Who had it first?

[The Man]

A argument that I can't seem to get passed through my mind and defend Palestine is: "Israel had the land first, in the very beginning!", what do I say to defeat this argument. Also, How did Palestine actually acquire the land?

[Apoi_Viitor]

http://www.instituteofsocialsurvivalism.org/Main/OTS_Archives/2010/Week_42_files/four-panel-map.jpg

[L.A.P.]

It simply doesn't matter, that doesn't mean they should oppress people and kick them out of their homes in favor of a different ethnic group (which isn't all that different in reality). Also, it's a bit ridiculous to think that people should have the ability to just knock on your door and take everything from you just because their ancestors lived there thousands of years ago.

[Broletariat]

I had my house first (I built it), then it got foreclosed.

That argument doesn't fly.

[Tim Finnegan]

A argument that I can't seem to get passed through my mind and defend Palestine is: "Israel had the land first, in the very beginning!", what do I say to defeat this argument.
You fix them straight in the eye, lowering your brown, narrowing your eyes, and you say, in careful, measured tones, "That was two thousand years ago. Fuck off." ;)

But, yeah, just observe that this is basically blood and soil mysticism that has no real place in contemporary political discourse, be it liberal or conservative (let alone socialist). It assumes a transcendent link between a genetic lineage and a certain collection of chemicals, with no reference to actual historical occupation, cultivation or even formal ownership of the land, which can only survive the most basic scrutiny if one adopts a consciously anti-rational, pre-Enlightenment philosophical stance, which leaves you having a hard time justifying Israel as a bourgeois nation-state in the first place.

And if that fails, just point out that most of the Palestinians are also descended from the Israelites, they just got converted during the Islamic expansions. They didn't turn up later, so even if you support "genes are a land deed" nonsense, you're stuck. This means that they can only really defend Israeli supremacism if you're willing to move onto an explicitly religious nationalism, which is going to make it difficult for whoever you're talking to retain even a basic posture of reason.

[Red_Struggle]

The British government handed over the mandate of Palestine to jewish settlers following World War 2, so that argument doesn't really work. It was out of the Palestinians' hands who got the land and when.

[Aurorus Ruber]

I don't know nearly as much about this subject as I probably should, although I've gotten into arguments over Israel as well. One guy I know online tells me that Jews actually bought a considerable amount of land in Palestine fair and square from the original inhabitants. He also argues that most of the conflict arose from Palestinian organizations dedicated to anti-Semitic policies which forced the hand of Israel. He tells me that one religious group paid people to kill Jews and anyone among the Palestinians friendly to them. No idea how to respond to that.

[Tim Finnegan]

The British government handed over the mandate of Palestine to jewish settlers following World War 2, so that argument doesn't really work. It was out of the Palestinians' hands who got the land and when.
But how many pro-Israel arguments actually invoke this little item of imperial benevolence? The vast majority, in my experience, tend to offer a clumsy blood-and-soil narrative, particularly in those countries- such as the US- which maintain a formal (if entirely hollow) tradition of anti-imperialism.

[Fulanito de Tal]

Judaism is a religion. How can people from a religion say they own a piece of land because their ancestors lived there? That's soooooo fucking stupid. "Well, you see, I believe in the same thing that people over 2000 years ago that lived here believed, so I have the right to this land. I don't know what you're gonna do, but that's not my problem." If I change my religion to Islam, can I go claim Medina and Mecca? What about redhead Jews. Were they from Palestine too? That's so weird since everyone else in the area looks tan and has dark hair.

But if that doesn't suffice and the person is white, then ask the fucker to stick to his/her word and get the fuck out of the First Nations people's land...and send a blow right to the face. Tell her/him that he/she has 4 weeks to leave. Immediately set up a blockade around the house so nothing can get in or out. Bomb the house in 2 weeks and kill the neighbors and some family members. Then tell the residents to stop being terrorist.

FUCK ISRAEL.

[TC]

...apart from the absurdity of assuming the truth and relevance of jewish scriptures for the sake of enforcing modern day soverignty and property claims - its pretty clear from the Torah that the Hebrews/Israelites did not have the land first: they came from Egypt and stole the land from the native population :P.

[Gorilla]

A argument that I can't seem to get passed through my mind and defend Palestine is: "Israel had the land first, in the very beginning!", what do I say to defeat this argument. Also, How did Palestine actually acquire the land?

The Jews and Palestinians are both descendents of the ancient population of Judaea. The Jews kept the religion and left the land; the Palestinians kept the land and left the religion.

[PhoenixAsh]

Cananites, Gigarsiths Amorites, Hittites, Hivitites, Jebusites....and another one. Sounds like Pizza....pizza :-)...probablyn with -ites behind it. .

the book of former prohpets: Nevim Rhesonim....or something like that....describes the conquest of the land.

The Isarelites are a later subgroup within the cananites and conquered and massacred the other tribes....originally thier land waqs much smaller and they came to the land when Joshua led them there.

I need to stop drinking and posting...

[a rebel]

the Jewish genocide during WW2 was terrible. But just because you don't want to be around Germans, doesn't give you an excuse to kick other people out of a place they lived in for 2000 years.

[PhoenixAsh]

Its not just the Germans...its all Europeans and everybody else. Since pogroms and anti-jewish behaviour and ideology was not restricted to Germany they want their own country to protect themselves.

[Invader Zim]

As TC has noted the argument is actually self defeating.

[Gorilla]

Their ancestors didn't live there thousands of years ago. The present day Jewish population of Israel is for the most part made up of Eastern European heritage: Polish, Hungarian, Russian, etc.

Be very careful of this argument, it is a favorite of anti-Semites (which is why I think you found it on FreeRepublic).

[Fulanito de Tal]

Be very careful of this argument, it is a favorite of anti-Semites (which is why I think you found it on FreeRepublic).

What's wrong with it?

[Sun at Eight]

I'd say that the argument of whether modern Jews are descended from Khazars or other Eastern Europeans is an irrelevant argument when it comes to modern Zionism, although it got some left-wing respect and notability recently with the publication of Shlomo Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People, published by Verso.

However, it's irrelevant or even harmful, because then the implied part is that if modern Jews had ancestors from the Levant, then Zionist colonization is entirely justified. They are not analogous, but a similar problem can come up with people who consider themselves pro-Palestinian minimizing the Holocaust, where, again, the implied part is if the Holocaust happened like they said it happened, Zionist colonization is justified.

Even the Bible, where God promises the land to Abraham and his descendants (notably traditionally considered to be not just Jews, but also Arabs and other peoples), the land was "had first" by Jebusites and Canaanites and other peoples (the Book of Joshua is pretty disturbing) as others have pointed out. Also, Gorilla's point about descent is particularly important.

[Gorilla]

What's wrong with it?

Modern Ashkenazi Jews are often very proud of sharing continuity with the traditions of the Old Testament, the rich history of the Jewish people both in and out of Palestine, of the enormous importance their traditions have had in world history and intellectual life, etc.

There's a long history of anti-Semites claiming that Ashkenazi Jews have no Palestinian descent whatsoever to deligitimize them as Jews, to rob them of any claim to that heritage (google "site:*************** khazar" to get a taste.) So even if you're only claiming the Ashkenaz have limited Palestinian descent to deligimitize them as claimants to the land of Palestine, it tends to be received very badly and you end up looking like a crank.

Especially since it is not necessary. You don't need that argument. If someone proved tomorrow that Israeli Jews were of 100% autochthonous blood and the Palestinians were all descended from Chinese refugees who settled there two centuries ago, would it really change the ethics of the situation?

[PhoenixAsh]

You beat me to it.

I was just about to say that according to gene mapping we all share genes from all over the world. This would then legitimise anybodies claim on anybodies land.

I do not dispute the fact that some jewish people may have genetic lineage directly established with the original occupants of the region...I do however reject the non sequentior argument that it then directly follows you have the right to claim dominance and sole ownership of the region.

In fact...I think there is a very good case to be made against souvereignity of some European nations based on this same irrational logic....for one this would definately apply to Holland and Belgium...and I think most of Europe needs to be disintegrated based on this logic as well.