But the fact that Ashkenazi Jews identified as Jews and not as Europeans doesn’t matter because…?
Yiddish is a hybrid language that’s both Germanic and Semetic, but I see your one drop rule extends beyond literal blood in literal people.
Yes, I mean like the Jewish culture of Ashkenazi Jews which remained both distinct from surrounding Europeans and connected to its indigenous roots in Israel throughout the years in the Diaspora. That’s exactly the culture I mean. The culture whose every holiday focuses on events that happened in the Land of Israel or the seasons and agricultural practices of said land. That culture.
Only in the same sense that Boers originated in Europe. Both groups maintained a very strong connection the the land they came from, remained distinct from the Europeans or Africans who surrounded them, maintained their original religions, and so on. For all of the same reasons that Boers aren’t indigenous to Africa despite having originated there, Ashkenazi Jews, like all Jews, are indigenous to Israel.
Hence, Diaspora. You can’t be in a diaspora while also being in the place you’re indigenous to. The term only makes sense if the place you happen to be living (Europe for Ashkenazi Jews) is not where you are native to.
Arab expansion under the Caliphates is probably more akin to American expansion in the west/Manifest Destiny than it is to the British planting the original Thirteen Colonies. More conquest than colonization, with everything that conquest tends to entail.
Part of me doesn’t want to belabor the genetics discussion but the group we now call arabs is a mix of the arab conquerors and many of the people they conquered. It would be like trying to tease apart if the meztizo are indigenous or foreign conquerors.
Much like Ashkenazi Jews are a mixture of the original refugees and the people they lived amongst, wouldn’t you say?
The point being is that chasing blood quantums to decide who has the right to live in a place is silly and that if Jews are “colonizers” in Israel then so are Arabs, unless we’re using some definition of “colonization” where it’s only colonization when passing-for-white people do it.
Besides the urban warfare itself, a factor that should not be neglected was the early attempt to wipe out Hamas members via airstrikes. The calculation there was an officially authorized 20–500 innocent victims in collateral damage to kill one guy; 20 to take out a Hamas pizza delivery man up to hundreds of civilians for people for whom it was deemed acceptable to destroy an entire city block on the chance they might be somewhere in there at the time. Multiply that by multiple tens of thousands of guys spread out all over the place, and we are talking about indiscriminately blowing up all of Gaza.
Who cares where Ashkenazi Jews and their culture came from? If we stipulate that colonial behaviour is bad, then that is what is bad. I am not following what is supposed to be moving about Ashkenazi Jews vs any of the other, more numerous, groups of Jews, and who claims it is bad or unacceptable if a Jew moves to Israel, anyway?
The guy they were interviewing who gave those figures said that he did not even know how many people actually died in the strikes he organized because they did not [and had no way to, I assume] count [or identify] the bodies. If they blew up a building then that building got blown up, didn’t matter who was in there besides the target.
Well, since roughly around the time the Treaty of Westphalia was signed, it’s been pretty well agreed upon that the ideal basis for statehood is the nation, and that when a nation of people united by culture and heritage have self-determination in the form of a state on the territory that they have historically considered to be their home, that that is a good thing.
It’s been over a century since that “colonial behavior” took place. It’s too late to relitigate it now and the people of Israel are not responsible for the acts of their ancestors any more than modern Americans are responsible for slavery.
Presumably the people who think they’re being clever by telling them to “go back to Poland”.
Am I supposed to know what you’re referencing from this vague description? Who was being interviewed by who and why are we supposed to find him reliable when his testimony is wildly out of line with even the most exaggerated of Hamas Ministry of health claims?
He was interviewed in the NAZA documentary, was a member of military Intelligence if I understood correctly, and spoke under the condition of anonymity. As for his reliability, he was hardly the only person corroborating such figures and procedures.
The correct sense, yes. As that’s where they started as a group.
Boers didn’t originate in Africa. They’re Europeans who travelled. Up until the 20th C, they even still spoke pure Dutch as their prestige language, not Afrikaans. And that’s after assimilating whole groups of other European origins (and some 4% non-European content - they were the descendant of slaveholders after all)
“Arab” is about as meaningful as “Jew” when it comes to discussing origins. If you mean to say “Palestinians”, no, they’re no more colonizers than that fraction of Jews who remained in the region.
Good thing nobody’s actually proposed that.
This only counts if the Palestinians (I assume you’re referring to these with the non-specific “Arabs”) came from somewhere else en masse and pushed out the indigenes using violence, the way European Ashkenazim did.
It’s colonization when the Inca did it, or the Babylonians, or the Ottomans, or the Chinese. Or even the non-European Jews. So you’re clearly just seeing what you want to see.