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

[MartyNYC]

Palestine has been attacked, conquered, and occupied many times. It was also a center for trade. Caravans went through to Asia, Africa, and Europe. Many people came and went.

In the middle of all this there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. Palestine was a multi racial, multi ethnic, multi cultural, multi religious place where there was little animosity between peoples.

These are the People who became Palestinians when Palestine was released from Turkish rule after WWI.

Excellent stuff

The whole indigenous argument is stupid and cannot be resolved. Do we know who descended from the caveman? There is no way to know and it really doesn't matter.

The real criteria is who belongs in the land. If you boil down international law there is one basic fact. The people and the land are "married." The land belongs to its people and the people cannot be removed from their land.

The Palestinians (the people who lived in the territory that became Palestine in 1924) had lived there, uncontested, for hundreds of years. Most of the cities, towns, and villages in Palestine predate the Ottoman Empire.

Palestine belongs to the Palestinians and the Palestinians belong in Palestine.

“Palestine” was a fictional Roman name for ancient Israel, referring to Jews’ “Philistine“ foes who were Greek. Later, Britain’s fictional name for the British Mandate that became the modern state of Israel. There was no place “palestine” in the Ottoman Empire. Jews were called “palestinians” by the British. “Palestine“ & “palestinian” are made-up European names.

Never in history has there been any place “palestine” founded by any “palestinian” people.


View attachment 344921

OK, so?

What did that have to do with my post?

Jews are the indigenous people, bright eyes. Since antiquity.

British Museum: Ancient Jewish revolts in Judea against Roman Empire, 1st century

 

[rylah]

Palestine has been attacked, conquered, and occupied many times. It was also a center for trade. Caravans went through to Asia, Africa, and Europe. Many people came and went.

In the middle of all this there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. Palestine was a multi racial, multi ethnic, multi cultural, multi religious place where there was little animosity between peoples.

These are the People who became Palestinians when Palestine was released from Turkish rule after WWI.

Excellent stuff

The whole indigenous argument is stupid and cannot be resolved. Do we know who descended from the caveman? There is no way to know and it really doesn't matter.

The real criteria is who belongs in the land. If you boil down international law there is one basic fact. The people and the land are "married." The land belongs to its people and the people cannot be removed from their land.

The Palestinians (the people who lived in the territory that became Palestine in 1924) had lived there, uncontested, for hundreds of years. Most of the cities, towns, and villages in Palestine predate the Ottoman Empire.

Palestine belongs to the Palestinians and the Palestinians belong in Palestine.

Basically you're saying that indigenous peoples don't exist and have no rights,
and that land and its history belong exclusively to those who managed to hold possession of it beginning at some point in modernity.

Yet, you forget that the same international law you pretend to cite,
also made a significant legal precedent in human history that allows indigenous nations to specifically re-constitute their sovereignty in their indigenous lands, the root of their civilization.

Of course you'd call this stupid, how otherwise, all you have is a modern fiction,
loosely based on merely appropriating a foreign name of a location and its history,
because no Palestinian civilization or sovereignty ever existed to be re-constituted first place.

Call it stupid but indigenous status rights are anchored not only in abstract concept of international law, but as well exercised in practical sovereignty.

Meanwhile Palestine serves cookies in the embassy of Narnia...

 

[rylah]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine has been attacked, conquered, and occupied many times. It was also a center for trade. Caravans went through to Asia, Africa, and Europe. Many people came and went.

In the middle of all this there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. Palestine was a multi racial, multi ethnic, multi cultural, multi religious place where there was little animosity between peoples.

These are the People who became Palestinians when Palestine was released from Turkish rule after WWI.

Excellent stuff

The whole indigenous argument is stupid and cannot be resolved. Do we know who descended from the caveman? There is no way to know and it really doesn't matter.

The real criteria is who belongs in the land. If you boil down international law there is one basic fact. The people and the land are "married." The land belongs to its people and the people cannot be removed from their land.

The Palestinians (the people who lived in the territory that became Palestine in 1924) had lived there, uncontested, for hundreds of years. Most of the cities, towns, and villages in Palestine predate the Ottoman Empire.

Palestine belongs to the Palestinians and the Palestinians belong in Palestine.

Basically you're saying that indigenous peoples don't exist and have no rights,
and that land and its history belong exclusively to those who managed to hold possession of it beginning at some point in modernity.

Yet, you forget that the same international law you pretend to cite,
also made a significant legal precedent in human history that allows indigenous nations to specifically re-constitute their sovereignty in their indigenous lands, the root of their civilization.

Of course you'd call this stupid, how otherwise, all you have is a modern fiction,
loosely based on merely appropriating a foreign name of a location and its history,
because no Palestinian civilization or sovereignty ever existed to be re-constituted first place.

Call it stupid but indigenous status rights are anchored not only in abstract concept of international law, but as well exercised in practical sovereignty.

Meanwhile Palestine serves cookies in the embassy of Narnia...

Sorry you did not understand my post.

Nice rant though.

 

[rylah]

Palestine has been attacked, conquered, and occupied many times. It was also a center for trade. Caravans went through to Asia, Africa, and Europe. Many people came and went.

In the middle of all this there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. Palestine was a multi racial, multi ethnic, multi cultural, multi religious place where there was little animosity between peoples.

These are the People who became Palestinians when Palestine was released from Turkish rule after WWI.

Excellent stuff

The whole indigenous argument is stupid and cannot be resolved. Do we know who descended from the caveman? There is no way to know and it really doesn't matter.

The real criteria is who belongs in the land. If you boil down international law there is one basic fact. The people and the land are "married." The land belongs to its people and the people cannot be removed from their land.

The Palestinians (the people who lived in the territory that became Palestine in 1924) had lived there, uncontested, for hundreds of years. Most of the cities, towns, and villages in Palestine predate the Ottoman Empire.

Palestine belongs to the Palestinians and the Palestinians belong in Palestine.

Basically you're saying that indigenous peoples don't exist and have no rights,
and that land and its history belong exclusively to those who managed to hold possession of it beginning at some point in modernity.

Yet, you forget that the same international law you pretend to cite,
also made a significant legal precedent in human history that allows indigenous nations to specifically re-constitute their sovereignty in their indigenous lands, the root of their civilization.

Of course you'd call this stupid, how otherwise, all you have is a modern fiction,
loosely based on merely appropriating a foreign name of a location and its history,
because no Palestinian civilization or sovereignty ever existed to be re-constituted first place.

Call it stupid but indigenous status rights are anchored not only in abstract concept of international law, but as well exercised in practical sovereignty.

Meanwhile Palestine serves cookies in the embassy of Narnia...

Sorry you did not understand my post.

Nice rant though.

No I actually get your cognitive dissonance.

From one side of the mouth you argue against rights for indigenous nations,
while at the same time claim they apply to a political fiction invented in the mid 60's.

 

[rylah]

Jews as an Indigenous People

Eric George debunks common myths that deny the Jewish connection to the land of Israel. He explains why the re-establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 was a case of an ancient indigenous people returning to their ancestral lands, with the revival of an ancient language, and the restoration of self-determination.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Long live Canaan and Baal!
Bring back Carthage General Hannibal!
Palestinians are the “Ten Lost Tribes of Israel”!
Maybe nine ... the Mormons are the tenth!

/s

 

[rylah]

Long live Canaan and Baal!
Bring back Carthage General Hannibal!
Palestinians are the “Ten Lost Tribes of Israel”!
Maybe nine ... the Mormons are the tenth!

/s

Yeah sure,
in the meantime so-called Palestinians can't even pronounce 'Palestine',
without learning a foreign language:



Q. By the way, if a community in Tunis fits the definition of an indigenous nation,
and is willing to preserve that civilization and re-constitute their sovereignty,
why shouldn't they have that right?

 

[MartyNYC]

Palestine has been attacked, conquered, and occupied many times. It was also a center for trade. Caravans went through to Asia, Africa, and Europe. Many people came and went.

In the middle of all this there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. Palestine was a multi racial, multi ethnic, multi cultural, multi religious place where there was little animosity between peoples.

These are the People who became Palestinians when Palestine was released from Turkish rule after WWI.

Excellent stuff

The whole indigenous argument is stupid and cannot be resolved. Do we know who descended from the caveman? There is no way to know and it really doesn't matter.

The real criteria is who belongs in the land. If you boil down international law there is one basic fact. The people and the land are "married." The land belongs to its people and the people cannot be removed from their land.

The Palestinians (the people who lived in the territory that became Palestine in 1924) had lived there, uncontested, for hundreds of years. Most of the cities, towns, and villages in Palestine predate the Ottoman Empire.

Palestine belongs to the Palestinians and the Palestinians belong in Palestine.

Basically you're saying that indigenous peoples don't exist and have no rights,
and that land and its history belong exclusively to those who managed to hold possession of it beginning at some point in modernity.

Yet, you forget that the same international law you pretend to cite,
also made a significant legal precedent in human history that allows indigenous nations to specifically re-constitute their sovereignty in their indigenous lands, the root of their civilization.

Of course you'd call this stupid, how otherwise, all you have is a modern fiction,
loosely based on merely appropriating a foreign name of a location and its history,
because no Palestinian civilization or sovereignty ever existed to be re-constituted first place.

Call it stupid but indigenous status rights are anchored not only in abstract concept of international law, but as well exercised in practical sovereignty.

Meanwhile Palestine serves cookies in the embassy of Narnia...

Sorry you did not understand my post.

Nice rant though.

Palestine was Britain’s fictional name for the British Mandate, which led to Israeli statehood. Arabs identifying by a European imperialist, colonialist name that ceased to exist in 1948–Not very authentic.

 

[MartyNYC]

Palestine has been attacked, conquered, and occupied many times. It was also a center for trade. Caravans went through to Asia, Africa, and Europe. Many people came and went.

In the middle of all this there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. Palestine was a multi racial, multi ethnic, multi cultural, multi religious place where there was little animosity between peoples.

These are the People who became Palestinians when Palestine was released from Turkish rule after WWI.

Excellent stuff

The whole indigenous argument is stupid and cannot be resolved. Do we know who descended from the caveman? There is no way to know and it really doesn't matter.

The real criteria is who belongs in the land. If you boil down international law there is one basic fact. The people and the land are "married." The land belongs to its people and the people cannot be removed from their land.

The Palestinians (the people who lived in the territory that became Palestine in 1924) had lived there, uncontested, for hundreds of years. Most of the cities, towns, and villages in Palestine predate the Ottoman Empire.

Palestine belongs to the Palestinians and the Palestinians belong in Palestine.

Basically you're saying that indigenous peoples don't exist and have no rights,
and that land and its history belong exclusively to those who managed to hold possession of it beginning at some point in modernity.

Yet, you forget that the same international law you pretend to cite,
also made a significant legal precedent in human history that allows indigenous nations to specifically re-constitute their sovereignty in their indigenous lands, the root of their civilization.

Of course you'd call this stupid, how otherwise, all you have is a modern fiction,
loosely based on merely appropriating a foreign name of a location and its history,
because no Palestinian civilization or sovereignty ever existed to be re-constituted first place.

Call it stupid but indigenous status rights are anchored not only in abstract concept of international law, but as well exercised in practical sovereignty.

Meanwhile Palestine serves cookies in the embassy of Narnia...

Sorry you did not understand my post.

Nice rant though.

No I actually get your cognitive dissonance.

From one side of the mouth you argue against rights for indigenous nations,
while at the same time claim they apply to a political fiction invented in the mid 60's.

Syria’s Hafiz al-Asad admonished Arafat that there were no such “palestinians”...

 

[MartyNYC]

Palestine has been attacked, conquered, and occupied many times. It was also a center for trade. Caravans went through to Asia, Africa, and Europe. Many people came and went.

In the middle of all this there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. Palestine was a multi racial, multi ethnic, multi cultural, multi religious place where there was little animosity between peoples.

These are the People who became Palestinians when Palestine was released from Turkish rule after WWI.

Excellent stuff

The whole indigenous argument is stupid and cannot be resolved. Do we know who descended from the caveman? There is no way to know and it really doesn't matter.

The real criteria is who belongs in the land. If you boil down international law there is one basic fact. The people and the land are "married." The land belongs to its people and the people cannot be removed from their land.

The Palestinians (the people who lived in the territory that became Palestine in 1924) had lived there, uncontested, for hundreds of years. Most of the cities, towns, and villages in Palestine predate the Ottoman Empire.

Palestine belongs to the Palestinians and the Palestinians belong in Palestine.

Basically you're saying that indigenous peoples don't exist and have no rights,
and that land and its history belong exclusively to those who managed to hold possession of it beginning at some point in modernity.

Yet, you forget that the same international law you pretend to cite,
also made a significant legal precedent in human history that allows indigenous nations to specifically re-constitute their sovereignty in their indigenous lands, the root of their civilization.

Of course you'd call this stupid, how otherwise, all you have is a modern fiction,
loosely based on merely appropriating a foreign name of a location and its history,
because no Palestinian civilization or sovereignty ever existed to be re-constituted first place.

Call it stupid but indigenous status rights are anchored not only in abstract concept of international law, but as well exercised in practical sovereignty.

Meanwhile Palestine serves cookies in the embassy of Narnia...

Sorry you did not understand my post.

Nice rant though.

Palestine was Britain’s fictional name for the British Mandate, which led to Israeli statehood. Arabs identifying by a European imperialist, colonialist name that ceased to exist in 1948–Not very authentic.

Translating Late Ottoman Modernity in Palestine: Debates on Ethno ...
View attachment 345479

Palestine has been attacked, conquered, and occupied many times. It was also a center for trade. Caravans went through to Asia, Africa, and Europe. Many people came and went.

In the middle of all this there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. Palestine was a multi racial, multi ethnic, multi cultural, multi religious place where there was little animosity between peoples.

These are the People who became Palestinians when Palestine was released from Turkish rule after WWI.

Excellent stuff

The whole indigenous argument is stupid and cannot be resolved. Do we know who descended from the caveman? There is no way to know and it really doesn't matter.

The real criteria is who belongs in the land. If you boil down international law there is one basic fact. The people and the land are "married." The land belongs to its people and the people cannot be removed from their land.

The Palestinians (the people who lived in the territory that became Palestine in 1924) had lived there, uncontested, for hundreds of years. Most of the cities, towns, and villages in Palestine predate the Ottoman Empire.

Palestine belongs to the Palestinians and the Palestinians belong in Palestine.

Basically you're saying that indigenous peoples don't exist and have no rights,
and that land and its history belong exclusively to those who managed to hold possession of it beginning at some point in modernity.

Yet, you forget that the same international law you pretend to cite,
also made a significant legal precedent in human history that allows indigenous nations to specifically re-constitute their sovereignty in their indigenous lands, the root of their civilization.

Of course you'd call this stupid, how otherwise, all you have is a modern fiction,
loosely based on merely appropriating a foreign name of a location and its history,
because no Palestinian civilization or sovereignty ever existed to be re-constituted first place.

Call it stupid but indigenous status rights are anchored not only in abstract concept of international law, but as well exercised in practical sovereignty.

Meanwhile Palestine serves cookies in the embassy of Narnia...

Sorry you did not understand my post.

Nice rant though.

Palestine was Britain’s fictional name for the British Mandate, which led to Israeli statehood. Arabs identifying by a European imperialist, colonialist name that ceased to exist in 1948–Not very authentic.

As prominent Arab historian George Antonius notes in his famous book, “The Arab Awakening,” palestine was merely Britain’s name for the British Mandate, split from Syria, which led to Israeli statehood. Arabs identifying as palestinians is not very authentic...

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine has been attacked, conquered, and occupied many times. It was also a center for trade. Caravans went through to Asia, Africa, and Europe. Many people came and went.

In the middle of all this there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. Palestine was a multi racial, multi ethnic, multi cultural, multi religious place where there was little animosity between peoples.

These are the People who became Palestinians when Palestine was released from Turkish rule after WWI.

Excellent stuff

The whole indigenous argument is stupid and cannot be resolved. Do we know who descended from the caveman? There is no way to know and it really doesn't matter.

The real criteria is who belongs in the land. If you boil down international law there is one basic fact. The people and the land are "married." The land belongs to its people and the people cannot be removed from their land.

The Palestinians (the people who lived in the territory that became Palestine in 1924) had lived there, uncontested, for hundreds of years. Most of the cities, towns, and villages in Palestine predate the Ottoman Empire.

Palestine belongs to the Palestinians and the Palestinians belong in Palestine.

Basically you're saying that indigenous peoples don't exist and have no rights,
and that land and its history belong exclusively to those who managed to hold possession of it beginning at some point in modernity.

Yet, you forget that the same international law you pretend to cite,
also made a significant legal precedent in human history that allows indigenous nations to specifically re-constitute their sovereignty in their indigenous lands, the root of their civilization.

Of course you'd call this stupid, how otherwise, all you have is a modern fiction,
loosely based on merely appropriating a foreign name of a location and its history,
because no Palestinian civilization or sovereignty ever existed to be re-constituted first place.

Call it stupid but indigenous status rights are anchored not only in abstract concept of international law, but as well exercised in practical sovereignty.

Meanwhile Palestine serves cookies in the embassy of Narnia...

Sorry you did not understand my post.

Nice rant though.

No I actually get your cognitive dissonance.

From one side of the mouth you argue against rights for indigenous nations,
while at the same time claim they apply to a political fiction invented in the mid 60's.

I will discuss what I said. I will not discuss what you think I said.

 

[MartyNYC]

Palestine has been attacked, conquered, and occupied many times. It was also a center for trade. Caravans went through to Asia, Africa, and Europe. Many people came and went.

In the middle of all this there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. Palestine was a multi racial, multi ethnic, multi cultural, multi religious place where there was little animosity between peoples.

These are the People who became Palestinians when Palestine was released from Turkish rule after WWI.

Excellent stuff

The whole indigenous argument is stupid and cannot be resolved. Do we know who descended from the caveman? There is no way to know and it really doesn't matter.

The real criteria is who belongs in the land. If you boil down international law there is one basic fact. The people and the land are "married." The land belongs to its people and the people cannot be removed from their land.

The Palestinians (the people who lived in the territory that became Palestine in 1924) had lived there, uncontested, for hundreds of years. Most of the cities, towns, and villages in Palestine predate the Ottoman Empire.

Palestine belongs to the Palestinians and the Palestinians belong in Palestine.

Basically you're saying that indigenous peoples don't exist and have no rights,
and that land and its history belong exclusively to those who managed to hold possession of it beginning at some point in modernity.

Yet, you forget that the same international law you pretend to cite,
also made a significant legal precedent in human history that allows indigenous nations to specifically re-constitute their sovereignty in their indigenous lands, the root of their civilization.

Of course you'd call this stupid, how otherwise, all you have is a modern fiction,
loosely based on merely appropriating a foreign name of a location and its history,
because no Palestinian civilization or sovereignty ever existed to be re-constituted first place.

Call it stupid but indigenous status rights are anchored not only in abstract concept of international law, but as well exercised in practical sovereignty.

Meanwhile Palestine serves cookies in the embassy of Narnia...

Sorry you did not understand my post.

Nice rant though.

No I actually get your cognitive dissonance.

From one side of the mouth you argue against rights for indigenous nations,
while at the same time claim they apply to a political fiction invented in the mid 60's.

I will discuss what I said. I will not discuss what you think I said.

What Syria’s Hafiz al-Asad said to Arafat was “palestinian” is a bogus identity.

 

[Hollie]

Palestine has been attacked, conquered, and occupied many times. It was also a center for trade. Caravans went through to Asia, Africa, and Europe. Many people came and went.

In the middle of all this there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. Palestine was a multi racial, multi ethnic, multi cultural, multi religious place where there was little animosity between peoples.

These are the People who became Palestinians when Palestine was released from Turkish rule after WWI.

Excellent stuff

The whole indigenous argument is stupid and cannot be resolved. Do we know who descended from the caveman? There is no way to know and it really doesn't matter.

The real criteria is who belongs in the land. If you boil down international law there is one basic fact. The people and the land are "married." The land belongs to its people and the people cannot be removed from their land.

The Palestinians (the people who lived in the territory that became Palestine in 1924) had lived there, uncontested, for hundreds of years. Most of the cities, towns, and villages in Palestine predate the Ottoman Empire.

Palestine belongs to the Palestinians and the Palestinians belong in Palestine.

The geographic area called Palestine used to belong to the Ottoman Empire which exercised sovereign control of the territory. The Arabs-Moslems you call “Pal’istanians” never had sovereign control of the territory and still don’t.

 

[MartyNYC]

Palestine has been attacked, conquered, and occupied many times. It was also a center for trade. Caravans went through to Asia, Africa, and Europe. Many people came and went.

In the middle of all this there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. Palestine was a multi racial, multi ethnic, multi cultural, multi religious place where there was little animosity between peoples.

These are the People who became Palestinians when Palestine was released from Turkish rule after WWI.

Excellent stuff

The whole indigenous argument is stupid and cannot be resolved. Do we know who descended from the caveman? There is no way to know and it really doesn't matter.

The real criteria is who belongs in the land. If you boil down international law there is one basic fact. The people and the land are "married." The land belongs to its people and the people cannot be removed from their land.

The Palestinians (the people who lived in the territory that became Palestine in 1924) had lived there, uncontested, for hundreds of years. Most of the cities, towns, and villages in Palestine predate the Ottoman Empire.

Palestine belongs to the Palestinians and the Palestinians belong in Palestine.

The geographic area called Palestine used to belong to the Ottoman Empire which exercised sovereign control of the territory. The Arabs-Moslems you call “Pal’istanians” never had sovereign control of the territory and still don’t.

There was no place “palestine” in the Ottoman Empire....

 

[rylah]

Palestine has been attacked, conquered, and occupied many times. It was also a center for trade. Caravans went through to Asia, Africa, and Europe. Many people came and went.

In the middle of all this there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. Palestine was a multi racial, multi ethnic, multi cultural, multi religious place where there was little animosity between peoples.

These are the People who became Palestinians when Palestine was released from Turkish rule after WWI.

Excellent stuff

The whole indigenous argument is stupid and cannot be resolved. Do we know who descended from the caveman? There is no way to know and it really doesn't matter.

The real criteria is who belongs in the land. If you boil down international law there is one basic fact. The people and the land are "married." The land belongs to its people and the people cannot be removed from their land.

The Palestinians (the people who lived in the territory that became Palestine in 1924) had lived there, uncontested, for hundreds of years. Most of the cities, towns, and villages in Palestine predate the Ottoman Empire.

Palestine belongs to the Palestinians and the Palestinians belong in Palestine.

Basically you're saying that indigenous peoples don't exist and have no rights,
and that land and its history belong exclusively to those who managed to hold possession of it beginning at some point in modernity.

Yet, you forget that the same international law you pretend to cite,
also made a significant legal precedent in human history that allows indigenous nations to specifically re-constitute their sovereignty in their indigenous lands, the root of their civilization.

Of course you'd call this stupid, how otherwise, all you have is a modern fiction,
loosely based on merely appropriating a foreign name of a location and its history,
because no Palestinian civilization or sovereignty ever existed to be re-constituted first place.

Call it stupid but indigenous status rights are anchored not only in abstract concept of international law, but as well exercised in practical sovereignty.

Meanwhile Palestine serves cookies in the embassy of Narnia...

Sorry you did not understand my post.

Nice rant though.

No I actually get your cognitive dissonance.

From one side of the mouth you argue against rights for indigenous nations,
while at the same time claim they apply to a political fiction invented in the mid 60's.

I will discuss what I said. I will not discuss what you think I said.

Do try to make sense already,
it's been several pages, and you still struggle
to convey anything remotely coherent on the subject.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Jonathan Cook wrote in The Electronic Intifada that Israel is systematically “Hebraizing” Arab city names in order to erase an Arab connection to the land, and accused Israel of turning al-Quds into Yerushalayim, al-Nasra into Natzrat, and Jaffa into Yafo. In doing so, the article assumes that the Palestinian connection to the land is longer than that of the Jews.

But do the facts support these claims that Palestinians are the original inhabitants of the land?

Linguistic analysis provides insight into this central question. In the 2nd millennium BCE, the inhabitants of Canaan, what is modern-day Israel, all spoke a language called Proto-Canaanite. Over time, their language underwent a phonetic shift known as the Canaanite Shift, which was characterized by a transition from an ā vowel to an o vowel. All the languages that descended from this Proto-Canaanite language had this o vowel in place of the ā, while the other Semitic languages from outside the region of Canaan kept the original ā.

The effect of the shift is still noticeable today. For example, the word for peace in Hebrew is Shalom, demonstrating the vowel shift, whereas Arabic keeps the ā vowel in Salām: Hebrew’s vowel shift indicates it was historically spoken in Canaan, while Arabic’s lack of the vowel shift suggests it developed outside of Canaan.

The Electronic Intifada article claims that the Arabic name of Yafa is the original term for the place, but as the true indigenous people would have used the vowel-shifted name of Yafo, as Hebrew does, the truth is laid bare: Arabic doesn’t fulfill the criteria to be a native language to Israel. The linguistic patterns of Arabic are consistent with the historical context –– Palestinians are Arabs, who are indigenous to the Arabian peninsula, but their indigenous claims do not extend to Israel.

(full article online)

A tale of two countries: The politics of indigeneity in Israel

From the blog of Ilan Eisenberg at The Times of Israel

blogs.timesofisrael.com

 

[MartyNYC]

In the 19th century, many foreigners migrated to “palestine” from Egypt, Syria, Algeria, even as far away as from Bosnia and the Caucusus. Today, common “palestinian“ surnames are al-Masri “the Egyptian,” Maghrebi (North Africa) and Bushnaq, signifying Bosnia—Bosnians aren’t even Arabs. ⤵

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Palestine Bulletin, the precursor to the Palestine Post/Jerusalem Post, used to have a column where they would translate Arab articles.

After the British White Paper of 1930, Jews demonstrated and rallied against the reduction of immigration that would be allowed. In this context, Arab newspapers responded with direct incitement against Jews. (They weren’t woke enough in those days to say “Zionists.”)

Felesteen, published on June 5, 1930:

(full article online)

Some Arab incitement from 90 years ago

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[MartyNYC]

Indigenous “palestinians”? Let’s see: Common “palestinian” surnames are Masri (Egypt), Iraqi, Shami (Syria), Maghrebi (North Africa), even Bushnak (Bosnia)...

No, they’re not indigenous!