Subscribe
Notify of
guest

170 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
5 months ago

It’s even more complicated that the author suggests. How long does one have to live on a scrap of land to be considered indigenous? If a group leaves and goes to another land for several generations, how long does it take before they are indigenous to the new land rather than the old? If a group is displaced by war, does that change the calculation? What if they were the instigators in said war? If there was one group originally but they divided into two over something like religion, which group has the greater claim to being indigenous. If a Native American showed up on my front porch claiming he lived here several hundred years ago, am I obligated to pack up and leave? One could go round and round with this all day.

The reality is that for probably 99% of human history, these questions were not answered by scholars, journalists, diplomats, or the average Joe. They were decided through military conflict, conqueror and conquered. The area now known as Israel/Palestine has been politically ruled by the Egyptians, the Jews, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Persians again, the Romans, the Greeks (Byzantines) again, the Persians again, the Caliphates, the Crusaders, the Seljuks, the Mamluks, the Ottomans, the British, and finally the Jews again. In all the above cases, somebody fought somebody else and the winner got the land. Some rulers were harsh to whoever they defeated, and some were more lenient, but either way, to the winner went the lions share of the spoils. For 99% of human history, this was how things worked.

It’s only in the last century or so that people decided we needed a better, fairer way to determine who deserved what land, hence our arguments about who is indigenous. If genetics cannot conclusively answer this question, we probably need to think of some more sensible way to go about determining things like this. There is no global authority with sufficient power or respect to decide such sorts of questions, nor is there likely to be one in the foreseeable future. Given these facts, I submit that we have little choice but to fall back on the tried and true formula of killing one another until one side or the other is completely cowed or utterly annihilated. Of relevance is the fact that every time the leaders of Israel have been offered a partition of the land into an Israeli and Palestinian states in exchange for peace, they have accepted. They accepted the partition of 1947. They offered at various points to accept the pre-1967 borders in exchange for an end to terrorism and conflict. They gave Egypt back the entirety of the Sinai in exchange for peace. They even unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and removed their own people there to let the Palestinians govern themselves. On each occasion, the Palestinians, sometimes with the backing of other nations, sometimes on their own, chose to continue pursuing war and conflict.

At this point, they are so badly outmatched that their only viable strategy was/is an insanely horrific attack that would provoke Israel to launch a brutal counterattack and hope that the backlash from civilian deaths in Gaza will pull the other Muslim nations who have lost interest back into a conflict they have no hope of winning on their own. In the US, we have a phenomenon called “suicide by cop”. Occasionally, when a suicidal criminal would rather die than go to jail and doesn’t actually want to kill somebody else and doesn’t have the stomach to kill himself, he will just aim an unloaded gun at an armed officer or maybe fire a shot in the air or aim far over the officer’s head, prompting the officer to retaliate with deadly force. Some people prefer this method of suicide. Hamas actions are so insane that they almost strike me as a collective suicide by cop. They must understand that they can’t win on their own. The Muslim nations that once supported the Palestinians are tired of fighting Israel and losing. They’ve also seen how dangerous radical Islamic terrorism can be to them during the Arab Spring. They were slowly accepting Israel, and distancing themselves from the Palestinians and their terrorist tactics. For the Palestinians, that’s basically game over. This is a last desperate gamble to have their ‘river to the sea’ Palestine, or more likely, die trying.
The only sensible thing left to do is let nature take its course. At some point, I have to believe the Palestinians will be so utterly ruined by this conflict that whatever is left of them will give up and either try to live in Jewish Israel or flee somewhere else. The other Muslim states will get really angry about it and shun Israel for a few more decades but probably can be deterred by threat or enticement to not interfere directly.

Last edited 5 months ago by Steve Jolly
Addie Shog
Addie Shog
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Very sensible comment. I think the other Muslim countries will shun Israel for a few years or even months rather than decades.

Michael Smith
Michael Smith
5 months ago
Reply to  Addie Shog

Muslim countries will not allow Palestine to be genocided.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
5 months ago
Reply to  Michael Smith

It would appear Hamas is not allowing civilians to move to safe areas, they are in fact using them as shields. Hamas could have built bomb shelters and moved all civilians to them beore the attack.

Francisco Javier Bernal
Francisco Javier Bernal
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Don’t even mention how Jordan was created out of thin air and how the Golan Heights were traded to French Syria, when they were both part of the original League of Nations Mandate for Palestine for the creation of a Jewish Homeland. Israelis have compromised enough. Land for Peace only works if the other party is not the cheating kind.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
5 months ago

That’s more or less what I was trying to say. I personally think the Jews have suffered quite enough and borne far more adversity and scorn than most other races or religions. History at this point favors the Israelis, who were always willing to trade land for peace. It was the other side that chose war at each and every opportunity. Even now, with a population living in abject poverty, crammed into a tiny strip of land on the Mediterranean coast, they continue to fight. They want to commit suicide. Fine. I say we who are on the other side of the world simply let them die. It’s horrible, but if they won’t give up terrorism and insist on the other side’s complete destruction, what choice does Israel or anyone else really have but to beat them into submission? Our only real objective, us being the US and Europe, should be keeping the conflict isolated and preventing a broader war that would have serious global impacts. It’s ugly, but humanity can be ugly and history is filled with ugliness.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

When you say “trade land for peace” I presume you mean steal land and kill the occupants? The West Bank has no Hamas or Arab terrorists of any kind: all we have there is a defenceless indigenous population in their own country Palestine (as agreed!) being shot, burnt alive in their own homes and driven out by thugs, armed and supported by IDF state terroristsq who illegally occupy a sovereign country.. Yeah, sure: if only Hamas would give up there’d be peace and justice like there is in the West Bank.. I often wonder if you guys know anything: history, geography, common bloody sense even? But you can do equivocation like nobody on Earth, I’ll give you that.

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

“The West Bank has no Hamas or Arab terrorists of any kind…”
Since when?
“… indigenous population in their own country Palestine (as agreed!)…”
Agreed by whom? Did you even read the article?

“…IDF state terrorists who illegally occupy a sovereign country”
When was Palestine, still less the West Bank, “a sovereign country”?
“The West Bank has no Hamas or Arab terrorists of any kind…”
Since when?
“… indigenous population in their own country Palestine (as agreed!)…”
Agreed by whom? Did you even read the article?

“…IDF state terrorists[sic] who illegally[sic] occupy a sovereign country[sic]”
When was Palestine, still less the West Bank, “a sovereign country”?

Last edited 5 months ago by Gandydancer x
Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
5 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

The Husseini Clan promoted violence and supported the Final Solution. King Abdullah tried negotiated with Jewish leaders and has been the only leader to defeat Israel. Abdullah was murdered by Palestinians in 1951. All arab leaders hated Abdullah and have done everything in their power to thwart Irsael/ Jordan Negotiations. Palestinians undertook 20 attempted ssassinations of King Hussein of Jordan. The Muslim Brotherhood murdered Sadat in 1981 who involved in peace negotiations with Israel.
Egypt and Syria accepted 5000 plus Nazis post 1945 who were involved in developing the secret police.
Israel /Abdullah negotiations would have probably arrived at a peaceful and prosperous conclusion. Gaza over the last few years was going through an economic revival.
Hamas was set up by the MB and is supported by Iran who is dedicated to Israel’s destruction.
Please show where Hamas, MB and Iran have decided they no longer wish to destroy Israel ?How useful is it to negotiate with someone who wants one’s destruction? How can Israel trust the Palestinians when they kill fellow Arabs- Abdullah, Sadat, Al Fatah /PLO members in 2005 in Gaza and attempts on King Hussein ?

Michael Smith
Michael Smith
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Why are you apparently entitled to make judgement calls regarding the subjective perspective of the Palestinians? Or for that matter the Israelis? They had their own purpose for all the actions they took over a century, it is fruitless to speculate on the truth of what was on either sides head. Also you are literally openly advocating genocide. If Palestine is allowed to be genocided, humanity has no right to exist and I would prefer if the conflict simply turned nuclear and killed all of us.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
5 months ago

I’m surprised anyone has the gall to mention the British mandate.. if you entrusted the situation to chimpanzees they’d have done a better job!

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

What??? Bernal made no mention of “the BRITISH Mandate”, and the quality of the British administration has no bearing on what he said (which in any case appears to be wrong – it was part of the province of Syria since at least the 16th century).

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago

What??? Wikipedia: “Within Ottoman Syria, the Golan was part of the Syria Vilayet.[18] The area later became part of the French Mandate in Syria and the State of Damascus.[19] When the mandate terminated in 1946, it became part of the newly independent Syrian Arab Republic.”

Michael Smith
Michael Smith
5 months ago

>Don’t even mention how Jordan was created out of thin air and how the Golan Heights were traded to French Syria, when they were both part of the original League of Nations Mandate for Palestine for the creation of a Jewish Homeland.
This is a revisionist Zionist myth, the territories were briefly administered together for convenience while the Heshamites prepared to take up rule, but at no point were considered a single entity. They had different league of nations charters from the beginning and neither specified borders that included both.
In addition, the term “in Palestine” in the Balfour declaration in truth meant nothing more than whatever borders the executing party of the declaration (Britain) decided to enclose around a space and title “Palestine”. They never intended this space to include Jordan, or, for that matter, even the entirety of Palestine, it was a Jewish home *inside* of the territory of Palestine. Whatever misunderstanding the Revisionist may hang had us irrelevant, they were not the executing party, their interpretation is irrelevant as they were not the sovereign. Nobody’s interpretation was relevant besides Britain’s, and if they had intended at any point to give Israel Jordan, they would have done so. There is no such thing as a true Palestine Mandate territory that ever existed objectively out in the ether separated from the intentions of the executing party, an analysis of this which does so entirely from the perspective of Israel and doesn’t even mention Britain is a ridiculous way to examine the legitimacy of the territory given, as no perspective on this issue is even relevant besides that of the executing party, ie Britain. Israel should cease speaking of other parties as if they do not exist and are not beings, or merely through malicious subjective speculation about the subjective intent of others entirely from the perspective of Israel. It is disrespectful and arrogant.
Being how historically documented and obvious this is, yet the myth persists regardless, one can regard it as nothing more than a tactical misunderstanding. Is it somehow baffling to you that people would mistrust Israel on how obsequious and deferential it is in all things when they literally cannot open their mouth without declaring themselves to be truly owed an almost absurdly vast territory that would require displacing many millions more than has already happened. Please stop telling me how Israel is owed Jordan too and how the Palestinians don’t exist: I assure you everyone has heard such narratives a billion times and nobody is in the smallest bit comforted or convinced by them, not even the people who pretend to believe such.
> Israelis have compromised enough.
The creation of the Palestine Mandate was not a process of negotiation and compromise, it was a fiat from the colonial powers. As this was a gift that was given it is inappropriate to imagine Israelis as having compromised in their reception of this gift. If they were unsatisfied, they should have refused what was offered.
It seems ridiculous in any case to present a party that has only expanded throughout its history as having “compromised” too much due to imagination from their perspective that they resent having not been given a large enough gift.
>Land for Peace only works if the other party is not the cheating kind.
Why are the Palestinians suddenly imagined to be an agent here? Is it somehow your conception they had any more word in this than the Jews? They did were not allowed to negotiate on this, so it’s ridiculous to imagine them as having “cheated” for accepting what was given same as the Jewish agency.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Wrong I’m afraid.
Sooner or later the ‘Arabs’ will bet the BOMB, and will have absolutely NO compunction about using it, whatever the consequences maybe.

POSTED AT:14.22 GMT.
RESTORED AT: 16.14 GMT.
Thus I hr 52 min in the ‘SIN BIN’.

Last edited 5 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
5 months ago

You misunderstand Charlie. It’s God’s chosen people vs me and you and the Arabs and Uncle Tom Cobly an’ all.. we are Goys (human animals) and nuking us will be like gassing rats to Bibi & Co. We simply don’t count: we are no better than the Palestinians in their eyes. A million or two of us doesn’t even come up to the worth of s single Zionist..
So it’s the Israelis who will nuke the Gentiles, not the other way round!

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

The Israelis already have the Bomb and haven’t even nuked Gaza, so you are clearly a loon.

Mike Fraser
Mike Fraser
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Excellent riposte until the part about the palestinians being tired of fighting Israel. The whole point here is that it is NOT about LAND. It is about the hatred that ISLAM has for the Jews. That is why the Arab leaders have never accepted any of the deals and prefer Suicide bombings and massacres

Ali W
Ali W
5 months ago
Reply to  Mike Fraser

I think they meant other Arab nations are tired of fighting Israel (and losing), especially for a militant group they don’t want to deal with either.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
5 months ago
Reply to  Mike Fraser

You forget, silly, that all the surrounding states full of Arabs (!!) HAVE accepted, arms, deals, wealth and whatever from the demonic Zionists.. so they cannot hate Israel can they.. despise yes, hate no. If the loot keeps coming Mustafa will keep signing up.. A man may sell his soul to the devil for wealth even if he dispises everything about him but he could not do so if he hated the devil! Hatred is quite different from despise..

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Nonsense. One can absolutely hate those (and/or despise those) who you benefit from. Just look at those Black Americans who hate Whites.

Michael Smith
Michael Smith
5 months ago
Reply to  Gandydancer x

We are only entitled to hate those who are our lessers. Rightism at its core.

Michael Smith
Michael Smith
5 months ago
Reply to  Mike Fraser

The entire conflict apparently is about speculation regarding the subjective perspective of the Palestinians from a party that wishes them genocided.

Adrian Smith
Adrian Smith
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

“The only sensible thing left to do is let nature take its course.”
I think there are other options, but they would rely on the International Community (Israel was created by the UN in 1948) standing together to remove Hamas and guarantee safety to the Israeli people (rather than Israel having to do it for itself – something it has both a right and a duty to its people to do). As there is absolutely no chance of that happening, I reluctantly agree, despite feeling that Israel is walking into a trap Hamas has dug for them and they are not playing to their usual strengths of executing very quick wars, all against a back drop where we have far too many protracted wars ongoing at the moment and really don’t need another.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
5 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Smith

As I said, there is no global power with the will, the power, or the legitimate authority to intervene. The US has the raw military power, but has other priorities to balance and a restive, fractious domestic body politic weary of ‘nation building’ and ‘forever wars’, and they would be regarded by the Palestinians as occupiers no different or worse than Israel. The EU is divided militarily and politically, is already supporting the Ukraine conflict, and has large Muslim minorities who could become problematic if the Europeans get too involved. Further, with their access to Russian energy cut for the foreseeable future, they need to keep on good terms with the oil producing countries of the middle east. The Muslim nations of the middle east would be the only realistic options, but given that Iran helped instigate the conflict, they couldn’t be a part of any peacekeeping coalition, and there’s every chance they’d continue to stir up trouble against whoever stepped up to try and pacify Gaza, be it Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or whoever else. Israel would properly refuse Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Hezbollah, or any other party with a recent record of hostility towards Israel and/or continuing territorial disputes. The best anyone can hope for is that Hamas strategy fails. They’re hoping to force the rest of the middle east into another open war with Israel. If the Muslim countries don’t take the bait and limit their condemnations to words, diplomatic actions, and economic sanctions, Hamas is doomed, as they well should be.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Ukraine is like so yesterday.. keep up will you!

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
5 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Smith

The “International Community”?. Please let us know where this group of wise and all knowing souls might be found?
It’s a convenient term to use when we don’t have the answer to a problem that has existed since mankind began.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
5 months ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Obviously you’ve never heard of the United Nations then? How about BRICS+?

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

The United Nations is in no meaningful sense an â€œInternational Community”.

Michael Smith
Michael Smith
5 months ago
Reply to  Gandydancer x

The United Nations is the sole reason Israel has any legitimacy.

Phil Gough
Phil Gough
5 months ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

It was the international community that legitimised the creation of the state of Israel.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
5 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Smith

Like the security of Ukraine was guaranteed

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago

What are you talking about? Kyiv’s remit wasn’t guaranteed by any “International Community”. NATO was creeping up on doing it, but it never reached that point.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
5 months ago
Reply to  Gandydancer x

It was guaranteed by Russia and the US as part of the deal to give up its nuclear weapons

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago

Let’s review:
Adrian Smith: “…there are other options, but they would rely on the International Community… standing together to remove Hamas and guarantee safety to the Israeli people…”
you: “Like the security of Ukraine was guaranteed[.]”

me: ” Kyiv’s remit wasn’t guaranteed by any “International Community”.”

you: “It was guaranteed by Russia and the US…”

But a guarantee by Russia and the US is not “like” a guarantee by the “International Community” (whatever that is) so my objection stands.

I will add that the entity that received the guarantee was overthrown in 2014, and as a result divided by a civil war. The current Kyiv regime’s claim on that guarantee is dubious at best.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
5 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Smith

We can only hope you are right.. the IDF walk into that trap and get slaughtered as they so richly deserve, the barbaric, murderous, evil child killing degenerates.. and when the going gets really tough we can only hope Hezbollah come on board and finish them off.. Hamas atrocities were heinous crimes, for sure, but they are in the ha’penny place compared to the crimes of Israel, IDF, settler thugs..
A world without Israeli Zionists would be a far, far better place.
I have suggested they all go to the New Promised Land, ie Wyoming.. a land without a people, right next door to Utah where the Mormons (whacky like them) live very happily.

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
5 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Dear Brother Liam. Go find God. May he put peace into your hating heart.

Katja Sipple
Katja Sipple
5 months ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

He needs more than God! What a despicable and hateful little man! I will not engage with whomever is behind this account, but I very much doubt that he has even met a single IDF soldier. I know several women and men who served or are currently serving in the IDF, and they are all good people.

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

The chances of Hamas slaughtering the IDF don’t even approach that of Ukraine defeating Russia, which is itself somewhere between Slim and None. (And, as the saying goes, Slim has left town.)

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Smith

“…other options, but they would rely on the International Community (Israel was created by the UN in 1948)…”

The 1947 UN plan was never backed with force nor implemented. Israel was accordingly created by the Jews when the British withdrew.

Keith Williams
Keith Williams
5 months ago
Reply to  Gandydancer x

And the UN proposal was for a two state solution between the Arabs and the Jews. The Jews accepted the proposal but the Arabs rejected it – and have continued to do so.

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago
Reply to  Keith Williams

Smith’s claim clearly was that the ” International Community” as the responsible party for Israel’s existence ought to do this or that when in fact Israel is perfectly capable of mowing its own grass and ought to be left alone to do so as long and as vigorously as it takes.

Michael Smith
Michael Smith
5 months ago
Reply to  Gandydancer x

America is a sovereign nation and we have a right to interfere in genocides. Please do not lecture America on what it has to do. You are not our sovereign or king.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

There is a Churchill quote ‘Nations that went down fighting rose again, but those who surrendered tamely were finished.’
Maybe Hamas view the current situation this way

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago

Churchill lied, then. Plenty of nations have gone down fighting, never to reappear.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
5 months ago
Reply to  Gandydancer x

I think it is called a truism. Can we settle on nations that go down fighting are more likely to rise again

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago

Claims which are false are never truisms.
“Tru·ism
/ˈtro͞oˌiz(ə)m/
noun
a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting:”
Whether a “nation” (whatever that is) goes down fighting or not (whatever that means) is nowhere near the first rank of reasons why it will or will not reappear.

When did Arabs in Palestine become a nation, anyway?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

If you believe that (your final paragraph) you know nothing of human spirit.. We Irish refused to be “extinguished” over 700 years because we knew, like Palestinians, we were an ancient people, more cultured and better in every way than our brutal colonisers could ever be. The same applies to ancient Palestinians who know they are better in every way than their brutal, evil oppressors. The idea that they will give up and bow to their “superiors” like Brits do to their “betters” *Tories/toffs/Lord and Lady Savage etc) is simply confusing cap wringing, beaten Brits with people of real substance.. Look to the French of you need to understand what having balls means!
A people who have suffered appalling injustice, land theft, torture and killing over the last 70+ years are just not that kind of snowflake.. so, no.. they will not lie down; they will not give up, they are made of sterner stuff then you can even imagine.

Mike Fraser
Mike Fraser
5 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Ancient Palestinians? No such thing. The Arabs who lived in the land which was part of the Ottoman Empire started identifying as Palestinians in the late 19th century.

Michael Smith
Michael Smith
5 months ago
Reply to  Mike Fraser

The Palestinians are imaginary entities, they are fake existences and are not real beings or people, their nation is simply a massive conspiracy and I imagine them as they are invisible and not real. This is the sort of arguments coming from the totally reasonable side.

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
5 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Liam, the Jews have been native to Judea/Israel since 900 B.C. Open a history book and leave adult conversation to your betters.

McExpat M
McExpat M
5 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Liam you seem passionate. Have you thought about relocating to Palestine to help Liberate? Also there is zero chance you have ever set foot in the region with your insane hyperbole about the people that reside there.

Katja Sipple
Katja Sipple
5 months ago
Reply to  McExpat M

I doubt he is a day over 20! Probably not even 18. Furthermore, I don’t believe that he is really Irish; he reads more like a stereotypical American whose ancestors left the island 170 years ago, and who has been brought up on the codswallop about the evil English, which I hear is still peddled in some communities there.

Alan Osband
Alan Osband
5 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Ha ha you are funny . I remember meeting Irish people about 40 years ago who were equally convinced it was the Israeli Jews who mirrored the Irish people’s struggle to achieve self determination in their ancient homeland . I supposed these things go in fashions and now it’s fashionable in Ireland to equate Hamas with the IRA .
While it seems the Palestinians and Jewish Israelis both are genetically linked to the Bronze Age inhabitants of the area , it seems obvious that Islam was introduced into the area by Arab colonialist invaders . Is colonialism ok if conducted by non -white people ?
Palestinian Muslims are probably descended from Jews who converted to the form of Judaism practiced by their conquerors, namely Islam.
Please enlighten us as to why the French are exemplary for modern Irish chauvinists in ‘having balls ‘ .
My own suspicion is Liam O Mahoney was born Ivan and has no connection with the Emerald Isle .

Keith Williams
Keith Williams
5 months ago
Reply to  Alan Osband

Islam has only been in existence since the 7th century. Judaism goes back 3000+ years and Christianity 2000 years.

Michael Smith
Michael Smith
5 months ago
Reply to  Keith Williams

Who cares?

Michael Smith
Michael Smith
5 months ago
Reply to  Alan Osband

Arabs have existed in the area since long before Islam, Arab tribes have populated the Syrian desert, Sinai, and the Negev. The Bible itself talks of an Arab tribe from the Negev that participated in a battle around 900 Bc. I guess the Jews who wrote that section of the Bible were just antisemites.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
5 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

I have to say I’m not all that familiar with Irish history, so I’ll take your word for it on that conflict, but that’s just one example The Irish managed to retain their identity over a long time and eventually won independence, but there’s plenty of other groups that didn’t. It’s also completely different cultures so the same conditions may not hold. The Irish had the advantage of a long history being mostly isolated on an island, and they developed a particularly unique culture. Palestine, on the other hand, was a name for a territory that had a lot of different groups on it and had basically been passed back and forth between empires since biblical times, with so much mixing of the people there , with so much mixing that it would be nigh impossible to distinguish a Palestinian from a Jordanian, an Arab, a Syrian, or many of the Israelis. I don’t think your analogy is particularly a good one.

Michael Smith
Michael Smith
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

As if arbitrary considerations of how unique a culture is somehow invalidates their right to exist. More arrogance and tactical misunderstanding.

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Brilliant article, Steve. Well worthy of being published on Unherd.

Tom Lewis
Tom Lewis
5 months ago

““What did y’all think decolonisation meant?” tweeted one Minnesota-based writer. The massacre of participants at a rave represented a “consequence” for “partying on stolen land”, added a British academic “
I resent, the implication, that these people are ‘described’ as “Minnesotian’ (American) (less so, because I’m not American) or ‘British’. If they have a unifying identity, then it is Muslim. Where they happen to live, were born, or the nationality they ‘might’ profess is purely incidental and is probably a very distant second in their hierarchy of allegiance’s. Journalists should not shy away from this fact. To be British, or American, is not so much where we live, but to have a certain ‘outlook’, or values, a common unifying thread, that binds us together. However vague that might be. These people, and others like them, march to the beat of a different drum and that should be acknowledged. A Muslim writer/academic, who lives in America/Britain, or just ‘Muslim’, would probably be a more justified descriptor.

Katja Sipple
Katja Sipple
5 months ago
Reply to  Tom Lewis

“If they have a unifying identity, then it is Muslim.” Thank you! I am sick and tired of articles covering up simple facts. The “Minnesotan writer”, to quote the article’s author, is Najma Sharif, an ethnic Somali, who has been spewing antisemitic vitriol disguised as Israel criticism for many years. The “British academic” is Ashok Kumar.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
5 months ago
Reply to  Katja Sipple

Do the people in this country who support or express view along the same lines as Najma Sharif and is Ashok Kumar realize that they are colonizers and would they support action by the native British people to decolonize this country?
Alternatively, will they see the error of their ways and leave voluntarily?

Michael Smith
Michael Smith
5 months ago

Why don’t you leave nazi?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
5 months ago
Reply to  Katja Sipple

You obviously don’t even know the difference between Muslim and Islam! Back to school for you I think!

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Back to school for you definitely, until you can recognize the difference between “Islam” and “Islamite”.
Bing: “Yes, there is a difference between the terms “Muslim” and “Islamic”. â€œMuslim” refers to a person who follows the religion of Islam, while “Islamic” refers to anything that is related to Islam as a religion or culture 1234. For example, one might say “I am a Muslim” to indicate that they follow the religion of Islam, while one might say “Islamic art” to refer to art that is influenced by Islamic culture or religion.”

So, Tom’s usage was linguistically correct, though I don’t know that these people are actually religious, so there’s that.

Michael Smith
Michael Smith
5 months ago
Reply to  Katja Sipple

Do not lecture me on who I am apparently entitled to consider as part of my own nation, you bigoted European.

Dominic A
Dominic A
5 months ago
Reply to  Tom Lewis

Indeed; on a tagent, your post puts me in mind of Kinky Friedman’s (thanks Unherd Reader) country classic, ‘They Don’t Make Jews like Jesus Anymore’.

Last edited 5 months ago by Dominic A
UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
5 months ago
Reply to  Dominic A

It was Kinky Friedman’s song actually

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
5 months ago
Reply to  Tom Lewis

Iqf I had British or American values I’d slit my throat for the sake of mankind!

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Go ahead. With the values you have slitting your throat (or, better, locking yourself in an oven after turning it to “Bake” as some Hamas “militant” apparently did to an Israeli infant) would absolutely benefit mankind.

Michael Smith
Michael Smith
5 months ago
Reply to  Gandydancer x

Peaceful westerners at it again

Katja Sipple
Katja Sipple
5 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Here, have a lollipop, and be a good boy!

Michael Smith
Michael Smith
5 months ago
Reply to  Tom Lewis

You have no right to impose your hateful perspective and speculate it to be the “objective” perspective of others you know nothing about besides hatred.

David Mayes
David Mayes
5 months ago

The Zionists won the land of Israel in war by defeating the alliance of surrounding nations that attacked them in successive invasions since 1948. The people now known as the Palestinians were allied with these belligerent nations and shared the objective of eliminating the Jews. Their contribution has been to fashion themselves as mafia style enclaves that maintained ongoing terrorist campaigns against Israel.

The coloniser-indigenous narrative is self-serving soviet styled propaganda intended to confuse Israel’s allies and friends by making the Palestinians look like eternal victims rather than unbowed prisoners of war.

Last edited 5 months ago by David Mayes
Jane Anderson
Jane Anderson
5 months ago
Reply to  David Mayes

Large tracts of land in Israel were actually bought by zionists from absentee Arab landlords who had done quite well out of their relationship with the Ottoman Empire.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
5 months ago
Reply to  David Mayes

Especially since “Palestinan” was a cooked up appellation for the Arabs no other Arab nations wanted. And thus, another victim group was born.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
5 months ago

British Mandated Palestine existed before Israel you realise? You can hardly claim one group is cooked up when their name predates the Israelis

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

There were Palestinian Arabs in Palestine, just as there were Palestinian Jews and Christians. But they weren’t “Palestinians” until that designation was indeed “cooked up”.

Michael Smith
Michael Smith
5 months ago
Reply to  Gandydancer x

Wow brilliant I had never heard before that Palestinians aren’t real, please enlighten me more with your genius nazi. Also how the f**k are the Palestinians apparently to have an ethnic identity (Arab) but Christians and Jews are described with a religious one? Shouldn’t you have a little consistency? What was the ethnicity and culture of the “Palestinian Christians/Jews”? Was it *not* Arab? Then why are you using an ethnic marker suddenly and inconsistently in you genocidal Klan historiography?

Last edited 5 months ago by Michael Smith
Francisco Javier Bernal
Francisco Javier Bernal
5 months ago
Reply to  David Mayes

And indeed these people were more than happy being Jordanian or Egyptian pre-1967. It’s only after events like Black September when they tried to take over Jordan and failed miserably, that the “Palestinian” identity was all of a sudden discovered…

Michael Smith
Michael Smith
5 months ago

The PLO was the organization that rebelled against Jordan. Palestine Liberation Organization. Apparently the Palestine Liberation organization fought this conflict, and then afterwards made up their nation as a conspiracy. We are to imagine that they were fighting under this name purely by accident, as it does not exist and is fake and imaginary according to those of super good faith. You can’t even keep your own narrative straight.

Mike Fraser
Mike Fraser
5 months ago
Reply to  David Mayes

It is not so much the so called Palestinians, it is their leaders funded by Iran and the Islamic hatred of the Jews. There are a lot of good Palestinian people out there who would love to get out from under HAMAS.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
5 months ago
Reply to  Mike Fraser

How do you rate Jewish hatred of Palestinians given the recent statements of Israeli POLITICIANS? Or do you choose to ignore all that? Even heard of the term “broadminded”? No? I thought not.

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Hamas’ atrocities and horrors fully justify Jewish hatred of them and their ilk.

What would YOU know about “broadminded”?

Michael Smith
Michael Smith
5 months ago
Reply to  Gandydancer x

You are the only being in the world, nobody else exists. Narcissist. What you stated is merely the universal common experience of those at war, yet we’re supposed to imagine Israels subjective experience as merely being scared, the subjective experience of a Palestinian is non existentent by your own definition as you consider them to be imaginary entities, or else an evil conspiracy against you. They are not beings or existences of course, not like special little you.

Last edited 5 months ago by Michael Smith
Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago
Reply to  Mike Fraser

Where’s their resistance, then?

The Germans under Hitler weren’t consulted about the invasion of Poland, but letting him get and stay in power had consequences for them. Same with Gazan Arabs and Hamas.

Michael Smith
Michael Smith
5 months ago
Reply to  Gandydancer x

Gaza is totally comparable to Germany, Idiot Klansman.

Stewart Cazier
Stewart Cazier
5 months ago
Reply to  David Mayes

The more important point is that they are all descendants of Canaanites with varying degrees of purity who happen to believe in different flavours of the Abrahamic myths which are also just descendants of the original Canaanite religion. El and his son Yahweh became one and lost a wife (eventually). The Judaism which existed during the first Temple would find modern day Judaism as unrecognisable as its two hybrid myths Christianity and Islam.

Arguing about historical rights preaches only to the already converted, entrenches already fixed opinions and does little to resolve the situation which can only be done by acknowledging the facts on the ground today.

Michael Smith
Michael Smith
5 months ago
Reply to  Stewart Cazier

I totally agree that Israel has a right to exist and that the facts in the ground should be accepted as faith accompli. I will not sit around as people make up garbage historiography about how the Palestinians aren’t real and don’t exist by genocidal maniacs who are merely stating their intention.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
5 months ago
Reply to  David Mayes

Please go back to school and learn some history.. your grossly simplistic, selective take is cringeworthy.. also do some basic maths so you can tell who the real killers are.. If I were as ignorant as you I wouldn’t open my mouth lest I be shown up as a complete idiot..

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

And yet you DO show yourself up as a complete idiot. Every time.

More Japanese were killed by the Americans after Pearl Harbor than Americans killed by the Japanese. Does that mean the Americans were the “real killers”?

Ans: Check out the number of Chinese killed by the Japs.

Michael Smith
Michael Smith
5 months ago
Reply to  David Mayes

How can a civilian be a pow? Nonsense.

Adrian Smith
Adrian Smith
5 months ago

Give USA back to the “Red Indians”, Australia back to the aborigines and Britain back to the Celts.
Alternatively reject dangerous woke ideas like decolonialism, which will only lead to more bloodshed and dispossessed people. Accept that things happened in the past which may not have been entirely fair but we can’t change the past all we can do is try to live alongside each other now in peace and mutual respect.
Arguing over who is more indigenous or who is more oppressed is pointless and solves nothing.

Last edited 5 months ago by Adrian Smith
Steve Murray
Steve Murray
5 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Smith

Or, as i commented a couple of weeks ago, give the US back to Russia, since the American Indians migrated across the Bering Strait when it was passable due to climate changes thousands of years ago. For that matter, give the whole world back to Africa.
I do, of course, jest; but the point is valid in terms of the stupidity of the “indigenous” trope.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
5 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Smith

If you think there is an argument about Israelis being oppressed I’d love to hear it?

Adrian Smith
Adrian Smith
5 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Why? it would be pointless and solve nothing.

Katja Sipple
Katja Sipple
5 months ago
Reply to  Adrian Smith

Adrian, this Liam character seems to be our resident troll. Every forum I have ever joined seems to have at least one. Don’t feed the troll (although I confess that I offered him a lollipop) is sound advice as you correctly pointed out that engaging with this character is pointless und would solve nothing at all.

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

3M Israelis are Mizrahis, which is to say they fled Arab oppression, or worse. The Ashkenazi of course fled attempted extinction. The only reason present day Israelis aren’t as a whole oppressed or dead is that they keep kicking the would-be ethic cleanser’s asses. I get it — if the Jews let the Arabs kill them it would make you happy. GFY.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
5 months ago

Both Palestinian and Jew have historic claims to the land between the Jordan and the sea. The Jews have just been better at asserting those claims in recent years. The Jews of Israel have also had more effective backing from the diaspora than the Arab Palestinians have from their ethnic group. The Jews have simply outcompeted the local Arabs.

That may not always be the case. If the Arabs ever got their act together and US and European support for a Jewish Israel ever faltered we could see a new diaspora but the issue of colonialism is irrelevant except as a propaganda tool. So long, however, that Israel remains a distinctly Jewish state it will have to remain vigilant to defend itself and war is inherently ugly and unfair. Unfortunately for Israel anti-Semitism is baked into the Muslim faith so peaceful co-existence is likely to be difficult to achieve.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
5 months ago

Had the Jews acted with the audacity of Ancient Rome in 1967 we would NOT now be asking the question “Who does Jerusalem belong to?”

On conquering the city the Israelis should have immediately demolished/dismantled both the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock shrine, and begun the building of the Third Temple.

After all they had waited more than eighteen hundreds for such an opportunity and the defeated Arabs had now been reduced to the status of ‘Dediticii’, or conquered peoples with NO political rights whatsoever.

However the failure of the Israelis to act decisively was correctly interpreted by the Arabs as a sign of gross weakness, and thus has encouraged them to whinge and whine ever since.

For the record, can one really imagine that Pompey, Titus or Hadrian would have put up with this nonsense? No of course not. Their response would have been VAE VICTIS!* and quite right too.

(*Woe to the conquered!)

POSTED AT 09.13 GMT.

RESTORED AT 09.39 GMT.

Thus only 26 minutes in the ‘sin bin’.

Last edited 5 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Mike Fraser
Mike Fraser
5 months ago

oh I posted mine about an hour ago but its still not up. I have now posted it on X and suggested that it might have been blocked by unherd. I apologise therefore if it suddenly materialises here. Its a longish post, but the main point which I think most of you miss is that this is not about land it is about the hatred of Jews by Islam.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
5 months ago

The idea that the Palestinian/Islamic peoples would have ‘accepted’ that sacrilege is too naĂŻve even for you Charlie. The Al Asqa mosque is Islam’s 3rd holiest shrine.. Muslims aren’t like COE cowards who accept anything thrown at them.. look at the Tory party fgs.. in any country where the people had a backbone, their heads would be in spikes now..

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
5 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Prior to 1900 many arabs apppeared indifferent to Jerusalem,prefering Damascus, Beirut and Alexandria. The importance ofJerusalem devlops when the British tell the Arabs they have to select a leader. There is vast numbers of discussions and in exasperation Britain choses the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem as their leader. Mark Twain though Jerusalem dismal.
Of all the lands there are for dismal scenery, I think Palestine must be the prince
 Renowned Jerusalem itself, the stateliest name in history, has lost all its ancient grandeur, and is become a pauper village; the riches of Solomon are no longer there to compel the admiration of visiting Oriental queens; the wonderful temple which was the pride and the glory of Israel, is gone
 Palestine is desolate and unlovely. And why should it be otherwise?
 Palestine is no more of this work-day world. It is sacred to poetry and tradition — it is dream-land. – Mark Twain, Innocents Abroad, Chapter 56
Mark Twain in Jerusalem and the Holy Land – Shapell

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
5 months ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

The arabs accepted Ottoman Rule. In the 1820s the Greeks rose up against the Turks, the Bulgarians in the 1870s and the Palestinian arabs did nothing. When the Hashemites rose up the arabs of Palestine did nothing. When Allenby took Jerusalem, there were five battalions of Jews fighting with the British, hardly any arabs. The Lawrence and the Hashemites took Damascus, why did the Palestine arabs not take Jerusalem?

Mike Downing
Mike Downing
5 months ago

À propos their genetic mixing, didn’t Giles Fraser say how similar they were himself ? More like each other than like Europeans for instance.

All these attempts at ‘fairness’ are part of the problem (look at Northern Ireland and Kosovo). We’ve really just lost the stomach for the usual solution from history (which didn’t end as we hoped).

These are doomed to fail and perpetuate the misery for everyone, just like our attempts to genuflect to ever tinier minorities in our multicultural societies in the name of social justice.

Provides a living for the left-leaning academics (ie 95%) and the lifelong whingers and grifters of course.

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
5 months ago

Jerusalem sits at the heart of the Judean Mountains, a range which spans the ancient land of Judea, home of the Tribe of Judah.

Mike Fraser
Mike Fraser
5 months ago

What a lot of rubbish is written here.
Ever since circa 130ad there has been neither a Jewish state nor a Palestinian state until the 20th century.
Jews and Arabs in various communities large and small have lived on and off in the area in question for the last 1900 years or so, whilst it has been conquered by Caliphates and Manluks and Crusaders and Ottoman empires…
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries more Jews started acquiring the land by purchasing it individually from Arabs who lived there at the time. There was no shortage of Arabs wanting to sell to the Jews but the acquisitions were limited by the shortage of funds on the Jewish side.
There is no evidence that the land was stolen by the Jews.
The Arabs, who then called themselves Palestinians, became very concerned in the early 20th century and violence broke out amongst them and the Jews who had legitimately bought land, which was collectively “owned”by the Ottoman Empire through its conquest of it during the previous 400 years.
Then the Ottoman Empire was defeated by the allies and a mandate was given to the British  which was called the Palestine mandate and that land consisted of what is now Jordan, Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and the Sinai desert.
The Brits stupidly gave the land which is now Jordan to King Abdullah and then having been assaulted violently by both Arabs and Jews gave up the struggle and handed the whole problem over to the League of Nations.
The League of Nations/United Nations  offered A partition of the land  solution to the Palestinian Arabs and to the Jews which the Jews accepted even though it was described as a mere tablecloth and the Arabs as usual said no.
I won’t go into the rest of the history as it is so well known but I will say this.
The reason why the thugs who are the leaders of the Arab community have said no to every offer of land that has been made to them, AND THIS IS WHERE YOU ALL MISS THE POINT,  IS THAT IT IS NOT ABOUT THE LAND .
IT IS ABOUT THE HATRED THAT ISLAM HAS FOR THE JEWS , AND WHICH IS QUITE PUBLICLY EXPRESSED.

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago
Reply to  Mike Fraser

Which Arabs called themselves “Palestinians”, rather than Palestinian Arabs, when?

William Amos
William Amos
5 months ago

i’m not sure I understand the Jewish biblical claims to Jerusalem, on their own terms.
The Hebrew Bible claims that the Jebusites founded Jerusalem, not the Israelites. They merely conquered it under Joshua.
They were then themselves expelled from Jerusalem – according to the Hebrew Bible – for their disobedience to the Lord.
It strikes me they can claim Jerusalem on secular grounds, by right of conquest, but not on Biblical grounds. Their expulsion and exile is surely a key part of the same cycle of stories and historic documents that is claimed to justify their current occupation.
You cant have it both ways, surely?

Last edited 5 months ago by William Amos
Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
5 months ago
Reply to  William Amos

A minority of ‘Haredi’ Jews don’t recognise the Israeli state on religious grounds, despite living there. According to their traditions certain conditions have to be met before a Jewish state is legitimate. There’s footage of their clashes with secular Israeli forces in Jerusalem which would confuse the more excitable Israel supporters here.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
5 months ago
Reply to  Albert McGloan

Indeed, shades of the “Life of Brian “ in fact!

Mike Fraser
Mike Fraser
5 months ago
Reply to  William Amos

There are over 600 mentions regarding the Jewish connection with Jerusalem in the Bible. Not one mention, I am told, of Jerusalem in the Quran.

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago
Reply to  William Amos

The right of conquest is not the only secular grounds on which the Jews can claim Israel.

Dengie Dave
Dengie Dave
5 months ago

Lightweight and biased. The writer reveals his agenda with the phrase “The sudden outburst of anti-colonial rancour,” It may be that the archaeological project in Jerusalem is being politicised, but using that, and only that, to question Jewish indigeneity does not amount to an argument. There is a wealth of archaeological evidence demonstrating Jewish indigeneity. Also, the Jewish bible (Torah) makes 699 references to Jerusalem. I’m told, but would welcome correction if I’m wrong, that the Quran makes no mention of Jerusalem. The former was written many hundreds of years before the latter. The writer makes no attempt to place Palestinian claims of indigeneity under scrutiny. Nor does he even question whether Ottoman occupation was colonisation. That’s why, in my view, this article was biased.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
5 months ago
Reply to  Dengie Dave

“There is a wealth of archaeological evidence demonstrating Jewish indigeneity.”
Which is exactly what he says. However, as he points out, if one is to argue that the ‘most indigenous’ own the place, then the Ashkenazim should all go back to Eastern Europe since they finish last. Me, I think the Samaritans own the whole place since they are not only indigenous, they’ve been there continuously for 2500 years.

Jane Awdry
Jane Awdry
3 months ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

All this talk of indigenous ‘rights’ is nonsense. How far back should we go in our hunt for our ab origine status? Humans have been on the move across the globe since the first intrepid tribes moved out of Africa.
So all we need now is to evolve past all the petty “I got here first”-ism and learn to see ourselves as citizens of the Earth.
Simple.

Peter B
Peter B
5 months ago

I can’t help it, but Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” comes to mind here. The historical and genetic research seems to show that the Jews and Palestinians have far more in common than they think or wish to believe. It feels like the PFJ and the JPF all over again … the celebrated narcissim of small differences.
If only they had a common, external enemy to unite against … like the Romans/Ottoman Turks/British …
Perhaps some of them need to watch the film and see just how ridiculous some of this actually is.
Surely also a little absurd that the term “antisemitic” is taken to mean “anti-Jewish” when “semitic” includes Arabs.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
5 months ago
Reply to  Peter B
Colorado UnHerd
Colorado UnHerd
5 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

Appreciate your comment, and Monty Python. My neighbor has a “Did you bring a shrubbery?” welcome mat.

Derek Smith
Derek Smith
5 months ago

Upvoted for the shrubbery!

Mrs R
Mrs R
5 months ago

It is interesting that so many people from Pakistan are viscerally anti- Israel.

Alex Carnegie
Alex Carnegie
5 months ago
Reply to  Mrs R

… and so many Indians pro.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
5 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

Hardly surprising really given the background of both ‘teams’.

Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
5 months ago

Israel’s (very successful) efforts to turn India into their biggest cheerleader tells us where they think the future lies.

Sayantani Gupta
Sayantani Gupta
5 months ago
Reply to  Albert McGloan

Both India and Israel face a common enemy in fanaticism from Islamic extremism. Both are sophisticated Western style democracies compared to their adversaries. It’s a strategic and existential alliance.

Ali W
Ali W
5 months ago

I met many Indians while at university and they’d say they were from “northern India”, which I thought meant Kashmir, since that’s pretty far north, and when I said that they shook their head with a grimace on their faces (they usually meant near Delhi, which I would describe as central but what do I know). I knew about India Pakistan issues at a high level but this was my first personal encounter with Hindu distaste for Muslims. I can’t blame them, I remember reading about the LeT attacks.

Sayantani Gupta
Sayantani Gupta
5 months ago
Reply to  Ali W

I think it’s very complex. Overall North Indians share far more culturally with Punjabi and Sindhi Pakistanis- language, dress, cultural attitudes not rooted in religion. Some years back Pakistani soap operas were all the rage among this lot. Bollywood due to its Muslim mega stars still pedels a more soft Islamic line on many themes.
As a Bengali from the East I share much more linguistic and cultural affinity with Bangladeshis.
However religious polarization mainly to do with the violence faced by Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan is upsetting these older ties.
Also India’s Leftist Opposition fetishizes the Sunni hardline votebank and thus the Constitution was changed in 1972 to privilege Sharia laws, as well as weaponise secularism to go against Hindus( not allow them to control their shrines, while allowing Muslims to do so being one galling example)
Plus Nehru never was serious about a strictly ” laicite” French model of distinction between State and religion, as far as Muslims were concerned. This has led to the failure of reformist and moderate Muslim voices.
Sadly the situation will only get worse due to the continuation of anti Hindu pogroms in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
“Three countries, one people” you can say….

Last edited 5 months ago by Sayantani Gupta
Ali W
Ali W
5 months ago

Thank you for the background.

Mrs R
Mrs R
5 months ago

I was thinking of it more along the lines that Pakistan was a state created post WWII.

Ali W
Ali W
5 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

My limited experience with Hindu Indians is they are typically not fans of Muslims. Both because of conflict with Pakistan and because India’s Muslim population is growing faster than Hindus, so I think there’s a sense of invasion from within. I imagine the groups have cultural clashes like any ethnic groups sharing the same region.

William Amos
William Amos
5 months ago
Reply to  Mrs R

The ‘Khilafat’ movement on the Indian subcontinent was foundational to both South Asian Muslim identity and Pakistani nationalism.
The question of Islamic rule in Palestine is therefore not contradicted by but actually analogous to the perceived position of the Mughal heirs in ‘Hindustan’.
It’s not a nativist movement but an imperial one. The same individuals are also likely to lay claim to ‘Al Andalus’ if you read their own writings.

Last edited 5 months ago by William Amos
Sayantani Gupta
Sayantani Gupta
5 months ago
Reply to  William Amos

Actually the roots for Pakistan are in the 19th century Sunni revivalist movements like the Wahabi, Faraizi and Tabligh- i- Jamat plus the elite communalism of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan.
The Mughals were merely the last to a long line of Islamic conquerors from the brutal invasions beginning in Sind in 7th century AD.
Gandhi was a lot to blame for bringing the Khilafatists to prominence by launching the Non Co- operation movement in 1921. He was of course helped in this by the carnage at Jallianwala Bagh.
Among those opposing the tie- up with the obscurantist Khilafatists was Jinnah- later the leader of the Muslim League and the founder of Pakistan.

Mike Fraser
Mike Fraser
5 months ago
Reply to  Mrs R

they are Muslims

Abe Stamm
Abe Stamm
5 months ago

97.4% of people living in the United States of America are NOT indigenous. But, the world isn’t lobbying for the 2.6% of indigenous people (which includes Alaska), using the international pressure of the United Nations, to get their territories returned to them. Why aren’t the protestors in New York City, the ones who empathize with “River to the Sea” goals Hamas, crying out for the return of Manhattan to the Lenape tribe of native Americans?
Answer: Because the United States, according to our Pledge of Alliance, “is one nation under God”…a Christian God to be precise. But, if it was one nation under the god of the Jews, then the world would be rooting for the return of the Apache, the Iroquois, the Cherokee, the Navajo, the Chickasaw, the Blackfeet, the Utes, the Sioux, the Comanche, and all the other tribes and nations of native America to their homelands.
I have a friend, born in Yugoslavia in 1960, who was an ethnic Serbian whose family lived in what’s now Croatia for over 100 years. But, in 1992, due to the decision making of the United Nations (but mostly the United States), his family was forced to leave Croatia and flee to Serbia, where they had no contacts, forfeiting their extensive real estate portfolio to the newly formed Croatian government. In 2023, most of the world doesn’t even remember that there was a Yugoslavia. Why? Answer: Because none of the 5 successor states to Yugoslavia was a Jewish state.

Mike Fraser
Mike Fraser
5 months ago

Ever since circa 130AD there has been neither a Jewish state nor a Palestinian state until the 20th century.
Jews and Arabs in various communities large and small have lived on and off in the area in question for the last 1900 years or so, whilst it has been conquered by Caliphates and Manluks and Crusaders and ottoman empires.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries more Jews started acquiring the land by purchasing it individually from Arabs who lived there at the time. There was no shortage of Arabs wanting to sell to the Jews but the acquisitions were limited by the shortage of funds on the Jewish side.
There is no evidence that the land was stolen by the Jews.
The Arabs, who then called themselves Palestinians, became very concerned in the early 20th century and violence broke out amongst them and the Jews who had legitimately bought land, which was collectively “owned” by the Ottoman Empire through its conquest of it during the previous 400 years.
The Ottoman Empire was defeated by the allies and a mandate was given to the British  which was called the Palestine mandate and that land consisted of what is now Jordan, Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and the Sinai desert.
The Brits stupidly gave the land which is now Jordan to King Abdullah and then having been assaulted violently by both Arabs and Jews gave up the struggle and handed the whole problem over to the League of Nations.
The League of Nations/United Nations  offered A partition of the land  solution to the Palestinian Arabs and to the Jews which the Jews accepted even though it was described as a mere tablecloth and the Arabs as usual said no.
I won’t go into the rest of the history as it is so well known but I will say this.
The reason why the thugs who are the leaders of the Arab community have said no to every offer of land that has been made to them, AND THIS IS WHERE YOU ALL MISS THE POINT,  IS THAT IT IS NOT ABOUT THE LAND .
IT IS ABOUT THE HATRED THAT ISLAM HAS FOR THE JEWS , AND WHICH IS QUITE PUBLICLY EXPRESSED.

Alex Carnegie
Alex Carnegie
5 months ago

This interesting article is, to my mind, yet another illustration of the unhelpful nature of much the debate around Israel / Palestine. Trying to frame issues entirely around which side to identify with – based largely on which narrative or version of history is to be endorsed – is fruitless. In reality, the Israelis will continue to embrace their narrative of victimhood, historical entitlement, pride and rectitude and the Palestinians theirs. These rival narratives cannot be reconciled. Any solution will therefore depend more on pragmatic accommodations. Conflicts are not western movies; it is insufficient to identify the goodies and baddies and cheer accordingly. What is needed is a pathway out of the mess. Eliminating large numbers of Hamas members may be both emotionally satisfying as revenge and a useful military operation from an Israeli perspective but it is not a coherent overall strategy in itself. I wish more UH comments focussed on suggesting solutions than picking sides.

Last edited 5 months ago by Alex Carnegie
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
5 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

I offer Rome and Carthage as one solution. At least it worked!

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
5 months ago
Reply to  Alex Carnegie

I see very little similarity between the Israelis and the Palestinians
 certainly using your definition.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
5 months ago

Maybe if the Palestinians killed over 3000 Israeli children then you would?

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Maybe if the Israelis baked Palestinian Arab infants in ovens I would.

Does your figure of 3000 Palestinian Arab children come from the same source as the “500 killed by Israel” in the hospital parking lot hit by an Islamic Jihad rocket?

Last edited 5 months ago by Gandydancer x
Colorado UnHerd
Colorado UnHerd
5 months ago

Would that humanity routinely rose to the view articulated by Greenberg and this article’s author. Instead, we behave like toddlers (unfortunately, possessed of adult weapons), the “I got here first” argument one of many we use to assert ourselves over others.
Animals were indigenous before any humans, and insects and single-celled organisms in their turn before animals. Who got where first is not a useful filter though which to resolve conflict on a planet we must share with other humans as well as species who suffer disproportionately from human selfishness and violence. That people habitually devolve toward such childish bickering — too often fueled by religious dogma — is a sad commentary.

Last edited 5 months ago by Colorado UnHerd
D Glover
D Glover
5 months ago

You’re confusing animals with mammals.
Animal (from the latin animus = spirit) moves of its own volition.
Mammal (from mamma = breast) suckles its young with milk.
Insects are certainly animals.

Colorado UnHerd
Colorado UnHerd
5 months ago
Reply to  D Glover

That bit of etymology will improve my entomology. So, thank you. 🙂

Last edited 5 months ago by Colorado UnHerd
Bret Larson
Bret Larson
5 months ago

We’re all indigenous to earth, even if those of ill intent try to paint others as alien.

G K
G K
5 months ago

The very fervour of proving identity begs the question. Shards of dubious origin vs very real door keys worn by Palestinians. Modern Greeks have a much better case for Constantinople.
While it’s true that Jews have always lived between “River go the Sea“ but it was quite a leap for the Zionist case to go from an exclusively religious spiritual community of at most 10,000 to a secular nation state and a mass settlement.
It’s true that Jews have always had a special connection with the land of Israel but the irony is that the Zionists were the least connected to the religious roots. They replaced the spiritual quest with the 19th century European national identity craze. And as a result created an entirely new mythology based on denouncing the traditional Jewish identity!

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
5 months ago
Reply to  G K

They, the Zionists pulled off a truly remarkable trick by getting us (UK) to conquer Palestine* by ‘proxy’ in 1917-18. It cost us about 23,000 lives.

(* As ‘we’ then called it.)

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago

The Brits had no the reason to fight the Turks except obedience to the wishes of the Elders of Zion, eh?

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago
Reply to  G K

Does your source for that 10,000 figure (when?) says how many Palestinian Arabs there were as well as how many Palestinian Jews? Because neither population got where it is without immigration.

There were at that time no “Palestinians”, of course. The Arabs “national identity craze” came much later in Palestine.

The Arabs best give up those door keys. The 3 million Mizrahi Jews have faced reality and Arabs need to, too. That population exchange is not going to get reversed, any more than all the Muslims from places in India are going to go back to them from Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Last edited 5 months ago by Gandydancer x
Hanne Herrman
Hanne Herrman
5 months ago

But how can they do that, Lee Fang: «recognize the common bonds that unite every Arab and Jew as members of the same community with inalienable rights» when they are deeply separated by their religions?

Hanne Herrman

Mark Carpenter
Mark Carpenter
5 months ago

The way Americans understand this is inevitably through our own history. A few centuries ago all this was native American homeland. It doesnt make sense for us modern people to give Manhattan back. Going back centuries is utopian and useless. The law is for the living.

And for much of our history as the US, Blacks had almost no rights. What finally helped was the Civil War of course, but more recently when LBJ got voting rights act through in 50s. Politicians started paying attention to Black voters and ultimately we get Civil Rights and Obama.

So when we hear Israelis talking about the ancient past to justify their presence, it seems like a decolonialization argument. Like the 1948 nakba was justified by the Bible and ancient history. Sounds like the argument for giving Manhattan back. But the natives who first lived in Manhattan are long gone, whereas the Palestinians displaced in 1948 are still around. At least some of them. That is a whole different situation.

The most salient question we Americans have is whether or not children born non-Jewish anywhere in Israel get full citizenship rights, including right to vote in Israel when they are of age. If they don’t, then it appears to us like a form of Jim Crow, an apartheid state. Eric Levitz was honest and clear about this the other day in I think NY magazine.

Last edited 5 months ago by Mark Carpenter
Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
5 months ago
Reply to  Mark Carpenter

“The most salient question we Americans have is whether or not children born non-Jewish anywhere in Israel get full citizenship rights, including right to vote in Israel when they are of age.”
Israel has approximately 275,000 Arabs (mainly Muslim but also Christian and Druze), which is approximately 21% of the population. All are full, voting, citizens. Arabs sit in the Knesset and have established three Arab political parties, one of which has a faction that opposes the state’s existence and another that opposes the state’s Jewish character. Arabs are not required to join the army, although some volunteer for military service.

Mark Carpenter
Mark Carpenter
5 months ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

Dodged the question. Half of Gaza population is under 18. Are all those kids full citizens of Israel?

Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
5 months ago
Reply to  Mark Carpenter

No, Mark. I was referring to the Arabs in Israel. Gaza is not part of Israel. The Israelis withdrew from Gaza in 2005–taking with them, by force, all Jews. In 2006, the residents of Gaza elected Hamas.

Mark Carpenter
Mark Carpenter
5 months ago
Reply to  Paul Nathanson

I see. But that is the problem. When a country has total control over another territory, then the rest of the world sees it as their problem. This is my point. America sees West Bank and Gaza as Israel’s ghetto territory. They see Hamas as Alqueda and they know that Afghanistan and Iraq were utter failures at nation building. AlQueda turned to Isis. Taliban are still in control.
Until you get either a one state solution or a two state solution the perceptual reality that Israel still has the Occupied territories will persist in America. And our perception seems to matter a lot for Israel. Please consider that Democrats are currently split in two by the Culture War and it is the NYT that is at the forefront of pushing the BLM and trans agenda and that 3 out of the 5 SCOTUS judges that signed Obergefell were Jewish. All of our traditional religions are against what the Ivy league progressives are doing. Much of America is quite wary of being manipulated at this point. We have already spent the past years being called, misogynist racist transphobic and homophobic. Anti-semitic seems like just another name to be called.

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago
Reply to  Mark Carpenter

“…more recently when LBJ got voting rights act through in 50s. Politicians started paying attention to Black voters and ultimately we get Civil Rights and Obama.”

You know all sorts of false facts. Where were you taught ?LBJ did nothing of the sort in the ’50s. Anyway, Blacks didn’t suddenly start voting with the Civil Right Act of 1964. Which was passed mostly with White votes, as was Obama elected.

And the 1948 “nakba” was justified by the Arab attacks on the Jews, not by ancient claims on the land.
“The most salient question we Americans have is whether or not children born non-Jewish anywhere in Israel get full citizenship rights, including right to vote in Israel when they are of age.”

No, we Americans are not universally so stupid, as to demand suicide of the Jews even if many of us (not me) have strange ideas about birthright citizenship in the US. Btw, are you including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in Israel or not?

Last edited 5 months ago by Gandydancer x
Mark Carpenter
Mark Carpenter
5 months ago
Reply to  Gandydancer x

s

Last edited 5 months ago by Mark Carpenter
Mark Carpenter
Mark Carpenter
5 months ago
Reply to  Gandydancer x

1957 Civil Rights act. LBJ was majority leader of the Senate. This set the political ball rolling so he could get Civil Rights in 1964. Nuance. Yes I am including West bank and Gaza. From over here it sure looks like those are ghettos controlled by Israel. Maybe i am wrong but lots of us stupid Americans are under this impression.

Last edited 5 months ago by Mark Carpenter
JOHN KANEFSKY
JOHN KANEFSKY
5 months ago

The answer (which has no chance of being implemented) is surely for Israel to annex the whole of the land between the Jordan and Mediterranean and at the same time make all residents full Israeli citizens. Also give back to the previous owners, all the land in the West Bank taken by settlers, or require them to pay an independently-assessed price for said land.
That will not happen, as Israel’s leaders cannot contemplate the idea that the Palestinians should have any rights over the land or citizenship (although in reality about 20% of current Israeli citizens are of Palestinian / Arab heritage).
As ever, one returns to the truism that Israel can be a Jewish state or it can be a democracy (for all those living west of the Jordan). It cannot be both.

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago
Reply to  JOHN KANEFSKY

No, it is surely not, as that would mean death for all the Jews.

But even if it were, your ignoring of the claims for compensation on other Arab lands surely due in your alternate reality to the 3 million Mizrahi Jews in Israel is telling.

Dillon Eliassen
Dillon Eliassen
5 months ago

The two sides can unite over their shared disdain for pork.

Amelia Melkinthorpe
Amelia Melkinthorpe
5 months ago

Just demonstrates how wrong they both are.

Amelia Melkinthorpe
Amelia Melkinthorpe
5 months ago

I’m tending towards the idea that neither Israel nor the Arabs should have Jerusalem. Put the Dayaks, or the Amish, or the Andorrans in there.

Chris Hayes
Chris Hayes
5 months ago

Great article which shows the complexity of the situation. I suspect that some current Palestinian inhabitants of Israel are descendants of Jewish converts to Islam post AD 750 onwards, so despite their religion would have more of a claim on this basis than European Jews who returned directly or indirectly post WWII.
Indeed, if they share 60-70% common ancestors with the Canaanites, I would be interested to learn how much ancestry I share with these Bronze Age goat herders….after all, there must have been a Bronze Age Hayes.

Jane Awdry
Jane Awdry
3 months ago

In England we are still living 1000 years on under the colonial yoke of William ’The Conqueror’ of France. It’s an outrage.

Walter Schwager
Walter Schwager
5 months ago

Good luck. Didn’t many Jewish leaders dismiss Palestinians as vermin?

Gorka Sillero
Gorka Sillero
5 months ago

Not surprising, considering the terms in which Muslims consider Jews in their sacred book

Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
5 months ago
Reply to  Gorka Sillero

Are you familiar with what Judaism teaches about non-Jews? If not you may be rather shocked.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
5 months ago
Reply to  Albert McGloan

“The gentile does not honour his promises like that of a Jew. The laws of the Torah were not to be revealed to the gentiles, for the knowledge of these laws might give gentiles an advantage in dealing with Jews. Shimon ben Lakish wrote that “A gentile who observes Sabbath deserves death”*

(*THUS SAYETH THE WIKIBEAST. AMEN.)

Gandydancer x
Gandydancer x
5 months ago
Reply to  Albert McGloan

I googled your question and came up with Western liberal pablum like this:
https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/What-does-traditional-Judaism-teach-about-non-Jews-564527
The difference is that the bloody-minded parts of the Koran are what is taught by MAINSTREAM Muslims, while most Jews do their best to ignore THEIR bloody-minded bits.

Last edited 5 months ago by Gandydancer x