The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?

[Coyote]

By the Sixties, I do agree with you on one point, the Jews have been far more generous than other faiths in allowing access to historuc holy sites.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Palestinians are xenophobic and genocidal anti-Semites.
They are not victims.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Palestinians were not Arabs from Arabia. I dont know why that lie keeps getting repeated.

It keeps getting repeated because it is accurate and a useful shorthand about the meaning of indigeneity. People belonging to an invading, conquering, colonizing, culture (no matter how many centuries have passed since the conquest) are not indigenous.

Why do you worry about it so much, since it affects their RIGHTS not at all?

Like calling Jews who immigrated to Israel Europeans is a useful shorthand? Come on Shusha. You know darn well that is NOT what iths shorthand for...it is nothing more than a means of separating them out as non native invaders. The "other". And it absolutely affects their rights in the same manner as referring to Jews as Europeans.

Invaders, as the Arabs are, or indigenous, the fact continues to be that when the Jews were ready to reconstitute their Nation on their ancestral land they were more than ready to accept leaving side by side with the Muslims who have been there for 1300 years.

Not so with the Arabs, who saw it as a Muslim land only, and still see it as Muslim land only, taking away as much land as they could from 1920 to 1948 from the Jews .

Were Jews given the right to their holy sites during 1948-1967?
Are they allowed to live in TrasJordan? In Gaza? As they did for thousands of years?

Jews give the Muslims and Christians and all others freedom of worship and visiting their holy sites.

The same has never been true of Muslims, not only now, but for much of the 1300 years before the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate.

At one time the Jews were invaders of a pre existing culture. Be careful who you term invaders.

Your counter is rather pathetic.

Judaism began in Ancient Canaan. Islam did not.
Jews created a Nation 3000 years ago which stood for about 1000 years. The Muslims built no nation in the area. And the Muslim Arabs even acknowledge in their own Quran, that the land belongs to the Children of Israel, the Jews, when they invaded it.

Do know equate more recent invaders with the Jews who are made of all the tribes in Canaan at the time.

That way, the British are indigenous to the USA and Canada, and Australia and NZ, simply because they took over those lands and the language spoken there happens to be English now.

 

[Shusha]

Like calling Jews who immigrated to Israel Europeans is a useful shorthand? Come on Shusha. You know darn well that is NOT what iths shorthand for...it is nothing more than a means of separating them out as non native invaders. The "other". And it absolutely affects their rights in the same manner as referring to Jews as Europeans.

Calling the Jewish people "Europeans" is a hateful lie which is intended erase Jewish culture and history in their own homeland.

Calling the Arab Palestinian people part of an invading, conquering culture (indeed part of a vast Arabic Empire) is an accurate representation intended especially to COUNTER the erasure of the Jewish culture and history by those invading, conquering people. If the Arab Palestinians did not consistently DENY and REPLACE Jewish culture and history with their own -- there would be no need to even have this discussion about indigeneity.

It is INDEED separating them out as non-native invaders. That's what they ARE if you use any accurate understanding of indigeneity. They are "other". There is nothing wrong with that. That is what the conflict is about: two distinct cultures.

And it does not affect their rights at all. Rights for one people does not diminish or remove rights for the other people.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Nevertheless, the Arab propaganda machine gets away with publishing fantastic falsehoods, such as this one on the Palestinian Authority’s tourism website: “With a history that envelops more than one million years, Palestine has played an important role in human civilization. The crucible of prehistoric cultures, it is where settled society, the alphabet, religion, and literature developed, and would become a meeting place for diverse cultures and ideas that shaped the world we know today”.

The international community not only approves of these falsehoods, it happily pays for them.

Historian Abd Al-Ghani’s declaration on PA TV was a historic, highly newsworthy admission that ought to have made the headlines everywhere, considering the importance the issue is given by political leaders, diplomats, the media and other establishment figures all over the world.

After all, if the Arabs themselves admit that the ‘Palestinian people’ is an invented entity, should not the consequence be that the countless UN projects, billions of dollars in international aid, and the endless campaigns against Israel cease and be used for more noble purposes?

The answer is yes, but no one is paying attention.

We live in a post-factual world. Facts no longer have any currency, unlike feelings and ideological posturing. The truth has been reduced to a troublesome inconvenience and if it happens to stare you in the face, nothing could be easier than closing your eyes or simply looking away.

(full article online)

Arab Historian Admits there is No Palestinian People

 

[Shusha]

And that is different from the Jewish people claiming that tbe Palestinians history is pretend...made up...etc? Again...the constant refrain from those who also ptomote the idea thst their righrs are less than.

No one is claiming that the Palestinian history is pretend or made up. Well, except for the stuff that IS ACTUALLY pretend or made up.

The "constant refrain" is not that their rights are less. Pretty sure Sixties believes that the Arab Palestinians have the rights to self-determination and sovereignty in AT LEAST one State, and possibly up to even three.

 

[Coyote]

The Palestinians were not Arabs from Arabia. I dont know why that lie keeps getting repeated.

It keeps getting repeated because it is accurate and a useful shorthand about the meaning of indigeneity. People belonging to an invading, conquering, colonizing, culture (no matter how many centuries have passed since the conquest) are not indigenous.

Why do you worry about it so much, since it affects their RIGHTS not at all?

Like calling Jews who immigrated to Israel Europeans is a useful shorthand? Come on Shusha. You know darn well that is NOT what iths shorthand for...it is nothing more than a means of separating them out as non native invaders. The "other". And it absolutely affects their rights in the same manner as referring to Jews as Europeans.

Invaders, as the Arabs are, or indigenous, the fact continues to be that when the Jews were ready to reconstitute their Nation on their ancestral land they were more than ready to accept leaving side by side with the Muslims who have been there for 1300 years.

Not so with the Arabs, who saw it as a Muslim land only, and still see it as Muslim land only, taking away as much land as they could from 1920 to 1948 from the Jews .

Were Jews given the right to their holy sites during 1948-1967?
Are they allowed to live in TrasJordan? In Gaza? As they did for thousands of years?

Jews give the Muslims and Christians and all others freedom of worship and visiting their holy sites.

The same has never been true of Muslims, not only now, but for much of the 1300 years before the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate.

At one time the Jews were invaders of a pre existing culture. Be careful who you term invaders.

Your counter is rather pathetic.

Judaism began in Ancient Canaan. Islam did not.
Jews created a Nation 3000 years ago which stood for about 1000 years. The Muslims built no nation in the area. And the Muslim Arabs even acknowledge in their own Quran, that the land belongs to the Children of Israel, the Jews, when they invaded it.

Do know equate more recent invaders with the Jews who are made of all the tribes in Canaan at the time.

That way, the British are indigenous to the USA and Canada, and Australia and NZ, simply because they took over those lands and the language spoken there happens to be English now.

It isnt pathetic at all. If you are going to label different people invaders then acknowledge your own people were invaders of an earlier people. That is the problem with labels. The people you dislike are labeled "invaders", the ones you like are "migrants". At what exact point in history is one determined to be an "invader" and when do they transition into "indigenous"?

 

[Shusha]

At one time the Jews were invaders of a pre existing culture. Be careful who you term invaders.

Absolute bull-hockey. There was no Jewish culture until the Jewish culture came into being. It came into being in that homeland as a natural development of the pre-existing culture. Every bit of archaeological evidence points to this. There is absolutely no evidence of an invasion. Nor is there evidence of Jewish culture pre-existing anywhere else in the world.

 

[Coyote]

At one time the Jews were invaders of a pre existing culture. Be careful who you term invaders.

Absolute bull-hockey. There was no Jewish culture until the Jewish culture came into being. It came into being in that homeland as a natural development of the pre-existing culture. Every bit of archaeological evidence points to this. There is absolutely no evidence of an invasion. Nor is there evidence of Jewish culture pre-existing anywhere else in the world.

Palestine

 

[Shusha]

At what exact point in history is one determined to be an "invader" and when do they transition into "indigenous"?

Never. Never ever. No invading, conquering culture EVER transitions into being indigenous. That is a fundamental lack of understanding of what "indigenous" means.

 

[Sixties Fan]

It keeps getting repeated because it is accurate and a useful shorthand about the meaning of indigeneity. People belonging to an invading, conquering, colonizing, culture (no matter how many centuries have passed since the conquest) are not indigenous.

Why do you worry about it so much, since it affects their RIGHTS not at all?

Like calling Jews who immigrated to Israel Europeans is a useful shorthand? Come on Shusha. You know darn well that is NOT what iths shorthand for...it is nothing more than a means of separating them out as non native invaders. The "other". And it absolutely affects their rights in the same manner as referring to Jews as Europeans.

Invaders, as the Arabs are, or indigenous, the fact continues to be that when the Jews were ready to reconstitute their Nation on their ancestral land they were more than ready to accept leaving side by side with the Muslims who have been there for 1300 years.

Not so with the Arabs, who saw it as a Muslim land only, and still see it as Muslim land only, taking away as much land as they could from 1920 to 1948 from the Jews .

Were Jews given the right to their holy sites during 1948-1967?
Are they allowed to live in TrasJordan? In Gaza? As they did for thousands of years?

Jews give the Muslims and Christians and all others freedom of worship and visiting their holy sites.

The same has never been true of Muslims, not only now, but for much of the 1300 years before the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate.

At one time the Jews were invaders of a pre existing culture. Be careful who you term invaders.

Your counter is rather pathetic.

Judaism began in Ancient Canaan. Islam did not.
Jews created a Nation 3000 years ago which stood for about 1000 years. The Muslims built no nation in the area. And the Muslim Arabs even acknowledge in their own Quran, that the land belongs to the Children of Israel, the Jews, when they invaded it.

Do know equate more recent invaders with the Jews who are made of all the tribes in Canaan at the time.

That way, the British are indigenous to the USA and Canada, and Australia and NZ, simply because they took over those lands and the language spoken there happens to be English now.

It isnt pathetic at all. If you are going to label different people invaders then acknowledge your own people were invaders of an earlier people. That is the problem with labels. The people you dislike are labeled "invaders", the ones you like are "migrants". At what exact point in history is one determined to be an "invader" and when do they transition into "indigenous"?

You are not discussing who is indigenous now. You just changed the discussion into something totally different which is not about who is indigenous.

The Jews ARE indigenous of the Land of Canaan. The Arabs are not, and they will say so for those who care to listen.

The word Palestinian, which the Arab leaders decided to take out of the Mandate for Palestine, does mean invaders, and the Arabs did not even know its meaning because the word Palestine, Palestinian are not part of the Arab language.

You constantly change the meaning of the word indigenous in order to bring all people who have been in a place for a certain number of years, decades or centuries into being indigenous.

As I said above, if the Arabs are "Indigenous" of the Land of Canaan, than so are the British indigenous of all the places I mentioned and so are all the descendants of Spaniards who make up most of South and Central America.

THAT is not the meaning of the word indigenous and it is one thing you apparently will never learn the difference, anymore than all others who do not understand what the issues actually are, and what the Muslims have been not only saying but DOING since 1973.

 

[Sixties Fan]

At one time the Jews were invaders of a pre existing culture. Be careful who you term invaders.

Absolute bull-hockey. There was no Jewish culture until the Jewish culture came into being. It came into being in that homeland as a natural development of the pre-existing culture. Every bit of archaeological evidence points to this. There is absolutely no evidence of an invasion. Nor is there evidence of Jewish culture pre-existing anywhere else in the world.

Palestine

That is a REGION called Palestine, where the Jewish Kingdoms flourished.

It was named after the Philistines and it denotes mainly the area of Gaza where the Philistines built their Empire.

It says so in the article:

Palestine in the ancient world was part of the region known as Canaan where the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah were located. The term `Palestine’ was originally a designation of an area of land in southern Canaan which the people known as the Philistines occupied a very small part of, the Canaanites, Canaanite-Phoenicians, and the Israelites, among others, having established themselves in the area much earlier. The Philistines are thought to have come to the area toward the end of the Bronze Age c. 1276 BCE and established themselves on the southern coastal plain of the Mediterranean Sea in an area afterwards known as Philistia.

 

[Shusha]

At one time the Jews were invaders of a pre existing culture. Be careful who you term invaders.

Absolute bull-hockey. There was no Jewish culture until the Jewish culture came into being. It came into being in that homeland as a natural development of the pre-existing culture. Every bit of archaeological evidence points to this. There is absolutely no evidence of an invasion. Nor is there evidence of Jewish culture pre-existing anywhere else in the world.

Palestine

That page is incorrectly labelled as "Palestine".

But what is your point?


Edited to add: Also, notice how ISRAEL has been erased from that page?

 

[Sixties Fan]

By the way, the Philistines were no more Indigenous to the area of Canaan where they built their Empire, than the Arabs are.
They were Greeks. And the word Philistines does mean invaders, and it is where its changed word, Palestinians comes from and it means exactly the same thing.

 

[Shusha]

Coyote

Please don't tell me you have fallen for the absolute bull-hockey that Arab Palestinians are really ancient Philistines.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Coyote

Please don't tell me you have fallen for the absolute bull-hockey that Arab Palestinians are really ancient Philistines.

As that article states:

The whole of the region was referred to as `Canaan’ in Mesopotamian texts and trade records found at Ebla and Mari as early as the 18th century BCE while the term `Palestine’ does not appear in any written records until the 5th century BCE in the Histories of Herodotus. After Herodotus, the term `Palestine’ came to be used for the entire region which was formerly known as Canaan.
-----------
In other words, it was known as Canaan at the time of the Israelites, and it is one reason why one probably does not find the word Palestine referring to the region in the Torah, or the area where the Philistines lived.

 

[Sixties Fan]

At one time the Jews were invaders of a pre existing culture. Be careful who you term invaders.

Absolute bull-hockey. There was no Jewish culture until the Jewish culture came into being. It came into being in that homeland as a natural development of the pre-existing culture. Every bit of archaeological evidence points to this. There is absolutely no evidence of an invasion. Nor is there evidence of Jewish culture pre-existing anywhere else in the world.

Palestine

That page is incorrectly labelled as "Palestine".

But what is your point?


Edited to add: Also, notice how ISRAEL has been erased from that page?

Do you mean the map to the right? It seems to be a latter map with the words Judaea, Galilee and Samaria on it. Post the Kingdom of Israel, I would say.

 

[Shusha]

At one time the Jews were invaders of a pre existing culture. Be careful who you term invaders.

Absolute bull-hockey. There was no Jewish culture until the Jewish culture came into being. It came into being in that homeland as a natural development of the pre-existing culture. Every bit of archaeological evidence points to this. There is absolutely no evidence of an invasion. Nor is there evidence of Jewish culture pre-existing anywhere else in the world.

Palestine

That page is incorrectly labelled as "Palestine".

But what is your point?


Edited to add: Also, notice how ISRAEL has been erased from that page?

Do you mean the map to the right? It seems to be a latter map with the words Judaea, Galilee and Samaria on it. Post the Kingdom of Israel, I would say.

I mean more generally. Why has it entered into common vocabulary to call the region "Palestine"?

 

[Sixties Fan]

At one time the Jews were invaders of a pre existing culture. Be careful who you term invaders.

Absolute bull-hockey. There was no Jewish culture until the Jewish culture came into being. It came into being in that homeland as a natural development of the pre-existing culture. Every bit of archaeological evidence points to this. There is absolutely no evidence of an invasion. Nor is there evidence of Jewish culture pre-existing anywhere else in the world.

Palestine

That page is incorrectly labelled as "Palestine".

But what is your point?


Edited to add: Also, notice how ISRAEL has been erased from that page?

Do you mean the map to the right? It seems to be a latter map with the words Judaea, Galilee and Samaria on it. Post the Kingdom of Israel, I would say.

I mean more generally. Why has it entered into common vocabulary to call the region "Palestine"?

Maybe because since the Romans changed some of the area's name to Syria Palestine some people have chosen to only call it Palestine, and not the whole Syria Palestine name.

And that is exactly what the British did to the Mandate, regardless of knowing that the people who had earned the Mandate were the Jews and the actual name for it should have been Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

At one time the Jews were invaders of a pre existing culture. Be careful who you term invaders.

Absolute bull-hockey. There was no Jewish culture until the Jewish culture came into being. It came into being in that homeland as a natural development of the pre-existing culture. Every bit of archaeological evidence points to this. There is absolutely no evidence of an invasion. Nor is there evidence of Jewish culture pre-existing anywhere else in the world.

Palestine

Where does it say that the entire native population moved out and an entirely new population moved in? When did that happen?