Not the ones out of Europe.
But you seem to fail to grasp the concept that you are supporting here, and, worse, failing to apply it universally. You are, in effect, saying that if an invading and colonizing force successfully expels or displaces part of a people then that part of the people are excluded from rights to return, to self-determine and to be considered part of the same group which avoided expulsion.
And that puts some of your other arguments in serious jeopardy.
European adhereants to Judaism were not expelled. This is a myth. There were Judeans living throughout the Roman Empire, either as individuals or in groups; some of these Judeans may well have practiced Monotheism. if anything Judaism in Judea itself was all but exterminated by the Romans as Josephus mentions most of the Jewish (religious) population of Judea had come to Jerusalem for a festival when the Romans besieged the city. The inhabitants either starved, were slaughtered or sold off as slaves when the city fell. Whatever recovery the Jewish (religious) population might have made was snuffed out after the Bar Kokhba revolt when the Romans went on a systematic campaign of extermination in Judea. Those who survived were non-Jewish Judeans; Judaism only survived as a religious cult because so many Judeans lived outside Judea and obtained converts from North africa and Europe.
I'm not sure what your point is as it relates to the question of indigeneity.
That the Jewish people were largely destroyed in Roman times, rather than expelled or displaced? So that means, what? That
montelatici is wrong that the Palestinians (modern day, common usage) are descendants of the Jewish people, since the Jewish people in Israel/Judea/Samaria/Jerusalem were destroyed? That the only surviving Jewish people are those who are descended from the people living in the Diasopora? Doesn't that support my premise, rather than argue against it?
