Why the “Ancestral Homeland” Argument Doesn’t Make Sense

 Why the “Ancestral Homeland” Argument Doesn’t Make Sense

Lately, a lot of people talk about Jews having the right to live in Israel because it’s their “ancestral homeland.” But let’s think about that logically.

If we applied the same rule to everyone:

Should Black people in the Caribbean or the Americas go back to Africa because that’s where their ancestors came from?

Should Indians in the Caribbean return to India, since that’s where their ancestors lived centuries ago?

Of course not — those communities have lived, worked, and built their lives where they are for generations. Their “home” is where they live now.

The same logic applies to Jews. Before the Holocaust, Jews lived all over the world — Poland, Germany, Iraq, Morocco, the U.S., and many other places. Very few were living in Canaan/Palestine at the time. Claiming ancestral rights in Israel ignores the fact that generations of Jews had already made other lands their home.

Meanwhile, Palestinians have lived in the land for generations. They are the people whose homes and lives are being disrupted. So if we apply the “ancestral homeland” argument consistently, it becomes clear: ancestry alone cannot justify taking land from people who already live there.

In short, the idea of ancestral rights is selectively applied, and it raises a lot of questions about fairness and justice in the modern world.