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

[Shusha]

Cultures do not exist in a vacuum nor are they static ...

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

Good question. Since you were the one who defined the adoption of "western ideals" as a strength, why don't give this question a shot?

I'd also be curious how you separate "western ideals" and colonization.

 

[Shusha]

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.

Really? So the idea of "rights" arose only with the advent of secularism and Western (read: white European) ideas? I mean, its totally not possible or conceivable that the idea of "rights" was pre-existing in the world's religious faiths, right? Preposterous, right? Barbarians. Primitives. Lacking in any sort of moral compass until the Europeans enlightened them, right?

And that doesn't at all strike you as something intimately tied to the concept of colonization?

...but they are viewing it through a modern lens and a western idea of rights that did not previously exist in those societies. My argument is that lens comes from western thought.

The idea of rights most certainly previously existed in those societies. We didn't need the "westerns" (read: white Europeans) to come along and introduce the idea of rights.

In fact, it might be a fair argument that "western ideas" were the downfall of rights and the evolution of our human understanding of rights, rather than the "enlightenment". How does the colonization of the Americas, as an example, illuminate rights and "western ideals"?

 

[ESay]

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?

That is why I was talking not about living in some place as a 'closed' national and religious minority, but importing with themselves their culture and governance. Not assimilate Jews into some other culture but on the contrary, 'assimilate' this culture into Jewish.

I am not arguing about uniqueness of Jerusalem for the Jews. And not advocating it to be 'carried out' to some other place or be replaced by something.

By new Jerusalem I mean another country (in addition to Israel) being organized as a mainly Jewish state.

 

[ESay]

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?

Mentioning other nations in this context is irrelevant. Especially Maori with Sahara or Hawaiians with Arctic. That is just childish, sorry.

Throughout centuries the Jews lived in Central and Eastern Europe and gave significant input in economical and culture life of these lands.

 

[rylah]

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?

That is why I was talking not about living in some place as a 'closed' national and religious minority, but importing with themselves their culture and governance. Not assimilate Jews into some other culture but on the contrary, 'assimilate' this culture into Jewish.

I am not arguing about uniqueness of Jerusalem for the Jews. And not advocating it to be 'carried out' to some other place or be replaced by something.

By new Jerusalem I mean another country (in addition to Israel) being organized as a mainly Jewish state.

Frankly, not sure I understand.

Let me give personal example - my family on my father's side 22 generations returned from today's Iraq, but in the family tradition it's emphasized that they actually never left because their village was inside the promised border. Some managed to stay in today's Syria, some in Lebanon. Some others in Yemen who were exiled long before us, upon hearing of Shabtay Zvi sold their entire community property, wore Shabbat cloths and prepared to be lifted to Israel...

Let's put aside the 'religion talk' and look from a cultural, even legal perspective - there's no such cultural archetype, or legal mechanism. Jewish law itself is attached to a defined boundary. If nations would want to become subjects of Israeli rule, this can be done in a parliamentary monarchy, but there's a big question whether Jewish law that applies to the land of Israel can be applied there, i.e. if Jews can fulfill basic agricultural commandments and include it into the Sabbatical year and Jubilee, from which essentially stem the whole practical basis of the law, the essence of the Jewish archetypal connection to a specific land and her natural cycles.

There's no cultural archetype or mechanism, to expand cultural boundaries,
beyond land where Torah law doesn't apply fully to Jews.

 

[MartyNYC]

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?

That is why I was talking not about living in some place as a 'closed' national and religious minority, but importing with themselves their culture and governance. Not assimilate Jews into some other culture but on the contrary, 'assimilate' this culture into Jewish.

I am not arguing about uniqueness of Jerusalem for the Jews. And not advocating it to be 'carried out' to some other place or be replaced by something.

By new Jerusalem I mean another country (in addition to Israel) being organized as a mainly Jewish state.

Jerusalem’s legitimate holiness is strictly in Judaism.

 

[Coyote]

Cultures do not exist in a vacuum nor are they static ...

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

Good question. Since you were the one who defined the adoption of "western ideals" as a strength, why don't give this question a shot?

I'd also be curious how you separate "western ideals" and colonization.

I view "western ideals" as those ideas that came out of the enlightenment - specifically in terms of individual rights, liberty, equality, democracy, a justice system where one is tried by a jury of one's peers. Separation of church and government, secular humanism. Political and religious pluralism. That is not to say it is unique to western thought, but as an entire package it is strongly identified with western thought.

I think this describes well:

Western culture is characterized by a host of artistic, philosophic, literary, and legal themes and traditions; the heritage of Celtic, Germanic, Hellenic, Jewish, Slavic, Latin, and other ethnic and linguistic groups, as well as Christianity, which played an important part in the shaping of Western civilization since at least the 4th century.​

​

Also contributing to Western thought, in ancient times and then in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance onwards, a tradition of rationalism in various spheres of life, developed by Hellenistic philosophy, Scholasticism, humanism, the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment.​

​

Values of Western culture have, throughout history, been derived from political thought, widespread employment of rational argument favouring freethought, assimilation of human rights, the need for equality, and democracy.​

How do I separate it from colonization? The two are different but one influenced the other, I won't argue that.

In the Americas, it was Manifest Destiny and yes, it led to a lot of tragedy we are still atoning for.

I do think those values are a strength - but that doesn't mean they are 100% good or have not been used for bad purposes (ie - subjugation of indigenous peoples around the world).

Where I see strengths are:

The idea (not always followed in reality) that everyone in a society is equal in terms of rights. That means religious, political, ideological, ethnic pluralism and gender equality.

Governance by the people through their elected representatives regardless of religion, political affiliation, ideology, ethnic background or gender.

Separation of church from state. I know I have harped on this before in conversations. I have never seen a state who's government and legal system is largely controlled religious doctrine, truly incorporate the values of tolerance, plurality and equality. At best there seems a temporary tolerance, easily upset.

The treatment of women. I'm not sure this came out of "western ideals" exactly but it came out of western countries. The entire women's movement for equality, the right to vote, the right to independently seek employment, to govern came out of Europe/America. I can't find any ancient societies that even come close to that.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Really? So the idea of "rights" arose only with the advent of secularism and Western (read: white European) ideas? I mean, its totally not possible or conceivable that the idea of "rights" was pre-existing in the world's religious faiths, right? Preposterous, right? Barbarians. Primitives. Lacking in any sort of moral compass until the Europeans enlightened them, right?

And that doesn't at all strike you as something intimately tied to the concept of colonization?

No, I would not say ONLY and I would not say they did not exist in religious faiths but they did not exist as a whole.

I think western culture took parts from many other sources and made something unique with it, and it is that which I see as a strength, for example, the idea that people can govern themselves.

I put this in my other response but I'll repeat it here because it shows that "western thought" comes out of many traditions:

I think this describes well:

Western culture is characterized by a host of artistic, philosophic, literary, and legal themes and traditions; the heritage of Celtic, Germanic, Hellenic, Jewish, Slavic, Latin, and other ethnic and linguistic groups, as well as Christianity, which played an important part in the shaping of Western civilization since at least the 4th century.

Also contributing to Western thought, in ancient times and then in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance onwards, a tradition of rationalism in various spheres of life, developed by Hellenistic philosophy, Scholasticism, humanism, the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment.

Values of Western culture have, throughout history, been derived from political thought, widespread employment of rational argument favouring freethought, assimilation of human rights, the need for equality, and democracy.

Your statement: Preposterous, right? Barbarians. Primitives. Lacking in any sort of moral compass until the Europeans enlightened them, right?

No. And you are TOTALLY mischaracterizing my words. I do not view cultures as superior/inferior or moral/immoral or wholly good or wholly bad. Is that how you view western culture? They each have strengths/weaknesses - but, how that is viewed depends on the people within it and no culture can be viewed independent of the environment that created it. My main point, and how it relates to our initial discussion is that cultures don't thrive in a vacuum and the ability of a culture to utilize parts of other cultures - other ways of thinking is, in my opinion, often an advantage. It can be growth.

...but they are viewing it through a modern lens and a western idea of rights that did not previously exist in those societies. My argument is that lens comes from western thought.

The idea of rights most certainly previously existed in those societies. We didn't need the "westerns" (read: white Europeans) to come along and introduce the idea of rights.

Rights existed, but it depends on the society as to who had rights and who did not. You can't lump all non-Western cultures into one heroic monolith. Just like western culture they had their failings, shortcomings, intolerances and cruelties.

In actual practice - where do women's rights lie in these other societies if you strip away ALL western influence? I believe that the movements for equality for women all stem from the west.

In fact, it might be a fair argument that "western ideas" were the downfall of rights and the evolution of our human understanding of rights, rather than the "enlightenment".

How does the colonization of the Americas, as an example, illuminate rights and "western ideals"?

Maybe, but it is also the type of argument that is impossible to solve - it's a game of "what if's". But it is possible to look at some countries, with an ancient long standing cultures that have emerged from colonialism culturally intact or were never subject to colonialism. What comes to mind are China and India.

India, despite being under Britain for a time, maintained it's diverse culture. It's urban areas urban areas are more highly educated, affluent and "westernized". It's rural areas less so and especially for women. Aspects that are identifiably Indian (defined as Hindu majority) and not western, include the role of women, the treatment of widows, the value of girl children, child marriages, and the caste system. These remain despite British colonialism and despite making the caste system illegal.

While British colonialism did a lot of damage, it did add some positives that did not exist before- parliamentary democracy, a civil service, the end of sati.

China, was never colonized, in fact, it was itself a colonizer, and it has a very ancient and continuous culture. Is there evidence there that the idea of individual rights, democratic governance, equality for women developed on its own? Women's rights in China were somewhat enforced through communism.

 

[ESay]

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?

That is why I was talking not about living in some place as a 'closed' national and religious minority, but importing with themselves their culture and governance. Not assimilate Jews into some other culture but on the contrary, 'assimilate' this culture into Jewish.

I am not arguing about uniqueness of Jerusalem for the Jews. And not advocating it to be 'carried out' to some other place or be replaced by something.

By new Jerusalem I mean another country (in addition to Israel) being organized as a mainly Jewish state.

Frankly, not sure I understand.

Let me give personal example - my family on my father's side 22 generations returned from today's Iraq, but in the family tradition it's emphasized that they actually never left because their village was inside the promised border. Some managed to stay in today's Syria, some in Lebanon. Some others in Yemen who were exiled long before us, upon hearing of Shabtay Zvi sold their entire community property, wore Shabbat cloths and prepared to be lifted to Israel...

Let's put aside the 'religion talk' and look from a cultural, even legal perspective - there's no such cultural archetype, or legal mechanism. Jewish law itself is attached to a defined boundary. If nations would want to become subjects of Israeli rule, this can be done in a parliamentary monarchy, but there's a big question whether Jewish law that applies to the land of Israel can be applied there, i.e. if Jews can fulfill basic agricultural commandments and include it into the Sabbatical year and Jubilee, from which essentially stem the whole practical basis of the law, the essence of the Jewish archetypal connection to a specific land and her natural cycles.

There's no cultural archetype or mechanism, to expand cultural boundaries,
beyond land where Torah law doesn't apply fully to Jews.

Well, I can't articulate my idea properly, because I myself have only a vague vision of it. You maybe have a question of how this even came to my mind. I will explain. I live in a country where there are some amount of people who believe in a conspiracy that tells about a desire of the Jews to create in this country a second Israel.

I don't particularly take this into consideration seriously, but once I thought - well, maybe this isn't a bad idea as a whole. We as a nation aren't capable of creating and governing a prosperous state. And inviting 'overseas' rulers who once had connections to this land may help to resolve this. And this rulers shouldn't be enclosed community which live in a parallel reality.

This once happened in the history of our land, btw, and it had very good consequences.

But of course, that is only a pure theory now.

 

[MartyNYC]

Renowned scholar of Middle East history Bernard Lewis has written in his memoir, “Notes On A Century; Reflections Of A Middle East Historian,” the history of “palestine“ as, in essence, having merely been a fictional European term for Jews’ homeland, dating back to the Roman Empire and extending to modern times. Contrary to anti-Israel propaganda, there never has been an actual place “palestine” created by Arabs, “palestinians” (Arabs), Muslims, or any Middle Eastern people...

 

[Penelope]

We know the arabs didn't create the country , the jews lived there by authority of Rome.
Then the Muslims came and then the crusades and then the ottoman empire.

Timeline of the name Palestine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MartyNYC]

We know the arabs didn't create the country , the jews lived there by authority of Rome.
Then the Muslims came and then the crusades and then the ottoman empire.

Timeline of the name Palestine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Romans were military occupiers of Jews’ homeland, which Romans called Judea, signifying land of the Jews. Roman historian Tacitus acknowledged Jews’ ancient homeland Judea with Jerusalem its Capital...

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indigenous to Palestine?
⁜→ MartyNYC,, Hollie, et al,

It is all good background information but hardly addresses the implication being made that the Arab Palestinians have some special and enforceable right to "take" sovereignty over the territory.

Romans were military occupiers of Jews’ homeland, which Romans called Judea, signifying land of the Jews. Roman historian Tacitus acknowledged Jews’ ancient homeland Judea with Jerusalem its Capital...

(COMMENT)

Nothing changes the fact that since the time of the Ottoman Empire, the contemporary Arab Palestinians can hardly identify any territory for which they actually maintained exclusive authority to govern itself. In fact, the Arab Higher Committee rejected the opportunities to establish self-governing institutions.

Like I said, history is all well and good. But it does not answer they basic claims the Arab Palestinians make.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MartyNYC]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indigenous to Palestine?
⁜→ MartyNYC,, Hollie, et al,

It is all good background information but hardly addresses the implication being made that the Arab Palestinians have some special and enforceable right to "take" sovereignty over the territory.

Romans were military occupiers of Jews’ homeland, which Romans called Judea, signifying land of the Jews. Roman historian Tacitus acknowledged Jews’ ancient homeland Judea with Jerusalem its Capital...

(COMMENT)

Nothing changes the fact that since the time of the Ottoman Empire, the contemporary Arab Palestinians can hardly identify any territory for which they actually maintained exclusive authority to govern itself. In fact, the Arab Higher Committee rejected the opportunities to establish self-governing institutions.

Like I said, history is all well and good. But it does not answer they basic claims the Arab Palestinians make.

Most Respectfully,
R

There was no place “palestine” in the Ottoman Empire, nor were there any people “palestinians.” Palestine was Britain’s name for the British Mandate, created after WW1 in the aftermath of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Jews and other inhabitants of the Mandate were called palestinians by the British.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indigenous to Palestine?
⁜→ MartyNYC,, Hollie, et al,

It is all good background information but hardly addresses the implication being made that the Arab Palestinians have some special and enforceable right to "take" sovereignty over the territory.

Romans were military occupiers of Jews’ homeland, which Romans called Judea, signifying land of the Jews. Roman historian Tacitus acknowledged Jews’ ancient homeland Judea with Jerusalem its Capital...

(COMMENT)

Nothing changes the fact that since the time of the Ottoman Empire, the contemporary Arab Palestinians can hardly identify any territory for which they actually maintained exclusive authority to govern itself. In fact, the Arab Higher Committee rejected the opportunities to establish self-governing institutions.

Like I said, history is all well and good. But it does not answer they basic claims the Arab Palestinians make.

Most Respectfully,
R

There was no place “palestine” in the Ottoman Empire, nor were there any people “palestinians.” Palestine was Britain’s name for the British Mandate, created after WW1 in the aftermath of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Jews and other inhabitants of the Mandate were called palestinians by the British.

Of course none of that matters. International borders were defined by post WWI treaties. Those who lived inside those borders belonged there. Those who did not did not.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indigenous to Palestine?
⁜→ MartyNYC, et al,

BLUF: Yes, I agree on your contention about the contemporary usage of the name "Palestine." I have supplied Maps showing the designations of the Ottoman Empire used. I have shown the designation of "Palestine" as the name in the Order in Council. I have even supplied the Memo from the UN Legal Affairs office on the update on the name usage.

For some pro-Arab Palestinians, nothing presented can change their mind.

There was no place “palestine” in the Ottoman Empire, nor were there any people “palestinians.” Palestine was Britain’s name for the British Mandate, created after WW1 in the aftermath of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Jews and other inhabitants of the Mandate were called palestinians by the British.

(COMMENT)

What is important is that there are some people → that append some significance, relative to sovereignty, in the usage of the name. And that is the true flaw.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indigenous to Palestine?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

This is just too screwed-up to straighten-out.

Of course none of that matters. International borders were defined by post WWI treaties. Those who lived inside those borders belonged there. Those who did not did not.

(COMMENT)

This is too twisted to acknowledge.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indigenous to Palestine?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

This is just too screwed-up to straighten-out.

Of course none of that matters. International borders were defined by post WWI treaties. Those who lived inside those borders belonged there. Those who did not did not.

(COMMENT)

This is too twisted to acknowledge.

Most Respectfully,
R

Go ahead and refute those facts.

I'll wait.

 

[Hollie]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indigenous to Palestine?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

This is just too screwed-up to straighten-out.

Of course none of that matters. International borders were defined by post WWI treaties. Those who lived inside those borders belonged there. Those who did not did not.

(COMMENT)

This is too twisted to acknowledge.

Most Respectfully,
R

Go ahead and refute those facts.

I'll wait.

As is the usual case, you're retreating to a version of your silly "the Treaty of Lausanne invented the country of Pal'istan". That never happened.

 

[MartyNYC]

“Palestine” has been a European term, fr

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indigenous to Palestine?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

This is just too screwed-up to straighten-out.

Of course none of that matters. International borders were defined by post WWI treaties. Those who lived inside those borders belonged there. Those who did not did not.

(COMMENT)

This is too twisted to acknowledge.

Most Respectfully,
R

Go ahead and refute those facts.

I'll wait.

As is the usual case, you're retreating to a version of your silly "the Treaty of Lausanne invented the country of Pal'istan". That never happened.

“Palestine” is a European term, from the Roman Latin term imposed on Jews, “palaestina.” When the League of Nations, at the San Remo Conference, issued “mandates” for France and Britain to manage territory captured in WW1 from the Ottoman Empire, France created Syria and Lebanon, and Britain created Iraq and Jordan, and created “Palestine” by segmenting it from Syria, which led to Israeli statehood.