Cowardly Idf Soldiers, amazing clip

[AlexB]

@janab-e-ali

Perhaps you’re not familiar with the definition of the term, but there is a difference between acculturation, and “complete assimilation” (which is what you seem to be referring to above). When I say that Jews acculturated themselves to Europe and the Middle East, I’m referring to the fact that they adopted local languages, local dress, elements of local customs & culture, and by the 19th century, were even intermarrying with local Gentiles (before you start, there’s a reason why Sephardim and Ashkenazim don’t look alike, and that reason is intermarriage). I agree, they maintained distinict cultural and religious traditions of their own as well, but that does not change the fact that they had acculturated themselves into a greater European or Middle Eastern context.

Local dress and customs are rather superficial attributes. And obviously any population is in a constant process of development. An Englishman of today looks very differently from an Englishman of 1000 years ago in terms of dress, language and customs - and it happened without any exile. So, there is always a process of cultural development going on, and for the Jews this process was obviously influenced by the surrounding. But the changes in these superficial attributes did not change the core essence of their identity as the People of Israel.

Regarding intermarriage, it was virtually non-existent among Ashkenazim until the period of emancipation (19-20 century). The Mizrachim conditions were more relaxed, but one should remember that if a family remains Jewish, it means that a Gentile has been “accepted into a tribe”. If you are familiar with the book of Ruth, it is a very ancient custom among the Jews – “Your people is my people, your God is my God”. The Jewish identity is not about genetic purity.

@janab-e-ali

To compare the Jewish Quarters of Renaissance Europe, which were formal settlements that housed the (in many cases rather affluent) Jewish citizens of a particular city, to the tent cities and shantytowns teeming with stateless refugees is nothing short of gratuitous intellectual dishonesty. It only serves to call your credibility into question.

http://www.atlastours.net/holyland/nablus_at_night.jpg

http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/wp-content/nablus-duwaar-sm.JPG

http://blog.globalpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/downtown-in-old-nablus.jpg

http://sinokrot.net/website/images/stories/industry/sinokrot-nablus.jpg

These are images of Nablus in the occupied West Bank. Does not seem like a tent city to me. If you go through the West Bank, for instance in the outskirts of Ramallah you can find Palestinian houses, which most of the Israelis can only dream of.
So, there were some Jewish ghettos in Europe, which looked quite respectable and some of their residents (not citizens!) were rather affluent. Most of them though were overcrowded slums reminiscent of leper colonies.
One should also remember that even an affluent ghetto is still a ghetto. Just ask the residents of Nablus, Ramallah or Jenin.

@janab-e-ali

I see. So the origins of the Palestinians are suspect because of migration and intermarriage, however, mirgation and intermarriage do not negate etc.

Again, it is not about genetic purity or place of residence. It is about a national identity preserved and passed from generation to generation.

@janab-e-ali

The problem with that concept is that its purely based on religious doctrine that is accepted as fact by less than 0.25% of the world’s population, and nothing more.

I’m talking about historical realities of the Jewish people, not any religious doctrine.

@janab-e-ali

You yourself pointed out that the history of humanity is full of migration and shifting borders. No other people claim proprietary rights to a land the ancestors of their ancestors left over 1000 years ago, regardless of their current situation, because they realize that such an act would be fundamentally ridiculous.

You are confusing the proprietary rights of an individual with collective national rights of a people. These are completely different categories.

@janab-e-ali

The fact that it was a British colony at the time does not change the fact that it was already settled by people who had to be systematically disenfranchized and ethnically cleansed to make way for the Israeli state.

As we have already established, the history is full of migrations and shifting borders. Areas, which were once dominated by one group of people become dominated by another group and so on. It happened many times, including in the area in question. I thought it was an acceptable historical process, or was it?

@janab-e-ali

Yes, and with all the illegal and legal Jewish migration that took place during the colonial era, the Jewish population of the British Mandate only increased from about 11% in 1920 to about 30% in 1945. And with all these “generous” purchases, Jews had only legally acquired less than 7% of the total land by 1948.

And by mid. 50s the Jewish population of Israel was already higher than the Arab population that lived there in 1948. So the Jews would become a majority by that time even without the war. One can argue that the Arabs did a favor for the Jews, when they started the war of expulsion and subsequently lost it. It made things easier for the Jews, but it was not necessary.

Regarding land acquisition, let’s not forget that the majority of the land that would become Israel was either uninhabited, undeveloped, or simply without formally registered legal ownership. It is rather disingenuous to assume that the land is Arab “by default” unless the Jews can present a legal proof of ownership.