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

[Coyote]

Where am I handicapped?

My tribal heritage is not based on creating new identities ,and claiming I'm something I'm not.
The land bears my name, world history is a record of my connection to that land - not the Arab connection. Even the word Palestine doesn't even have a meaning in Arabic, even in this Jews are the only ones who can explain the origin of the word.

You are handicapped in a sense that you assume anyone anywhere today didn't have ancestors that travelled from somewhere else.
If it is necessary for you to make a determination as to when exactly someone's ancestors were somewhere ... Then do so.

At least Sixties Fan was able to identify how they desire to handicap their interpretations.

I also indicated that if you have some kind of problem with the heritage or ancestry of another ... That's your problem.
I in turn suggested that problem could be associated with your heritage ...
And how closely you, or anyone for that matter want(s) to use the degree to which you or anyone are/is inbred as a valued determining factor.

.​

Wow, what an amazing bit of nothing, which says nothing and means absolutely nothing.

Maybe you did not understand my explanation of Native American, as you seem to not understand the meaning of Indigenous people of Ancient Canaan, as opposed to indigenous people of the Arabian Peninsula, or indigenous people of Egyptian Ancestry (that would be the Copts), or the indigenous people of Morocco (that would be the Berbers).

The Copts, the Berbers, the Assyrians, the Yazidis, the Kurds, and all other indigenous people of the land who lived on the land before the invading Arabs came along, do not have AT ALL the problem of the Arab Muslims attempting to say that they are the indigenous people of those lands, anymore than Europeans are attempting to say that they are the indigenous people of the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, and others in the New world.

But.......ask yourself .......why is it that some Arab Muslims and Christians from Arabia are so intent in obliterating the indigenous identity of the Jewish People to their ancient homeland, when they ( The Arabs) , nor any other People (like the Ottoman Turks for 500 years of Ottoman conquest of that land ) have done it, EVER, to any other indigenous people anywhere on the Planet?

And still, to this day, no other Indigenous people on the planet is having to deal with those who once conquered their land attempting to obliterate that identity in order to take that land back.

Why is it you have no problem with recognizing the indigenous identity of the berbers, Copts, Kurds etc....but not the Palestinians? Attempts to obliterate The Jewish identity does not mean it is ok to obliterate the Palestinian identity. Both are wrong and symptom of what hinders efforts at peace.

 

[Coyote]

Really, which tribe?

American

Really ,so it were the Indigenous Native tribes that decided to rename their land into "America"?
What does the word mean in Indian?

This is funny how for Arabs to become indigenous people of Israel, whole histories of nations have to be rewritten just to fit the double standard and support the expansion of an Arabian empire.

I guess now we know why Arabs helped British invasion of the land...they were the middle eastern Americans, who inherited their indigenous status the same way British did in Americas.

Nothing has to be rewritten. We just have to be honest about the meaning of the terms we are using.

 

[BlackSand]

Why is it you have no problem with recognizing the indigenous identity of the berbers, Copts, Kurds etc....but not the Palestinians? Attempts to obliterate The Jewish identity does not mean it is ok to obliterate the Palestinian identity. Both are wrong and symptom of what hinders efforts at peace.

Who does what with the land and resources they have at their disposal combined with their ability to secure those things ...
Is always going to have more impact on what happens where they are ...
Than someone else's idea of what they can do with what they have not secured for their own use.

Edit:
If they want to fight about it ... Let them fight.
If their only alternative is to argue about who's great (times infinity) grand daddy lived on what side of the creek ... That's just nonsense.

.​

.​

 

[Sixties Fan]

Where am I handicapped?

My tribal heritage is not based on creating new identities ,and claiming I'm something I'm not.
The land bears my name, world history is a record of my connection to that land - not the Arab connection. Even the word Palestine doesn't even have a meaning in Arabic, even in this Jews are the only ones who can explain the origin of the word.

You are handicapped in a sense that you assume anyone anywhere today didn't have ancestors that travelled from somewhere else.
If it is necessary for you to make a determination as to when exactly someone's ancestors were somewhere ... Then do so.

At least Sixties Fan was able to identify how they desire to handicap their interpretations.

I also indicated that if you have some kind of problem with the heritage or ancestry of another ... That's your problem.
I in turn suggested that problem could be associated with your heritage ...
And how closely you, or anyone for that matter want(s) to use the degree to which you or anyone are/is inbred as a valued determining factor.

.​

Wow, what an amazing bit of nothing, which says nothing and means absolutely nothing.

Maybe you did not understand my explanation of Native American, as you seem to not understand the meaning of Indigenous people of Ancient Canaan, as opposed to indigenous people of the Arabian Peninsula, or indigenous people of Egyptian Ancestry (that would be the Copts), or the indigenous people of Morocco (that would be the Berbers).

The Copts, the Berbers, the Assyrians, the Yazidis, the Kurds, and all other indigenous people of the land who lived on the land before the invading Arabs came along, do not have AT ALL the problem of the Arab Muslims attempting to say that they are the indigenous people of those lands, anymore than Europeans are attempting to say that they are the indigenous people of the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, and others in the New world.

But.......ask yourself .......why is it that some Arab Muslims and Christians from Arabia are so intent in obliterating the indigenous identity of the Jewish People to their ancient homeland, when they ( The Arabs) , nor any other People (like the Ottoman Turks for 500 years of Ottoman conquest of that land ) have done it, EVER, to any other indigenous people anywhere on the Planet?

And still, to this day, no other Indigenous people on the planet is having to deal with those who once conquered their land attempting to obliterate that identity in order to take that land back.

Why is it you have no problem with recognizing the indigenous identity of the berbers, Copts, Kurds etc....but not the Palestinians? Attempts to obliterate The Jewish identity does not mean it is ok to obliterate the Palestinian identity. Both are wrong and symptom of what hinders efforts at peace.

I have no problem recognizing the Palestinians, for who and what they are.

Descendents of Arab invaders, and migrants (mostly from the end of the 19th century until 1948, or some clans like the Al Husseini who migrated from Arabia to the area in the 11th century CE ) who in 1964 found their leader Arafat in need of creating a National identity for them.

What took them so long?

Why not during the Ottoman conquest of the land, or at any other time? Why did they only identify themselves as Arabs and Muslims until 1964?

Where was the Arab League then?

You wish to make the Palestinian Arabs as part of the people who formed the indigenous people of the land, the Canaanite tribes, etc, as those are indigenous people who ended forming the Nation of Israel.

No Arab clans, no Palestinian tribes, no Greeks, no Romans, none, have ever called themselves indigenous to the land, no matter how long they have been living on the ancient land of Canaan.

You view Palestinians as being all the people who have ever migrated to and lived on the region called by some Palestine.

That has never been the case, by any invading or migrating power, for the past 3000 years or more.

Calling all the people who live in the region called by some Palestine, Palestinians is something very new.

As new as the Mandate for Palestine, from 1920 on, which called all of those living in the Mandate Palestinians, Jews, Arabs, Druze, Bedouins,etc and supplied Palestinian passports for mostly Jews, as the Arabs could not be bothered with that term.

As I said before, the Arabs called themselves Syrians, and wanted to be part of Greater Syria, which became another Mandate under the French.

They wanted all of the land to continue to belong only to Muslims, as it did during the Ottoman period.

Which is why there have been no wars against Jordan and the Hashemites who took 78% of the Mandate for Palestine, especially as the Hashemite clan are total foreigners to the region of Palestine, being there only since around 1915 when the Saud Clan from Yemen kicked them out of Arabia.

No worries, I know you have your mind set on what is what. This is for anyone else who can understand history, and the meaning of the word indigenous, and how the word Palestinian was not used until the Mandate for Palestine, recreation of the Jewish homeland, came to be.

Christianity says that it has replaced Judaism.
Islam says it has replaced both Christianity and Judaism.

Guess how much right to land or anything else Jews have had, not only in the 1300 years since the Muslim invasion, but since the Mandate for Palestine.

 

[Shusha]

Coyote

I think you are attempting to make an equivalency where there is none.

The Arab Palestinian identity IS Arab. Arab Palestinians are a result of Arabization -- a systematic invasion, conquest and forced conversion mixing with a local population and culturally over-taking them. They see themselves as identical to Jordanians and Syrians and are heavily connected to a wider Arab world. They are Arabs, proudly so. That is their identity.

Their "Palestinianess" is a CONTRUCT. It did not arise organically from a distinct culture which evolved and changed and developed over time in situ. It is a construct deliberately and recently built in order to systematically deny and erase the indigenous Jewish peoples. It is a cultural conquest, by its very nature. The newest shift in that construct is to claim "Caananiteness'. Its another construct designed to ensure the Jewish narrative is erased or made irrelevant. But Arab Palestinians don't identify with Caananites. It is not their identity. Its a tool for them to use. Its a replacement concept.

For the Jewish people their Jewishness is their identity. The whole point for the Jewish people is to prevent the erasure of their culture -- to prevent its being taken over by a dominant, invasive culture. That is the whole intent of the international community defining and designating indigenous cultures. It is meant to preserve indigenous culture and languages, and holy places, and history so that they are not erased and lost.

The Jewish people are in danger of having their identity lost. That Arab Palestinians are not.

 

[Shusha]

This is not the same as a nationality. Palestinians are most certainly in danger of having their nationality lost. But I think the responsibility for their nationality is incorrectly placed on Israel. I do not think Israel, nor TI posters here, are denying Arab Palestinians their identity (on the contrary, they are simply recognizing it for what it is). Nor do I truly think that they are denying Arab Palestinians their nationality. I do think that Israel is imposing conditions on Arab Palestinian nationality - recognition of the Jewish people, their right to sovereignty and a cessation of all violence. And those seem to be perfectly reasonable conditions that Arab Palestinians have yet to agree to.

 

[rylah]

Nothing has to be rewritten. We just have to be honest about the meaning of the terms we are using.

Coyote I'm suggesting the same.
Learn what "Palestinian" means in the local language.

This couldn't be more in Your face than that. So either we call things by their name or we will keep muddying the waters because for some the term "indigenous" is just too straight forward for the all-inclusive pc vocabulary.

"Palestinian" - is a word with a meaning, and it means the opposite of "indigenous".

 

[Coyote]

Coyote

I think you are attempting to make an equivalency where there is none.

I disagree.

The Arab Palestinian identity IS Arab. Arab Palestinians are a result of Arabization -- a systematic invasion, conquest and forced conversion mixing with a local population and culturally over-taking them. They see themselves as identical to Jordanians and Syrians and are heavily connected to a wider Arab world. They are Arabs, proudly so. That is their identity.

Yes. Arab in the broader sense of term - like....being proud of being European. Only instead of pan-Europe it is a Pan-Arabian identity that was constructed roughly around the same time as the idea of a Jewish national identity.

But to use that against them to attempt to marginalize them by saying they are relatively recent invaders when they are not is wrong.

Their "Palestinianess" is a CONTRUCT. It did not arise organically from a distinct culture which evolved and changed and developed over time in situ. It is a construct deliberately and recently built in order to systematically deny and erase the indigenous Jewish peoples. It is a cultural conquest, by its very nature. The newest shift in that construct is to claim "Caananiteness'. Its another construct designed to ensure the Jewish narrative is erased or made irrelevant. But Arab Palestinians don't identify with Caananites. It is not their identity. Its a tool for them to use. Its a replacement concept.

Actually...it might be a new shift, but it's a very interesting one. Living Descendants of Biblical Canaanites Identified Via DNA

Whether it arose organically or not...should not matter - the people, who they are, their heritage and their ties to place are being erased by those who say they are "just" Arabs and by extension could be moved to any other culturally Arabic place. Why is it so important to deny the fact that their heritage - even if they weren't a distinct "people" PRECEDED the Muslim conquests? That is what those like Sixties is trying to do.

For the Jewish people their Jewishness is their identity. The whole point for the Jewish people is to prevent the erasure of their culture -- to prevent its being taken over by a dominant, invasive culture. That is the whole intent of the international community defining and designating indigenous cultures. It is meant to preserve indigenous culture and languages, and holy places, and history so that they are not erased and lost.

The Jewish people are in danger of having their identity lost. That Arab Palestinians are not.

At this point in time, for the Palestinians, that IS their identity - whether it only became so 100 years ago or a thousand should not matter. It is now and that should be respected not erased by pigeon holing them as "just Arabs' because that IS a denial of their history.

And that is not to say the same doesn't apply to Jews - it absolutely does, but let's not make it at the expense of the Palestinians. There is room for both with denying either their narratives and historic connections to place.

 

[Coyote]

Nothing has to be rewritten. We just have to be honest about the meaning of the terms we are using.

Coyote I'm suggesting the same.
Learn what "Palestinian" means in the local language.

This couldn't be more in Your face than that. So either we call things by their name or we will keep muddying the waters because for some the term "indigenous" is just too straight forward for the all-inclusive pc vocabulary.

"Palestinian" - is a word with a meaning, and it means the opposite of "indigenous".

How can they not be indiginous when they clearly share ancestry with very old peoples there? Regardless of word meanings (look...is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea either Democratic or a Republic?).

Arab does not just refer to people of the Arabian peninsula, it refers to many of the people conquered and Arabitized as well.

 

[Coyote]

This is not the same as a nationality. Palestinians are most certainly in danger of having their nationality lost. But I think the responsibility for their nationality is incorrectly placed on Israel. I do not think Israel, nor TI posters here, are denying Arab Palestinians their identity (on the contrary, they are simply recognizing it for what it is). Nor do I truly think that they are denying Arab Palestinians their nationality. I do think that Israel is imposing conditions on Arab Palestinian nationality - recognition of the Jewish people, their right to sovereignty and a cessation of all violence. And those seem to be perfectly reasonable conditions that Arab Palestinians have yet to agree to.

I think you are overly kind to some of the Team Israel posters here.

Denying them ties to the region is denying them rights to it - and I see that often enough when they talk of sending them to Jordan for example. When they rather explicitely state they have no right to Judea and Sameria or West Bank or Gaza - what ever you want to call it.

For example this statement totally denies the Palestinian's much longer history in that place and their relationship to older peoples, relegating them to descendents of "invaders" from the 19th century.

I have no problem recognizing the Palestinians, for who and what they are.

Descendents of Arab invaders, and migrants (mostly from the end of the 19th century until 1948, or some clans like the Al Husseini who migrated from Arabia to the area in the 11th century CE ) who in 1964 found their leader Arafat in need of creating a National identity for them.

 

[rylah]

Nothing has to be rewritten. We just have to be honest about the meaning of the terms we are using.

Coyote I'm suggesting the same.
Learn what "Palestinian" means in the local language.

This couldn't be more in Your face than that. So either we call things by their name or we will keep muddying the waters because for some the term "indigenous" is just too straight forward for the all-inclusive pc vocabulary.

"Palestinian" - is a word with a meaning, and it means the opposite of "indigenous".

How can they not be indiginous when they clearly share ancestry with very old peoples there? Regardless of word meanings (look...is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea either Democratic or a Republic?).

Arab does not just refer to people of the Arabian peninsula, it refers to many of the people conquered and Arabitized as well.

Modern Lebanese are 44% Arabian and 14% Jewish.
That Semites share close ancestry is pretty obvious.

Are You saying that based on 6 skeletons in one cave - anyone with an Arabian DNA is Canaanite now?

I just wonder where can we find the last living Cannanite language today? Among those who bow to Mecca 5 times a day, or those people who kept Cannan at the center of their identity for millenias?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Coyote

I think you are attempting to make an equivalency where there is none.

I disagree.

The Arab Palestinian identity IS Arab. Arab Palestinians are a result of Arabization -- a systematic invasion, conquest and forced conversion mixing with a local population and culturally over-taking them. They see themselves as identical to Jordanians and Syrians and are heavily connected to a wider Arab world. They are Arabs, proudly so. That is their identity.

Yes. Arab in the broader sense of term - like....being proud of being European. Only instead of pan-Europe it is a Pan-Arabian identity that was constructed roughly around the same time as the idea of a Jewish national identity.

But to use that against them to attempt to marginalize them by saying they are relatively recent invaders when they are not is wrong.

Their "Palestinianess" is a CONTRUCT. It did not arise organically from a distinct culture which evolved and changed and developed over time in situ. It is a construct deliberately and recently built in order to systematically deny and erase the indigenous Jewish peoples. It is a cultural conquest, by its very nature. The newest shift in that construct is to claim "Caananiteness'. Its another construct designed to ensure the Jewish narrative is erased or made irrelevant. But Arab Palestinians don't identify with Caananites. It is not their identity. Its a tool for them to use. Its a replacement concept.

Actually...it might be a new shift, but it's a very interesting one. Living Descendants of Biblical Canaanites Identified Via DNA

Whether it arose organically or not...should not matter - the people, who they are, their heritage and their ties to place are being erased by those who say they are "just" Arabs and by extension could be moved to any other culturally Arabic place. Why is it so important to deny the fact that their heritage - even if they weren't a distinct "people" PRECEDED the Muslim conquests? That is what those like Sixties is trying to do.

For the Jewish people their Jewishness is their identity. The whole point for the Jewish people is to prevent the erasure of their culture -- to prevent its being taken over by a dominant, invasive culture. That is the whole intent of the international community defining and designating indigenous cultures. It is meant to preserve indigenous culture and languages, and holy places, and history so that they are not erased and lost.

The Jewish people are in danger of having their identity lost. That Arab Palestinians are not.

At this point in time, for the Palestinians, that IS their identity - whether it only became so 100 years ago or a thousand should not matter. It is now and that should be respected not erased by pigeon holing them as "just Arabs' because that IS a denial of their history.

And that is not to say the same doesn't apply to Jews - it absolutely does, but let's not make it at the expense of the Palestinians. There is room for both with denying either their narratives and historic connections to place.

Arabs are NOT descendants of Biblical Canaanites.

Neither would be the Biblical Philistines, as they were of Greek origin, or any Greeks who came with Alexander and created the Christian Greek Orthodox Church, and so many others who have their indigenous status from somewhere else, be they Egyptians, Ethiopians, or anyone outside of Biblical, Ancient Canaan.

Being born in the land of Canaan, called Israel, or Judea or Palestine, does not make one indigenous from it, even if their descendants are those who stayed after the Philistines, Greeks, Romans, Byzantine, etc ceased to be a power.

Those are foreign people to the land, not indigenous to it, the same way as the Europeans after 1620 are foreign to the New World and not Native or indigenous to it.

As said before, the people who lived in what became known in the 20th century as the Region of Palestine, was known only as a region, since the Romans changed the name to Syria Palestina.

All the inhabitants were known as Jews, Greek, Aramaic, Romans, or any of the people who were living there at the time, but no one ever referred to them as Palestinians. Because that term was never adopted by the indigenous people or any of the later invader, conquerors like the Byzantine, the Muslim Kurds, Muslim Arabs, teh Crusaders, the Ottomans, or any of the visitors or colonies founded in the area, like the German or American Colonies created in the 19th century.

The Arabs are not part of the indigenous fabric of the Land of Canaan/ Israel. Neither are the Greeks, Romans, Muslim Kurds, Arabs, European Crusaders or the Ottomans.

The use of the word Palestinians as a national identity for the Arabs only happened in 1964. By Arafat, who was an Egyptian Arab.

The Jews could have taken the word Palestine and Palestinians (many already had passports as Palestinians ) and called their country and themselves Palestine and Palestinians, as the British chose to bring those words up again.

Had that happened, there would be no issues with "Palestinians", or Palestine , but with Arabs who refused to partition the Mandate into two states (and continue to refuse to do so )and who want to get the rest of what was called the Mandate for Palestine which was to become once again a sovereign homeland for the Jewish People for themselves, as Muslims, as Arabs.

Muslims consider that they have replaced Judaism.
Therefore Jews cannot ever be allowed to have sovereignty over land they once conquered, and be "submissive" to people they consider themselves superior to.

It is all in the Quran. That is what they follow. That is what is written in the Charters for Hamas, the PLO and Fatah.

And none of that, they have any intention of changing.

Which means, no peace with Israel and the Jews.

And it means that they will fight even if it takes forever to achieve what Mohammad achieved out of the Three Jewish Tribes of Mecca.

Their surrender.

 

[Sixties Fan]

This is not the same as a nationality. Palestinians are most certainly in danger of having their nationality lost. But I think the responsibility for their nationality is incorrectly placed on Israel. I do not think Israel, nor TI posters here, are denying Arab Palestinians their identity (on the contrary, they are simply recognizing it for what it is). Nor do I truly think that they are denying Arab Palestinians their nationality. I do think that Israel is imposing conditions on Arab Palestinian nationality - recognition of the Jewish people, their right to sovereignty and a cessation of all violence. And those seem to be perfectly reasonable conditions that Arab Palestinians have yet to agree to.

I think you are overly kind to some of the Team Israel posters here.

Denying them ties to the region is denying them rights to it - and I see that often enough when they talk of sending them to Jordan for example. When they rather explicitely state they have no right to Judea and Sameria or West Bank or Gaza - what ever you want to call it.
Which Palestinians are you referring to who have a much longer history in the area than the Jews?

For example this statement totally denies the Palestinian's much longer history in that place and their relationship to older peoples, relegating them to descendents of "invaders" from the 19th century.

I have no problem recognizing the Palestinians, for who and what they are.

Descendents of Arab invaders, and migrants (mostly from the end of the 19th century until 1948, or some clans like the Al Husseini who migrated from Arabia to the area in the 11th century CE ) who in 1964 found their leader Arafat in need of creating a National identity for them.

Nothing has to be rewritten. We just have to be honest about the meaning of the terms we are using.

Coyote I'm suggesting the same.
Learn what "Palestinian" means in the local language.

This couldn't be more in Your face than that. So either we call things by their name or we will keep muddying the waters because for some the term "indigenous" is just too straight forward for the all-inclusive pc vocabulary.

"Palestinian" - is a word with a meaning, and it means the opposite of "indigenous".

How can they not be indiginous when they clearly share ancestry with very old peoples there? Regardless of word meanings (look...is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea either Democratic or a Republic?).

Arab does not just refer to people of the Arabian peninsula, it refers to many of the people conquered and Arabitized as well.

Which Palestinians are you referring to who have a much longer history in the area than the Jews?

They share ancestry with which ancient people exactly?
How many of them do, which is provable?

You are clearly using the term Palestinians as painting a broad stroke over all who lived in the area some 2000 years ago.
And clearly, the people in that area were never called Palestinians 2000 years ago, 3000 years ago, when the Muslim Kurds, and then Arabs came 1700 years ago.

The word Palestinian was totally unknown and useless, until the Mandate for Palestine, and until the Muslim Arabs adopted it for their national identity in Gaza and what is known as Israel, Judea and Samaria.

Should we ask Jordan, which is 78% Palestine, why they do not automatically allow those born in their country the nationality of Jordanian, and why are they all not Palestinians, but Palestinians and Hashemites, even if most of the Arabs are from different clans than the Hashemites?

Why a broad brush to all other clans but the Hashemites?
Why only they are Palestinians? And only if they fled Israel after 1948?

 

[Coyote]

Nothing has to be rewritten. We just have to be honest about the meaning of the terms we are using.

Coyote I'm suggesting the same.
Learn what "Palestinian" means in the local language.

This couldn't be more in Your face than that. So either we call things by their name or we will keep muddying the waters because for some the term "indigenous" is just too straight forward for the all-inclusive pc vocabulary.

"Palestinian" - is a word with a meaning, and it means the opposite of "indigenous".

How can they not be indiginous when they clearly share ancestry with very old peoples there? Regardless of word meanings (look...is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea either Democratic or a Republic?).

Arab does not just refer to people of the Arabian peninsula, it refers to many of the people conquered and Arabitized as well.

Modern Lebanese are 44% Arabian and 14% Jewish.
That Semites share close ancestry is pretty obvious.

Are You saying that based on 6 skeletons in one cave - anyone with an Arabian DNA is Canaanite now?

I just wonder where can we find the last living Cannanite language today? Among those who bow to Mecca 5 times a day, or those people who kept Cannan at the center of their identity for millenias?

No, I am not saying anyone with Arab dna is blah blah blah

 

[Coyote]

This is not the same as a nationality. Palestinians are most certainly in danger of having their nationality lost. But I think the responsibility for their nationality is incorrectly placed on Israel. I do not think Israel, nor TI posters here, are denying Arab Palestinians their identity (on the contrary, they are simply recognizing it for what it is). Nor do I truly think that they are denying Arab Palestinians their nationality. I do think that Israel is imposing conditions on Arab Palestinian nationality - recognition of the Jewish people, their right to sovereignty and a cessation of all violence. And those seem to be perfectly reasonable conditions that Arab Palestinians have yet to agree to.

I think you are overly kind to some of the Team Israel posters here.

Denying them ties to the region is denying them rights to it - and I see that often enough when they talk of sending them to Jordan for example. When they rather explicitely state they have no right to Judea and Sameria or West Bank or Gaza - what ever you want to call it.
Which Palestinians are you referring to who have a much longer history in the area than the Jews?

For example this statement totally denies the Palestinian's much longer history in that place and their relationship to older peoples, relegating them to descendents of "invaders" from the 19th century.

I have no problem recognizing the Palestinians, for who and what they are.

Descendents of Arab invaders, and migrants (mostly from the end of the 19th century until 1948, or some clans like the Al Husseini who migrated from Arabia to the area in the 11th century CE ) who in 1964 found their leader Arafat in need of creating a National identity for them.

Nothing has to be rewritten. We just have to be honest about the meaning of the terms we are using.

Coyote I'm suggesting the same.
Learn what "Palestinian" means in the local language.

This couldn't be more in Your face than that. So either we call things by their name or we will keep muddying the waters because for some the term "indigenous" is just too straight forward for the all-inclusive pc vocabulary.

"Palestinian" - is a word with a meaning, and it means the opposite of "indigenous".

How can they not be indiginous when they clearly share ancestry with very old peoples there? Regardless of word meanings (look...is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea either Democratic or a Republic?).

Arab does not just refer to people of the Arabian peninsula, it refers to many of the people conquered and Arabitized as well.

Which Palestinians are you referring to who have a much longer history in the area than the Jews?

They share ancestry with which ancient people exactly?
How many of them do, which is provable?

You are clearly using the term Palestinians as painting a broad stroke over all who lived in the area some 2000 years ago.
And clearly, the people in that area were never called Palestinians 2000 years ago, 3000 years ago, when the Muslim Kurds, and then Arabs came 1700 years ago.

The word Palestinian was totally unknown and useless, until the Mandate for Palestine, and until the Muslim Arabs adopted it for their national identity in Gaza and what is known as Israel, Judea and Samaria.

Should we ask Jordan, which is 78% Palestine, why they do not automatically allow those born in their country the nationality of Jordanian, and why are they all not Palestinians, but Palestinians and Hashemites, even if most of the Arabs are from different clans than the Hashemites?

Why a broad brush to all other clans but the Hashemites?
Why only they are Palestinians? And only if they fled Israel after 1948?

You mean the way you use Arab as a broad brush stroke?

What exactly do you mean by your last sentence? It is a bit of a nonsequiter.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote

I think you are attempting to make an equivalency where there is none.

I disagree.

The Arab Palestinian identity IS Arab. Arab Palestinians are a result of Arabization -- a systematic invasion, conquest and forced conversion mixing with a local population and culturally over-taking them. They see themselves as identical to Jordanians and Syrians and are heavily connected to a wider Arab world. They are Arabs, proudly so. That is their identity.

Yes. Arab in the broader sense of term - like....being proud of being European. Only instead of pan-Europe it is a Pan-Arabian identity that was constructed roughly around the same time as the idea of a Jewish national identity.

But to use that against them to attempt to marginalize them by saying they are relatively recent invaders when they are not is wrong.

Their "Palestinianess" is a CONTRUCT. It did not arise organically from a distinct culture which evolved and changed and developed over time in situ. It is a construct deliberately and recently built in order to systematically deny and erase the indigenous Jewish peoples. It is a cultural conquest, by its very nature. The newest shift in that construct is to claim "Caananiteness'. Its another construct designed to ensure the Jewish narrative is erased or made irrelevant. But Arab Palestinians don't identify with Caananites. It is not their identity. Its a tool for them to use. Its a replacement concept.

Actually...it might be a new shift, but it's a very interesting one. Living Descendants of Biblical Canaanites Identified Via DNA

Whether it arose organically or not...should not matter - the people, who they are, their heritage and their ties to place are being erased by those who say they are "just" Arabs and by extension could be moved to any other culturally Arabic place. Why is it so important to deny the fact that their heritage - even if they weren't a distinct "people" PRECEDED the Muslim conquests? That is what those like Sixties is trying to do.

For the Jewish people their Jewishness is their identity. The whole point for the Jewish people is to prevent the erasure of their culture -- to prevent its being taken over by a dominant, invasive culture. That is the whole intent of the international community defining and designating indigenous cultures. It is meant to preserve indigenous culture and languages, and holy places, and history so that they are not erased and lost.

The Jewish people are in danger of having their identity lost. That Arab Palestinians are not.

At this point in time, for the Palestinians, that IS their identity - whether it only became so 100 years ago or a thousand should not matter. It is now and that should be respected not erased by pigeon holing them as "just Arabs' because that IS a denial of their history.

And that is not to say the same doesn't apply to Jews - it absolutely does, but let's not make it at the expense of the Palestinians. There is room for both with denying either their narratives and historic connections to place.

Arabs are NOT descendants of Biblical Canaanites.

Neither would be the Biblical Philistines, as they were of Greek origin, or any Greeks who came with Alexander and created the Christian Greek Orthodox Church, and so many others who have their indigenous status from somewhere else, be they Egyptians, Ethiopians, or anyone outside of Biblical, Ancient Canaan.

Being born in the land of Canaan, called Israel, or Judea or Palestine, does not make one indigenous from it, even if their descendants are those who stayed after the Philistines, Greeks, Romans, Byzantine, etc ceased to be a power.

Those are foreign people to the land, not indigenous to it, the same way as the Europeans after 1620 are foreign to the New World and not Native or indigenous to it.

As said before, the people who lived in what became known in the 20th century as the Region of Palestine, was known only as a region, since the Romans changed the name to Syria Palestina.

All the inhabitants were known as Jews, Greek, Aramaic, Romans, or any of the people who were living there at the time, but no one ever referred to them as Palestinians. Because that term was never adopted by the indigenous people or any of the later invader, conquerors like the Byzantine, the Muslim Kurds, Muslim Arabs, teh Crusaders, the Ottomans, or any of the visitors or colonies founded in the area, like the German or American Colonies created in the 19th century.

The Arabs are not part of the indigenous fabric of the Land of Canaan/ Israel. Neither are the Greeks, Romans, Muslim Kurds, Arabs, European Crusaders or the Ottomans.

The use of the word Palestinians as a national identity for the Arabs only happened in 1964. By Arafat, who was an Egyptian Arab.

The Jews could have taken the word Palestine and Palestinians (many already had passports as Palestinians ) and called their country and themselves Palestine and Palestinians, as the British chose to bring those words up again.

Had that happened, there would be no issues with "Palestinians", or Palestine , but with Arabs who refused to partition the Mandate into two states (and continue to refuse to do so )and who want to get the rest of what was called the Mandate for Palestine which was to become once again a sovereign homeland for the Jewish People for themselves, as Muslims, as Arabs.

Muslims consider that they have replaced Judaism.
Therefore Jews cannot ever be allowed to have sovereignty over land they once conquered, and be "submissive" to people they consider themselves superior to.

It is all in the Quran. That is what they follow. That is what is written in the Charters for Hamas, the PLO and Fatah.

And none of that, they have any intention of changing.

Which means, no peace with Israel and the Jews.

And it means that they will fight even if it takes forever to achieve what Mohammad achieved out of the Three Jewish Tribes of Mecca.

Their surrender.

what evidence do you have that today’s Palestinians contain no more ancient blood than that 19th century invaders? How about genetic studies? Although you apparently think the study in the National Geographic article got it all wrong.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Coyote

I think you are attempting to make an equivalency where there is none.

I disagree.

The Arab Palestinian identity IS Arab. Arab Palestinians are a result of Arabization -- a systematic invasion, conquest and forced conversion mixing with a local population and culturally over-taking them. They see themselves as identical to Jordanians and Syrians and are heavily connected to a wider Arab world. They are Arabs, proudly so. That is their identity.

Yes. Arab in the broader sense of term - like....being proud of being European. Only instead of pan-Europe it is a Pan-Arabian identity that was constructed roughly around the same time as the idea of a Jewish national identity.

But to use that against them to attempt to marginalize them by saying they are relatively recent invaders when they are not is wrong.

Their "Palestinianess" is a CONTRUCT. It did not arise organically from a distinct culture which evolved and changed and developed over time in situ. It is a construct deliberately and recently built in order to systematically deny and erase the indigenous Jewish peoples. It is a cultural conquest, by its very nature. The newest shift in that construct is to claim "Caananiteness'. Its another construct designed to ensure the Jewish narrative is erased or made irrelevant. But Arab Palestinians don't identify with Caananites. It is not their identity. Its a tool for them to use. Its a replacement concept.

Actually...it might be a new shift, but it's a very interesting one. Living Descendants of Biblical Canaanites Identified Via DNA

Whether it arose organically or not...should not matter - the people, who they are, their heritage and their ties to place are being erased by those who say they are "just" Arabs and by extension could be moved to any other culturally Arabic place. Why is it so important to deny the fact that their heritage - even if they weren't a distinct "people" PRECEDED the Muslim conquests? That is what those like Sixties is trying to do.

For the Jewish people their Jewishness is their identity. The whole point for the Jewish people is to prevent the erasure of their culture -- to prevent its being taken over by a dominant, invasive culture. That is the whole intent of the international community defining and designating indigenous cultures. It is meant to preserve indigenous culture and languages, and holy places, and history so that they are not erased and lost.

The Jewish people are in danger of having their identity lost. That Arab Palestinians are not.

At this point in time, for the Palestinians, that IS their identity - whether it only became so 100 years ago or a thousand should not matter. It is now and that should be respected not erased by pigeon holing them as "just Arabs' because that IS a denial of their history.

And that is not to say the same doesn't apply to Jews - it absolutely does, but let's not make it at the expense of the Palestinians. There is room for both with denying either their narratives and historic connections to place.

Arabs are NOT descendants of Biblical Canaanites.

Neither would be the Biblical Philistines, as they were of Greek origin, or any Greeks who came with Alexander and created the Christian Greek Orthodox Church, and so many others who have their indigenous status from somewhere else, be they Egyptians, Ethiopians, or anyone outside of Biblical, Ancient Canaan.

Being born in the land of Canaan, called Israel, or Judea or Palestine, does not make one indigenous from it, even if their descendants are those who stayed after the Philistines, Greeks, Romans, Byzantine, etc ceased to be a power.

Those are foreign people to the land, not indigenous to it, the same way as the Europeans after 1620 are foreign to the New World and not Native or indigenous to it.

As said before, the people who lived in what became known in the 20th century as the Region of Palestine, was known only as a region, since the Romans changed the name to Syria Palestina.

All the inhabitants were known as Jews, Greek, Aramaic, Romans, or any of the people who were living there at the time, but no one ever referred to them as Palestinians. Because that term was never adopted by the indigenous people or any of the later invader, conquerors like the Byzantine, the Muslim Kurds, Muslim Arabs, teh Crusaders, the Ottomans, or any of the visitors or colonies founded in the area, like the German or American Colonies created in the 19th century.

The Arabs are not part of the indigenous fabric of the Land of Canaan/ Israel. Neither are the Greeks, Romans, Muslim Kurds, Arabs, European Crusaders or the Ottomans.

The use of the word Palestinians as a national identity for the Arabs only happened in 1964. By Arafat, who was an Egyptian Arab.

The Jews could have taken the word Palestine and Palestinians (many already had passports as Palestinians ) and called their country and themselves Palestine and Palestinians, as the British chose to bring those words up again.

Had that happened, there would be no issues with "Palestinians", or Palestine , but with Arabs who refused to partition the Mandate into two states (and continue to refuse to do so )and who want to get the rest of what was called the Mandate for Palestine which was to become once again a sovereign homeland for the Jewish People for themselves, as Muslims, as Arabs.

Muslims consider that they have replaced Judaism.
Therefore Jews cannot ever be allowed to have sovereignty over land they once conquered, and be "submissive" to people they consider themselves superior to.

It is all in the Quran. That is what they follow. That is what is written in the Charters for Hamas, the PLO and Fatah.

And none of that, they have any intention of changing.

Which means, no peace with Israel and the Jews.

And it means that they will fight even if it takes forever to achieve what Mohammad achieved out of the Three Jewish Tribes of Mecca.

Their surrender.

what evidence do you have that today’s Palestinians contain no more ancient blood than that 19th century invaders? How about genetic studies? Although you apparently think the study in the National Geographic article got it all wrong.

Ancient blood from Ancient Canaan, they do not have.

Ancient blood from when the Muslims left Arabia in the 7th Century CE on, they are all there, living in North Africa, all over what is now called the Middle East, including Iran.

Genetics can only point that the Arabs come from Arabia.
If they mixed with any other ethnic people for the past 2000 years, their DNA will show that as well.

You are possibly still confusing people who lived in Ancient Canaan as using the word Palestinians to identify themselves.

They never did so.

What I keep trying to say is that the concept of anyone being called a Palestinian only started with the Mandate for Palestine.
Had it been called anything else, that is what they would be calling themselves as the Jews would always have chosen the name for the country to be Israel, as it had once been.

And most non Jews who migrated to the region after the first Zionist large migration did so in order to look for work, and most had never been to the area.

The Tamimi clan is from Bosnia.
All the clans names basically say where they are from, and have never forgotten it. Rylah has posted about many of them.

Can one say that the Al Husseini clan was in Canaan in Biblical Canaanite times, when they themselves tell that they only came to the area around the 11th century CE?

As did so many others?

The Arabs are clearly using the term Palestinian in order to erase the Jewish presence on the land. They say so, they do so, and BDS is the instrument they have been using to delegitimize any and all things Jewish.

Just look at UNESCO, how all Jewish sites have all of a sudden been given a Palestinian identity. Something they never bothered to do while it was in Muslim hands.

Why?

 

[Coyote]

Coyote

I think you are attempting to make an equivalency where there is none.

I disagree.

The Arab Palestinian identity IS Arab. Arab Palestinians are a result of Arabization -- a systematic invasion, conquest and forced conversion mixing with a local population and culturally over-taking them. They see themselves as identical to Jordanians and Syrians and are heavily connected to a wider Arab world. They are Arabs, proudly so. That is their identity.

Yes. Arab in the broader sense of term - like....being proud of being European. Only instead of pan-Europe it is a Pan-Arabian identity that was constructed roughly around the same time as the idea of a Jewish national identity.

But to use that against them to attempt to marginalize them by saying they are relatively recent invaders when they are not is wrong.

Their "Palestinianess" is a CONTRUCT. It did not arise organically from a distinct culture which evolved and changed and developed over time in situ. It is a construct deliberately and recently built in order to systematically deny and erase the indigenous Jewish peoples. It is a cultural conquest, by its very nature. The newest shift in that construct is to claim "Caananiteness'. Its another construct designed to ensure the Jewish narrative is erased or made irrelevant. But Arab Palestinians don't identify with Caananites. It is not their identity. Its a tool for them to use. Its a replacement concept.

Actually...it might be a new shift, but it's a very interesting one. Living Descendants of Biblical Canaanites Identified Via DNA

Whether it arose organically or not...should not matter - the people, who they are, their heritage and their ties to place are being erased by those who say they are "just" Arabs and by extension could be moved to any other culturally Arabic place. Why is it so important to deny the fact that their heritage - even if they weren't a distinct "people" PRECEDED the Muslim conquests? That is what those like Sixties is trying to do.

For the Jewish people their Jewishness is their identity. The whole point for the Jewish people is to prevent the erasure of their culture -- to prevent its being taken over by a dominant, invasive culture. That is the whole intent of the international community defining and designating indigenous cultures. It is meant to preserve indigenous culture and languages, and holy places, and history so that they are not erased and lost.

The Jewish people are in danger of having their identity lost. That Arab Palestinians are not.

At this point in time, for the Palestinians, that IS their identity - whether it only became so 100 years ago or a thousand should not matter. It is now and that should be respected not erased by pigeon holing them as "just Arabs' because that IS a denial of their history.

And that is not to say the same doesn't apply to Jews - it absolutely does, but let's not make it at the expense of the Palestinians. There is room for both with denying either their narratives and historic connections to place.

Arabs are NOT descendants of Biblical Canaanites.

Neither would be the Biblical Philistines, as they were of Greek origin, or any Greeks who came with Alexander and created the Christian Greek Orthodox Church, and so many others who have their indigenous status from somewhere else, be they Egyptians, Ethiopians, or anyone outside of Biblical, Ancient Canaan.

Being born in the land of Canaan, called Israel, or Judea or Palestine, does not make one indigenous from it, even if their descendants are those who stayed after the Philistines, Greeks, Romans, Byzantine, etc ceased to be a power.

Those are foreign people to the land, not indigenous to it, the same way as the Europeans after 1620 are foreign to the New World and not Native or indigenous to it.

As said before, the people who lived in what became known in the 20th century as the Region of Palestine, was known only as a region, since the Romans changed the name to Syria Palestina.

All the inhabitants were known as Jews, Greek, Aramaic, Romans, or any of the people who were living there at the time, but no one ever referred to them as Palestinians. Because that term was never adopted by the indigenous people or any of the later invader, conquerors like the Byzantine, the Muslim Kurds, Muslim Arabs, teh Crusaders, the Ottomans, or any of the visitors or colonies founded in the area, like the German or American Colonies created in the 19th century.

The Arabs are not part of the indigenous fabric of the Land of Canaan/ Israel. Neither are the Greeks, Romans, Muslim Kurds, Arabs, European Crusaders or the Ottomans.

The use of the word Palestinians as a national identity for the Arabs only happened in 1964. By Arafat, who was an Egyptian Arab.

The Jews could have taken the word Palestine and Palestinians (many already had passports as Palestinians ) and called their country and themselves Palestine and Palestinians, as the British chose to bring those words up again.

Had that happened, there would be no issues with "Palestinians", or Palestine , but with Arabs who refused to partition the Mandate into two states (and continue to refuse to do so )and who want to get the rest of what was called the Mandate for Palestine which was to become once again a sovereign homeland for the Jewish People for themselves, as Muslims, as Arabs.

Muslims consider that they have replaced Judaism.
Therefore Jews cannot ever be allowed to have sovereignty over land they once conquered, and be "submissive" to people they consider themselves superior to.

It is all in the Quran. That is what they follow. That is what is written in the Charters for Hamas, the PLO and Fatah.

And none of that, they have any intention of changing.

Which means, no peace with Israel and the Jews.

And it means that they will fight even if it takes forever to achieve what Mohammad achieved out of the Three Jewish Tribes of Mecca.

Their surrender.

what evidence do you have that today’s Palestinians contain no more ancient blood than that 19th century invaders? How about genetic studies? Although you apparently think the study in the National Geographic article got it all wrong.

Ancient blood from Ancient Canaan, they do not have.

Ancient blood from when the Muslims left Arabia in the 7th Century CE on, they are all there, living in North Africa, all over what is now called the Middle East, including Iran.

So your claim is that the Palestinians are entirely descended from 7th century Muslim Conquerers? Fine. Prove it with something beyond claims that there was no such thing as "Palestinian" prior to whenever or similar SEMANTICS.

Genetics can only point that the Arabs come from Arabia.
If they mixed with any other ethnic people for the past 2000 years, their DNA will show that as well.

Genetics shows what mixture of peoples is in an individual's heritage. Not that "Arabs come from Arabia" (I imagine that is your way of marginalizing the Palestinians).

What you are trying to do is interesting. You are identifying them by their Arab ancestry not by their non-Arab ancestry, which shows that their ancestors were much older peoples. So you are choosing one over the other rather than looking at the complete package.

That is interesting because that is what anti-Israel'ers do to try and insist that European Jews are not really Jews who's ancestral homeland is Israel. They make the argument - sometimes falsely, sometimes accurately - that because genetics shows non-Jewish lineage - which THEY choose to EMPHASIZE - they can't be Jews. Isn't that in effect what you are doing with the Palestinians?

When one group conquers another - there will be intermarriage and a certain amount of mingling. When one group is in a diaspora, the same happens - there will be out-marriages and such simply because it is needed for the groups survival when numbers are small.

So how do you choose to identify them? You don't - it is how they choose to identify themselves.

You are possibly still confusing people who lived in Ancient Canaan as using the word Palestinians to identify themselves.

They never did so.

I'm not confusing anything - I quoted an article - argue with the author if you take issue with it.

Living Descendants of Biblical Canaanites Identified Via DNA

More than 90 percent of the genetic ancestry of modern Lebanese is derived from ancient Canaanites, according to a paper published today in the American Journal of Human Genetics.


Researchers supported by The Wellcome Trust were able to sequence the Canaanite genome from the remains of five individuals buried in the ancient port city of Sidon (modern Saïda, Lebanon) around 3,700 years ago. The results were compared against the DNA of 99 modern-day Lebanese residents.


According to the results, Canaanite ancestry is a mix of indigenous populations who settled the Levant (the region encompassing much of modern Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian territories) around 10,000 years ago, and migrants who arrived from the east between 6,600 and 3,550 years ago.​

What I keep trying to say is that the concept of anyone being called a Palestinian only started with the Mandate for Palestine.
Had it been called anything else, that is what they would be calling themselves as the Jews would always have chosen the name for the country to be Israel, as it had once been.

I agree that the concept of being called a Palestinian is relatively recent but the people aren't.

[/quote] And most non Jews who migrated to the region after the first Zionist large migration did so in order to look for work, and most had never been to the area.[/quote]

Yes, but the region was hardly empty.

The Tamimi clan is from Bosnia.
All the clans names basically say where they are from, and have never forgotten it. Rylah has posted about many of them.

Can one say that the Al Husseini clan was in Canaan in Biblical Canaanite times, when they themselves tell that they only came to the area around the 11th century CE?

As did so many others?

The Arabs are clearly using the term Palestinian in order to erase the Jewish presence on the land. They say so, they do so, and BDS is the instrument they have been using to delegitimize any and all things Jewish.

Just look at UNESCO, how all Jewish sites have all of a sudden been given a Palestinian identity. Something they never bothered to do while it was in Muslim hands.

Why?

Palestine has been around since the 5th century BC - it makes sense to call the people living there Palestinians. How is using that term erasing Jewish presence? By not referencing Judea and Sameria, terms which haven't been used for several thousand years? Or by not referring to the sovereign state of Israel?

There is a bit of push( on both sides) with how they choose to refer to each other's history and to place names (most evident in textbooks), and I do agree there is concerted effort to erase the Jewish history of place that needs to be addressed. But not by turning the Palestinians into nothing more than "Arab invaders" and denying them THEIR history and THEIR rights of place.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Coyote

I think you are attempting to make an equivalency where there is none.

I disagree.

The Arab Palestinian identity IS Arab. Arab Palestinians are a result of Arabization -- a systematic invasion, conquest and forced conversion mixing with a local population and culturally over-taking them. They see themselves as identical to Jordanians and Syrians and are heavily connected to a wider Arab world. They are Arabs, proudly so. That is their identity.

Yes. Arab in the broader sense of term - like....being proud of being European. Only instead of pan-Europe it is a Pan-Arabian identity that was constructed roughly around the same time as the idea of a Jewish national identity.

But to use that against them to attempt to marginalize them by saying they are relatively recent invaders when they are not is wrong.

Their "Palestinianess" is a CONTRUCT. It did not arise organically from a distinct culture which evolved and changed and developed over time in situ. It is a construct deliberately and recently built in order to systematically deny and erase the indigenous Jewish peoples. It is a cultural conquest, by its very nature. The newest shift in that construct is to claim "Caananiteness'. Its another construct designed to ensure the Jewish narrative is erased or made irrelevant. But Arab Palestinians don't identify with Caananites. It is not their identity. Its a tool for them to use. Its a replacement concept.

Actually...it might be a new shift, but it's a very interesting one. Living Descendants of Biblical Canaanites Identified Via DNA

Whether it arose organically or not...should not matter - the people, who they are, their heritage and their ties to place are being erased by those who say they are "just" Arabs and by extension could be moved to any other culturally Arabic place. Why is it so important to deny the fact that their heritage - even if they weren't a distinct "people" PRECEDED the Muslim conquests? That is what those like Sixties is trying to do.

For the Jewish people their Jewishness is their identity. The whole point for the Jewish people is to prevent the erasure of their culture -- to prevent its being taken over by a dominant, invasive culture. That is the whole intent of the international community defining and designating indigenous cultures. It is meant to preserve indigenous culture and languages, and holy places, and history so that they are not erased and lost.

The Jewish people are in danger of having their identity lost. That Arab Palestinians are not.

At this point in time, for the Palestinians, that IS their identity - whether it only became so 100 years ago or a thousand should not matter. It is now and that should be respected not erased by pigeon holing them as "just Arabs' because that IS a denial of their history.

And that is not to say the same doesn't apply to Jews - it absolutely does, but let's not make it at the expense of the Palestinians. There is room for both with denying either their narratives and historic connections to place.

Arabs are NOT descendants of Biblical Canaanites.

Neither would be the Biblical Philistines, as they were of Greek origin, or any Greeks who came with Alexander and created the Christian Greek Orthodox Church, and so many others who have their indigenous status from somewhere else, be they Egyptians, Ethiopians, or anyone outside of Biblical, Ancient Canaan.

Being born in the land of Canaan, called Israel, or Judea or Palestine, does not make one indigenous from it, even if their descendants are those who stayed after the Philistines, Greeks, Romans, Byzantine, etc ceased to be a power.

Those are foreign people to the land, not indigenous to it, the same way as the Europeans after 1620 are foreign to the New World and not Native or indigenous to it.

As said before, the people who lived in what became known in the 20th century as the Region of Palestine, was known only as a region, since the Romans changed the name to Syria Palestina.

All the inhabitants were known as Jews, Greek, Aramaic, Romans, or any of the people who were living there at the time, but no one ever referred to them as Palestinians. Because that term was never adopted by the indigenous people or any of the later invader, conquerors like the Byzantine, the Muslim Kurds, Muslim Arabs, teh Crusaders, the Ottomans, or any of the visitors or colonies founded in the area, like the German or American Colonies created in the 19th century.

The Arabs are not part of the indigenous fabric of the Land of Canaan/ Israel. Neither are the Greeks, Romans, Muslim Kurds, Arabs, European Crusaders or the Ottomans.

The use of the word Palestinians as a national identity for the Arabs only happened in 1964. By Arafat, who was an Egyptian Arab.

The Jews could have taken the word Palestine and Palestinians (many already had passports as Palestinians ) and called their country and themselves Palestine and Palestinians, as the British chose to bring those words up again.

Had that happened, there would be no issues with "Palestinians", or Palestine , but with Arabs who refused to partition the Mandate into two states (and continue to refuse to do so )and who want to get the rest of what was called the Mandate for Palestine which was to become once again a sovereign homeland for the Jewish People for themselves, as Muslims, as Arabs.

Muslims consider that they have replaced Judaism.
Therefore Jews cannot ever be allowed to have sovereignty over land they once conquered, and be "submissive" to people they consider themselves superior to.

It is all in the Quran. That is what they follow. That is what is written in the Charters for Hamas, the PLO and Fatah.

And none of that, they have any intention of changing.

Which means, no peace with Israel and the Jews.

And it means that they will fight even if it takes forever to achieve what Mohammad achieved out of the Three Jewish Tribes of Mecca.

Their surrender.

what evidence do you have that today’s Palestinians contain no more ancient blood than that 19th century invaders? How about genetic studies? Although you apparently think the study in the National Geographic article got it all wrong.

Ancient blood from Ancient Canaan, they do not have.

Ancient blood from when the Muslims left Arabia in the 7th Century CE on, they are all there, living in North Africa, all over what is now called the Middle East, including Iran.

So your claim is that the Palestinians are entirely descended from 7th century Muslim Conquerers? Fine. Prove it with something beyond claims that there was no such thing as "Palestinian" prior to whenever or similar SEMANTICS.

Genetics can only point that the Arabs come from Arabia.
If they mixed with any other ethnic people for the past 2000 years, their DNA will show that as well.

Genetics shows what mixture of peoples is in an individual's heritage. Not that "Arabs come from Arabia" (I imagine that is your way of marginalizing the Palestinians).

What you are trying to do is interesting. You are identifying them by their Arab ancestry not by their non-Arab ancestry, which shows that their ancestors were much older peoples. So you are choosing one over the other rather than looking at the complete package.

That is interesting because that is what anti-Israel'ers do to try and insist that European Jews are not really Jews who's ancestral homeland is Israel. They make the argument - sometimes falsely, sometimes accurately - that because genetics shows non-Jewish lineage - which THEY choose to EMPHASIZE - they can't be Jews. Isn't that in effect what you are doing with the Palestinians?

When one group conquers another - there will be intermarriage and a certain amount of mingling. When one group is in a diaspora, the same happens - there will be out-marriages and such simply because it is needed for the groups survival when numbers are small.

So how do you choose to identify them? You don't - it is how they choose to identify themselves.

You are possibly still confusing people who lived in Ancient Canaan as using the word Palestinians to identify themselves.

They never did so.

I'm not confusing anything - I quoted an article - argue with the author if you take issue with it.

Living Descendants of Biblical Canaanites Identified Via DNA

More than 90 percent of the genetic ancestry of modern Lebanese is derived from ancient Canaanites, according to a paper published today in the American Journal of Human Genetics.


Researchers supported by The Wellcome Trust were able to sequence the Canaanite genome from the remains of five individuals buried in the ancient port city of Sidon (modern Saïda, Lebanon) around 3,700 years ago. The results were compared against the DNA of 99 modern-day Lebanese residents.


According to the results, Canaanite ancestry is a mix of indigenous populations who settled the Levant (the region encompassing much of modern Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian territories) around 10,000 years ago, and migrants who arrived from the east between 6,600 and 3,550 years ago.​

What I keep trying to say is that the concept of anyone being called a Palestinian only started with the Mandate for Palestine.
Had it been called anything else, that is what they would be calling themselves as the Jews would always have chosen the name for the country to be Israel, as it had once been.

I agree that the concept of being called a Palestinian is relatively recent but the people aren't.

And most non Jews who migrated to the region after the first Zionist large migration did so in order to look for work, and most had never been to the area.[/quote]

Yes, but the region was hardly empty.

The Tamimi clan is from Bosnia.
All the clans names basically say where they are from, and have never forgotten it. Rylah has posted about many of them.

Can one say that the Al Husseini clan was in Canaan in Biblical Canaanite times, when they themselves tell that they only came to the area around the 11th century CE?

As did so many others?

The Arabs are clearly using the term Palestinian in order to erase the Jewish presence on the land. They say so, they do so, and BDS is the instrument they have been using to delegitimize any and all things Jewish.

Just look at UNESCO, how all Jewish sites have all of a sudden been given a Palestinian identity. Something they never bothered to do while it was in Muslim hands.

Why?

Palestine has been around since the 5th century BC - it makes sense to call the people living there Palestinians. How is using that term erasing Jewish presence? By not referencing Judea and Sameria, terms which haven't been used for several thousand years? Or by not referring to the sovereign state of Israel?

There is a bit of push( on both sides) with how they choose to refer to each other's history and to place names (most evident in textbooks), and I do agree there is concerted effort to erase the Jewish history of place that needs to be addressed. But not by turning the Palestinians into nothing more than "Arab invaders" and denying them THEIR history and THEIR rights of place.[/QUOTE]
Please, stop being ridiculous.

History books and that of the people who conquered the land will testify that there wasn't one person being called a "Palestinian" in ancient times.

The use of the word Palestine for the region from 5th century BC does not change that.

By all means do not pay attention to what the Muslims have been doing for the past forty years, especially the past 10 years, which is attempting and passing rules where the Jewish identity of the Temple Mount, Cave of the Patriarchs, Rachel Tomb, Joseph Tomb and others have magically passed not to be Muslim heritage.

By all means, read and think what you like. No one can make you understand what is factual and what is not.

As far as you know, if some people called the area, the region ,Palestine, than the inhabitants must have been called Palestinians.


Enough said?

 

[Coyote]

Please, stop being ridiculous.

History books and that of the people who conquered the land will testify that there wasn't one person being called a "Palestinian" in ancient times.

The use of the word Palestine for the region from 5th century BC does not change that.

By all means do not pay attention to what the Muslims have been doing for the past forty years, especially the past 10 years, which is attempting and passing rules where the Jewish identity of the Temple Mount, Cave of the Patriarchs, Rachel Tomb, Joseph Tomb and others have magically passed not to be Muslim heritage.

By all means, read and think what you like. No one can make you understand what is factual and what is not.

As far as you know, if some people called the area, the region ,Palestine, than the inhabitants must have been called Palestinians.


Enough said?

I'm not sure why you're having issues on what I bolded, because I already agreed that is an issue.

I'm sticking to factual, and you are totally ignoring the points I make. It doesn't matter what you CALL a people. They don't just cease to exist based on a name.