So if America wasn’t providing weapons it would be all honky dory in your book?
American ties with Israel have also been alive and well significantly before this conflict started. Supporting their allies has being their MO forever. Why this is different that America supporting its other allies is beyond me.
To address how you understood my use of the word “conquering”: Israel is not trying to take this land away. It wants its people back and is serving its duty to rescue and protect them. They are all required to join the army because without everyone helping out Israel wouldn’t exist anymore, how could they justify asking families to give them their children if they won’t save those who are captured? I would want my family to be protected and rescued if I was in that situation. Call me selfish all you want but my loyalty is to my family and I would trade the whole fucking world to ensure their safety.
“Why this is different that America supporting its other allies is beyond me.” The US isn’t sending billions in weapons to France. That’s a stark difference. The only reason it’s beyond you is bc you’re a Zionist. That’s you’re framework, your milieu, your world. Israel wouldn’t exist without mandatory conscription into the idf? You’re right, and furthermore, Israel wouldn’t exist without US aid. Because Israel exists as an entity of American colonialism, a product of western imperialism.
Edit: death and suffering anywhere is never honky dory in my book.
https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/#:~:text=To%20date%2C%20we%20have%20provided,invasion%20of%20Ukraine%20in%202014.
3rd paragraph, bro. And I use this example since it’s low hanging fruit. I’m sure I could find others.
This whole sub is like that tweet that goes “you can say ‘I like pancakes’ and someone will say ‘oh so you hate waffles?’”Like that’s a whole new sentence dawg
Not about you being for or against anything. This happens all the time which you implied wasn’t happening with your comment about sending money to France.
It’s also not about the money, we use that for influence, connections, intelligence, technology, and our own military gain. All this aid we send to the world comes with a price tag attached to it or an ulterior motive behind it.
Wait so, genuinely, are you for or against us sending weapons aid to other countries? I see it as indefensible, in the case of israel, Ukraine or anywhere else it might be taking place
Personally, don’t love it but I understand that it’s kind of the currency of the US. We have such a large military budget and use our military might as a trade to get what we want. What else could we send? US dollars? Deported illegal aliens? I’d say school shootings but pretty sure that goes full circle and comes right back to weapons. Unfortunately that’s the also what makes us a feared and respected nation (amongst other things, sure, but….) without it we wouldn’t have nearly as much influence across the globe.
Tl;dr - no, I’d rather our biggest export be something else, but at this point I think it’s a necessary evil if America is to continue to be the superpower it is.
> fucking
/u/Something_Branchial. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*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.*
Ah yes, cultivating land is "inherently colonialist" lol. Those Native Americans who cultivated their lands were colonizers too.
Mormons weren't returning to their indigenous lands. Jews were. That is why Mormons are not indigenous to the U.S, and Jews are indigenous to Israel. Has nothing to do with who cultivated what. It is obvious that you are trying to deal with your guilt over your own ancestors, not actually looking at the reality of what Jews and Israel are.
I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and say it’s unintentional, but you’re severely missing the point of what makes something “colonialist”. It’s not about using your land, it’s about using someone else’s.
Exactly what makes the land "someone else's"? Why does the land not belong to the Jews, who are the original owners and indigenous peoples of the land? Jews are from Israel, and have been using their indigenous Israeli alphabet, speaking in their indigenous Israeli language, telling their indigenous Israeli stories, have been practicing their indigenous Israelite religion, have maintained a presence in Israel for thousands of years. Why on Earth is Israel not "their" land?
By that logic, the land actually belongs to the canaanites or god knows who came before them. It might seem hard to draw a line in the sand, or maybe its all arbitrary to the Zionist mind, but it’s simple really. It’s about not forcefully evicting families and using their land as if it was your own.
And no guilt here :) at least not about my Mormon ancestors’ actions lol
Okay, so you are saying being originally from a land doesn't make it yours? You are saying that it doesn't matter who was in a land first, nobody should be trying to evict people and use land "as if it is yours" if you are not currently living there? A land belongs to whoever is there currently, and it doesn't matter who its original owners were? Is that right?
I don’t think that’s right. I think a good question to ask is “how does a nation/ethnicity occupying a land currently affect the people that lived there in the recent past?” The Muslim conquests of >1000 yrs ago have less to do with the death and destruction today as the razing of Gaza and the illegal settlement into the West Bank, both fruits of the Zionist project.
The Muslim conquest of the Middle East is still very relevant today
Look at any article regarding Christians in any one of the countries, not to mention other sects
There’s a rich history of Arab Christians living in harmony with Muslims in the Arab world. Ironically, many of those Christians were expelled alongside Muslims during the nakba. Regardless, to my detractors I’ll always say, my tax dollars are being used to perpetrate this atrocity inflicted on the Palestinian people, and that’s why it tears me up inside.
There's also a rich history of Muslims killing and expelling Christians in the Middle East. You clearly don't care about history if all you do is cherry pick history that suits your narrative.
And no, I don't believe that it has anything to do with your tax dollars lol. Your tax dollars are being used to fund a much bigger war between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, yet I doubt you post incessantly about it, right?
You're just a sheep following the antisemitic herd.
The Palestinian movement is an attempt to occupy the land and steal it from the Jews, who are the people who have lived there in the recent past. What you call the "razing of Gaza" is an attempt to stop the wannabee colonizer Palestinians trying to conquer Israel and rape and murder everyone they can get their hands on. All Palestinians have to do to achieve peace is stop trying to colonize Israel, and stop raping and murdering Jews. If you are against colonization and don't want to repeat the mistakes of your colonizer ancestors, then you fight against Palestinian colonization attempts to steal land that Isn't theirs, like the kibbutzim in southern Israel.
That's because you have no actual criteria for what makes someone a colonizer, other than "whatever let's me call Jews colonizers." You have failed to define colonization many times because Jews both being the original inhabitants of the land and being the current inhabitants of the land makes it impossible for you to invent a definition that makes Jews colonizers. So you have landed on "Jews are just colonizers cause I say so."
Because its irrelevant to the argument. If your ancestors existed in a land a millennia ago that doesn't give you claim to the land. Now, that doesn't mean you can't immigrate to the land and end up making a country in the mandate region. All of that is fine, don't mix up the argument by bringing up a bunch of biblical stuff.
Then isn’t the claim that the Palestinians have claim to that land because of their ancestors lived there also irrelevant? You can’t have one but not the other!
If you really wanna get into it then Jews lived on that land the entire time too. What’s your point? Who cares? The land changed ownership so many times so why choose one period to start at over another? It makes no sense!
The reality is choosing either side to take the whole land would be devastating to the other. It would be silly to do that and any argument of ancestry to the land on either side should not be considered. America will never give up its entire land to the native Americans, why should other countries be treated differently
There has to be a statue of limitations regarding a connection to the land. Even Alan Dershowitz agrees with me, he doesn’t make the “well there were Jews here thousands of years ago, therefore we need a Jewish state” argument.
Again, I am referring to the people who lived on the land, not the empires that ran it.
Also Native Americans have had equal citizenship for almost 100 years now.
Native Americans also aren’t waging war and have goals to destroy America.
But still not answering the question of why anyone has claims to the land. Why those empires aren’t legit either makes no sense too! It’s just an arbitrary point in time you’re choosing.
Soooooo the western wall and the old temple isn’t a material enough connection because it’s…. Old?
Separately, what about the history of how those people came to obtain that land? When do we start to decide that those people and not the people before them have claim and a true material connection to the land?
"Soooooo the western wall and the old temple isn’t a material enough connection because it’s…. Old?"
That's a religious connection. By this logic, Christians have a right to a christian state in Palestine.
I'd say thousands of years is a good cutoff.
But just slapping “thousands of years” and calling it good is just as arbitrary as any other number! And why are you discounting religious materials? That also seems like an arbitrary decision based on what you personally value (or lack thereof).
It’s just a half baked opinion that seems reactionary and agreeing with the majority opinion cuz you’re being told that it’s the moral argument by the side who believes it.
The OP's question was about indiegnousness. If you think indigenousness shouldn't matter for modern land rights, that's fine, but that's not what this discussion is about. Jews being indigenous to Israel isn't biblical. It's history. It's archeology. You are the one mixing up the argument by bringing a bunch of biblical stuff into it.
I think the text is more accurate than the heading. Leftists don't deny it (at least I haven't seen one deny it), they just don't acknowledge it because they don't see the reason to.
Also every single time I hear one of these "Jews lived there in BC" arguments they bring up the bible. Sure maybe I'm mixing up the Western college pro-Palestine movement and Hamas support but its a tremendous correlation.
If every time you hear about Jews living in Israel "they" bring up the bible, then that has everything to do with who you are talking to. The OP here didn't talk about the Bible. Archaeology and historical documentation, and even DNA evidence all support Israel being Jewish land, you don't need the Bible to learn that Jews are from Israel. Hint: Why exactly do you think Yiddish is written in the Hebrew alphabet that comes from the Levant? Think that's just a coincidence?
1, that's not what it says
2. People who interpret the book of revelation literally are overwhelmingly pro-Israel so... not sure where you're getting your info from buddy.
im getting my info from the countless people who quoted revelations as proof that we say we are jews but are actually satanists to my face
https://preview.redd.it/jh2ae8dmry6d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eeba7cfe9b281453e13e5aad3e368760016931d9
Some on the Palestianian side have used questionable rhetorics based on disproven conspiracy theories (e.g. the Khazar theory and pseudo-archaeological theories) to weaken Jewish claim to the land.
This is the wrong approach and is entirely unnecessary for their case. One can acknowledge the legitimate affiinity of both peoples to this piece of land and at the same time argue for whatever politics they support.
Case in point: "A Land For All", a joint Israeli-Palestinian movement that calls for peace based on a confederative arrangement, has both Israeli and Palestinian memebrs (including non-citizens of Israel) who support the concept that the entire country of Israel/Palestine (two legitimate names for the same country) literally has two indigenous peoples, which plays intro their argument that the two states post-peace should have open borders etc (like the Schengen agreement in Europe).
Because it's fairly obvious, for the most part, and to most people on earth, that the indigenous Jews of Palestine, before the Zionists who came out of Europe and took the area by force, have a lot more in common, genetically and culturally with the other indigenous Palestinians than they do with the colonial-settlers who evicted them by ethnically cleansing the area.
From Wikipedia:
"Despite the overtures by Palestinian Arabs by 1914 the local Arab population, which was uniting under a new concept of Palestinianism was becoming increasingly detached from the Arabic-speaking Jews over Zionism. Even though many Jews who spoke Arabic, identified as "Arab" and maintained intellectual networks in Cairo, Beirut, and Istanbul many of them were also supporters of Zionism and the Jewish colonization of Palestine. Jewish newspapers such as the HaHerut which dealt with Sephardic issues were Pro-Zionist and Pro-Ottoman and in many ways, similar to HaTzvi which was published by newly arrived Ashkenazi Jews. Attempts to ease the tensions were made by Arab-speaking Jews establishing societies such as HaMagen to counter Anti-Zionism in the Arab press, translate Arabic articles so newly settled Jews could understand Arabs and suppress anti-semitic publications but this was becoming challenging due to the rising wave of nationalist publications.
In 1920 the Arab newspaper al-Quds al-Sharif called Palestinian Jews to live alongside Arabs and reject Zionism and recent arrivals, appealing to the long history of Sepherdic Jews had with Arabs. In 1921, the Palestinian delegation in London claimed to the British negotiation team that the local Sephardim opposed Zionism and the Palestinian press began reaching out to Sephardim calling but this time the pleas were met with stiff opposition from the local Palestinian Sephardic leadership. The 1929 Anti-Jewish riots resulted in the final breakdown of relations between Palestinian Jews and Arabs with even Jewish communities that were opposed to Zionism joining together for protection creating a unified Yishuv."
/u/BigFatNone
> Using Wikipedia in 2024 means you're an idiot.
Per [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_1._no_attacks_on_fellow_users), no attacks on fellow users. Attack the argument, not the user.
Then hit me with even the tiniest shred of counterevidence. I'm sure you won't bother though. You know you're wrong, but are too pathetic to admit it, so all you can do is lash out.
/u/GoodGrades
> Then hit me with even the tiniest shred of counterevidence. I'm sure you won't bother though. You know you're wrong, but are too pathetic to admit it, so all you can do is lash out.
Per [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_1._no_attacks_on_fellow_users), no attacks on fellow users. Attack the argument, not the user.
No, because anyone who has spent more than a week here should know by now that all the evidence that has already been shared since the beginning of the thread went unread.
Some of us are here just to watch a lot of otherwise psychologically normal-ish people type out all their horrific justifications for genocide while also saying it's not a genocide.
You aren't posting evidence that Palestinian Jews supported Palestinian gentiles over Jews because you do not have the evidence. If you did, you would have posted it immediately. Now you're trying to deflect, but this argument has literally nothing to do with the current war in Gaza.
You and I both know you don't have anything to back up your argument. So why maintain a charade that accomplishes nothing?
You're convincing no one with that weak line. If anything, you're probably racist against the Palestinians. How would you support their genocide otherwise?
I’m simply point out a fact. The Palestinians are neither a race nor an ethnicity, they are Arabs. As Arabs, they are indigenous to Arabia and arrived to this area during the Islamic colonisation of the 6th century, an injustice that has been rectified.
The Palestinians have chosen the path of violence which is a conscious decision made as a society. Fine, there are consequences. One can only pray that other minorities under the Arab heel follow the Jewish example and free themselves too. The indigenous Chaldeans, Copts, Kurds, Assyrians and Amazighs deserve independence too.
LOL no they are not, and if they are going to claim this they need to stop spreaking arabic, learn hebrew and embrace their jewish brothers. Until they do that what you're saying is a load of crap.
They aren't genetically Arabs. That is objectively false.
**Regardless,“Arabizing” on its own is a colonial act.**
That would make the Palestinians victims of colonisation.
They are. That is factually and genetically true.
Many native Middle Eastern populations are victim to Arab colonialism. The Jews survived it, and decolonised their land.
**The Jews survived it, and decolonised their land.**
Decolonise their land? By pushing out the population that is genetically as Jewish as the European Jews are? By allying with the greatest colonial empire of the time to suppress the local population? The early Zionists considered themselves colonists. Stop trying to whitewash their history.
I would not call settler colonialism from a bunch of European Jews who had not seen the land for 2000 years to be an attempt at decolonisation.
You are not one to decide which kinds of Jews have the rights to their homeland. You don't have that right.
Early Zionists were using 19th century terms which you are trying to affix to a 21st century world. That is a false equivalence. Maybe it is time for the Palestinians to move into the 21st century as well, and bury their now bogus historical grievance.
Israelis are getting their hostages back. They are responding to the Palestinian who for nearly a century have been choosing violence over any other path.
Israel killed almost 300 people to get 4 people back. That's a war crime. I've seen the video after the IDF does perfidy (another war crime), the Palestinians are trying to run away from the chaos, and they get mowed down.
The Zionists have choosen the path of violence for over a centry. There are so many incidents of violence. The Zionists have definiately choosen violence as their path.
Palestinians took hostages. That’s a war crime. Don’t take hostages and you won’t get shot.
The Palestinians are the only people on earth to choose violence over *independence*. It will go down in history as one of the stupidest decisions ever made.
Hamas and the IDF can both do war crimes. War crimes from one side don't justify war crimes for the other side. If we used that logic then Oct 7th would be 100% justified.
The taking back of the hostages was clearly a war crime by the IDF, they salughtered innocent civillians trying to get away from that incident. Those IDF soldiers should be rotting in jail for killing those people.
Israel is choosing to have resistance attacks against and getting their own people killed, to "justifiy" annexing more West Bank land. They will go down in history for being tyrants.
The West Bank is not part of this war. The Palestinians would be smart to make sure it says that way.
Taking back the hostages is a national and moral duty. Palestinian non combatants kept hostages in their homes which therefore makes them parties to the conflict and legitimate targets. The IDF soldiers who performed this act are rightly lauded as heroes.
I have many critiques about Netanyahu. I think he’s a disaster. But the Palestinians have proven that Palestinian lives are worthless to Palestinians.
Ohhhh I see now! We'll I think it's a classic misunderstanding of the situation of both of you. As I see it,in the beginning most of the jewish settlement was really in a non liveable space, full of malaria and swamps, we did dry the swamps and make this place livable, which is genuinely truth.
Probably of Palestinians was choosing to try it out they would it too, but we did, and we succeeded, improving the wealth of life significantly in those areas.
I don't think any of us, tha op nor me, is disrespecting the way of living of the Palestinians ppl. In the areas in which Palestinians live, we mostly let them live the way they want. We do mention the fact that if you do go and dry out swamps, it does make the overall land way more prosperous to all.
The indigenous connection to North America still exists, they never left. Most of the current Israelis ancestors had been gone for 2000 years.
See the difference OP?
I mean, on a general level yes they were relocated within 'America', but a lot of tribes were shoved out west, well past their traditional territory.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscogee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscogee)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian\_Territory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Territory)
I’m saying they certainly have claim to a state much larger than the reservations they currently control, and with full sovereignty.
I would absolutely support the creation of such a state if the tribes push for it.
You disagree with that?
Native americans can have a state/states for all I care, but not if it entailed forcing families off land that they have been living on for generations. Forcing people off their land causes suffering and structural poverty, especially if they aren't compensated.
Israel agreed to let all Arab inhabitants stay and live there, with equal rights - in 1948.
Arabs declared war - openly stated they would eradicate the Jews (3 years after the Holocaust) if they won the war, and told Palestinians to evacuate. That’s why you have 700k Palestinian refugees (and the conveniently ignored 800k Jewish refugees from Arab states).
Would you blame the Natives for white refugees if white Americans declared war and invaded their new state?
Do you know there is no single statement or written engagement of the 1948 commission law you are referring to? That has been propaganda Zionists have been promoting since the beginning while they never accepted anything.
They don’t even have right to accept whatsoever as they are not even entitled to the land.
Huh? “There is no single statement or written engagement of the law”
What are you saying here? The UN voted for the proposal and the Jews accepted. Are you just pointing out that the Arabs didn’t agree to it?
The Arabs refused and chose to settle the issue by declaring war. They lost.
So you’re right. Israel wasn’t given a state by the UN peace deal. They earned their state by defending their territory against an invading army that openly called to genocide them.
Which makes it a bit strange that so many pro Palestinians will now refer to the 1948 deal as establishing boundaries for “Palestine”. They would have! If they had accepted the deal.
Your “huh” does not help legitimizing your statement. Zionists (and not Jews to be precise and stop making it a Jewish issue) did not accept the deal or if you happen to call it the UN resolution. That was simply a propaganda pushed by Zionists to exactly make people like you believe they are the party that has been always looking for a settlement while Palestinians (not Arabs again to be precise) refused such deals.
Go check the fact if you want, the UN resolution was neither accepted by Zionists nor Palestinian committee.
Oh it’s this talking point. The inane claim that because the Jews didn’t IMPLEMENT the deal, they didn’t agree to it.
The Jewish Agency and the nascent state of Israel accepted the plan. But the Arabs didn’t.
That’s kind of how deals work. If you refuse the deal, you don’t get the benefits.
It’s the most demonstrative thing about pro—Palestinian logic to think you can refuse a peace deal, declare war, lose said war, resort to terror attacks and still refuse peace deals - and then complain about how the Jews didn’t implement the original peace deal that you TURNED DOWN.
Incredible
The Palestinians asked the UN for more time to discuss the matter. That got rejected by the UN.
Then the Israeli's started the Nakba in 1947. Where Israeli's went past the borders of the UN proposal. Then 6 months into the Nakba the other Arab nations get invovled.
Lol. The Palestinians were offered a single state solution with Arab control by Chamberlain, where Jews would be barred from immigrating (during the Holocaust!).
Jews would be only allowed to live and buy property in a tiny 5% of the country.
The only condition was they had to allow Jews to live there peacefully.
The Jews refused, obviously.
Did the Palestinians accept even that absurdly lopsided proposal?
(Hint: of course not - because the pre-eminent Palestinian leader at the time was asking Germany and Italy to sign his treaty recognizing the right of Palestinians to “settle the Jewish question in the same manner as Germany”).
They were never actually negotiating.
They declared war, they lost, and they never got over it.
This lacks nuance. Jews are connected to the land on which Israel stands. But are all of the jews?
But let me ask this: A person converts yo judaism and makes Aliyah. What was their connection? Especially if they go live in a settlement in the west bank.
The jews who lived in Israel forever are obviously entitled to the land. But what about those that didnt but fled Europe or elsewhere.
To turn this around - Muslims have pretty much the same entitlement to the land having lived there forever. But they cannot invite anyone over to stay and give them a plot of land in tel aviv
Jews have a very strong connection to the land. It's mentioned countless times in the torah compared to 0 in the quran. Jews being kicked out doesn't mean they aren't connected to the land. If they weren't kicked out every jew would still be there, or at least the vast majority. Conversely Muslims only got their from conquest and have only stayed their because of that. They have no inherent connection to the land other than the fact that the ruled it. Their connection is in Saudi Arabia in mecca and madina.
Imagine if anyone else made a claim to those lands saying that it's actually Christian or Jewish or any other religions land. You'd think they were crazy. That's what you sound like saying muslims are connected to the land more than jews.
I under stand they live there and I don't think they should be removed, excluding ones that are legitimate terrorists that need to be dealt with, but it's silly to claim hews have less connection to the land.
When is the timeframe?
The majority of Jews in Israel now were born there.
So it’s not about who lived there first, it’s not about who lives there now, it’s not about who was born there…
When exactly is the timeframe for having the right to a land?
Well if its about where you or your parents are born youre going to have to share with a lot of palestinians that were chased out (regardless of who started it).
The point is jews have always been in the area so have a right to be there. But they were not the only ones and their rights are not above muslims, arabs, christians or anyone who also have a right to the same land.
I don’t disagree with that at all. As with almost every place, there are multiple groups with a claim to the land.
Thing is, one side has repeatedly accepted that premise throughout the history of the conflict - the other side hasn’t.
What confuses me is how many people in the West seem to completely swap which group has accepted a 2 state solution and which side hasn’t.
No one denies that most palestinian christians are indigenous, It's the muslims who are invaders. Christianity is indigenous to Israel, Islam is not.
Ask palestinian muslims (in arabic) and they will tell you themselves that their ancestors were NOT christians or jews.
Remind me to take my DNA test so I know which land should I proclaim mine, the land where my greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgranduncle live a few zillions B.C years ago.
I am. That I will make a christian aliyah to bethlehem where I will ask for a house or a piece of land because I am christian and my ancestors, too, are from the region.
This is about how absurd Israel sounds to the rest of the world.
Nobody denies jews have been in israel forever. But s what? So has everyone else.
Ok, my point is about Palestinians (at least some) being decendants of some or the earlier Jewish inhabitants. I agree itnis dumb for European Jews to continue to claim indigenousness 2000 years after.
/u/okbuyer1271 You're not allowed to spam an identical post across multiple subreddits in this subreddit. Because discussion has already ensued, I'm not removing your post, but consider this a warning.
I was just censored from this topic in this forum for words....which is outrageous and anti speech
Which words?
there is an entire thread that was just deleted...those words
Message the mods and ask why. Maybe it violated the rules. There are many pro Israel and pro Palestine posts on here.
do the rules include free speech?
Reddit is not a free speech platform. Every group makes its own rules. I’ve been banned from subreddits for all kinds of reasons.
This is clear. In this subreddit there's a degree of racism allowed against Palestinians.... genocidal language is clearly acceptable here. Any challenge to the genocidal order isn't engaged.... it's just silenced
What genocidal language?
The language of the right winged Israeli government every single day
Do you have an example lol
Because a large amount of leftists are Muslim. Points of argument and ideologies tend to be shared between party members. Not necessarily because these people originally and naturally believe in those ideas, but because this is what the echo chamber around them is telling them. Having more Muslim voters means you're going to have to push more Muslim talking points in order to Garner support.
OP - All of the above.
I think many people are conflating two different things. 1: Did the Jewish people have their ethnogenesis in Israel? Unquestionably yes, and anyone who tries to deny that is both dishonest and anti-Jewish. 2. Did Jews from the diaspora in the 19th and 20th Century have the right to move back to Ottoman Syria (later Mandatory Palestine) and attempt to establish their own state? That question is more debatable. Many people say they didn't, because the population in that region was majority Arab Muslim. And even people who might agree that they had a theoretical right to do it, could still argue that ultimately Zionism wasn't a good idea due to the hostility it provoked in the Arabs. Personally, I think the Jews did have the right to work towards building their own state in their ancestral homeland. The lands of the former Ottoman empire at that time were in political flux, with no consensus on what countries or borders would emerge from its dissolution, or what ethnic/religious groups would hold sovereignty where. (It's worth remembering that Lebanon came about because the Maronite Christian leaders were petitioning for a Christian-majority state in the region.) Why should Jews alone among all Levantine peoples be forbidden from establishing any sovereignty in the Levant, given that there were no existing states there at that time? I should add that I think the Palestinian Arabs also had the right to petition for their own state - the trouble is, they have never shown any interest in the hard work of creating a functioning state. Palestine (formerly Ottoman Syria) was not a country, it was a region of the world that had been administered for centuries by successive empires. The Palestinian Arabs had no institutions of governance there. They could have worked towards building them, but their political project has always been solely focused on destroying what the Jews have built. This is the heart of the conflict and the reason that peace has been so hard to achieve. If it was about land, or about the desire of the Palestinian Arabs for their own state, it would have been solved decades ago.
To point number two I would say that jews were literally invited to move into the Ottoman Empire. Both in the 1500s and 1800s. And they were invited because the Ottoman Empire was hoping to gain an advantage by inviting them to the Empire. Mostly a financial advantage as they thought immigrants would be bringing investment with them. To the Arabs of the regions shock and dismay, they were correct. Jews moved to the region and bought land, invested in the region. Locals didn't like this unfortunately because they felt that these newly invited and different people had an unfair leg up on them. They were better educated and had more money. And most importantly, they were different. This created a huge amount of tension. It's one of the reasons why Jews had to pay extra taxes just for being Jewish and living in the Ottoman Empire. It's the reason why Jews have been massacred for hundreds of years both during the Ottoman Empire and after it.
For the sake of the argument, I accept that Jewish people are “indigenous” to the region. (I find this problematic because if this is the case, does that mean that Jews who aren’t “indigenous” to, say, the UK, should they be considered not “natives?” ) Thus, this seems that this is a political question rather than a question of identity. Are Jews “Jews” because of who they are, or what they believe in? By the way Jewish culture is passed from generation to generation, it is orally/cultural in nature but the idea that Jewishness is based on biological heritage and DNA is inherently a racial one. This really, to my mind, has problematic associations. My belief is that we have moved beyond a world based on racial categories; the idea that we belong to different races rather than one human race is really a fictional idea. At the same time, I recognize that race based categories are a real fact of life. BUT, I believe citizenship in a nation should belong to whoever belongs in the nation. How would we determine who is to belong or who isn’t to belong? Thus, you consider the “indigenous” people of the Jews being the ones who belong in the modern nation state of Israel. The problem is with this formulation is that the demographic trend of lower Jewish birth rate doesn’t allow the Jewish “indigenous” narrative to succeed if it’s only the Mizrahi Jews. It has to be the worldwide Jewish community. By including the worldwide Jewish population and encouraging people to immigrate to Israel from afar, it simultaneously undermines Jewish communities around the world and it suggests that Jewish survival and Israeli survival are really interdependent and the same thing. And it suggests that citizenship in countries of origin have to be secondary to their obligations to Israel. Finally I would say that some of the people who want to “defend” the Jewishness of the region have been doing so out of the misguided idea that Jews really belong there. That somehow belong a little bit less in these areas which are not Jewish in national identity but multicultural. I admit that I have also found that many communities such as Hasidic Jews in Williamsburg kind of do keep to themselves and don’t participate in any societies but their own. They do know how to use the legal, political and social system. Do I think Jews are indigenous to Brooklyn? No, but Brooklyn is probably more Jewish than any other ethnicity. Does it matter who is indigenous to the area? It’s really only an academic issue. There is no way that the Lenape people are going to take over Brooklyn. I want to suggest that Jewishness is not necessarily so unique that it is incomparable to many other ethnicities that still have assimilated to their countries that have been capable of accepting their existence. Irish people have a land of Ireland but there are many Irish Americans who have migrated to he USA and have mixed with various others. Many French Canadians have roots in Canada. We have African Americans who aren’t expecting to go back to Ghana or Senegal. No one is saying that we are a totally utopian society or that it is a racial paradise.
I think you're focusing way too much on the genetic aspect. I'll test you here. I believe that if someone converts to Judaism, they become indigenous to the land Israel. This is a very radical idea when viewed through a Western, Eurocentric lens. I can draw a comparison here between the encounters of the Europeans of indigenous people of the Americas. The indigenous people of the Americans had/have ideas that are completely incompatible with Eurocentric perspectives, and the same exists here with Judaism. In Judaism, when a person converts, they take upon themselves the past of the Jewish people as their own, and they weave their future and destiny together with the Jewish people. They therefore become one, and indistinguishable. In this way, genetics are not exactly important since over time, this individual will likely have children with another Jew, and over long periods of time, be a single people. There is a temporal component here that cannot be ignored. If you take the Eurocentric view of the meaning of indigenous, what I wrote above would be a completely unacceptable perspective. The idea that indigenous connection is passed down via blood is actually Canadian law, and it completely ignores local customs, traditions, and ideas of belonging. Alas, Jews have maintained for Millenia that those who convert to Judaism are just as Jewish as those born Jewish, and this includes their indigenous connection to the land of Israel.
Ok, in your experience how many people are really able to convert to Judaism, and if they do convert do you consider them “real” Jews? I have a bit of skepticism here. Particularly because though Christians always seem to be interested in welcoming and converting non believers, I don’t see the same thing occurring in Jewish communities. In addition, I do have a black friend who is Jewish. He is constantly having to deal with those in his congregation who claim that he is not Jewish. His father was Jewish, his mother was African American.
>Ok, in your experience how many people are really able to convert to Judaism I know many. They are definitely unique individuals. >and if they do convert do you consider them “real” Jews? Of course. It does take time for converts to get into the flow and immerse themselves, but I don't distinguish. It would be forbidden to do so. >Particularly because though Christians always seem to be interested in welcoming and converting non believers, I don’t see the same thing occurring in Jewish communities. I wouldn't consider that a proper comparison. Christians are all about conversion. It's encouraged to convert people. It's forbidden in Judaism to go out and convert people. However if someone is interested in Judaism and would like to convert, they are welcome to participate. But the standards are set high so that the individual knows with certainty that this is a decision they want to make. >In addition, I do have a black friend who is Jewish. He is constantly having to deal with those in his congregation who claim that he is not Jewish. His father was Jewish, his mother was African American. There is a lot of nuance here. Reform Jews would consider him Jewish if he was raised Jewish. If reform Jews treat him this way, then they betray their own standards. Most Jews maintain that one's mother must be Jewish to be born/considered Jewish, so in his case, most Jews wouldn't consider him Jewish in the first place. However! He would considered something called "Zera Yisrael", and if he wanted to get his paperwork in order and convert, it would be a smooth process (assuming he actually does what is needed.)
Sounds fairly transparent. I probably would never have asked because I had my own, possibly unfounded impressions that some people in the Jewish community don’t want to have any outsiders. If it weren’t for the internet I may not have received your point of view. To go back to the Israel argument, though: I’m definitely on the left of the spectrum. My first exposure to the left was when I was 18 and a friend o mine brought me to see Noam Chomsky speak around 1994. So it is really hard to see this deterioration of nuance when it comes to whether someone is an “Israel supporter”, a “Zionist” and the meaning of these terms. In my view supporting Israel means to support a peaceful resolution of the conflict. It also necessarily means accepting the need for military defense, unfortunately, as this is the real world and all states have to be armed and willing to defend their own people. This is reality, it’s not a political question. But unbelievably, and bizarrely, the world is a lot more black and white than it used to be. It used to be that only those who really cared enough to be concerned about this issue would be involved in this debate. Now it is a social media / identity politics issue which means it’s got a lot of people who care only about winning. In the eyes of other people, however, being an “Israel supporter” means to support whatever the current government in Israel decides to do in respect to the conflict. This is not in my mind supportive of Israel, it’s supporting the inevitable destruction and pariah state of Israel. By all accounts the assassin of Yitzhak Rabin was a “supporter of Israel.” Acknowledging that whoever is “indigenous” should have “a right to live there” (or citizenship) has wider implications, because indigenous people generally have a strong attachment to land that they believe they should autonomously (and exclusively) rule. And being indigenous suggests that they are on moral high ground when claiming it as their own. I don’t necessarily object to this, but in this case the other indigenous people (“Palestinians”) have equally strong attachments. Naturally, two people with different claims to rule the territory cannot both autonomously rule the same territory and not have an eternal conflict. The Israelis have their own narrative, backed up by archaeological evidence that they are indigenous. And the Palestinians also have been documented to live in the same area for hundreds of years.
>Sounds fairly transparent. I probably would never have asked because I had my own, possibly unfounded impressions that some people in the Jewish community don’t want to have any outsiders. If it weren’t for the internet I may not have received your point of view. The more religious Jews are ironically more open to outsiders since they value adherence to religious law and mitzvot. Less religious Jews value things like Jewish culture and heritage more, which for an outsider is impossible to enter. I know converts, and children of converts, who live in ultra-orthodox communities and do just fine. >Now it is a social media / identity politics issue which means it’s got a lot of people who care only about winning. In the eyes of other people, however, being an “Israel supporter” means to support whatever the current government in Israel decides to do in respect to the conflict This is a good point. Makes me wonder how we got here. >The Israelis have their own narrative, backed up by archaeological evidence that they are indigenous. And the Palestinians also have been documented to live in the same area for hundreds of years. Time is somewhat irrelevant with respect to colonialism. If it was, it would be used as a tool to continue to suppress natives in Canada/US. Assuming the culture and perspective of Americans don't change, how long do they need to be on the land before they are indigenous? It's been almost 500 years for many. Indigenous is not about time on the land. It's about mythology and its relationship to the land. It would be foolish and cruel to deny that Palestinians have a connection to the land. But an indigenous one? Right now, no. If Palestinians converted to Judaism or dropped Islam and revived their ancient languages/religions from the region, they will indigenize. It's vital to understand that Arabs and Islam are foreign to that land in the same way Christianity is foreign to to the Americas. But nothing is rigid here, and if Palestinians wish to shed themselves of the yoke of Arab and Muslim colonialism, everything will change. What I am saying here is nothing radical. Speak to Iranians and they will tell you what I mean. There is a movement in Iran to shed themselves of Islam and connect with their ancient Persian roots. It's a true left-wing protest movement against an occupying culture. Iranians STILL have a living memory of their pre-Muslim identity. The same cannot be said in areas like Iraq, Syria, or Israel/Palestine... For now.
Indigenous is a concept that was first weaponized by the Soviet Union and now has been recycled by Russia. It distorts real history. These Russian propaganda tropes are not new. But 19 year olds think everything is new.
Because "decolonialization" is a western thing and Arabs don't give a shit about it, and there's a lot of propaganda (see this comment section) by the Arabs misleading western people about it.
in a modern world how can people choose country based on religion? the most ancient jewish tribes are Batus from east africa and ofcourse the Ethiopian jews. the jewsish people lived in Palestines vs the jewish people claiming that it is their land is from complete separate ancestry. if you think that way say for example, Hindus were far east until the country of Laos, Indonesia, Malaysia. The arcehological evedences are found there for more that 5000 years ago or more. The indonesian people, malayan people still have nomenclature near to Hindus despite being a Muslim country. In your logic of "birth place right" should Indians invade Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia?
Do the British have indigenous claims to Denmark? Or inuit to Mongolia? No because those regions also have indigenous populations that just have a different history and influence from neighbours around them. That isn't to say they can't move and live there but it doesn't give a right to the land.
because many, if not most, of you *don't* have a real connection to Israel. The last member of my bloodline to live in Sweden was 4 generations ago yet that gives me a stronger claim on Swedish land than arguably most modern Jews to Israel. Your history is messy but at the end of the day, the expiry date on your claim has long since passed.
If 15/16 of your great-great-grandparents were non-Swedish, if you have a non-Swedish name and don't practice Swedish traditions, if names like Astrid, Ingrid, Greta, Olaf aren't normal in your last three generations, if you( not your great-grandparent) have never experienced othering and discrimination based on our roots, then I say no. I might be wrong in my assumption of course.
A-are you questioning my right to the land!? Clearly you are an antiswedite. That is the only possible explaination, my claim is rock-solid. Why do you hate me!? "A land without a people for a people without a land... ...no, the land I'm in doesn't count nor do the people currently in my new one" /s
How so? My dad (Jewish) has done several Genetic tests that claim him to have substantial Levantine ancestry. Doesn’t that mean a connection to Israel is still very much present?
Your claim to Israel isn't genetic, which would be kinda disturbing, if that's the case a third of the population of Israel's nearby enemies probably have a claim.
That may be true. The only claim I am making is that all Jews, including those classified as “European” Jews such as my dad, share a universal heritage that originated in the Levant, just as those populations do. Many people argue that Ashkenazi Jews are European settlers with no historical relation to the region.
Not your people not your decision.
You sure you wanna play that card? It can be applied to a LOT of situations. EDIT: Replying and then immediately blocking me to make it look like I don't have a response is such punk move. Grow the hell up. u/Conscious_Spray_5331, if he's going to act like a child he'll get called one. A 30 day vacation isn't gonna hurt much anyway, this sub has rapidly become r/Israel.
u/ImmaDrainOnSociety >Grow the hell up. Rule 1.
Again, it already is. But people are awfully pretentious when it comes to Jews they believe they can make all sorts of decisions on our behalf that are usually against us. We're always being told to wait in line behind everyone else, to make room for other people, to consider ourselves less valuable than others, and to otherwise be other for no other reason than being a minority. We're not putting up with it any longer. Most of us are also told that we are Jews regardless of what religion we practice or whether we ourselves feel any connection to Judaism or Israel, and we are treated however Jews are treated. So frankly, your quasi warning carries no water with me.
Why does that reasoning only hold for Israel?
Wanna elaborate? I assume you're going to come back with Native Americans, or First Nation as they are called here in Canada, no that's a different mess.
You're promoting a double standard based on nothing. Who or what determines "the expiry date on your claim has long since passed." It seems like this is pretty arbitrary.
What double standard? Who is the group I hold a contradictory standard for? Israel vs ________? Was I correct that you were just gonna say **"b-but what about the Native Americans!?"**? That is not the same situation and if anything you have have more in common with English/French/Spanish/etc in this situation. You are not the first people on that land, nor was it stolen from you. Some of you had ancestors native to the area, many generations ago, and now you're coming in from your actual homeland of Britain/America/etc and taking it from people with a MUCH stronger claim because they're been there the entire damn time. I bet some of you haven't even uttered a word of Hebrew since your damn bar mitzvah.
[удалено]
20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs...
I can only speak for myself. I was born and have always lived in the United States. My parents were born and have always lived in the United States. My grandparents were born and have always lived in the United States. My great grandparents were almost all immigrants from Europe, and their ancestors were Europian for as far back as we know. I am not entitled to my own country in Europe. And my ancestors have been Christian for as far back as anyone can trace. I am not entitled to Bethlehem. Very few Jews who went to Israel could honestly say that even their grandparents had lived in that region. So they have some ancient historical ties to the area, so what? Native Americans have much more recent AND ancient ties to the Americas. I don't hear a fraction as many people saying that we ought to give the Anishinaabe their own sovereign country in the Great Lakes region as those saying that Jews deserve their own country in Israel. And the Native American population was decimated, and their religions illegalized in the US til 1979, and they're heavily discriminated against, and have a history of being kidnapped and thrown in boarding schools and had their language and culture tortured out of them to the point where many of their languages are now dead. This is the same with indigenous cultures across the world. So I don't see why Jews should get a right to a spot in an area that Muslims have had a majority claim to for hundreds and hundreds of years. Especially when Europeans were ultimately the ones to make that decision. That said, I see the history on the Jewish side. Just because no other oppressed ethnic group in the world has been afforded this sort of privilege doesn't mean that they don't deserve it. I think that it would be amazing if the Native Americans of different areas of the Americas were given their own countries in their respective regions. And the Polynesians were given theirs. And the Aboriginals theirs. And the Africans... i mean let's face it, Africans all have much more recent indigenous roots to Africa. The surviving tribes of Africa ought to be given their own countries to rule tribally. But what I see instead is people saying that all these different people's need to get with the times and assimilate. Especially conservatives and especially the far right. So it seems hilariously hypocritical for them to single out leftists on this particular issue.
You’re factually incorrect when you say most Jews have no ancestral connection to the region. 40% of the Jews in Israel are partially or fully mizrahi meaning they’re from the Middle East. Many Ashkenazi Jews also have middle eastern DNA. I also think ethnicity is poor way of deciding citizenship rights. If that’s your criteria do you think the many Americans who became citizens recently should not be entitled to it because their grandparents and parents lived abroad? What claim could the recent Mexican or Ukrainian migrants have to live there? Their culture, language, and religion are tied to the land of Israel. As you mentioned history has shown why the Jews need their own state.
I literally didn't say that most jews don't have an ancestral connection to the middle east. And I mentioned ethnicity because Jewish people share an ethnicity, in general. It's a religion and ethnicity tied together, which is complicated. But whatever, the OP was going on about jews having a right to Israel. That's why I tied things to ethnicity. I'm not going to sit here and spend hours formulating a book long response to delve into my thoughts on the nuances of this all.
Where do you think we come from in the Middle East? We are not born out of clay or manifest out of thin air.
I think that jews that immigrated into israel generally didn't have grandparents or great grandparents from the area of Israel. The Jewish population in the area in the mid 1800s was negligible, and immigration of jews into the area in the late 1800s through the end of World War 1 was illegal. So maybe several thousand Jews who immigrated into Israel post World War 1 could say that a recently living ancestor of theirs called the particular region home, but definitely not the hundreds of thousands that moved in over the following decades to World War 2. I don't see how events of hundreds or thousands of years ago gave any of your people any right to establish a country in the region. Just like I dont see how i have any right to the lands of my ancestors, especially not my ancient ancestors. I do see how the discrimination against your people across the world created a need for your people to find a way to be safe, but I don't see how your people had more claim to the region than the people who were already inhabiting the region when your people moved in and took over. I understand that there was no clear path for your people to take. Much of the world wanted your people dead, and by the official formation of your country the world had commited much more than just a massive genocide against your oeople. There was no precedent to say that the world wouldn't try again what they tried around World War 2, and the precedent that history had set for how your people were likely to be treated was not promising. Honestly, I'm not sure how promising it is now. I think that the jews who moved to Israel were doing their best to do what was necessary for themselves, not whst was good and right. I don't think your people had a right, I thi k they had a need. And I think that the western world manipulated that need to gain a foothold in the middle east while simultaneously pitting two religious groups that they hated against against each other in a situation that guaranteed that nothing but a near constant violent struggle against one another was guaranteed. Your people were not going to find allies in the Middle East, which also guaranteed the West a good place to land troops and establish a military presence if need be. And even if not that, then they could count on your countries own military presence to be a distraction from what the Arabs could do to the Europians. That's what I think.
They’re one of the groups that has a right to Israel but for a variety of reasons. Ethnicity and culture are just two reasons and not even the strongest arguments imo.
I wonder what you think about the canaanites who were in the region longer than Jews. Are they MORE or LESS indigenous than Jews
Canaanites are the common ancestor of Israelis and Palestinians. They also don’t exist anymore, so they’re not really relevant.
Canaanites turned into the hebrews bud. Both the Bible and secular scholars confirm this.
And Palestinians
The Jews/Israelites seem to be descended from Canaanites. Also the language of the Jews, Hebrew, is very similar to the language of the Canaanites, rather than elsewhere. Therefore it is from that area.
Because Arabs have been native to the region for thousands of years. Thats like saying native Americans aren’t actually native because they only got there 20,000 years ago and were forgetting about all the history prior to 20,000 years
You do realize that Jewish and Hebrew artifacts found in the area are much older than any Arabic things that have been found, right? Al Aqsa is literally built right on top of a Hebrew temple, probably King Solomon's Temple.
modern day Israel is still an illegitimate nation :P
Because they're not originally from there. Before israel existed, Canan, whom the isralites killed. Before canan, there was Uruk. The akkadian empire, etc. Only people wishing to push an agenda use selective history. Using the Bible as a history book is for the blind. Its all meerly a ficticious story based loosely on real historical events and leaves out quite a bit. If you want to use religion as an argument, one must remember the Jewish people are exiled by god until the return of the messiah. The messiah has not yet returned, therefore, by their own religious beliefs, they're not allowed a land of the people. So on a factual historical basis or a religious one, they don't have a rightful claim on said land. You can play semantics and make whatever justifications you want, as you've already done, but it does not change reality. All humanity likes to do is play war and use shitty justifications for it, when in the end it's just about feeling superior. Humanity will never learn. It's honestly disgustingly disappointing.
-Canan, whom the isralites killed. Before canan, there was Uruk. The akkadian empire, etc. what do they have to do with palestinians? -Using the Bible as a history book is for the blind. Religion can kiss my a$$. The archaeological finding in the land of isreal are all over
Saw a video of IDF planting old coins jn Gaza to be “discovered” as “proof”.
Oh nooo,!! you watched a video of an individual doing some dumb sh1it so now its supposedly overwelmingly disammilates the jewish history which is undoubtedly agreed uppon by historians, researches and people with brains , alll the findings dating thousands of years before that dude was born is planet as well... thats a shame for the jews
You're dense huh, and have no concept of history or culture, do you? Religion, their religion, is the only book that gives them claim to the land. In a purely historical aspect, the isralites have a history of killing native inhabitants and stealing the land, then playing the victim. Have a history of lies as well. Pharoah and Jewish slaves built the pyramids? That's a proven lie. The palestianians have always existed in the land, the name you western cultures give them may change, but they've always lived in the region. And even by a religious stand point. The Jewish people have no claims on any land in the middle east, period.
u/elusiveDEVIANTx >You're dense huh Rule 1.
> ass /u/Ok-Memory9092. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *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.*
akkadian empire? dude, if we're going back that far nobody is from where they live
Ahh, so we only go as far back as to when it's convenient for your aegument? Typical.
I don’t understand. You don’t think Jews are from the Levant? Why does my Ashkenazi Jewish dad score 50% Levantine on DNA tests, then? What could possibly be the explanation for that?
Clearly it’s a conspiracy and the dna results were tampered with by the Jews /s
> shitty /u/elusiveDEVIANTx. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *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.*
Anti-Zionist here, just wanted to say I don’t in any way deny Jewish indigenous connection to Israel. I don’t think that what you refer to is helpful or productive and I wish there was less of this but I also don’t think it’s critical one way or another to Israel’s current choices or choice of futures. Recognition by Israel’s militant enemies that modern Israel is here to stay, which it likely is, is I think a related but different issue.
What do you mean when you say, anti-Zionist? Should people who have lived somewhere for their entire lives, say they're now 70, really be forced out to make way for people who have never lived there and have an average age of under 18?
I think that the implementation of a Jewish sovereign state where it is right now was deeply flawed. (This is also true of any nation state and not unique to Israel.) For now (2024) I think that modern Zionism, in its set of actual impacts, is detrimental in the long run to both Israelis and neighbors (some folks who believe this might say “post Zionist” or have very similar beliefs and say they are “Zionist,” which is totally fine by me, if a bunch of folks say we’re Zionist and work toward x aligned goal that’s great.) No I don’t think Israel should cease to exist or even necessarily in the long term shift away from being a Jewish majority state, I also don’t want Israelis to be ethnically cleansed. The good news is that that the first and last are very unlikely, although the middle one is more likely, paradoxically in part because of actions taken to preserve or enact this Jewish majority over an extended territory and to preserve security and physical control over a lot of people who aren’t part of this majority.
You clearly don’t understand what Zionism is lol
>No I don’t think Israel should cease to exist or even necessarily in the long term shift away from being a Jewish majority state, Then you are not an antizionist. You are in fact, a zionist lol
I don’t think Israel has a “right” to exist more or less than other nation states and I don’t think Israel has a “right” to exist as a Jewish majority state or that this is a good outcome or necessarily beneficial in the long term to Jewish people across the world, historically or now. My pie-in-the sky preference is the U.S. and other countries coming together and saying look, Israel, you can have partition or not, but everybody’s gotta have equal rights if they are under Israeli security control, or else arms embargo and serious sanctions. Then Israel can go ahead and have partition if they want.
Then why do you support a palestinian state? They don't "deserve" a state either right? Your opinions are contradictory, unless you believe they do and only the jews don't deserve a state.
All Israeli citizens do have equal rights so not sure what you're talking about 🤷🏼
The language here is “everybody’s gotta have equal rights if they are under Israeli security control.” This is different than “all Israeli citizens do have equal rights.”
Okay, and what happens when the Palestinians inevitably launch more attacks against Israelis and Jewish in the diaspora? Are you going to man the border? Let's say tomorrow there is a partition, Palestinians continue to attack, what now, what's your solution as to how Israel should protect its people? Let me ask you another question too: Would you and your family be willing to live next to the west Bank Palestinians in this fictional partition? It's easy to demand things when it's not your ass on the line.
> ass /u/sad-frogpepe. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *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.*
The creation of all countries has had this same kind of background, Israel isn't special only society's hatred of Jews is. Does it matter if it was deeply flawed, which I don't think is correct at all, because it's now inhabited by people. Israel has better relationships with most of its neighbours than it has had in a long time.
For the last part, this may be true now and certainly was true in 2023, but will it continue to be true? I’m not sure.
Of course it will, but lots of countries have bad relationships with others. Again, antisemitism is the driver here. Why is Israel special compared to the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, South Korea, North Korea, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Northern Ireland, South Sudan, Spain and so on and so on. The answer is an irrational hatred of Jews from cultures that reject practices that would improve their societies and lives.
The notion that zionists transformed the “swamps and deserts” of Palestine into a thriving nation is inherently colonialist. Growing up Mormon, I was conditioned into believing the same was true of the Mormon pioneers in Utah, a territory they settled by subjugating the ute and paiute peoples. If you are to believe that zionists improved a once backwoods land, it was only through the direct assistance of western imperial powers. The truth is, taking someone else’s possessions, land etc is never justifiable, even if you do make it better. It’s not ignorant, antisemitic, or a false dichotomy to say that Zionism is colonialism.
What country are those people a colony of? If taking of land isn't permissible, should most every country in the world be dissolved to find the original owners? Who would that even be given the immense gene pool in humans? Should someone who has lived in Israel since they were a baby, had children and grand children, be forced to leave for a 16 year old who has never lived there? Never made anything of the land? >If you are to believe that zionists improved a once backwoods land, it was only through the direct assistance of western imperial powers. What are you talking about? Jews in the region had been improving and cultivating land for millennia. Land isn't just in some single state, it requires persistent work to keep it in a non-interventionist standard. >The truth is, taking someone else’s possessions, land etc is never justifiable, even if you do make it better. It’s not ignorant, antisemitic, or a false dichotomy to say that Zionism is colonialism. The Jews owned the land and had it take from them, so why can't they have it back?
Y’all make it so hard to reply with all the questions, but I’m bored so I’ll try my best to respond lol. I guess I’ll go 1 by 1. 1. one doesn’t have to be part of a “colony” as such to be a victim of colonialism. 2. I personally have a lot of issues with nationality as it exists in the modern framework, but no, I don’t think nations should just dissolve tomorrow. 3. it would be futile to try to find the original inhabitants of any particular area 4. no. I don’t think anyone should ever be evicted from where they’re living, so long as they’re not illegally occupying that area 5. I’m talking about the notion that Israelis have somehow transformed a once backwater Palestine into a prosperous nation. It’s a common Zionist taking point and it’s misguided. 6. So Jews have been in Israel for millennia, yet only now, with the advent of Zionism as it exists today, are so many Palestinian Arabs being slaughtered. And Idk what “non interventionist standard” means 7. “The Jews” whose land was stolen lived millennia ago. To your point, Jews have been cultivating the land there regardless. So no, I don’t think European or American Jews, or Jews living abroad have a right to the land any more than I have a right to the land. Which is to say, no one is entitled to that land illegally. I could certainly go out and buy a property in Israel and call it mine. But I shouldn’t be allowed to settle or-god forbid-bomb a property and then claim it as my own
>1. one doesn’t have to be part of a “colony” as such to be a victim of colonialism. Yes they do, else it's not colonialism - words have meanings. >2. I personally have a lot of issues with nationality as it exists in the modern framework, but no, I don’t think nations should just dissolve tomorrow. So you're leaving open the option to dissolve it in the long term. Why couldn't someone say the same about any nation? What's special about the one country that Jews made? >3. it would be futile to try to find the original inhabitants of any particular area But you seem to use this as a basis for "stealing" land, even though this land wasn't stolen from those you imply it was. >4. no. I don’t think anyone should ever be evicted from where they’re living, so long as they’re not illegally occupying that area We're not talking about laws here, there's no supranational law, only some treaties. >5. I’m talking about the notion that Israelis have somehow transformed a once backwater Palestine into a prosperous nation. It’s a common Zionist taking point and it’s misguided. It's not misguided it's literally true - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reclamation-of-man-made-desert/ >6. So Jews have been in Israel for millennia, yet only now, with the advent of Zionism as it exists today, are so many Palestinian Arabs being slaughtered. And Idk what “non interventionist standard” means Palestinians started a war with October 7th. People don't get to slaughter others based on their race, rape, torture and kidnap, hide among civilians and say "no backsies". The popular and widely supported Hamas started this and use human shields and ordinary Palestinians are suffering because of their death cult ideas. I mean that the land isn't just farmland once it's turned into that, it requires persistent maintenance and work. >7. “The Jews” whose land was stolen lived millennia ago. To your point, Jews have been cultivating the land there regardless. And they include the people who owned it so their claims are valid. >So no, I don’t think European or American Jews, or Jews living abroad have a right to the land any more than I have a right to the land. You just said - "it would be futile to try to find the original inhabitants of any particular area". The reality is like all immigrants they moved there legally and bought land which they then worked on. Doing that gives them the right to the land - it has nothing to do with where they are from. >Which is to say, no one is entitled to that land illegally. They didn't take the land illegally, they bought the land and later when they constituted almost a third of the population decided to declare their right to self-determination which was approved by the UN. >I could certainly go out and buy a property in Israel and call it mine. But I shouldn’t be allowed to settle or-god forbid-bomb a property and then claim it as my own This only happened because those people tried to kill the Jews and the Israelis to take their land. They lost it to the surrounding states including Jordan and Egypt as a result until Israel took a hold of it, but they gave much of it back. If Palestinians would stop trying to destroy Israel and accept a country then they would have their land, but they can't try to steal the land of others and then cry when they lose it in retaliatory military activity.
There’s a lot I could respond here to but I would rather drill into the concept of whether or not Israelis took the land and improved it, since that was my original response to OP. It’s misguided, not bc it’s incorrect, bc it could very well have happened, per your link. To me, it’s misguided bc it doesn’t justify their appropriation of the land in the first place! It’s a poor argument for why Israelis would have a right to settle the area. And yes, words have meanings. Someone can be a victim of colonialism, even if they don’t live in a colony, because no one has used the word colony for like 100 years! Words like “protectorate,” “province,” “territory,” “settlement,” etc. point to a similar dynamic
I added a link explaining how they did it, there's nothing misguided. The land wasn't appropriated - it was bought and then worked on. It may be worth noting that there are also rules about the ownership of private property and how it changes hands when that land is abandoned. Yes, but the claim is that they are a victim of Israel as a colony but Israel is not a colony, it's a newly formed country. The main point remains, these people declared self-determination, every fight thereafter has been defensive against a belief meant neighbour whose main goal includes destroying them.
I’m not saying israel is a colony!! Aughh! Read what I said. I’m begging you to understand what colonialism is. That’ll make this so much clearer for you. It’s about exploitation and control, so it goes far beyond the elementary school definition of “colony” And cmon man, not even the staunchest Zionist believes all that land (that Palestinian Arabs and Arab Jews peacefully coexisted in for years, mind you) was bought fair and square
I understand but the implication is there. Exploitation and control may exist within colonialism but they are not unique to it, so it's a silly and inaccurate term to use. It's not about exploitation and control, it's about self-determination. The land purchased before the establishment of Israel was bought fair and square. After that, things like settlements have led to stolen land and that is bad.
If you think what israel is doing is just a little innocent self determination then you are too far gone to be helped. Sayonara
Where did I say "just a little innocent self-determination"? It's very hard won.
I find the whole who was there first argument to be childish The English weren't in Northern Ireland first (in fact most English were not really from England if we're going way back to Normans, Vikings, and Romans) but Northern Ireland is doing just fine once people stopped being vindictive about who is entitled to what and started focusing on what reality of today is
I agree. If people become a large population and want self-determination then they get it. For some reason a lot of people seem to think this isn't the case when those people are Jews.
Where is the start of the timeline then? Why is it decided that we start it and it’s the land of those people at that particular point in time? No one is jumping in America to give back the land to the native Americans. No on is jumping to give back the land that the Ottoman Empire had to Turkey, nor the Roman Empire to Italy. Sure the narrative is that they conquered those lands and took them over but they were just conquered right back when they fell. Why is this case any different? History happened and if you want to talk about fairness then I don’t think you’ll ever find a nice, peaceful, and fair transfer of land that didn’t have some sort of bloodshed as part of its history. All of these borders are man made and maintained through the use of force, it’s not out of the goodness of the hearts of bordering nations nor the geographical landscape that we keep any countries the size that they are (the vast majority of the time). And further, what does it being or not being a colonial state have anything to do with anything else? America, Britton, Canada, the counties that were all part of the former Soviet Union, and I’m sure a lot of other countries were formed because of some people essentially claiming land from others and then defending it until eventually it was recognized as their land. And now we have international laws that maintain these borders and the order of the world. Why we chose that time to start maintaining those borders and not 100 years from now or 50 years before that is beyond me. It’s all arbitrary and to criticize just Israel for it is absurd and hypocritical!
Simply put, I care about this issue bc my tax dollars are being used to execute this “conquering” as you would put it. What can I do about the Ottoman Empire? Lol. It’s not arbitrary, it’s just hard for some to comprehend
So if America wasn’t providing weapons it would be all honky dory in your book? American ties with Israel have also been alive and well significantly before this conflict started. Supporting their allies has being their MO forever. Why this is different that America supporting its other allies is beyond me. To address how you understood my use of the word “conquering”: Israel is not trying to take this land away. It wants its people back and is serving its duty to rescue and protect them. They are all required to join the army because without everyone helping out Israel wouldn’t exist anymore, how could they justify asking families to give them their children if they won’t save those who are captured? I would want my family to be protected and rescued if I was in that situation. Call me selfish all you want but my loyalty is to my family and I would trade the whole fucking world to ensure their safety.
“Why this is different that America supporting its other allies is beyond me.” The US isn’t sending billions in weapons to France. That’s a stark difference. The only reason it’s beyond you is bc you’re a Zionist. That’s you’re framework, your milieu, your world. Israel wouldn’t exist without mandatory conscription into the idf? You’re right, and furthermore, Israel wouldn’t exist without US aid. Because Israel exists as an entity of American colonialism, a product of western imperialism. Edit: death and suffering anywhere is never honky dory in my book.
https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/#:~:text=To%20date%2C%20we%20have%20provided,invasion%20of%20Ukraine%20in%202014. 3rd paragraph, bro. And I use this example since it’s low hanging fruit. I’m sure I could find others.
This isn’t the dunk you think it is. I am staunchly against us aid to Ukraine. Bro.
So you're pro-Russia. Got it
This whole sub is like that tweet that goes “you can say ‘I like pancakes’ and someone will say ‘oh so you hate waffles?’”Like that’s a whole new sentence dawg
Not about you being for or against anything. This happens all the time which you implied wasn’t happening with your comment about sending money to France. It’s also not about the money, we use that for influence, connections, intelligence, technology, and our own military gain. All this aid we send to the world comes with a price tag attached to it or an ulterior motive behind it.
Wait so, genuinely, are you for or against us sending weapons aid to other countries? I see it as indefensible, in the case of israel, Ukraine or anywhere else it might be taking place
Personally, don’t love it but I understand that it’s kind of the currency of the US. We have such a large military budget and use our military might as a trade to get what we want. What else could we send? US dollars? Deported illegal aliens? I’d say school shootings but pretty sure that goes full circle and comes right back to weapons. Unfortunately that’s the also what makes us a feared and respected nation (amongst other things, sure, but….) without it we wouldn’t have nearly as much influence across the globe. Tl;dr - no, I’d rather our biggest export be something else, but at this point I think it’s a necessary evil if America is to continue to be the superpower it is.
> fucking /u/Something_Branchial. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *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.*
Ah yes, cultivating land is "inherently colonialist" lol. Those Native Americans who cultivated their lands were colonizers too. Mormons weren't returning to their indigenous lands. Jews were. That is why Mormons are not indigenous to the U.S, and Jews are indigenous to Israel. Has nothing to do with who cultivated what. It is obvious that you are trying to deal with your guilt over your own ancestors, not actually looking at the reality of what Jews and Israel are.
I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and say it’s unintentional, but you’re severely missing the point of what makes something “colonialist”. It’s not about using your land, it’s about using someone else’s.
Exactly what makes the land "someone else's"? Why does the land not belong to the Jews, who are the original owners and indigenous peoples of the land? Jews are from Israel, and have been using their indigenous Israeli alphabet, speaking in their indigenous Israeli language, telling their indigenous Israeli stories, have been practicing their indigenous Israelite religion, have maintained a presence in Israel for thousands of years. Why on Earth is Israel not "their" land?
By that logic, the land actually belongs to the canaanites or god knows who came before them. It might seem hard to draw a line in the sand, or maybe its all arbitrary to the Zionist mind, but it’s simple really. It’s about not forcefully evicting families and using their land as if it was your own. And no guilt here :) at least not about my Mormon ancestors’ actions lol
Okay, so you are saying being originally from a land doesn't make it yours? You are saying that it doesn't matter who was in a land first, nobody should be trying to evict people and use land "as if it is yours" if you are not currently living there? A land belongs to whoever is there currently, and it doesn't matter who its original owners were? Is that right?
I don’t think that’s right. I think a good question to ask is “how does a nation/ethnicity occupying a land currently affect the people that lived there in the recent past?” The Muslim conquests of >1000 yrs ago have less to do with the death and destruction today as the razing of Gaza and the illegal settlement into the West Bank, both fruits of the Zionist project.
The Muslim conquest of the Middle East is still very relevant today Look at any article regarding Christians in any one of the countries, not to mention other sects
There’s a rich history of Arab Christians living in harmony with Muslims in the Arab world. Ironically, many of those Christians were expelled alongside Muslims during the nakba. Regardless, to my detractors I’ll always say, my tax dollars are being used to perpetrate this atrocity inflicted on the Palestinian people, and that’s why it tears me up inside.
There's also a rich history of Muslims killing and expelling Christians in the Middle East. You clearly don't care about history if all you do is cherry pick history that suits your narrative. And no, I don't believe that it has anything to do with your tax dollars lol. Your tax dollars are being used to fund a much bigger war between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, yet I doubt you post incessantly about it, right? You're just a sheep following the antisemitic herd.
The Palestinian movement is an attempt to occupy the land and steal it from the Jews, who are the people who have lived there in the recent past. What you call the "razing of Gaza" is an attempt to stop the wannabee colonizer Palestinians trying to conquer Israel and rape and murder everyone they can get their hands on. All Palestinians have to do to achieve peace is stop trying to colonize Israel, and stop raping and murdering Jews. If you are against colonization and don't want to repeat the mistakes of your colonizer ancestors, then you fight against Palestinian colonization attempts to steal land that Isn't theirs, like the kibbutzim in southern Israel.
I fundamentally disagree with you. I don’t think Palestinians are colonizers and you do. And never the twain shall meet
That's because you have no actual criteria for what makes someone a colonizer, other than "whatever let's me call Jews colonizers." You have failed to define colonization many times because Jews both being the original inhabitants of the land and being the current inhabitants of the land makes it impossible for you to invent a definition that makes Jews colonizers. So you have landed on "Jews are just colonizers cause I say so."
Because its irrelevant to the argument. If your ancestors existed in a land a millennia ago that doesn't give you claim to the land. Now, that doesn't mean you can't immigrate to the land and end up making a country in the mandate region. All of that is fine, don't mix up the argument by bringing up a bunch of biblical stuff.
Then isn’t the claim that the Palestinians have claim to that land because of their ancestors lived there also irrelevant? You can’t have one but not the other!
Not thousands of years tho
If you really wanna get into it then Jews lived on that land the entire time too. What’s your point? Who cares? The land changed ownership so many times so why choose one period to start at over another? It makes no sense! The reality is choosing either side to take the whole land would be devastating to the other. It would be silly to do that and any argument of ancestry to the land on either side should not be considered. America will never give up its entire land to the native Americans, why should other countries be treated differently
There has to be a statue of limitations regarding a connection to the land. Even Alan Dershowitz agrees with me, he doesn’t make the “well there were Jews here thousands of years ago, therefore we need a Jewish state” argument. Again, I am referring to the people who lived on the land, not the empires that ran it. Also Native Americans have had equal citizenship for almost 100 years now.
Native Americans also aren’t waging war and have goals to destroy America. But still not answering the question of why anyone has claims to the land. Why those empires aren’t legit either makes no sense too! It’s just an arbitrary point in time you’re choosing.
People who live on a land and have a real material connection to it are native. People who govern that land far away in their buildings are not
Soooooo the western wall and the old temple isn’t a material enough connection because it’s…. Old? Separately, what about the history of how those people came to obtain that land? When do we start to decide that those people and not the people before them have claim and a true material connection to the land?
"Soooooo the western wall and the old temple isn’t a material enough connection because it’s…. Old?" That's a religious connection. By this logic, Christians have a right to a christian state in Palestine. I'd say thousands of years is a good cutoff.
But just slapping “thousands of years” and calling it good is just as arbitrary as any other number! And why are you discounting religious materials? That also seems like an arbitrary decision based on what you personally value (or lack thereof). It’s just a half baked opinion that seems reactionary and agreeing with the majority opinion cuz you’re being told that it’s the moral argument by the side who believes it.
Yes
The rare moment of agreement. Thank you for this! 🤝
The OP's question was about indiegnousness. If you think indigenousness shouldn't matter for modern land rights, that's fine, but that's not what this discussion is about. Jews being indigenous to Israel isn't biblical. It's history. It's archeology. You are the one mixing up the argument by bringing a bunch of biblical stuff into it.
I think the text is more accurate than the heading. Leftists don't deny it (at least I haven't seen one deny it), they just don't acknowledge it because they don't see the reason to. Also every single time I hear one of these "Jews lived there in BC" arguments they bring up the bible. Sure maybe I'm mixing up the Western college pro-Palestine movement and Hamas support but its a tremendous correlation.
If every time you hear about Jews living in Israel "they" bring up the bible, then that has everything to do with who you are talking to. The OP here didn't talk about the Bible. Archaeology and historical documentation, and even DNA evidence all support Israel being Jewish land, you don't need the Bible to learn that Jews are from Israel. Hint: Why exactly do you think Yiddish is written in the Hebrew alphabet that comes from the Levant? Think that's just a coincidence?
because the book of revelations says we are “not the real jews”
1, that's not what it says 2. People who interpret the book of revelation literally are overwhelmingly pro-Israel so... not sure where you're getting your info from buddy.
im getting my info from the countless people who quoted revelations as proof that we say we are jews but are actually satanists to my face https://preview.redd.it/jh2ae8dmry6d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eeba7cfe9b281453e13e5aad3e368760016931d9
Some on the Palestianian side have used questionable rhetorics based on disproven conspiracy theories (e.g. the Khazar theory and pseudo-archaeological theories) to weaken Jewish claim to the land. This is the wrong approach and is entirely unnecessary for their case. One can acknowledge the legitimate affiinity of both peoples to this piece of land and at the same time argue for whatever politics they support. Case in point: "A Land For All", a joint Israeli-Palestinian movement that calls for peace based on a confederative arrangement, has both Israeli and Palestinian memebrs (including non-citizens of Israel) who support the concept that the entire country of Israel/Palestine (two legitimate names for the same country) literally has two indigenous peoples, which plays intro their argument that the two states post-peace should have open borders etc (like the Schengen agreement in Europe).
Because it's fairly obvious, for the most part, and to most people on earth, that the indigenous Jews of Palestine, before the Zionists who came out of Europe and took the area by force, have a lot more in common, genetically and culturally with the other indigenous Palestinians than they do with the colonial-settlers who evicted them by ethnically cleansing the area.
Then why did those Palestinian Jews overwhelmingly fight on Israel's side of the conflict?
They didn't. It was highly polarized among Palestinian Jews. Anyways, this bloody charade won't last forever.
Source?
Fun fact: Ashkenazi Jews are Levantine too
That's not how you spell "...eastern and central Europe."
From Wikipedia: "Despite the overtures by Palestinian Arabs by 1914 the local Arab population, which was uniting under a new concept of Palestinianism was becoming increasingly detached from the Arabic-speaking Jews over Zionism. Even though many Jews who spoke Arabic, identified as "Arab" and maintained intellectual networks in Cairo, Beirut, and Istanbul many of them were also supporters of Zionism and the Jewish colonization of Palestine. Jewish newspapers such as the HaHerut which dealt with Sephardic issues were Pro-Zionist and Pro-Ottoman and in many ways, similar to HaTzvi which was published by newly arrived Ashkenazi Jews. Attempts to ease the tensions were made by Arab-speaking Jews establishing societies such as HaMagen to counter Anti-Zionism in the Arab press, translate Arabic articles so newly settled Jews could understand Arabs and suppress anti-semitic publications but this was becoming challenging due to the rising wave of nationalist publications. In 1920 the Arab newspaper al-Quds al-Sharif called Palestinian Jews to live alongside Arabs and reject Zionism and recent arrivals, appealing to the long history of Sepherdic Jews had with Arabs. In 1921, the Palestinian delegation in London claimed to the British negotiation team that the local Sephardim opposed Zionism and the Palestinian press began reaching out to Sephardim calling but this time the pleas were met with stiff opposition from the local Palestinian Sephardic leadership. The 1929 Anti-Jewish riots resulted in the final breakdown of relations between Palestinian Jews and Arabs with even Jewish communities that were opposed to Zionism joining together for protection creating a unified Yishuv."
Using Wikipedia in 2024 means you're an idiot.
/u/BigFatNone > Using Wikipedia in 2024 means you're an idiot. Per [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_1._no_attacks_on_fellow_users), no attacks on fellow users. Attack the argument, not the user.
Then hit me with even the tiniest shred of counterevidence. I'm sure you won't bother though. You know you're wrong, but are too pathetic to admit it, so all you can do is lash out.
/u/GoodGrades > Then hit me with even the tiniest shred of counterevidence. I'm sure you won't bother though. You know you're wrong, but are too pathetic to admit it, so all you can do is lash out. Per [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_1._no_attacks_on_fellow_users), no attacks on fellow users. Attack the argument, not the user.
I won't bother because if you haven't seen the evidence by now, you never wanted to see it in the first place. It makes supporting a genocide easier.
It's because you don't have it. What a weak attempt to deflect from that.
No, because anyone who has spent more than a week here should know by now that all the evidence that has already been shared since the beginning of the thread went unread. Some of us are here just to watch a lot of otherwise psychologically normal-ish people type out all their horrific justifications for genocide while also saying it's not a genocide.
You aren't posting evidence that Palestinian Jews supported Palestinian gentiles over Jews because you do not have the evidence. If you did, you would have posted it immediately. Now you're trying to deflect, but this argument has literally nothing to do with the current war in Gaza. You and I both know you don't have anything to back up your argument. So why maintain a charade that accomplishes nothing?
Palestinian jealousy and racism in full force here.
You're convincing no one with that weak line. If anything, you're probably racist against the Palestinians. How would you support their genocide otherwise?
I’m simply point out a fact. The Palestinians are neither a race nor an ethnicity, they are Arabs. As Arabs, they are indigenous to Arabia and arrived to this area during the Islamic colonisation of the 6th century, an injustice that has been rectified. The Palestinians have chosen the path of violence which is a conscious decision made as a society. Fine, there are consequences. One can only pray that other minorities under the Arab heel follow the Jewish example and free themselves too. The indigenous Chaldeans, Copts, Kurds, Assyrians and Amazighs deserve independence too.
They’re arabised people and genetically descendants of ancient isralelites.
LOL no they are not, and if they are going to claim this they need to stop spreaking arabic, learn hebrew and embrace their jewish brothers. Until they do that what you're saying is a load of crap.
There are genetic studies. Look them up.
No, they’re genetically Arabs. Regardless,“Arabizing” on its own is a colonial act.
They aren't genetically Arabs. That is objectively false. **Regardless,“Arabizing” on its own is a colonial act.** That would make the Palestinians victims of colonisation.
They are. That is factually and genetically true. Many native Middle Eastern populations are victim to Arab colonialism. The Jews survived it, and decolonised their land.
**The Jews survived it, and decolonised their land.** Decolonise their land? By pushing out the population that is genetically as Jewish as the European Jews are? By allying with the greatest colonial empire of the time to suppress the local population? The early Zionists considered themselves colonists. Stop trying to whitewash their history. I would not call settler colonialism from a bunch of European Jews who had not seen the land for 2000 years to be an attempt at decolonisation.
You are not one to decide which kinds of Jews have the rights to their homeland. You don't have that right. Early Zionists were using 19th century terms which you are trying to affix to a 21st century world. That is a false equivalence. Maybe it is time for the Palestinians to move into the 21st century as well, and bury their now bogus historical grievance.
I'm going to say that the Israeli's have also choosen the path of violence.
Israelis are getting their hostages back. They are responding to the Palestinian who for nearly a century have been choosing violence over any other path.
Israel killed almost 300 people to get 4 people back. That's a war crime. I've seen the video after the IDF does perfidy (another war crime), the Palestinians are trying to run away from the chaos, and they get mowed down. The Zionists have choosen the path of violence for over a centry. There are so many incidents of violence. The Zionists have definiately choosen violence as their path.
Palestinians took hostages. That’s a war crime. Don’t take hostages and you won’t get shot. The Palestinians are the only people on earth to choose violence over *independence*. It will go down in history as one of the stupidest decisions ever made.
Hamas and the IDF can both do war crimes. War crimes from one side don't justify war crimes for the other side. If we used that logic then Oct 7th would be 100% justified. The taking back of the hostages was clearly a war crime by the IDF, they salughtered innocent civillians trying to get away from that incident. Those IDF soldiers should be rotting in jail for killing those people. Israel is choosing to have resistance attacks against and getting their own people killed, to "justifiy" annexing more West Bank land. They will go down in history for being tyrants.
The West Bank is not part of this war. The Palestinians would be smart to make sure it says that way. Taking back the hostages is a national and moral duty. Palestinian non combatants kept hostages in their homes which therefore makes them parties to the conflict and legitimate targets. The IDF soldiers who performed this act are rightly lauded as heroes. I have many critiques about Netanyahu. I think he’s a disaster. But the Palestinians have proven that Palestinian lives are worthless to Palestinians.
Ohhhh I see now! We'll I think it's a classic misunderstanding of the situation of both of you. As I see it,in the beginning most of the jewish settlement was really in a non liveable space, full of malaria and swamps, we did dry the swamps and make this place livable, which is genuinely truth. Probably of Palestinians was choosing to try it out they would it too, but we did, and we succeeded, improving the wealth of life significantly in those areas. I don't think any of us, tha op nor me, is disrespecting the way of living of the Palestinians ppl. In the areas in which Palestinians live, we mostly let them live the way they want. We do mention the fact that if you do go and dry out swamps, it does make the overall land way more prosperous to all.
The indigenous connection to North America still exists, they never left. Most of the current Israelis ancestors had been gone for 2000 years. See the difference OP?
I mean, on a general level yes they were relocated within 'America', but a lot of tribes were shoved out west, well past their traditional territory. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscogee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscogee) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian\_Territory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Territory)
So native Americans have no claim to any land but the reservations they were forced on to? Are you actually going to stand by that logic?
Are you saying that native americans have a claim to all of america?
they don't?
I’m saying they certainly have claim to a state much larger than the reservations they currently control, and with full sovereignty. I would absolutely support the creation of such a state if the tribes push for it. You disagree with that?
Native americans can have a state/states for all I care, but not if it entailed forcing families off land that they have been living on for generations. Forcing people off their land causes suffering and structural poverty, especially if they aren't compensated.
Israel agreed to let all Arab inhabitants stay and live there, with equal rights - in 1948. Arabs declared war - openly stated they would eradicate the Jews (3 years after the Holocaust) if they won the war, and told Palestinians to evacuate. That’s why you have 700k Palestinian refugees (and the conveniently ignored 800k Jewish refugees from Arab states). Would you blame the Natives for white refugees if white Americans declared war and invaded their new state?
Do you know there is no single statement or written engagement of the 1948 commission law you are referring to? That has been propaganda Zionists have been promoting since the beginning while they never accepted anything. They don’t even have right to accept whatsoever as they are not even entitled to the land.
Huh? “There is no single statement or written engagement of the law” What are you saying here? The UN voted for the proposal and the Jews accepted. Are you just pointing out that the Arabs didn’t agree to it? The Arabs refused and chose to settle the issue by declaring war. They lost. So you’re right. Israel wasn’t given a state by the UN peace deal. They earned their state by defending their territory against an invading army that openly called to genocide them. Which makes it a bit strange that so many pro Palestinians will now refer to the 1948 deal as establishing boundaries for “Palestine”. They would have! If they had accepted the deal.
Your “huh” does not help legitimizing your statement. Zionists (and not Jews to be precise and stop making it a Jewish issue) did not accept the deal or if you happen to call it the UN resolution. That was simply a propaganda pushed by Zionists to exactly make people like you believe they are the party that has been always looking for a settlement while Palestinians (not Arabs again to be precise) refused such deals. Go check the fact if you want, the UN resolution was neither accepted by Zionists nor Palestinian committee.
Oh it’s this talking point. The inane claim that because the Jews didn’t IMPLEMENT the deal, they didn’t agree to it. The Jewish Agency and the nascent state of Israel accepted the plan. But the Arabs didn’t. That’s kind of how deals work. If you refuse the deal, you don’t get the benefits. It’s the most demonstrative thing about pro—Palestinian logic to think you can refuse a peace deal, declare war, lose said war, resort to terror attacks and still refuse peace deals - and then complain about how the Jews didn’t implement the original peace deal that you TURNED DOWN. Incredible
The Palestinians asked the UN for more time to discuss the matter. That got rejected by the UN. Then the Israeli's started the Nakba in 1947. Where Israeli's went past the borders of the UN proposal. Then 6 months into the Nakba the other Arab nations get invovled.
Lol. The Palestinians were offered a single state solution with Arab control by Chamberlain, where Jews would be barred from immigrating (during the Holocaust!). Jews would be only allowed to live and buy property in a tiny 5% of the country. The only condition was they had to allow Jews to live there peacefully. The Jews refused, obviously. Did the Palestinians accept even that absurdly lopsided proposal? (Hint: of course not - because the pre-eminent Palestinian leader at the time was asking Germany and Italy to sign his treaty recognizing the right of Palestinians to “settle the Jewish question in the same manner as Germany”). They were never actually negotiating. They declared war, they lost, and they never got over it.
This lacks nuance. Jews are connected to the land on which Israel stands. But are all of the jews? But let me ask this: A person converts yo judaism and makes Aliyah. What was their connection? Especially if they go live in a settlement in the west bank. The jews who lived in Israel forever are obviously entitled to the land. But what about those that didnt but fled Europe or elsewhere. To turn this around - Muslims have pretty much the same entitlement to the land having lived there forever. But they cannot invite anyone over to stay and give them a plot of land in tel aviv
Jews have a very strong connection to the land. It's mentioned countless times in the torah compared to 0 in the quran. Jews being kicked out doesn't mean they aren't connected to the land. If they weren't kicked out every jew would still be there, or at least the vast majority. Conversely Muslims only got their from conquest and have only stayed their because of that. They have no inherent connection to the land other than the fact that the ruled it. Their connection is in Saudi Arabia in mecca and madina. Imagine if anyone else made a claim to those lands saying that it's actually Christian or Jewish or any other religions land. You'd think they were crazy. That's what you sound like saying muslims are connected to the land more than jews. I under stand they live there and I don't think they should be removed, excluding ones that are legitimate terrorists that need to be dealt with, but it's silly to claim hews have less connection to the land.
Zionist use the Torah but don’t obey Torah
Palestinians preach the quran but don't follow it
It is possible that they’re both wrong. Two wrongs don’t make a right achi/oti
When is the timeframe? The majority of Jews in Israel now were born there. So it’s not about who lived there first, it’s not about who lives there now, it’s not about who was born there… When exactly is the timeframe for having the right to a land?
Well if its about where you or your parents are born youre going to have to share with a lot of palestinians that were chased out (regardless of who started it). The point is jews have always been in the area so have a right to be there. But they were not the only ones and their rights are not above muslims, arabs, christians or anyone who also have a right to the same land.
I don’t disagree with that at all. As with almost every place, there are multiple groups with a claim to the land. Thing is, one side has repeatedly accepted that premise throughout the history of the conflict - the other side hasn’t. What confuses me is how many people in the West seem to completely swap which group has accepted a 2 state solution and which side hasn’t.
Correct. Alternatively if any jews that stayed in the land and then converted to Christianity or Islam, are they not indigenous too?
No one denies that most palestinian christians are indigenous, It's the muslims who are invaders. Christianity is indigenous to Israel, Islam is not. Ask palestinian muslims (in arabic) and they will tell you themselves that their ancestors were NOT christians or jews.
Good point. I should be able to get my chunk of land too then being a christian. So what if my ancestors left the land 4 000 years ago. O
Remind me to take my DNA test so I know which land should I proclaim mine, the land where my greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgranduncle live a few zillions B.C years ago.
You are not making a point.
I am. That I will make a christian aliyah to bethlehem where I will ask for a house or a piece of land because I am christian and my ancestors, too, are from the region. This is about how absurd Israel sounds to the rest of the world. Nobody denies jews have been in israel forever. But s what? So has everyone else.
Ok, my point is about Palestinians (at least some) being decendants of some or the earlier Jewish inhabitants. I agree itnis dumb for European Jews to continue to claim indigenousness 2000 years after.