You want us to acknowledge whether we're on the traditional tribal lands of Dan, Binyamin, Menasseh, Yehudah, etc?

They'd probably want to go back to the Canaanites.

> Binyamin

This one is really interesting. I note that you don't list the counterpart at all, but here's a selection from Weavers, Scribes, and Kings:

> In Syria in the early second millennium BCE, Amorite-speaking people grew up knowing if they belonged to the Banu-Yamina ("sons of the right" or "sons of the south") or the Banu-Sim'al ("sons of the left" or "sons of the north").

Benjamin is the only name I know of to memorialize an ethnic conflict that was apparently won long, long ago, so long ago that most people with an active interest in the time period have no idea it existed.

As far as your question goes, just the form of your answer is pretty good at reinforcing the point of my question.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40270596.

You think it's off topic? What would be an example of a reason land acknowledgments are a bad idea in Israel that wouldn't also make them a bad idea somewhere else?

We already had one flamewar going about Israel.

I know it's annoying when these things get declared offtopic because of course they're connected by a sequence of associations—and you're right, it doesn't take that long of a sequence—but if you think about it from the overall topic of the thread, hopefully it makes more sense.