The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?

[Shusha]

2. I don’t know. I look at Israel and see similarities to countries like the US and Canada, where a gathering of multiple cultures sharing a common dream added a unique cultural perspective. I think in Israel, that being Jewish is the common thread uniting them in one dream, despite the diversity of backgrounds they came from, literally all over the world. They are an old people in a new nation, without all the baggage of old nations trying to adjust. JMO

You are coming at it upside down and backwards.

Israel is ONE culture (the Jewish culture). The Jewish people are being re-integrated into that one shared culture. Diaspora backgrounds are interesting, important, diverse. But not especially relevant to the discussion.

Likening Israel to the US and Canada supports the idea that returning Jews are no longer Jews or of the Jewish culture and are, indeed, settlers. Just as those of European ancestry are settlers in the US and Canada.

This is incorrect. The Jewish people are the indigenous people. If we are using Canada as an example, they are the Sto-lo, the Anishinaabe, the Ojibwa, the Cree, the Mi'kmaq. The fact that these First Nations peoples have been forced by circumstance, invasion, conquest, settler colonization and exile to adopt a culture that is not their own does not make them less Sto-lo or Anishinaabe or Ojibwa.

Just so, it is their Jewishness which creates Israel, not their diversity.

 

[Coyote]

2. I don’t know. I look at Israel and see similarities to countries like the US and Canada, where a gathering of multiple cultures sharing a common dream added a unique cultural perspective. I think in Israel, that being Jewish is the common thread uniting them in one dream, despite the diversity of backgrounds they came from, literally all over the world. They are an old people in a new nation, without all the baggage of old nations trying to adjust. JMO

You are coming at it upside down and backwards.

Israel is ONE culture (the Jewish culture). The Jewish people are being re-integrated into that one shared culture. Diaspora backgrounds are interesting, important, diverse. But not especially relevant to the discussion.

Likening Israel to the US and Canada supports the idea that returning Jews are no longer Jews or of the Jewish culture and are, indeed, settlers. Just as those of European ancestry are settlers in the US and Canada.

This is incorrect. The Jewish people are the indigenous people. If we are using Canada as an example, they are the Sto-lo, the Anishinaabe, the Ojibwa, the Cree, the Mi'kmaq. The fact that these First Nations peoples have been forced by circumstance, invasion, conquest, settler colonization and exile to adopt a culture that is not their own does not make them less Sto-lo or Anishinaabe or Ojibwa.

Just so, it is their Jewishness which creates Israel, not their diversity.

But I don’t think that is totally accurate and is very very dicey to discuss because it can be seen to feed into canards that Jews are not a culture or are invaders and that makes it almost a taboo.

When there is a diaspora, and a people are spread around the world, they adopt the cultures of that area while retaining greater or lesser amounts of their own down the generations.

If they return to the region of origin, they bring with them those cultures in addition to what they have of their native culture. They are not the same people who left though and that shouldn’t be a negative but a positive and, imo, in the case of Israel, a strength because they brought a number of western ideals into their nation. So their new nation is a combination of their Jewishness and the cultures they brought back with them.

 

[rylah]

2. I don’t know. I look at Israel and see similarities to countries like the US and Canada, where a gathering of multiple cultures sharing a common dream added a unique cultural perspective. I think in Israel, that being Jewish is the common thread uniting them in one dream, despite the diversity of backgrounds they came from, literally all over the world. They are an old people in a new nation, without all the baggage of old nations trying to adjust. JMO

You are coming at it upside down and backwards.

Israel is ONE culture (the Jewish culture). The Jewish people are being re-integrated into that one shared culture. Diaspora backgrounds are interesting, important, diverse. But not especially relevant to the discussion.

Likening Israel to the US and Canada supports the idea that returning Jews are no longer Jews or of the Jewish culture and are, indeed, settlers. Just as those of European ancestry are settlers in the US and Canada.

This is incorrect. The Jewish people are the indigenous people. If we are using Canada as an example, they are the Sto-lo, the Anishinaabe, the Ojibwa, the Cree, the Mi'kmaq. The fact that these First Nations peoples have been forced by circumstance, invasion, conquest, settler colonization and exile to adopt a culture that is not their own does not make them less Sto-lo or Anishinaabe or Ojibwa.

Just so, it is their Jewishness which creates Israel, not their diversity.

But I don’t think that is totally accurate and is very very dicey to discuss because it can be seen to feed into canards that Jews are not a culture or are invaders and that makes it almost a taboo.

When there is a diaspora, and a people are spread around the world, they adopt the cultures of that area while retaining greater or lesser amounts of their own down the generations.

If they return to the region of origin, they bring with them those cultures in addition to what they have of their native culture. They are not the same people who left though and that shouldn’t be a negative but a positive and, imo, in the case of Israel, a strength because they brought a number of western ideals into their nation. So their new nation is a combination of their Jewishness and the cultures they brought back with them.

What makes you think those western values weren't adopted from Judaism in the first place?
Israel in the diaspora changed the entire world, and the world in response, never failed to remind Israel they were foreign, and couldn't assimilate even if trying very hard.

What other culture was ever as influential and relevant, while preserving small for so long?

And by the way, what western values? Liberty?
Maybe you can tell what is quoted in the opening of the liberty bill?

 

[ESay]

makes you think those western values weren't adopted from Judaism in the first place?
Israel in the diaspora changed the entire world, the world in response didn't let Israel assimilate.

I think it would be more accurate to say that it is 'European' Enlightment gave an impulse to the 'Jewish' one than the other way around.

 

[rylah]

makes you think those western values weren't adopted from Judaism in the first place?
Israel in the diaspora changed the entire world, the world in response didn't let Israel assimilate.

I think it would be more accurate to say that it is 'European' Enlightment gave an impulse to the 'Jewish' one than the other way around.

European enlightenment was not the same for Europeans as for Jews, for whom first and foremost it was a change in social status. For which of course, Jews were expected to give up their identity.

For Europe it was an enlightenment, but from Jewish perspective, what was in it?
Was there anything new the Rambam and Ramchal didn't write?

 

[ESay]

makes you think those western values weren't adopted from Judaism in the first place?
Israel in the diaspora changed the entire world, the world in response didn't let Israel assimilate.

I think it would be more accurate to say that it is 'European' Enlightment gave an impulse to the 'Jewish' one than the other way around.

European enlightenment was not the same for Europeans as for Jews, for whom first and foremost it was a change in social status. For which of course, Jews were expected to give up their identity.

For Europe it was an enlightenment, but from Jewish perspective, what was in it?
Was there anything new the Rambam and Ramchal didn't write?

The Enlightenment was not about a religion. What we see today as so called civilized world was deprived from it - science, technology, social and I even say moral norms.

 

[rylah]

makes you think those western values weren't adopted from Judaism in the first place?
Israel in the diaspora changed the entire world, the world in response didn't let Israel assimilate.

I think it would be more accurate to say that it is 'European' Enlightment gave an impulse to the 'Jewish' one than the other way around.

European enlightenment was not the same for Europeans as for Jews, for whom first and foremost it was a change in social status. For which of course, Jews were expected to give up their identity.

For Europe it was an enlightenment, but from Jewish perspective, what was in it?
Was there anything new the Rambam and Ramchal didn't write?

The Enlightenment was not about a religion. What we see today as so called civilized world was deprived from it - science, technology, social and I even say moral norms.

Neither really is Jewish culture.
What was enlightenment about? Rationalism, science, liberty, humanism?

That's why I said Rambam and Ramchal.

It's common that people view Jewish culture through the prism of religions,
specifically projecting Christianity and Islam on it. Yet its the so called today's 'secular' values much cherished in the enlightened West, that were adopted from Judaism.

Who is a great teacher? One who manages to trick the ego of his pupil to think he reached the correct conclusion on his own. So that the learned material becomes really 'his own'.

So do Christians and Muslims till this day blame Jews for not proselytizing, as in to keep it for ourselves, not realizing this is exactly what happened, and that this is how its done properly.
Without conquest, inquisitions and burning at the stake.

 

[MartyNYC]

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.

Most Israeli Jews are indigenous to Israel and the region. The “native” people of “palestine“ were Jews, whose homeland had the fake name “palestine” imposed on it by the Romans, “only” about 2,000 years ago, in retribution for the Jewish Bar Kokhba Revolt.

BBC documentary of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. There weren’t any “palestinians“





If

 

[ESay]

makes you think those western values weren't adopted from Judaism in the first place?
Israel in the diaspora changed the entire world, the world in response didn't let Israel assimilate.

I think it would be more accurate to say that it is 'European' Enlightment gave an impulse to the 'Jewish' one than the other way around.

European enlightenment was not the same for Europeans as for Jews, for whom first and foremost it was a change in social status. For which of course, Jews were expected to give up their identity.

For Europe it was an enlightenment, but from Jewish perspective, what was in it?
Was there anything new the Rambam and Ramchal didn't write?

The Enlightenment was not about a religion. What we see today as so called civilized world was deprived from it - science, technology, social and I even say moral norms.

Neither really is Jewish culture.
What was enlightenment about? Rationalism, science, liberty, humanism?

That's why I said Rambam and Ramchal.

It's common that people view Jewish culture through the prism of religions,
specifically projecting Christianity and Islam on it. Yet its the so called today's 'secular' values much cherished in the enlightened West, that were adopted from Judaism.

Who is a great teacher? One who manages to trick the ego of his pupil to think he reached the correct conclusion on his own. So that the learned material becomes really 'his own'.

So do Christians and Muslims till this day blame Jews for not proselytizing, as in to keep it for ourselves, not realizing this is exactly what happened, and that this is how its done properly.
Without conquest, inquisitions and burning at the stake.

Are you trying to say that the Enlightenment was inspired by the Jews? In what way? They were more liberal, open for new daring ideas and debates? Considering the misfortunes of Baruch Spinoza I have some doubts.

 

[rylah]

makes you think those western values weren't adopted from Judaism in the first place?
Israel in the diaspora changed the entire world, the world in response didn't let Israel assimilate.

I think it would be more accurate to say that it is 'European' Enlightment gave an impulse to the 'Jewish' one than the other way around.

European enlightenment was not the same for Europeans as for Jews, for whom first and foremost it was a change in social status. For which of course, Jews were expected to give up their identity.

For Europe it was an enlightenment, but from Jewish perspective, what was in it?
Was there anything new the Rambam and Ramchal didn't write?

The Enlightenment was not about a religion. What we see today as so called civilized world was deprived from it - science, technology, social and I even say moral norms.

Neither really is Jewish culture.
What was enlightenment about? Rationalism, science, liberty, humanism?

That's why I said Rambam and Ramchal.

It's common that people view Jewish culture through the prism of religions,
specifically projecting Christianity and Islam on it. Yet its the so called today's 'secular' values much cherished in the enlightened West, that were adopted from Judaism.

Who is a great teacher? One who manages to trick the ego of his pupil to think he reached the correct conclusion on his own. So that the learned material becomes really 'his own'.

So do Christians and Muslims till this day blame Jews for not proselytizing, as in to keep it for ourselves, not realizing this is exactly what happened, and that this is how its done properly.
Without conquest, inquisitions and burning at the stake.

Are you trying to say that the Enlightenment was inspired by the Jews? In what way? They were more liberal, open for new daring ideas and debates? Considering the misfortunes of Baruch Spinoza I have some doubts.

I'm saying that the Western values associated with the Enlightenment,
was essentially a secular reformation of the Christian world, seemingly shedding religious order, by adopting a more humanist, world based practical approach to fulfilling the ideals of the Bible, based on personal and national liberty instead of dogma and centralized priesthood rule, thus aligning with a form more in line with the original Jewish vision for the world, its moral order of priority and values.

But one cannot reach that conclusion by comparing the social situation of the diaspora community in Europe by the social developments in Europe. Mainly because the social position was entirely different, all kings wanted Jewish advisors, but the communities were held on a lower social level than the rest, and to a much greater extent the story of Shabtai Zvi which had an immediate reaction stiffening especially the core of the diaspora in Europe, making them overly suspicious of anything remotely sounding new or a change, both within and outside.

In that context, and we are talking about a relatively short period of time, some 200-250 years ago, was Shpinoza, the Enlightenment, Emancipation, Liberty and what is wrongly associated with being a byproduct - Zionism. But if examined closer, one sees that these movements all somehow held the stories of Israel as an ideal, or actual Israel's re-constitution as a naturally integral goal.

There's a reason why the US, the poster child of the Enlightenment, chose the story of Moses liberating his nation, and the 'new Jerusalem' as archetypal to their foundation.

 

[ESay]

makes you think those western values weren't adopted from Judaism in the first place?
Israel in the diaspora changed the entire world, the world in response didn't let Israel assimilate.

I think it would be more accurate to say that it is 'European' Enlightment gave an impulse to the 'Jewish' one than the other way around.

European enlightenment was not the same for Europeans as for Jews, for whom first and foremost it was a change in social status. For which of course, Jews were expected to give up their identity.

For Europe it was an enlightenment, but from Jewish perspective, what was in it?
Was there anything new the Rambam and Ramchal didn't write?

The Enlightenment was not about a religion. What we see today as so called civilized world was deprived from it - science, technology, social and I even say moral norms.

Neither really is Jewish culture.
What was enlightenment about? Rationalism, science, liberty, humanism?

That's why I said Rambam and Ramchal.

It's common that people view Jewish culture through the prism of religions,
specifically projecting Christianity and Islam on it. Yet its the so called today's 'secular' values much cherished in the enlightened West, that were adopted from Judaism.

Who is a great teacher? One who manages to trick the ego of his pupil to think he reached the correct conclusion on his own. So that the learned material becomes really 'his own'.

So do Christians and Muslims till this day blame Jews for not proselytizing, as in to keep it for ourselves, not realizing this is exactly what happened, and that this is how its done properly.
Without conquest, inquisitions and burning at the stake.

Are you trying to say that the Enlightenment was inspired by the Jews? In what way? They were more liberal, open for new daring ideas and debates? Considering the misfortunes of Baruch Spinoza I have some doubts.

I'm saying that the Western values associated with the Enlightenment,
was essentially a secular reformation of the Christian world, seemingly shedding religious order, by adopting a more humanist, world based practical approach to fulfilling the ideals of the Bible, based on personal and national liberty instead of dogma and centralized priesthood rule, thus aligning with a form more in line with the original Jewish vision for the world, its moral order of priority and values.

But one cannot reach that conclusion by comparing the social situation of the diaspora community in Europe by the social developments in Europe. Mainly because the social position was entirely different, all kings wanted Jewish advisors, but the communities were held on a lower social level than the rest, and to a much greater extent the story of Shabtai Zvi which had an immediate reaction stiffening especially the core of the diaspora in Europe, making them overly suspicious of anything remotely sounding new or a change, both within and outside.

In that context, and we are talking about a relatively short period of time, some 200-250 years ago, was Shpinoza, the Enlightenment, Emancipation, Liberty and what is wrongly associated with being a byproduct - Zionism. But if examined closer, one sees that these movements all somehow held the stories of Israel as an ideal, or actual Israel's re-constitution as a naturally integral goal.

There's a reason why the US, the poster child of the Enlightenment, chose the story of Moses liberating his nation, and the 'new Jerusalem' as archetypal to their foundation.

About 'new Jerusalem'. I have a somewhat strange question. Do you consider Israel to be the only 'proper' place for the Jews to live? Israel is virtually a tiny state with scarce natural resources and arable land. If the population of it will be growing then this place will become extremely 'dense'.

Is there some other place to become the 'new Jerusalem' (or more properly the 'other Jerusalem') if this is going to happen? I don't mean just Jewish diaspora in other countries. But some place to which they bring their culture and the way of living as a statewide feature.

 

[Shusha]

They are not the same people who left though and that shouldn’t be a negative but a positive and, imo, in the case of Israel, a strength because they brought a number of western ideals into their nation. So their new nation is a combination of their Jewishness and the cultures they brought back with them.

This paragraph skirts (or reeks of) some very unpleasant ideas.

It is a (far too common) sense of "Western" superiority. It suggests that "western ideals" (without defining what is meant by that term other than that they are vaguely European) are of a higher quality than non-western ideals. It suggests that these high quality ideals are not to be found in non-western cultures and that they not only originate in western cultures, but are exclusive to them. It suggests that "strength" comes from taking on or adopting a colonizing or diaspora culture.

Can we decolonize this, please?

The Jewish people who were forced into a cultural and physical Diaspora ARE the SAME people who existed pre-Diaspora. The lived cultural experiences of the Diaspora Jewish people were colored by their pre-existing Jewish world view. Any new ideas were processed through that Jewish world view. That world view and the cultural expressions of that world view have survived through generations. Have their been changes and shifts? Sure. But those changes were not a replacement (ugh). We didn't take out the red block and insert a blue block. The different ideas (ideals) went into and through and around and were filtered by the Jewish world view. You can't put things in water and have them not be wet.

The Jewish people (or any colonized people) are not carrier pigeons of "western ideals" which are meant to be dispersed back into the places of origin for indigenous peoples. That is the worst type of colonizing: the colonizing of "superior" ideas.

The Jewish people are not strengthened by their experiences of invasion, colonization, conquest, exile, diaspora, pogroms, discrimination, genocide. Don't romantacize it. It is loss upon loss upon loss. And a potentiality which is entirely unknown.

 

[Coyote]

They are not the same people who left though and that shouldn’t be a negative but a positive and, imo, in the case of Israel, a strength because they brought a number of western ideals into their nation. So their new nation is a combination of their Jewishness and the cultures they brought back with them.

This paragraph skirts (or reeks of) some very unpleasant ideas.

It is a (far too common) sense of "Western" superiority. It suggests that "western ideals" (without defining what is meant by that term other than that they are vaguely European) are of a higher quality than non-western ideals. It suggests that these high quality ideals are not to be found in non-western cultures and that they not only originate in western cultures, but are exclusive to them. It suggests that "strength" comes from taking on or adopting a colonizing or diaspora culture.

Can we decolonize this, please?

The Jewish people who were forced into a cultural and physical Diaspora ARE the SAME people who existed pre-Diaspora. The lived cultural experiences of the Diaspora Jewish people were colored by their pre-existing Jewish world view. Any new ideas were processed through that Jewish world view. That world view and the cultural expressions of that world view have survived through generations. Have their been changes and shifts? Sure. But those changes were not a replacement (ugh). We didn't take out the red block and insert a blue block. The different ideas (ideals) went into and through and around and were filtered by the Jewish world view. You can't put things in water and have them not be wet.

The Jewish people (or any colonized people) are not carrier pigeons of "western ideals" which are meant to be dispersed back into the places of origin for indigenous peoples. That is the worst type of colonizing: the colonizing of "superior" ideas.

The Jewish people are not strengthened by their experiences of invasion, colonization, conquest, exile, diaspora, pogroms, discrimination, genocide. Don't romantacize it. It is loss upon loss upon loss. And a potentiality which is entirely unknown.

This would make a great discussion ...I don’t agree with you on all the negatives...but it is going to take us way off topic and isn’t even just IP. Would you want to start a thread?

 

[Shusha]

Is there some other place to become the 'new Jerusalem' (or more properly the 'other Jerusalem') if this is going to happen? I don't mean just Jewish diaspora in other countries. But some place to which they bring their culture and the way of living as a statewide feature.

There are a couple of answers I might give to this.

1. A flat out NO. There is a very specific place in the world which, for reasons of faith, there are no other options. Its impossible. A place so sacred that no other place could function as a replacement.

2. The Jewish people HAVE succeeded in bringing their culture and way of living in communities throughout the Diaspora. The Jewish people have never had the opportunity to create a State, until about a hundred years ago.

3. The question is kinda weird (read: uniquely applied to the Jewish people). Is there some other place in the world where (insert indigenous peoples name) can go and bring their culture and way of living? As in: Could we move the Catalans to the Australian outback so they can have a State with their own culture? Could we move the Ojibwa to the Amazon so they can have a State with their own culture? Could we move the Tibetans to the Scottish highlands? Or the Maori people to the Sahara desert? Or maybe the native Hawaii to the Canadian Arctic? What is the POINT of requiring an indigenous peoples to move into another territory?

 

[Shusha]

This would make a great discussion ...I don’t agree with you on all the negatives...but it is going to take us way off topic and isn’t even just IP. Would you want to start a thread?

Seems to me that the topic of decolonization on a thread about indigeniety is exactly the right place to hold this conversation.

 

[Coyote]

This would make a great discussion ...I don’t agree with you on all the negatives...but it is going to take us way off topic and isn’t even just IP. Would you want to start a thread?

Seems to me that the topic of decolonization on a thread about indigeniety is exactly the right place to hold this conversation.

Ok then. It will take us away from just Jewish people. I have to go take dogs out. I will respond when I come back.

 

[Shusha]

This would make a great discussion ...I don’t agree with you on all the negatives...but it is going to take us way off topic and isn’t even just IP. Would you want to start a thread?

Seems to me that the topic of decolonization on a thread about indigeniety is exactly the right place to hold this conversation.

Ok then. It will take us away from just Jewish people. I have to go take dogs out. I will respond when I come back.

I, personally, think its good to discuss broader terms, even on IP, as a way of establishing objective criteria. So, bring it. Well, bring it later, after the dogs have gone out. I wouldn't want to contribute to the delinquency of the puppies!

 

[rylah]

makes you think those western values weren't adopted from Judaism in the first place?
Israel in the diaspora changed the entire world, the world in response didn't let Israel assimilate.

I think it would be more accurate to say that it is 'European' Enlightment gave an impulse to the 'Jewish' one than the other way around.

European enlightenment was not the same for Europeans as for Jews, for whom first and foremost it was a change in social status. For which of course, Jews were expected to give up their identity.

For Europe it was an enlightenment, but from Jewish perspective, what was in it?
Was there anything new the Rambam and Ramchal didn't write?

The Enlightenment was not about a religion. What we see today as so called civilized world was deprived from it - science, technology, social and I even say moral norms.

Neither really is Jewish culture.
What was enlightenment about? Rationalism, science, liberty, humanism?

That's why I said Rambam and Ramchal.

It's common that people view Jewish culture through the prism of religions,
specifically projecting Christianity and Islam on it. Yet its the so called today's 'secular' values much cherished in the enlightened West, that were adopted from Judaism.

Who is a great teacher? One who manages to trick the ego of his pupil to think he reached the correct conclusion on his own. So that the learned material becomes really 'his own'.

So do Christians and Muslims till this day blame Jews for not proselytizing, as in to keep it for ourselves, not realizing this is exactly what happened, and that this is how its done properly.
Without conquest, inquisitions and burning at the stake.

Are you trying to say that the Enlightenment was inspired by the Jews? In what way? They were more liberal, open for new daring ideas and debates? Considering the misfortunes of Baruch Spinoza I have some doubts.

I'm saying that the Western values associated with the Enlightenment,
was essentially a secular reformation of the Christian world, seemingly shedding religious order, by adopting a more humanist, world based practical approach to fulfilling the ideals of the Bible, based on personal and national liberty instead of dogma and centralized priesthood rule, thus aligning with a form more in line with the original Jewish vision for the world, its moral order of priority and values.

But one cannot reach that conclusion by comparing the social situation of the diaspora community in Europe by the social developments in Europe. Mainly because the social position was entirely different, all kings wanted Jewish advisors, but the communities were held on a lower social level than the rest, and to a much greater extent the story of Shabtai Zvi which had an immediate reaction stiffening especially the core of the diaspora in Europe, making them overly suspicious of anything remotely sounding new or a change, both within and outside.

In that context, and we are talking about a relatively short period of time, some 200-250 years ago, was Shpinoza, the Enlightenment, Emancipation, Liberty and what is wrongly associated with being a byproduct - Zionism. But if examined closer, one sees that these movements all somehow held the stories of Israel as an ideal, or actual Israel's re-constitution as a naturally integral goal.

There's a reason why the US, the poster child of the Enlightenment, chose the story of Moses liberating his nation, and the 'new Jerusalem' as archetypal to their foundation.

About 'new Jerusalem'. I have a somewhat strange question. Do you consider Israel to be the only 'proper' place for the Jews to live? Israel is virtually a tiny state with scarce natural resources and arable land. If the population of it will be growing then this place will become extremely 'dense'.

Is there some other place to become the 'new Jerusalem' (or more properly the 'other Jerusalem') if this is going to happen? I don't mean just Jewish diaspora in other countries. But some place to which they bring their culture and the way of living as a statewide feature.

Yes, to inherit the land, work and govern are Torah commandments.
Our sages say, that when a Jew walks 4 steps in Israel he/she fulfills the entire Torah.

Today there're 7 million Jews living in Israel. The land can easily support double that, the entire population of Jews in the world is less. With population comes not only increase in resource use, but also economy. The capacity was there when Israel relied mainly on agriculture, and it is certainly there in the modern 'innovation nation'. The land is unbelievably wide when her children are many, and unbelievably scarce and poor when they're away.

The entire male population used to pack the Temple Mount, till some were just stuck in between without touching floor, and then prostrate all together with distance between each other. How? No one knows how, but no one worried about that.

What is Jerusalem? The place from where the world was created and flooded, where Adam gave the first offering, where Abraham Avinu A"H bound Yitzhak A"H, where G-d chose to make a place of His presence in the world. That kinda isn't our choice for the location.

I think history has shown that lesson well, numerous times and especially recently. Some who were drawn by the Emancipation and a dream of equality through assimilation in Germany, tried to declare literally just what You've proposed. Which would be a healthy philosophical question for all nations, if they can build their own Jerusalem in their countries, but for Jews it's kinda like inviting problem, don't You think?

 

[rylah]

They are not the same people who left though and that shouldn’t be a negative but a positive and, imo, in the case of Israel, a strength because they brought a number of western ideals into their nation. So their new nation is a combination of their Jewishness and the cultures they brought back with them.

This paragraph skirts (or reeks of) some very unpleasant ideas.

It is a (far too common) sense of "Western" superiority. It suggests that "western ideals" (without defining what is meant by that term other than that they are vaguely European) are of a higher quality than non-western ideals. It suggests that these high quality ideals are not to be found in non-western cultures and that they not only originate in western cultures, but are exclusive to them. It suggests that "strength" comes from taking on or adopting a colonizing or diaspora culture.

Can we decolonize this, please?

The Jewish people who were forced into a cultural and physical Diaspora ARE the SAME people who existed pre-Diaspora. The lived cultural experiences of the Diaspora Jewish people were colored by their pre-existing Jewish world view. Any new ideas were processed through that Jewish world view. That world view and the cultural expressions of that world view have survived through generations. Have their been changes and shifts? Sure. But those changes were not a replacement (ugh). We didn't take out the red block and insert a blue block. The different ideas (ideals) went into and through and around and were filtered by the Jewish world view. You can't put things in water and have them not be wet.

The Jewish people (or any colonized people) are not carrier pigeons of "western ideals" which are meant to be dispersed back into the places of origin for indigenous peoples. That is the worst type of colonizing: the colonizing of "superior" ideas.

The Jewish people are not strengthened by their experiences of invasion, colonization, conquest, exile, diaspora, pogroms, discrimination, genocide. Don't romantacize it. It is loss upon loss upon loss. And a potentiality which is entirely unknown.

The Greek used to view wisdom as an exclusively Greek virtue, and any expression of wisdom in other nations as an expression of Greek wisdom.

When the original Septuagint translation was written for the library of Alexandria, our sages said darkness covered to the world for 3 days. It turned into a mundane Greek book stuffed on the philosophy shelve of some new age store...

 

[Coyote]

Ok, I'll respond below but first I want to make very clear what I'm NOT arguing for:

I am not arguing that Jewish is not a culture.
I am not arguing that Jews are not an indigenous people of Palestine.
I am not arguing that Jews from other parts of the world are somehow less Jewish or not really Jews.

I want to be clear about that up front.

They are not the same people who left though and that shouldn’t be a negative but a positive and, imo, in the case of Israel, a strength because they brought a number of western ideals into their nation. So their new nation is a combination of their Jewishness and the cultures they brought back with them.

This paragraph skirts (or reeks of) some very unpleasant ideas.

It is a (far too common) sense of "Western" superiority. It suggests that "western ideals" (without defining what is meant by that term other than that they are vaguely European) are of a higher quality than non-western ideals. It suggests that these high quality ideals are not to be found in non-western cultures and that they not only originate in western cultures, but are exclusive to them. It suggests that "strength" comes from taking on or adopting a colonizing or diaspora culture.

Can we decolonize this, please?

The Jewish people who were forced into a cultural and physical Diaspora ARE the SAME people who existed pre-Diaspora. The lived cultural experiences of the Diaspora Jewish people were colored by their pre-existing Jewish world view. Any new ideas were processed through that Jewish world view. That world view and the cultural expressions of that world view have survived through generations. Have their been changes and shifts? Sure. But those changes were not a replacement (ugh). We didn't take out the red block and insert a blue block. The different ideas (ideals) went into and through and around and were filtered by the Jewish world view. You can't put things in water and have them not be wet.

The Jewish people (or any colonized people) are not carrier pigeons of "western ideals" which are meant to be dispersed back into the places of origin for indigenous peoples. That is the worst type of colonizing: the colonizing of "superior" ideas.
The Jewish people are not strengthened by their experiences of invasion, colonization, conquest, exile, diaspora, pogroms, discrimination, genocide.
Don't romantacize it. It is loss upon loss upon loss. And a potentiality which is entirely unknown.

First, I reject the argument that this has to do with colonization. I think that term gets stretched into being essentially meaningless.

Rather than suggesting strength comes from "comes from taking on or adopting a colonizing or diaspora culture" I would suggest looking at it in a different way.

Cultures do not exist in a vacuum nor are they static (with maybe a few exceptions such as extremely isolated cultures like in the rainforest). Overtime, cultures take on parts of other cultures gained through trade, migrations, conquests (either of them or they of others).

At what point do you decide it's strength or a weakness and what makes it so?

Your statement: The Jewish people who were forced into a cultural and physical Diaspora ARE the SAME people who existed pre-Diaspora.

I disagree. They are not. Those people belonged to a very ancient culture. The people today, who returned or immigrated back (however you want to term it) are not culturally the same people. They share the same heritage, they share aspects of a common culture, they have a shared history but they are not the same as the the culture that existed 3000 (?) years ago.

In the most simplistic terms, I would point out attitudes towards women. The culture then was certainly NOT enlightened in that regard it was then what is still now, much the norm in the Middle Eastern cultures (not just Islam, but the other faiths in the region other than Israel).

So where did those ideas come from? My argument is, in that, it came from Western ideas that separated the idea of rights from religious doctrine...in other words secularism. That's not to say Western culture is "superior" - but, as a woman, I would rather live in that world. And, as a corollary - religious societies/cultures trying to rationalize a non-traditional view towards women, look at their scripture and find the parts that allow for that - but they are viewing it through a modern lens and a western idea of rights that did not previously exist in those societies. It's there, in scripture (along with other stuff that completely contradicts) - but you need a different lens to see it. My argument is that lens comes from western thought.



Your statement: The Jewish people are not strengthened by their experiences of invasion, colonization, conquest, exile, diaspora, pogroms, discrimination, genocide.

How do you know they are not? It is not romanticizing it to take note of facts. Adversity can often lead to strengths. Adversity can help maintain cultural cohesion for example where they might otherwise simply melt into the dominant culture. A people forbidden from owning land (farming) having to turn towards other things to make a living. Adversity that might also have helped to create a very rich literary and educationally oriented culture. That's not romanticizing - that's recognizing what adversity has done to shape a culture.

I would argue that as a result, Jewish culture today is very different and that should not be seen as a detriment, a slur or a negative.

When I look at Israel - I see a nation formed by immigrants from almost every part of the world returning to the land of their ancestors. I see two strengths at play. One, a common shared culture and heritage of being Jewish. Two, the separate cultures they bring with them from the countries they immigrate from.

With a common shared culture, they also shared a common dream - to create a new nation, for a people to never again be at the mercy of others, to return to the land of their ancestors, to create a Jewish nation. Is that not correct?

But, from what I've read - I also know that there was a lot of contention, a lot of agreements and opposing factions as to exactly what form this nation would take. What won out, initially, was something of a secular democracy that was culturally Jewish. Is that correct? To me that seems to say that there are multiple cultural identities at play - brought in by the many different people who came there, and that included very western ideas of separation of religion and governance. There is the uniting theme - we are Jewish. Jewish culture. But with it - the Jewish Plus of every country they came from. And isn't just that they brought that country with them but the unique Jewishness of that country. Does that make sense or is it offensive?