Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[P F Tinmore]

Sorry, no. The "Palestinians" know that they have "been there" since the Arabs invaded in the 7th Century. They are Arabs. They are not made up of any other group.

Are you saying that before the "Arab invasion" there was nobody there but Jews?

 

[Sixties Fan]

[
They were all just Palestinians. There was no distinction. Religion was irrelevant.

Oh the kumbaya fairytale again...

Now for facts:

The distinction between Arabs and Jews was pretty clear, during the years of Arab pogroms against Palestinian Jews. Prior to Zionism.

Q. But let's pretend You were right, and there was no distinction. Then why didn't Jews deserve all those rights You claim Arab do?

This is who your sweetheart is: (So glad to see that she is for peace with Israel (sic) ) Palestine is for Arabs, but not Jews, unless the Jews return to being dhimmis. She, who lives in Boston, knows all about Apartheid in Israel )


Leila Farsakh
Leila Farsakh supports a one-state framework and claims “[t]he area is heading to the abyss of an apartheid state system rather than to a viable two-state solution, let alone peace.” Farsakh also edited a book entitled “Commemorating the Naksa [a term which refers to results of the 1967 war] Evoking the Nakba,” which states that the security barrier “signaled the existence of the last apartheid regime of the 21st century” and says that Israel turned “the territories” into “incarceration camps” (Editor’s Note p.8). Farsakh teaches at the University of Massachusetts, Boston.

One State Conference at Harvard: Analysis of Speakers and NGO Involvement

 

[P F Tinmore]

[
They were all just Palestinians. There was no distinction. Religion was irrelevant.

Oh the kumbaya fairytale again...

Now for facts:

The distinction between Arabs and Jews was pretty clear, during the years of Arab pogroms against Palestinian Jews. Prior to Zionism.

Q. But let's pretend You were right, and there was no distinction. Then why didn't Jews deserve all those rights You claim Arab do?

"The problem was not with Jews. It was with the settlers who came."

Um. Who were Jews. And not Arabs. The problem was not with settlers, because Arab settlers were readily accepted (and not called settlers). But with settlers who were Jews. Hence, the problem is with the Jews.

You are still confusing immigrants and settlers.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Sorry, no. The "Palestinians" know that they have "been there" since the Arabs invaded in the 7th Century. They are Arabs. They are not made up of any other group.

Are you saying that before the "Arab invasion" there was nobody there but Jews?

You just keep falling for your own tricks. Why is that?

 

[Sixties Fan]

[
They were all just Palestinians. There was no distinction. Religion was irrelevant.

Oh the kumbaya fairytale again...

Now for facts:

The distinction between Arabs and Jews was pretty clear, during the years of Arab pogroms against Palestinian Jews. Prior to Zionism.

Q. But let's pretend You were right, and there was no distinction. Then why didn't Jews deserve all those rights You claim Arab do?

"The problem was not with Jews. It was with the settlers who came."

Um. Who were Jews. And not Arabs. The problem was not with settlers, because Arab settlers were readily accepted (and not called settlers). But with settlers who were Jews. Hence, the problem is with the Jews.

You are still confusing immigrants and settlers.

Right !!!!

Arabs are immigrants.
Jews are settlers.

Got it

 

[Shusha]

You are still confusing immigrants and settlers.

Uh uh. Sure. If you are an Arab who wants self-determination -- good. But if you are a Jew who wants self-determination -- evil.

How DARE those Jew-people want to return to their ancestral and historical homeland and have self-determination there. The HORROR! We must make sure that NO ONE is ever allowed to do that. Because - awful.

Oh wait. But the Arabs must be allowed to return there. Oh jeeze. Hypocrisy much?

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are still confusing immigrants and settlers.

Uh uh. Sure. If you are an Arab who wants self-determination -- good. But if you are a Jew who wants self-determination -- evil.

How DARE those Jew-people want to return to their ancestral and historical homeland and have self-determination there. The HORROR! We must make sure that NO ONE is ever allowed to do that. Because - awful.

Oh wait. But the Arabs must be allowed to return there. Oh jeeze. Hypocrisy much?

I rest my case.

 

[P F Tinmore]

[
They were all just Palestinians. There was no distinction. Religion was irrelevant.

Oh the kumbaya fairytale again...

Now for facts:

The distinction between Arabs and Jews was pretty clear, during the years of Arab pogroms against Palestinian Jews. Prior to Zionism.

Q. But let's pretend You were right, and there was no distinction. Then why didn't Jews deserve all those rights You claim Arab do?

This is who your sweetheart is: (So glad to see that she is for peace with Israel (sic) ) Palestine is for Arabs, but not Jews, unless the Jews return to being dhimmis. She, who lives in Boston, knows all about Apartheid in Israel )


Leila Farsakh
Leila Farsakh supports a one-state framework and claims “[t]he area is heading to the abyss of an apartheid state system rather than to a viable two-state solution, let alone peace.” Farsakh also edited a book entitled “Commemorating the Naksa [a term which refers to results of the 1967 war] Evoking the Nakba,” which states that the security barrier “signaled the existence of the last apartheid regime of the 21st century” and says that Israel turned “the territories” into “incarceration camps” (Editor’s Note p.8). Farsakh teaches at the University of Massachusetts, Boston.

One State Conference at Harvard: Analysis of Speakers and NGO Involvement

Nice lineup. Thanks for the link.

 

[thetor]

Do you wont give a straight answer?

22 Arab countries to accommodate “palestinians” including nearby Jordan. In fact, they have similar flags

So you are talking about forced deportationn of millions of people? That is what you support?

Coyote, Joel is not Jewish. Nor Israeli.
He is speaking for himself and what he believes in.
That is not the Israeli or Jewish position, and you need to consider that.

Reacting to what one poster or another says, instead of looking at the facts on the ground, and what the history has been since 1920 needs to be the starting point of thinking and discussing about this.

One cannot sweep before 1948 or before 1967 under the rug.

Or the Muslim, Arab culture and mentality in regards to the Jewish people, either.

The previous 1300 years tell a lot about how Muslims were taught about the Jewish people and how they should be treated.

And, yes, that matters a lot and is at the bottom of this conflict, and why the Arab leaders (not the population) have refused a State in 1937, 1947 and after that.

A couple of things. Joel's position is not unique, there are other members here who have presented similar points of view. Israeli's and Jews are as diverse as any other group imo.

On how Muslims feel about Jewish people - Muslims and Jews largely got along historically. Was it a 20th century relationship of human rights, religious tolerance and democratic values? Of course not - that did not exist in any culture of those eras. It sucked to be the minority religions/ethnicities (and sucked worse to be a woman). But Jews in many areas flourished in ways they could not in Christian Europe.

The real conflict arose with the mandate, the rise of pan-Arab and of Jewish nationalism, and - yes - the unwillingness of the Arabs to accept a Jewish state on "Muslim land". But all that - and the virulant anti-semitism is relatively recent in the long history of both those faiths.

Uninformed, as usual. Muslims perpetrated the first holocaust of Jews. Not a good start

What complete rot,Mohammed had freedom of religion....your wrath should be directed to the Romans,Christians of Spain,Russians and Germans...your grasp of Jewish history is Zilch

By the way Palestinians are Christian,Muslim etc.,your prose is so riddled with holes,much like Swiss Cheese.

 

[JoelT1]

[
They were all just Palestinians. There was no distinction. Religion was irrelevant.

Oh the kumbaya fairytale again...

Now for facts:

The distinction between Arabs and Jews was pretty clear, during the years of Arab pogroms against Palestinian Jews. Prior to Zionism.

Q. But let's pretend You were right, and there was no distinction. Then why didn't Jews deserve all those rights You claim Arab do?

Palestine originated as a Roman name imposed on Jews and ancient Israel.

Palestine never existed

 

[JoelT1]

22 Arab countries to accommodate “palestinians” including nearby Jordan. In fact, they have similar flags

So you are talking about forced deportationn of millions of people? That is what you support?

Coyote, Joel is not Jewish. Nor Israeli.
He is speaking for himself and what he believes in.
That is not the Israeli or Jewish position, and you need to consider that.

Reacting to what one poster or another says, instead of looking at the facts on the ground, and what the history has been since 1920 needs to be the starting point of thinking and discussing about this.

One cannot sweep before 1948 or before 1967 under the rug.

Or the Muslim, Arab culture and mentality in regards to the Jewish people, either.

The previous 1300 years tell a lot about how Muslims were taught about the Jewish people and how they should be treated.

And, yes, that matters a lot and is at the bottom of this conflict, and why the Arab leaders (not the population) have refused a State in 1937, 1947 and after that.

A couple of things. Joel's position is not unique, there are other members here who have presented similar points of view. Israeli's and Jews are as diverse as any other group imo.

On how Muslims feel about Jewish people - Muslims and Jews largely got along historically. Was it a 20th century relationship of human rights, religious tolerance and democratic values? Of course not - that did not exist in any culture of those eras. It sucked to be the minority religions/ethnicities (and sucked worse to be a woman). But Jews in many areas flourished in ways they could not in Christian Europe.

The real conflict arose with the mandate, the rise of pan-Arab and of Jewish nationalism, and - yes - the unwillingness of the Arabs to accept a Jewish state on "Muslim land". But all that - and the virulant anti-semitism is relatively recent in the long history of both those faiths.

Uninformed, as usual. Muslims perpetrated the first holocaust of Jews. Not a good start

What complete rot,Mohammed had freedom of religion....your wrath should be directed to the Romans,Christians of Spain,Russians and Germans...your grasp of Jewish history is Zilch

By the way Palestinians are Christian,Muslim etc.,your prose is so riddled with holes,much like Swiss Cheese.

Muhammad forcibly converted Arabia.

 

[JoelT1]

22 Arab countries to accommodate “palestinians” including nearby Jordan. In fact, they have similar flags

So you are talking about forced deportationn of millions of people? That is what you support?

Coyote, Joel is not Jewish. Nor Israeli.
He is speaking for himself and what he believes in.
That is not the Israeli or Jewish position, and you need to consider that.

Reacting to what one poster or another says, instead of looking at the facts on the ground, and what the history has been since 1920 needs to be the starting point of thinking and discussing about this.

One cannot sweep before 1948 or before 1967 under the rug.

Or the Muslim, Arab culture and mentality in regards to the Jewish people, either.

The previous 1300 years tell a lot about how Muslims were taught about the Jewish people and how they should be treated.

And, yes, that matters a lot and is at the bottom of this conflict, and why the Arab leaders (not the population) have refused a State in 1937, 1947 and after that.

A couple of things. Joel's position is not unique, there are other members here who have presented similar points of view. Israeli's and Jews are as diverse as any other group imo.

On how Muslims feel about Jewish people - Muslims and Jews largely got along historically. Was it a 20th century relationship of human rights, religious tolerance and democratic values? Of course not - that did not exist in any culture of those eras. It sucked to be the minority religions/ethnicities (and sucked worse to be a woman). But Jews in many areas flourished in ways they could not in Christian Europe.

The real conflict arose with the mandate, the rise of pan-Arab and of Jewish nationalism, and - yes - the unwillingness of the Arabs to accept a Jewish state on "Muslim land". But all that - and the virulant anti-semitism is relatively recent in the long history of both those faiths.

Uninformed, as usual. Muslims perpetrated the first holocaust of Jews. Not a good start

What complete rot,Mohammed had freedom of religion....your wrath should be directed to the Romans,Christians of Spain,Russians and Germans...your grasp of Jewish history is Zilch

By the way Palestinians are Christian,Muslim etc.,your prose is so riddled with holes,much like Swiss Cheese.

99% of fakestinians are Muslims

 

[P F Tinmore]

Interviewer: "Has the Palestinian leadership ever officially declared that it is no longer bound by the Oslo Accords?"

Salwa Hudaib: "The Vienna Convention stipulates that if any party breaches an agreement, that agreement becomes null and void. Israel did not implement the agreement within five years, and it continued its activities of settlement, of Judaization, of deportation, killings, and oppression, and only intensified its occupation and settlements, and therefore, we are not bound by the Oslo Accords. President Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] has not declared this officially, except for when he said, during the [2017] Al-Aqsa Uprising, that we were halting the [security] coordination and all bilateral relations with the Israelis. This started on July 14th, 2017, and it continues to this day. In addition, the popular resistance has intensified. So we are not bound by the Oslo Accords. I say, on my own behalf and on behalf of the Fatah movement, that we are not bound by the Oslo Accords, because these accords no longer exist on the ground."
----
The Oslo Accords created the Palestinian Authority. it is what gave the Palestinians self-rule over Areas A and B.

So if they say it is abrogated, then Israel has every legal right to take over the entire West Bank again, and control it legally under international law, since there is no Palestinian legal entity.

(full article/video online)

If the PA isn't bound by the Oslo accords, then it should self-destruct, right? ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Oslo expired in1999.

The Palestinians established a new government with the Palestinian Basic Law (constitution) of 2003. There was no mention of Israel, no mention of Oslo, no mention of occupation, no mention of changing borders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Thst is really informative, and puts it in a way I had not thought of. I will argue though that in regards to rights and self determination many on this board do not think they should be extended to Palestinians simply because they are Arabs or fake people.

I disagree. I think everyone on Team Israel believes in self-determination for the Arabs. (Yes, even Joel).

Some notice that the Arabs who identify as Syrian, Jordanian and Palestinian don't actually recognize a distinction between these three identifications and say they are all one. Thus they self-identify as belonging to a larger group -- a group which ALREADY has self-determination in two sovereign States, PLUS all of Gaza, PLUS Areas A and B.

That is NOT the same thing as denying self-determination to Arabs or calling certain Arabs a "fake" people.

Yes it is the same. Once you label people fake you take the first step in deligitimizing them and negating their regional rights. When certain members of Team Israel do this it is coupled with " Why do Arabs need another state" or send them to Jordan. You are effectivelly negating their right to self identify as a people belonging to that region.

If we extrapolate this further -- yes, I'm going to take it to a bit of an extreme for demonstration purposes -- let's take the Arab population in and around Nazareth. In the Northern District of Israel, the population is roughly 50/50 Arab and Jewish. It is squarely and clearly in Israel. Let's imagine that we actually settle this whole conflict and divide the territory under dispute roughly along the 1949 lines and create the State of Palestine. Now. Imagine the Arab population of the Northern District says that they are Nazarenes. Not Israeli. Not Palestinian. At the same time they recognize that Syrians, Jordanians, Palestinians and Nazarenes are all the same people. They self-identify as unified. Yet the Nazarenes wish to also have self-determination.

Do you see how this whittles away the State of Israel? Do you see how this has the function (whether or not it is intentional) of denying Jewish self-determination?

So are you effectively saying the only way to have Jewish self dermination is to delegitimize the Palestinians because it sur sounds like it and it is exactly what peoe like Joel are doing. How is it any different than the many attempts some on here make to delegitimize Jews as a people from claims that an entire branch are just Europeans to denying their right to self identify?

The Palestinians have been self identifying as Palestinans for quite a few generations now. If they also identify with Syrians how is that any different then French Jews who also identify as French?

" Why do Arabs need another state"

They don't. They just want the one they have been living in for centuries.

 

[JoelT1]

Interviewer: "Has the Palestinian leadership ever officially declared that it is no longer bound by the Oslo Accords?"

Salwa Hudaib: "The Vienna Convention stipulates that if any party breaches an agreement, that agreement becomes null and void. Israel did not implement the agreement within five years, and it continued its activities of settlement, of Judaization, of deportation, killings, and oppression, and only intensified its occupation and settlements, and therefore, we are not bound by the Oslo Accords. President Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] has not declared this officially, except for when he said, during the [2017] Al-Aqsa Uprising, that we were halting the [security] coordination and all bilateral relations with the Israelis. This started on July 14th, 2017, and it continues to this day. In addition, the popular resistance has intensified. So we are not bound by the Oslo Accords. I say, on my own behalf and on behalf of the Fatah movement, that we are not bound by the Oslo Accords, because these accords no longer exist on the ground."
----
The Oslo Accords created the Palestinian Authority. it is what gave the Palestinians self-rule over Areas A and B.

So if they say it is abrogated, then Israel has every legal right to take over the entire West Bank again, and control it legally under international law, since there is no Palestinian legal entity.

(full article/video online)

If the PA isn't bound by the Oslo accords, then it should self-destruct, right? ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Oslo expired in1999.

The Palestinians established a new government with the Palestinian Basic Law (constitution) of 2003. There was no mention of Israel, no mention of Oslo, no mention of occupation, no mention of changing borders.

Palestine was merely Britain’s name for the British Mandate where Jews were originally called palestinians

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Don't get tied up over synonyms; it is an unimportant distraction.

You are still confusing immigrants and settlers.

Uh uh. Sure. If you are an Arab who wants self-determination -- good. But if you are a Jew who wants self-determination -- evil.

How DARE those Jew-people want to return to their ancestral and historical homeland and have self-determination there. The HORROR! We must make sure that NO ONE is ever allowed to do that. Because - awful.

Oh wait. But the Arabs must be allowed to return there. Oh jeeze. Hypocrisy much?

I rest my case.

(COMMENT)

And don't make a Gordian Knot where none should be.

• IF you are Arab (“people who belong to culture, and ethnicity "X”) who wants self-determination ⇒ good.
  
• IF you are Jew (“people who belong to culture, and ethnicity "Y”) who wants self-determination ⇒ evil.

Just on the face value of this "good and evil" comparison, anyone can discern that there is something wrong; they are caught by a false equivalence IF and ONLY IF all "peoples" (Arab and Jew) have the same right to self-determination.

※→ The process by which a country determines its own statehood and forms its own allegiances and government:
※→ Contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum. Internal self-determination may refer to various political and social rights; by contrast, external self-determination refers to full legal independence/secession for the given 'people' from the larger politico-legal state.​

The basic practical problem here is that the Arab Palestinians fail to accept that the all the issues were settled in a "Trial by Combat." They want the "Trial by Combat" to continue.

• Arab Palestinians would like the Israelis to move out of Palestine and give back the land they have taken since 1948.

• A more moderate demand is for Israelis to give back only the land they have taken since 1967.​

IF one of these positions satisfies the Arab Palestinians, THEN it is not a question of "self-determination," but one of sovereign control.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

Thst is really informative, and puts it in a way I had not thought of. I will argue though that in regards to rights and self determination many on this board do not think they should be extended to Palestinians simply because they are Arabs or fake people.

I disagree. I think everyone on Team Israel believes in self-determination for the Arabs. (Yes, even Joel).

Some notice that the Arabs who identify as Syrian, Jordanian and Palestinian don't actually recognize a distinction between these three identifications and say they are all one. Thus they self-identify as belonging to a larger group -- a group which ALREADY has self-determination in two sovereign States, PLUS all of Gaza, PLUS Areas A and B.

That is NOT the same thing as denying self-determination to Arabs or calling certain Arabs a "fake" people.

Yes it is the same. Once you label people fake you take the first step in deligitimizing them and negating their regional rights. When certain members of Team Israel do this it is coupled with " Why do Arabs need another state" or send them to Jordan. You are effectivelly negating their right to self identify as a people belonging to that region.

If we extrapolate this further -- yes, I'm going to take it to a bit of an extreme for demonstration purposes -- let's take the Arab population in and around Nazareth. In the Northern District of Israel, the population is roughly 50/50 Arab and Jewish. It is squarely and clearly in Israel. Let's imagine that we actually settle this whole conflict and divide the territory under dispute roughly along the 1949 lines and create the State of Palestine. Now. Imagine the Arab population of the Northern District says that they are Nazarenes. Not Israeli. Not Palestinian. At the same time they recognize that Syrians, Jordanians, Palestinians and Nazarenes are all the same people. They self-identify as unified. Yet the Nazarenes wish to also have self-determination.

Do you see how this whittles away the State of Israel? Do you see how this has the function (whether or not it is intentional) of denying Jewish self-determination?

So are you effectively saying the only way to have Jewish self dermination is to delegitimize the Palestinians because it sur sounds like it and it is exactly what peoe like Joel are doing. How is it any different than the many attempts some on here make to delegitimize Jews as a people from claims that an entire branch are just Europeans to denying their right to self identify?

The Palestinians have been self identifying as Palestinans for quite a few generations now. If they also identify with Syrians how is that any different then French Jews who also identify as French?

" Why do Arabs need another state"

They don't. They just want the one they have been living in for centuries.

What “state” would that be?

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Self identification is important and most self identify as Palestians now and for generations.

Most acknowledge that there is no difference between Palestinians and Jordanians and Syrians. That they are one people. They self-identify as one people.

They are saying the Palestinians have no right to self determination or a nation because other Arab peoples have it already and they are doing it by denying them their rights as a people.

That is NOT what team Israel are saying. No one on team Israel is saying that the Palestinians can't have a State of any kind on any territory. Not even Joel is saying that. Joel is simply saying that the Arab Palestinians shouldn't have yet ANOTHER State or three on territory that was granted to the Jewish people.

First I want to apologize for the scarcity of my answers as I am relying on my phone and it sucks to type and produces a ton of typos. I would rather be more verbose snd use sources. Tonight i will try to be on the computer.

Second i want clarify a few things.

The Palestinians are now a people. They consider themselves a people. It should not mstter if they are culturally very similar to others. They have lived in the area referred to as Palestine for thousands of years. They have been overrun and conquered and married into other peoples and they include immigrants from other Arab countries. They have deep family ties to place that is equal to thogh different from the ties claimed by the Jews. This is one thing some here will not recognize as having any validity.

When you are saying they should not have another state on the territory granted to Jews what exactly do you mean? They should go to Africa...South America? Or shift tbem to Jordan and Syria? See I havent seen Joel state snything beyond denying them any rights of place or identity. It isnt too disimilar to the ways that Myanmar is erasing the Rohinga identity (without the murder and violence Myanmar is conducting) banning even the word. They are nobody. A people with no name or citizenship. I see a systemic effort to deny the Palestinians an identity.

If what you mean is the territory that is currently recognized as Israel then i agree with you. There is Gaza and the West Bank (exactly what parts to be negotiated) then that is reasonable as many will still be in the area where they have cultural and familial ties.

There is a very significant difference between "You can not have a State ANYWHERE on this territory (or anywhere in the world) because you do not exist" and saying, "You can't have a State HERE because this is the place for the Jewish people, but you can have one THERE because that is the place for the Arab Palestinian people".

Agree.

The equivalent would be for team Israel to say, "The Arab Palestinians can not have a State anywhere in the world because they do not exist." (And we are going to stay at war with them until their State is destroyed.)

Is anyone saying the Jews can not have state anywhere in the world?

When does a people become a people? Is there a magical line where it is decided no new peoples can come into being or is it only Palestinians held to that line?

THAT is a fascinating question. Actually, I think the question should be reversed. When does a people cease to belong to a broad cultural group (a people)? Is self-identification the ONLY criteria? Or is there some requirement for some sort of significant cultural change or difference? If yes, what criteria would you choose?

Great questions...and i am not sure I have an answer but it deserves a post of its own and fits into the topic perfectly. I am going to answer this part later.

Where does it end? This creation of new peoples and disappearance of Israel? Where does this creation of "new" peoples become an encroachment on the rights of the Jewish people to ALSO have a State? When 75% is removed? When 90% is removed? When 95% is removed? 100%? How to we prevent the Jewish State from growing smaller, and smaller and smaller with the continuous invention of new peoples?

Let's put shoe on other foot. Let's say the Jewish people decide they are actually four different peoples, based on their long history in so many places. They demand a sovereign State in Jordan. Another in Syria. Another in Lebanon. Yay or nay? And why?


And keep in mind, I am asking these questions because I'm a shit disturber (grin) and am looking for a higher level of conversation here (which you graciously provide). You know I believe that the Arab Palestinian people in the "West Bank" and Gaza should have another State if they want one. Or they should be able to join with Jordan or Egypt if they so desire.

All these are great discussion points so i sill answer them later when i am not so constrained!

Coyote, with all due respect:

"The Palestinians are now a people. They consider themselves a people. It should not mstter if they are culturally very similar to others. They have lived in the area referred to as Palestine for thousands of years. They have been overrun and conquered and married into other peoples and they include immigrants from other Arab countries. They have deep family ties to place that is equal to thogh different from the ties claimed by the Jews. This is one thing some here will not recognize as having any validity."


You are confusing the people.

The Jews have been in, if one prefers to call it, Palestine.
They are the Palestinians the Romans changed the name into Syria Palestinia.

The Palestinian Arabs are descendants of the same ethnicity of Arabs who invaded the area in the 7th century, while Jews were still living there, and continued to live there. The Arabs did not call the Jews or any other people of the area "Palestinians".

The idea of calling Jews and Arabs, Druze, etc Palestinians, came from the British Mandate for Palestine (it should have been called after Israel, but it was not)

Not being able to stop the descendants of the ancient Jews from recreating their ancient nation, or destroy it after 1948, the Arabs leaders - Arafat - decided to adopt the identity of Palestinians, in 1964.

That was not because they wanted to create a State called Palestine because they identified as such. It was to continue to try to destroy Israel.

And these facts seem to be something you cannot absorb and think about.

Since the first Arab riot in 1920, the Jewish leaders have been able to share the land. 78 % was taken without asking the Jews and given to the Hashemites.
In 1937 the Jewish leaders agreed to a partition for Jews and Arabs.
What were they in the middle of? Did the Arab leaders accept?

The same thing for 1947 and the UN proposed partition.

Q: If the Arab leaders so identify with a Palestinian identity, and I am not speaking about the rest of the population, why are they so intent in destroying Israel in order to have their State on top of it?

Not being able to stop the descendants of the ancient Jews from recreating their ancient nation, or destroy it after 1948, the Arabs leaders - Arafat - decided to adopt the identity of Palestinians, in 1964.

That was not because they wanted to create a State called Palestine because they identified as such. It was to continue to try to destroy Israel.

The Palestinians declared independence in 1948.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tinmore says that the Jewish people (the real ones) aren't eligible for self-determination because they don't want self-determination.