Relatively. At the very least we know that Ashkenazi Jews are more closely related to central and eastern Europeans than they are to the Jews that spoke Aramaic 2000 years ago. Palestinians are unquestionably more tied to the region.
It's not only the Israeli's who want death though, is it? Both have large swathes who want the other dead. How would you ever expect peace to last? Both believe they own the Holy Land. Peace, at this point, is rolling over for Islam and hoping they don't try to take more -- and should history be any proof (Ottomans, Saracens, etc) that isn't going to happen.
Isn't there an argument that the next generation is becoming more conservative? I heard concerns by liberal Americans about that.
Furthermore, not everywhere is SoCal. I know plenty of Americans who troop worship. I also know 3 Israeli's, and two of them are categorically against this war -- but they're torn due to the terrorist attacks.
I'm not sure how well informed you are on these topics but limiting a person and a culture to their DNA alone can be rather problematic and over - simplifying.
For example, would you go and tell a person whose mother was raped by an invading soldier that they are less of a native to their homeland because they have 50% foreign DNA?
Would you tell a Native American person with substantial amounts of white or African DNA that they are not Native American, regardless of how they identify?
I'm not sure how well informed you are on these topics but limiting a person and a culture to their DNA alone can be rather problematic and over - simplifying.
For example, would you go and tell a person whose mother was raped by an invading soldier that they are less of a native to their homeland because they have 50% foreign DNA?
Would you tell a Native American person with substantial amounts of white or African DNA that they are not Native American, regardless of how they identify?
That's his argument though. It's all about racial purity at this point. A person who was raped and had a kid would not have TRUE Indigenous rights. Otherwise the argumentation about Ashkenazi Jews wouldn't have been so prominent.
Blood and soil.
Culture > Blood when it comes to a national identity. This is why people who are anti-immigration are often pro-assimilated immigrants. This is because it's the propagation of a national culture that is more important. Ofc there are genuine racists who believe blood is what is most important...
Indigenous is stupid anyway. If science is accurate, we all come from Africa anyway.
I'm not sure how well informed you are on these topics but limiting a person and a culture to their DNA alone can be rather problematic and over - simplifying.
For example, would you go and tell a person whose mother was raped by an invading soldier that they are less of a native to their homeland because they have 50% foreign DNA?
Would you tell a Native American person with substantial amounts of white or African DNA that they are not Native American, regardless of how they identify?
That's a good question. That is why I brought myself up as an example. I have around 15% of Andean native dna in me. The rest is European and a little bit of middle eastern. Do I have a claim to call myself native American? I also have some Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jewish ancestry, do I have a claim to call myself Jewish?
Peace, at this point, is rolling over for Islam and hoping they don't try to take more -- and should history be any proof (Ottomans, Saracens, etc) that isn't going to happen.
s not only the Israeli's who want death though, is it? Both have large swathes who want the other dead. How would you ever expect peace to last? Both believe they own the Holy Land.
A foreign, neutral party is necessary here. Neither the USA not the EU can fulfill this role at the current stage.
Also this Holy Land bs needs to stop. As long as peace is not restored in the region there is nothing holy about this place, nobody benefits from its supposed holiness. People need to chill and share it or nobody gets it.
That's the argument though. It's all about racial purity at this point. Otherwise the argumentation about Ashkenazi Jews wouldn't have been so prominent.
Isn't the argument that Ashkenazi Jews are seen as European colonists because they have been living in and partially assimilated to European culture in a broader sense? Or did I misunderstand?
That's a good question. That is why I brought myself up as an example. I have around 15% of Andean native dna in me. The rest is European and a little bit of middle eastern. Do I have a claim to call myself native American? I also have some Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jewish ancestry, do I have a claim to call myself Jewish?
Honestly, why does that matter? You were born in America. You're American. What is it with Americans being like: "I'm not American, I'm African/Jewish/Irish/Italian American."
I don’t consider the European Jews who migrated in the 20th century—at the very least who came as a consequence of World War 2 (earlier episodes of Zionism excluded) to have a native to Israel.
It’s like saying my Italian—America mother or Irish—American father are native to their ancestral lands, when their grandparents left them in 1900.
You could make arguments for forced migrations but I have a hard time taking that argument seriously when you have to go centuries upon centuries back to find solid connections to the land (as far back as the 7th century in some cases but more recently 13th century).
Ofc those who are Israeli now are sort of native born. That lands the only home they’ve known. But I don’t think their DNA originally entitled them to the land.
Isn't the argument that Ashkenazi Jews are seen as European colonists because they have been living in and partially assimilated to European culture in a broader sense? Or did I misunderstand?
Ofc those who are Israeli now are sort of native born. That lands the only home they’ve known. But I don’t think their DNA originally entitled them to the land.
I don't believe DNA makes you entitled to land, tbh. It creates a purity spiral. The Israeli's who've lived there their entire lives have as much right to live there.
Honestly, why does that matter? You were born in America. You're American. What is it with Americans being like: "I'm not American, I'm African/Jewish/Irish/Italian American."
That's a good question. That is why I brought myself up as an example. I have around 15% of Andean native dna in me. The rest is European and a little bit of middle eastern. Do I have a claim to call myself native American? I also have some Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jewish ancestry, do I have a claim to call myself Jewish?
It depends on your cultural ties, family ties, how you identify etc....
I do think those Muricans who walk around suddenly identifying with the 5% minority DNA they just found out about in their DNA test result to be cringe af tho.
It depends on your cultural ties, family ties, how you identify etc....
I do think those Muricans who walk around suddenly identifying with the 5% minority DNA they just found out about in their DNA test result to be cringe af tho.
It depends on your cultural ties, family ties, how you identify etc....
I do think those Muricans who walk around suddenly identifying with the 5% minority DNA they just found out about in their DNA test result to be cringe af tho.
No. Seriously, it's people's obsession with minority identities to attain some sort of socio-political clout. I feel like it's a hyper-focus on individualism. I think it's divisive. People can identify how they want, but I find it inane.
Honestly, why does that matter? You were born in America. You're American. What is it with Americans being like: "I'm not American, I'm African/Jewish/Irish/Italian American."
My bad. Then ultimately, it depends on how you culturally identify at this point. I think first generation immigrants can completely integrate, but it requires synergistic values. I wouldn't look at your blood as proof of your national identity.
The Levant is probably the most disputed piece of land throughout western history. Many groups of people have come and go. Which is why I said earlier you’d go crazy trying to define who’s indigenous to the land.
Even the Palestinian Muslim population had a huge spike in population.
The Levant is probably the most disputed piece of land throughout western history. Many groups of people have come and go. Which is why I said earlier you’d go crazy trying to define who’s indigenous to the land.
Even the Palestinian Muslim population had a huge spike in population.
I think it’s pretty safe to assume the people in Gaza are likely radicalized against Israel. But if they’re mostly children they can be as easily de radicalized.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.