What's the maximum amount of generations removed that you'd say preserves their claim? Assuming an involuntary displacement that is supported by historical records.
How many replacements are needed exactly? Cause Babylon has not been around for a hot minute and Persia already built up the Jewish people again. Does something like that literally create a land claim hoisted upon all peoples in the region thereafter? Hell we wanna talk land claims, the Torah claims God gave them the land inhabited by the Canaanites who Moses' followers gladly massacre and genocide. So any decedents upon descendants of ancient Canaan should have a claim to the land then as well.
Beyond that, we are talking about the Bronze age ffs. Who counts as the successors? The people who live there? anyone who practices Judaism? Anyone who can be traced broadly back to genetics of people who lived in the region at some point? People who have diffused culturally and became new groups and cultures and ethnicities whose identity became distinct from some people who may be related to them 3000 years ago? Literally everyone aside from some groups in Africa are the product of migration and genetic diversification. By the logic of Israel, people with some Egyptian blood have a claim to Sub-Saharan Africa.
Ancient land claims that themselves are built on a self-proclaimed act of extermination are not moral arguments nor valid as international law.
As far as I'm aware the Amorites who led the original Babylonian Empire are completely gone and were absorbed into other groups, so not much we can do for that one. The Assyrians that took over have not had a homeland in some time, but are still a distinct ethnic group, there are apparently some working with Rojava (and I know Ocalan mentioned them specifically in Democratic Confederalism) so it appears that at least some of them are going for an alternative to a nation state. The Persians, of course, have the modern state of Iran. Some relatively recent DNA studies found that the descendants of the Canaanites are the people of Lebanon. So all of these groups either no longer exist as a distinct ethnic identity, or exist in the same place but with no state, or have a modern nation state already. For better examples you'd want groups that exist today as distinct ethnic groups, were involuntarily displaced, have no modern state, and have some historically documented homeland, since those would be directly comparable.
Generally people are referring to people who are ethnically Jewish, as in Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews as well as a number of smaller groups. DNA studies have shown these groups actually do have predominantly Middle Eastern ancestry. In any case, Israel is the closest area to a homeland that can be claimed, and the alternative is continued persecution of the Jewish people, which after WW2 had a close call with complete extermination (and in fact were completely wiped out from some states). I'm really not asking more than for you to acknowledge that this is not the clear cut "palestine good, israel bad" that everyone seems to think it is. There are quite a few aspects of what Israel is doing that are more clearly bad, but this can't be generalized to their entire existence.
Honestly though, the whole idea of solving this by granting them a nation state seems more like it was an easy way to "solve" the issue without confronting the larger problem of how stateless minority groups enjoy very little security.
Except none of that haplogroups and genetic history amounts to a land claim that means a damn. The people who stole it dont exist anymore, people live there now with no connection to whatever fucking crimes happened in the bronze age
And it is clear cut. One state is committing genocide right now, one is not. Michael Brooks said all that must be said on the matter, no ancient land claims or debts matter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62I61kBahNY
it can and is generalized to its entire existence cause it only came to be in 1948.
What's the maximum amount of generations removed that you'd say preserves their claim? Assuming an involuntary displacement that is supported by historical records.
How many replacements are needed exactly? Cause Babylon has not been around for a hot minute and Persia already built up the Jewish people again. Does something like that literally create a land claim hoisted upon all peoples in the region thereafter? Hell we wanna talk land claims, the Torah claims God gave them the land inhabited by the Canaanites who Moses' followers gladly massacre and genocide. So any decedents upon descendants of ancient Canaan should have a claim to the land then as well.
Beyond that, we are talking about the Bronze age ffs. Who counts as the successors? The people who live there? anyone who practices Judaism? Anyone who can be traced broadly back to genetics of people who lived in the region at some point? People who have diffused culturally and became new groups and cultures and ethnicities whose identity became distinct from some people who may be related to them 3000 years ago? Literally everyone aside from some groups in Africa are the product of migration and genetic diversification. By the logic of Israel, people with some Egyptian blood have a claim to Sub-Saharan Africa.
Ancient land claims that themselves are built on a self-proclaimed act of extermination are not moral arguments nor valid as international law.
As far as I'm aware the Amorites who led the original Babylonian Empire are completely gone and were absorbed into other groups, so not much we can do for that one. The Assyrians that took over have not had a homeland in some time, but are still a distinct ethnic group, there are apparently some working with Rojava (and I know Ocalan mentioned them specifically in Democratic Confederalism) so it appears that at least some of them are going for an alternative to a nation state. The Persians, of course, have the modern state of Iran. Some relatively recent DNA studies found that the descendants of the Canaanites are the people of Lebanon. So all of these groups either no longer exist as a distinct ethnic identity, or exist in the same place but with no state, or have a modern nation state already. For better examples you'd want groups that exist today as distinct ethnic groups, were involuntarily displaced, have no modern state, and have some historically documented homeland, since those would be directly comparable.
Generally people are referring to people who are ethnically Jewish, as in Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews as well as a number of smaller groups. DNA studies have shown these groups actually do have predominantly Middle Eastern ancestry. In any case, Israel is the closest area to a homeland that can be claimed, and the alternative is continued persecution of the Jewish people, which after WW2 had a close call with complete extermination (and in fact were completely wiped out from some states). I'm really not asking more than for you to acknowledge that this is not the clear cut "palestine good, israel bad" that everyone seems to think it is. There are quite a few aspects of what Israel is doing that are more clearly bad, but this can't be generalized to their entire existence.
Honestly though, the whole idea of solving this by granting them a nation state seems more like it was an easy way to "solve" the issue without confronting the larger problem of how stateless minority groups enjoy very little security.
Except none of that haplogroups and genetic history amounts to a land claim that means a damn. The people who stole it dont exist anymore, people live there now with no connection to whatever fucking crimes happened in the bronze age
And it is clear cut. One state is committing genocide right now, one is not. Michael Brooks said all that must be said on the matter, no ancient land claims or debts matter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62I61kBahNY
it can and is generalized to its entire existence cause it only came to be in 1948.