[ost-ing]

> Be aware that Jews are not native to Palestine, except those that had been living there before the state was founded.

Not true, many Semitic Jews who fled from those lands due to persecution went to Europe and North Africa, that includes Ashkenazi and Sephardim Jews.

The difficulty I have with your statement is akin to denying a white, blue eyed aboriginal in Australia their heritage to the land just because one of their ancestors slept with a European colonialist - its fundamentally racist. White skinned blue eyed Australian aboriginals exist.

[prmoustache]

Palestinians are genetically closer to the jews that populated those lands centuries ago. The reality is palestinians ancestors were mostly jews who decided to convert to islam. Denying their rights to continue living there is absurd.

The state of Israel is just another example of euro white colonialism.

[reliabilityguy]

> The state of Israel is just another example of euro white colonialism.

Yes. The white colonialism of jews fleeing pogroms in Russian Empire. lol

Or did you mean the white colonialism of jews cleansed from Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and other middle eastern countries?

[teleforce]

>Palestinians are genetically closer to the jews that populated those lands centuries ago. The reality is palestinians ancestors were mostly jews who decided to convert to islam.

Thank you for pointing this fact, if this is true it makes the Israel govt as self-hating Jews, and is very sad and ironic at the same time. The Israel govt should perform thorough DNA test on the Palestinian people. Potentially many Palestinians can have higher Jews ancestors percentage than the emigrants themselves.

[ost-ing]

Im not saying that any of this excuses the nationalist movement Israel is today, im just stating a fact that semitic descendants in Europe have heritage to those lands. Just because someone appears white and blue-eyed doesn't necessarily negate that.

Judaism is an ethno-religion, so while some people may have no connection to semitic people, others will have a closer connection and its discriminatory to simply say “they are not native” which my original post was critical of.

[prmoustache]

> im just stating a fact that semitic descendants in Europe have heritage to those lands

Heritage that is so remote that it doesn't matter anymore. Most of their ancestors left centuries ago.

It is like me claiming the land of any country between Ethiopia and Botswana, installing a government and colonies, seizing lands and forcing their inhabitants to flee in a small strip of land along a rontier because modern human is claimed to come from this area so I declare it my home.

[ost-ing]

> It is like me claiming the land of any country

Im not talking about claiming land - I’m talking about culture, racial identity and their heritage to lands. You keep bringing this as a talking point, but I already said heritage does not equate to or justify nationalism.

> Heritage that is so remote that it doesn't matter anymore. Most of their ancestors left centuries ago.

It doesn't matter? Obviously it does matter. I wonder if you think the same of African Americans and your willingness to deny them of African heritage.

What about eastern european Jews that actually look semitic, that have middle eastern features? Do you also negate them of heritage, or just white skinned Jews?

Your bias is palpable.

[prmoustache]

> I wonder if you think the same of African Americans and your willingness to deny them of African heritage.

Having heritage is one thing, migrating there as well. But landing somewhere, installing a new flag and government and pushing people out of their land through force is completely out of line.

> What about eastern european Jews that actually look semitic, that have middle eastern features? Do you also negate them of heritage, or just white skinned Jews?

I am not negating heritage, I am negating the appropriation of a land at the expense of others.

[ost-ing]

> But landing somewhere, installing a new flag and government and pushing people out of their land through force is completely out of line.

Nobody is debating that.

Not sure if you can read, so I’ll reiterate - the debate here is the willingness of people to use sweeping and discriminatory terminology to categorise all the different types of Jew's as being “non-native” which is categorically false and frankly offensive.

[7sigma]

Just because they are not native doesn't mean they can't live there, but they shouldn't live while oppressing the native Palestinians and prevent them from returning in order to preserve an ethnic majority.

Jews outside of Palestine are not uniquely descended from Jews that lived there 2000 years ago. Also the idea of Jews as a homogeneous people is a fairly recent phenomenon, people married into Jewish families, converted etc...

Even having mixed parentage can make you an oppressor. During slavery, mixed race people were often used in Brazil to hunt escaped slaves. At the end of the day its not about people's parentage but to what group they get put into and whether they choose to use any privilege they have to fight against oppression.

[ost-ing]

> Just because they are not native doesn't mean they can't live there

I don't make a claim that they should or should not be allowed to live there. My statement isnt about rights to land, oppressing others or national zionism.

My statement is about heritage and what it means to be “native”, obviously what that means for people and genetic links to semitic peoples varies greatly, and as such, you cannot make blanket statements that “jews are not native” just because you disagree with the nationalist movement.

[7sigma]

Which is why i said this: "Be aware that Jews are not native to Palestine, except those that had been living there before the state was founded."