This seems at odds with your earlier claim that "The 2-3000 years of history are entirely and wholly irrelevant". In fact the history of those 2-3000 years seems essential to determining "heritage".
That was in response to the argument that I believe the GP was making by bringing into discussion this timeline. The typical way this is presented by adherents of Zionism is something like "the Jewish people are the original people who lived in Israel/were given it by God; this land was stolen from the Jewish people and they were expelled, first by the Romans and then by the Arabs; the foundation of modern-day Israel marked the return home of the Jewish people, as was their right by their 2-3000 years of having lived there; the Palestinians were just the latest population living on this stolen land". By this logic, they then claim that Israel are not occupying any land, even Gaza or the West Bank, it is the Palestinians who had been occupying the land of Israel.
My claim is that this is factually incorrect by any stretch of the imagination, as soon as we recognize that the modern-day Palestinians and the modern-day Jewish people are just as much descendants of the ancient Israelites. Just because their language, culture, and religion have diverged, there is nothing that ties one group more to that land than the other (if anything, those that had left have a lesser tie than those that stayed, even if the culture of those that stayed diverged). So the claim of descent and continuity with the ancient kingdom of Israel, the 2-3000 year old history, is entirely irrelevant.
Are you responding to an argument zaphar didn't make? He/she just said "your first paragraph ... ignores nearly 2-3000 years of history", which is true. Now you seem to be saying "if you look at the first 2-3000 years of history you will see that the first 2-3000 years of history are irrelevant", which is about as self-defeating as an argument can possibly be!
Zaphar didn't make any argument, they only implied one. They said that the previous poster was wrong about everything, and then brought up the previous 2-3000 years of history as some vague justification for that with no actual argument.
I responded to the most plausible interpretation of what the 2-3000 years of history could have to do with the previous poster being wrong about Israel occupying the lands of the Palestinian people.
And again, as to the claim: I'm basically saying that the 2-3000 years of history don't, in fact, justify the occupation - so just forgetting about them and focusing on what is actually happening today (a population is being kept in an occupied pseudo-state that they aren't allowed to leave) is enough to understand the whole situation, and who is in the right and who is in the wrong. So the 2-3000 years of history are irrelevant, because they don't overturn the easily visible conclusion you would draw.
Of course, in every conflict, the history is interesting and enlightening in some ways. But, unless the history changes the light in which you view the current conflict, it's irrelevant to the question of "who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed?".
> Zaphar didn't make any argument, they only implied one
I agree! Yet you said:
> That was in response to the argument that I believe the GP was making
so I was confused. But now you've clarified:
> I responded to the most plausible interpretation of what the 2-3000 years of history could have to do
You guessed the argument, responded to it. Fair enough. Now I understand.
I appreciate your explanation. I don't think I agree with your analysis or conclusions, but I am grateful you have explained to me your thought process and haven't used personal attacks on me, so I feel this thread of the discussion was constructive. I can't say the same for anyone else participating in this thread.
It's extremely presumptuous to declare I'm engaging in bad faith (especially "incredibly bad"). I can assure you I'm engaging in good faith, and attempting to seek some clarity on the assumptions underlying the conclusions a few people here have reached. Naturally, it is often very uncomfortable to be challenged on deep assumptions.
simiones says: "The 2-3000 years of history are entirely and wholly irrelevant", and also makes some suggestion that I believed could indicate that genetic heritage was what determines which people should live where.
However, he subsequently clarified in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44318095 that he was not making that claim. Yet in doing so claimed that "This doesn't imply genetic heritage necessarily - cultural heritage and the notions of parents are not necessarily genetic", drawing on the notion of "culture". Now, cultural heritage very specifically implies that history is relevant, because it's something passed down over centuries.
I then challenged him that his invocation of cultural heritage was in opposition to his earlier claim that "The 2-3000 years of history are entirely and wholly irrelevant" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44318122) to which he responded that "That was in response to the argument that I believe the GP was making" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44318317), but that's a complete presumption. The GP hadn't presented any specific argument, merely factually pointed out that some long stretch of history was missing from the analysis of pbiggar, so I asked simiones if he was responding to an argument not actually made by zaphar. Furthermore, I reiterated that simiones seemed to have defeated his own claim that "The 2-3000 years of history are entirely and wholly irrelevant".
This is where the original discussion ends, and you entered the thread. I see you making a number of unsubstantiated accusations of bad faith and trolling, but not actually engaging in the discussion of the topic at hand.
So, I have presented here a summary of a thread that highlights my process of rational enquiry. I don't see here what could be taken as bad faith or trolling. Maybe you can explain further? Or perhaps maybe you can you engage with the topic at hand? I would be willing to (though it goes rather far off the original topic).
Thank you, in one sense you failed the challenge because I'm not interested in engaging in your deeper trolling, however you have reminded me how much of a waste of time posting on the internet is in general. I needed the reminder.
May your endless paragraphs continue to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians experiencing genocide, or the poor Israelis who are sad because they have to do a genocide because whatever ethnostatist reason, or whatever it is you believe - from your post history, I'd guess Israel Enjoyer, but from the threads here it's anyone's guess. The benefit of being a smug Socratic type engaged in pedantry is you can never be accused of having the wrong values, since from initial appearances, you have none.
> Thank you, in one sense you failed the challenge because I'm not interested in engaging in your deeper trolling
And yet you replied, curious. In any case, that's OK, since I wasn't responding in order to meet your challenge.
It's curious that you accuse me of having "no values" and of being a "Socratic type". I assumed that, on Hacker News, a forum reputed for its willingness to engage intellectually, a simple challenge to someone's argument would receive a simple response. I assumed that rational debate, free of emotive diversions, was welcomed here. Why would "my values" be relevant? Surely establishing a rational dialogue is what's important on Hacker News. This isn't Reddit, where the standard of dialogue is typically much lower.
simiones could have said "oh yes, you're right, the last 2-3,000 years of history are relevant". Or he could have continued by providing more rationale that they're not. Yet neither he nor anyone else has responded to my observation, instead I just received comments targeted personally at me.
It makes me wonder whether one side of this debate actually has substance to back up its beliefs and actions.
Of course, you have no obligation to respond. If you do respond, I would appreciate it if you would make it about substantive, rational arguments, not personal comments.
