I hate the indigenous/colonial arguments. They are stupid. How far back do you want to go? Should every person on the planet be resettled? It’s a non argument for me. How do we know that Indians were native to their specific locations? There have always been wars. Population shifts. The “I was here first” argument that first graders use when getting on line for the water fountain does not translate to geopolitics.
I agree that it is not the 'be all/end all' of the narrative. Furthermore, it is very difficult to ascribe 'indigeneity' to centuries of Jewish lineage (inc. inarguable conversions or assimilations into Judaism) outside of the original borders - or - more to the point - that it provides 'rights of return' in a secular or profane sense (religious arguments are of course a different matter). However, it DOES counter the narrative that Jews have no connection to - or are somehow alien to - the physical land or region in that same profane sense and that their dispersal was forced. Continuity of settlement and presence is an important arrow in the quiver. BTW we do know that 'Indians' - specifically non-nomadic First Nations - go back multiple thousands of years in terms of established settlement in their regions (California, Pacific North West) and their various overarching and specific cultures are traceable and documented. Furthermore, Native American culture allows for 'adoption' into the culture or acceptance of 'mixed' ethnicity / race - and ascribes (territorial) rights to such adoptees - which generally is respected and sometimes even embedded in secular laws (as they are in Canada)
How do we know that Indians from one side of America, call them East Coast Indians didn’t at some point conquer other tribes on the west coast? Or the other way around? I do agree with R’Slifkin that it’s a good way to refute those who use that as an argument. And showing that we Jews have a connection, deeply to the land is important. But the “I was here first” imho is different than showing roots, connection and love for the land over time.
Good points but what do you think about the merit that it was Jews who actually developed the land, turning it from nothing to a place people actually want to live in?
This is not a rationale for establishing a claim to ownership. Furthermore, it is part of a narrative that is not entirely true. Jewish settlement eventually overcame agricultural obstacles - but the local population had successfully harvested olives, oranges etc. etc. for generations.
No Muslims moved 'en masse' to Israel but I assume you mean Mandatory Palestine. No conspiracy at all - the Mandatory regime (which was in Palestine for over 30 years!), as well as the expanding Jewish sector created increased labour opportunities (agri, construction, general labour, public service etc.) that attracted internal and external Arab economic migrants. In this period, the Arab sector also expanded economically obviously. I'm not sure it can be seen entirely in binary terms - think for example of Arab labour servicing the significant British interests. The wider economic uplift was not solely driven by the Jewish economy - there were also wider global / regional economic shifts.
Exactly my point. In that case, whoever created these opportunities should have some privileges here. Additionally, being the British heavily limited Jewish migration, it is likely that otherwise Jews would have been an overwhelming majority by 47, especially after the Shoah.
This is very unlikely / speculative - many Jews did not want to go to Palestine. At the end of the day it is the British that facilitated the growth. I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I do not believe it confers rights of statehood.
The Arabs ethnically cleanse Jews from their mist. The Arabs COLONISED the Jewish homeland. The Arabs were offered their own state of Palestine on ancestral Jewish property but refused it and launched a war to drive Jews into sea. Good thing the Arabs lost that war. The Jews have no problem with Arabs or other peoples living in Israel, so the Jews are not ethnically cleansing anybody.
People who proudly take the Torah seriously, and believe that the State of Israel is the start of the Geulah, should not be afraid of public opinion.
Eretz Yisroel is ours because Hashem promised it to us. He commanded us to conquer it, and destroy idol worship in its borders. We must expel strangers or force them to live under our rules. If a strange country declares war and attacks us, we must fight back mercilessly. The Geneva Convention is not our issue, only the Torah is. We offer them to be our slaves, or we kill them and take their children as slaves. No 'protecting civilians' nonsense.
When we are not convinced that our Torah is right, when we are unsure of our way, when we seek to be at the table with other countries and cultures, we end up confused. On the one hand, we wish to live as Jews, on the other, we are shackled by strange value systems. That is when people twist themselves into pretzels to justify the unjustifiable. They end up losing both Torah and public opinion.
Those of us who never accepted the doctrine of ראשית צמיחת גאולתינו will look at things differently, attributing no more religious significance to the State of Israel than to the Kingdom of Poland, will look at things rationally and calmly, limiting everything to the possible. But that means that Israeli soldiers are the same as American soldiers, and deserve no more recognition. That you will also not accept.
I agree that Slifkin's idea here is not the Torah perspective, which he probably doesn't believe anyways. But our nation has a long history of trying to justify things in the Torah from a secular perspective as well, to sell it to the goyim. That's where all the "rational" arguments come in (although the one here is not particularly rational, I'm not sure what it is, but it sounds nice). In other words, hasbarah.
Israeli soldiers are not the same as American soldiers, they are our brothers! Even the secular ones are mostly tinokos shenishbu.
Uh, killing or slaves is only by ז' עממין, the rest are ger toshav, which according to many Rishonim, Muslims fulfill. (That obviously would mean they don't want to kill us, which will narrow things down.)
The merit of using the secular argument is because the Arabs don't either believe what they are saying, but Jews holding a land where Muslims live and the Muslims are not ruling is a violation of the Koran. The western arguments they use are just for world opinion for those too dumb to realize it, and this post is simply a secular response.
Ger Toshav doesn't mean that they happen to keep Mitzvos bnei Noach.
משה רבינו לא הנחיל התורה והמצוות אלא לישראל, שנאמר "מורשה קהילת יעקב" (דברים ל"ג:ד'), ולכל הרוצה להתגייר משאר האומות, שנאמר "ככם כגר" (במדבר ט"ו:ט"ו). אבל מי שלא רצה, אין כופין אותו לקבל תורה ומצוות:
וכן ציוה משה רבינו מפי הגבורה לכוף את כל באי העולם לקבל כל מצוות שנצטווה נח, וכל מי שלא קיבל, ייהרג. והמקבל אותן הוא הנקרא גר תושב בכל מקום, וצריך לקבל עליו בפני שלשה חברים
Moses only gave the Torah and mitzvot as an inheritance to Israel, as Deuteronomy 33:4 states: 'The Torah... is the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob,' and to all those who desire to convert from among the other nations, as Numbers 15:15 states 'the convert shall be the same as you.' However, someone who does not desire to accept Torah and mitzvot, should not be forced to.
By the same regard, Moses was commanded by the Almighty to compel all the inhabitants of the world to accept the commandments given to Noah's descendants.
If one does not accept these commands, he should be executed. A person who formally accepts these commands is called a resident alien. This applies in any place. This acceptance must be made in the presence of three Torah scholars.
Yea, trust me they'll behave when they have to, but to say "we kill them" like the PLO about us, is not accurate, not smart to write the way you did. And as far as being mekabel all 7 mitzvos and not just happening to keep them, is a מחלוקת ראשונים, most famously argued on by Rashi.
Why would it matter who was there 1,500-3,000 years ago. All sorts of nations were in all sorts of places at the time; are we going to rewind nations’s clock to 1,000 BC or to 600 AD? Or give back America to the Indians, with small sections to Norwegian Viking descendants?
Beside, as I understand, there were long periods of time in the late first millennium and early second millennium when the Jewish population of Israel numbered, surprisingly, in the hundreds, or perhaps a few thousand at most. Should we therefore ignore those centuries only to jump behind them?
The only thing that should matter practically is who is there now, or perhaps during the previous hundred or two hundred years, going back several generations. Otherwise the world will be forever engaged in confusing indigenous debates regarding each nation’s history and peoples with essentially no end or resolution.
Mimah nafshach. If you go by who lives in Israel now, Jews live in Israel now. If you go by who is indigenous, Jews are indigenous. Either way Israel as a Jewish state is justified.
Rabbi I find this argument disingenuous. You are playing word games. The fact that Jewish people had sovereignty here over 1000 years ago does not give their descendants a right to expel the erstwhile population and confine them to bantustans. In fact apartheid is too kind to describe what they are doing.
are you really going to come on to a jewish blog and think we're going to buy your propaganda? you're just hoping we respond to this comment, eh?
not saying everything israel does is perfect, perhaps far from it, but dude, you guys started up so many times and lost. israel won. deal with it. move on. stop trying to play victim. real policy changes can be made once you show you aren't trying to murder all of us in cold jewish blood.
There is no difference. And it is worse. The Arabs were killing Jews and driving the Jews out of all the Arab countries. Nobody was screaming genocide and ethnic cleansing back then. Nobody is screaming right of return or compensation for the Assets stolen by the Arabs from the Jews. There is a double standard.
Oh I know that good and well, but these Muslims think they can get away with that trope, and after asking this to a few pro-PA people, no one even attempted to answer.
If they hadn't been constantly committing acts of terrorism (i.e., murder) over the past 75 years, there would be no need to "confine them to bantustans". Israeli Arabs are doing just fine, much better as a matter of fact, than most Arabs in Arab countries.
By the way, how are the Jews doing in those Arab countries? Oh, that's right, there aren't any, because the Arab countries already expelled 700,000 them.
Before 1948 relatively few Zionists were talking about 'expulsion' - but a 2-state solution with general contiguity. Those Zionist factions that did espouse mass transfer were largely suppressed by the normative Zionist regime. Of course there are exceptions to this: For every Hebron 9n 1929, there was a Lydda in 1948 - but let's be honest - even the centres of Jewish indigenous population (for example of Hebron in 1929, Tiberias 1938) were subject to brutal and murderous terror - reminiscent of the recent massacres.
Not a smart response if you know anything about Islam, even though I agree with you. They believe we don't deserve anything anymore now that we deny the validity of their prophet. Shulman gave a good response though.
Many Palestinian Arabs are living peacefully within Israel proper. A very large percentage of healthcare providers in Israel are Arabs. There have been Arab judges on the Supreme Court. There are mixed cities, such as Lod, where Jews and Arabs live together. I don't quite understand how it's possible to claim that Israel is "apartheid".
Arabs engaged in pogroms against legally residing Jews in Israel, so of course their would be attempts to drive out Arabs. Almost all the Arabs left on their own volition to allow the combined Arab armies to destroy Israel. (BTW Israel has a fairly high percent of Arabs who decided not to leave Israel in the 1940's and they still reside there), The Arabs lost a few wars with Israel and are sore losers. The Arabs had a chance at their own State multiple times since the 1940's and maybe even earlier. They refused every time because they want it all. The leading Nations of the world decided to grant statehood to Israel. It is time for the Arabs to accept that fact. Remember that PIgs get slaughtered.
1) Jews in Israel since over 2000 years ago. It is their ancestral homeland as well. 2) The latest sovereign of Israel (and later the major world powers) granted a state to the Jews (Israel) and a state to the Arabs. By that fact alone Jewish State of Israel has the right to exist. Arabs reject an Israeli state and demand all the region, This was not compatible with the wishes of the sovereign of Israel or the major world powers. The Arabs attack Israel and lose, so now they are sore losers. There is a saying - Pigs get slaughtered.
Oh Rabbi! Your problem (which I personally regard as a strength) is that you are a committed rationalist. However, in these matters, much of the world is not. They will never be convinced that Israel is the homeland of the Jews.
It's a good tool to refute claims that Jews never lived here before '48. However, "indigenousness" is more of a political weapon than anything. It's a rather arbitrary concept that depends on where you draw the temporal line. Ultimately, we're all "Indigenous" to Africa. So what?
Our desire to live in Israel can be based on Jewish history, but our "right" to live here is based on the modern nation/state concept that derives from worldwide recognition of each state.
Why would it matter who was there 1,500-3,000 years ago. All sorts of nations were in all sorts of places at the time; are we going to rewind nations’ clock to 1,000 BC or to 600 AD? Or give back America to the Indians, with small sections to Norwegian Viking descendants?
Beside, as I understand, there were long periods of time in the late first millennium and early second millennium when the Jewish population of Israel numbered, surprisingly, in the hundreds, or perhaps a few thousand at most. Should we therefore ignore those centuries only to jump behind them?
The only thing that should matter practically is who is there now, or perhaps during the previous hundred or two hundred years, going back several generations. Otherwise the world will be forever engaged in confusing indigenous debates regarding each nation’s history and peoples with essentially no end or resolution.
You are right, the right to any country today to anyone is what they acquired through power, and in that case, Israel deserves full sovereignty over the West Bank.
1) Jews in Israel since over 2000 years ago. 2) The latest sovereign of Israel (and later the major world powers) granted a state to the Jews (Israel) and a state to the Arabs. By that fact alone Jewish State of Israel has the right to exist. Arabs reject an Israeli state and demand all the region, This was not compatible with the wishes of the sovereign of Israel or the major world powers. The Arabs attack Israel and lose, so now they are sore losers. There is a saying - Pigs get slaughtered.
מלכי צדק מלך שלם was otherwise known as Shem. His offspring are Semites. While he remained in Shalem, AKA Jerusalem, most of the county was taken over. See Rashi above.
Basically Semites can be anyone from Shem, including Hebrews. So nothing stolen there. My point is it's not just the first Rashi .
Thanks Rabbi. I think this is helpful for ignorant narrative driven people. And we have an argument from the Bible. But I don't know that either argument helps with secular non crazy people. It's an awful long time that passed and there were people here when we got here the great majority of whom are no longer here. It does explain why we chose here to form our state. The longer we are here, the more of a fact and the less of an argument we are. I think that our best argument is steel; we are willing to violently defend ourselves as long as it takes till people realize we are a fact of history, that we act.
I'm sorry but I don't really think its relevant who was there first or who lived there thousands of years ago. It is ridiculous IMHO to say that a jew born and raised in manchester has a stronger claim to E"Y/Palestine than an Arab who was born and raised in E"Y/Palestine. Israel is a violent settler colonialist garrison state founded on ethnic cleansing and injustice, which nevertheless has a right to exist just as Australia and the US which have similar backgrounds have a right to exist.
"Israel is a violent settler colonialist garrison state founded on ethnic cleansing and injustice,"
Jews were legally settling in Israel and not ethnically cleansing anybody. But the Arabs were committing pogroms against the Jews. Arabs were welcome stay if they stopped pogroms against Jews, A large percent of Israel are Arabs who love Israel. Why didnt the Jews have the right to come into Israel ? As far as "injustice" the Arabs committed far far more than the Jews ever did to the Arabs.
Here's a good article: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/bellerose-aboriginal-people
I hate the indigenous/colonial arguments. They are stupid. How far back do you want to go? Should every person on the planet be resettled? It’s a non argument for me. How do we know that Indians were native to their specific locations? There have always been wars. Population shifts. The “I was here first” argument that first graders use when getting on line for the water fountain does not translate to geopolitics.
I agree that it is not the 'be all/end all' of the narrative. Furthermore, it is very difficult to ascribe 'indigeneity' to centuries of Jewish lineage (inc. inarguable conversions or assimilations into Judaism) outside of the original borders - or - more to the point - that it provides 'rights of return' in a secular or profane sense (religious arguments are of course a different matter). However, it DOES counter the narrative that Jews have no connection to - or are somehow alien to - the physical land or region in that same profane sense and that their dispersal was forced. Continuity of settlement and presence is an important arrow in the quiver. BTW we do know that 'Indians' - specifically non-nomadic First Nations - go back multiple thousands of years in terms of established settlement in their regions (California, Pacific North West) and their various overarching and specific cultures are traceable and documented. Furthermore, Native American culture allows for 'adoption' into the culture or acceptance of 'mixed' ethnicity / race - and ascribes (territorial) rights to such adoptees - which generally is respected and sometimes even embedded in secular laws (as they are in Canada)
How do we know that Indians from one side of America, call them East Coast Indians didn’t at some point conquer other tribes on the west coast? Or the other way around? I do agree with R’Slifkin that it’s a good way to refute those who use that as an argument. And showing that we Jews have a connection, deeply to the land is important. But the “I was here first” imho is different than showing roots, connection and love for the land over time.
Well who are you appealing to?
Good points but what do you think about the merit that it was Jews who actually developed the land, turning it from nothing to a place people actually want to live in?
This is not a rationale for establishing a claim to ownership. Furthermore, it is part of a narrative that is not entirely true. Jewish settlement eventually overcame agricultural obstacles - but the local population had successfully harvested olives, oranges etc. etc. for generations.
Maybe this is a conspiracy, but even Muslims began moving en masse to Israel at the same time. Why else do you think?
No Muslims moved 'en masse' to Israel but I assume you mean Mandatory Palestine. No conspiracy at all - the Mandatory regime (which was in Palestine for over 30 years!), as well as the expanding Jewish sector created increased labour opportunities (agri, construction, general labour, public service etc.) that attracted internal and external Arab economic migrants. In this period, the Arab sector also expanded economically obviously. I'm not sure it can be seen entirely in binary terms - think for example of Arab labour servicing the significant British interests. The wider economic uplift was not solely driven by the Jewish economy - there were also wider global / regional economic shifts.
Exactly my point. In that case, whoever created these opportunities should have some privileges here. Additionally, being the British heavily limited Jewish migration, it is likely that otherwise Jews would have been an overwhelming majority by 47, especially after the Shoah.
This is very unlikely / speculative - many Jews did not want to go to Palestine. At the end of the day it is the British that facilitated the growth. I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I do not believe it confers rights of statehood.
So what is your statute of limitations after which successful ethnic cleansing is to be rewarded to the murderous ethnic cleansers?
The Arabs ethnically cleanse Jews from their mist. The Arabs COLONISED the Jewish homeland. The Arabs were offered their own state of Palestine on ancestral Jewish property but refused it and launched a war to drive Jews into sea. Good thing the Arabs lost that war. The Jews have no problem with Arabs or other peoples living in Israel, so the Jews are not ethnically cleansing anybody.
People who proudly take the Torah seriously, and believe that the State of Israel is the start of the Geulah, should not be afraid of public opinion.
Eretz Yisroel is ours because Hashem promised it to us. He commanded us to conquer it, and destroy idol worship in its borders. We must expel strangers or force them to live under our rules. If a strange country declares war and attacks us, we must fight back mercilessly. The Geneva Convention is not our issue, only the Torah is. We offer them to be our slaves, or we kill them and take their children as slaves. No 'protecting civilians' nonsense.
When we are not convinced that our Torah is right, when we are unsure of our way, when we seek to be at the table with other countries and cultures, we end up confused. On the one hand, we wish to live as Jews, on the other, we are shackled by strange value systems. That is when people twist themselves into pretzels to justify the unjustifiable. They end up losing both Torah and public opinion.
Those of us who never accepted the doctrine of ראשית צמיחת גאולתינו will look at things differently, attributing no more religious significance to the State of Israel than to the Kingdom of Poland, will look at things rationally and calmly, limiting everything to the possible. But that means that Israeli soldiers are the same as American soldiers, and deserve no more recognition. That you will also not accept.
So happy pretzeling.
I agree that Slifkin's idea here is not the Torah perspective, which he probably doesn't believe anyways. But our nation has a long history of trying to justify things in the Torah from a secular perspective as well, to sell it to the goyim. That's where all the "rational" arguments come in (although the one here is not particularly rational, I'm not sure what it is, but it sounds nice). In other words, hasbarah.
Israeli soldiers are not the same as American soldiers, they are our brothers! Even the secular ones are mostly tinokos shenishbu.
Uh, killing or slaves is only by ז' עממין, the rest are ger toshav, which according to many Rishonim, Muslims fulfill. (That obviously would mean they don't want to kill us, which will narrow things down.)
The merit of using the secular argument is because the Arabs don't either believe what they are saying, but Jews holding a land where Muslims live and the Muslims are not ruling is a violation of the Koran. The western arguments they use are just for world opinion for those too dumb to realize it, and this post is simply a secular response.
Ger Toshav doesn't mean that they happen to keep Mitzvos bnei Noach.
משה רבינו לא הנחיל התורה והמצוות אלא לישראל, שנאמר "מורשה קהילת יעקב" (דברים ל"ג:ד'), ולכל הרוצה להתגייר משאר האומות, שנאמר "ככם כגר" (במדבר ט"ו:ט"ו). אבל מי שלא רצה, אין כופין אותו לקבל תורה ומצוות:
וכן ציוה משה רבינו מפי הגבורה לכוף את כל באי העולם לקבל כל מצוות שנצטווה נח, וכל מי שלא קיבל, ייהרג. והמקבל אותן הוא הנקרא גר תושב בכל מקום, וצריך לקבל עליו בפני שלשה חברים
Moses only gave the Torah and mitzvot as an inheritance to Israel, as Deuteronomy 33:4 states: 'The Torah... is the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob,' and to all those who desire to convert from among the other nations, as Numbers 15:15 states 'the convert shall be the same as you.' However, someone who does not desire to accept Torah and mitzvot, should not be forced to.
By the same regard, Moses was commanded by the Almighty to compel all the inhabitants of the world to accept the commandments given to Noah's descendants.
If one does not accept these commands, he should be executed. A person who formally accepts these commands is called a resident alien. This applies in any place. This acceptance must be made in the presence of three Torah scholars.
(Rambam with translation from alhatorah.org)
Rambam's opinion that bnai noach must be formally accept by a Jewish beit din is a daat yachid. Other opinions allow for informal acceptance.
Yea, trust me they'll behave when they have to, but to say "we kill them" like the PLO about us, is not accurate, not smart to write the way you did. And as far as being mekabel all 7 mitzvos and not just happening to keep them, is a מחלוקת ראשונים, most famously argued on by Rashi.
Why would it matter who was there 1,500-3,000 years ago. All sorts of nations were in all sorts of places at the time; are we going to rewind nations’s clock to 1,000 BC or to 600 AD? Or give back America to the Indians, with small sections to Norwegian Viking descendants?
Beside, as I understand, there were long periods of time in the late first millennium and early second millennium when the Jewish population of Israel numbered, surprisingly, in the hundreds, or perhaps a few thousand at most. Should we therefore ignore those centuries only to jump behind them?
The only thing that should matter practically is who is there now, or perhaps during the previous hundred or two hundred years, going back several generations. Otherwise the world will be forever engaged in confusing indigenous debates regarding each nation’s history and peoples with essentially no end or resolution.
Mimah nafshach. If you go by who lives in Israel now, Jews live in Israel now. If you go by who is indigenous, Jews are indigenous. Either way Israel as a Jewish state is justified.
Rabbi I find this argument disingenuous. You are playing word games. The fact that Jewish people had sovereignty here over 1000 years ago does not give their descendants a right to expel the erstwhile population and confine them to bantustans. In fact apartheid is too kind to describe what they are doing.
are you really going to come on to a jewish blog and think we're going to buy your propaganda? you're just hoping we respond to this comment, eh?
not saying everything israel does is perfect, perhaps far from it, but dude, you guys started up so many times and lost. israel won. deal with it. move on. stop trying to play victim. real policy changes can be made once you show you aren't trying to murder all of us in cold jewish blood.
tho i do kinda agree with you that slifkin's argument is insular and only works for us, not anyone outside
Can you please explain the difference between apartheid and Sharia law with Dhimmi status for non Muslims?
There is no difference. And it is worse. The Arabs were killing Jews and driving the Jews out of all the Arab countries. Nobody was screaming genocide and ethnic cleansing back then. Nobody is screaming right of return or compensation for the Assets stolen by the Arabs from the Jews. There is a double standard.
Oh I know that good and well, but these Muslims think they can get away with that trope, and after asking this to a few pro-PA people, no one even attempted to answer.
Indeed. I miss you, Goat. Hell's not the same without you.
Get back to bed guys
Boo! You promised us we could stay up later for Hannukah. No school tomorrow!
You are not bright.
Me too.
حسنًا، لم أعتقد أنه من الذكاء أن تتحدث إلى مسلم بهذه الطريقة في هذا الوقت، لكن يجب أن أعترف أنك أصبحت مضحكًا!
uncalled for
Hatchoo!
هنا منديل
شكرا لك سيدي. وكان هذا لطف منك!
If they hadn't been constantly committing acts of terrorism (i.e., murder) over the past 75 years, there would be no need to "confine them to bantustans". Israeli Arabs are doing just fine, much better as a matter of fact, than most Arabs in Arab countries.
By the way, how are the Jews doing in those Arab countries? Oh, that's right, there aren't any, because the Arab countries already expelled 700,000 them.
on the nose, weaver
What?!
Never heard that expression?
How would you like it if I put 700,000 Jews on YOUR nose??
Before 1948 relatively few Zionists were talking about 'expulsion' - but a 2-state solution with general contiguity. Those Zionist factions that did espouse mass transfer were largely suppressed by the normative Zionist regime. Of course there are exceptions to this: For every Hebron 9n 1929, there was a Lydda in 1948 - but let's be honest - even the centres of Jewish indigenous population (for example of Hebron in 1929, Tiberias 1938) were subject to brutal and murderous terror - reminiscent of the recent massacres.
Idiot, the land is ours from God. Don't muslims believe in the Bible?
Not a smart response if you know anything about Islam, even though I agree with you. They believe we don't deserve anything anymore now that we deny the validity of their prophet. Shulman gave a good response though.
Many Palestinian Arabs are living peacefully within Israel proper. A very large percentage of healthcare providers in Israel are Arabs. There have been Arab judges on the Supreme Court. There are mixed cities, such as Lod, where Jews and Arabs live together. I don't quite understand how it's possible to claim that Israel is "apartheid".
Arabs engaged in pogroms against legally residing Jews in Israel, so of course their would be attempts to drive out Arabs. Almost all the Arabs left on their own volition to allow the combined Arab armies to destroy Israel. (BTW Israel has a fairly high percent of Arabs who decided not to leave Israel in the 1940's and they still reside there), The Arabs lost a few wars with Israel and are sore losers. The Arabs had a chance at their own State multiple times since the 1940's and maybe even earlier. They refused every time because they want it all. The leading Nations of the world decided to grant statehood to Israel. It is time for the Arabs to accept that fact. Remember that PIgs get slaughtered.
1) Jews in Israel since over 2000 years ago. It is their ancestral homeland as well. 2) The latest sovereign of Israel (and later the major world powers) granted a state to the Jews (Israel) and a state to the Arabs. By that fact alone Jewish State of Israel has the right to exist. Arabs reject an Israeli state and demand all the region, This was not compatible with the wishes of the sovereign of Israel or the major world powers. The Arabs attack Israel and lose, so now they are sore losers. There is a saying - Pigs get slaughtered.
uncalled for
This comment should be removed.
Oh Rabbi! Your problem (which I personally regard as a strength) is that you are a committed rationalist. However, in these matters, much of the world is not. They will never be convinced that Israel is the homeland of the Jews.
Uh, I hate to agree with the muslim guy here, but what does this have to do with "rationalism"?
"homeland in of the Jews" what does that have to to with "raitionality"??
We belong there!!!
It's a good tool to refute claims that Jews never lived here before '48. However, "indigenousness" is more of a political weapon than anything. It's a rather arbitrary concept that depends on where you draw the temporal line. Ultimately, we're all "Indigenous" to Africa. So what?
Our desire to live in Israel can be based on Jewish history, but our "right" to live here is based on the modern nation/state concept that derives from worldwide recognition of each state.
Agreed that "indigenousness" was essentially created as a political weapon, but since the other side uses it, we should use it too!
I prefer the method of delegitimizing an irrational concept to giving it oxygen. :)
By the Nose of the prophet, I proclaim Palestine for the Arabs. That's it. Hadith. Case closed.
Why would it matter who was there 1,500-3,000 years ago. All sorts of nations were in all sorts of places at the time; are we going to rewind nations’ clock to 1,000 BC or to 600 AD? Or give back America to the Indians, with small sections to Norwegian Viking descendants?
Beside, as I understand, there were long periods of time in the late first millennium and early second millennium when the Jewish population of Israel numbered, surprisingly, in the hundreds, or perhaps a few thousand at most. Should we therefore ignore those centuries only to jump behind them?
The only thing that should matter practically is who is there now, or perhaps during the previous hundred or two hundred years, going back several generations. Otherwise the world will be forever engaged in confusing indigenous debates regarding each nation’s history and peoples with essentially no end or resolution.
You are right, the right to any country today to anyone is what they acquired through power, and in that case, Israel deserves full sovereignty over the West Bank.
1) Jews in Israel since over 2000 years ago. 2) The latest sovereign of Israel (and later the major world powers) granted a state to the Jews (Israel) and a state to the Arabs. By that fact alone Jewish State of Israel has the right to exist. Arabs reject an Israeli state and demand all the region, This was not compatible with the wishes of the sovereign of Israel or the major world powers. The Arabs attack Israel and lose, so now they are sore losers. There is a saying - Pigs get slaughtered.
However the Israelites conquered Canaan from the Canaanites
The only justification for us being here is the first Rashi in Bereshis
The Canaanites conquered it from the Semites. See Rashi in לך לך על הפסוק והכנעני אז בארץ.
But who were the Semites?
מלכי צדק מלך שלם was otherwise known as Shem. His offspring are Semites. While he remained in Shalem, AKA Jerusalem, most of the county was taken over. See Rashi above.
Basically Semites can be anyone from Shem, including Hebrews. So nothing stolen there. My point is it's not just the first Rashi .
How did Rashi know?
Was he there?
I don't know what you mean by that question but he brings a midrash if that helps you, otherwise....
The person who wrote the midrash was there at the time?
Thanks Rabbi. I think this is helpful for ignorant narrative driven people. And we have an argument from the Bible. But I don't know that either argument helps with secular non crazy people. It's an awful long time that passed and there were people here when we got here the great majority of whom are no longer here. It does explain why we chose here to form our state. The longer we are here, the more of a fact and the less of an argument we are. I think that our best argument is steel; we are willing to violently defend ourselves as long as it takes till people realize we are a fact of history, that we act.
i
"This information is crucially important when so many people think of Israel today as nothing more than a European settler colonial project."
Those people will simply respond that Ashkenazi Jews aren't descended from ancient Jews.
I recognize the map and have the book. I'm just concerned about copyright infringement if I make changes and distribute it. I will look into it
Someone already did it
I'm sorry but I don't really think its relevant who was there first or who lived there thousands of years ago. It is ridiculous IMHO to say that a jew born and raised in manchester has a stronger claim to E"Y/Palestine than an Arab who was born and raised in E"Y/Palestine. Israel is a violent settler colonialist garrison state founded on ethnic cleansing and injustice, which nevertheless has a right to exist just as Australia and the US which have similar backgrounds have a right to exist.
"Israel is a violent settler colonialist garrison state founded on ethnic cleansing and injustice,"
Jews were legally settling in Israel and not ethnically cleansing anybody. But the Arabs were committing pogroms against the Jews. Arabs were welcome stay if they stopped pogroms against Jews, A large percent of Israel are Arabs who love Israel. Why didnt the Jews have the right to come into Israel ? As far as "injustice" the Arabs committed far far more than the Jews ever did to the Arabs.