My views and thoughts on this are constrained by the Tanakh. Which happens to state rather unequivocally that Hashem whose creation this is, gifted a portion of the land He created to Israel in perpetuity.
As is frequently discussed here, there's no such thing as a Palestinian, only descendants of Ishmael, who are known as Arabs.
Further, according to the "rules" of warfare, after 1967, the Golan, Gaza, Samaria, and Judea are part of sovereign Israel. So happens Arabs are living there. I'd venture that those who desired, could leave anytime.
I'm guessing since GD is a promise-keeping GD (check the Torah), those promises to Israel remain, and are the reason Israel exists. And, won't be going away anytime soon.
I do not bring in God to support our being here on the land. It is enough for me to rely on the archaeological evidence of our indigenous status and the fact that we are OF the land.
The word "indigenous" derives from the Latin word "indigena", meaning "native" or "original inhabitant." It is suggested that Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel. Historically, this is not an accurate premise.
The connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel is deeply rooted in the Tanakh and its historical context. According to the Torah, Gd promised the land to Abraham and his descendants in perpetuity, making it a divine covenant that transcends typical definitions of indigeneity.
While other groups historically inhabited the land prior to the Exodus, the Jewish claim is uniquely tied to Gd's sovereign promise, and His delivering the land into Jewish possession. This promise to be Gd's people has been a cornerstone of Jewish faith, identity, and their enduring bond to the land, influencing not just historical narratives but also contemporary perspectives and politics. And archeology definitely provides supporting evidence.
Indigenous is the still-living original inhabitant and if a previous inhabitant is extinct, then it is no longer THE indigenous people. Those previous tribes that once lived on the land are no longer in existence, hence they have no claim to indigenous status. That is why Saeb Ereket tried to claim he is a direct descendant of the Canaanites.
For my tuppence worth I'd like to address the "part that troubles you" that is, possible UN recognition of the PA entity as a state. In doing so, I would also suggest this is the very reason the UN hasn't done so, and hopefully, cannot do so: It has to do with the San Remo Declaration of 1920 whereby the so-called West Bank and the rest of Israel was lawfully restored to the Jewish people, and this legal title was internationally guaranteed and never revoked. Additionally, the Oslo Accords include clauses that would seem to accept Israel's legal title to the land (via San Remo) which Israel MAY give up only by negotiation between Israel and the PLO.
You have a lot of faith in the UN being loyal to their own words. If I may, I'd like to edit my article and add your comment to the body of the article. Do I have your permission?
Yes, of course. It's not so much that I have much faith in the UN's words, rather I think their actions are restrained by what's written into international law. Even the 1917 Balfour Declaration was endorsed by the San Remo Declaration so it too is part of International law.
My views and thoughts on this are constrained by the Tanakh. Which happens to state rather unequivocally that Hashem whose creation this is, gifted a portion of the land He created to Israel in perpetuity.
As is frequently discussed here, there's no such thing as a Palestinian, only descendants of Ishmael, who are known as Arabs.
Further, according to the "rules" of warfare, after 1967, the Golan, Gaza, Samaria, and Judea are part of sovereign Israel. So happens Arabs are living there. I'd venture that those who desired, could leave anytime.
I'm guessing since GD is a promise-keeping GD (check the Torah), those promises to Israel remain, and are the reason Israel exists. And, won't be going away anytime soon.
I do not bring in God to support our being here on the land. It is enough for me to rely on the archaeological evidence of our indigenous status and the fact that we are OF the land.
The word "indigenous" derives from the Latin word "indigena", meaning "native" or "original inhabitant." It is suggested that Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel. Historically, this is not an accurate premise.
The connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel is deeply rooted in the Tanakh and its historical context. According to the Torah, Gd promised the land to Abraham and his descendants in perpetuity, making it a divine covenant that transcends typical definitions of indigeneity.
While other groups historically inhabited the land prior to the Exodus, the Jewish claim is uniquely tied to Gd's sovereign promise, and His delivering the land into Jewish possession. This promise to be Gd's people has been a cornerstone of Jewish faith, identity, and their enduring bond to the land, influencing not just historical narratives but also contemporary perspectives and politics. And archeology definitely provides supporting evidence.
Indigenous is the still-living original inhabitant and if a previous inhabitant is extinct, then it is no longer THE indigenous people. Those previous tribes that once lived on the land are no longer in existence, hence they have no claim to indigenous status. That is why Saeb Ereket tried to claim he is a direct descendant of the Canaanites.
He's just using the wrong filter.
Enlightening dissection!
For my tuppence worth I'd like to address the "part that troubles you" that is, possible UN recognition of the PA entity as a state. In doing so, I would also suggest this is the very reason the UN hasn't done so, and hopefully, cannot do so: It has to do with the San Remo Declaration of 1920 whereby the so-called West Bank and the rest of Israel was lawfully restored to the Jewish people, and this legal title was internationally guaranteed and never revoked. Additionally, the Oslo Accords include clauses that would seem to accept Israel's legal title to the land (via San Remo) which Israel MAY give up only by negotiation between Israel and the PLO.
You have a lot of faith in the UN being loyal to their own words. If I may, I'd like to edit my article and add your comment to the body of the article. Do I have your permission?
Yes, of course. It's not so much that I have much faith in the UN's words, rather I think their actions are restrained by what's written into international law. Even the 1917 Balfour Declaration was endorsed by the San Remo Declaration so it too is part of International law.