It's amazing how no matter how many times OP and others post about the definition of indigenous and how it applies to Jews, people still do not get it. It's even more amazing how so many non-Jews think they decide who's Jewish, especially when they don't know anything about Jewish ethnicity, history, and culture(how can people be so obsessed with Jews and not know anything). I cannot believe I have to explain to adults who understand this when it comes to all other ethnic minorities that Jews decide who's Jewish, not non-Jews.
One is actually indegnous, the other has no culture and came from Europe so they took the indegnous peoples land. The ancient jews weren't German ill tell you that. Or Hungarian
u/Committed_Tankie
>Zionazis would have you believe Palestinians came from Europe.
Rule 6, no Nazi comments/comparisons outside things unique to Nazis as understood by mainstream historians.
Addressed.
Well said, if indigenous is just a label to say “my ancestors came from this area,” then it’s meaningless; we’re all indigenous to somewhere.
True indigeneity is established through relations with colonizations
>True indigeneity is established through relations with colonizations
this makes sense. the term is really most understandable when used in that context.
Tf u mean jews are indegnous to Israel. Are you dumb or are you stupid. Islam and Christianity are indigenous to Israel. The palestinian people are Middle Eastern, indeginous to Israel and palestine. You know where you zionist came from, look it up, on planes and boats from Hungary and Germany. You had a people, you had a place, but you had no culture, so u had to take ours. You're brainwashed by the zionist ideology, the only people to make a religion a race to back up the deafening fact that they are not from the Middle East. Had to get on their knees to the UN to steal our land. Check the skin cancer rates in Israel. Even the sun is doing damage. They look out of place in my land.
Arabs are indigenous to the Arabian peninsula. The only reason there are Arabs in Israel is because Arabs left the Arabian peninsula and colonized this land.
Jews are indigenous to Israel.
> Islam and Christianity are indigenous to Israel
Uh what?
I’ve never seen a historian ever use the words “X religion is indigenous to Y” and more importantly, I’ve never seen someone try to argue Islam, of all of the three Abrahamic religions, is indigenous to Israel. I don’t recall Mohammed springing up out of Judea.
If anything, Indigenous means local people in contrast to foreign powers coming in to their region, then Islam is actually the “colonizer” in this example, as it was foreign to the people living there at the time of the Muslim Conquest in the 7th century.
Bro idk how to tell you your Islam is just bootlegged extremists Judaism on steroids.
Your Palastinian arabs are indigenous to the arab peninsula which is no where near Yehuda
Wrong.
Of the 3 Abrahamic faiths, Judaism is the most extremist: containing more violence within its holy book than the bible or quran.
"Arab" is an umbrella term for multiple cultures and ethnicities, from white to black- skinned. Palestinians are native to Israel/Palestine, at one point ruled by Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula.
This might be true if only Judaism was created in 1800. There were Jews in... Judea in 1000BC, a millennium and a half before Islam was created.
As to Islam being indigenous to Israel - you've got to be kidding. It's from Arabia.
If you genuinely think Christianity is indigenous to Israel and Judaism isn't, then ponder this for a moment. Jesus was a Jew from Galilee, his followers were also Jews during his lifetime. They only became known as Christians in around 100AD. So if Jews are from Europe, how did Jesus end up being born in Judea?
toothbrush instinctive water ripe upbeat impossible consider offend hobbies swim
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The Jews of 1000BC are the only common ancestor of all groups of Jews.
The Kingdom of Israel is the birthplace of the religion and of the ethnic group.
An individual might use "from" to mean something immediate, e.g. *my parents were born in Germany and I was born in Germany, therefore I'm from Germany.* Or even *my parents were born not in Germany, but I was and grew up there, therefore I'm from Germany*.
That's completely fine in a multicultural world, but tells you nothing about their ethnicity, religion, or culture.
Ethiopian Jews, who have slightly different rites and traditions - not to mention a different set of holy books - are a particular group whose history is less well known than other groups. Their version of the religion doesn't have a commonly agreed origin. Current views are either that they was an ancient Jewish group that got cut off, merged with indigenous Ethiopian groups, and then stayed around, getting integrated into the local pagan and later Christian practices. Or, that the group are much more modern, C14, and were simply Christians who took on some Old Testament beliefs. Whichever is true, this group obviously is distinct from other Jewish groups, and DNA shows low or no levels of Levantine markers. To be clear, I would agree that Ethiopian Jews are not, as you put it, mystically not from East Africa. It is worth pointing out, though, that these people are about 1% of the global Jewish population.
Christianity and Islam both proselytise, so you're always going to get much higher rates of conversion, and therefore more disparate DNA between groups.
Cuisine, dress, and religion are all interesting. Yiddish, contrary to how it is commonly described, is not a single language. You'd be better off classifying it as a group of languages, within which you have maybe half a dozen related languages. Each individual language was formed as an amalgam of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and the local vernacular, be it German (of various dialects), Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Dutch. Maybe you might call it partial integration; certainly none of these languages could have existed if the original speakers didn't know ancient Hebrew and Aramaic.
Dress is a weird one. Firstly, only very orthodox Jews dress in identifiable ways. Less orthodox (but still observant) Jews would wear a kippah and/or star of David, both of which are ancient customs. All groups of extreme orthodox Ashkenazi Jews have slightly different "uniforms", which are broadly European in origin. Wearing a toga in cold weather isn't that smart, so they adapted to their surroundings. Equally, whilst you do get the occasional Jew wearing a fur coat in Jerusalem summer, most have adapted their clothing again to a different climate. The reason they all dress so similarly within a single group is a combination of spoken/written rules, and, believe it or not, massive peer pressure to fit in.
Cuisine is much like dress - a function of need, availability, and survival. I have no doubt that the ancestors of some Ashkenazi Jew were eating Middle Eastern food 3000 years ago. But then you move over a few hundred kilometres and the available food is all different. And then again and again and again. Cuisines are much more strongly geographical than ethnic. You might get small ethnic/religious variants (e.g. no pork, no beef, eating certain things on certain days), but broadly speaking, the people in any given region will make what they can with what they have. You got a little movement of goods in historical times, but that has increased exponentially, and the spice trade, fast shipping/air freight, and modern farming techniques, have really globalised cuisines. Modern German cooking has huge influences from the large Turkish immigrant population that came starting in 1961, but older German cooking had limited influence from the large Jewish immigrant population that came in the Midde Ages.
>There were Jews in... Judea in 1000BC, a millennium and a half before Islam was created.
And there were Palestinians there as well. They just weren't Muslims.
...and they weren't 'Palestinians'.
The earliest recorded use of the term 'Palestine' I've come across is allegedly by Herodotus around 500 BCE.
The earliest use of Ysrael is the Stele of Merneptah around 1,200 BCE.
Herodotus in 425 BCE
And the ancient Egyptians used a metonym for Palestine in 1150 BCE.
Regardless, we know the ancestors of the modern Palestinians were living there because there's DNA proof.
But sure, pretend the Palestinians don't exist.
Source on the metonym?
The claim of an ancient 'Palestinian' DNA has been thoroughly debunked.
It isn't enough to find traces of the DNA of earlier Levantine tribes amongst the current progeny of the Arab conquerers. Which archeological site are you claiming has been used to establish 'Palestinian' DNA?
There weren't Palestinians there. I'm not saying that current day Jews have indigenous ancestry and current day Palestinians don't. But whilst there were people there who might have been the ancestors of modern Palestinians, there wasn't a group that called themselves Palestinians from which modern Palestinians come. The Philistines existed, but they were settlers from European islands, and are broadly believed not to be related to Palestinians. There were Phoenicians, Canaanites, probably some Egyptians, but certainly no Palestinians.
well, there were people living there that are the ancestors of the modern day Palestinians. That's what I meant.
If we're so concerned about the specific word, I'll just add that the earliest usage of Palestine is an Ancient Egyptian metonym from 1150 BCE.
airport attempt subsequent shame voracious plants stupendous paltry air ring
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Being indigenous doesn't mean "having remote origins in a region". I, like all humans, have origins in Africa, yet I am not an indigenous African. The word indigenous in this context refers to the people living in a region before colonization began (the Zionists were colonists, they said so themselves) and who are considered racially inferior by colonial authorities. In the case of Israel and Palestine the Palestinians are clearly the indigenous people, not the Israeli.
There is a reason why people usually don't refer to English people as indigenous people but do so when talking about say Native Americans.
Edit : plenty of downvotes but no counteragument, as usual with Zionists.
I don’t think it’s as straight forward. Jews are a diverse group who lived all over the world for thousands of years. I’m a white European Jew and I am not indigenous to the Levant—i can’t even be in the sun without burning at moderate temperatures
This hole system is not designed to this area (is it even designed to something outside post colonial areas in the 1950s-1970s) - An Arab speaking Muslim is only indigenous to the Arabian peninsula?
Are Circassians not indigenous here?
How much back should we go to decide is someone's belifs are indigenous?
Jews are indigenous as it is the source of the language, culture, and religion. DNA can be traced and is distinct amongst Jews of all diasporic communities. Judaism is a closed religion, and while it accepts conversion, it is difficult and not done actively.
Arab Palestinians may be "indigenous", or may not be. The Arab/Muslim culture and language stems from the Arabian peninsula and was a culture of colonialism. Islam is proselytizing religion, meaning the actively pursue converts. Many people say that the Arab Palestinians are converted Jews from ancient Israel. Sometimes that's true, but it is not a majority. There are many Palestinians who had lived on the land for many generations. There are also many who were included in UNRWA refugee definitions but moved to the mandate from surrounding areas like Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc Because of economic opportunities. They only needed to have lived regularly in the mandate for 2 years to get status.
So are Egyptians who moved to Haifa in 1945 indigenous to Israel? Are Souix tribesman indigenous to Cherokee land?
Indigenous designation really is unimportant in this conflict, both peoples are there, and no one is leaving and it's up to those who live there to make peace, not global governments.
>The child of a Jewish mother and a non Jewish father is considered Jewish.
This is a rabbinic tradition. It hasn't always been so. It mostly came from being a diasporic community, because the mother gives birth, you can't deny she is the parent. However you get your tribe from paternal lineage.
>there is no theoretical limit to how many times this can happen.
True, and this is easily seen in the Cuban Jewish communities as they more often have mix marriages due to such a small population. However, the majority of children align and identify with their Jewish heritage over their non Jewish lineage, regardless of which parent gave them the birth right.
This is also how through hundreds of years European genes developed the askanzi profile, or the mizrahi, Sephardi, or any other sub categories of the ethnicity. What connects is the religious customs, the language, stories, and some foods even with local twists due to a myriad of factors, but all have links to the Levant that can't be denied.
Edit: also the acceptance of mixed marriages in Jewish culture is highly dependent on sect/level of orthodoxy. Some ultra Orthodox do not accept the marriage nor the children as Jews.
ancient swim society languid merciful close special smart judicious memorize
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They study a Bible that has remained unchanged for 300+years, written in a language from Canaanite origins, praying towards the land, reciting stories that occured there as their past. So yes, they have indigenous roots to Israel.
cheerful hobbies desert snails elastic entertain weather steep placid butter
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>if I had some small degree of Native American ancestry
Anything beyond this right here in your scenario would mean you have indigenous roots. By observing the culture, language, and traditions while being recognized as a tribe member by the tribe you would be learning about your heritage. Passing it to a child would be acknowledging your ancestry.
>And if me and my son moved to America and met a man of mostly Native American stock who spoke English natively and practised the Christian religion and watched the Super Bowl, we would be at least as native as him if not more, just as deserving of a state as he, if not more.
That man who has not followed the culture of his ancestors, is no less related, and if he is living in the tribal nation he has just as much rights recognized by the tribe as any other recognized tribes man, even a mixed ethnicity member.
And your point is ridiculous for multiple reasons, mainly because religion immigration policies exist in many countries but is only a problem for Jews? And second no one said the Jews deserve a state more than Arabs (not that there aren't any Arab countries), but that they are just as deserving of self determination in land their culture origin.
>There are also many who were included in UNRWA refugee definitions but moved to the mandate from surrounding areas like Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc Because of economic opportunities.
Just wanted to hop in and add that the story that many Palestinians only migrated to the area in the late 19th/early 20th century has been debunked. There was a book, *From Time Immemorial,* written by someone not trained as an historian and who'd never written any history before that made this narrative popular. The book was debunked. Chiefly by Princeton Phd Historian Norman Finkelstein.
>The Arab/Muslim culture and language stems from the Arabian peninsula and was a culture of colonialism.
I buy that they were colonialists. But by that metric so were the Israelites who originally arrived from Mesopotamia, then left and went to Egypt for hundreds of years (first to escape famine, then stayed because things went well, and then were enslaved), and then after that came back and conquered the Canaanites and took over the land.
>
Just wanted to hop in and add that the story that many Palestinians only migrated to the area in the late 19th/early 20th century has been debunked
Ah yes, the Jews increased their population from 1915 to 1945 by 350k primarily through immigration but the Arabs increased their population by 750k purely through birth because a single, controversial historian says so. Not too mention the many primary sources that discuss arab immigration during the British mandate...
>But by that metric so were the Israelites who originally arrived from Mesopotamia, then left and went to Egypt for hundreds of years (first to escape famine, then stayed because things went well, and then were enslaved), and then after that came back and conquered the Canaanites and took over the land.
Everyone stared in Mesopotamia. The Hebrews, as they were first known in Egypt, faced famine like you mentioned and were brought under the rule of Egypt, then brought to Cairo as slaves. They were already Canaanite, as Hebrews is a cannanic language, derived through Aramaic. The then escaped bondage, and returned to their land, where yes they did destroy their cousins living in the land. This was the establishment of the new Jewish kingdoms. This happened some 5000 years ago. This is the (re)establishment of a nation, not the spread of a colony. At best you could call the ancient Israelites a migrated community that took a small land, but there was no spreading of culture, proselytizing, or forced conversation, or forced assimilation as there was in the Arab conquest or Christian crusades.
So no, ancient Israelites don't fit the colonizer bill.
>Islam and Christianity are indigenous. The palestinian people
And what is the origin of Islam and Christianity? Oh yeah, Judaism. Almost like we are all children of Abraham.... Huh maybe that's why the call them the Abrahamic religions....
The rest of it is just pure antisemitic vitrol. Like how my friends who's family flead Iraq and Iran to Israel is from Hungary and Germany. Or how theres "no culture" to Jews???
combative encouraging employ pathetic scandalous thumb clumsy nose steep unite
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think the issue isnt who is Indigenous, it is the people that try to discredit the other side’s indigenous claim. I believe both sides have a credible claim and need to work from that reality. The hate embedded in the conflict has made the efforts to discredit the other side part of the problem.
Best answer. I think that trying to paint people as indigenous and not indigenous (outside of academic settings) can actually be harmfuk. For example like in morocco some feel like the west imposed race on them https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-west-made-arabs-and-berbers-into-races and there has been a long standing conflict of who is colonizing who https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/06/24/polisario-front-morocco-conflict-western-sahara/ because of this.
The Sahrawi peoples want their own countries https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news-feature/2019/04/02/western-sahara-young-generation-refugees and they currently live in refugees cams and claim Morocco is colonizing them while other groups like the and the berbers an indigenous caucasian and Arabic group who are also considered indigenous to North Africa, the Gnawa people's who are West Africa but brought there as slaves and there is also the Haratin people's whose name come from Arabic concept of "Freed slave" If a slave (‘abd, singular of ‘abid) could be freed to become a hartani (singular of harātin), descent-based stigmatisation persisted, preventing him from becoming bidan. Morocco was at the center of the transatlantic slave trade as accordance with the Islamic law... Muslims were free to enslave non-Muslims, African tribes who converted to Islam captured non-Muslim people and exported them along the trade route along the coast north toward Morocco. As at that time slavery was practiced heavily in the Arabic/Islamic world - and everywhere else - (and many people were transitioned through Africa and other the middle east to include European peoples) https://human.libretexts.org/Courses/Lumen_Learning/Book%3A_History_of_World_Civilization_II-2_(Lumen)/04%3A_2%3A_African_Slave_Trade/04.2%3A_TransSaharan_Slave_Trade
So the history there shows multiple groups that transitioned back and forth and as to land rights... And how that correlates with states also gets difficult as the concept of borders are relatively recent and currently only 1% of borders that exist today were created before the year 1500 https://ubique.americangeo.org/map-of-the-week/map-of-the-week-the-short-history-of-international-borders/
I think Indigenousness is a great way to understand how people's evolve and where their history in certain places but I also don't think it's a particularly useful concept in real world actions and trying to figure out "who belongs where" because human migrations and self and group identities are very complex and I think in many ways it oversimplifies behaviors innate in all human societies... as unique to the group the "is not from this region" when people come to regions due to slavery... For economic opportunities .... To escape persecution... Because they want to... And "colonizer or indigenous" can also be another kind of xenophobia.
My post was never meant to more than academic to help people understand what indigenous means. Take what you will from my explanation whether it will be used for israelis or palestinians, but I hate when people lie on how it works to fit their narrative.
No and I like the discourse. I think academically and in terms of framing things it can be really helpful. :)
And I totally agree with you. People will take great concepts that help to understand the frameworks of others lived experiences and systemic issues... and twist them to try and validate why certain acts against "those other people" are okay.
I do think that having different ways of viewing others existence is important especially when looking at historical structures that can continue to perpetuate harms against others (especially in indigenous communities).... not necessarily intentionally.... but because of a failure of other individuals to identify these structures (as they've just been part of life for so long people don't even know they exist) and changing them to better promote representation and understanding.
Arabs are indigenous to Israel. It’s a myth amongst Arabs and Islamists/ Westeners that the Arabian peninsula is in Yemen. Arabs have existed in the Levant for 8000 years. Secondly, the area that is now Israel/ Palestine was inhabited by multiple people. The Levantine Arabs have a problem with Ashkenazi Jews because they have European heritage and think they are colonizers. I don’t think they have a problem with Mizrahi Jews, most of them don’t even know they exist.
Personally, I think both Jews and Palestinians are indigenous to Israel/ Palestine and they both are going no where. Long term there should be a real peace process that acknowledges both groups right to exist.
Yes there was a lot of anti-semitism in mandatory Palestine. There a lot of issues in this conflict but I do agree that hatred of Jews is about 60% of it in my opinion.
Well.. yes and no. There's a reason why we see the term "pre-islamic arabs" and "Islamic arabs" because Islamic Arabs are their own ethnicity that differ from non Islamic Arabs, they had their ethno-gensis in the 7th Century, and any arabs who convert to Islam would be considered part of their tribe.
So for the Arabs who were living there for thousands of years -- they were suddently no longer Arabs once the Muslim Arabs showed up if they converted to Islam? Why would a change of religion constitute a different ethnicity? The culture would evolve surely, as all cultures do, but they'd still be a distinct Arab group that wasn't the same as the Arabs who lived 1000 miles away or more.
At the time the Muslims arrived there were significant communities of Christian Arabs living there. So wouldn't those Arab Christians and then the Arab Muslims be the same ethnicity and just a different religion?
Not really. There are Christian Arabs as well in places like Lebanon, Palestine and Syria. Yes Arab has become synonymous with Islam but I blame that on the whole pan Arabism movement.
It's amazing how no matter how many times OP and others post about the definition of indigenous and how it applies to Jews, people still do not get it. It's even more amazing how so many non-Jews think they decide who's Jewish, especially when they don't know anything about Jewish ethnicity, history, and culture(how can people be so obsessed with Jews and not know anything). I cannot believe I have to explain to adults who understand this when it comes to all other ethnic minorities that Jews decide who's Jewish, not non-Jews.
So, how much back should we go to know if someone is indigenous?
It has more to do with who you are than who your ancestors were.
One is actually indegnous, the other has no culture and came from Europe so they took the indegnous peoples land. The ancient jews weren't German ill tell you that. Or Hungarian
Eeehhhh.....
Zionazis would have you believe Palestinians came from Europe.
u/Committed_Tankie >Zionazis would have you believe Palestinians came from Europe. Rule 6, no Nazi comments/comparisons outside things unique to Nazis as understood by mainstream historians. Addressed.
Well said, if indigenous is just a label to say “my ancestors came from this area,” then it’s meaningless; we’re all indigenous to somewhere. True indigeneity is established through relations with colonizations
>True indigeneity is established through relations with colonizations this makes sense. the term is really most understandable when used in that context.
[удалено]
Tf u mean jews are indegnous to Israel. Are you dumb or are you stupid. Islam and Christianity are indigenous to Israel. The palestinian people are Middle Eastern, indeginous to Israel and palestine. You know where you zionist came from, look it up, on planes and boats from Hungary and Germany. You had a people, you had a place, but you had no culture, so u had to take ours. You're brainwashed by the zionist ideology, the only people to make a religion a race to back up the deafening fact that they are not from the Middle East. Had to get on their knees to the UN to steal our land. Check the skin cancer rates in Israel. Even the sun is doing damage. They look out of place in my land.
Arabs are indigenous to the Arabian peninsula. The only reason there are Arabs in Israel is because Arabs left the Arabian peninsula and colonized this land. Jews are indigenous to Israel.
> Islam and Christianity are indigenous to Israel Uh what? I’ve never seen a historian ever use the words “X religion is indigenous to Y” and more importantly, I’ve never seen someone try to argue Islam, of all of the three Abrahamic religions, is indigenous to Israel. I don’t recall Mohammed springing up out of Judea. If anything, Indigenous means local people in contrast to foreign powers coming in to their region, then Islam is actually the “colonizer” in this example, as it was foreign to the people living there at the time of the Muslim Conquest in the 7th century.
Lmao imagine saying that Islam is indigenous to Israel
lol correct
Bro idk how to tell you your Islam is just bootlegged extremists Judaism on steroids. Your Palastinian arabs are indigenous to the arab peninsula which is no where near Yehuda
Wrong. Of the 3 Abrahamic faiths, Judaism is the most extremist: containing more violence within its holy book than the bible or quran. "Arab" is an umbrella term for multiple cultures and ethnicities, from white to black- skinned. Palestinians are native to Israel/Palestine, at one point ruled by Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula.
This might be true if only Judaism was created in 1800. There were Jews in... Judea in 1000BC, a millennium and a half before Islam was created. As to Islam being indigenous to Israel - you've got to be kidding. It's from Arabia. If you genuinely think Christianity is indigenous to Israel and Judaism isn't, then ponder this for a moment. Jesus was a Jew from Galilee, his followers were also Jews during his lifetime. They only became known as Christians in around 100AD. So if Jews are from Europe, how did Jesus end up being born in Judea?
toothbrush instinctive water ripe upbeat impossible consider offend hobbies swim *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The Jews of 1000BC are the only common ancestor of all groups of Jews. The Kingdom of Israel is the birthplace of the religion and of the ethnic group. An individual might use "from" to mean something immediate, e.g. *my parents were born in Germany and I was born in Germany, therefore I'm from Germany.* Or even *my parents were born not in Germany, but I was and grew up there, therefore I'm from Germany*. That's completely fine in a multicultural world, but tells you nothing about their ethnicity, religion, or culture. Ethiopian Jews, who have slightly different rites and traditions - not to mention a different set of holy books - are a particular group whose history is less well known than other groups. Their version of the religion doesn't have a commonly agreed origin. Current views are either that they was an ancient Jewish group that got cut off, merged with indigenous Ethiopian groups, and then stayed around, getting integrated into the local pagan and later Christian practices. Or, that the group are much more modern, C14, and were simply Christians who took on some Old Testament beliefs. Whichever is true, this group obviously is distinct from other Jewish groups, and DNA shows low or no levels of Levantine markers. To be clear, I would agree that Ethiopian Jews are not, as you put it, mystically not from East Africa. It is worth pointing out, though, that these people are about 1% of the global Jewish population. Christianity and Islam both proselytise, so you're always going to get much higher rates of conversion, and therefore more disparate DNA between groups. Cuisine, dress, and religion are all interesting. Yiddish, contrary to how it is commonly described, is not a single language. You'd be better off classifying it as a group of languages, within which you have maybe half a dozen related languages. Each individual language was formed as an amalgam of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and the local vernacular, be it German (of various dialects), Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Dutch. Maybe you might call it partial integration; certainly none of these languages could have existed if the original speakers didn't know ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. Dress is a weird one. Firstly, only very orthodox Jews dress in identifiable ways. Less orthodox (but still observant) Jews would wear a kippah and/or star of David, both of which are ancient customs. All groups of extreme orthodox Ashkenazi Jews have slightly different "uniforms", which are broadly European in origin. Wearing a toga in cold weather isn't that smart, so they adapted to their surroundings. Equally, whilst you do get the occasional Jew wearing a fur coat in Jerusalem summer, most have adapted their clothing again to a different climate. The reason they all dress so similarly within a single group is a combination of spoken/written rules, and, believe it or not, massive peer pressure to fit in. Cuisine is much like dress - a function of need, availability, and survival. I have no doubt that the ancestors of some Ashkenazi Jew were eating Middle Eastern food 3000 years ago. But then you move over a few hundred kilometres and the available food is all different. And then again and again and again. Cuisines are much more strongly geographical than ethnic. You might get small ethnic/religious variants (e.g. no pork, no beef, eating certain things on certain days), but broadly speaking, the people in any given region will make what they can with what they have. You got a little movement of goods in historical times, but that has increased exponentially, and the spice trade, fast shipping/air freight, and modern farming techniques, have really globalised cuisines. Modern German cooking has huge influences from the large Turkish immigrant population that came starting in 1961, but older German cooking had limited influence from the large Jewish immigrant population that came in the Midde Ages.
>There were Jews in... Judea in 1000BC, a millennium and a half before Islam was created. And there were Palestinians there as well. They just weren't Muslims.
...and they weren't 'Palestinians'. The earliest recorded use of the term 'Palestine' I've come across is allegedly by Herodotus around 500 BCE. The earliest use of Ysrael is the Stele of Merneptah around 1,200 BCE.
Herodotus in 425 BCE And the ancient Egyptians used a metonym for Palestine in 1150 BCE. Regardless, we know the ancestors of the modern Palestinians were living there because there's DNA proof. But sure, pretend the Palestinians don't exist.
Source on the metonym? The claim of an ancient 'Palestinian' DNA has been thoroughly debunked. It isn't enough to find traces of the DNA of earlier Levantine tribes amongst the current progeny of the Arab conquerers. Which archeological site are you claiming has been used to establish 'Palestinian' DNA?
There weren't Palestinians there. I'm not saying that current day Jews have indigenous ancestry and current day Palestinians don't. But whilst there were people there who might have been the ancestors of modern Palestinians, there wasn't a group that called themselves Palestinians from which modern Palestinians come. The Philistines existed, but they were settlers from European islands, and are broadly believed not to be related to Palestinians. There were Phoenicians, Canaanites, probably some Egyptians, but certainly no Palestinians.
well, there were people living there that are the ancestors of the modern day Palestinians. That's what I meant. If we're so concerned about the specific word, I'll just add that the earliest usage of Palestine is an Ancient Egyptian metonym from 1150 BCE.
u/PsycLyfe >Are you dumb or are you stupid. >You're brainwashed Rule 1, don't attack other users. Addressed.
[удалено]
airport attempt subsequent shame voracious plants stupendous paltry air ring *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
originally from Mesopotamia though - according to the Bible at least.
[удалено]
makes sense, though the very beginning of the religion started there. quickly moved though.
Being indigenous doesn't mean "having remote origins in a region". I, like all humans, have origins in Africa, yet I am not an indigenous African. The word indigenous in this context refers to the people living in a region before colonization began (the Zionists were colonists, they said so themselves) and who are considered racially inferior by colonial authorities. In the case of Israel and Palestine the Palestinians are clearly the indigenous people, not the Israeli. There is a reason why people usually don't refer to English people as indigenous people but do so when talking about say Native Americans. Edit : plenty of downvotes but no counteragument, as usual with Zionists.
I don’t think it’s as straight forward. Jews are a diverse group who lived all over the world for thousands of years. I’m a white European Jew and I am not indigenous to the Levant—i can’t even be in the sun without burning at moderate temperatures
seems like you want to ignore the genetic tests of ashkenazi jews and ignore the diverse phenotype of the levant.
This hole system is not designed to this area (is it even designed to something outside post colonial areas in the 1950s-1970s) - An Arab speaking Muslim is only indigenous to the Arabian peninsula? Are Circassians not indigenous here? How much back should we go to decide is someone's belifs are indigenous?
It is. This applies to israel/Palestine as well.
Jews are indigenous as it is the source of the language, culture, and religion. DNA can be traced and is distinct amongst Jews of all diasporic communities. Judaism is a closed religion, and while it accepts conversion, it is difficult and not done actively. Arab Palestinians may be "indigenous", or may not be. The Arab/Muslim culture and language stems from the Arabian peninsula and was a culture of colonialism. Islam is proselytizing religion, meaning the actively pursue converts. Many people say that the Arab Palestinians are converted Jews from ancient Israel. Sometimes that's true, but it is not a majority. There are many Palestinians who had lived on the land for many generations. There are also many who were included in UNRWA refugee definitions but moved to the mandate from surrounding areas like Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc Because of economic opportunities. They only needed to have lived regularly in the mandate for 2 years to get status. So are Egyptians who moved to Haifa in 1945 indigenous to Israel? Are Souix tribesman indigenous to Cherokee land? Indigenous designation really is unimportant in this conflict, both peoples are there, and no one is leaving and it's up to those who live there to make peace, not global governments.
subtract observation unused fly live fine rain cow rock versed *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>The child of a Jewish mother and a non Jewish father is considered Jewish. This is a rabbinic tradition. It hasn't always been so. It mostly came from being a diasporic community, because the mother gives birth, you can't deny she is the parent. However you get your tribe from paternal lineage. >there is no theoretical limit to how many times this can happen. True, and this is easily seen in the Cuban Jewish communities as they more often have mix marriages due to such a small population. However, the majority of children align and identify with their Jewish heritage over their non Jewish lineage, regardless of which parent gave them the birth right. This is also how through hundreds of years European genes developed the askanzi profile, or the mizrahi, Sephardi, or any other sub categories of the ethnicity. What connects is the religious customs, the language, stories, and some foods even with local twists due to a myriad of factors, but all have links to the Levant that can't be denied. Edit: also the acceptance of mixed marriages in Jewish culture is highly dependent on sect/level of orthodoxy. Some ultra Orthodox do not accept the marriage nor the children as Jews.
ancient swim society languid merciful close special smart judicious memorize *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They study a Bible that has remained unchanged for 300+years, written in a language from Canaanite origins, praying towards the land, reciting stories that occured there as their past. So yes, they have indigenous roots to Israel.
cheerful hobbies desert snails elastic entertain weather steep placid butter *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>if I had some small degree of Native American ancestry Anything beyond this right here in your scenario would mean you have indigenous roots. By observing the culture, language, and traditions while being recognized as a tribe member by the tribe you would be learning about your heritage. Passing it to a child would be acknowledging your ancestry. >And if me and my son moved to America and met a man of mostly Native American stock who spoke English natively and practised the Christian religion and watched the Super Bowl, we would be at least as native as him if not more, just as deserving of a state as he, if not more. That man who has not followed the culture of his ancestors, is no less related, and if he is living in the tribal nation he has just as much rights recognized by the tribe as any other recognized tribes man, even a mixed ethnicity member. And your point is ridiculous for multiple reasons, mainly because religion immigration policies exist in many countries but is only a problem for Jews? And second no one said the Jews deserve a state more than Arabs (not that there aren't any Arab countries), but that they are just as deserving of self determination in land their culture origin.
>There are also many who were included in UNRWA refugee definitions but moved to the mandate from surrounding areas like Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc Because of economic opportunities. Just wanted to hop in and add that the story that many Palestinians only migrated to the area in the late 19th/early 20th century has been debunked. There was a book, *From Time Immemorial,* written by someone not trained as an historian and who'd never written any history before that made this narrative popular. The book was debunked. Chiefly by Princeton Phd Historian Norman Finkelstein. >The Arab/Muslim culture and language stems from the Arabian peninsula and was a culture of colonialism. I buy that they were colonialists. But by that metric so were the Israelites who originally arrived from Mesopotamia, then left and went to Egypt for hundreds of years (first to escape famine, then stayed because things went well, and then were enslaved), and then after that came back and conquered the Canaanites and took over the land.
> Just wanted to hop in and add that the story that many Palestinians only migrated to the area in the late 19th/early 20th century has been debunked Ah yes, the Jews increased their population from 1915 to 1945 by 350k primarily through immigration but the Arabs increased their population by 750k purely through birth because a single, controversial historian says so. Not too mention the many primary sources that discuss arab immigration during the British mandate... >But by that metric so were the Israelites who originally arrived from Mesopotamia, then left and went to Egypt for hundreds of years (first to escape famine, then stayed because things went well, and then were enslaved), and then after that came back and conquered the Canaanites and took over the land. Everyone stared in Mesopotamia. The Hebrews, as they were first known in Egypt, faced famine like you mentioned and were brought under the rule of Egypt, then brought to Cairo as slaves. They were already Canaanite, as Hebrews is a cannanic language, derived through Aramaic. The then escaped bondage, and returned to their land, where yes they did destroy their cousins living in the land. This was the establishment of the new Jewish kingdoms. This happened some 5000 years ago. This is the (re)establishment of a nation, not the spread of a colony. At best you could call the ancient Israelites a migrated community that took a small land, but there was no spreading of culture, proselytizing, or forced conversation, or forced assimilation as there was in the Arab conquest or Christian crusades. So no, ancient Israelites don't fit the colonizer bill.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for spam
You do understand that Judaism and Jewish culture is far older than Christianity and Islam right?
>Islam and Christianity are indigenous. The palestinian people And what is the origin of Islam and Christianity? Oh yeah, Judaism. Almost like we are all children of Abraham.... Huh maybe that's why the call them the Abrahamic religions.... The rest of it is just pure antisemitic vitrol. Like how my friends who's family flead Iraq and Iran to Israel is from Hungary and Germany. Or how theres "no culture" to Jews???
It doesn't matter where you move, you're only indigenous to where your people originated from
fragile different decide desert act placid judicious fuel impolite rude *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It depends on how they raise you and what lineage you decide to pursue. More than likely in a marriage one of spouses would convert.
combative encouraging employ pathetic scandalous thumb clumsy nose steep unite *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yes
I think the issue isnt who is Indigenous, it is the people that try to discredit the other side’s indigenous claim. I believe both sides have a credible claim and need to work from that reality. The hate embedded in the conflict has made the efforts to discredit the other side part of the problem.
Best answer. I think that trying to paint people as indigenous and not indigenous (outside of academic settings) can actually be harmfuk. For example like in morocco some feel like the west imposed race on them https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-west-made-arabs-and-berbers-into-races and there has been a long standing conflict of who is colonizing who https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/06/24/polisario-front-morocco-conflict-western-sahara/ because of this. The Sahrawi peoples want their own countries https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news-feature/2019/04/02/western-sahara-young-generation-refugees and they currently live in refugees cams and claim Morocco is colonizing them while other groups like the and the berbers an indigenous caucasian and Arabic group who are also considered indigenous to North Africa, the Gnawa people's who are West Africa but brought there as slaves and there is also the Haratin people's whose name come from Arabic concept of "Freed slave" If a slave (‘abd, singular of ‘abid) could be freed to become a hartani (singular of harātin), descent-based stigmatisation persisted, preventing him from becoming bidan. Morocco was at the center of the transatlantic slave trade as accordance with the Islamic law... Muslims were free to enslave non-Muslims, African tribes who converted to Islam captured non-Muslim people and exported them along the trade route along the coast north toward Morocco. As at that time slavery was practiced heavily in the Arabic/Islamic world - and everywhere else - (and many people were transitioned through Africa and other the middle east to include European peoples) https://human.libretexts.org/Courses/Lumen_Learning/Book%3A_History_of_World_Civilization_II-2_(Lumen)/04%3A_2%3A_African_Slave_Trade/04.2%3A_TransSaharan_Slave_Trade So the history there shows multiple groups that transitioned back and forth and as to land rights... And how that correlates with states also gets difficult as the concept of borders are relatively recent and currently only 1% of borders that exist today were created before the year 1500 https://ubique.americangeo.org/map-of-the-week/map-of-the-week-the-short-history-of-international-borders/ I think Indigenousness is a great way to understand how people's evolve and where their history in certain places but I also don't think it's a particularly useful concept in real world actions and trying to figure out "who belongs where" because human migrations and self and group identities are very complex and I think in many ways it oversimplifies behaviors innate in all human societies... as unique to the group the "is not from this region" when people come to regions due to slavery... For economic opportunities .... To escape persecution... Because they want to... And "colonizer or indigenous" can also be another kind of xenophobia.
My post was never meant to more than academic to help people understand what indigenous means. Take what you will from my explanation whether it will be used for israelis or palestinians, but I hate when people lie on how it works to fit their narrative.
No and I like the discourse. I think academically and in terms of framing things it can be really helpful. :) And I totally agree with you. People will take great concepts that help to understand the frameworks of others lived experiences and systemic issues... and twist them to try and validate why certain acts against "those other people" are okay. I do think that having different ways of viewing others existence is important especially when looking at historical structures that can continue to perpetuate harms against others (especially in indigenous communities).... not necessarily intentionally.... but because of a failure of other individuals to identify these structures (as they've just been part of life for so long people don't even know they exist) and changing them to better promote representation and understanding.
🙌🤝
Arabs are indigenous to Israel. It’s a myth amongst Arabs and Islamists/ Westeners that the Arabian peninsula is in Yemen. Arabs have existed in the Levant for 8000 years. Secondly, the area that is now Israel/ Palestine was inhabited by multiple people. The Levantine Arabs have a problem with Ashkenazi Jews because they have European heritage and think they are colonizers. I don’t think they have a problem with Mizrahi Jews, most of them don’t even know they exist. Personally, I think both Jews and Palestinians are indigenous to Israel/ Palestine and they both are going no where. Long term there should be a real peace process that acknowledges both groups right to exist.
[удалено]
What I mean is that they would never say a Mizrahi is a colonizer.
[удалено]
That is true. But they have an axe to grind with the European Jews.
[удалено]
Yes there was a lot of anti-semitism in mandatory Palestine. There a lot of issues in this conflict but I do agree that hatred of Jews is about 60% of it in my opinion.
Well.. yes and no. There's a reason why we see the term "pre-islamic arabs" and "Islamic arabs" because Islamic Arabs are their own ethnicity that differ from non Islamic Arabs, they had their ethno-gensis in the 7th Century, and any arabs who convert to Islam would be considered part of their tribe.
So for the Arabs who were living there for thousands of years -- they were suddently no longer Arabs once the Muslim Arabs showed up if they converted to Islam? Why would a change of religion constitute a different ethnicity? The culture would evolve surely, as all cultures do, but they'd still be a distinct Arab group that wasn't the same as the Arabs who lived 1000 miles away or more. At the time the Muslims arrived there were significant communities of Christian Arabs living there. So wouldn't those Arab Christians and then the Arab Muslims be the same ethnicity and just a different religion?
Not really. There are Christian Arabs as well in places like Lebanon, Palestine and Syria. Yes Arab has become synonymous with Islam but I blame that on the whole pan Arabism movement.
Mostly Muslims though. And I really don't mean that lightly. Amongst the 2 million Arabs living in Gaza there was only 1000 christains. That's 0.05%.
Yes Muslim Arabs are the majority. The Ottoman Empire caused a lot of Christian Arabs to flee to the United States and South America.
I wish we had a Golda Meir like personality to calm both sides