Simon – I strongly agree with you re: your comments “the fact that our ancestors lived here, once upon a time, does not give us an automatic right to uproot people from their homes and move into them ourselves”. Obviously, due legal process must be observed, and someone can’t just pop up on a hilltop with a caravan and claim its my property, without actually legally owning it.

What you say is very true, and I wouldn’t consider denying the attachment to the land that is felt by Israelis. Israelis not only have a right to live here, but the land belongs to them in the truest sense. To suggest, however, that it belongs to all Jews is a fundamentally mistaken perspective. The fact that our ancestors lived here, once upon a time, does not give us an automatic right to uproot people from their homes and move into them ourselves. I am currently writing from Jerusalem where, I am sorry to say, such a thing is happening as we speak. The local authorities, in an effort to “unify Jerusalem”, are forcibly ejecting Palestinians from their properties and moving Jews into the vacated lots.

I find it distressing that a Jew from NYC, or from Melbourne, might consider themselves to be possessed of the same claim to this land as the Palestinians have, and to be so blasé about “reclaiming” it. That is not an attack against Frosh – I’m not suggesting that he is so stupid as to believe something like that – but it’s an argument that I hear time and again from people whose sole connection to Judaism is a misplaced nationalism.

Both Israelis and Palestinians have an equal claim to this land: you put that very well. Let’s hope the government appreciates that, the next time they’re trying to figure out where to put some Israeli immigrants.

I am essentially in agreement with you that “both Israelis and Palestinians have connections to the land, and denying each others attachments is silly” as well as your overall comment.

Just to clarify, in 1947 (according to official UN figures) Jews were a clear majority in the area in the land assigned to the Jewish state under the UN partition plan, and Arabs were a clear majority in the assigned to an Arab state under that same plan.

On the one hand, the situation in Israel is different to Australian aboriginals in the sense that Jews were returning to their ancestral home after 1500 years and not continually living on the land (except for a relatively small, but important presence), something fairly unique (I can’t think of another example of a people returning to its land after being exiled hundreds of years beforehand). On the otherhand, to say that Jews have no rights simply because they left some time ago, ignores that Eretz Yisrael has been a central component of Rabbinic and Halachick discourse well beyond the exile to today. In short, it has always been a central part of Jewish consciousness.

Whilst the idea of a Palestinian people largely emerged as a response to the Zionist enterprise in the early 1900′s (that’s Benny Morris’s view), there is no question that they had a strong attachment to the land, and constituted the majority of the population in Israel/Palestine up to 1948.

In truth, both Israelis and Palestinians have connections to the land, and denying each others attachments is silly.

You write

“It’s not true that they were specifically told all the time to move to Palestine.”

I never said “all the time” – resorting to straw man arguments is unnecessary.

Furthermore, the propensity to make sweeping statements without any evidence is not a virtue.

To the extent that Jewish population in the Land of Israel was small until the 19th century, one could say the same for Palestinians (again, it is confusing, as this term has undergone a radical definition change, and there was no Palestinian Arab national identity until far later in history).

I asked you a simple yes/no question about indigenous land rights, and even this you refuse to answer. It is entirely relevant to my original comment to which you took issue with. Given that you will not even answer a yes/no question, it shows that you are unwilling to have a conversation, but would rather issue a series of monologues. As such, there is no need to continue with this false ‘dialogue.’

I don’t need to answer your question about Aboriginal land rights because it’s not relevant to what you then went on to say about the land rights of indigenous Jews in Israel. I am well aware of the fact that Jews have maintained a presence in the land of Israel, but I don’t need to listen to Abbas in order to know that their presence here was minimal until the end of the 19th century. This is beyond dispute. I am simply disputing your implicit assertion that people who pick up and move to Israel have more of a claim to the land (by virtue of their birth) than do those who, you know, actually lived in it.

It looks like you may be a prime example of the type of people I was referring to in point (2) of my above comment.

Of course that assumes you support Indigenous land rights in Australia… do you?
(please answer, this is not a rhetorical question)

In response to your comments:

“Are you aware that, for around 1500 years, there was virtually no Jewish presence in the land of Israel at all?”

- Which 1500 year period precisely are you referring to? Who was the demographic historian who provided you with your information? Mahmoud Abbas?

“Are you aware that the only people here to have lost their homes are Palestinians?”

- I am not aware of this, because the implicit statement is obviously false. Clearly Palestinians are not the only people to have lost homes. If you make the slightest effort, you will discover that your statement is ridiculous. In the 20th century, both Palestinians and Jews have lost their homes. You will also find that Jews lost their homes prior to the 20th century.
(I note that this paragraph is a little confusing because the term “Palestinian” underwent a radical change in definition in the latter part of 20th century – I have tried to use the term as it is has been used since this change in definition).

“I have no idea what sort of Jewish land rights you’re referring to…”

- I was referring to consistency of the general principle that Jews having a right to live in Israel with the principle of indigenous land rights. For years, Jews in Europe were insulted by their European neighbours with “Go back to Palestine!” Now the descendents of these neighbours insult Jews with “Get out of Palestine!” Have you now internalised this late 20th century insult?

I look forward to your reply to my question on your attitude toward Indigenous land rights. Mostly, I hope our comments will attract people to read Howard’s excellent excerpt, which is far less political than our conversation.

Are you aware that, for around 1500 years, there was virtually no Jewish presence in the land of Israel at all? Are you aware that the only people here to have lost their homes are Palestinians? Are you aware that the Palestinians are now living under occupation? I have no idea what sort of Jewish land rights you’re referring to, but whatever there is, it’s pretty paltry when compared to the real suffering that’s going on in this country.

In my mind, it raises two very different points.

1) In relation to Henri and his family feeling German prior to the 1930s, I feel this is a story that would have re-occurred several times in Jewish history. For example, I think prior to the Spanish inquisition, Jews would have felt as much a part of the Spanish kingdom as their Christian neighbours. The real question is, where and when will this reoccur next?

2) Not wishing to get too political, but it is interesting that many of the people who would support indigenous land rights in Australia (as I do) are unwilling to support the same principle for indigenous Jewish land rights in the Land of Israel.