I don't think this is a good comparison as the Soviet Union was a large land mass that extended to different ethnic groups who had established themselves as seperate peoples and cultures. Whereas Isreal is a tiny area in comparison and contains 80% Jews which has a destinct and long culture in the land.
Its like saying there is no destinction within Europe of different cultures in that land area. We can find destinct peoples with long held cultures within the Soviet Union and Europe.
I'm not talking about "land areas", I am talking about nations. Blobs of land don't have membership in the UN, nation-states do.
The Isrealites have maintained their destinct culture in the land despite invading powers. It is wrong to say they were completely removed and stopped practicing their culture in that land even as a minority. The Isrealite culture was also maintained outside of Isreal where many longed to return and still practiced their culture. A culture and nation is not defined by its land. Many returned and today the Jews make up 80% of the people.
*returned* and *80%* are important. Those other 20% are the non-Jews that never left the land now called the State of Israel.
Well thats your belief which is outside the belief of the actual Jews. Its what they think thats important. We don't dispute for example Indigenous peoples stories of spiritual and sacred connections with the land. Its the fact that the people were in the land and they left an imprint and the stories reflect their real life in the land whether fiction of fact.
Sure we do. Have you not studied the history of indigenous peoples?
But the fact is we have evidence for many of the people mentioned by the Jews throughout history. We have archeological evidence of King David and his city in Jerusalem. We have evidence of Jacob, Joseph, Hezekiah and Abraham and other Kings even from the Egyptians.
Other than this Hezekiah of whom I don't know, none of the others are attested in the records of any other cultures.
We even have evidence of the proto Isrealites before their enslavement in Egypt as a strong culture in Canaan and of Joseph entering Egypt as well as the Isrealites re-entering Canaan and establishing their nation. Much of the evidence is found in Isreal, Jerusalem and even within the West Bank. Its real history that should not be dismissed.
There is no documentation of any enslavement or return outside the "historical" sections of the Jewish scripture written centuries after the alleged events.
Once again this is a misrepresentation. Isreal as a name for the people may have ceased for times but the people as a culture, as maintaining that destinct culture throughout time in the land of Isreal is a fact. They just happened to be a dispossessed people within their own land for periods only to restore themselves with the land. They have been dispossessed 17 times but have re-established themselves 18 times.
17 dispossessions? Where'd you get that number?
If there is any people with evidence of being unjustly denied their land and culture its the Jews. If this happened to any other people there would be calls for their rights to be re-stored. This is the basis for Palestinian rights that they have been disopossessed and yet no one recognised this has happened to the Jews over and over again.
What are you talking about? Virtually everyone recognizes that the Jewish people have been treated poorly on multiple occasions in the past. (And you'll never guess who displaced Palestinians from their homes and farms and villages.)
It doesn't matter if they were not alone or the minority. They were still the rightful people of that land which was taken from them. If you want to say that they don't have the right because the land was taken then we should then respect the right that the Isrealis have now taken it back by the same means. The difference of course is that the Isrealis are just taking back what was theirs whereas forigne powers were taking what was not theirs to take.
"My distant ancestors used to live here" is not a valid claim to land. If it was you'd probably need to start packing and I'd go reclaim the Rhineland.
Your missing the point. You were talking about a people being a political entity. As part of Britain being a political enity they were once united under Royalty like the Jews. Though the exact setup is no longer the same there is still such a people, the same people as an enity known as Britain or the United Kingdoms. United under their culture, their belief in God and Rule of law as a democratic and free people. They have common roots.
A nation is not a geographical area but a culture of people.
No a nation is a political entity consisting of a group of people with a specific territory. The UK is a nation, the English are an ethnic group.
The UK as a culture of people has always existed.
The "people" of the UK have *not* always existed. That little island has only been occupied for a few thousand years.
The Ukraine is a destinct culture of people and gained independence in 1991. But they were still a unique culture of people before 1991 and in fact it was their long established unique culture that was the basis for them becoming independent.
Ukrainians are a distinct ethnic group with their own culture that have existed for awhile (not forever though), but Ukraine did not become an independent nation until 1991. (Well, this time. Ukraine was also an independent nation for a few years until the Bolsheviks conquered them.)
The existence of an official recognition of a nation or culture of people is irrelevant as to what makes a nation of people.
Ethnic group, not nation.
You can have a nation of people even without a land or official title. Britain as a culture and people existed pre 1800's. What they were not a people and culture the day before they were officially recognised.
Britain isn't a culture, it is an island.
I think I understand your motivation for dismissing the Hebrews claims to their culture with the land. If the Biblical stories are just made up then the Isrealis and Jews have no evidence of any factual connection with the land.
I don't think you do. We cannot survive as a species if every "nation" (read ethnic group) were to claim territory their ancestors once controlled. Just looking at Europe (and not counting ephemeral empires of short-term conquest like those of Napoleon and Hitler) the English once controlled parts western France and all of Ireland (the latter later assumed by their successor states of Great Britain and UK), the Spanish once controlled Belgium, the Germans the western third of Poland, the Poles (with Lithuania) all of what is now Belarus. Sweden controlled all of Norway until the start of the 20th century and various Scandinavian nations controlled NE England, western Ireland, Sicily, and Normandy at one point. The Russian Empire controlled all of Belarus, Ukraine, and FInland (and other places). Russian revanchism regarding Ukraine is the major driver of their invasion. The Austrians (jointly with Hungary) controlled a large portion of Eastern Europe and the Turks (in the Ottoman period) controlled Greece and the Balkans for centuries.
But, wait, you say, these didn't involve dislocation of peoples, just different rulers, but that isn't true. At the end of WW2, the Germans living in the land that was transferred to Poland were forced out of their homes. They were replaced by Poles pushed out of Eastern Poland in lands taken by the USSR (the westernmost parts of Ukraine and Belarus today). At the end of WW1 there was essentially a forced swap of peoples Greeks were forced out of the Aegean coast of Asia Minor (Modern Turkey) where they had existed since before the Babylonian captivity as were the Turks living in the modern Greek state.
The displacement of the Jewish people is horrible as were these other forced relocations, but it didn't justify forcing other people off their land to recover the lands of their ancestors.
The problem is as I mentioned above there is plenty of archeological and textual evidence. Even the Egyptians and Babylonians mention the tribes of Isreal and the Kings of those tribes. Several of the tribes which was also the name of their cities like the city of Dan have been discovered when skeptics claimed there was no such place.
Those records don't back the scope of the claims about the strength and territory of ancient Israel.
Not sure what you mean. They are not just terms but actual places. Like for example Judean King Hezekials Tunnel built to defend Jerusalem from the Assyrians.
Just a little astonishment that you used terms correctly, my prime complaint.
Its different because Palestine was never a unique culture and nation of people but a generic name for an area that was actually bigger than Isreal with a mix of people. Whereas Isreal was a unique people and culture of Jews. Palestine did not destingusih culture or religion and there were mixed religions and cultures such as Muslims which are not Jews.
Did the non-Jewish, Arabic speaking residents of the southern Levant not have any culture? Do they not count?
No but if we are going to use the idea that areas once had a mix of cultures and ethnics before they were established as seperate cultures and nations then everyone in that area was once one people with evolving cultures and ethnicity. Where do you draw the line. The Persians evolved into a destinct culture consuming several ethnic groups into one. The Isrealites did the same and the Palestinians did not and never have. In fact they have been known more as Jordanians or Syrians.
Today 80% of Isrealis are Jews. Just as it was initially. They have been able to re-establish their culture in the land.
Isn't it amazing how you can build a culture in a short period. (I hear they even tried it in your continent.)
The Palestinians have never. Jordan and Syria have. Thats because there never was a Palestinian culture to develop into a people. There still isn't one. Even some Palestinian leaders recognise they have never had the requirements of becoming a nation because none has developed.
This is just othering of the Palestinian people and denying their dignity.
Its only in recent times that the idea has been presented. They were given the chance to develop a nation and even Saron helped with the elections to ensure they had a leader who could create a nation so that they could live in peace with the Isrealis. But they could not because there is no history that unites the people, that identifies them. This happens naturally and evolves over time. But if a Palestinian culture has never really developed then you can't make it happen with some mandate.
I don't know who Saron is so this paragraph makes little sense, except for the repetition of your othering of the Palestinians and their society. That part reads loud and clear.
Creating a nation state without an identity or unified people under a strong leader who is willing to install democracy and freedom is the only way a Palestinian state will work. Just making one and dividing the land for the sake of it will only create a bigger version of a terrorist state right on Isreals doorstep.
Israel has created many of their own problems through the way they treated the people they displaced from their land.
theisraelbible.com
besacenter.org
biblearchaeologyreport.com
www.biblearchaeology.org
