Home
Gallery
Search
Register
Log in
About Us & RulesARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
5 posters
Page 1 of 1
ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Guest Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:59 am
As an indigenous activist—I am a Métis from the Paddle Prairie Metis settlement in Alberta, Canada—there is one question I am most often asked by the public, one that can instantly divide a community due to its intense and arduous subject matter.
Yet, regardless of the scenario, each time I hear the words, “Are Jews the indigenous people of Israel?” I’m inclined to answer not only with my heart but with the brutal, honest truth, backed by indisputable, thousands-year-old historical and archaeological fact: yes.
While evidence in favor of this view is overwhelming, activists who oppose Israel’s right to exist and deny the Jewish people’s connection to the land—perhaps before learning where indigenous status stems from and what it means—still have an issue with this claim, supporting a narrative built on falsehoods that today is basically acknowledged as fact.
It is my belief that strengthening Jewish identity is the optimum way to fight against the perpetuation of false narratives and lies. This can be achieved only through an indigenous decolonization of Jewish identity, which would urge Jews to see themselves through a Jewish lens and manifest the indigenous aspects of Jewish identity in a meaningful way.
Now, to understand indigeneity, one must also understand indigenous people, how we see ourselves, and how we see the world. At its simplest, indigenous status stems from the genesis of a culture, language, and traditions in conjunction with its connections to an ancestral land, most commonly derived from ties to pre-colonial peoples. Once a people have such a cultural, linguistic, and spiritual genesis as well as a coalescence as a people, they are generally acknowledged as an indigenous people.
An anthropologist named José Martínez Cobo, who served as the UN’s special rapporteur on discrimination against indigenous populations, developed a simple checklist in order to make indigenous status easier to understand. Even though that checklist has since been adjusted—I would argue, to fit the UN’s anti-Israel agenda—it remains the standard for most anthropologists in the field today:
As a guideline, the Martínez Cobo study is fairly clear and gives us a way to avoid falling prey to false claims. However, there is one section—which, as far as I can tell, wasn’t in Cobo’s earliest definition—that has been referred to as problematic by many indigenous activists. This section refers to “nondominant sectors of society,” which is directly related to the issue of Jews as an indigenous people. It implies that by being “nondominant,” you have yet to realize self-determination. Ergo, if a group has achieved self-determination (i.e., the Jewish people or the Fijians), they will no longer meet the checklist as indigenous.
Seeing how the goal of all indigenous peoples is to achieve self-determination on their ancestral lands, it’s basically the most egregious example of a Catch-22.
You might be wondering why this seemingly throwaway line about “prevailing societies and non-dominant sectors” was included when it’s so clearly counterintuitive to our goals as indigenous peoples. It is my belief that it was inserted to deny indigenous status to one specific people, in fact, the only people who have actually achieved full self-determination on their ancestral lands: the Jewish people.
Why else would the United Nations include a caveat that basically denies indigenous peoples’ identity if we actually win in our struggle?
***
Archaeology, genealogy, and history all support the Jewish claim to indigeneity. A debate on this issue only even exists because we’ve been fed a false narrative that Palestinian Arabs also hold a claim to the land of Israel. Not to say that two peoples can’t be indigenous to one land. The Palestinians do indeed have the legitimate “rights of longstanding presence” in Israel, but this does not trump the indigenous status of Jewish people, 90 percent of whom can directly trace their genetics to the Levant. The cultural genesis, spirituality, language, and ancestral ties of Palestinian Arabs, however, trace back to the Hejaz (a region in present-day Saudi Arabia). In the Quran, the Hejaz is where Muhammad was born and where he established a community of followers.
To say that Palestinian Arabs were the first inhabitants of the land of Israel is problematic for actual indigenous people like the Jewish people, the Amazigh, the Copts, the Assyrians, the Samaritans, and others who were forcefully conquered, subsumed, and converted. It would literally be akin to white Europeans in North America making that same claim. Conquering peoples can still become indigenous through cultural genesis and coalescence. They cannot, however, become indigenous simply through conquering indigenous people.
Indigenous status is specific to certain areas, just as in North America, where certain tribes are indigenous to specific regions. The same rules should be applied in the Middle East. Just as the Cree would not claim Mohawk territories, Arabs should not try to claim Jewish, Amazigh, Kurdish, or Assyrian territories. Each of those peoples have clearly defined territories that date to pre-colonial times.
The primary argument promoting the false narrative that Jews are not indigenous to the land of Israel is that they are actually the descendants of European colonizers. This can be easily rebuked. Recent studies support the notion that some 80 percent of Jewish males, and 50 percent of Jewish females, can trace their ancestry to the Middle East. Early population genetics studies also confirm that “most Jewish Diaspora groups originated in the Middle East.”
Another study shows that even the first European Ashkenazi Jews were at least half Middle Eastern.
The next argument against Jews being an indigenous people derives from the fact that Abraham was from Ur. And, while he is considered the father of the Jewish people, they did not become a people in Ur but in the Levant—specifically, in modern-day Judea and Samaria.
According to Jewish tradition and spirituality, the Torah was given to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai, but they had their cultural Genesis in the land of Israel. Of the 613 mitzvot, the vast majority can only be completed in the land of Israel. The Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the Jewish people are all buried in the land of Israel. The holiest sites in Judaism are located—you guessed it—in the land of Israel. Abraham was indeed from Ur, but the people who stemmed from him are, without a doubt, from Israel.
This is closely related to the issue of Jerusalem, which both Palestinian Muslims and Israeli Jews claim as their own. One need only look to the Tanakh, where Jerusalem is mentioned an astounding 699 times, and then to the Quran, where Jerusalem is not mentioned even once, to resolve this dispute.
Then there is the Canaanite argument, a relatively newer piece of Palestinian propaganda that argues—because the Torah claims that the Canaanites were driven out by the Israelites—that Jews are therefore not indigenous to Israel. Archaeologists suggest, however, that the Canaanites were in fact not destroyed at all, but subsumed by the ascendant Hebrew people.
It appears that once Palestinian Arabs realized their claim to being descendants of the Philistines was false—as the Philistines, derived from the Hebrew word peleshet, have no connection ethnically, linguistically, or historically to the people of Arabia—they decided that they were descended from Canaanites instead.
In a 2012 speech, a spokesperson for Mahmoud Abbas said, “The nation of Palestine upon the land of Canaan had a 7,000-year history B.C.E. This is the truth, which must be understood, and we have to note it, in order to say: ‘Netanyahu, you are incidental in history. We are the people of history. We are the owners of history.’ ”
This comment from the Abbas camp is complete rubbish, just one on a laundry list of Palestinian misnomers. First, the Canaanites have been extinct for 3,000 years and little is known today about their direct descendants. Second, pre-Islamic Arabs—of whom Palestinians are direct descendants—first appeared only in the 9th century BCE, not in 7000 BCE. Third, in 1946, before the establishment of Modern Israel, Palestinian-Arab leaders themselves only claimed a connection to the land of Israel dating back no further than seventh century CE—when Muhammad’s followers conquered North Africa and the surrounding region. You may also want to ask: What spiritual, cultural, or traditional constructs of the Canaanite people have Palestinian Arabs maintained?
The answer is none.
But this should not be surprising. Even the most novice researcher looking into falsehoods perpetrated by Palestinian leaders would quickly find other blatant lies aimed at delegitimizing the history of the Jewish people, like the time Yasser Arafat told Bill Clinton there was never a Jewish temple in Jerusalem, or the time Ekrima Sabri, former Jerusalem mufti and chairman of the Supreme Islamic Council in Jerusalem, said, “After 25 years of digging, archaeologists are unanimous that not a single stone has been found related to Jerusalem’s alleged Jewish history.”
These are the proponents of the false narrative attempting to rebuke the indigenous status of the Jewish people in the land of Israel.
I got involved in this struggle because I was seeing nonindigenous people make arguments that are detrimental to actual indigenous people, arguments that attempt to rewrite our history. The idea that “Palestinian Arab” conquerors could become indigenous through conquering the Jewish people, even though the term “Palestinian” was only used in reference to Jews before 1948, is anathema. While Arabs claim to be related to the descendants of Israel through blood, it’s just another way to say that they acted like all conquerors, raping and pillaging and then settling and subsuming the locals. Native North Americans especially understand that simply conquering indigenous people does not grant one indigenous status.
Building a monument over our sacred places does not make them yours (Mount Rushmore, anyone?) Not any more than UNESCO declaring the Temple Mount to be a Muslim sacred site because they built a mosque over the church that was built over the ruins of the Jewish Temple. It’s a basic tradition in the Western ethos to respect those who came before you; it’s even built into most of our laws to respect prior claim, and that’s what indigenous rights are really all about. Respecting the rights of those who came before you.***
Read more from Tablet magazine about the legal definitions of Jewish indigenous rights here.
https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/224254/bellerose-aboriginal-people
Yet, regardless of the scenario, each time I hear the words, “Are Jews the indigenous people of Israel?” I’m inclined to answer not only with my heart but with the brutal, honest truth, backed by indisputable, thousands-year-old historical and archaeological fact: yes.
While evidence in favor of this view is overwhelming, activists who oppose Israel’s right to exist and deny the Jewish people’s connection to the land—perhaps before learning where indigenous status stems from and what it means—still have an issue with this claim, supporting a narrative built on falsehoods that today is basically acknowledged as fact.
It is my belief that strengthening Jewish identity is the optimum way to fight against the perpetuation of false narratives and lies. This can be achieved only through an indigenous decolonization of Jewish identity, which would urge Jews to see themselves through a Jewish lens and manifest the indigenous aspects of Jewish identity in a meaningful way.
Now, to understand indigeneity, one must also understand indigenous people, how we see ourselves, and how we see the world. At its simplest, indigenous status stems from the genesis of a culture, language, and traditions in conjunction with its connections to an ancestral land, most commonly derived from ties to pre-colonial peoples. Once a people have such a cultural, linguistic, and spiritual genesis as well as a coalescence as a people, they are generally acknowledged as an indigenous people.
An anthropologist named José Martínez Cobo, who served as the UN’s special rapporteur on discrimination against indigenous populations, developed a simple checklist in order to make indigenous status easier to understand. Even though that checklist has since been adjusted—I would argue, to fit the UN’s anti-Israel agenda—it remains the standard for most anthropologists in the field today:
Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present nondominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system.
This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into the present of one or more of the following factors:
a) Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them;
b) Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands;
c) Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.);
d) Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language);
e) Residence on certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world;
f) Other relevant factors.
As a guideline, the Martínez Cobo study is fairly clear and gives us a way to avoid falling prey to false claims. However, there is one section—which, as far as I can tell, wasn’t in Cobo’s earliest definition—that has been referred to as problematic by many indigenous activists. This section refers to “nondominant sectors of society,” which is directly related to the issue of Jews as an indigenous people. It implies that by being “nondominant,” you have yet to realize self-determination. Ergo, if a group has achieved self-determination (i.e., the Jewish people or the Fijians), they will no longer meet the checklist as indigenous.
Seeing how the goal of all indigenous peoples is to achieve self-determination on their ancestral lands, it’s basically the most egregious example of a Catch-22.
You might be wondering why this seemingly throwaway line about “prevailing societies and non-dominant sectors” was included when it’s so clearly counterintuitive to our goals as indigenous peoples. It is my belief that it was inserted to deny indigenous status to one specific people, in fact, the only people who have actually achieved full self-determination on their ancestral lands: the Jewish people.
Why else would the United Nations include a caveat that basically denies indigenous peoples’ identity if we actually win in our struggle?
***
Archaeology, genealogy, and history all support the Jewish claim to indigeneity. A debate on this issue only even exists because we’ve been fed a false narrative that Palestinian Arabs also hold a claim to the land of Israel. Not to say that two peoples can’t be indigenous to one land. The Palestinians do indeed have the legitimate “rights of longstanding presence” in Israel, but this does not trump the indigenous status of Jewish people, 90 percent of whom can directly trace their genetics to the Levant. The cultural genesis, spirituality, language, and ancestral ties of Palestinian Arabs, however, trace back to the Hejaz (a region in present-day Saudi Arabia). In the Quran, the Hejaz is where Muhammad was born and where he established a community of followers.
To say that Palestinian Arabs were the first inhabitants of the land of Israel is problematic for actual indigenous people like the Jewish people, the Amazigh, the Copts, the Assyrians, the Samaritans, and others who were forcefully conquered, subsumed, and converted. It would literally be akin to white Europeans in North America making that same claim. Conquering peoples can still become indigenous through cultural genesis and coalescence. They cannot, however, become indigenous simply through conquering indigenous people.
Indigenous status is specific to certain areas, just as in North America, where certain tribes are indigenous to specific regions. The same rules should be applied in the Middle East. Just as the Cree would not claim Mohawk territories, Arabs should not try to claim Jewish, Amazigh, Kurdish, or Assyrian territories. Each of those peoples have clearly defined territories that date to pre-colonial times.
The primary argument promoting the false narrative that Jews are not indigenous to the land of Israel is that they are actually the descendants of European colonizers. This can be easily rebuked. Recent studies support the notion that some 80 percent of Jewish males, and 50 percent of Jewish females, can trace their ancestry to the Middle East. Early population genetics studies also confirm that “most Jewish Diaspora groups originated in the Middle East.”
Another study shows that even the first European Ashkenazi Jews were at least half Middle Eastern.
The next argument against Jews being an indigenous people derives from the fact that Abraham was from Ur. And, while he is considered the father of the Jewish people, they did not become a people in Ur but in the Levant—specifically, in modern-day Judea and Samaria.
According to Jewish tradition and spirituality, the Torah was given to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai, but they had their cultural Genesis in the land of Israel. Of the 613 mitzvot, the vast majority can only be completed in the land of Israel. The Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the Jewish people are all buried in the land of Israel. The holiest sites in Judaism are located—you guessed it—in the land of Israel. Abraham was indeed from Ur, but the people who stemmed from him are, without a doubt, from Israel.
This is closely related to the issue of Jerusalem, which both Palestinian Muslims and Israeli Jews claim as their own. One need only look to the Tanakh, where Jerusalem is mentioned an astounding 699 times, and then to the Quran, where Jerusalem is not mentioned even once, to resolve this dispute.
Then there is the Canaanite argument, a relatively newer piece of Palestinian propaganda that argues—because the Torah claims that the Canaanites were driven out by the Israelites—that Jews are therefore not indigenous to Israel. Archaeologists suggest, however, that the Canaanites were in fact not destroyed at all, but subsumed by the ascendant Hebrew people.
It appears that once Palestinian Arabs realized their claim to being descendants of the Philistines was false—as the Philistines, derived from the Hebrew word peleshet, have no connection ethnically, linguistically, or historically to the people of Arabia—they decided that they were descended from Canaanites instead.
In a 2012 speech, a spokesperson for Mahmoud Abbas said, “The nation of Palestine upon the land of Canaan had a 7,000-year history B.C.E. This is the truth, which must be understood, and we have to note it, in order to say: ‘Netanyahu, you are incidental in history. We are the people of history. We are the owners of history.’ ”
This comment from the Abbas camp is complete rubbish, just one on a laundry list of Palestinian misnomers. First, the Canaanites have been extinct for 3,000 years and little is known today about their direct descendants. Second, pre-Islamic Arabs—of whom Palestinians are direct descendants—first appeared only in the 9th century BCE, not in 7000 BCE. Third, in 1946, before the establishment of Modern Israel, Palestinian-Arab leaders themselves only claimed a connection to the land of Israel dating back no further than seventh century CE—when Muhammad’s followers conquered North Africa and the surrounding region. You may also want to ask: What spiritual, cultural, or traditional constructs of the Canaanite people have Palestinian Arabs maintained?
The answer is none.
But this should not be surprising. Even the most novice researcher looking into falsehoods perpetrated by Palestinian leaders would quickly find other blatant lies aimed at delegitimizing the history of the Jewish people, like the time Yasser Arafat told Bill Clinton there was never a Jewish temple in Jerusalem, or the time Ekrima Sabri, former Jerusalem mufti and chairman of the Supreme Islamic Council in Jerusalem, said, “After 25 years of digging, archaeologists are unanimous that not a single stone has been found related to Jerusalem’s alleged Jewish history.”
These are the proponents of the false narrative attempting to rebuke the indigenous status of the Jewish people in the land of Israel.
I got involved in this struggle because I was seeing nonindigenous people make arguments that are detrimental to actual indigenous people, arguments that attempt to rewrite our history. The idea that “Palestinian Arab” conquerors could become indigenous through conquering the Jewish people, even though the term “Palestinian” was only used in reference to Jews before 1948, is anathema. While Arabs claim to be related to the descendants of Israel through blood, it’s just another way to say that they acted like all conquerors, raping and pillaging and then settling and subsuming the locals. Native North Americans especially understand that simply conquering indigenous people does not grant one indigenous status.
Building a monument over our sacred places does not make them yours (Mount Rushmore, anyone?) Not any more than UNESCO declaring the Temple Mount to be a Muslim sacred site because they built a mosque over the church that was built over the ruins of the Jewish Temple. It’s a basic tradition in the Western ethos to respect those who came before you; it’s even built into most of our laws to respect prior claim, and that’s what indigenous rights are really all about. Respecting the rights of those who came before you.***
Read more from Tablet magazine about the legal definitions of Jewish indigenous rights here.
https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/224254/bellerose-aboriginal-people
Guest- Guest
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Andy Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:40 am
Too long and boring to even consider reading, especially as there are more fruity topics currently flying around.
Boris Johnson's wife is divorcing after she discovered he wants to fuck the whole country.
Boris Johnson's wife is divorcing after she discovered he wants to fuck the whole country.
Andy- Poet Laureate & Traveling Bard of NewsFix
- Posts : 6421
Join date : 2013-12-14
Age : 67
Location : Winning the fight to drain the swamp of far right extremists.
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Guest Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:46 am
Angry Andy wrote:Too long and boring to even consider reading, especially as there are more fruity topics currently flying around.
Boris Johnson's wife is divorcing after she discovered he wants to fuck the whole country.
So boring it engaged you enough to reply
You think some nobody called Boris, is more important than indegeneous rights?
I think there is plenty wrong with some of the present policies of the israel goverment
I stand against them, but what i am so concerned about is the rise of present day antisemitism
I have seen what has happened time and time again in history before
As much as i am against the present Tory governement
As much as I am against a Labour party, now overun with Far leftists. Dictating, who can stand for the labour party.
There is no longer any democracy within the labour party
Membership has been overun with those who are far left and are calling the shots Andy
You should be as concerned about that, as May destroying this country. As under Corbyn, its going to be far worse
We have just seen evidence that two Russian military operatives are behind the attack with nerve agents and still Corbyn will not denounce the Russians
He is on a par with Trump, in the pocket of Putin.
Guest- Guest
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Andy Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:47 pm
Israel, Jews and anti semitism has been done to death, by the MSM and by you Didge. .
A hint.
Many are fucking bored to death with a problem that on a personal level we can do little about.
But we can have fun ripping the piss out of Trump and Boris.
A hint.
Many are fucking bored to death with a problem that on a personal level we can do little about.
But we can have fun ripping the piss out of Trump and Boris.
Andy- Poet Laureate & Traveling Bard of NewsFix
- Posts : 6421
Join date : 2013-12-14
Age : 67
Location : Winning the fight to drain the swamp of far right extremists.
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Guest Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:56 pm
Angry Andy wrote:Israel, Jews and anti semitism has been done to death, by the MSM and by you Didge. .
A hint.
Many are fucking bored to death with a problem that on a personal level we can do little about.
But we can have fun ripping the piss out of Trump and Boris.
So has your hate of rw wing people been done to death and yet nobody says what you can or cannot post
Many are fucking bored to death of your hate of people on inaflap, yet nobody moans and bitches as much as you do about things
Can this now be allowed to continue, or do you want to gripe some more?
Guest- Guest
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Andy Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:26 pm
Folk are flocking to join this thread.
Andy- Poet Laureate & Traveling Bard of NewsFix
- Posts : 6421
Join date : 2013-12-14
Age : 67
Location : Winning the fight to drain the swamp of far right extremists.
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Guest Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:32 pm
Angry Andy wrote:Folk are flocking to join this thread.
You have and it has had 55 views
Guest- Guest
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Original Quill Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:48 pm
This is a kind of myth that I call an 'inspirational lie'. Santa Clause is an inspirational lie, in that he breaths excitement and joy in the hearts of children.…but he doesn’t exist. Southerners praising Stonewall Jackson as an American hero is an inspirational lie; Jackson was a treasonous traitor. When one wants to praise some heritage, and someone else wants to applaud him, he goes into metaphysics and we all chant hear, hear!
But no way is a guy from McKenzie County, Alberta Canada, a Semitic Jew...unless he immigrated. No question there are Semitic Jews still in the Lavant--albeit few in number today--but this is not what Israel is claiming. They are claiming a heritage without the Semitic connection.
To the extent that Israel is stocked with expatriate Europeans who subscribe to the Jewish faith, they are not Semitics. They are Europeans invading a Semitic land. Beat around the bush all you want, that is the fact.
But no way is a guy from McKenzie County, Alberta Canada, a Semitic Jew...unless he immigrated. No question there are Semitic Jews still in the Lavant--albeit few in number today--but this is not what Israel is claiming. They are claiming a heritage without the Semitic connection.
To the extent that Israel is stocked with expatriate Europeans who subscribe to the Jewish faith, they are not Semitics. They are Europeans invading a Semitic land. Beat around the bush all you want, that is the fact.
Original Quill- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 37540
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 59
Location : Northern California
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Guest Fri Sep 07, 2018 4:55 pm
Original Quill wrote:This is a kind of myth that I call an 'inspirational lie'. Santa Clause is an inspirational lie, in that he breaths excitement and joy in the hearts of children.…but he doesn’t exist. Southerners praising Stonewall Jackson as an American hero is an inspirational lie; Jackson was a treasonous traitor. When one wants to praise some heritage, and someone else wants to applaud him, he goes into metaphysics and we all chant hear, hear!
But no way is a guy from McKenzie County, Alberta Canada, a Semitic Jew...unless he immigrated. No question there are Semitic Jews still in the Lavant--albeit few in number today--but this is not what Israel is claiming. They are claiming a heritage without the Semitic connection.
To the extent that Israel is stocked with expatriate Europeans who subscribe to the Jewish faith, they are not Semitics. They are Europeans invading a Semitic land. Beat around the bush all you want, that is the fact.
So you are denying facts here and evidence that people genetically descend from the area
There is plenty of links to back up his facts, but you ignore them
So the only myth is coming from the 21st century Far left new age Nazi's, that back Arabization over the indegeneous Jews, Kurds, Armenians etc
It makes these Jews decolonizers and 3 million Jews in Israel descend from jews ethnically cleansed from the Middle East and North africa in the 20th century
He showed and proved that these Europeans descend back from the area
What you are saying is that if native Americans who have left the US and then came back hundres of years later and then claimed independence, could not be classed as native Americans, because they lived in Euope for centuries
Its typical colonial thinking by someone who has no idea what indegeneous means
So lets put this to the test
I have a friend in the Uk, who is Lakota. Are you saying her descendents will not be Lakota, even though they would be living in the UK?
If then a few hundred years later and then the Lakota gained indepence from the US, based from many returning. Are you going to claim they are European?
What next, are you going to claim Ben has no Irish ethnicity?
So no European Jews invaded what is today called israel, they bought up land, alongside Jews who had been living their centuries under Ottoman rule and other islamist colonial rulers. They declared independence and then the Arabs, being antisemitic, decide they had no right to exist. Just as Hitler believed Jews do not have a right to exist
How odd is that then that you back those antisemitic in the Middle East, but actually condemn Hitler.??>
Guest- Guest
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Guest Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:05 pm
By the way he is Métis and an indegeneous activist
Metis
1.
(in Canada) a person of mixed race, especially one having white and American Indian parentage.
Metis
1.
(in Canada) a person of mixed race, especially one having white and American Indian parentage.
Guest- Guest
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Original Quill Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:19 pm
Didge wrote:So you are denying facts here and evidence that people genetically descend from the area
Yes. They are religiously affiliated, but no more. Look, I am 1/64th Massasoit Indian…I love my heritage, I might even go to a Massasoit street fair if I ever get back to Massachusetts. It’s fun to identify and pretend. But I would never claim indigenous, native America status. It would be a fraud.
The people who stock Israel are Europeans. They are faux Semites…marching around with tin hats, pretending to be something they are not. The United Nations salutes them because to admit it let such an invasion take place under it’s watch, would make it a laughing stock.
But the victim Palestinians are not so compliant. And there are 1.6-billion Muslims who agree with them, not to mention the millions of Europeans who now agree.
Last edited by Original Quill on Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
Original Quill- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 37540
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 59
Location : Northern California
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Original Quill Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:21 pm
Didge wrote:By the way he is Métis and an indegeneous activist
Metis
1.
(in Canada) a person of mixed race, especially one having white and American Indian parentage.
I know who he is. That's why I listed his origin in MacKenzie County.
Original Quill- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 37540
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 59
Location : Northern California
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Guest Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:32 pm
Original Quill wrote:Didge wrote:So you are denying facts here and evidence that people genetically descend from the area
Yes. They are religiously affiliated, but no more. Look, I am 1/64th Massasoit Indian…I love my heritage, I might even go to a Massasoit street fair if I ever get back to Massachusetts. It’s fun to identify and pretend. But I would never claim indigenous, native America status. It would be a fraud.
The people who stock Israel are Europeans. They are faux Semites…marching around with tin hats, pretending to be something they are not. The United Nations salutes them because to admit it let such an invasion take place under it’s watch, would make it a laughing stock.
But the victim Palestinians are not so compliant. And there are 1.6-billion Muslims who agree with them, not to mention the millions of Europeans who now agree.
Really?
As seen genetically, you are wrong
I mean the evidence and links are there and yet you do as you always do and go "la la la la I', not listening"
So you love your heritage as Jews do, you ignore the 3 million middle eastern Jews ethnically cleansed or the Jews actually living there centuries and go off those fleeing persecution in Europe and Russia from the 19th century. All of which the majority descend from the middle east by genetics
I see no evidence from you to counter this and as usual again you defend colonizers in the Arabs. Who were so successful, that the entire Middle East and North Africa has been Arabinized
So you admit that the Muslims are the problem. Just as the Nazi';s were when they did not except the self determination of the Polish. Are you claiming that the nazi's were right to invade Poland, as the Arabs did when they invaded israel and cause hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees?
You see there would be no Arab refugees from this conflict, if not for the fact that Arabs refused to except the right of Jewish self determination. You ignore this fact and back the antisemitic agressors. Which by the way 1.6 billion Muslims do not agree and if that was the case, would prove there is something very wrong with islam and that you bow down to Totalitarianism. I mean 1.6 billion Muslims believe the world should be Islamified.
Are you going to bow down to that and back their view that they should?
I see again you offered no substance to your claim but back Arab antisemitism
What about the 850,000 Jewish victims ethnically cleansed by Arab nations in the 21st century? Who's ancestors had been living in the Middle East centuries before the concept of Islam
Oh that is right, Israel took them in and they are now citizens.
Why has Lebanon, Jordan Syria ect, not made palestinian refugees citizens and treats them as second class citizens?
Because they are being used as pawns to continue a conflict
They should have been given equal rights years ago by these nations and yet sadly are denied them
The reality is this, you stand against Colonialism, when its European, but defend the Arabs when they have done so. You rightly condemn slavery by the Europeans, but white wash the Arab slave trade of Africans. Which was ten times worse. So much so that hardly any Africans now live in the Middle east. Most slaves were castrated and any children born were butchered
I think you need to stop seeing these imperialists colonialist slave trading Arabs as victims
Last edited by Didge on Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
Guest- Guest
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Guest Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:33 pm
Original Quill wrote:Didge wrote:By the way he is Métis and an indegeneous activist
Metis
1.
(in Canada) a person of mixed race, especially one having white and American Indian parentage.
I know who he is. That's why I listed his origin in MacKenzie County.
Mackenzie county is a Europeanized name
What is the original native Indian name?
Can you name it?
See how colonialized you are?
Guest- Guest
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Original Quill Fri Sep 07, 2018 7:10 pm
Didge wrote:I mean the evidence and links are there and yet you do as you always do and go "la la la la I', not listening"
There are links that I am an American Indian, too. But distant and attenuated links are not enough. To be Semitic, you would have to be wholly, or substantially Semetic, have been born and raised in the Levant (or have a substantial reason why not) and have cultural links to the region. It's a lifestyle, mindset as well as a living space. If you are over half European blood, you need not apply...no offense, but you are already European. You already have an identity, no need to get greedy.
Let's put this into perspective: your OP article is an apologia for Israel and it's European invasion of the Levant. Nobody is denying anybody whatever heritage they want. The apologia is in response to the Israeli invasion argument...that Israel is entitled because of their biblical heritage. Sympathizers want to claim some sort of a connection to Semitic lands (the Levant) and they can't because they are Europeans. So they take these loose "links" and attenuated connections and try to mold them into a cultural history. But everybody knows it's an apologia, and were they not politically motivated, no one would take the claim seriously.
Some of us don't buy the doctored story of loose links and attenuated connections, especially when it is now weaponized and being used to grab lands that belong to others. That's liebestraum, plain and simple.
Original Quill- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 37540
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 59
Location : Northern California
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Guest Fri Sep 07, 2018 7:20 pm
Original Quill wrote:
There are links that I am an American Indian, too. But links are not enough. To be Semitic, you would have to be wholly, or substantially Semetic, have been born and raised in the Levant (or have a substantial reason why not) and have cultural links to the region. It's a lifestyle, mindset as well as a living space. If you are over half European blood, you need not apply...no offense, but you are already European. You already have an identity, no need to get greedy.
Didge wrote:What?
Genetics is not enough for you?
So the questions stands
Do you believe in indegeneous rights
Second why do you deny Jewish indegeneous rights
I mean look at your answer. You only base this onw half the jewish population of Israel, ignoring the 3 million plus that are
all Middle Eastern
What do you say about them , that many were already living their centuries and also those ethnically cleansed
Original Quill wrote:
Let's put this into perspective: your OP article is an apologia for Israel and it's European invasion of the Levant. Nobody is denying anybody whatever heritage they want. The apologia is in response to the Israeli invasion argument...that Israel is entitled because of their biblical heritage. Sympathizers want to claim some sort of a connection to Semitic lands (the Levant) and they can't because they are Europeans. So they take these loose "links" and attenuated connections and try to mold them into a cultural history. But everybody knows it's an apologia, and were they not politically motivated, no one would take the claim seriously.
There are links that I am an American Indian, too. But links are not enough. To be Semitic, you would have to be wholly, or substantially Semetic, have been born and raised in the Levant (or have a substantial reason why not) and have cultural links to the region. It's a lifestyle, mindset as well as a living space. If you are over half European blood, you need not apply...no offense, but you are already European. You already have an identity, no need to get greedy.
Didge wrote:What?
Lets get some facts straight here
It was the ottoman Empire that delcared war and a Jihad on France, Britain, France and their allies. A jihad against Christianity, except of course their Christian allies the Germans and Austro-hungarians etc. With by the way many Arabs living in what is now Israel fighting for the Ottomans
The Ottomans lost the conflict and then Mandates were set up to create new nations
Now of which you contest the others of. All were new Arab states and the one set up to create a Jewish state. Then had the british change their minds and then create 72% for the arabs in the form of Jordan. The Arabs still being selfish wanted more. So the British devised a partition plan in 1937, which again the Arabs rejected.
So this is the idiocy of your argument
Original Quill wrote:Some of us don't buy the doctored story of loose links and attenuated connections, especially when it is now weaponized and being used to grab lands that belong to others. That's liebestraum, plain and simple.
Didge wrote:
Its not doctored but historical facts and as seen at no point do you question the validity of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi, Yemen etc
You then use Nazi terminology, when Israel has always given up land for peace
You do this to make it acceptable in your mind to hate Jews
That is what it boils down to
You have offered nothing to counter the evidence and just go again "la la la, Im not listening. Where even worse you see Arab imperialist colonialists as victims
You suffer from a huge case ostrich parasitic syndrome
Now if you disagree with me how about you post up some facts, because your idenetity politics is nothing more than racist in thinking, as you class aggressors like the Arabs as victims
So lets really embarress you now with more facts
watch this space
Last edited by Didge on Fri Sep 07, 2018 7:35 pm; edited 3 times in total
Guest- Guest
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Guest Fri Sep 07, 2018 7:29 pm
The Jewish Exodus which Corbyn ignores
This is a cross post by Lyn Julius from the Jewish Chronicle
Hardly a day goes by without another shocking revelation of Jeremy Corbyn’s association with antisemites. But while most of us recoil at Corbyn’s documented support for his “friends” Hamas and Hezbollah, his appearances on the Iranian-funded Press TV, and his tribute to the perpetrators of the Munich massacre, little has been said about the intellectual underpinnings of the ideological world-view that Corbyn has clung to for 40 years. It is time that they were debunked from a Sephardi or Mizrahi perspective.
I doubt whether Corbyn has heard of Mizrahi or Sephardi Jews. Did he know that 850,000 Jewish refugees fled Arab and Muslim antisemitism in a single generation?
Would it appall him that ancient communities once numbering many thousands of Jews — from Morocco in the West to Yemen in the East — were driven to extinction (barely 4,500 are left), their property stolen and their rich heritage erased? Maybe he will blame the Zionists — or say that the Jews left of their own free will.
The evidence of a forced Jewish exodus is incontrovertible, however. The Jews fled in larger numbers than the Palestinians from Israel. The majority of Jews were escaping harassment, intimidation, violence and persecution — ranging from arrests and imprisonment to execution on trumped-up charges. Theirs was the largest mass movement of non-Muslims until the post-2003 flight of Christians from Iraq.
Clearly, Corbyn’s revulsion for the state of Israel lies at the heart of his belief system. Many believe he has been reluctant to accept the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism so that he might continue to call the Jewish state “racist”and allow offensive comparisons between Zionists and Nazis. He insists on distinguishing between “good” anti-Zionist Jews and “bad” Jews — the great majority of whom identify with Israel.
Yet the bitter experiences of Middle Eastern and North African Jews teach us that the distinction between Jews and Zionists cannot be maintained for long.
Arab states criminalised Zionism but soon conflated Zionists with Jews, even though they were non-combatants. In Iraq, Jews wearing watches were arrested for “sending secret signals to the Zionists”. The Jewish quarters of North African cities were attacked by vengeful mobs. Anti-Zionist Jews in Egypt were imprisoned. Sooner or later, Jews are persecuted for being Jews.
Central to Corbyn’s far left world view is that Israel is a European, white, settler, colonial, imperialist state. Israel is accused of being built on the ethnic cleansing of an indigenous population. The injustice to the Palestinians can only be rectified if they achieve national liberation through their “right of return”, leading to the destruction of the Jewish state by demographic means.
This myth turns the truth on its head. Originating in Judea, Jews had been settled in the Middle East and North Africa from biblical times — 1,000 years before the Islamic conquest. Comprising some 3,000,000 people today —over half the Jewish population of Israel — these indigenous “Jews of colour” never left the region, most refugees finding a haven in the only state that would accept them unconditionally.
Arab and Muslim antisemitism did not begin with the creation of Israel. For 14 centuries of Muslim rule, Jews lived as a subjugated dhimmi minority with few rights. Israel’s Mizrahi citizens have long memories: they will fight to prevent a return to “colonised” dhimmi status in a Corbyn-approved majority-Arab state.
The Arab and Muslim quarrel with Israeli “imperialism” becomes absurd when viewed against the claim by the World Organisation of Jews from Arab Countries that Jews lost more than the Palestinians — including privately owned land in Arab states equivalent to five times the size of Israel.
The far left believes that Israel has genocidal designs on the Palestinians reminiscent of the Nazis. The myth of the Arabs as innocent bystanders, who had no responsibility for the Holocaust—and indeed, paid the price for a European crime when Israel was established — is a tenet of Corbynism.
Truth be told, Arabs overwhelmingly supported Nazism and imported the anti-Jewish conspiracy theories rife in the Muslim world today. Antisemitism is a core belief of the Muslim Brotherhood, and their ideological cousins, Islamic State.
The wartime Palestinian Mufti’s collaboration with the Nazis was not simply a pragmatic anti-colonial alliance. Had Nazism triumphed, the Mufti would have overseen the extermination of the Jews of the Arab world as well as in Palestine. The Mufti’s anti-Jewish genocidal project is enshrined in the Hamas charter and kept alive today by the Ayatollahs of Iran.
Finally, Corbyn sees the Arabs, like other Third World peoples, solely as victims of Western colonialism, incapable of oppressing others. The West overlooks their misdeeds. For example, the Taubira law memorialising slavery (adopted in France in 2001) mentioned the 11,000,000 victims of the transatlantic slave trade, while ignoring the 17,000,000 slaves trafficked by Arabs and Muslims.
Corbyn and his acolytes are cheer leaders for the real forces of (Arab and Muslim) imperialism in the Middle East. The Palestinians are the foot-soldiers in a pan-Arab, and now Islamist, struggle — couched in terms of “Palestinian rights”— to abolish the Jewish state and re-establish Arab-Muslim majority control. The Arabs already have 22 states, but Corbyn has never advocated for the suppressed rights of indigenous Kurds, Baloch, Berbers and Assyrians.
The Jewish nakba vindicates a sovereign Jewish state in the region. As an aboriginal Middle Eastern people, Jews have an inalienable right, enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples, to self-determination.
Corbyn’s world-view may be too entrenched to change. The pity is that young people are growing up with a similarly distorted view of the Middle East, fuelled by media bias, in which in Israel is uniquely evil and the Palestinians the sole victims of injustice. More alarmingly, if Corbyn’s hostility to Jews is mainstreamed, most ordinary folk will give a shrug of indifference.
Lyn Julius is the author of ‘Uprooted: How 3,000 Years of Civilisation in the Arab World Vanished Overnight’ (Vallentine Mitchell)
http://hurryupharry.org/2018/08/28/the-jewish-exodus-which-corbyn-ignores/
The above exactly sums up Quills antisemitism
This is a cross post by Lyn Julius from the Jewish Chronicle
Hardly a day goes by without another shocking revelation of Jeremy Corbyn’s association with antisemites. But while most of us recoil at Corbyn’s documented support for his “friends” Hamas and Hezbollah, his appearances on the Iranian-funded Press TV, and his tribute to the perpetrators of the Munich massacre, little has been said about the intellectual underpinnings of the ideological world-view that Corbyn has clung to for 40 years. It is time that they were debunked from a Sephardi or Mizrahi perspective.
I doubt whether Corbyn has heard of Mizrahi or Sephardi Jews. Did he know that 850,000 Jewish refugees fled Arab and Muslim antisemitism in a single generation?
Would it appall him that ancient communities once numbering many thousands of Jews — from Morocco in the West to Yemen in the East — were driven to extinction (barely 4,500 are left), their property stolen and their rich heritage erased? Maybe he will blame the Zionists — or say that the Jews left of their own free will.
The evidence of a forced Jewish exodus is incontrovertible, however. The Jews fled in larger numbers than the Palestinians from Israel. The majority of Jews were escaping harassment, intimidation, violence and persecution — ranging from arrests and imprisonment to execution on trumped-up charges. Theirs was the largest mass movement of non-Muslims until the post-2003 flight of Christians from Iraq.
Clearly, Corbyn’s revulsion for the state of Israel lies at the heart of his belief system. Many believe he has been reluctant to accept the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism so that he might continue to call the Jewish state “racist”and allow offensive comparisons between Zionists and Nazis. He insists on distinguishing between “good” anti-Zionist Jews and “bad” Jews — the great majority of whom identify with Israel.
Yet the bitter experiences of Middle Eastern and North African Jews teach us that the distinction between Jews and Zionists cannot be maintained for long.
Arab states criminalised Zionism but soon conflated Zionists with Jews, even though they were non-combatants. In Iraq, Jews wearing watches were arrested for “sending secret signals to the Zionists”. The Jewish quarters of North African cities were attacked by vengeful mobs. Anti-Zionist Jews in Egypt were imprisoned. Sooner or later, Jews are persecuted for being Jews.
Central to Corbyn’s far left world view is that Israel is a European, white, settler, colonial, imperialist state. Israel is accused of being built on the ethnic cleansing of an indigenous population. The injustice to the Palestinians can only be rectified if they achieve national liberation through their “right of return”, leading to the destruction of the Jewish state by demographic means.
This myth turns the truth on its head. Originating in Judea, Jews had been settled in the Middle East and North Africa from biblical times — 1,000 years before the Islamic conquest. Comprising some 3,000,000 people today —over half the Jewish population of Israel — these indigenous “Jews of colour” never left the region, most refugees finding a haven in the only state that would accept them unconditionally.
Arab and Muslim antisemitism did not begin with the creation of Israel. For 14 centuries of Muslim rule, Jews lived as a subjugated dhimmi minority with few rights. Israel’s Mizrahi citizens have long memories: they will fight to prevent a return to “colonised” dhimmi status in a Corbyn-approved majority-Arab state.
The Arab and Muslim quarrel with Israeli “imperialism” becomes absurd when viewed against the claim by the World Organisation of Jews from Arab Countries that Jews lost more than the Palestinians — including privately owned land in Arab states equivalent to five times the size of Israel.
The far left believes that Israel has genocidal designs on the Palestinians reminiscent of the Nazis. The myth of the Arabs as innocent bystanders, who had no responsibility for the Holocaust—and indeed, paid the price for a European crime when Israel was established — is a tenet of Corbynism.
Truth be told, Arabs overwhelmingly supported Nazism and imported the anti-Jewish conspiracy theories rife in the Muslim world today. Antisemitism is a core belief of the Muslim Brotherhood, and their ideological cousins, Islamic State.
The wartime Palestinian Mufti’s collaboration with the Nazis was not simply a pragmatic anti-colonial alliance. Had Nazism triumphed, the Mufti would have overseen the extermination of the Jews of the Arab world as well as in Palestine. The Mufti’s anti-Jewish genocidal project is enshrined in the Hamas charter and kept alive today by the Ayatollahs of Iran.
Finally, Corbyn sees the Arabs, like other Third World peoples, solely as victims of Western colonialism, incapable of oppressing others. The West overlooks their misdeeds. For example, the Taubira law memorialising slavery (adopted in France in 2001) mentioned the 11,000,000 victims of the transatlantic slave trade, while ignoring the 17,000,000 slaves trafficked by Arabs and Muslims.
Corbyn and his acolytes are cheer leaders for the real forces of (Arab and Muslim) imperialism in the Middle East. The Palestinians are the foot-soldiers in a pan-Arab, and now Islamist, struggle — couched in terms of “Palestinian rights”— to abolish the Jewish state and re-establish Arab-Muslim majority control. The Arabs already have 22 states, but Corbyn has never advocated for the suppressed rights of indigenous Kurds, Baloch, Berbers and Assyrians.
The Jewish nakba vindicates a sovereign Jewish state in the region. As an aboriginal Middle Eastern people, Jews have an inalienable right, enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples, to self-determination.
Corbyn’s world-view may be too entrenched to change. The pity is that young people are growing up with a similarly distorted view of the Middle East, fuelled by media bias, in which in Israel is uniquely evil and the Palestinians the sole victims of injustice. More alarmingly, if Corbyn’s hostility to Jews is mainstreamed, most ordinary folk will give a shrug of indifference.
Lyn Julius is the author of ‘Uprooted: How 3,000 Years of Civilisation in the Arab World Vanished Overnight’ (Vallentine Mitchell)
http://hurryupharry.org/2018/08/28/the-jewish-exodus-which-corbyn-ignores/
The above exactly sums up Quills antisemitism
Guest- Guest
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Guest Fri Sep 07, 2018 7:44 pm
U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016) claims “establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.” This dictat is legally defective for several reasons, but my focus here is restricted to the Jewish People’s aboriginal rights of entry, sojourn, and settlement.
Aboriginal rights pertain to a culturally complex, sociological “People” born via general self-identification under a specific name. Thus, peoplehood is flexible enough to embrace the specifically “American” People, which is of mixed ancestry, but also the virtually homogeneous Japanese People. A People can today claim to be aboriginal either in its own name or perhaps by virtue of direct succession from an immediate parent People that had itself already claimed to be the aboriginal People there. But, a specific People cannot suddenly claim to be aboriginal, solely by virtue of some recently alleged genetic descent from a culturally remote or unrelated ancient People with a different name. Today turning to antiquity to make an aboriginal claim in its own name, a distinct People needs to show not only some credible genetic roots but also a continuing socio-cultural identity that, without a break, reaches back across each century to the relevant historical time.
Among the distinct Peoples now living in a region, the one with the best claim to be aboriginal is the named People that was there first in time. Without reference to numbers, this now existing aboriginal People is distinguished from the other current local Peoples which subsequently either were formed in the land (indigenous) or came there via conquest, migration, and settlement. For example, 1867 saw the creation of a new country called “Canada.” The founders intentionally crafted a new “political nationality” to unite several mostly settler populations with contrasting self-identifications, largely based on differences of language, religion and ancestry. But across the 20th century, Canada completed its own trajectory “from colony to nation.” According to the Supreme Court of Canada, a specifically “Canadian” People gradually emerged via a process of general self-identification. Because of home birth, this nascent Canadian People as such is certainly indigenous to Canada.
Nonetheless, the North American Indian tribes there significantly remain the “First Nations.” They are still among the aboriginal Peoples of Canada, though some Indian bands now number only a few hundred individuals. Nor can their special status as “first in time” be erased, because the subsequently born “Canadian” People is also indigenous or because the First Nations are now just a small fraction of Canada’s population.
Like Canada’s First Nations, the Jewish People has the strongest claim to be theaboriginal People in its ancestral homeland, though for long centuries, Jews there were just a small percentage of the local inhabitants. Nor is this Jewish claim to be the aboriginal People there now weakened because: (i) the majority of Jews have at various times lived elsewhere; (ii) Jews are now once again the local majority; or (iii) local Arabs after 1967 generally opted to rebrand as the distinct “Palestinian” People which as such is also indigenous.
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas denies that Jews are “a People” within the context of the doctrines of aboriginal rights and the self-determination of Peoples. Yet the rejection of Jewish people-hood requires a wholesale denial and repudiation of recorded history and physical evidence—the books of the Greeks and the Romans, the entirety of the biblical corpus including the Old and New Testament as well as large sections of the hadith of the Prophets, archaeology, basic methods of dating artifacts—stretching across millennia that shows that the Jewish People is among the oldest of the world’s Peoples.
Early sources also prove Mideast man understood the idea of people-hood, which is not a retroactive imposition by Westerners. For example, self-identified “Jews” regarded people-hood as one of the motors of world history, as in the biblical Book of Genesis, from around 600 BCE. Referring to a popular name and also to shared ancestry, territory, language and achievement, Genesis (in the story of the tower of Babel and elsewhere) describes sociologically what it means to be a distinct People alongside other named Peoples. Now, 30 years of genome research has also produced a new kind of evidence showing that most of today’s Jews are to an appreciable extent genetically interrelated and significantly descended from Jews of the ancient world.
There are also directly relevant treaties which are the highest source of public international law. To the point, declarations, resolutions, and treaties from the First World War and the subsequent peace settlement explicitly recognize the Jewish People’s historic connection to its aboriginal homeland. And, two of those treaties explicitly call for “facilitated” Jewish immigration and “close settlement by Jews on the land.” For example, the Senate-ratified 1924 Anglo-American Treaty “consents” to Jewish settlement, everywhere west of the Jordan River. With juridical precision, the 1948 Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel refers to a “natural and historic right” to “the birthplace of the Jewish People,” where “Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves.”
***
Aboriginal rights characteristically include access to and use of tribal lands, including sacred sites. Jews have always claimed rights to visit and/or dwell in their ancestral homeland. And, they have stubbornly done so for more than two millennia. Across the centuries, some self-identified “Jews” always lived in their aboriginal homeland; and some other Jews, whether from the Mideast or abroad, persistently perceived a duty and desire to join them there.
Jews were most probably the local majority throughout the Roman period. Then, several million Jews worldwide felt a religious obligation to famously make steady, annual payments for the upkeep and ceremonies of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Roman emperors repeatedly affirmed the right of Jews throughout the Empire to contribute to the Temple’s expenses. The Second Temple was also the focus of widespread Jewish pilgrimage from the Mediterranean lands and beyond. After the 70 CE destruction of the Second Temple, Jews from near and far continued pilgrimage, but now with more focus on sacred sites like the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron. Far-flung Jewish communities of the Roman Empire joined synagogues elsewhere in offering yearly payments in pure gold (aurum coronarium) to support their religious leaders in Palestine until the Jewish Patriarchate there was abolished in the early fifth century CE.
Roman emperors explicitly confirmed this contested right of Jews to collect the aurum coronarium and send it to Palestine. This ancient practice and its imperial confirmation were key expression and recognition of organized Jewry in the Roman Empire.
For around 1,500 years after the abolition of the Palestinian Patriarchate, Jewish communities worldwide regularly contributed to the halukka (Hebrew: חלוקה), a fund to help pious and/or indigent Jews living in “the land of Israel” (Hebrew: Eretz Israel ארץ ישראל). With respect to obligations of charity, Jewish Law (Hebrew: halachaהאלאכהא) exceptionally prioritized helping poor Jews of Eretz Israel over indigent Jews in the diaspora. Similarly recognized for centuries was individual and collective Jewish responsibility to give alms to support Jews traveling to Eretz Israel, whether for pilgrimage or settlement.
Reciprocal influences of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have been perennial. But, the two later faiths generally acknowledged some significant derivation from Judaism, as evidenced by both Gospels and Koran. Especially during their respective periods of local rule—Christians and then Muslims were usually aware of a broader context, in which the Jewish People had a special connection to the land of its birth. There, Jews were subject to permanent discrimination, periodic persecution, and episodic restriction. But, across the centuries, minority status there generally did not preclude Jewish entry, sojourn, and settlement. Nor are millennial rights to such longstanding aboriginal practices diminished, because today Jews are once again the majority in their ancestral homeland.
Jews joining other Jews in Eretz Israel are therefore entirely unlike the 17th-century Pilgrim Fathers who built English settlements in America, where they had neither ancestors nor native kin. The Jewish People in its own aboriginal homeland can never be compared with Dutch Boers in South Africa or French colons in Algeria. The presence of Jews in their ancestral homeland has always been legitimately aboriginal, not an expression of colonialism or imperialism. The shared nature of this aboriginal understanding among Arabs emerges from two contrasting, early Arab responses to Zionism.
Yusuf Ziya Pasha al-Khalidi was for ten years mayor of Jerusalem, where Jews were already the local majority. As a Muslim, an Arab and an Ottoman subject, he wrote (March 1, 1899) a letter opposing Zionism to the chief rabbi of France, Zadok Khan. Yusuf Pasha detailed why he thought Zionism impossible. But at the same time, he validated the Jewish claim to be aboriginal there: “Who can contest the rights of the Jews regarding Palestine? Good Lord, historically it is really your country!”
More positive to Zionism was the Hashemite Prince Feisal ibn Hussein, principal Arab delegate at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. There, American Zionist representative Felix Frankfurter got from Feisal a March 3, 1919, letter saying: “We will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.” Referring to Zionism, Feisal acknowledged: “The Jewish movement is national and not imperialist.”
It is a fact that though some Jews always preferred staying in their homeland, others were continually moving in and out. Nor should it be presumed that this migratory pattern only pertained to Jews. Across the centuries, other ethnoreligious components of the local population (e.g., Muslim Arabs) also engaged in significant migrations. Millennial mother-to-daughter continuity was not a strong pattern in this Afro-Asian corridor. During the last thousand years, the population there occasionally dropped to remarkably low levels. Such rounds of radical depopulation were then from time to time somewhat reversed—including by repeated waves of fresh migrants drawn from various ethnoreligious groups, from adjacent regions or further afield. Not so completely different from the others, Jews maintained their local presence mostly “relay race” style, with newcomers taking the baton from existing Jewish residents. But whether coming or going, Jews always saw themselves as a distinct People with the strongest claim to be aboriginal there. This Jewish self-perception was acknowledged by non-Jews, both Muslim and Christian, as evidenced by the responses of leading Muslims to the early Zionist leadership, and, even earlier, by Napoleon Bonaparte’s 1799 proclamation inviting Jews to hasten home to rebuild Jerusalem.
Judaism’s marked territoriality was described by former U.K. Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour in 1919:
Probably the oldest continuously-functioning legal system anywhere, Jewish Law has always insisted that the Jewish People has, at the very least, rights of entry, sojourn, and settlement in Eretz Israel. How should we approach this longstanding phenomenon? Comparative law is an option that directs attention to the role that history and civilization play in the aboriginal case law of the Supreme Court of Canada. There, in a purely secular context, anthropological data—like Judaism’s persistent emphasis on God’s gift of Eretz Israel to Abraham and his descendants—would be regarded as historical evidence of the continuing importance of that particular land in the distinct culture of that specific tribe.
The Jewish People is aboriginal to Eretz Israel just as are the First Nations to their ancestral lands in the Americas. The Jewish People claims both aboriginal and treaty rights in parts of its ancestral homeland. Aboriginal and treaty rights are also claimed by the aboriginal Peoples of Canada. They strongly believe that their sovereign rights to their tribal lands extend back to the beginning of time—long before the origins of European, international, and Canadian Law. In the same way, the age-old Jewish People’s claims in its ancestral homeland reach back to antiquity and thus antedate the post-Classical birth of Europe and the Islamic civilization.
Common Law courts began recognizing aboriginal rights in the 19th century. From 1982, the rights of the “Aboriginal Peoples of Canada” have featured in Canada’s Constitution Act. The Supreme Court of Canada has decided that, where a First Nation maintains demographic and cultural connections with the land, aboriginal rights can survive both sovereignty changes and the influx of a new majority population, resulting from foreign conquest. Dealing with claims of right on all sides, the Court seeks to juridically reconcile subsequent rights of newcomers with prior rights of a First Nation.
Today, aboriginal rights are also an important topic in Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, and now receive more attention internationally. Pertinent to the millennial phenomenon of aboriginal rights is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007). This notably lacks a legal definition of “indigenous People.” In the same way and for the same political reasons, international law has never been able to formulate an agreed legal definition of “a People” for the doctrine of the self-determination of Peoples.
Of all extant Peoples, Jews have the strongest claim to be the aboriginal People of Eretz Israel. There, the Hebrew language (biblical Hebrew: yehudit יהודית) and Judaism gradually emerged, leading to the birth around 2,600 years ago of a distinct People that self-identified as Yehudim (יהודים). Earlier, the Holy Land was home to their immediate ancestors, including famous personalities like Kings Saul, David, and Solomon. There were also other local Peoples—like the Philistines, Phoenicians, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, and Samaritans. But with the exception of the few surviving Samaritans, all of those other ancient Peoples have long since vanished. Nobody today is entitled to make new claims on their behalf, including by reason of supposed genetic descent that is only recently alleged and without sound basis in either history or genome science.
What of the Arab People? The great Arab People of history is aboriginal to Arabia, not the Holy Land. Judaism, the Hebrew language, and a self-identified “Jewish” People were already in Eretz Israel about a thousand years before the ethnogenesis in Arabia (circa 600 CE) of the Arab People, the birth of which was approximately coeval with the emergence of Islam and Classical Arabic. Nor traditionally did this Arab People claim to be aboriginal to Eretz Israel. To the contrary, Arabs always knew the Koran to say that Allah had promised “the Holy Land” to the Jews, all of whom would return there by Judgment Day. Moreover, erudite Arabs were aware of their own narrative that celebrated the 7th-century Arab conquest of a Byzantine-Roman province already inhabited by Jews, Samaritans, and Greeks.
Under Muslim rule, Jews there suffered persistent discrimination and periodic persecution. But, neither the Arab People nor subsequent Muslim invaders succeeded in eradicating local Jews or bringing an end to enduring links between the great Jewish People and its aboriginal homeland. To the contrary, Jews continued to stubbornly exercise millennial rights of entry, sojourn, and settlement—and, even more so after the mid-19th century. Result? Jews legitimately became the majority in Jerusalem as early as the 1860s. And today, Jews are legitimately the majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
The last 150 years have witnessed several failed attempts to curtail Jewish migration. For example, the 1939 U.K. White Paper announced British policies signaling an early end to Jewish migration to Mandate Palestine. But, Jews boldly exercised their aboriginal rights of entry and settlement in full defiance of the U.K. government, especially after the Second World War. Then, Jewish rights of entry and settlement were championed by the USSR and the United States. A glance at the diplomatic archives from 1947 and 1948 suffices to remind that the war then launched by the Arab States was as much a failed attempt to stop Jewish migration as to frustrate the partition of Mandate Palestine.
Despite all obstacles, Jews still continue to exercise their enduring rights of entry, sojourn, and settlement. Thus, the Jewish People can now draw increasing benefit from the key doctrine of the self-determination of Peoples, which normally allocates territory by the national character of the current local population. It is not easy to understand how anybody could think that the Jewish People might somehow have lost fundamental treaty rights and millennial aboriginal rights, just because the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (1948, 1967) twice volunteered to initiate armed attacks, or because the U.N. Security Council wishes to abolish existing Jewish rights by fiat, outside of governing legal definitions and structures.
***
Read more from Tablet magazine about the idea of Jews as an aboriginal people here.
https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/224256/aboriginal-rights-jewish-people
Aboriginal rights pertain to a culturally complex, sociological “People” born via general self-identification under a specific name. Thus, peoplehood is flexible enough to embrace the specifically “American” People, which is of mixed ancestry, but also the virtually homogeneous Japanese People. A People can today claim to be aboriginal either in its own name or perhaps by virtue of direct succession from an immediate parent People that had itself already claimed to be the aboriginal People there. But, a specific People cannot suddenly claim to be aboriginal, solely by virtue of some recently alleged genetic descent from a culturally remote or unrelated ancient People with a different name. Today turning to antiquity to make an aboriginal claim in its own name, a distinct People needs to show not only some credible genetic roots but also a continuing socio-cultural identity that, without a break, reaches back across each century to the relevant historical time.
Among the distinct Peoples now living in a region, the one with the best claim to be aboriginal is the named People that was there first in time. Without reference to numbers, this now existing aboriginal People is distinguished from the other current local Peoples which subsequently either were formed in the land (indigenous) or came there via conquest, migration, and settlement. For example, 1867 saw the creation of a new country called “Canada.” The founders intentionally crafted a new “political nationality” to unite several mostly settler populations with contrasting self-identifications, largely based on differences of language, religion and ancestry. But across the 20th century, Canada completed its own trajectory “from colony to nation.” According to the Supreme Court of Canada, a specifically “Canadian” People gradually emerged via a process of general self-identification. Because of home birth, this nascent Canadian People as such is certainly indigenous to Canada.
Nonetheless, the North American Indian tribes there significantly remain the “First Nations.” They are still among the aboriginal Peoples of Canada, though some Indian bands now number only a few hundred individuals. Nor can their special status as “first in time” be erased, because the subsequently born “Canadian” People is also indigenous or because the First Nations are now just a small fraction of Canada’s population.
Like Canada’s First Nations, the Jewish People has the strongest claim to be theaboriginal People in its ancestral homeland, though for long centuries, Jews there were just a small percentage of the local inhabitants. Nor is this Jewish claim to be the aboriginal People there now weakened because: (i) the majority of Jews have at various times lived elsewhere; (ii) Jews are now once again the local majority; or (iii) local Arabs after 1967 generally opted to rebrand as the distinct “Palestinian” People which as such is also indigenous.
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas denies that Jews are “a People” within the context of the doctrines of aboriginal rights and the self-determination of Peoples. Yet the rejection of Jewish people-hood requires a wholesale denial and repudiation of recorded history and physical evidence—the books of the Greeks and the Romans, the entirety of the biblical corpus including the Old and New Testament as well as large sections of the hadith of the Prophets, archaeology, basic methods of dating artifacts—stretching across millennia that shows that the Jewish People is among the oldest of the world’s Peoples.
Early sources also prove Mideast man understood the idea of people-hood, which is not a retroactive imposition by Westerners. For example, self-identified “Jews” regarded people-hood as one of the motors of world history, as in the biblical Book of Genesis, from around 600 BCE. Referring to a popular name and also to shared ancestry, territory, language and achievement, Genesis (in the story of the tower of Babel and elsewhere) describes sociologically what it means to be a distinct People alongside other named Peoples. Now, 30 years of genome research has also produced a new kind of evidence showing that most of today’s Jews are to an appreciable extent genetically interrelated and significantly descended from Jews of the ancient world.
There are also directly relevant treaties which are the highest source of public international law. To the point, declarations, resolutions, and treaties from the First World War and the subsequent peace settlement explicitly recognize the Jewish People’s historic connection to its aboriginal homeland. And, two of those treaties explicitly call for “facilitated” Jewish immigration and “close settlement by Jews on the land.” For example, the Senate-ratified 1924 Anglo-American Treaty “consents” to Jewish settlement, everywhere west of the Jordan River. With juridical precision, the 1948 Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel refers to a “natural and historic right” to “the birthplace of the Jewish People,” where “Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves.”
***
Aboriginal rights characteristically include access to and use of tribal lands, including sacred sites. Jews have always claimed rights to visit and/or dwell in their ancestral homeland. And, they have stubbornly done so for more than two millennia. Across the centuries, some self-identified “Jews” always lived in their aboriginal homeland; and some other Jews, whether from the Mideast or abroad, persistently perceived a duty and desire to join them there.
Jews were most probably the local majority throughout the Roman period. Then, several million Jews worldwide felt a religious obligation to famously make steady, annual payments for the upkeep and ceremonies of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Roman emperors repeatedly affirmed the right of Jews throughout the Empire to contribute to the Temple’s expenses. The Second Temple was also the focus of widespread Jewish pilgrimage from the Mediterranean lands and beyond. After the 70 CE destruction of the Second Temple, Jews from near and far continued pilgrimage, but now with more focus on sacred sites like the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron. Far-flung Jewish communities of the Roman Empire joined synagogues elsewhere in offering yearly payments in pure gold (aurum coronarium) to support their religious leaders in Palestine until the Jewish Patriarchate there was abolished in the early fifth century CE.
Roman emperors explicitly confirmed this contested right of Jews to collect the aurum coronarium and send it to Palestine. This ancient practice and its imperial confirmation were key expression and recognition of organized Jewry in the Roman Empire.
For around 1,500 years after the abolition of the Palestinian Patriarchate, Jewish communities worldwide regularly contributed to the halukka (Hebrew: חלוקה), a fund to help pious and/or indigent Jews living in “the land of Israel” (Hebrew: Eretz Israel ארץ ישראל). With respect to obligations of charity, Jewish Law (Hebrew: halachaהאלאכהא) exceptionally prioritized helping poor Jews of Eretz Israel over indigent Jews in the diaspora. Similarly recognized for centuries was individual and collective Jewish responsibility to give alms to support Jews traveling to Eretz Israel, whether for pilgrimage or settlement.
Reciprocal influences of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have been perennial. But, the two later faiths generally acknowledged some significant derivation from Judaism, as evidenced by both Gospels and Koran. Especially during their respective periods of local rule—Christians and then Muslims were usually aware of a broader context, in which the Jewish People had a special connection to the land of its birth. There, Jews were subject to permanent discrimination, periodic persecution, and episodic restriction. But, across the centuries, minority status there generally did not preclude Jewish entry, sojourn, and settlement. Nor are millennial rights to such longstanding aboriginal practices diminished, because today Jews are once again the majority in their ancestral homeland.
Jews joining other Jews in Eretz Israel are therefore entirely unlike the 17th-century Pilgrim Fathers who built English settlements in America, where they had neither ancestors nor native kin. The Jewish People in its own aboriginal homeland can never be compared with Dutch Boers in South Africa or French colons in Algeria. The presence of Jews in their ancestral homeland has always been legitimately aboriginal, not an expression of colonialism or imperialism. The shared nature of this aboriginal understanding among Arabs emerges from two contrasting, early Arab responses to Zionism.
Yusuf Ziya Pasha al-Khalidi was for ten years mayor of Jerusalem, where Jews were already the local majority. As a Muslim, an Arab and an Ottoman subject, he wrote (March 1, 1899) a letter opposing Zionism to the chief rabbi of France, Zadok Khan. Yusuf Pasha detailed why he thought Zionism impossible. But at the same time, he validated the Jewish claim to be aboriginal there: “Who can contest the rights of the Jews regarding Palestine? Good Lord, historically it is really your country!”
More positive to Zionism was the Hashemite Prince Feisal ibn Hussein, principal Arab delegate at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. There, American Zionist representative Felix Frankfurter got from Feisal a March 3, 1919, letter saying: “We will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.” Referring to Zionism, Feisal acknowledged: “The Jewish movement is national and not imperialist.”
It is a fact that though some Jews always preferred staying in their homeland, others were continually moving in and out. Nor should it be presumed that this migratory pattern only pertained to Jews. Across the centuries, other ethnoreligious components of the local population (e.g., Muslim Arabs) also engaged in significant migrations. Millennial mother-to-daughter continuity was not a strong pattern in this Afro-Asian corridor. During the last thousand years, the population there occasionally dropped to remarkably low levels. Such rounds of radical depopulation were then from time to time somewhat reversed—including by repeated waves of fresh migrants drawn from various ethnoreligious groups, from adjacent regions or further afield. Not so completely different from the others, Jews maintained their local presence mostly “relay race” style, with newcomers taking the baton from existing Jewish residents. But whether coming or going, Jews always saw themselves as a distinct People with the strongest claim to be aboriginal there. This Jewish self-perception was acknowledged by non-Jews, both Muslim and Christian, as evidenced by the responses of leading Muslims to the early Zionist leadership, and, even earlier, by Napoleon Bonaparte’s 1799 proclamation inviting Jews to hasten home to rebuild Jerusalem.
Judaism’s marked territoriality was described by former U.K. Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour in 1919:
***The position of the Jews is unique. For them race, religion and country are inter-related, as they are inter-related in the case of no other race, no other religion, and no other country on earth. In no other case are the believers in one of the greatest religions of the world to be found (speaking broadly) only among the members of a single small people; in the case of no other religion is its past development so intimately bound up with the long political history of a petty territory wedged in between States more powerful far than it could ever be.
Probably the oldest continuously-functioning legal system anywhere, Jewish Law has always insisted that the Jewish People has, at the very least, rights of entry, sojourn, and settlement in Eretz Israel. How should we approach this longstanding phenomenon? Comparative law is an option that directs attention to the role that history and civilization play in the aboriginal case law of the Supreme Court of Canada. There, in a purely secular context, anthropological data—like Judaism’s persistent emphasis on God’s gift of Eretz Israel to Abraham and his descendants—would be regarded as historical evidence of the continuing importance of that particular land in the distinct culture of that specific tribe.
The Jewish People is aboriginal to Eretz Israel just as are the First Nations to their ancestral lands in the Americas. The Jewish People claims both aboriginal and treaty rights in parts of its ancestral homeland. Aboriginal and treaty rights are also claimed by the aboriginal Peoples of Canada. They strongly believe that their sovereign rights to their tribal lands extend back to the beginning of time—long before the origins of European, international, and Canadian Law. In the same way, the age-old Jewish People’s claims in its ancestral homeland reach back to antiquity and thus antedate the post-Classical birth of Europe and the Islamic civilization.
Common Law courts began recognizing aboriginal rights in the 19th century. From 1982, the rights of the “Aboriginal Peoples of Canada” have featured in Canada’s Constitution Act. The Supreme Court of Canada has decided that, where a First Nation maintains demographic and cultural connections with the land, aboriginal rights can survive both sovereignty changes and the influx of a new majority population, resulting from foreign conquest. Dealing with claims of right on all sides, the Court seeks to juridically reconcile subsequent rights of newcomers with prior rights of a First Nation.
Today, aboriginal rights are also an important topic in Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, and now receive more attention internationally. Pertinent to the millennial phenomenon of aboriginal rights is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007). This notably lacks a legal definition of “indigenous People.” In the same way and for the same political reasons, international law has never been able to formulate an agreed legal definition of “a People” for the doctrine of the self-determination of Peoples.
Of all extant Peoples, Jews have the strongest claim to be the aboriginal People of Eretz Israel. There, the Hebrew language (biblical Hebrew: yehudit יהודית) and Judaism gradually emerged, leading to the birth around 2,600 years ago of a distinct People that self-identified as Yehudim (יהודים). Earlier, the Holy Land was home to their immediate ancestors, including famous personalities like Kings Saul, David, and Solomon. There were also other local Peoples—like the Philistines, Phoenicians, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, and Samaritans. But with the exception of the few surviving Samaritans, all of those other ancient Peoples have long since vanished. Nobody today is entitled to make new claims on their behalf, including by reason of supposed genetic descent that is only recently alleged and without sound basis in either history or genome science.
What of the Arab People? The great Arab People of history is aboriginal to Arabia, not the Holy Land. Judaism, the Hebrew language, and a self-identified “Jewish” People were already in Eretz Israel about a thousand years before the ethnogenesis in Arabia (circa 600 CE) of the Arab People, the birth of which was approximately coeval with the emergence of Islam and Classical Arabic. Nor traditionally did this Arab People claim to be aboriginal to Eretz Israel. To the contrary, Arabs always knew the Koran to say that Allah had promised “the Holy Land” to the Jews, all of whom would return there by Judgment Day. Moreover, erudite Arabs were aware of their own narrative that celebrated the 7th-century Arab conquest of a Byzantine-Roman province already inhabited by Jews, Samaritans, and Greeks.
Under Muslim rule, Jews there suffered persistent discrimination and periodic persecution. But, neither the Arab People nor subsequent Muslim invaders succeeded in eradicating local Jews or bringing an end to enduring links between the great Jewish People and its aboriginal homeland. To the contrary, Jews continued to stubbornly exercise millennial rights of entry, sojourn, and settlement—and, even more so after the mid-19th century. Result? Jews legitimately became the majority in Jerusalem as early as the 1860s. And today, Jews are legitimately the majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
The last 150 years have witnessed several failed attempts to curtail Jewish migration. For example, the 1939 U.K. White Paper announced British policies signaling an early end to Jewish migration to Mandate Palestine. But, Jews boldly exercised their aboriginal rights of entry and settlement in full defiance of the U.K. government, especially after the Second World War. Then, Jewish rights of entry and settlement were championed by the USSR and the United States. A glance at the diplomatic archives from 1947 and 1948 suffices to remind that the war then launched by the Arab States was as much a failed attempt to stop Jewish migration as to frustrate the partition of Mandate Palestine.
Despite all obstacles, Jews still continue to exercise their enduring rights of entry, sojourn, and settlement. Thus, the Jewish People can now draw increasing benefit from the key doctrine of the self-determination of Peoples, which normally allocates territory by the national character of the current local population. It is not easy to understand how anybody could think that the Jewish People might somehow have lost fundamental treaty rights and millennial aboriginal rights, just because the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (1948, 1967) twice volunteered to initiate armed attacks, or because the U.N. Security Council wishes to abolish existing Jewish rights by fiat, outside of governing legal definitions and structures.
***
Read more from Tablet magazine about the idea of Jews as an aboriginal people here.
https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/224256/aboriginal-rights-jewish-people
Guest- Guest
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Original Quill Sat Sep 08, 2018 8:12 pm
Everybody thinks his cause is the exception. And the beat goes on...
Original Quill- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 37540
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 59
Location : Northern California
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Guest Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:56 pm
Original Quill wrote:Everybody thinks his cause is the exception. And the beat goes on...
Everybody thinks you hate Jews and deny them,self determination and indegeneous rights
Clearly they must look too white to you
Guest- Guest
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Original Quill Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:14 pm
Didge wrote:Original Quill wrote:Everybody thinks his cause is the exception. And the beat goes on...
Everybody thinks you hate Jews and deny them,self determination and indegeneous rights
Clearly they must look too white to you
Behave yourself, or I'll have to kick yer ass back to Kent.
The victims have become the villains when it comes to Israel. The Jew card has run out. Time to join the ranks of responsible nations.
If by white, you mean Europeans...yes, they have fooked-up big time. They will regret making approximately 1.6-billion enemies, for centuries.
Original Quill- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 37540
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 59
Location : Northern California
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Guest Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:21 pm
Original Quill wrote:Didge wrote:
Everybody thinks you hate Jews and deny them,self determination and indegeneous rights
Clearly they must look too white to you
Behave yourself, or I'll have to kick yer ass back to Kent.
The victims have become the villains when it comes to Israel. The Jew card has run out. Time to join the ranks of responsible nations.
If by white, you mean Europeans...yes, they have fooked-up big time. They will regret making approximately 1.6-billion enemies, for centuries.
How have the Jews in the US, Britian, France, Israel etc become the villians?
ergo, antisemitism again by quill
Middle Eastern people are white you dummy
Again you back the aggressors, with Arbization, yet in the same breath, berate colonialism
The hypocrisy by you is staggering
Guest- Guest
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Vintage Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:36 pm
Quill, I really can't agree with what you say, the majority of Jewish people in Europe are ethnically Jewish and not just by religion. They have for generations married into their own communities. They have almost always been communities apart whether they wanted it that way or not.
Vintage- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 2948
Join date : 2013-08-02
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Vintage Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:43 pm
How can you be the villain when you protect your population from attack Jew and Arab, when you take care of your population medically Jew and Arab, even taking people who are from your sworn enemy into your hospitals for free treatment, when you have Jew and Arab representatives in your parliament, when you hold out your hand and offer to do for your enemy's land what you've done for yourself yet that enemy would happily cut of that hand in a heart beat.
Vintage- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 2948
Join date : 2013-08-02
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Guest Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:46 pm
Vintage wrote:How can you be the villain when you protect your population from attack Jew and Arab, when you take care of your population medically Jew and Arab, even taking people who are from your sworn enemy into your hospitals for free treatment, when you have Jew and Arab representatives in your parliament, when you hold out your hand and offer to do for your enemy's land what you've done for yourself yet that enemy would happily cut of that hand in a heart beat.
+1
Guest- Guest
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Original Quill Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:52 am
Vintage wrote:How can you be the villain when you protect your population from attack Jew and Arab, when you take care of your population medically Jew and Arab, even taking people who are from your sworn enemy into your hospitals for free treatment, when you have Jew and Arab representatives in your parliament, when you hold out your hand and offer to do for your enemy's land what you've done for yourself yet that enemy would happily cut of that hand in a heart beat.
That's what the Nazis and Hitler said, too. Like Israel, the Nazis engaged in a program of lebensraum. Said they needed Czechoslovakia and Poland to expand. It led to a program to rid the area of those bothersome Jews.
Now we see the same program with Israel, taking over the settlements in the West Bank...making them permanent, according Netanyahu. It's the Nazis' land grab all over again. And Israel is perfectly willing to engage in genocide...too.
Read: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/12/world/middleeast/netanyahu-west-bank-settlements-israel-election.html
Original Quill- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 37540
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 59
Location : Northern California
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Guest Sun Sep 09, 2018 2:13 am
Original Quill wrote:Vintage wrote:How can you be the villain when you protect your population from attack Jew and Arab, when you take care of your population medically Jew and Arab, even taking people who are from your sworn enemy into your hospitals for free treatment, when you have Jew and Arab representatives in your parliament, when you hold out your hand and offer to do for your enemy's land what you've done for yourself yet that enemy would happily cut of that hand in a heart beat.
That's what the Nazis and Hitler said, too. Like Israel, the Nazis engaged in a program of lebensraum. Said they needed Czechoslovakia and Poland to expand. It led to a program to rid the area of those bothersome Jews.
Now we see the same program with Israel, taking over the settlements in the West Bank...making them permanent, according Netanyahu. It's the Nazis' land grab all over again. And Israel is perfectly willing to engage in genocide...too.
Read: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/12/world/middleeast/netanyahu-west-bank-settlements-israel-election.html
Utter bullshit
ART. 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0ZTi-53t88&t=2254s
Unsettled: A Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territories
The Journal of Legal Analysis 2017
Abstract
This Article provides the first comprehensive, global examination of state and international practice bearing on Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which provides that an “Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” This provision is a staple of legal and diplomatic international discussions of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and serves as the basis for criticism of Israeli settlement policy.
Despite its frequent invocation in the Israeli context, scholars have never examined – or even considered – how the norm has been interpreted and applied in any other occupation context in the post-WWII era. For example, the International Committee of the Red Cross’s (ICRC) influential Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law lists 107 instances of national practice and UN practice applying or interpreting the prohibition, and all but two relate to Israel. Many questions exist about the scope and application of Art. 49(6)’s prohibition on “transfer,” but they have generally been answered on purely theoretically.
To better understand what Art. 49(6) does in fact demand, this Article closely examines its application in all other cases in which it could apply. Many of the settlement enterprises studied in this Article have never been discussed or documented. All of these situations involved the movement of settlers into the occupied territory, in numbers ranging from thousands to hundreds of thousands. Indeed, perhaps every prolonged occupation of contiguous habitable territory has resulted in significant settlement activity.
Clear patterns emerge from this systematic study of state practice. Strikingly, the state practice paints a picture that is significantly inconsistent with the prior conventional wisdom concerning Art. 49(6). First, the migration of people into occupied territory is a near-ubiquitous feature of extended belligerent occupations. Second, no occupying power has ever taken any measures to discourage or prevent such settlement activity, nor has any occupying power ever expressed opinio juris suggesting that it is bound to do so. Third, and perhaps most strikingly, in none of these situations have the international community or international organizations described the migration of persons into the occupied territory as a violation of Art. 49(6). Even in the rare cases in which such policies have met with international criticism, it has not been in legal terms. This suggests that the level of direct state involvement in “transfer” required to constitute an Art. 49(6) violation may be significantly greater than previously thought. Finally, neither international political bodies nor the new governments of previously occupied territories have ever embraced the removal of illegally transferred civilian settlers as an appropriate remedy.
The deeper understanding – based on a systematic survey of all available state practice – of the prohibition on settlements should inform legal discussions of the Arab-Israeli conflict, including potential investigations into such activity by the International Criminal Court. More broadly, the new understanding of Art. 49(6) developed here can also shed significant light on the proper treatment of several ongoing occupations, from Western Sahara and Northern Cyprus, to the Russian occupations of Ukraine and Georgia, whose settlement policies this Article is the first to document.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2835908
Guest- Guest
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Original Quill Sun Sep 09, 2018 3:57 pm
Why does Israel spend so much money to promote a simple lie?
Original Quill- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 37540
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 59
Location : Northern California
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Guest Sun Sep 09, 2018 5:00 pm
Original Quill wrote:Why does Israel spend so much money to promote a simple lie?
Why do the left continually be antisemitic and try to only compare Jews to Nazism. The biggest victims of Nazism?
Lebensraum assumed the right of the German Aryan master race (Herrenvolk) to remove indigenous people they considered to be of inferior racial stock (Untermenschen) in the name of their own living space
The Jews are the indegenous race and are not removing anyone, where Jews have settled in Judea. All that has happened is these areas have expanded and been repopulated with Jews, that the Jordanians ethnically cleansed in 1948-49. What people really mean when they use such Nazi terminology to the Jews, is fundementally antisemitism. As what they mean is Jew free areas.
Guest- Guest
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Original Quill Sun Sep 09, 2018 5:52 pm
Didge wrote:Why do the left continually be antisemitic and try to only compare Jews to Nazism. The biggest victims of Nazism?
That line's a tired, old nag. First, Israel is stocked by Europeans, not Semites; second, the victim card has run it's course.
Why compare Israel to Nazism? Because Israel is behaving in precisely the same way the Nazis acted. Or, do you still think the king has his clothes on?
Israel is incrementally gobbling up the West Bank, the land of the Palestinians, in the way Germany gobbled up Czechoslovakia and Poland. Israel is hoping the world won't notice, and meantime she's depending on charlatans like you to defend her flanks.
Original Quill- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 37540
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 59
Location : Northern California
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Guest Sun Sep 09, 2018 5:56 pm
Original Quill wrote:Didge wrote:Why do the left continually be antisemitic and try to only compare Jews to Nazism. The biggest victims of Nazism?
That line's a tired, old nag. First, Israel is stocked by Europeans, not Semites; second, the victim card has run it's course.
Why compare Israel to Nazism? Because Israel is behaving in precisely the same way the Nazis acted. Or, do you still think the king has his clothes on?
Israel is incrementally gobbling up the West Bank, the land of the Palestinians, in the way Germany gobbled up Czechoslovakia and Poland. Israel is hoping the world won't notice, and meantime she's depending on charlatans like you to defend her flanks.
Well as seen, the majority of the Jewish population in Israel is actually the descendents of Jews ethnically cleansed from the Middle East and North Africa from 1948. Then you have Jews that had been living their centuries and then you have Jews that lived in dispora in Europe that again descend from the Mille east.
I am sorry but Israel is in no way actaing like the Nazi's and again the only reason people make such an absurd claim, is to make hating Jews and Israel acceptable, because it is acceptable to hate Nazism. So people will attempt to poorly make them compatiable when in no way they are, to make hating Jews okay
Do you know what the West Bank a modern name was formely called, created by Jordan, after it occupied and ethnically cleansed the Jews living there is called?
Judea and Samaria
As I say, Jews have every right to settle there and when people claim its a hidderance to peace, what they really mean. Is that want to achieve what Hitler failed to achieve in WW2.
A Jew free zone
Guest- Guest
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Original Quill Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:04 pm
Oh it's you. You've already lost.
Original Quill- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 37540
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 59
Location : Northern California
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Guest Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:08 pm
Original Quill wrote:Oh it's you. You've already lost.
Actually the Jews keep continually winning against racist hate constantly shown towards them in the form of wars and terrorism against them.
You back the real oppressors here
Guest- Guest
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by eddie Sun Nov 11, 2018 12:24 am
Having considered this...I have come to the conclusion that these “Jewish people” actually cause their own problems.
Look at Anne Frank for example, making her life harder by living in an attic. Just dumb.
Look at Anne Frank for example, making her life harder by living in an attic. Just dumb.
eddie- King of Beards. Keeper of the Whip. Top Chef. BEES!!!!!! Mushroom muncher. Spider aficionado!
- Posts : 43129
Join date : 2013-07-28
Age : 24
Location : England
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Ben Reilly Sun Nov 11, 2018 12:26 am
eddie wrote:Having considered this...I have come to the conclusion that these “Jewish people” actually cause their own problems.
Look at Anne Frank for example, making her life harder by living in an attic. Just dumb.
Yeah, and what's with the bagels and jewelry stores? It's like, you're still hungry after the bagel because some Jew had the bright idea of putting a big hole in the middle of a bun. And running a jewelry store, you might as well just hang a big sign out front reading "COME SHOOT ME IN THE FACE."
Ben Reilly- King of Texas. Gigantic Killer Robot. Robin Hood of Epping Forest. Fifty Shades of Cray.
- Posts : 30682
Join date : 2013-01-19
Age : 49
Location : West Essex -
Re: ARE JEWS INDIGENOUS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL? YES
by Guest Sun Nov 11, 2018 12:27 am
eddie wrote:Having considered this...I have come to the conclusion that these “Jewish people” actually cause their own problems.
Look at Anne Frank for example, making her life harder by living in an attic. Just dumb.
And you seriously think that is funny?
Okay Eddie, imagine your own son, was not accepted for who he was. No matter what you said and then some others came along and wanted to shoot him.
What would you do?
Guest- Guest
Similar topics» Why the Jews Are Indigenous to Israel
» Israeli leftist brags that he hands over Arabs who sell land to Jews to be tortured, killed
» Israel wrecked my home. Now it wants my land.
» ‘This is our Israel, this is for the Jews. No Palestinian should come to Israel': A Palestinian-American’s story of being detained at Ben Gurion airport
» Israel Steel Yet More Land in the West Bank
» Israeli leftist brags that he hands over Arabs who sell land to Jews to be tortured, killed
» Israel wrecked my home. Now it wants my land.
» ‘This is our Israel, this is for the Jews. No Palestinian should come to Israel': A Palestinian-American’s story of being detained at Ben Gurion airport
» Israel Steel Yet More Land in the West Bank
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
» TOTAL MADNESS Great British Railway Journeys among shows flagged by counter terror scheme ‘for encouraging far-right sympathies
» Interesting COVID figures
» HAPPY CHRISTMAS.
» The Fight Over Climate Change is Over (The Greenies Won!)
» Trump supporter murders wife, kills family dog, shoots daughter
» Quill
» Algerian Woman under investigation for torture and murder of French girl, 12, whose body was found in plastic case in Paris
» Wind turbines cool down the Earth (edited with better video link)
» Saying goodbye to our Queen.
» PHEW.
» And here's some more enrichment...
» John F Kennedy Assassination
» Where is everyone lately...?
» London violence over the weekend...
» Why should anyone believe anything that Mo Farah says...!?
» Liverpool Labour defends mayor role poll after turnout was only 3% and they say they will push ahead with the option that was least preferred!!!
» Labour leader Keir Stammer can't answer the simple question of whether a woman has a penis or not...
» More evidence of remoaners still trying to overturn Brexit... and this is a conservative MP who should be drummed out of the party and out of parliament!
» R Kelly 30 years, Ghislaine Maxwell 20 years... but here in UK...