Who are the Israelis?

[Coyote]

So..you are saying indigenous people who have mixed with non indigenous people are no longer indigenous?

That is EXACTLY what we are saying. If you remove the qualities of indigeneity (the culture) then you are not part of the group of people who can claim indigeneity. Otherwise, being indigenous literally means nothing. Its just whatever mix of people who happen to live in a particular place.

Then are non practicing Jews still Jewish given that Jews who immigrated out of Israel in ancient times would certainly had to marry non indigenous people to survive as a people....a non practicing Jew is not practicing his culture, is he indigenous?

 

[Coyote]

Where is Sixties saying that? I am actually not at all sure what Rylah is saying but Sixties is very much marginalizing it and insisting they invaded from the Arabian Peninsula. Why are you insisting she says differently when she isn’t?

I would swear that Susha said that the Arab Palestinians are an invading force from somewhere (and yes, I have said and will say again, Arabia) and a small number of indigenous people who intermarried with the Arabs.

And perhaps, you are not counting that most of those who are now considered Palestinian Arabs, immigrated at the end of the 19th century until 1948, from Arabia, Egypt, Bosnia and many other places.

Therefore, the majority of the Arab Palestinians continues to be non indigenous, but new to the area, and caught in what happened post WWI when the Ottoman land got divided into Mandates.

The Hashemites are clearly not Palestinians, as they came directly from Arabia around WWI time.

So, why think that most Arabs, if not all, Palestinians or not...... have been there for thousands of years, or have had any connection to the land before they arrived there , or stepped on it, or lived on it for thousands of years, therefore having the right to call the whole land theirs, which is exactly what the Arab Palestinian leadership, since 1948, has been doing?

Most of those? While there was some immigration, it is by no means “most” (and genetics does bear that out). That is as often used a lie as the opposite claim that most of the Jews were European immigrants.

Again, you do not have the numbers, and you do not have the genetics to prove that most of them trace their indigenous status to the Land of Israel.

Let us just say, that thanks to Jewish immigration and starting to work on recreating their Nation, many jobs were created and many, many, many Arab and other Muslims immigrated thanks to those jobs.

Not to count that even before the white Paper was signed, the British closed their eyes to the Arab, Bosnian, wherever they came from Muslims who immigrated en masse into the Mandate, while the British kept the Jewish immigration to a minimum going against what the Mandate required.

You have provided no numbers, just broad statements claiming most of the Palestinians are recent immigrants.

No British records or anything will appease you. Why bother if you are not interested in the facts of migration or immigration
during those times.

I really could say the same about you.

 

[Sixties Fan]

So..you are saying indigenous people who have mixed with non indigenous people are no longer indigenous?

That is EXACTLY what we are saying. If you remove the qualities of indigeneity (the culture) then you are not part of the group of people who can claim indigeneity. Otherwise, being indigenous literally means nothing. Its just whatever mix of people who happen to live in a particular place.

Then are non practicing Jews still Jewish given that Jews who immigrated out of Israel in ancient times would certainly had to marry non indigenous people to survive as a people....a non practicing Jew is not practicing his culture, is he indigenous?

I would swear that Susha said that the Arab Palestinians are an invading force from somewhere (and yes, I have said and will say again, Arabia) and a small number of indigenous people who intermarried with the Arabs.

And perhaps, you are not counting that most of those who are now considered Palestinian Arabs, immigrated at the end of the 19th century until 1948, from Arabia, Egypt, Bosnia and many other places.

Therefore, the majority of the Arab Palestinians continues to be non indigenous, but new to the area, and caught in what happened post WWI when the Ottoman land got divided into Mandates.

The Hashemites are clearly not Palestinians, as they came directly from Arabia around WWI time.

So, why think that most Arabs, if not all, Palestinians or not...... have been there for thousands of years, or have had any connection to the land before they arrived there , or stepped on it, or lived on it for thousands of years, therefore having the right to call the whole land theirs, which is exactly what the Arab Palestinian leadership, since 1948, has been doing?

Most of those? While there was some immigration, it is by no means “most” (and genetics does bear that out). That is as often used a lie as the opposite claim that most of the Jews were European immigrants.

Again, you do not have the numbers, and you do not have the genetics to prove that most of them trace their indigenous status to the Land of Israel.

Let us just say, that thanks to Jewish immigration and starting to work on recreating their Nation, many jobs were created and many, many, many Arab and other Muslims immigrated thanks to those jobs.

Not to count that even before the white Paper was signed, the British closed their eyes to the Arab, Bosnian, wherever they came from Muslims who immigrated en masse into the Mandate, while the British kept the Jewish immigration to a minimum going against what the Mandate required.

You have provided no numbers, just broad statements claiming most of the Palestinians are recent immigrants.

No British records or anything will appease you. Why bother if you are not interested in the facts of migration or immigration
during those times.

I really could say the same about you.

No you could not. Because I have bothered to do the research about those times and I do know what it says about how many Arab Muslims migrated into the Land of Israel during the start of the Zionist program all the way to 1948.
And I know exactly how many Jews should have been allowed to immigrate each year, but ended up not being allowed to by the Arabs and the British and their 1939 White Paper.

And guess what happened to all of those Jews not allowed to return to their ancient homeland and forced back into Europe?

 

[Shusha]

"The Arabs' connection with Palestine goes back uninterruptedly to the earliest historic times, for the term 'Arab' [in Palestine] denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from the Arabian Peninsula who occupied the country in the seventh century, but also the older populations who intermarried with their conquerors, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently arabised."[91]

Replacement ideology. Imagine if I claimed that North America is Scottish because the Scottish people intermarried with the First Nations peoples. Its a deliberate falsehood in order to claim a non-existent history.

Exactly HOW? What specifically is false?

They CHANGED the meaning of the word. Try it this way: "The Scots connection with Canada goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times."

I am not seeing it because unlike the Scottish example, there is a far more history then is acknowledged with the politization of so much of the history by both sides in this conflict.

The Arab connection to the region was like that of many other peoples with the movement of trade, populations, culture etc

Palestine | History, People, & Religion
The reign of Solomon (mid-10th century) represents the culmination of Israelite political history. Though Solomon gradually lost control over outlying territories conquered by David, he was extraordinarily successful in organizing the economic life of the country. He joined forces with Hiram of Tyre, who was leading the Phoenicians toward the exploitation of Mediterranean trade. Expeditions to Ophir, a region probably in either East Africa or India, brought items of wealth such as gold, peacocks, and sandalwood to Palestine. At the same time, the Israelite king entered into trade relations with the Arabs as far south as Sheba, or Sabaʿ (modern Yemen). These activities would have been impossible but for the development of new principles in shipbuilding and for the recent domestication of the Arabian camel and its use in the caravan trade.

What?! So if we trade with people, before we invade them and erase their culture, we are allowed to steal their history and replace it with ours?

There is not enough wine in the universe for me to cope with this. I'm switching to tequila.

Try this again:

The Scots connection with Canada goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Scots" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Scotland who colonized, but also the Ojibwe who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Scottishized.

You have literally just replaced Ojibwe for Scots.


Let's try another one:

The British connection to India goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "British" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Britain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Indians who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs adn ways of thought and became permanently Britishized.

Indians are now British and have been British for thousands of years, since earliest antiquity.

One more:

The Spanish connection to Guatemala goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Spanish" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Spain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Mayan peoples who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Spanishized.

This is replacement ideology. Replacing an entire identity with one that came later. I can't believe you don't get this.

 

[Coyote]

"The Arabs' connection with Palestine goes back uninterruptedly to the earliest historic times, for the term 'Arab' [in Palestine] denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from the Arabian Peninsula who occupied the country in the seventh century, but also the older populations who intermarried with their conquerors, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently arabised."[91]

Replacement ideology. Imagine if I claimed that North America is Scottish because the Scottish people intermarried with the First Nations peoples. Its a deliberate falsehood in order to claim a non-existent history.

Exactly HOW? What specifically is false?

They CHANGED the meaning of the word. Try it this way: "The Scots connection with Canada goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times."

I am not seeing it because unlike the Scottish example, there is a far more history then is acknowledged with the politization of so much of the history by both sides in this conflict.

The Arab connection to the region was like that of many other peoples with the movement of trade, populations, culture etc

Palestine | History, People, & Religion
The reign of Solomon (mid-10th century) represents the culmination of Israelite political history. Though Solomon gradually lost control over outlying territories conquered by David, he was extraordinarily successful in organizing the economic life of the country. He joined forces with Hiram of Tyre, who was leading the Phoenicians toward the exploitation of Mediterranean trade. Expeditions to Ophir, a region probably in either East Africa or India, brought items of wealth such as gold, peacocks, and sandalwood to Palestine. At the same time, the Israelite king entered into trade relations with the Arabs as far south as Sheba, or Sabaʿ (modern Yemen). These activities would have been impossible but for the development of new principles in shipbuilding and for the recent domestication of the Arabian camel and its use in the caravan trade.

What?! So if we trade with people, before we invade them and erase their culture, we are allowed to steal their history and replace it with ours?

There is not enough wine in the universe for me to cope with this. I'm switching to tequila.

Try this again:

The Scots connection with Canada goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Scots" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Scotland who colonized, but also the Ojibwe who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Scottishized.

You have literally just replaced Ojibwe for Scots.


Let's try another one:

The British connection to India goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "British" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Britain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Indians who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs adn ways of thought and became permanently Britishized.

Indians are now British and have been British for thousands of years, since earliest antiquity.

One more:

The Spanish connection to Guatemala goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Spanish" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Spain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Mayan peoples who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Spanishized.

This is replacement ideology. Replacing an entire identity with one that came later. I can't believe you don't get this.

What the hell...

Connection means just that. “The Arabs' connection with Palestine goes back uninterruptedly to the earliest historic times” and that is absolutely true. You are to make this into something it isn’t. That region has been invaded, conquered, overrun, traded with etc by hundreds of peoples. The People who eventually became the Jews were THEMSELVES invaders and conquers of earlier people. TRADE is a connection, one of many, yet it seems your only definition of Arab is “invader”. This predates Islam. What you are trying to do is take a scalpel and remove parts of history that are seen as threatening to Jewish identity. At least it seems that way because modern history has Arabs doing just that in an attempt to deny Jews their historic ties and identity.

Look at the history of the Bedouin: BEDOUINS | Facts and Details

Bedouins were once the primary inhabitants of the Holy Land. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were probably Bedouins. Many elements of Bedouin culture have not changed much since Biblical times. Bedouins were referred to Qedarites in the Old Testament and Arabaa by the Assyrians (a name still used for Bedouins today). They are referred to as the ‘A’rab in the Quran.

By the first century B.C., Bedouin moved westward into Jordan and the Sinai Peninsula and southwestward along the coast of the Red Sea. In the 7th century Bedouin were among the first converts to Islam. Mohammed was not a Bedouin. He was a townsperson from a family of traders. During the Muslim conquests thousands of Muslims---many of them Bedouins---left the Arabian peninsula and settled in newly conquered land nearby and later spread across of much of the Middle East and North Africa.​

So are they lying?

 

[Coyote]

So..you are saying indigenous people who have mixed with non indigenous people are no longer indigenous?

That is EXACTLY what we are saying. If you remove the qualities of indigeneity (the culture) then you are not part of the group of people who can claim indigeneity. Otherwise, being indigenous literally means nothing. Its just whatever mix of people who happen to live in a particular place.

Then are non practicing Jews still Jewish given that Jews who immigrated out of Israel in ancient times would certainly had to marry non indigenous people to survive as a people....a non practicing Jew is not practicing his culture, is he indigenous?

Most of those? While there was some immigration, it is by no means “most” (and genetics does bear that out). That is as often used a lie as the opposite claim that most of the Jews were European immigrants.

Again, you do not have the numbers, and you do not have the genetics to prove that most of them trace their indigenous status to the Land of Israel.

Let us just say, that thanks to Jewish immigration and starting to work on recreating their Nation, many jobs were created and many, many, many Arab and other Muslims immigrated thanks to those jobs.

Not to count that even before the white Paper was signed, the British closed their eyes to the Arab, Bosnian, wherever they came from Muslims who immigrated en masse into the Mandate, while the British kept the Jewish immigration to a minimum going against what the Mandate required.

You have provided no numbers, just broad statements claiming most of the Palestinians are recent immigrants.

No British records or anything will appease you. Why bother if you are not interested in the facts of migration or immigration
during those times.

I really could say the same about you.

No you could not. Because I have bothered to do the research about those times and I do know what it says about how many Arab Muslims migrated into the Land of Israel during the start of the Zionist program all the way to 1948.
And I know exactly how many Jews should have been allowed to immigrate each year, but ended up not being allowed to by the Arabs and the British and their 1939 White Paper.

And guess what happened to all of those Jews not allowed to return to their ancient homeland and forced back into Europe?

Yes. Your research. From pretty biased sites as I recall.

How many immigrated? You don’t know because historians ( if they are honest and not driven by an agenda) don’t know. The figures and census data are far from complete or accurate and often contradictory.

Here is a clue:

MidEast Web - Population of Palestine


Major Conclusions

1. The nature of the data do not permit precise conclusions about the Arab population of Palestine in Ottoman and British times, and the relative contributions of natural increase and immigration, imprecision in the counts and other issues.

2. Palestine was not an empty land when Zionist immigration began. The lowest estimates claim there were about 410,000 Arab Muslims and Christians in Palestine in 1893. A Zionist estimate claimed there were over 600,000 Arabs in Palestine. in the 1890s. At this time, the number of Jewish immigrants to Palestine was still negligible by all accounts. It is unlikely that Palestinian immigration prior to this period was due to Zionist development. Though uncertainty exists concerning the precise numbers of Arabs living in the areas that later became Israel, it is very unlikely that the claims of Joan Peters that there were less than 100,000 Arabs living there are valid.

3. Zionist settlement between 1880 and 1948 did not displace or dispossess Palestinians. Every indication is that there was net Arab immigration into Palestine in this period, and that the economic situation of Palestinian Arabs improved tremendously under the British Mandate relative to surrounding countries. By 1948, there were approximately 1.35 million Arabs and 650,000 Jews living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, more Arabs than had ever lived in Palestine before, and more Jews than had lived there since Roman times. Analysis of population by sub-districts shows that Arab population tended to increase the most between 1931 and 1948 in the same areas where there were large proportions of Jews. Therefore, Zionist immigration did not displace Arabs. For a detailed discussion that focuses on this myth, please refer to Zionism and its Impact.

4. Historic population data in Palestine during Ottoman times and during Mandatory times show significant discrepancies. For example, figures reported in Table A-1 for 1930 population of Arabs are about 100,000 too low according to census figures for 1931

5. It is not possible to estimate illegal Arab immigration directly, but apparently there was some immigration. The total Arab immigration to Palestine recorded or estimated by the Mandate government was in the neighborhood of 45,000. Illegal immigration that was not recorded would not register in the final population figures for 1945, because those figures were estimates. We simply do not know how many Arabs and Jews there were in Palestine before the declaration of the state of Israel. It is probable that there were about 100,000 Arab immigrants into Palestine. An unknown number may also have migrated internally, from the Arab areas in the West Bank that were formerly the centers of commercial activity and population to the coastal plain and Galilee. The Arab population increase of areas with large Jewish settlement was about 10% greater than that in areas without Jewish settlement. This effect cannot be totally separated from urbanization. A population of approximately 103,000 Bedouin (1922 estimate reported in the 1927-1929 reports of the Mandatory) may have been excluded or included in different population figures as the authorities and demographers saw fit. There is no way to know how many of these Bedouin made a permanent home in Palestine or how many became part of the city population in the course of industrialization between 1922 and 1948. However, the evidence indicates that they were in fact included in all the official population figures. This is shown by the fact that estimates of Muslim population that explicitly do not include Bedouin were significantly lower than the census figures, and by the fact that population growth is consistent with figures for natural increase if we assume that the Bedouin were included.

5. There are large discrepancies between official population figures and the number of Palestinian refugees - An analysis of population by subdistricts and villages, using the admittedly incomplete data of the Palestine Remembered Web site, shows that there were about 736,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs in the part of Palestine that was to become "Green Line Israel" in 1949. There would not have been more than 620,000 refugees in 1949 if these figures are correct, since the Israeli census showed 156,000 non-Jews living in Palestine in November 1948, of whom about 14,000 were Druze. The number of refugees reported by UNRWA in 1948 was 726,000. It might indicate that an unregistered and illegal population of 100,000 was included in the refugees, or it might be due to serious and systematic undercounting of Arab population by the Mandate authorities. McCarthy suggests that there was such undercounting, yet his figures for the total population of Palestine agree with projections based on official figures for 1945.

6. There are serious discrepancies in reporting of the number of refugees. In 1949, UNRWA reported 726,000 refugees. By 1950 they reported 914,000 according to one source (McCarthy), an increase of 26% that could not come either from births or further displacement of refugees, which were negligible.

7. The city of Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since about 1896 - The city of Jerusalem itself there was a Jewish majority since about 1896, but probably not before. The district of Jerusalem (as opposed to the city) comprised a very wide area in Ottoman and British times, in which there was a Muslim majority. This included Jericho, Bethlehem and other towns. Within the Jerusalem district, there was a subdistrict of Jerusalem that includes many of the immediate suburbs such as Eyn Karem, Beit Zeit etc. In that subdistrict, the Jews remained a minority , with only about 52,000 out of 132,000 persons in 1931 for example.

The major conclusion is "The nature of the data do not permit precise conclusions about the Arab population of Palestine in Ottoman and British times"

 

[Sixties Fan]

Replacement ideology. Imagine if I claimed that North America is Scottish because the Scottish people intermarried with the First Nations peoples. Its a deliberate falsehood in order to claim a non-existent history.

Exactly HOW? What specifically is false?

They CHANGED the meaning of the word. Try it this way: "The Scots connection with Canada goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times."

I am not seeing it because unlike the Scottish example, there is a far more history then is acknowledged with the politization of so much of the history by both sides in this conflict.

The Arab connection to the region was like that of many other peoples with the movement of trade, populations, culture etc

Palestine | History, People, & Religion
The reign of Solomon (mid-10th century) represents the culmination of Israelite political history. Though Solomon gradually lost control over outlying territories conquered by David, he was extraordinarily successful in organizing the economic life of the country. He joined forces with Hiram of Tyre, who was leading the Phoenicians toward the exploitation of Mediterranean trade. Expeditions to Ophir, a region probably in either East Africa or India, brought items of wealth such as gold, peacocks, and sandalwood to Palestine. At the same time, the Israelite king entered into trade relations with the Arabs as far south as Sheba, or Sabaʿ (modern Yemen). These activities would have been impossible but for the development of new principles in shipbuilding and for the recent domestication of the Arabian camel and its use in the caravan trade.

What?! So if we trade with people, before we invade them and erase their culture, we are allowed to steal their history and replace it with ours?

There is not enough wine in the universe for me to cope with this. I'm switching to tequila.

Try this again:

The Scots connection with Canada goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Scots" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Scotland who colonized, but also the Ojibwe who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Scottishized.

You have literally just replaced Ojibwe for Scots.


Let's try another one:

The British connection to India goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "British" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Britain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Indians who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs adn ways of thought and became permanently Britishized.

Indians are now British and have been British for thousands of years, since earliest antiquity.

One more:

The Spanish connection to Guatemala goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Spanish" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Spain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Mayan peoples who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Spanishized.

This is replacement ideology. Replacing an entire identity with one that came later. I can't believe you don't get this.

What the hell...

Connection means just that. “The Arabs' connection with Palestine goes back uninterruptedly to the earliest historic times” and that is absolutely true. You are to make this into something it isn’t. That region has been invaded, conquered, overrun, traded with etc by hundreds of peoples. The People who eventually became the Jews were THEMSELVES invaders and conquers of earlier people. TRADE is a connection, one of many, yet it seems your only definition of Arab is “invader”. This predates Islam. What you are trying to do is take a scalpel and remove parts of history that are seen as threatening to Jewish identity. At least it seems that way because modern history has Arabs doing just that in an attempt to deny Jews their historic ties and identity.

Look at the history of the Bedouin: BEDOUINS | Facts and Details

Bedouins were once the primary inhabitants of the Holy Land. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were probably Bedouins. Many elements of Bedouin culture have not changed much since Biblical times. Bedouins were referred to Qedarites in the Old Testament and Arabaa by the Assyrians (a name still used for Bedouins today). They are referred to as the ‘A’rab in the Quran.

By the first century B.C., Bedouin moved westward into Jordan and the Sinai Peninsula and southwestward along the coast of the Red Sea. In the 7th century Bedouin were among the first converts to Islam. Mohammed was not a Bedouin. He was a townsperson from a family of traders. During the Muslim conquests thousands of Muslims---many of them Bedouins---left the Arabian peninsula and settled in newly conquered land nearby and later spread across of much of the Middle East and North Africa.​

So are they lying?

NO. A Big NO. A BIG HECK NOOOOOO.......to Arabs having connection to the ancient Canaan for the past 100,000 years or more, if that is how far one wishes to go to one's "Earliest historic times ".

Geesh.

The Patriarchs are not described as "Bedouins" in the Torah.
There is a reason for that. Because they were not.
And the article saying that "maybe they were" does not show any proof that they were.

How does the Torah describe Abraham to Joseph, to Moses, etc?

And the population which lived on the land known as Canaan, where he moved to, and later the Children of Israel returned to with Aaron from Egypt were not Arabs either, they were the indigenous people who eventually joined with the 12 tribes and became the Nation of Israel.

There are no Arabs involved in the history of the area at the time.
One cannot name one Arab who was part of any of the history from Abraham all the way to Roman times.

And first the Kurds and then the Arab Muslims did invade everywhere outside of the Arabian Peninsula after Mohammad's death.

And the word Palestinian does mean INVADER. Which is what the Philistines were, invaders from the Greek Islands.

But there is no connection at all between the Philistines, and the Arabs or the Palestinians.

Except that the Arabs eventually borrowed the name the Romans gave to the region of Israel in order to force the Jews to stop rioting against their Empire and hopefully forget who they were.
They changed the name to Syria Palestinea in order to humiliate the Jews with the name of the people who had defeated Israel before David, the boy, defeated them in turn, and created the Israeli Monarchy.


The Philistines were invaders of the land of Israel.
The Romans were invaders of the land of Israel.
The Arab Muslims were invaders of the land of Israel.

Is it so hard to imagine that some people, Abraham and his son, did migrate to Ancient Canaan, formed clans, eventually became powerful and then conquered most of the tribes and became one big Nation within a period of about 500 to 1000 years?

The Greeks who became the Philistines did it, but they were really foreigners, invaders, and lost both identities with time.

 

[Coyote]

More non-existent Arabic connections to ancient Palestine...how will you untangle it?

Kindah - Wikipedia

 

[Coyote]

Exactly HOW? What specifically is false?

They CHANGED the meaning of the word. Try it this way: "The Scots connection with Canada goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times."

I am not seeing it because unlike the Scottish example, there is a far more history then is acknowledged with the politization of so much of the history by both sides in this conflict.

The Arab connection to the region was like that of many other peoples with the movement of trade, populations, culture etc

Palestine | History, People, & Religion
The reign of Solomon (mid-10th century) represents the culmination of Israelite political history. Though Solomon gradually lost control over outlying territories conquered by David, he was extraordinarily successful in organizing the economic life of the country. He joined forces with Hiram of Tyre, who was leading the Phoenicians toward the exploitation of Mediterranean trade. Expeditions to Ophir, a region probably in either East Africa or India, brought items of wealth such as gold, peacocks, and sandalwood to Palestine. At the same time, the Israelite king entered into trade relations with the Arabs as far south as Sheba, or Sabaʿ (modern Yemen). These activities would have been impossible but for the development of new principles in shipbuilding and for the recent domestication of the Arabian camel and its use in the caravan trade.

What?! So if we trade with people, before we invade them and erase their culture, we are allowed to steal their history and replace it with ours?

There is not enough wine in the universe for me to cope with this. I'm switching to tequila.

Try this again:

The Scots connection with Canada goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Scots" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Scotland who colonized, but also the Ojibwe who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Scottishized.

You have literally just replaced Ojibwe for Scots.


Let's try another one:

The British connection to India goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "British" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Britain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Indians who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs adn ways of thought and became permanently Britishized.

Indians are now British and have been British for thousands of years, since earliest antiquity.

One more:

The Spanish connection to Guatemala goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Spanish" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Spain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Mayan peoples who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Spanishized.

This is replacement ideology. Replacing an entire identity with one that came later. I can't believe you don't get this.

What the hell...

Connection means just that. “The Arabs' connection with Palestine goes back uninterruptedly to the earliest historic times” and that is absolutely true. You are to make this into something it isn’t. That region has been invaded, conquered, overrun, traded with etc by hundreds of peoples. The People who eventually became the Jews were THEMSELVES invaders and conquers of earlier people. TRADE is a connection, one of many, yet it seems your only definition of Arab is “invader”. This predates Islam. What you are trying to do is take a scalpel and remove parts of history that are seen as threatening to Jewish identity. At least it seems that way because modern history has Arabs doing just that in an attempt to deny Jews their historic ties and identity.

Look at the history of the Bedouin: BEDOUINS | Facts and Details

Bedouins were once the primary inhabitants of the Holy Land. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were probably Bedouins. Many elements of Bedouin culture have not changed much since Biblical times. Bedouins were referred to Qedarites in the Old Testament and Arabaa by the Assyrians (a name still used for Bedouins today). They are referred to as the ‘A’rab in the Quran.

By the first century B.C., Bedouin moved westward into Jordan and the Sinai Peninsula and southwestward along the coast of the Red Sea. In the 7th century Bedouin were among the first converts to Islam. Mohammed was not a Bedouin. He was a townsperson from a family of traders. During the Muslim conquests thousands of Muslims---many of them Bedouins---left the Arabian peninsula and settled in newly conquered land nearby and later spread across of much of the Middle East and North Africa.​

So are they lying?

NO. A Big NO. A BIG HECK NOOOOOO.......to Arabs having connection to the ancient Canaan for the past 100,000 years or more, if that is how far one wishes to go to one's "Earliest historic times ".

Geesh.

The Patriarchs are not described as "Bedouins" in the Torah.
There is a reason for that. Because they were not.
And the article saying that "maybe they were" does not show any proof that they were.

How does the Torah describe Abraham to Joseph, to Moses, etc?

And the population which lived on the land known as Canaan, where he moved to, and later the Children of Israel returned to with Aaron from Egypt were not Arabs either, they were the indigenous people who eventually joined with the 12 tribes and became the Nation of Israel.

There are no Arabs involved in the history of the area at the time.
One cannot name one Arab who was part of any of the history from Abraham all the way to Roman times.

And first the Kurds and then the Arab Muslims did invade everywhere outside of the Arabian Peninsula after Mohammad's death.

And the word Palestinian does mean INVADER. Which is what the Philistines were, invaders from the Greek Islands.

But there is no connection at all between the Philistines, and the Arabs or the Palestinians.

Except that the Arabs eventually borrowed the name the Romans gave to the region of Israel in order to force the Jews to stop rioting against their Empire and hopefully forget who they were.
They changed the name to Syria Palestinea in order to humiliate the Jews with the name of the people who had defeated Israel before David, the boy, defeated them in turn, and created the Israeli Monarchy.


The Philistines were invaders of the land of Israel.
The Romans were invaders of the land of Israel.
The Arab Muslims were invaders of the land of Israel.

Is it so hard to imagine that some people, Abraham and his son, did migrate to Ancient Canaan, formed clans, eventually became powerful and then conquered most of the tribes and became one big Nation within a period of about 500 to 1000 years?

The Greeks who became the Philistines did it, but they were really foreigners, invaders, and lost both identities with time.

Where are you getting this 100,000 years connection to Canaan stuff? I did not say anything like that.

So you are saying these historians are all liars...based solely on your say so?

 

[Coyote]

Exactly HOW? What specifically is false?

They CHANGED the meaning of the word. Try it this way: "The Scots connection with Canada goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times."

I am not seeing it because unlike the Scottish example, there is a far more history then is acknowledged with the politization of so much of the history by both sides in this conflict.

The Arab connection to the region was like that of many other peoples with the movement of trade, populations, culture etc

Palestine | History, People, & Religion
The reign of Solomon (mid-10th century) represents the culmination of Israelite political history. Though Solomon gradually lost control over outlying territories conquered by David, he was extraordinarily successful in organizing the economic life of the country. He joined forces with Hiram of Tyre, who was leading the Phoenicians toward the exploitation of Mediterranean trade. Expeditions to Ophir, a region probably in either East Africa or India, brought items of wealth such as gold, peacocks, and sandalwood to Palestine. At the same time, the Israelite king entered into trade relations with the Arabs as far south as Sheba, or Sabaʿ (modern Yemen). These activities would have been impossible but for the development of new principles in shipbuilding and for the recent domestication of the Arabian camel and its use in the caravan trade.

What?! So if we trade with people, before we invade them and erase their culture, we are allowed to steal their history and replace it with ours?

There is not enough wine in the universe for me to cope with this. I'm switching to tequila.

Try this again:

The Scots connection with Canada goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Scots" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Scotland who colonized, but also the Ojibwe who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Scottishized.

You have literally just replaced Ojibwe for Scots.


Let's try another one:

The British connection to India goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "British" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Britain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Indians who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs adn ways of thought and became permanently Britishized.

Indians are now British and have been British for thousands of years, since earliest antiquity.

One more:

The Spanish connection to Guatemala goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Spanish" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Spain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Mayan peoples who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Spanishized.

This is replacement ideology. Replacing an entire identity with one that came later. I can't believe you don't get this.

What the hell...

Connection means just that. “The Arabs' connection with Palestine goes back uninterruptedly to the earliest historic times” and that is absolutely true. You are to make this into something it isn’t. That region has been invaded, conquered, overrun, traded with etc by hundreds of peoples. The People who eventually became the Jews were THEMSELVES invaders and conquers of earlier people. TRADE is a connection, one of many, yet it seems your only definition of Arab is “invader”. This predates Islam. What you are trying to do is take a scalpel and remove parts of history that are seen as threatening to Jewish identity. At least it seems that way because modern history has Arabs doing just that in an attempt to deny Jews their historic ties and identity.

Look at the history of the Bedouin: BEDOUINS | Facts and Details

Bedouins were once the primary inhabitants of the Holy Land. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were probably Bedouins. Many elements of Bedouin culture have not changed much since Biblical times. Bedouins were referred to Qedarites in the Old Testament and Arabaa by the Assyrians (a name still used for Bedouins today). They are referred to as the ‘A’rab in the Quran.

By the first century B.C., Bedouin moved westward into Jordan and the Sinai Peninsula and southwestward along the coast of the Red Sea. In the 7th century Bedouin were among the first converts to Islam. Mohammed was not a Bedouin. He was a townsperson from a family of traders. During the Muslim conquests thousands of Muslims---many of them Bedouins---left the Arabian peninsula and settled in newly conquered land nearby and later spread across of much of the Middle East and North Africa.​

So are they lying?

NO. A Big NO. A BIG HECK NOOOOOO.......to Arabs having connection to the ancient Canaan for the past 100,000 years or more, if that is how far one wishes to go to one's "Earliest historic times ".

Geesh.

The Patriarchs are not described as "Bedouins" in the Torah.
There is a reason for that. Because they were not.
And the article saying that "maybe they were" does not show any proof that they were.

How does the Torah describe Abraham to Joseph, to Moses, etc?

And the population which lived on the land known as Canaan, where he moved to, and later the Children of Israel returned to with Aaron from Egypt were not Arabs either, they were the indigenous people who eventually joined with the 12 tribes and became the Nation of Israel.

There are no Arabs involved in the history of the area at the time.
One cannot name one Arab who was part of any of the history from Abraham all the way to Roman times.

And first the Kurds and then the Arab Muslims did invade everywhere outside of the Arabian Peninsula after Mohammad's death.

And the word Palestinian does mean INVADER. Which is what the Philistines were, invaders from the Greek Islands.

But there is no connection at all between the Philistines, and the Arabs or the Palestinians.

Except that the Arabs eventually borrowed the name the Romans gave to the region of Israel in order to force the Jews to stop rioting against their Empire and hopefully forget who they were.
They changed the name to Syria Palestinea in order to humiliate the Jews with the name of the people who had defeated Israel before David, the boy, defeated them in turn, and created the Israeli Monarchy.


The Philistines were invaders of the land of Israel.
The Romans were invaders of the land of Israel.
The Arab Muslims were invaders of the land of Israel.

Is it so hard to imagine that some people, Abraham and his son, did migrate to Ancient Canaan, formed clans, eventually became powerful and then conquered most of the tribes and became one big Nation within a period of about 500 to 1000 years?

The Greeks who became the Philistines did it, but they were really foreigners, invaders, and lost both identities with time.

Exactly HOW? What specifically is false?

They CHANGED the meaning of the word. Try it this way: "The Scots connection with Canada goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times."

I am not seeing it because unlike the Scottish example, there is a far more history then is acknowledged with the politization of so much of the history by both sides in this conflict.

The Arab connection to the region was like that of many other peoples with the movement of trade, populations, culture etc

Palestine | History, People, & Religion
The reign of Solomon (mid-10th century) represents the culmination of Israelite political history. Though Solomon gradually lost control over outlying territories conquered by David, he was extraordinarily successful in organizing the economic life of the country. He joined forces with Hiram of Tyre, who was leading the Phoenicians toward the exploitation of Mediterranean trade. Expeditions to Ophir, a region probably in either East Africa or India, brought items of wealth such as gold, peacocks, and sandalwood to Palestine. At the same time, the Israelite king entered into trade relations with the Arabs as far south as Sheba, or Sabaʿ (modern Yemen). These activities would have been impossible but for the development of new principles in shipbuilding and for the recent domestication of the Arabian camel and its use in the caravan trade.

What?! So if we trade with people, before we invade them and erase their culture, we are allowed to steal their history and replace it with ours?

There is not enough wine in the universe for me to cope with this. I'm switching to tequila.

Try this again:

The Scots connection with Canada goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Scots" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Scotland who colonized, but also the Ojibwe who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Scottishized.

You have literally just replaced Ojibwe for Scots.


Let's try another one:

The British connection to India goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "British" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Britain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Indians who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs adn ways of thought and became permanently Britishized.

Indians are now British and have been British for thousands of years, since earliest antiquity.

One more:

The Spanish connection to Guatemala goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Spanish" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Spain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Mayan peoples who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Spanishized.

This is replacement ideology. Replacing an entire identity with one that came later. I can't believe you don't get this.

What the hell...

Connection means just that. “The Arabs' connection with Palestine goes back uninterruptedly to the earliest historic times” and that is absolutely true. You are to make this into something it isn’t. That region has been invaded, conquered, overrun, traded with etc by hundreds of peoples. The People who eventually became the Jews were THEMSELVES invaders and conquers of earlier people. TRADE is a connection, one of many, yet it seems your only definition of Arab is “invader”. This predates Islam. What you are trying to do is take a scalpel and remove parts of history that are seen as threatening to Jewish identity. At least it seems that way because modern history has Arabs doing just that in an attempt to deny Jews their historic ties and identity.

Look at the history of the Bedouin: BEDOUINS | Facts and Details

Bedouins were once the primary inhabitants of the Holy Land. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were probably Bedouins. Many elements of Bedouin culture have not changed much since Biblical times. Bedouins were referred to Qedarites in the Old Testament and Arabaa by the Assyrians (a name still used for Bedouins today). They are referred to as the ‘A’rab in the Quran.

By the first century B.C., Bedouin moved westward into Jordan and the Sinai Peninsula and southwestward along the coast of the Red Sea. In the 7th century Bedouin were among the first converts to Islam. Mohammed was not a Bedouin. He was a townsperson from a family of traders. During the Muslim conquests thousands of Muslims---many of them Bedouins---left the Arabian peninsula and settled in newly conquered land nearby and later spread across of much of the Middle East and North Africa.​

So are they lying?

NO. A Big NO. A BIG HECK NOOOOOO.......to Arabs having connection to the ancient Canaan for the past 100,000 years or more, if that is how far one wishes to go to one's "Earliest historic times ".

Geesh.

The Patriarchs are not described as "Bedouins" in the Torah.
There is a reason for that. Because they were not.
And the article saying that "maybe they were" does not show any proof that they were.

How does the Torah describe Abraham to Joseph, to Moses, etc?

And the population which lived on the land known as Canaan, where he moved to, and later the Children of Israel returned to with Aaron from Egypt were not Arabs either, they were the indigenous people who eventually joined with the 12 tribes and became the Nation of Israel.

There are no Arabs involved in the history of the area at the time.
One cannot name one Arab who was part of any of the history from Abraham all the way to Roman times.

And first the Kurds and then the Arab Muslims did invade everywhere outside of the Arabian Peninsula after Mohammad's death.

And the word Palestinian does mean INVADER. Which is what the Philistines were, invaders from the Greek Islands.

But there is no connection at all between the Philistines, and the Arabs or the Palestinians.

Except that the Arabs eventually borrowed the name the Romans gave to the region of Israel in order to force the Jews to stop rioting against their Empire and hopefully forget who they were.
They changed the name to Syria Palestinea in order to humiliate the Jews with the name of the people who had defeated Israel before David, the boy, defeated them in turn, and created the Israeli Monarchy.


The Philistines were invaders of the land of Israel.
The Romans were invaders of the land of Israel.
The Arab Muslims were invaders of the land of Israel.

Is it so hard to imagine that some people, Abraham and his son, did migrate to Ancient Canaan, formed clans, eventually became powerful and then conquered most of the tribes and became one big Nation within a period of about 500 to 1000 years?

The Greeks who became the Philistines did it, but they were really foreigners, invaders, and lost both identities with time.

Migrated or invaded?

 

[Sixties Fan]

So you are saying these historians are all liars...based solely on your say so?[/QUOTE]
Abbas is saying it. From time immemorial he will say.
Maybe it is about a Million years, who knows. He does not.
He just makes it up.

 

[Sixties Fan]

They CHANGED the meaning of the word. Try it this way: "The Scots connection with Canada goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times."

I am not seeing it because unlike the Scottish example, there is a far more history then is acknowledged with the politization of so much of the history by both sides in this conflict.

The Arab connection to the region was like that of many other peoples with the movement of trade, populations, culture etc

Palestine | History, People, & Religion
The reign of Solomon (mid-10th century) represents the culmination of Israelite political history. Though Solomon gradually lost control over outlying territories conquered by David, he was extraordinarily successful in organizing the economic life of the country. He joined forces with Hiram of Tyre, who was leading the Phoenicians toward the exploitation of Mediterranean trade. Expeditions to Ophir, a region probably in either East Africa or India, brought items of wealth such as gold, peacocks, and sandalwood to Palestine. At the same time, the Israelite king entered into trade relations with the Arabs as far south as Sheba, or Sabaʿ (modern Yemen). These activities would have been impossible but for the development of new principles in shipbuilding and for the recent domestication of the Arabian camel and its use in the caravan trade.

What?! So if we trade with people, before we invade them and erase their culture, we are allowed to steal their history and replace it with ours?

There is not enough wine in the universe for me to cope with this. I'm switching to tequila.

Try this again:

The Scots connection with Canada goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Scots" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Scotland who colonized, but also the Ojibwe who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Scottishized.

You have literally just replaced Ojibwe for Scots.


Let's try another one:

The British connection to India goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "British" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Britain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Indians who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs adn ways of thought and became permanently Britishized.

Indians are now British and have been British for thousands of years, since earliest antiquity.

One more:

The Spanish connection to Guatemala goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Spanish" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Spain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Mayan peoples who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Spanishized.

This is replacement ideology. Replacing an entire identity with one that came later. I can't believe you don't get this.

What the hell...

Connection means just that. “The Arabs' connection with Palestine goes back uninterruptedly to the earliest historic times” and that is absolutely true. You are to make this into something it isn’t. That region has been invaded, conquered, overrun, traded with etc by hundreds of peoples. The People who eventually became the Jews were THEMSELVES invaders and conquers of earlier people. TRADE is a connection, one of many, yet it seems your only definition of Arab is “invader”. This predates Islam. What you are trying to do is take a scalpel and remove parts of history that are seen as threatening to Jewish identity. At least it seems that way because modern history has Arabs doing just that in an attempt to deny Jews their historic ties and identity.

Look at the history of the Bedouin: BEDOUINS | Facts and Details

Bedouins were once the primary inhabitants of the Holy Land. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were probably Bedouins. Many elements of Bedouin culture have not changed much since Biblical times. Bedouins were referred to Qedarites in the Old Testament and Arabaa by the Assyrians (a name still used for Bedouins today). They are referred to as the ‘A’rab in the Quran.

By the first century B.C., Bedouin moved westward into Jordan and the Sinai Peninsula and southwestward along the coast of the Red Sea. In the 7th century Bedouin were among the first converts to Islam. Mohammed was not a Bedouin. He was a townsperson from a family of traders. During the Muslim conquests thousands of Muslims---many of them Bedouins---left the Arabian peninsula and settled in newly conquered land nearby and later spread across of much of the Middle East and North Africa.​

So are they lying?

NO. A Big NO. A BIG HECK NOOOOOO.......to Arabs having connection to the ancient Canaan for the past 100,000 years or more, if that is how far one wishes to go to one's "Earliest historic times ".

Geesh.

The Patriarchs are not described as "Bedouins" in the Torah.
There is a reason for that. Because they were not.
And the article saying that "maybe they were" does not show any proof that they were.

How does the Torah describe Abraham to Joseph, to Moses, etc?

And the population which lived on the land known as Canaan, where he moved to, and later the Children of Israel returned to with Aaron from Egypt were not Arabs either, they were the indigenous people who eventually joined with the 12 tribes and became the Nation of Israel.

There are no Arabs involved in the history of the area at the time.
One cannot name one Arab who was part of any of the history from Abraham all the way to Roman times.

And first the Kurds and then the Arab Muslims did invade everywhere outside of the Arabian Peninsula after Mohammad's death.

And the word Palestinian does mean INVADER. Which is what the Philistines were, invaders from the Greek Islands.

But there is no connection at all between the Philistines, and the Arabs or the Palestinians.

Except that the Arabs eventually borrowed the name the Romans gave to the region of Israel in order to force the Jews to stop rioting against their Empire and hopefully forget who they were.
They changed the name to Syria Palestinea in order to humiliate the Jews with the name of the people who had defeated Israel before David, the boy, defeated them in turn, and created the Israeli Monarchy.


The Philistines were invaders of the land of Israel.
The Romans were invaders of the land of Israel.
The Arab Muslims were invaders of the land of Israel.

Is it so hard to imagine that some people, Abraham and his son, did migrate to Ancient Canaan, formed clans, eventually became powerful and then conquered most of the tribes and became one big Nation within a period of about 500 to 1000 years?

The Greeks who became the Philistines did it, but they were really foreigners, invaders, and lost both identities with time.

They CHANGED the meaning of the word. Try it this way: "The Scots connection with Canada goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times."

I am not seeing it because unlike the Scottish example, there is a far more history then is acknowledged with the politization of so much of the history by both sides in this conflict.

The Arab connection to the region was like that of many other peoples with the movement of trade, populations, culture etc

Palestine | History, People, & Religion
The reign of Solomon (mid-10th century) represents the culmination of Israelite political history. Though Solomon gradually lost control over outlying territories conquered by David, he was extraordinarily successful in organizing the economic life of the country. He joined forces with Hiram of Tyre, who was leading the Phoenicians toward the exploitation of Mediterranean trade. Expeditions to Ophir, a region probably in either East Africa or India, brought items of wealth such as gold, peacocks, and sandalwood to Palestine. At the same time, the Israelite king entered into trade relations with the Arabs as far south as Sheba, or Sabaʿ (modern Yemen). These activities would have been impossible but for the development of new principles in shipbuilding and for the recent domestication of the Arabian camel and its use in the caravan trade.

What?! So if we trade with people, before we invade them and erase their culture, we are allowed to steal their history and replace it with ours?

There is not enough wine in the universe for me to cope with this. I'm switching to tequila.

Try this again:

The Scots connection with Canada goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Scots" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Scotland who colonized, but also the Ojibwe who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Scottishized.

You have literally just replaced Ojibwe for Scots.


Let's try another one:

The British connection to India goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "British" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Britain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Indians who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs adn ways of thought and became permanently Britishized.

Indians are now British and have been British for thousands of years, since earliest antiquity.

One more:

The Spanish connection to Guatemala goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Spanish" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Spain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Mayan peoples who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Spanishized.

This is replacement ideology. Replacing an entire identity with one that came later. I can't believe you don't get this.

What the hell...

Connection means just that. “The Arabs' connection with Palestine goes back uninterruptedly to the earliest historic times” and that is absolutely true. You are to make this into something it isn’t. That region has been invaded, conquered, overrun, traded with etc by hundreds of peoples. The People who eventually became the Jews were THEMSELVES invaders and conquers of earlier people. TRADE is a connection, one of many, yet it seems your only definition of Arab is “invader”. This predates Islam. What you are trying to do is take a scalpel and remove parts of history that are seen as threatening to Jewish identity. At least it seems that way because modern history has Arabs doing just that in an attempt to deny Jews their historic ties and identity.

Look at the history of the Bedouin: BEDOUINS | Facts and Details

Bedouins were once the primary inhabitants of the Holy Land. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were probably Bedouins. Many elements of Bedouin culture have not changed much since Biblical times. Bedouins were referred to Qedarites in the Old Testament and Arabaa by the Assyrians (a name still used for Bedouins today). They are referred to as the ‘A’rab in the Quran.

By the first century B.C., Bedouin moved westward into Jordan and the Sinai Peninsula and southwestward along the coast of the Red Sea. In the 7th century Bedouin were among the first converts to Islam. Mohammed was not a Bedouin. He was a townsperson from a family of traders. During the Muslim conquests thousands of Muslims---many of them Bedouins---left the Arabian peninsula and settled in newly conquered land nearby and later spread across of much of the Middle East and North Africa.​

So are they lying?

NO. A Big NO. A BIG HECK NOOOOOO.......to Arabs having connection to the ancient Canaan for the past 100,000 years or more, if that is how far one wishes to go to one's "Earliest historic times ".

Geesh.

The Patriarchs are not described as "Bedouins" in the Torah.
There is a reason for that. Because they were not.
And the article saying that "maybe they were" does not show any proof that they were.

How does the Torah describe Abraham to Joseph, to Moses, etc?

And the population which lived on the land known as Canaan, where he moved to, and later the Children of Israel returned to with Aaron from Egypt were not Arabs either, they were the indigenous people who eventually joined with the 12 tribes and became the Nation of Israel.

There are no Arabs involved in the history of the area at the time.
One cannot name one Arab who was part of any of the history from Abraham all the way to Roman times.

And first the Kurds and then the Arab Muslims did invade everywhere outside of the Arabian Peninsula after Mohammad's death.

And the word Palestinian does mean INVADER. Which is what the Philistines were, invaders from the Greek Islands.

But there is no connection at all between the Philistines, and the Arabs or the Palestinians.

Except that the Arabs eventually borrowed the name the Romans gave to the region of Israel in order to force the Jews to stop rioting against their Empire and hopefully forget who they were.
They changed the name to Syria Palestinea in order to humiliate the Jews with the name of the people who had defeated Israel before David, the boy, defeated them in turn, and created the Israeli Monarchy.


The Philistines were invaders of the land of Israel.
The Romans were invaders of the land of Israel.
The Arab Muslims were invaders of the land of Israel.

Is it so hard to imagine that some people, Abraham and his son, did migrate to Ancient Canaan, formed clans, eventually became powerful and then conquered most of the tribes and became one big Nation within a period of about 500 to 1000 years?

The Greeks who became the Philistines did it, but they were really foreigners, invaders, and lost both identities with time.

Migrated or invaded?

Are you asking of Abraham?

 

[Coyote]

So you are saying these historians are all liars...based solely on your say so?

Abbas is saying it. From time immemorial he will say.
Maybe it is about a Million years, who knows. He does not.
He just makes it up.[/QUOTE]
I don’t care what Abbas says, he is a freaking politician

 

[Coyote]

I am not seeing it because unlike the Scottish example, there is a far more history then is acknowledged with the politization of so much of the history by both sides in this conflict.

The Arab connection to the region was like that of many other peoples with the movement of trade, populations, culture etc

Palestine | History, People, & Religion
The reign of Solomon (mid-10th century) represents the culmination of Israelite political history. Though Solomon gradually lost control over outlying territories conquered by David, he was extraordinarily successful in organizing the economic life of the country. He joined forces with Hiram of Tyre, who was leading the Phoenicians toward the exploitation of Mediterranean trade. Expeditions to Ophir, a region probably in either East Africa or India, brought items of wealth such as gold, peacocks, and sandalwood to Palestine. At the same time, the Israelite king entered into trade relations with the Arabs as far south as Sheba, or Sabaʿ (modern Yemen). These activities would have been impossible but for the development of new principles in shipbuilding and for the recent domestication of the Arabian camel and its use in the caravan trade.

What?! So if we trade with people, before we invade them and erase their culture, we are allowed to steal their history and replace it with ours?

There is not enough wine in the universe for me to cope with this. I'm switching to tequila.

Try this again:

The Scots connection with Canada goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Scots" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Scotland who colonized, but also the Ojibwe who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Scottishized.

You have literally just replaced Ojibwe for Scots.


Let's try another one:

The British connection to India goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "British" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Britain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Indians who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs adn ways of thought and became permanently Britishized.

Indians are now British and have been British for thousands of years, since earliest antiquity.

One more:

The Spanish connection to Guatemala goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Spanish" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Spain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Mayan peoples who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Spanishized.

This is replacement ideology. Replacing an entire identity with one that came later. I can't believe you don't get this.

What the hell...

Connection means just that. “The Arabs' connection with Palestine goes back uninterruptedly to the earliest historic times” and that is absolutely true. You are to make this into something it isn’t. That region has been invaded, conquered, overrun, traded with etc by hundreds of peoples. The People who eventually became the Jews were THEMSELVES invaders and conquers of earlier people. TRADE is a connection, one of many, yet it seems your only definition of Arab is “invader”. This predates Islam. What you are trying to do is take a scalpel and remove parts of history that are seen as threatening to Jewish identity. At least it seems that way because modern history has Arabs doing just that in an attempt to deny Jews their historic ties and identity.

Look at the history of the Bedouin: BEDOUINS | Facts and Details

Bedouins were once the primary inhabitants of the Holy Land. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were probably Bedouins. Many elements of Bedouin culture have not changed much since Biblical times. Bedouins were referred to Qedarites in the Old Testament and Arabaa by the Assyrians (a name still used for Bedouins today). They are referred to as the ‘A’rab in the Quran.

By the first century B.C., Bedouin moved westward into Jordan and the Sinai Peninsula and southwestward along the coast of the Red Sea. In the 7th century Bedouin were among the first converts to Islam. Mohammed was not a Bedouin. He was a townsperson from a family of traders. During the Muslim conquests thousands of Muslims---many of them Bedouins---left the Arabian peninsula and settled in newly conquered land nearby and later spread across of much of the Middle East and North Africa.​

So are they lying?

NO. A Big NO. A BIG HECK NOOOOOO.......to Arabs having connection to the ancient Canaan for the past 100,000 years or more, if that is how far one wishes to go to one's "Earliest historic times ".

Geesh.

The Patriarchs are not described as "Bedouins" in the Torah.
There is a reason for that. Because they were not.
And the article saying that "maybe they were" does not show any proof that they were.

How does the Torah describe Abraham to Joseph, to Moses, etc?

And the population which lived on the land known as Canaan, where he moved to, and later the Children of Israel returned to with Aaron from Egypt were not Arabs either, they were the indigenous people who eventually joined with the 12 tribes and became the Nation of Israel.

There are no Arabs involved in the history of the area at the time.
One cannot name one Arab who was part of any of the history from Abraham all the way to Roman times.

And first the Kurds and then the Arab Muslims did invade everywhere outside of the Arabian Peninsula after Mohammad's death.

And the word Palestinian does mean INVADER. Which is what the Philistines were, invaders from the Greek Islands.

But there is no connection at all between the Philistines, and the Arabs or the Palestinians.

Except that the Arabs eventually borrowed the name the Romans gave to the region of Israel in order to force the Jews to stop rioting against their Empire and hopefully forget who they were.
They changed the name to Syria Palestinea in order to humiliate the Jews with the name of the people who had defeated Israel before David, the boy, defeated them in turn, and created the Israeli Monarchy.


The Philistines were invaders of the land of Israel.
The Romans were invaders of the land of Israel.
The Arab Muslims were invaders of the land of Israel.

Is it so hard to imagine that some people, Abraham and his son, did migrate to Ancient Canaan, formed clans, eventually became powerful and then conquered most of the tribes and became one big Nation within a period of about 500 to 1000 years?

The Greeks who became the Philistines did it, but they were really foreigners, invaders, and lost both identities with time.

I am not seeing it because unlike the Scottish example, there is a far more history then is acknowledged with the politization of so much of the history by both sides in this conflict.

The Arab connection to the region was like that of many other peoples with the movement of trade, populations, culture etc

Palestine | History, People, & Religion
The reign of Solomon (mid-10th century) represents the culmination of Israelite political history. Though Solomon gradually lost control over outlying territories conquered by David, he was extraordinarily successful in organizing the economic life of the country. He joined forces with Hiram of Tyre, who was leading the Phoenicians toward the exploitation of Mediterranean trade. Expeditions to Ophir, a region probably in either East Africa or India, brought items of wealth such as gold, peacocks, and sandalwood to Palestine. At the same time, the Israelite king entered into trade relations with the Arabs as far south as Sheba, or Sabaʿ (modern Yemen). These activities would have been impossible but for the development of new principles in shipbuilding and for the recent domestication of the Arabian camel and its use in the caravan trade.

What?! So if we trade with people, before we invade them and erase their culture, we are allowed to steal their history and replace it with ours?

There is not enough wine in the universe for me to cope with this. I'm switching to tequila.

Try this again:

The Scots connection with Canada goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Scots" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Scotland who colonized, but also the Ojibwe who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Scottishized.

You have literally just replaced Ojibwe for Scots.


Let's try another one:

The British connection to India goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "British" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Britain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Indians who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs adn ways of thought and became permanently Britishized.

Indians are now British and have been British for thousands of years, since earliest antiquity.

One more:

The Spanish connection to Guatemala goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Spanish" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Spain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Mayan peoples who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Spanishized.

This is replacement ideology. Replacing an entire identity with one that came later. I can't believe you don't get this.

What the hell...

Connection means just that. “The Arabs' connection with Palestine goes back uninterruptedly to the earliest historic times” and that is absolutely true. You are to make this into something it isn’t. That region has been invaded, conquered, overrun, traded with etc by hundreds of peoples. The People who eventually became the Jews were THEMSELVES invaders and conquers of earlier people. TRADE is a connection, one of many, yet it seems your only definition of Arab is “invader”. This predates Islam. What you are trying to do is take a scalpel and remove parts of history that are seen as threatening to Jewish identity. At least it seems that way because modern history has Arabs doing just that in an attempt to deny Jews their historic ties and identity.

Look at the history of the Bedouin: BEDOUINS | Facts and Details

Bedouins were once the primary inhabitants of the Holy Land. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were probably Bedouins. Many elements of Bedouin culture have not changed much since Biblical times. Bedouins were referred to Qedarites in the Old Testament and Arabaa by the Assyrians (a name still used for Bedouins today). They are referred to as the ‘A’rab in the Quran.

By the first century B.C., Bedouin moved westward into Jordan and the Sinai Peninsula and southwestward along the coast of the Red Sea. In the 7th century Bedouin were among the first converts to Islam. Mohammed was not a Bedouin. He was a townsperson from a family of traders. During the Muslim conquests thousands of Muslims---many of them Bedouins---left the Arabian peninsula and settled in newly conquered land nearby and later spread across of much of the Middle East and North Africa.​

So are they lying?

NO. A Big NO. A BIG HECK NOOOOOO.......to Arabs having connection to the ancient Canaan for the past 100,000 years or more, if that is how far one wishes to go to one's "Earliest historic times ".

Geesh.

The Patriarchs are not described as "Bedouins" in the Torah.
There is a reason for that. Because they were not.
And the article saying that "maybe they were" does not show any proof that they were.

How does the Torah describe Abraham to Joseph, to Moses, etc?

And the population which lived on the land known as Canaan, where he moved to, and later the Children of Israel returned to with Aaron from Egypt were not Arabs either, they were the indigenous people who eventually joined with the 12 tribes and became the Nation of Israel.

There are no Arabs involved in the history of the area at the time.
One cannot name one Arab who was part of any of the history from Abraham all the way to Roman times.

And first the Kurds and then the Arab Muslims did invade everywhere outside of the Arabian Peninsula after Mohammad's death.

And the word Palestinian does mean INVADER. Which is what the Philistines were, invaders from the Greek Islands.

But there is no connection at all between the Philistines, and the Arabs or the Palestinians.

Except that the Arabs eventually borrowed the name the Romans gave to the region of Israel in order to force the Jews to stop rioting against their Empire and hopefully forget who they were.
They changed the name to Syria Palestinea in order to humiliate the Jews with the name of the people who had defeated Israel before David, the boy, defeated them in turn, and created the Israeli Monarchy.


The Philistines were invaders of the land of Israel.
The Romans were invaders of the land of Israel.
The Arab Muslims were invaders of the land of Israel.

Is it so hard to imagine that some people, Abraham and his son, did migrate to Ancient Canaan, formed clans, eventually became powerful and then conquered most of the tribes and became one big Nation within a period of about 500 to 1000 years?

The Greeks who became the Philistines did it, but they were really foreigners, invaders, and lost both identities with time.

Migrated or invaded?

Are you asking of Abraham?

Nope. Just you.

 

[Sixties Fan]

More non-existent Arabic connections to ancient Palestine...how will you untangle it?

Kindah - Wikipedia

I did not know that Central Arabia was in Israel.
And I did not know that Yemen was in Israel, either.


Kindah (Arabic: كندة‎) was a tribal kingdom in Najd established by the Kindah tribe.[1] The tribe's existence dates back to the 2nd century BCE.[2] The Kindites established a kingdom in central Arabia which was unlike those of Yemen that were more centralized; its kings exercised an influence over a number of associated tribes more by personal prestige than by coercive settled authority. Their first capital was Qaryat Dhāt Kāhil, today known as Qaryat al-Fāw.[1]

 

[Sixties Fan]

So you are saying these historians are all liars...based solely on your say so?

Abbas is saying it. From time immemorial he will say.
Maybe it is about a Million years, who knows. He does not.
He just makes it up.

I don’t care what Abbas says, he is a freaking politician [/QUOTE]
He is teaching all Palestinians that they have been there from time immemorial. It says so in their UNWRA textbooks, or any other textbooks they use in Gaza and the PA.

Jews are invading colonizers. They have all been taught that, and insist in the "right of return" to "Ancient Palestine".

 

[Coyote]

More non-existent Arabic connections to ancient Palestine...how will you untangle it?

Kindah - Wikipedia

I did not know that Central Arabia was in Israel.
And I did not know that Yemen was in Israel, either.


Kindah (Arabic: كندة‎) was a tribal kingdom in Najd established by the Kindah tribe.[1] The tribe's existence dates back to the 2nd century BCE.[2] The Kindites established a kingdom in central Arabia which was unlike those of Yemen that were more centralized; its kings exercised an influence over a number of associated tribes more by personal prestige than by coercive settled authority. Their first capital was Qaryat Dhāt Kāhil, today known as Qaryat al-Fāw.[1]

Yet you ignore:

The Kindites were polytheistic until the 6th century CE, with evidence of rituals dedicated to the idols Athtar and Kāhil found in their ancient capital in south-central Arabia (present day Saudi Arabia). It is not clear whether they converted to Judaism or remained pagan, but there is a strong archaeological evidence that they were among the tribes in Dhū Nuwās' forces during the Jewish king's attempt to suppress Christianity in Yemen.[3] They converted to Islam in mid 7th century CE and played a crucial role during the Arab conquest of their surroundings, although some sub-tribes were declared apostates during the ridda after the death of Muḥammad.


Again connections. There whole area is interwoven with connections.you can’t pretend they don’t exist.

 

[Sixties Fan]

What?! So if we trade with people, before we invade them and erase their culture, we are allowed to steal their history and replace it with ours?

There is not enough wine in the universe for me to cope with this. I'm switching to tequila.

Try this again:

The Scots connection with Canada goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Scots" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Scotland who colonized, but also the Ojibwe who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Scottishized.

You have literally just replaced Ojibwe for Scots.


Let's try another one:

The British connection to India goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "British" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Britain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Indians who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs adn ways of thought and became permanently Britishized.

Indians are now British and have been British for thousands of years, since earliest antiquity.

One more:

The Spanish connection to Guatemala goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Spanish" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Spain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Mayan peoples who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Spanishized.

This is replacement ideology. Replacing an entire identity with one that came later. I can't believe you don't get this.

What the hell...

Connection means just that. “The Arabs' connection with Palestine goes back uninterruptedly to the earliest historic times” and that is absolutely true. You are to make this into something it isn’t. That region has been invaded, conquered, overrun, traded with etc by hundreds of peoples. The People who eventually became the Jews were THEMSELVES invaders and conquers of earlier people. TRADE is a connection, one of many, yet it seems your only definition of Arab is “invader”. This predates Islam. What you are trying to do is take a scalpel and remove parts of history that are seen as threatening to Jewish identity. At least it seems that way because modern history has Arabs doing just that in an attempt to deny Jews their historic ties and identity.

Look at the history of the Bedouin: BEDOUINS | Facts and Details

Bedouins were once the primary inhabitants of the Holy Land. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were probably Bedouins. Many elements of Bedouin culture have not changed much since Biblical times. Bedouins were referred to Qedarites in the Old Testament and Arabaa by the Assyrians (a name still used for Bedouins today). They are referred to as the ‘A’rab in the Quran.

By the first century B.C., Bedouin moved westward into Jordan and the Sinai Peninsula and southwestward along the coast of the Red Sea. In the 7th century Bedouin were among the first converts to Islam. Mohammed was not a Bedouin. He was a townsperson from a family of traders. During the Muslim conquests thousands of Muslims---many of them Bedouins---left the Arabian peninsula and settled in newly conquered land nearby and later spread across of much of the Middle East and North Africa.​

So are they lying?

NO. A Big NO. A BIG HECK NOOOOOO.......to Arabs having connection to the ancient Canaan for the past 100,000 years or more, if that is how far one wishes to go to one's "Earliest historic times ".

Geesh.

The Patriarchs are not described as "Bedouins" in the Torah.
There is a reason for that. Because they were not.
And the article saying that "maybe they were" does not show any proof that they were.

How does the Torah describe Abraham to Joseph, to Moses, etc?

And the population which lived on the land known as Canaan, where he moved to, and later the Children of Israel returned to with Aaron from Egypt were not Arabs either, they were the indigenous people who eventually joined with the 12 tribes and became the Nation of Israel.

There are no Arabs involved in the history of the area at the time.
One cannot name one Arab who was part of any of the history from Abraham all the way to Roman times.

And first the Kurds and then the Arab Muslims did invade everywhere outside of the Arabian Peninsula after Mohammad's death.

And the word Palestinian does mean INVADER. Which is what the Philistines were, invaders from the Greek Islands.

But there is no connection at all between the Philistines, and the Arabs or the Palestinians.

Except that the Arabs eventually borrowed the name the Romans gave to the region of Israel in order to force the Jews to stop rioting against their Empire and hopefully forget who they were.
They changed the name to Syria Palestinea in order to humiliate the Jews with the name of the people who had defeated Israel before David, the boy, defeated them in turn, and created the Israeli Monarchy.


The Philistines were invaders of the land of Israel.
The Romans were invaders of the land of Israel.
The Arab Muslims were invaders of the land of Israel.

Is it so hard to imagine that some people, Abraham and his son, did migrate to Ancient Canaan, formed clans, eventually became powerful and then conquered most of the tribes and became one big Nation within a period of about 500 to 1000 years?

The Greeks who became the Philistines did it, but they were really foreigners, invaders, and lost both identities with time.

What?! So if we trade with people, before we invade them and erase their culture, we are allowed to steal their history and replace it with ours?

There is not enough wine in the universe for me to cope with this. I'm switching to tequila.

Try this again:

The Scots connection with Canada goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Scots" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Scotland who colonized, but also the Ojibwe who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Scottishized.

You have literally just replaced Ojibwe for Scots.


Let's try another one:

The British connection to India goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "British" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Britain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Indians who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs adn ways of thought and became permanently Britishized.

Indians are now British and have been British for thousands of years, since earliest antiquity.

One more:

The Spanish connection to Guatemala goes back uninterrupted to the earliest historic times for the term "Spanish" denotes nowadays not merely the incomers from Spain who invaded, conquered and colonized, but also the Mayan peoples who intermarried with their conquerers, acquired their speech, customs and ways of thought and became permanently Spanishized.

This is replacement ideology. Replacing an entire identity with one that came later. I can't believe you don't get this.

What the hell...

Connection means just that. “The Arabs' connection with Palestine goes back uninterruptedly to the earliest historic times” and that is absolutely true. You are to make this into something it isn’t. That region has been invaded, conquered, overrun, traded with etc by hundreds of peoples. The People who eventually became the Jews were THEMSELVES invaders and conquers of earlier people. TRADE is a connection, one of many, yet it seems your only definition of Arab is “invader”. This predates Islam. What you are trying to do is take a scalpel and remove parts of history that are seen as threatening to Jewish identity. At least it seems that way because modern history has Arabs doing just that in an attempt to deny Jews their historic ties and identity.

Look at the history of the Bedouin: BEDOUINS | Facts and Details

Bedouins were once the primary inhabitants of the Holy Land. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were probably Bedouins. Many elements of Bedouin culture have not changed much since Biblical times. Bedouins were referred to Qedarites in the Old Testament and Arabaa by the Assyrians (a name still used for Bedouins today). They are referred to as the ‘A’rab in the Quran.

By the first century B.C., Bedouin moved westward into Jordan and the Sinai Peninsula and southwestward along the coast of the Red Sea. In the 7th century Bedouin were among the first converts to Islam. Mohammed was not a Bedouin. He was a townsperson from a family of traders. During the Muslim conquests thousands of Muslims---many of them Bedouins---left the Arabian peninsula and settled in newly conquered land nearby and later spread across of much of the Middle East and North Africa.​

So are they lying?

NO. A Big NO. A BIG HECK NOOOOOO.......to Arabs having connection to the ancient Canaan for the past 100,000 years or more, if that is how far one wishes to go to one's "Earliest historic times ".

Geesh.

The Patriarchs are not described as "Bedouins" in the Torah.
There is a reason for that. Because they were not.
And the article saying that "maybe they were" does not show any proof that they were.

How does the Torah describe Abraham to Joseph, to Moses, etc?

And the population which lived on the land known as Canaan, where he moved to, and later the Children of Israel returned to with Aaron from Egypt were not Arabs either, they were the indigenous people who eventually joined with the 12 tribes and became the Nation of Israel.

There are no Arabs involved in the history of the area at the time.
One cannot name one Arab who was part of any of the history from Abraham all the way to Roman times.

And first the Kurds and then the Arab Muslims did invade everywhere outside of the Arabian Peninsula after Mohammad's death.

And the word Palestinian does mean INVADER. Which is what the Philistines were, invaders from the Greek Islands.

But there is no connection at all between the Philistines, and the Arabs or the Palestinians.

Except that the Arabs eventually borrowed the name the Romans gave to the region of Israel in order to force the Jews to stop rioting against their Empire and hopefully forget who they were.
They changed the name to Syria Palestinea in order to humiliate the Jews with the name of the people who had defeated Israel before David, the boy, defeated them in turn, and created the Israeli Monarchy.


The Philistines were invaders of the land of Israel.
The Romans were invaders of the land of Israel.
The Arab Muslims were invaders of the land of Israel.

Is it so hard to imagine that some people, Abraham and his son, did migrate to Ancient Canaan, formed clans, eventually became powerful and then conquered most of the tribes and became one big Nation within a period of about 500 to 1000 years?

The Greeks who became the Philistines did it, but they were really foreigners, invaders, and lost both identities with time.

Migrated or invaded?

Are you asking of Abraham?

Nope. Just you.

Who migrated or invaded and from where to where?

 

[Sixties Fan]

More non-existent Arabic connections to ancient Palestine...how will you untangle it?

Kindah - Wikipedia

I did not know that Central Arabia was in Israel.
And I did not know that Yemen was in Israel, either.


Kindah (Arabic: كندة‎) was a tribal kingdom in Najd established by the Kindah tribe.[1] The tribe's existence dates back to the 2nd century BCE.[2] The Kindites established a kingdom in central Arabia which was unlike those of Yemen that were more centralized; its kings exercised an influence over a number of associated tribes more by personal prestige than by coercive settled authority. Their first capital was Qaryat Dhāt Kāhil, today known as Qaryat al-Fāw.[1]

Yet you ignore:

The Kindites were polytheistic until the 6th century CE, with evidence of rituals dedicated to the idols Athtar and Kāhil found in their ancient capital in south-central Arabia (present day Saudi Arabia). It is not clear whether they converted to Judaism or remained pagan, but there is a strong archaeological evidence that they were among the tribes in Dhū Nuwās' forces during the Jewish king's attempt to suppress Christianity in Yemen.[3] They converted to Islam in mid 7th century CE and played a crucial role during the Arab conquest of their surroundings, although some sub-tribes were declared apostates during the ridda after the death of Muḥammad.


Again connections. There whole area is interwoven with connections.you can’t pretend they don’t exist.

That is still in Arabia and not in the Land of Israel.

 

[Coyote]

So you are saying these historians are all liars...based solely on your say so?

Abbas is saying it. From time immemorial he will say.
Maybe it is about a Million years, who knows. He does not.
He just makes it up.

I don’t care what Abbas says, he is a freaking politician

He is teaching all Palestinians that they have been there from time immemorial. It says so in their UNWRA textbooks, or any other textbooks they use in Gaza and the PA.

Jews are invading colonizers. They have all been taught that, and insist in the "right of return" to "Ancient Palestine".[/QUOTE]
I am


And yet you are saying Palestinians are invaders...