[gershy]

The british withdrew from the palestinian mandate under economic and insurgent pressure.

The land which is modern day israel/palestine is the only historically jewish land; if not that land there is no other. The connection between jews, and the land which was judea, is very strong - even after thousands of years jews have a powerful cultural desire to to inhabit that native land, to enact nation-building there, and to defend it.

I feel sorry for normans who feel displaced from what is currently french land - it seems they lack either the passion or ability to return, unlike jews vis-a-vis israel (although jews were uniquely catalyzed by the holocaust).

Does that make sense and address what you were saying?

(Netanyahu would genetically test as levantine descent, not ukrainian steppe - ashkenazis have consistently avoided assimilation and the connection to the levant remains; as a person he also culturally resembles an ashkenazi jew, not a ukrainian)

[hardbass]

Why? Why what's special about 2000 years? Why not 100000 years? Why aren't jews protesting to return to the whatever patch of Africa everyone came out of? And why should not other countries that are hosting jews right now deport them saying its the ancestral land of natives not for jews? If we are to accept Israel's framing, then we must accept these too. Britain should kick out normans and danish blood people. American natives should kick out any white persons, etc etc.

Are you sure about netanyahu? How can you say that about a clearly polish looking person without dna test results? What percentage of his dna is Levantine? If it is 10% Levantine and 90% Steppe why is it not laughed out the room if he claims the extreme minority portion of his dna as his primary identity?

[gershy]

Judea is central to jewish ethnogenesis. That's ~3000 years ago, not 100000.

Netanyahu is an ashkenazi jew. We know who his parents, grandparents, etc are - he's also claimed to have taken a genetic test, which registered him as primarily ashkenazi. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

[hardbass]

Why? Why 3000? Smells like a rationalization for a convenient number. There is no natural or scientific reason 3000 is special. That's an arbitrary self defined point they like to use. Yes, he is a second gen Polish immigrant. Its not his generation itself that is criminal by itself (though of course Netanhayhu is plenty criminal) but the original ingrate europeans who launched a series of vile terror attacks against British people to capture land that was never theirs and drive out those already living there and those with legal ownership of the land.

[gershy]

3000 as that is the age of judea, the state central to jewish ethnogenesis.

Netanyahu is an ashkenazi jew. His family traces back to ukraine and lithuania, where it remained jewish; unassimilated. Trace ancestors back further, and you will get to judea. The culture in judea provides a lens which very strongly helps to explain who netanyahu is today. If you trace back earlier than judea to e.g. canaanites, you will lose any useful lens for understanding jews today. This is why judea is not an arbitrary point in the timeline; it is the center of jewish ethnogenesis. Does that make sense?

[hardbass]

Yes and I am saying there is no naturalistic or scientific meaning to 3000. Its a number of selfish convenience. Israelis may try to say it is special, but it has no meaning to others.

[gershy]

The number is completely secondary - the significant thing is the location of the birthplace of the people/nation - that's what tells you who is indigenous to which land.

I assume you concede that there is a perfectly valid reason for jews to be interested in the land that is roughly modern day israel/palestine, i.e. it is the place where jews originated.

[throw386322]

This argument works both ways.

Netanyahu was born in Tel Aviv. You think he is “illegal” in Israel because of his DNA?

[hardbass]

He is a second generation illegal immigrant of course. I am not making any DNA arguments, I don't support ethnostates. That's Israel's argument, and by Israel's argument, I believe it should be completely justified to deport jews from other countries, since purportedly all jews are genetically and culturally Israeli, and its not proper for a person to have dual loyalties in terms of the countries they are loyal to.

[gershy]

"All jews are culturally israeli" is an extremely ignorant statement.

[hardbass]

You were the one repeatedly saying all jews have some sort of magic connection to Israel. If I misread and you meant Israelis have a connection to that land, that still begs the question. Not everyone purportedly "Israeli" made the transition there and the question still remains valid, more concretely to people with dual citizenships.

[gershy]

Israeli culture is roughly jewish + middle-eastern culture. American jews have jewish + american culture. American jews would find they read the exact same prayers as israeli jews, can immediately feel comfortable in synagogue; relate to israeli jews in terms of values and religion and desire for a homeland on the mediterranean coast, but would be shocked by, e.g., the middle-eastern-style haggling in israeli markets, the directness of israelis, etc. The judaism is the overlap, otherwise very different.

[throw386322]

His family migrated legally in 1920.

You are making a straw-man argument about Israel, which is 20% Arab and is not calling for them to be deported. The “dual loyalties” bit is something you got out of your side’s trope archive.

[hardbass]

If his family immigrated in 1920, then its probably fine, they should probably have legal land ownership deeds from the British government.

Why, what is a trope about that? Dual loyalties is a valid question to ask any immigrant or person who declares himself to have his other or real home elsewhere. Which many (not all) jews often do with regard to Israel. Its the same for Chinese, Indians, Nigerians or any other group.

Dual nationals or people who feel loyalty to Israel should of course have the freedom of speech like anyone else to say they feel affinity toward any country. But the test I use to answer this question is, should their country launch a war against Israel, which side will they fight for?

>The “dual loyalties” bit is something you got out of your side’s trope archive.

That's a very pleasant accusation of course. What "side" do you think mine is?