🇳🇱
I am just going to start referring to Palestinians by the more accurate term "natives".
@freemo So like the IDF is a british occupation force then? Of course, it's ALWAYS the british. smh.
Joke aside, though: my history is a little rusty. Is this by any stretch accurate according to the common definition of "native"?
@admitsWrongIfProven The IDF is certainly an occupational force. But they arent aligned to britain, even if britain started it.
@freemo Am honestly more interested in the validity of the native claim.
The slap at britain is just some harmless fun on the side, like handing out opium.
@admitsWrongIfProven I cant imagine anyone would dispute it... I have never heard anyone, even a jew, claim the arabs of the region arent native there.
@freemo Well, there's just so much complex history, and no ocean to stop migrations before the advent of ocean worthy vessels, so i wasn't sure.
With the US/Canada, it's pretty clear that native americans and inuit must have been there a long time and the europeans colonizing it were invaders.
In the middle east it would be possible that entire peoples moved hundreds of kilometers in a relevant timespan. Native? Put there shortly before (british occupation could have done something)? A large part immigrated just before? All possible. My lack of knowledge is thus keeping me from assuming anything there.
@admitsWrongIfProven YEs people migrated like crazy. Thats sorta the problem with jews... they once had the land but have migrated away and intermixed with populations over thousands of years. so the people who carry ont he heritage of the jews arent really a distinct race anymore, not to mention many dont even have lineage back to the region. So while some jews may also have some native heritage they are so far removed over such a long period of time it no longer has any relevance in modern day. Unlike palestinians who have remained in the area consistantly both from anctient times and in modern times.
@freemo Hmm, if you mean "indigenous" by "native", at least the wikipedia definition would have to include jewish people, since before they were pushed out, they were known to live there - and the definition says "earliest known inhabitants". They are known to have lived there.
This makes the whole thing absurd. Indigenous people against indigenous people. Humans really waste their ability to abstract thinking for the most stupid shit.
@admitsWrongIfProven yes, ancesteral jews were indeed native.. modern jews however have been disoplaced for 2000 years and integrated into other cultures.. so while culturally they preserved soem jewish heritage they are not jewish in the same sense anymore. This is clear for anyone who has met a modern jew, very few if any even retain middleeastern characteristics. they are such a small fraction jewish at this point its irrelevant.
> I doubt the relevance of the "small fraction" you mention, as long as they are identified as jewish people, people that wish them harm will not relent on some genetics argument (or similar).
People wanting harm on them doesnt really have any relevance to them steealing someones home and commiting mass genocide. While I understand the need well there are plenty of groups that would love a home thqat doesnt have one all to themselves from pagans on up
> I am assuming we are in agreement that securing human rights for all humans is the most important goal, so i ask: if there are perceived characteristics that make people think other people are of a group, would that not be more relevant than actual match with the group? After all, no attacker will look at this scientifically.
More relevant to what? If they can steal land that has no relationship to them at all (since we established they are a different ethnic group)? No of course not. Them being abused as a group has relevance for us to want to protect them from that harm.
So why dont you give them part of germany, after all germany was the source of most of the harm they expiernced this century, sounds like if you think they deserve land of their own you should be giving them German land to protect them no? That way you arent using Nazi tactics on one group (palestinians) to benefit another, contradicting your purpose int he process.
> Other aspect would be: if "indigenous" status goes away after being expelled from a region, would we not enable attackers? Keep them away long enough, they loose their rights?
Indigienous status doesnt go away when you are expelled from a region. It goes away when you are no longer those people. A jew by religion only, with little or no jewish lineage is a religious jew. That would be like me calling myself african because somewhere 2000 years ago in my family tree there was a african ancestor once.
@freemo
I did not condone what you are talking about - please try to re-focus: i set out to define "indigenous" and expand on context of long expulsion from indigenous lands.
I did not say or mean to condone any violence outside of a very strict definition of self defense and defense of others.
The topic of where should be a land to keep anyone safe is a hard question in general, much more so in this topic - i did not adress it since i do not have a good solution. It is also not my place to suggest one.
You hint at the topic of agression by the state, or better put gouvernment of israel. That is a problem, i have no clear data on what exactly is happening - but whatever happens outside of strictly self defense is bad. It irks me that some people seem to say it does not matter and want to write a blank check. To a nation with nuclear weapons. smh.
So yeah, emotional topic due to much violence that has happened. I assure you, what you read from my toot was not what i meant.
@freemo As a german i can tell you that this "integration" you speak of is not a process that has led to a safe life as part of the local populations.
I doubt the relevance of the "small fraction" you mention, as long as they are identified as jewish people, people that wish them harm will not relent on some genetics argument (or similar).
I am assuming we are in agreement that securing human rights for all humans is the most important goal, so i ask: if there are perceived characteristics that make people think other people are of a group, would that not be more relevant than actual match with the group? After all, no attacker will look at this scientifically.
Nonewithstanding that the "dump them there and then send thoughts and prayers" shit is not working.
Other aspect would be: if "indigenous" status goes away after being expelled from a region, would we not enable attackers? Keep them away long enough, they loose their rights?
That's a really hard question i think, if the line gets pushed too far, just about anyone could claim to belong.