Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The point in all of them is that the PA, Abbas and others, are going around changing their story of how long the Palestinians have actually been in the area.The number of people who would have converted by will or by force is minuscule, compared to the majority of the people who remained Jewish, Bedouins, Druze, and all others who did live there at the time.No one on TI is denying Arab Palestinians long connection to the place by reason of their long residence there.
They are denying that their ancestors included people who existed there prior to the Islamic conquest.
There is no way of knowing with any accuracy how many.
But what the Arab Muslim Palestinians have been doing with their BDS campaign, check Abbas' quotes, is to say that the Palestinians people have been there for 5000 years. No, 10,000 years. No, One Million Years.........
About that 10,000-year history in Jericho, Mr. Erekat
Palestine Office Tourism Website Illustrates Absurdity Of Palestinian Narrative
Another Abbas Lie: Palestinians are the Descendants of the Canaanites
Which one could possibly be true? And without any archeological proof.
The first one is hardly a scientific article nor one written by historical experts. What is your point?
Same with the second one.
The third one could, oddly have some merit based on the dna analysis referred to in the National Geographic article you refer to as "mistaken".
Those articles were not written out of a vacuum, but based on what Abbas, Erekart and other Palestinian leaders have been telling the Western world for the past 10 to 20 years.
Why would they do that? Do they not know how far back the Palestinian people have lived on the land and exactly where?
Are they the Canaanite tribe? The Hitites? Edomites? Jebusites? Any and all of them?
And the Palestinian Museum remains empty.
They can change their stories, it's all political and designed to suit their agenda. I don't disagree there. But it doesn't change the fact that the Palestinians do descend from much older peoples then the Arabs, with a mixture of later Arab blood. In fact in the genetic study I quoted earlier - they are much closer to a number of Jewish groups and Syrians then they are to the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula (such as the Saudi's).
Their heritage in terms of bloodlines and place most certainly did.
It is not a legit argument, it's an inhuman one.
There absolutely are those who think that Palestinians should be expelled elsewhere. I'll look them up but for a start - look at MJB's posts.
Speaking of deceptive...how about a direct answer? Do you believe that the Palestinians have any right of place to the area currently referred to as Palestine? We aren't talking about historical divisions - we are talking about a place where they live and have lived for centuries if not thousands of years. Basically do they have a right to that place?
But there is no relationship between Jews and Cambodian Temples. There is a relationship between ... Muslims and Jews to some of the same sites.
Not if it is used as an excuse to displace an Israel citizen from their historical placement.I was responding to your snarky and dismissive comment "So...look who chooses to make an appearance" which does bring into question my right to post, here, and constitutes an ad Hominem rather than a rebuttal.I don't have the right to post here?
You really do hate the truth, though, don't you? The truth of the matter is that there were no "Palestinians" until they were invented during my own lifetime.
Are you going to make yet another one of my postings disappear, though? That would make, what, a few hundred by now?
Did I say anything about your right to post here? No. If you have a problem with moderation - you know what to do. Take it up via pm.
Do you believe Palestinians have any right of place to the area currently referred to as Palestine?
"Palestinians" did not exist until they were invented for propaganda purposes. Your question is deceptive and intentionally so.
ARABS existed at the time of the original mandate rather than these so-called "Palestinians" and so any honest look at the situation would evaluate ARAB interests vs Jewish. The original mandate included what is now Jordan, so any divvying up of terrritory must take that into account in order to be honest and fair.
Speaking of deceptive...how about a direct answer? Do you believe that the Palestinians have any right of place to the area currently referred to as Palestine? We aren't talking about historical divisions - we are talking about a place where they live and have lived for centuries if not thousands of years. Basically do they have a right to that place?
I am not being deceptive, you are.
You know full well no such people as "Palestinian" existed until recent times yet you demand I answer a question as if they did.
So you won't give a straight answer?
Ok, let me rephrase it in a way that is more acceptable to you: Do you believe that the people, referred to as Palestinians, have any right of place to the area currently referred to as Palestine? We aren't talking about historical divisions - we are talking about a place where they live and have lived for centuries if not thousands of years. Basically do they have a right to that place?
No one should create their holy site at someone else's existing holy site attempting to obliterate its original history.Actually...the idea of heritage becomes especially difficult when you have not one, but three ancient religions claiming some recognition of the same sites. Does that mean they are usurping them?
Yep. Absolutely. Completely. Without doubt. Christians and Muslims have usurped Jewish sites. Literally taken them over. Prevented the original (indigenous) peoples from worshiping there.
Should Jews have access to ancient Cambodian Temples? And then build a synagogue there? And then claim if for a Jewish (and only Jewish) holy site? Denying Cambodians access to their holy places? It sounds ridiculous when you apply it to other cultures. But somehow, its okay if its done to Jews.
But there is no relationship between Jews and Cambodian Temples. There is a relationship between Christians and Muslims and Jews to some of the same sites. So is that really comparable?
No one should be denied access to their holy sites.
Sorry, but nobody here is an official spokesman of Israel.ll''''
Israel denies their ties - it's right there in your narrativeIsrael does not deny that now they are a national people. Israel has recognized it publicly.
Their ties go way back to when they invaded the region. They never claimed an identity until the Jews earned legally the right to re-create their nation on their own ancient Jewish land.
No one should create their holy site at someone else's existing holy site attempting to obliterate its original history.
I was responding to your snarky and dismissive comment "So...look who chooses to make an appearance" which does bring into question my right to post, here, and constitutes an ad Hominem rather than a rebuttal.Did I say anything about your right to post here? No. If you have a problem with moderation - you know what to do. Take it up via pm.
Do you believe Palestinians have any right of place to the area currently referred to as Palestine?
"Palestinians" did not exist until they were invented for propaganda purposes. Your question is deceptive and intentionally so.
ARABS existed at the time of the original mandate rather than these so-called "Palestinians" and so any honest look at the situation would evaluate ARAB interests vs Jewish. The original mandate included what is now Jordan, so any divvying up of terrritory must take that into account in order to be honest and fair.
Speaking of deceptive...how about a direct answer? Do you believe that the Palestinians have any right of place to the area currently referred to as Palestine? We aren't talking about historical divisions - we are talking about a place where they live and have lived for centuries if not thousands of years. Basically do they have a right to that place?
I am not being deceptive, you are.
You know full well no such people as "Palestinian" existed until recent times yet you demand I answer a question as if they did.
So you won't give a straight answer?
Ok, let me rephrase it in a way that is more acceptable to you: Do you believe that the people, referred to as Palestinians, have any right of place to the area currently referred to as Palestine? We aren't talking about historical divisions - we are talking about a place where they live and have lived for centuries if not thousands of years. Basically do they have a right to that place?
I believe that any Arab that can prove ownership and the forced removal from that which they owned should be recompensed.
I do not believe that Arabs who moved into the area as a result of Jewish economic development and who were hostile to the creation of the new state are owed anything.
Since there are MORE Jews who were kicked out of Arab lands than there were Arabs who fled Israel, I consider the matter settled.
This creation of a brand new people called 'Palestinian" I find disingenuous and manipulative.
And Christianity, and for that matter the Romans. The conquering people subsumed the conquered gods and holy things, built over sacred places or destroyed them.No one should create their holy site at someone else's existing holy site attempting to obliterate its original history.
You have just described the entire history of Islam.
One religion building on another is not exactly new. What I have a problem with in terms of Muslims is when they want to claim it for Islam only, which they can't, but they are a sacred trust for 3 religions now.
What do you do?
1. You acknowledge the originating indigenous, aboriginal culture.
2. You remove yourself as much as possible from everything you have usurped.
3. You give the originating culture the space to honor their religion and worship as they need.
4. You ask permission of them to continue to use your holy spaces with mutual respect and dignity.
None of this is HARD for decent, moral human beings. The especial Holy Places do NOT actually encroach upon each other. There is no reason for Jews not to have the Temple Mount and the Kotel, the Christians to have the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Via Dolarosa, and the Muslims to have Al-Aqsa. They do not actually encroach on each other. (Depending on where Jews decide the Holy of Holies is -- but Jews tend to be somewhat flexible (cough cough) in that way).
There is no actual conflict here. And you have the added advantage that the originating peoples -- the Jewish peoples -- have a theology that encourages worship by ALL of the nations. And a sovereign government which is willing to BEND OVER BACKWARDS to facilitate worship for other people.
This is win, win, win, win. If only the OTHER religions would just let it happen.
[ How the Palestinian Grand Mufti went all the way to Iraq in 1941, in order to kill Jews there .......because it was all about ......Palestine....]
Similar attacks occurred against almost all the Jews living in Arab countries.
These Jews, who had lived in these countries for thousands of years, did not declare war on their hosts. They never fought against them, as the Arabs in mandatory Palestine fought against that Jews and afterward against the nascent Jewish State of Israel. The world has heard a great deal about the “Nakba,” the “catastrophe” of the Palestinian Arabs, but knows almost nothing about the wrongs committed against Jews in Arab countries. What happened in Iraq and the rest of the Arab countries was in effect an ethnic cleansing. Jews were forced to leave behind their personal and communal property, including schools, hospitals, ancient synagogues, cemeteries, and prophets’ graves. The Arab governments confiscated all Jewish property.
(full article online)
The 77th anniversary of the Farhud
The point in all of them is that the PA, Abbas and others, are going around changing their story of how long the Palestinians have actually been in the area.The number of people who would have converted by will or by force is minuscule, compared to the majority of the people who remained Jewish, Bedouins, Druze, and all others who did live there at the time.They are denying that their ancestors included people who existed there prior to the Islamic conquest.
There is no way of knowing with any accuracy how many.
But what the Arab Muslim Palestinians have been doing with their BDS campaign, check Abbas' quotes, is to say that the Palestinians people have been there for 5000 years. No, 10,000 years. No, One Million Years.........
About that 10,000-year history in Jericho, Mr. Erekat
Palestine Office Tourism Website Illustrates Absurdity Of Palestinian Narrative
Another Abbas Lie: Palestinians are the Descendants of the Canaanites
Which one could possibly be true? And without any archeological proof.
The first one is hardly a scientific article nor one written by historical experts. What is your point?
Same with the second one.
The third one could, oddly have some merit based on the dna analysis referred to in the National Geographic article you refer to as "mistaken".
Those articles were not written out of a vacuum, but based on what Abbas, Erekart and other Palestinian leaders have been telling the Western world for the past 10 to 20 years.
Why would they do that? Do they not know how far back the Palestinian people have lived on the land and exactly where?
Are they the Canaanite tribe? The Hitites? Edomites? Jebusites? Any and all of them?
And the Palestinian Museum remains empty.
They can change their stories, it's all political and designed to suit their agenda. I don't disagree there. But it doesn't change the fact that the Palestinians do descend from much older peoples then the Arabs, with a mixture of later Arab blood. In fact in the genetic study I quoted earlier - they are much closer to a number of Jewish groups and Syrians then they are to the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula (such as the Saudi's).
Actually Jews cluster genetically with Lebanese Druze and Christians while Palestinian Arabs with Saudis, Jordanians and Bedouins, they almost entirely don't cluster with Syrians.
Agree except that there are Jews who believe the entire area of biblical Israel belongs to the Jews and there are Palestinians who support a two state solution.Speaking of deceptive...how about a direct answer? Do you believe that the Palestinians have any right of place to the area currently referred to as Palestine? We aren't talking about historical divisions - we are talking about a place where they live and have lived for centuries if not thousands of years. Basically do they have a right to that place?
BOTH the Arab people AND the Jewish people have rights to live, generally, in the place. The question is HOW MUCH should be under Israel's sovereignty and HOW MUCH should be under Arab sovereignty.
The Jewish answer has CONSISTENTLY been -- some for each.
The Arab answer has CONSISTENTLY been -- none for Jews.
BOTH the Arabs and the Jews have sovereignty over some territory.
I said some of the same sites.But there is no relationship between Jews and Cambodian Temples. There is a relationship between ... Muslims and Jews to some of the same sites.
There IS? A relationship between Arab Muslims and the place of the Holy Temple? How so?
Their heritage in terms of bloodlines and place most certainly did.
Their heritage exists only in reference to Arab conquests. They have no heritage in absence of the Arab conquests. They define themselves by their Arabness. You can't take the "Arabness" out of them and have them be the same.
The idea of blood purity, and claims or rights based on blood purity, is abhorrent.
How about displacing a Palestinian?Not if it is used as an excuse to displace an Israel citizen from their historical placement.I was responding to your snarky and dismissive comment "So...look who chooses to make an appearance" which does bring into question my right to post, here, and constitutes an ad Hominem rather than a rebuttal.Did I say anything about your right to post here? No. If you have a problem with moderation - you know what to do. Take it up via pm.
Do you believe Palestinians have any right of place to the area currently referred to as Palestine?
"Palestinians" did not exist until they were invented for propaganda purposes. Your question is deceptive and intentionally so.
ARABS existed at the time of the original mandate rather than these so-called "Palestinians" and so any honest look at the situation would evaluate ARAB interests vs Jewish. The original mandate included what is now Jordan, so any divvying up of terrritory must take that into account in order to be honest and fair.
Speaking of deceptive...how about a direct answer? Do you believe that the Palestinians have any right of place to the area currently referred to as Palestine? We aren't talking about historical divisions - we are talking about a place where they live and have lived for centuries if not thousands of years. Basically do they have a right to that place?
I am not being deceptive, you are.
You know full well no such people as "Palestinian" existed until recent times yet you demand I answer a question as if they did.
So you won't give a straight answer?
Ok, let me rephrase it in a way that is more acceptable to you: Do you believe that the people, referred to as Palestinians, have any right of place to the area currently referred to as Palestine? We aren't talking about historical divisions - we are talking about a place where they live and have lived for centuries if not thousands of years. Basically do they have a right to that place?
No one should create their holy site at someone else's existing holy site attempting to obliterate its original history.Actually...the idea of heritage becomes especially difficult when you have not one, but three ancient religions claiming some recognition of the same sites. Does that mean they are usurping them?
Yep. Absolutely. Completely. Without doubt. Christians and Muslims have usurped Jewish sites. Literally taken them over. Prevented the original (indigenous) peoples from worshiping there.
Should Jews have access to ancient Cambodian Temples? And then build a synagogue there? And then claim if for a Jewish (and only Jewish) holy site? Denying Cambodians access to their holy places? It sounds ridiculous when you apply it to other cultures. But somehow, its okay if its done to Jews.
But there is no relationship between Jews and Cambodian Temples. There is a relationship between Christians and Muslims and Jews to some of the same sites. So is that really comparable?
No one should be denied access to their holy sites.
I said some of the same sites.But there is no relationship between Jews and Cambodian Temples. There is a relationship between ... Muslims and Jews to some of the same sites.
There IS? A relationship between Arab Muslims and the place of the Holy Temple? How so?
