1. 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Regarding the Israeli Palestinion situation.

Discussion in 'International Politics' started by David1967, Dec 7, 2017.

  1. David1967

    David1967 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2015
    Messages:
    5,040
    Ratings:
    +3,572
    Religion:
    Christian
    How similar is the subject of Jewish settlements in Israel, to what took place between European settlers and Native American peoples? Opinions?
     
    • Creative Creative x 2
  2. Saint Frankenstein

    Saint Frankenstein Dream Brother
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    22,883
    Ratings:
    +9,386
    Religion:
    Agnostic / progressive Christian
    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. So I don't see what the two scenarios have to do with each other.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. BSM1

    BSM1 Who's a good boy?

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2012
    Messages:
    11,026
    Ratings:
    +4,335
    Religion:
    Buddhistic Panenthetic Jesusonian
    ???
     
  4. Sanzbir

    Sanzbir Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2017
    Messages:
    729
    Ratings:
    +338
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. David1967

    David1967 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2015
    Messages:
    5,040
    Ratings:
    +3,572
    Religion:
    Christian
    Well articulated opinion Sanzbir. Thank you.
     
  6. Saint Frankenstein

    Saint Frankenstein Dream Brother
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    22,883
    Ratings:
    +9,386
    Religion:
    Agnostic / progressive Christian
    @Sanzbir

    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.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. Nakosis

    Nakosis crystal soldier
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    7,013
    Ratings:
    +1,720
    Religion:
    Transhumanist

    Depends on who you listen too. Palestinians claim they left the area because of war. Afterwards, they were not allowed to return to lands their family had held for hundreds of years. There were no legal documents to their possession. Israelis were able to purchase the land since there was no legal claim. Some Palestinians who remain claim they are targeted by the Israeli government having their housing condemned or rezoned and forced to leave their homes.

    Israel claims its actions have been legal, fair and humane and there are a numbers of examples where this appears to true.

    I'm on the other side of the world and have to rely on sources all of whom have their biases. If you look, you can find a source that will cast one side or the other as the bad guys.

    Bottom line for me, well not that I'm saying it should be this way, but reality is, might makes right. A government can do whatever it wants as long as it can enforce it rule/laws. There's not really much Palestine can do about it.

    Not much the Native Americans can do about the US being here. If they could, I'm sure they'd be happy to take back all of their land and put Europeans on reservations.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    35,563
    Ratings:
    +8,718
    Religion:
    Judaism
    What (and whose) national border are we talking about in 1948?
     
  9. Nakosis

    Nakosis crystal soldier
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    7,013
    Ratings:
    +1,720
    Religion:
    Transhumanist
    Right and wrong as I see it is just a matter of who can enforce their claim to the land.
     
  10. Sanzbir

    Sanzbir Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2017
    Messages:
    729
    Ratings:
    +338
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    So you want the settlement issue to only be about lands bought in the 19th century??

    For the sake of simplicity I'll limit the specific ones I am talking about to the settlements in Syria, which is another country. Those specific settlements are not "theirs", at least in terms of the property of the nation. Mexican lands didn't stop being Mexican because the Americans startled settling there (until the Americans went and then conquered those lands).

    So is Spanish Iberia native Irish lands?? Because the Irish lived there thousands of years ago before being forced out too. If I personally go out to Iberia it is not my "native land" even if my ancestors were once there. I'm personally not sure where the line is to be drawn, but at a certain point in time the land stops being the native land of the people who once lived there and owned it long ago. At some point in time Iberia stopped being the native land of the Gaels, I'm sure you'd say.

    Again, for the Jews who have always lived there, sure, that is their native land for sure, as it is for those born there. But for families one-thousand + years removed from that land... I don't see why those new immigrants, Jewish or not, have any status as being "native" there in your mind, any more than I am a "native" of Iberia.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    3,940
    Ratings:
    +1,634
    Religion:
    Jewish
    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."

    But there is no "X" to insert there
    But there were already Israelis living in the country and there had been for thousands of years (proof available upon request)

    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.
    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.
    This presumes that there was a "palestinian wilderness" into which to cross and there wasn't.
    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.

    So by that logic all the Arab "refugees" who left in 1948 should have no claim to any right of return to Israel.

    Good -- that clears the way for the Jewish people who have a continued history and presence as opposed to transient Arab populations

    Funny you should mention Spain...OK, it isn't "thousands" just 500 but a citizen has certain claims I would think
    http://beta.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-spain-sephardic-jews-20151001-story.html
     
  12. Sanzbir

    Sanzbir Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2017
    Messages:
    729
    Ratings:
    +338
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    Syria.
     
  13. Sanzbir

    Sanzbir Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2017
    Messages:
    729
    Ratings:
    +338
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    X = Syria.
     
  14. Sanzbir

    Sanzbir Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2017
    Messages:
    729
    Ratings:
    +338
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    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.
     
  15. Saint Frankenstein

    Saint Frankenstein Dream Brother
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    22,883
    Ratings:
    +9,386
    Religion:
    Agnostic / progressive Christian
    @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?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Sanzbir

    Sanzbir Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2017
    Messages:
    729
    Ratings:
    +338
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    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.
     
  17. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    3,940
    Ratings:
    +1,634
    Religion:
    Jewish
    So Syria was the country where modern Israel is?
     
  18. rosends

    rosends Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    3,940
    Ratings:
    +1,634
    Religion:
    Jewish
    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.
     
  19. Sanzbir

    Sanzbir Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2017
    Messages:
    729
    Ratings:
    +338
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    Geez. If you're reading that from my statement then I think you're intentionally misreading it.

    Because your question is liking asking "So Mexico was the country where modern America is?" in order to counter the claim of Americans settling, seceding, and annexing in the case of Texas.

    Which is such a ridiculous notion I cannot fathom you're doing anything other than willfully misreading things.

    Should be interesting to see how you choose to misread this particular comment, but I probably won't be replying further to you since you show no effort in simply not willfully misreading things.
     
  20. Saint Frankenstein

    Saint Frankenstein Dream Brother
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    22,883
    Ratings:
    +9,386
    Religion:
    Agnostic / progressive Christian
    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.
     
Loading...