1500's is hardly ancient, and it's pretty absurd to claim that it's anywhere near that. Ancient Spain never had a Sephardi presence.
-
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.
- Thread starter David1967
- Start date
1500's is hardly ancient, and it's pretty absurd to claim that it's anywhere near that. Ancient Spain never had a Sephardi presence.
Okay. So while I'm not personally a "native of Iberia" the whole of the Irish ethnicity is, in your opinion, correct??
I'm honestly just trying to figure out how you're defining this word and why you seem hesitant to expand the same line of thinking to the Iberian homeland of the Irish people.
I don't know enough about the Irish and Iberia to comment on that. I've never heard of the Irish coming from Spain although I'm certainly aware of Celtic tribes in Spain. But it's not debatable that the Jewish people came from Israel.
I must admit to being a bit surprised by the response, but it is certainly an informed and intriguing one.
Are you speaking of Ottoman Syria? ... French Mandate Syria? ... ?
So, okay, assuming what I am saying is correct, would you say that Irish people as a whole natives of Spain, if what I am saying is true, yes or no??
Sorry. To whom was this addressed?
St Frankenstien. I'm trying to figure out how he defines "native" since he used it in a way that initially confused me.
Yeah, sure. Whatever. At this point, I really don't have anything else to add. I think I've been pretty clear. There's nothing vague about saying that the Jewish people as a people are native to Israel.
Independent Syrian Republic. Troops have occupied lands past that border and civilians have built settlements past that border.
If people think I'm talking about the situation in Palestine, as a note, I'm generally not. The situation there has a lot less clear borders.
The situation in Syria is, to the original point, comparable to early American settlers into Mexico. Not necessarily one-to-one, but again, the probably most comparable thing in New World colonial history to settlements, at least in regards to the Syrian ones.
rosends
Well-Known Member
I'm just piecing together what you wrote commenting on what I wrote:
1. You wrote "Before the Mexican-American war, you had American settlers going into Mexican lands"
2. In explaining the flaw in your analogy I constructed "Before the Israeli/X war, you had Israeli settlers going into X's land."
but didn't know what X is. So you clarified:
3. X = Syria.
So that would mean that "Before the Israeli/Syria war, you had Israeli settlers going into Syria's land." So I asked
4. So Syria was the country where modern Israel is?
Since the war in 1948 was with (among others) Syria, and is what led to Israel's identity as a country, I assumed that you were saying that the area that Israeli settlers went into and broke away with was Syria and is what is known as Israel now. If your concern has nothing to do with 1948 and instead is focused on Israel's claim on the country of Syria post 1948, please clarify.
I think that the settlements are the only tool available to force an agreement. Maybe I don't understand the situation, but it appears that it at least offers the possibility of peace eventually. Without the settlements the situation is out of Israel's control, because the other side has sworn and placed it into a constitution that it is never to be at peace with Israel. Unless that changes the settlements remain clever statecraft offering the only hope of a relatively bloodless peace.
A major difference is that the Native Americans value their own lives, but this is not the case with many who believe in heaven-going. A native believes in the afterlife but not to the point of throwing their own life away over it. In this the Israeli has more in common with the Native American. They do not see suicide as a path to heaven whereas the other side does. They do not see fighting as a path to heaven, but the other side does. So it is that religion weighs heavily and is primarily the reason that peace has not been obtained. This is not the case with the settlers in the Americas. Another difference is that the settlers did take land for no other reason than to extend territory and would sometimes kill or forcibly relocate for this purpose.
Hello
For today I think native American had rights and treated very well in USA ? not like Palestinians whom occupied,treated badly and suffered in there holy places.
Not very much. The cultural situation is far more complex, and I don't think there is anything in the Native American situation that compares to Arab/Muslim mentality.
Of course, there is not much of a parallel with Zionism and Judaism either, but I think those factors are way over-rated.
Much the opposite really.
While there was a lot of improvement since, the plight of Native Americans in the USA has been considerable and often bloody.
Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas - Wikipedia
I don't see any resemblance to what I know of the situation in Israel and neighbor territories.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
There always was a Jewish presence in "Palestine" and a quite large one by the mid-1900's. Plus, not only were Jews persecuted in many different areas of the world, they were heavily persecuted at times in "Palestine" by "Palestinians" and other Arab groups. When "Palestine" was partitioned, 1/6 of the land that also held "Palestinians" went to Jews with offers through the U.N. to pay for those Palestinians who wished to leave and get land or property elsewhere.
It is what it is, and to expect Jews to leave makes about as much sense as expecting Americans to leave and let the Amerindians have all their land back. So, when the latter happens, please let me know.
It is what it is, and to expect Jews to leave makes about as much sense as expecting Americans to leave and let the Amerindians have all their land back. So, when the latter happens, please let me know.
In case of opperssion state and occupation and settlements there are much resemblance and matches.
When humans taking racist and religious paths, you will see much evils done around.
My point USA opperssion to Native Americans is gone.
Israel oppression to Arabs in Jeruslume and Palestinians in occupied WB and neighbor "Syria,and Lebanon" is really exist.
So fact is Israel is racist country,USA is not racist country.
I would need a lot of very solid, nearly fantastic evidence before considering agreeing. Pretty much everything that I learn goes against the grain of what you are saying here.
I somewhat agree, although I have a somewhat restrictive understanding of religion.
Somewhat.
That is... very arguable, to put it generously.
Sorry, but I don't think that makes much if any sense.
I would be much more inclined to present the case for racism of Muslims towards Jewish People and Israelis. I am sure you are well aware of how much evidence for it exists.
Surely you are aware of what happened in 1948? How do you justify the invasion of Israel, and how would it fit with your attempt at a comparison?
1948 Arab–Israeli War - Wikipedia
I cant speak for the other states in the USA regarding this, but in my state (Oklahoma), the native American tribes are very wealthy and have many benefits such as free health care that I as a non native cannot get.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
From tribal funds? oil revenues?
Here in Michigan, the reservations have dramatically improved because of the many Indian-owned casinos here.