Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How similar is the subject of Jewish settlements in Israel, to what took place between European settlers and Native American peoples? Opinions?
How similar is the subject of Jewish settlements in Israel, to what took place between European settlers and Native American peoples? Opinions?
I don't think it's the same thing. As far as I know, the land was mostly empty until Zionist settlers started buying land and developing it in the 19th century.
Also, the Jews are the native people of Israel, obviously.
There's always been Jews living in Israel.
Eh...
It's more similar to American settlers in Mexico, more than the European settlers in the Americas.
Before the Mexican-American war, you had American settlers going into Mexican lands and setting up homes and settlements there, and eventually agitating to break away from Mexico and join up with the USA they came from, most notably this was the situation in Texas.
When it comes to the settlement of the Americas, that is probably the closest analogy there.
The land is not a part of their country, though. It'd be like US Citizens crossing the border into Canadian wilderness and settling down there and declaring it's "the USA now". Some of these aren't even in Palestine, but Syria.
Should people be allowed to do that?? An interesting question, but it kind of makes a mess of the modern conception of national borders if someone can just move into another country, build a home, and make it part of their preferred country.
That's... ah... some interesting logic. I'm third-generation descendant of refugees, but if I was to go back to my grandma's home country and proclaim that I am a "native" of that country I'd get looked at rather funny. For a diaspora of people even further removed from their original land, I can't imagine it'd be much different.
There's a bit of a difference between the people who have always lived there and the people who have come more recently, even if they share an ethnicity or religion.
Like there have always been Baha'is in the Islamic Republic of Iran, but that doesn't mean all us Baha'is are native Iranians (though, of course, some are).
For the Jews born in the land, of course they are native, but for the ones who just immigrate there, they are most certainly not the natives, no matter if their ancestors thousands of years ago may have lived there. I have no claim on Spanish lands just because my ancestors were Celtiberian.
How similar is the subject of Jewish settlements in Israel, to what took place between European settlers and Native American peoples? Opinions?
What (and whose) national border are we talking about in 1948?... it kind of makes a mess of the modern conception of national borders if someone can just move into another country, build a home, and make it part of their preferred country.
For the Jews born in the land, of course they are native, but for the ones who just immigrate there, they are most certainly not the natives, no matter if their ancestors thousands of years ago may have lived there. I have no claim on Spanish lands just because my ancestors were Celtiberian.
Which land that Zionist settlers bought in the 19th century isn't theirs?
And don't be obtuse. I'm saying that, in terms of this comparison, it doesn't work because the Jewish people are indigenous to the Land of Israel, unlike white people and the Americas. A diaspora doesn't change what the indigenous ethnicity to an area is. If some Irish people leave Ireland, that doesn't mean that all of a sudden Ireland is no longer the native land of the Irish.
For this sentence to parallel, one would have to be able to write "Before the Israeli/X war, you had Israeli settlers going into X's land."Before the Mexican-American war, you had American settlers going into Mexican lands
But there were already Israelis living in the country and there had been for thousands of years (proof available upon request)and setting up homes and settlements there,
None of which is similar as no Israeli wanted to break away from another country that already existed in the space. That makes the analogy incorrect on multiple fronts.and eventually agitating to break away from Mexico and join up with the USA they came from, most notably this was the situation in Texas.
That depends on how you determine what "their country" means. There was land partitioned, land declared, land captured, land annexed, and land which is currently disputed.The land is not a part of their country, though.
This presumes that there was a "palestinian wilderness" into which to cross and there wasn't.It'd be like US Citizens crossing the border into Canadian wilderness
But there was no other country, and no one just moved in. People purchased land, land was partitioned for particular groups and land was abandoned.if someone can just move into another country, build a home, and make it part of their preferred country.
So by that logic all the Arab "refugees" who left in 1948 should have no claim to any right of return to Israel.I'm third-generation descendant of refugees, but if I was to go back to my grandma's home country and proclaim that I am a "native" of that country I'd get looked at rather funny.
Good -- that clears the way for the Jewish people who have a continued history and presence as opposed to transient Arab populationsThere's a bit of a difference between the people who have always lived there
Funny you should mention Spain...OK, it isn't "thousands" just 500 but a citizen has certain claims I would thinkFor the Jews born in the land, of course they are native, but for the ones who just immigrate there, they are most certainly not the natives, no matter if their ancestors thousands of years ago may have lived there. I have no claim on Spanish lands just because my ancestors were Celtiberian.
What (and whose) national border are we talking about in 1948?
For this sentence to parallel, one would have to be able to write "Before the Israeli/X war, you had Israeli settlers going into X's land."
Funny you should mention Spain...OK, it isn't "thousands" just 500 but a citizen has certain claims I would think
Welcome home, 500 years later: Spain offers citizenship to Sephardic Jews
@Sanzbir
I am not trying to get into some debate here. I was just pointing out where the OP's comparison doesn't seem to make sense, and you barge in and start going on about legitimacy of claims which has nothing to do with what I said.
And I don't know what you're not getting about what I'm saying. The Jewish people are indigenous to the Land of Israel. What is so difficult to understand about this? They originated there. Just because an individual Jew wasn't born there doesn't mean his people didn't come from there. Understand?
So Syria was the country where modern Israel is?X = Syria.
Then that's your issue to take up with them. But your claim that ancient citizenship doesn't confer anything modern (especially within your choice of Spain) is flawed.They aren't offering the same deal (based on inquisition guilt) to the Irish despite the Celtiberians. To the Spanish, 500 year old Spaniards may become Spaniards yet again, but not the much older Gaelic Spaniards.
So Syria was the country where modern Israel is?
You do realize there's a difference between an individual and a group, right? Individuals are part of ethnicities and ethnicities have their origins somewhere. Regardless of where an individual was born, he's still a part of an ethnicity. A Jewish person born outside of Israel may not be personally "native" (born there) but Israel is still the homeland of his ethnicity.Yeah I'm not really trying to debate either, just genuinely confused about what you consider "native" of an area. At some point in time you switched from using the word "native" as you did in your first post and are now using "indigenous" so maybe you've just dropped that point??
Again, I ask for interest in clarification on what you consider "native". Myself having Irish descent: Am I a native in your eyes of Iberia, and if not, what is the primary difference??
Answering "yes" or explaining where you see a significant difference in the case of the Irish and Iberia and the Jewish Diaspora and Israel is sufficient enough to satisfy my curiosity on why your definition of "native" is what it is.