Yet if they do have an ancestral homeland it is in Africa. — BitconnectCarlos

That's a tradition, a history, a memory - not an excuse for carnage.

Yes they were expelled from their ancestral homeland in 135 AD. — BitconnectCarlos

Barred from Jerusalem after the third major revolt. Roman rule was often brutal to occupied peoples, especially those who gave them a hard time. If the OT is anything to go by, the Judeans' treatment of its conquests was no better. That's imperial wars for you. Sometimes, if God is displeased, he does choose somebody else for a change - (sorry, Tevye) - at least, according to the prophets.

Yet if they do have an ancestral homeland it is in Africa. — BitconnectCarlos

Go a bit further back and we're (likely) all Africans.

That's a tradition, a history, a memory - not an excuse for carnage. — Vera Mont

Yes they can go to Africa and be ruled by Africans. Muslims can go to ~50 countries and be ruled by Muslims. Jews are lucky to have one. Israel has already survived several wars which would have destroyed it had it lost.

Barred from Jerusalem after the third major revolt. — Vera Mont

There were two waves: One in 70 and one in 135. There were Jews who remained in the region and have had a continuous presence since antiquity. These Jews were still subject to persecution under Arab rulers. So the violence is not just due to the "occupation" but rather occurred well before it and the heightened the need for a Jewish state.

There were Jews who remained in the region and have had a continuous presence since antiquity. — BitconnectCarlos

Presence is not possession and confers no rights.

These Jews were oftens subject to persecution. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes. So are/were most minorities.

So the violence is not just due to the "occupation" but rather occurred well before it. — BitconnectCarlos

Unfortunately, violence has occurred on Earth since the amoeba.

Presence is not possession and confers no rights. — Vera Mont

It is the ancestral homeland of the Jews making the Jews indigenous to it. It might not matter to you, but it matters to them.

It is the ancestral homeland of the Jews making the Jews indigenous to it. — BitconnectCarlos

Indigenous in what way, according to what source? The OT story has them attacking Jericho without provocation. The real story is lost, though archeologists keep chipping away at it. Somebody was there before who isn't there now. This is a fairly common situation when peoples are nomadic, or flee from invasion or migrate due to inimical weather events or fight among themselves and split off.
Ancestors are any preceding generations from grandparents backward, even if it's only two generations. "Ancestral home" means nothing - it's a slogan. Maybe one day China will be the major world power and restore all the North American indigenous peoples to their ancestral homes - regardless of who lives there now, or whether those people, or their ancestors, had done any harm.

Indigenous in what way, according to what source? — Vera Mont

Jewish identity is born in that region -- in Israel. According to any number of scholars that I could cite if need be (it's not a debate, more an established fact). I'm talking second temple period but we can go back a little earlier.

Jewish identity is born in that region -- in Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

According to the biblical story, the ancestors wandered all over those lands from Turkey to Egypt. Does that mean modern Israel has a right to occupy all of what was Mesopotamia? Is the US obliged to arm and finance that expansion?
Every nation started someplace.
In case Mongolia was worried, I'm not about to claim my ancestral rights.

According to the biblical story, the ancestors wandered all over those lands from Turkey to Egypt. — Vera Mont

Yes apparently Abram was briefly in Turkey as were the Israelites in Egypt. Does Judaism form in Turkey? No. Or in Egypt? No. It forms in the latter half of the first millennium bc in modern day Israel. It's a several century process from around 500 bc to 100 bc.

The ancestors are different from Judaism.

The ancestors are different from Judaism. — BitconnectCarlos

Ah, so religious identity is distinct from national identity.
Arabs - according to the OT, descendants of the unloved sons of Abraham - were also there, all that time, long before Islam.
And so, "ancestral home" means exactly what?

People wandered around an area and had kids. Then they went someplace else and had more kids. So frickin what? People have wandered over every place and had kids.
Some people invented a religion in a place. So frickin what? People invented religions all over the place.
That doesn't give their descendants any special privileges.

I once had a cat who liked to bully all the other cats that came near our back yard. He wasn't particularly imposing or strong, but his best friend was a Newfoundland dog.

Ancestral home means nothing because it's a religious claim. As is the claim to be descendant from original Israelites, which, with 10% intermarriage, means current Jews are less than 1,000th a descendant. It's ludicrous because some asshat with twirly hair decided that if your mother was a Jew, so are you. And we are to believe fairy tales as a reason to allow war crimes. This is why all religious people are dumb; they try to elevate stories to facts.

basically what you're saying:

Those Jews don't know what a Jew is but I do religious people are so stupid.

You're the gift that keeps on giving. How stupid are you when you don't address what I actually say and raise straw men al the time? I'm speaking in your naive language after all.

Not until you tell me the real definition of Jew. I'm having an identity crisis.

It's whatever made up stories Jews want to believe in; it just isn't reality.

Like I said, it's a slogan, nothing more.

This is why all religious people are dumb; they try to elevate stories to facts. — Benkei

It's not just religious people. Nationalists and ideologues of every stripe have a banner story.
Interestingly, I listened to a radio program the other day, interview with an (unpopular) Israeli historian who said people don't fight to the death for land or resources or their leaders; they fight for their stories.

There is no exact external definition of a Jew, any more than there is of a Muslim or a Protestant. They don't all live in the same place or in the same way and they don't all have the same facial features or character.
People who identify with a group that shares a culture or religion or ethnicity or some identifying feature are perceived as belonging to that group. I'm quite sure the people who thus identify themselves do have a clear idea what they each mean by it.

@Vera Mont @BitconnectCarlos

Just curious, do you believe in biological essentialism when it comes to nation-states, or do you think a longstanding tie to a biological, ethnic, or cultural identity, along with a historical connection to a particular region, could be used as such to define a people who have identified with it for generations?

Also, not to open a can of worms, doing some research on this, Ashkenazi (Central/Eastern European) Jewish DNA according to various genetic studies, are about 40-50% in Levantine origin (that is the area around Israel/Lebanon/Syria/Jordan) with about 30-40% Roman Italian admixture, and ~10% Germanic mix ~10% Slavic mix.

If we combine this with the historical plausible theories, ancient Judeans/Israelites from the Levant intermixed with Roman Italians sometime in the Roman Empire/Early Middle Ages, and this intermixed group moved across the Alps to around France and the Rhineland region around the time of the Carolingian Dynasty (c.800s-1000s CE). A few centuries later, a large segment of the population moved into the Poland/Lithuanian/Russian region (c.1300s CE) after much repeated persecution in Western/Central Europe. So the migration from Levant-Italy (the bulk of the admixture), France/Germany, Eastern Europe (a much lower percentage) shows up on the DNA markers.

*Also, the mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) studies indicate the original females were mainly of Southern European/Roman Italian origin, and the Y-Chromosome studies show a Middle Eastern/Levantine origin, which indicates that it might have been the case that male Jewish/Judean/Levant residents were taken as slaves after the Jewish Revolts to Italy/Rome around the years 70CE and 135 CE, respectively, and these males intermixed with pagan Italian women who they converted to Judaism. After the initial intermarriage, the group mainly intermixed with each other.
** Also some of this admixture could come from Judean/Levant-originating merchants, rather than being slaves taken from the two main Jewish Wars with Rome. These merchants were males in the Roman Italian peninsula, that intermixed and converted local Italian wives during the Roman Empire.

There are also smaller traces of Germanic/Celtic, and Slavic populations based on where they moved after Italy (10-20% Germanic/Celtic/Slavic). However, the bulk of the admixture is about ~45% Levantine/40% Roman (Empire Era) Italian.

This information is getting really in the weeds, but since the creation of Israel, people have had a whole host of questions regarding European Jewish origins, and it's best to use the genetic evidence available rather than just pulling random notions out of one's ass or based on phenotypes...There are people of even just two very different ethnic backgrounds that could look one way or the other, and that one would not "suspect" as being of a certain origin, let alone a people whose admixture origin goes back thousands of years (during the Roman times between mainly Levant males and Southern European females).

do you believe in biological essentialism — schopenhauer1

I don't even know what it is. I'm guessing bloodlines, DNA sort of thing. In which case, no. (Wouldn't look very good on a Canadian.)

or do you think a longstanding tie to a biological, ethnic, or cultural identity, along with a historical connection to a particular region, could be used as such to define a people who have identified with it for generations? — schopenhauer1

That's what it means to the nation. Of course the notion doesn't play well with colonial subdivision of territory or post- WWI and II redrawing of maps by world powers. Then, too, 'identified' may have quite an elastic interpretation.

As to the genetic makeup of modern peoples - especially those that have been dispersed from a relatively small original stock - why even bother to trace them? There are Americans the colour of ginger ale who consider themselves Black. People don't identify with their DNA; they identify with their community, religion, culture and shared past. And their story - no matter what percent of it is factual.

Ancestral home means nothing because it's a religious claim. — Benkei

A civilizational claim. And also apparently you have no regard for native american claims either.

a longstanding tie to a biological, ethnic, or cultural identity, along with a historical connection to a particular region, could be used as such to define a people who have identified with it for generations? — schopenhauer1

Sure? Jewish self-definition is derived from a sort of religious reasoning formed and discussed over thousands of years. Any outsider who takes issue with it should be ignored until he engages the reasoning behind it.

And thanks for the informative post.

Tradition! Tradition! (Ours, of course. Nobody else's counts.)

And also apparently you have no regard for native american claims either. — BitconnectCarlos

Oddly enough, the Lenape are not getting Manhattan back and then spreading out over all of New York State with Chinese tanks and missiles. Yet....

Yes, just as Christian and Muslims determine their own definitions. We don't insist that they use our logic. Ultimately self-definition will be decided by that community.

I'm sympathetic to native american claims to get back some parts of the land to which they are indigenous to. It's been extremely destructive to those communities to try to erase that heritage.

A civilizational claim. And also apparently you have no regard for native american claims either. — BitconnectCarlos

It's religious because Judaism is a religion and the passing of jewishness via the mother a religious fantasy.

Now you're just making your own personal definition. I can do the same. To be a Christian, one must have known Christ personally while he was still alive.

It's not my definition. The Israeli supreme Court has confirmed being Jewish is a religious claim. You can convert to Judaism and obtain all sorts of rights and you lose rights if as a Jew you convert to another religion because Israel is so civilised it has institutionalised discrimination.

Everyone agrees Judaism is a religion. You don't agree with the idea that it is an ethno-religion. Regarding Israel, I believe being Jewish only benefits one when it comes to immigration -- countries like Greece and Spain have similar rules where it's easier to emigrate there if you have it in your ancestry.

But under the law, once citizens, Jew and non-Jew are equal.

But under the law, once citizens, Jew and non-Jew are equal. — BitconnectCarlos

:rofl: Jesus Christ that's funny.

ethno-religion — BitconnectCarlos

Of course it isn't. There's Ethiopian Jews, Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Mizrahi Jews, which are distinct ethnicities. Plenty of discrimination between those groups as well by the way although at least on paper they are equal.

Yes, just as Christian and Muslims determine their own definitions. — BitconnectCarlos

Christian and Muslim are not definitions of nationhood. They are religious affiliations, professed by citizens of many different countries.

I'm sympathetic to native american claims to get back some parts of the land to which they are indigenous to. It's been extremely destructive to those communities to try to erase that heritage. — BitconnectCarlos

No kidding! But would you be willing to give up your house and farm if they had a claim on it on genetic, religious, traditional, or 'some of us have been here all along' grounds?

Jesus Christ that's funny. — Benkei

Can you cite me laws then showing this institutional discrimination? E.g. Are non-Jews barred from voting? Holding positions in government?