I've cited them often in the past. Educate yourself for once.

https://www.adalah.org/en/law/index
https://www.btselem.org/

Guess that makes two of us then.

https://migrant-integration.ec.europa.eu/library-document/institutional-racism-netherlands_en

Sounds like you have apartheid in your backyard.

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. — Benkei

Just curious did you read some historical background here?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/908700

I say that because it contradicts what you said here:

It's not their ancestral homeland. That's an idiotic religious claim that anybody that isn't a Jew doesn't recognise. — Benkei

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. — Vera Mont

I'm curious because @Benkei was making claims to the contrary. But even if we did "trace the DNA", my point was it works both ways. Afterall, even in Native Americans, DNA can be relevant, but is certainly not the sole understanding of a member of a nation. One can even take upon the tribal identity through marriage or initiation ceremony, like ethno-religions do. So yes, there is definitely some "backbone" of DNA but that's not the full story (and never was). Certainly a Navajo or Ojibwe person with 48% native DNA but is fully invested in tribe and has roots going way back to that tribe is not excluded as member of that tribe by most standards.

And again, even if we look at the genetic history solely, we see there was a strong linkage to that land by a vast majority of even Ashkenazi. This was obvious to all before the state of Israel. Obviously, when this "difference" (of Jews and the surrounding ethnicity of the nation they were in) becomes a way to take away their rights, and throw them in concentration and death camps, this becomes insanely genocidal. However, as purely an understanding of an ethno-history and how it relates to identity, it is perfectly fine to make the distinction. No one is being "racist" by saying Jews have a specific ethnic history, and understanding that, any more than how the Dutch people are different than (or similar to!) French, Belgian, or (other) German peoples.

I'm curious because Benkei was making claims to the contrary. — schopenhauer1

He and I may agree on a lot of things, but we don't share a brain!
I'm not a fan of DNA tracing for any purpose except forensics and anthropological research. (This means, not even genealogy).

No one is being "racist" by saying Jews have a specific ethnic history, and understanding that, any more than how the Dutch people are different than (or similar to!) French, Belgian, or (other) German peoples. — schopenhauer1

Some Jews? Most Jews? Everyone who identifies as Jewish? Fine.
But I don't see it as a contribution to excusing war crimes.

Fine. But I don't see it as a contribution to excusing war crimes. — Vera Mont

None of this was about excusing war crimes, but it was about the basis for which the idea of "homeland" was established in a particular region for a particular people thus associated through history, culture, and genetics to that region.

In this case, not 'homeland' but 'ancestral homeland'. The difference being: Most of us have been living in many other places, but our long-ago ancestors used to live here, so the people who have been living here better get the hell out.

If you go by history, culture and genetics, why are the Palestinians' claim less valid than the European Jews'?

In this case, not 'homeland' but 'ancestral homeland'. The difference being: Most of us have been living in many other places, but our long-ago ancestors used to live here, so the people who have been living here better get the hell out.

If you go by history, culture and genetics, why are the Palestinians' claim less valid than the European Jews'? — Vera Mont

They aren't less valid. They too have a historical ancestral claim. Hence the dilemma.

I think we often misconstrue various understandings of nation-states as well. I think European type nation states are different than North American and many (former) colonial areas which were simply wholesale takeovers. That being the case of course, Native Americans then would have a right to form a state. Also, interestingly, Liberia.

Presumably it would be harder for both precisely for reasons why the Jewish state makes sense.. The Jews had a very specific geographic location they can point to. Unfortunately, descendents of enslaved Africans cannot point to which exact regions their ancestors came from so would be developing a state that is roughly in the region. Also, the cultural ties to the specific tribes people came from were disconnected (which is not at all the problem with Jewish cultural ties to their homeland).

In the case of Native Americans, the tribes are very spread out, and the numbers are generally pretty low, so it would be hard to compose a cohesive state, which is why it basically ends up being what we have now which is a semi-autonomous region of "reservations", where the tribal nation has control of all internal affairs and laws, but is not in charge of state apparatuses like armies, foreign diplomats, or territorial independence from the larger countries (US/Canada/Latin American/Caribbean countries) etc.

They too have a historical ancestral claim. — schopenhauer1

With the difference that they actually built the houses and worked the farms.

Hence the dilemma. — schopenhauer1

The dilemma wasn't over who had a valid reason to live there; it was over which promise to keep and which to break.

The Jews had a very specific geographic location they can point to — schopenhauer1

Which very conveniently happens to coincide with Christian notions of the Holy Land. It doesn't seem to signify that, according to the same book, the Hebrews originally occupied that land by means of a sneak attack on people who had done them no harm.

There is no real analogy to Native Americans, who were here before the Europeans arrived and pushed them out or exterminated them. The question of which Natives lived exactly where is a red herring. Nor is there a real likeness to Africans who were captured and kidnapped and thereby apparently forfeited their right to claim any part of Africa, because they don't each know where their ancestors were from.

With the difference that they actually built the houses and worked the farms. — Vera Mont

:vomit:

With the difference that they actually built the houses and worked the farms. — Vera Mont

The question is should there be a Jewish state. My answer was yes. I didn’t say anything about taking over farms. The original UN map was not agreed ti by Arab states and thus, here we are in a 75 year old battle of two peoples.

My point with nation states and North American countries precisely highlights why strictly using property lost in a war or other means in a war might be just perpetuating a badly held notion of justice that just festers as perpetual revenge fantasies and vengeance rather than settling the perceived injustice.

The dilemma wasn't over who had a valid reason to live there; it was over which promise to keep and which to break. — Vera Mont

This new discussion was based on @Benkei notions of Jewish homeland so again, that was my context.

Which very conveniently happens to coincide with Christian notions of the Holy Land. It doesn't seem to signify that, according to the same book, the Hebrews originally occupied that land by means of a sneak attack on people who had done them no harm. — Vera Mont

Look, there should be no Canada, Netherlands, Ireland, or France according to this notion. I’m ok if you’re equal across the board with historical violence and territories.

There is no real analogy to Native Americans, who were here before the Europeans arrived and pushed them out or exterminated them. The question of which Natives lived exactly where is a red herring. Nor is there a real likeness to Africans who were captured and kidnapped and forfeited their right to claim any part of Africa because they don't each know where their ancestors were from. — Vera Mont

Did you not read my post? I just stated roughly the same thing. Maybe you didn’t see it as I added it a bit after my initial post.

The question is should there be a Jewish state. My answer was yes. — schopenhauer1

You're not alone.

I didn’t say anything about taking over farms. — schopenhauer1

I did.

The original UN map was not agreed ti by Arab states and thus, here we are in a 75 year old battle of two peoples. — schopenhauer1

Indeed. The British authorities got Arab help in their war effort with promises of aid to their national aspirations. And the Rothchilds on board with a promise to aid Jewish aspirations. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/why-did-britain-promise-palestine-to-arabs-and-zionists

My point with nation states and North American countries precisely highlights why strictly using property lost in a war or other means in a war might be just perpetuating a badlyheld notion of justice that just festers as perpetual revenge fantasies and vengeance rather than settling the perceived injustice. — schopenhauer1

The injustice was real in every case. The Romans displaced the Jews from a land from which the Jews had previously displaced some other people. The British and Americans were complicit (after a couple of terror attacks) in the displacing Arabs to re-emplace the Jews. How the festering resentment is resolved depends on what people do to restore balance. In this instance, it wasn't a festering revenge fantasy, it was an act of penitence by the big countries that had rejected Jewish refugees and turned a blind eye to the holocaust, plus a calculated attempt to place an ally in the middle of a strategic, oil-rich region.

Look, there should be no Canada, Netherlands, Ireland, or France according to this notion. I’m ok if you’re equal across the board with historical violence and territories. — schopenhauer1

This notion? Colonialism was what it was, it did the harm it did. We have to deal with the consequences. Point here being, both Palestine and Israel have the exact same claim, according to imperialist Britain, but only one of them has the backing of imperial powers.

Colonialism was what it was, it did the harm it did. We have to deal with the consequences. Point here being, both Palestine and Israel have the exact same claim, according to imperialist Britain, but only one of them has the backing of imperial powers. — Vera Mont

If you only apply that bolded statement to what I was saying here:

My point with nation states and North American countries precisely highlights why strictly using property lost in a war or other means in a war might be just perpetuating a badly held notion of justice that just festers as perpetual revenge fantasies and vengeance rather than settling the perceived injustice. — schopenhauer1

If you only apply that bonded statement to what I was saying here: — schopenhauer1

i would, if that's what the allies had been doing.

I’m not here for endless debate. My point was about the homeland. Do what you wish.

My point was about the homeland. — schopenhauer1

I know. And 'homeland' was misapplied in this situation. One people's homeland was given to another people, who then systematically persecuted the natives. And are still doing so.

I know. And 'homeland' was misapplied in this situation. One people's homeland was given to another people, who then systematically persecuted the natives. And are still doing so. — Vera Mont

No one was given anything. The UN partitioned two states, Arab armies rejected, lost war, and lost more land as a result. That was a consequence of not accepting. Clearly, you not only don’t believe in two states, you wish Israel was never formed. Tough shit news for you, it was. Same with Canada, same with almost any country. As I said, I’m done with the endlessly fruitless value signaling on this thread. Have your circle jerk arguments with others who can be your echo chamber.

The UN partitioned two states, — schopenhauer1

taking the bigger and more productive half from a large Arab population and giving it to a smaller population of European immigrants. No, the Arabs didn't accept this plan and Ben Gurion only accepted it as an interim plan, always intending to expand his territory.

Clearly, you not only don’t believe in two states, you wish Israel was never formed. Tough shit news for you, it was. — schopenhauer1

It's caused an awful lot of international strife and cost an awful lot of money. And it's not finished doing either by a long chalk. Still don't see how that justifies war crimes. But by all means, jerk elsewhere!

:point: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/908945