The fact is, that when Jordan controlled Jerusalem they banned Jews from coming into the city and tore up Jewish gravestones and used them to pave military latrines, among other things. Asking an Israeli to give Jerusalem to the Palestinians is simply a non-starter. It won’t happen.
This is factually wrong. The reality is more complex. Judaism is an ethnic identity as well as a religion, and early Zionists tended towards athiestic socialism, not religion. The notion of a “homeland” is not a religious one, but a nationalistic one - it arises from history and not faith.
Israel was not “founded on religious fundamentals” but on ethno-nationalist ones.
The reason why the religious minority exercises disproportionate power over Israeli social laws has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that “… Israel was also founded on religious fundamentals”, but rather because under Israel’s version of democracy, a party voting en block has disproportionate power. In fact, there is considerable conflict between the religious minority and the non-religious majority over this, in particular because the ultra-religious don’t serve in the armed forces.
You are much exaggerating the actual effect and effectiveness of UN efforts. They were mostly of symbolic import only.
Of far greater actual significance was the fact that many soon to be Israelis volunteered to fight on the allied side in WW2, thus gaining valuable battle experience and contacts.
Certainly many individuals helped the nacient Israelis, but the “international community” - mainly represented by the British, who actually controlled the territory under the Mandatory government - did far more to hinder than to help; for example, by blocading immigrants and interning them after the War, by partiality towards the Arabs in general and towards the Jordanians in particular (who were trained and equipped by the British - and led by a British General in the '48 conflict: John Glubb Pasha).
The UN partition plan was certainly welcomed by the Israelis, but it came with no guarantees of international assistance, and was the signal for war with the armies of 5 Arab nations. “International assistance” at the state level for Israel was notably lacking in that conflict.
Not at all. I merely point out that facts on the ground cannot be ignored: Israelis have now been living in Israel for three generations or more. What more is required to be a “native” ?
Calls for genocide are not required.
Moreover, something like half of Israelis are in point of fact “native” to the ME: read up on the Shephardic Jews. Some lived in Israel itself (from time immemorial): more lived in the other nations of the ME - and were expelled.
What would you call these people if not “natives”?
First off, this isn’t along the lines of what (I believe) Alessan was claiming. His claim to Israeli being natives to the land is based on their ancestors getting booted off of it 2000 years ago. Claiming that Israelis are natives based on that is the fiction I was rejecting.
To more broadly address your point, there isn’t any bright line rules to who is considered a native. I’m certain that there are Native Americans (i.e. Indians) that consider themselves native to America and the European descendants to be foreign to the land. Are they right? Well, what can I saw except that as someone who is the 2nd generation born in America I feel pretty native to this country. The trick is to get everyone else to agree to you.
Our forefathers accomplished this by claiming justification for taking the land (We bought it, it was empty, they aren’t Christians etc.), refusing to acknowledge any legitimate claim to the land they took, and essentially wiping out the populations they displaced. The Israeli’s have performed the first two roles admirably, but unfortunately for them the population they displaced still exists and that will be a constant reminder of how Israel was formed.
First, many Jewish Israelis have been in Israel longer than two generations - even the ones of Ashkenazic descent; those started arriving in the early 1900s. What are they, if not “natives”? They don’t even speak the languages of the countries their ancestors came from - Polish or Russian.
Second, many Israeli Jews do in fact have ancestors who lived in the ME since time immemorial - the Shephardic Jews, something like half the population. What are they supposed to be, if not “natives”? Is their claim somehow fictional?
Third, the aboriginal population of Canada at least is very much alive and makes regular land claims. Does that mean I’m not really a Canadian?
I love the fact that you seem to be justifying genocide. It solves plenty of problems, and there’s no downside! (Except for the victims, obviously).
Anyway, you believe wrong - we Israelis are native to the Middle East because most of us were born here. Whether or not other people agree with that is not at all relevant.
I was born here; that makes me a native. Unless, of course, you know some other definition of the word.
68% are native-born (and so “native” by one definition).
However, assuming your definition is “family has always lived in the ME”, you might wish to count the Shephardim/Mizraim - almost exactly half the population of Jews, whose ancestors have essentially always lived in the ME.
How do you reconcile this statement with these ones?
Certainly seems to me like you are trying to use your ancestors to justify your current rights.
I wrote that but there is no way that can possibly construed as justifying genocide. I think it’s pretty clear that I am against colonialism. It should be just as obvious that I am against committing genocide against the native population in order to solidify a colonial claim.
Context. None of those quotes refer to our *right *to Jerusalem; only why we consider it important to us. I posted them in response to posters who claimed that Jerusalem was, to us, just another occupied territory.
Like most Israel threads, this one has evolved far from its OP and has turned into something rather generic.
What do you mean by “certain people”? The immense majority of the world’s population believes that. Why do Americans feel they have a right to prohibit Mexicans from coming into the country? A person’s rights derive from their ancestry in every country in the world, including America and Israel, much more so in Israel. It is wrong but it is a wrong few people have any interest in rectifying.