Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So the Jews the invading and colonizing people (Battle of Jericho and all that) cannot be indigenous by definition. Next.
In any case, people claiming to be indigenous must at least have lived in an area for some time. I don't think living in Europe for 2,000 years can make a people indigenous to a place on another continent.
The Palestinians who have ancestry back to the Canaanites, Philistines etc. (as well as to invading Israelites) are thus closest to being indigenous.
And, they were certainly the native inhabitants that the Covenant of the League of Nations referred to.
1. The people who became the Jewish people were one of many warring tribes in the region who largely shared the same culture. The Canaanites became the Jewish people. All the other warring tribes were absorbed into competing cultures and did not survive.
2. There is absolutely no cultural connection between the Arab Muslim "Palestinians" and the Canaanites or the Israelites. None. Zero. The culture of the present day Arab Muslims is the culture of the invading and colonizing peoples. The definition of indigenous depends on pre-invasion cultures.
3. The Jewish people have lived continuously in the territory in question going back thousands of years.
And you don't really want to argue that the displacement or expulsion of part of a group renders the entire group as being non-indigenous and without rights, do you? Because that is going to cause you some serious problems in the discussions about the "Palestinian" RoR.
So the Jews the invading and colonizing people (Battle of Jericho and all that) cannot be indigenous by definition. Next.
In any case, people claiming to be indigenous must at least have lived in an area for some time. I don't think living in Europe for 2,000 years can make a people indigenous to a place on another continent.
The Palestinians who have ancestry back to the Canaanites, Philistines etc. (as well as to invading Israelites) are thus closest to being indigenous.
And, they were certainly the native inhabitants that the Covenant of the League of Nations referred to.
1. The people who became the Jewish people were one of many warring tribes in the region who largely shared the same culture. The Canaanites became the Jewish people. All the other warring tribes were absorbed into competing cultures and did not survive.
2. There is absolutely no cultural connection between the Arab Muslim "Palestinians" and the Canaanites or the Israelites. None. Zero. The culture of the present day Arab Muslims is the culture of the invading and colonizing peoples. The definition of indigenous depends on pre-invasion cultures.
3. The Jewish people have lived continuously in the territory in question going back thousands of years.
And you don't really want to argue that the displacement or expulsion of part of a group renders the entire group as being non-indigenous and without rights, do you? Because that is going to cause you some serious problems in the discussions about the "Palestinian" RoR.
Well, Arabs have been in Palestine since the return from Babylon.. See Ezra in the OT or actually before when Sargon 2 settled 4 Arab tribes in Samaria circa 600 BC.
Then of course there are the ten Greeks cities of the Decapolis.. The indigenous Palestinians are an amalgamation of all those people.. Greeks, Turks, Syrians, Crusaders..
So the Jews the invading and colonizing people (Battle of Jericho and all that) cannot be indigenous by definition. Next.
In any case, people claiming to be indigenous must at least have lived in an area for some time. I don't think living in Europe for 2,000 years can make a people indigenous to a place on another continent.
The Palestinians who have ancestry back to the Canaanites, Philistines etc. (as well as to invading Israelites) are thus closest to being indigenous.
And, they were certainly the native inhabitants that the Covenant of the League of Nations referred to.
1. The people who became the Jewish people were one of many warring tribes in the region who largely shared the same culture. The Canaanites became the Jewish people. All the other warring tribes were absorbed into competing cultures and did not survive.
2. There is absolutely no cultural connection between the Arab Muslim "Palestinians" and the Canaanites or the Israelites. None. Zero. The culture of the present day Arab Muslims is the culture of the invading and colonizing peoples. The definition of indigenous depends on pre-invasion cultures.
3. The Jewish people have lived continuously in the territory in question going back thousands of years.
And you don't really want to argue that the displacement or expulsion of part of a group renders the entire group as being non-indigenous and without rights, do you? Because that is going to cause you some serious problems in the discussions about the "Palestinian" RoR.
Well, Arabs have been in Palestine since the return from Babylon.. See Ezra in the OT or actually before when Sargon 2 settled 4 Arab tribes in Samaria circa 600 BC.
Then of course there are the ten Greeks cities of the Decapolis.. The indigenous Palestinians are an amalgamation of all those people.. Greeks, Turks, Syrians, Crusaders..
Sargon II was an 8th Century BCE figure, not a 7th Century BCE one.
If the Arab Palestinians are Greek, Turk, Syrian, and Crusaders, then the Palestinians are not indigenous to the land in question.
Know that the Jewish People and the land are bound both by divine edict and historical verity.
theosophical.wordpress.com
So the Jews the invading and colonizing people (Battle of Jericho and all that) cannot be indigenous by definition. Next.
In any case, people claiming to be indigenous must at least have lived in an area for some time. I don't think living in Europe for 2,000 years can make a people indigenous to a place on another continent.
The Palestinians who have ancestry back to the Canaanites, Philistines etc. (as well as to invading Israelites) are thus closest to being indigenous.
And, they were certainly the native inhabitants that the Covenant of the League of Nations referred to.
1. The people who became the Jewish people were one of many warring tribes in the region who largely shared the same culture. The Canaanites became the Jewish people. All the other warring tribes were absorbed into competing cultures and did not survive.
2. There is absolutely no cultural connection between the Arab Muslim "Palestinians" and the Canaanites or the Israelites. None. Zero. The culture of the present day Arab Muslims is the culture of the invading and colonizing peoples. The definition of indigenous depends on pre-invasion cultures.
3. The Jewish people have lived continuously in the territory in question going back thousands of years.
And you don't really want to argue that the displacement or expulsion of part of a group renders the entire group as being non-indigenous and without rights, do you? Because that is going to cause you some serious problems in the discussions about the "Palestinian" RoR.
So the Jews the invading and colonizing people (Battle of Jericho and all that) cannot be indigenous by definition. Next.
In any case, people claiming to be indigenous must at least have lived in an area for some time. I don't think living in Europe for 2,000 years can make a people indigenous to a place on another continent.
The Palestinians who have ancestry back to the Canaanites, Philistines etc. (as well as to invading Israelites) are thus closest to being indigenous.
And, they were certainly the native inhabitants that the Covenant of the League of Nations referred to.
1. The people who became the Jewish people were one of many warring tribes in the region who largely shared the same culture. The Canaanites became the Jewish people. All the other warring tribes were absorbed into competing cultures and did not survive.
2. There is absolutely no cultural connection between the Arab Muslim "Palestinians" and the Canaanites or the Israelites. None. Zero. The culture of the present day Arab Muslims is the culture of the invading and colonizing peoples. The definition of indigenous depends on pre-invasion cultures.
3. The Jewish people have lived continuously in the territory in question going back thousands of years.
And you don't really want to argue that the displacement or expulsion of part of a group renders the entire group as being non-indigenous and without rights, do you? Because that is going to cause you some serious problems in the discussions about the "Palestinian" RoR.
Well, Arabs have been in Palestine since the return from Babylon.. See Ezra in the OT or actually before when Sargon 2 settled 4 Arab tribes in Samaria circa 600 BC.
Then of course there are the ten Greeks cities of the Decapolis.. The indigenous Palestinians are an amalgamation of all those people.. Greeks, Turks, Syrians, Crusaders..
Sargon II was an 8th Century BCE figure, not a 7th Century BCE one.
If the Arab Palestinians are Greek, Turk, Syrian, and Crusaders, then the Palestinians are not indigenous to the land in question.
Know that the Jewish People and the land are bound both by divine edict and historical verity.
Palestinians have always lived there.. and for most of its history Israel was under the control of an outside power. Intermarriage is pretty normal. In any case, European Jews don't have an exclusive claim on Palestine. I noticed they have uncovered jar burials like the ones at Byblos and Baalbek.. The Canaanites practiced jar burials.
I should always check my memory.
Biblical Archaeology 16: Sargon II Inscriptions | Theo ...
...August 15, 2011 – Theo-sophical Ruminations
1 post published by Theosophical Ruminator on August 15, 2011
Aug 15, 2011 · Archaeologists have discovered annals from the 7th year of Sargon’s reign which describe this very event. The annals read, “I crushed the tribes of Tamud, Ibadid, Marsimanu, and Haiapa, the Arabs who live, far away, in the desert (and) who know neither overseers nor officials and who had not (yet) brought their tribute to any king.
So the Jews the invading and colonizing people (Battle of Jericho and all that) cannot be indigenous by definition. Next.
In any case, people claiming to be indigenous must at least have lived in an area for some time. I don't think living in Europe for 2,000 years can make a people indigenous to a place on another continent.
The Palestinians who have ancestry back to the Canaanites, Philistines etc. (as well as to invading Israelites) are thus closest to being indigenous.
And, they were certainly the native inhabitants that the Covenant of the League of Nations referred to.
1. The people who became the Jewish people were one of many warring tribes in the region who largely shared the same culture. The Canaanites became the Jewish people. All the other warring tribes were absorbed into competing cultures and did not survive.
2. There is absolutely no cultural connection between the Arab Muslim "Palestinians" and the Canaanites or the Israelites. None. Zero. The culture of the present day Arab Muslims is the culture of the invading and colonizing peoples. The definition of indigenous depends on pre-invasion cultures.
3. The Jewish people have lived continuously in the territory in question going back thousands of years.
And you don't really want to argue that the displacement or expulsion of part of a group renders the entire group as being non-indigenous and without rights, do you? Because that is going to cause you some serious problems in the discussions about the "Palestinian" RoR.
Well, Arabs have been in Palestine since the return from Babylon.. See Ezra in the OT or actually before when Sargon 2 settled 4 Arab tribes in Samaria circa 600 BC.
Then of course there are the ten Greeks cities of the Decapolis.. The indigenous Palestinians are an amalgamation of all those people.. Greeks, Turks, Syrians, Crusaders..
Sargon II was an 8th Century BCE figure, not a 7th Century BCE one.
If the Arab Palestinians are Greek, Turk, Syrian, and Crusaders, then the Palestinians are not indigenous to the land in question.
Know that the Jewish People and the land are bound both by divine edict and historical verity.
Palestinians have always lived there.. and for most of its history Israel was under the control of an outside power. Intermarriage is pretty normal. In any case, European Jews don't have an exclusive claim on Palestine. I noticed they have uncovered jar burials like the ones at Byblos and Baalbek.. The Canaanites practiced jar burials.
I should always check my memory.
Biblical Archaeology 16: Sargon II Inscriptions | Theo ...
...August 15, 2011 – Theo-sophical Ruminations
1 post published by Theosophical Ruminator on August 15, 2011
Aug 15, 2011 · Archaeologists have discovered annals from the 7th year of Sargon’s reign which describe this very event. The annals read, “I crushed the tribes of Tamud, Ibadid, Marsimanu, and Haiapa, the Arabs who live, far away, in the desert (and) who know neither overseers nor officials and who had not (yet) brought their tribute to any king.
When two parties to a dispute go to court to settle their difference, the first words the judge utters are, "start from the beginning, and present any evidence you have."
One of the earliest mention of Israel can be found in the 9th Century BCE archaeological find, the Mesha Stele, commissioned by the king of Moab (present-day Jordan), where he mentions Israel and a king of Israel, namely, Omri. The Mesha Stele is currently housed at The Louvre in Paris, France.
If you claim that the land belongs to the "Palestinians" then it should be reflected in the archaeological records. Cite one archaeological evidence for the "Palestinians."
surada wrote:
" Arabs have lived in Palestine since Abraham and long before Islam. Read your torah.. They were in Jerusalem when the Jews returned from Babylon... and unless you forget Moses and Abraham had Arab wives. "
Ria Longhorn:
Where in the Torah can one find this?
surada wrote:
" Arabs have lived in Palestine since Abraham and long before Islam. Read your torah.. They were in Jerusalem when the Jews returned from Babylon... and unless you forget Moses and Abraham had Arab wives. "
Ria Longhorn:
Where in the Torah can one find this?
I am unfamiliar with the Torah since I'm Christian, but you might read Ezra.
Moses' wife was Zipporah.. Abraham married Keturah.
surada wrote:
" Arabs have lived in Palestine since Abraham and long before Islam. Read your torah.. They were in Jerusalem when the Jews returned from Babylon... and unless you forget Moses and Abraham had Arab wives. "
Ria Longhorn:
Where in the Torah can one find this?
I am unfamiliar with the Torah since I'm Christian, but you might read Ezra.
Moses' wife was Zipporah.. Abraham married Keturah.
Since you have employed the Jewish bible in your argument , I shall do the same:
"The covenant which He made with Abraham, And His oath to Isaac,
And confirmed it to Jacob for a statute, To Israel as an everlasting covenant,
Saying, 'To you I will give the land of Canaan . . .' " -- Psalm 105: 9-11.
Poster, the argument is over. G-d has the last word. Blessed be the G-d of Israel.surada wrote:
" Arabs have lived in Palestine since Abraham and long before Islam. Read your torah.. They were in Jerusalem when the Jews returned from Babylon... and unless you forget Moses and Abraham had Arab wives. "
Ria Longhorn:
Where in the Torah can one find this?
I am unfamiliar with the Torah since I'm Christian, but you might read Ezra.
Moses' wife was Zipporah.. Abraham married Keturah.
Since you have employed the Jewish bible in your argument , I shall do the same:
"The covenant which He made with Abraham, And His oath to Isaac,
And confirmed it to Jacob for a statute, To Israel as an everlasting covenant,
Saying, 'To you I will give the land of Canaan . . .' " -- Psalm 105: 9-11.
Much of Psalms was lifted from Ugarit poetry. If God gave it to Jacob how is it that Palestine was never exclusively Jewish?
Poster, the argument is over. G-d has the last word. Blessed be the G-d of Israel.surada wrote:
" Arabs have lived in Palestine since Abraham and long before Islam. Read your torah.. They were in Jerusalem when the Jews returned from Babylon... and unless you forget Moses and Abraham had Arab wives. "
Ria Longhorn:
Where in the Torah can one find this?
I am unfamiliar with the Torah since I'm Christian, but you might read Ezra.
Moses' wife was Zipporah.. Abraham married Keturah.
Since you have employed the Jewish bible in your argument , I shall do the same:
"The covenant which He made with Abraham, And His oath to Isaac,
And confirmed it to Jacob for a statute, To Israel as an everlasting covenant,
Saying, 'To you I will give the land of Canaan . . .' " -- Psalm 105: 9-11.
Much of Psalms was lifted from Ugarit poetry. If God gave it to Jacob how is it that Palestine was never exclusively Jewish?
So the Jews the invading and colonizing people (Battle of Jericho and all that) cannot be indigenous by definition. Next.
In any case, people claiming to be indigenous must at least have lived in an area for some time. I don't think living in Europe for 2,000 years can make a people indigenous to a place on another continent.
The Palestinians who have ancestry back to the Canaanites, Philistines etc. (as well as to invading Israelites) are thus closest to being indigenous.
And, they were certainly the native inhabitants that the Covenant of the League of Nations referred to.
1. The people who became the Jewish people were one of many warring tribes in the region who largely shared the same culture. The Canaanites became the Jewish people. All the other warring tribes were absorbed into competing cultures and did not survive.
2. There is absolutely no cultural connection between the Arab Muslim "Palestinians" and the Canaanites or the Israelites. None. Zero. The culture of the present day Arab Muslims is the culture of the invading and colonizing peoples. The definition of indigenous depends on pre-invasion cultures.
3. The Jewish people have lived continuously in the territory in question going back thousands of years.
And you don't really want to argue that the displacement or expulsion of part of a group renders the entire group as being non-indigenous and without rights, do you? Because that is going to cause you some serious problems in the discussions about the "Palestinian" RoR.
Well, Arabs have been in Palestine since the return from Babylon.. See Ezra in the OT or actually before when Sargon 2 settled 4 Arab tribes in Samaria circa 600 BC.
Then of course there are the ten Greeks cities of the Decapolis.. The indigenous Palestinians are an amalgamation of all those people.. Greeks, Turks, Syrians, Crusaders..
So the Jews the invading and colonizing people (Battle of Jericho and all that) cannot be indigenous by definition. Next.
In any case, people claiming to be indigenous must at least have lived in an area for some time. I don't think living in Europe for 2,000 years can make a people indigenous to a place on another continent.
The Palestinians who have ancestry back to the Canaanites, Philistines etc. (as well as to invading Israelites) are thus closest to being indigenous.
And, they were certainly the native inhabitants that the Covenant of the League of Nations referred to.
1. The people who became the Jewish people were one of many warring tribes in the region who largely shared the same culture. The Canaanites became the Jewish people. All the other warring tribes were absorbed into competing cultures and did not survive.
2. There is absolutely no cultural connection between the Arab Muslim "Palestinians" and the Canaanites or the Israelites. None. Zero. The culture of the present day Arab Muslims is the culture of the invading and colonizing peoples. The definition of indigenous depends on pre-invasion cultures.
3. The Jewish people have lived continuously in the territory in question going back thousands of years.
And you don't really want to argue that the displacement or expulsion of part of a group renders the entire group as being non-indigenous and without rights, do you? Because that is going to cause you some serious problems in the discussions about the "Palestinian" RoR.
Well, Arabs have been in Palestine since the return from Babylon.. See Ezra in the OT or actually before when Sargon 2 settled 4 Arab tribes in Samaria circa 600 BC.
Then of course there are the ten Greeks cities of the Decapolis.. The indigenous Palestinians are an amalgamation of all those people.. Greeks, Turks, Syrians, Crusaders..
Sargon II was an 8th Century BCE figure, not a 7th Century BCE one.
If the Arab Palestinians are Greek, Turk, Syrian, and Crusaders, then the Palestinians are not indigenous to the land in question.
Know that the Jewish People and the land are bound both by divine edict and historical verity.
Palestinians have always lived there.. and for most of its history Israel was under the control of an outside power. Intermarriage is pretty normal. In any case, European Jews don't have an exclusive claim on Palestine. I noticed they have uncovered jar burials like the ones at Byblos and Baalbek.. The Canaanites practiced jar burials.
I should always check my memory.
Biblical Archaeology 16: Sargon II Inscriptions | Theo ...
...August 15, 2011 – Theo-sophical Ruminations
1 post published by Theosophical Ruminator on August 15, 2011
Aug 15, 2011 · Archaeologists have discovered annals from the 7th year of Sargon’s reign which describe this very event. The annals read, “I crushed the tribes of Tamud, Ibadid, Marsimanu, and Haiapa, the Arabs who live, far away, in the desert (and) who know neither overseers nor officials and who had not (yet) brought their tribute to any king.
surada wrote:
" Arabs have lived in Palestine since Abraham and long before Islam. Read your torah.. They were in Jerusalem when the Jews returned from Babylon... and unless you forget Moses and Abraham had Arab wives. "
Ria Longhorn:
Where in the Torah can one find this?
I am unfamiliar with the Torah since I'm Christian, but you might read Ezra.
Moses' wife was Zipporah.. Abraham married Keturah.
So the Jews the invading and colonizing people (Battle of Jericho and all that) cannot be indigenous by definition. Next.
In any case, people claiming to be indigenous must at least have lived in an area for some time. I don't think living in Europe for 2,000 years can make a people indigenous to a place on another continent.
The Palestinians who have ancestry back to the Canaanites, Philistines etc. (as well as to invading Israelites) are thus closest to being indigenous.
And, they were certainly the native inhabitants that the Covenant of the League of Nations referred to.
1. The people who became the Jewish people were one of many warring tribes in the region who largely shared the same culture. The Canaanites became the Jewish people. All the other warring tribes were absorbed into competing cultures and did not survive.
2. There is absolutely no cultural connection between the Arab Muslim "Palestinians" and the Canaanites or the Israelites. None. Zero. The culture of the present day Arab Muslims is the culture of the invading and colonizing peoples. The definition of indigenous depends on pre-invasion cultures.
3. The Jewish people have lived continuously in the territory in question going back thousands of years.
And you don't really want to argue that the displacement or expulsion of part of a group renders the entire group as being non-indigenous and without rights, do you? Because that is going to cause you some serious problems in the discussions about the "Palestinian" RoR.
Well, Arabs have been in Palestine since the return from Babylon.. See Ezra in the OT or actually before when Sargon 2 settled 4 Arab tribes in Samaria circa 600 BC.
Then of course there are the ten Greeks cities of the Decapolis.. The indigenous Palestinians are an amalgamation of all those people.. Greeks, Turks, Syrians, Crusaders..
Sargon II was an 8th Century BCE figure, not a 7th Century BCE one.
If the Arab Palestinians are Greek, Turk, Syrian, and Crusaders, then the Palestinians are not indigenous to the land in question.
Know that the Jewish People and the land are bound both by divine edict and historical verity.
Palestinians have always lived there.. and for most of its history Israel was under the control of an outside power. Intermarriage is pretty normal. In any case, European Jews don't have an exclusive claim on Palestine. I noticed they have uncovered jar burials like the ones at Byblos and Baalbek.. The Canaanites practiced jar burials.
I should always check my memory.
Biblical Archaeology 16: Sargon II Inscriptions | Theo ...
...August 15, 2011 – Theo-sophical Ruminations
1 post published by Theosophical Ruminator on August 15, 2011
Aug 15, 2011 · Archaeologists have discovered annals from the 7th year of Sargon’s reign which describe this very event. The annals read, “I crushed the tribes of Tamud, Ibadid, Marsimanu, and Haiapa, the Arabs who live, far away, in the desert (and) who know neither overseers nor officials and who had not (yet) brought their tribute to any king.
When two parties to a dispute go to court to settle their difference, the first words the judge utters are, "start from the beginning, and present any evidence you have."
One of the earliest mention of Israel can be found in the 9th Century BCE archaeological find, the Mesha Stele, commissioned by the king of Moab (present-day Jordan), where he mentions Israel and a king of Israel, namely, Omri. The Mesha Stele is currently housed at The Louvre in Paris, France.
If you claim that the land belongs to the "Palestinians" then it should be reflected in the archaeological records. Cite one archaeological evidence for the "Palestinians."
Palestine has been recognized as a province of Syria since 500 BC. Most Palestinians are descended from first century Jewish farmers who stayed. The Jews emerged from North Coast Canaanites.
There's plenty of evidence for non Jewish people in Palestine dating back to the Natufian people ..
I don't actually think it matters. I think "resident" is as important if not more, than "indiginous". It's very difficult to define and determine who is "indiginous" because there is almost always someone there before and each succeeding wave of immigrants or invaders alters culture/language/religion of the current inhabitents.
The oldest, surviving, recognizable, pre-invasion culture. Not so difficult after all.
But I have no problem with your understanding that residence (current possession) of the territory trumps everything else. As long as that is applied equally. The problem that I am having is with those who want special rules to apply to the Jewish people. ie Palestinians have RoR, but the Jewish people don't. Palestinians are indigenous, but the Jewish people are not. Arab Muslims invaders and Roman invaders confer rights, but Jewish "invaders" confer no rights.
Europeans that converted to Judaism are not indigenous to Palestine. Full stop. They are Europeans. The native people that continued to live in Palestine and converted to different religions for convenience or faith over the centuries are as close as indigenous as you can get in such a busy place like Palestine.
I don't actually think it matters. I think "resident" is as important if not more, than "indiginous". It's very difficult to define and determine who is "indiginous" because there is almost always someone there before and each succeeding wave of immigrants or invaders alters culture/language/religion of the current inhabitents.
The oldest, surviving, recognizable, pre-invasion culture. Not so difficult after all.
But I have no problem with your understanding that residence (current possession) of the territory trumps everything else. As long as that is applied equally. The problem that I am having is with those who want special rules to apply to the Jewish people. ie Palestinians have RoR, but the Jewish people don't. Palestinians are indigenous, but the Jewish people are not. Arab Muslims invaders and Roman invaders confer rights, but Jewish "invaders" confer no rights.
I don't actually think it matters. I think "resident" is as important if not more, than "indiginous". It's very difficult to define and determine who is "indiginous" because there is almost always someone there before and each succeeding wave of immigrants or invaders alters culture/language/religion of the current inhabitents.
The oldest, surviving, recognizable, pre-invasion culture. Not so difficult after all.
But I have no problem with your understanding that residence (current possession) of the territory trumps everything else. As long as that is applied equally. The problem that I am having is with those who want special rules to apply to the Jewish people. ie Palestinians have RoR, but the Jewish people don't. Palestinians are indigenous, but the Jewish people are not. Arab Muslims invaders and Roman invaders confer rights, but Jewish "invaders" confer no rights.
Indigenous Palestinians? Well, no...
View attachment 451174
I don't actually think it matters. I think "resident" is as important if not more, than "indiginous". It's very difficult to define and determine who is "indiginous" because there is almost always someone there before and each succeeding wave of immigrants or invaders alters culture/language/religion of the current inhabitents.
The oldest, surviving, recognizable, pre-invasion culture. Not so difficult after all.
But I have no problem with your understanding that residence (current possession) of the territory trumps everything else. As long as that is applied equally. The problem that I am having is with those who want special rules to apply to the Jewish people. ie Palestinians have RoR, but the Jewish people don't. Palestinians are indigenous, but the Jewish people are not. Arab Muslims invaders and Roman invaders confer rights, but Jewish "invaders" confer no rights.
Europeans that converted to Judaism are not indigenous to Palestine. Full stop. They are Europeans. The native people that continued to live in Palestine and converted to different religions for convenience or faith over the centuries are as close as indigenous as you can get in such a busy place like Palestine.
Um, palestine is a European word, referring to philistines who were Europeans from the Aegean. The Romans, who were European, imposed the name palaestina on Jews, the indigenous population. Yeah, Jews have a really long history in their homeland.
