Worst Job: Travel Agent In Pallyworld

[Saigon]

JStone -

If you actually start to present some evidence and facts from reliable source to back up your claims, I'll be sure and respond.

I think we both know you won't be doing that.

I think we both also know that Palestinians can trace their history back in the Levant across at east 3,000 years of permanant occupation. When you can actually start to accept difficult facts like these, your views on the Middle East conflict might become something other than cliche and gossip.

 

[JStone]

JStone -

If you actually start to present some evidence and facts from reliable source to back up your claims, I'll be sure and respond.

I think we both know you won't be doing that.

I think we both also know that Palestinians can trace their history back in the Levant across at east 3,000 years of permanant occupation. When you can actually start to accept difficult facts like these, your views on the Middle East conflict might become something other than cliche and gossip.

Eminent Archaeologist and Historian, former Fulbright Scholar Eric Cline...

The claims that modern Palestinians are descended from the ancient Jebusites are madewithout any supporting evidence. Historians and archaeologists have generally concluded that most, if not all, modern Palestinians are probably more closely related to the Arabs of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan and other countries than they are to the ancient Jebusites, Canaanites or Philistines.

Rashid Khalidi, Professor of Modern Arab Studies, Columbia University, Director of Columbia University's Middle East Institute and advisor to various Arab groups...

There is a relatively recent tradition which argues that Palestinian nationalism has deep historical roots. As with other national movements, extreme advocates of this view anachronistically read back into the history of Palestine over the past few centuries a nationalist consciousness and identity that are in fact relatively modern. Among the manifestations of this outlook are a predilection for seeing in peoples such as the Canaanites, Jebusites and Philistines the lineal ancestors of the modern Palestinians.

Eminent Middle East Historian Bernard Lewis

By [Arabs, "Palestinians"] bypassing the Biblical Israelites and claiming kinship with the Canaanites, it is possible to assert a historical claim antedating the biblical promise and possession put forward by the Jews. This line of argument isaccompanied by the common practice in Arab countries, in textbook, museums and exhibitions of minimizing the Jewish role in ancient history or, more frequently, presenting it in very negative terms.

In terms of scholarship as distinct from politics, there is no evidence whatsoever for the assertion that the Canaanites were Arabs ["Palestiniains"].

 

[Saigon]

Um....you are aware that none of these even remotely back up your claims, right?

Do you see anyone on this thread insisting that Canaanites were Arabs?

No?

Then why mention it?

 

[JStone]

Um....you are aware that none of these even remotely back up your claims, right?

Do you see anyone on this thread insisting that Canaanites were Arabs?

No?

Then why mention it?

You lost the debate. Now, run along.

Eminent Archaeologist and Historian, former Fulbright Scholar Eric Cline...

The claims that modern Palestinians are descended from the ancient Jebusites are made without any supporting evidence. Historians and archaeologists have generally concluded that most, if not all, modern Palestinians are probably more closely related to the Arabs of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan and other countries than they are to the ancient Jebusites, Canaanites or Philistines.
Oxford University Press: Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean: Eric H. Cline

Rashid Khalidi, Professor of Modern Arab Studies, Columbia University, Director of Columbia University's Middle East Institute and advisor to various Arab groups...

There is a relatively recent tradition which argues that Palestinian nationalism has deep historical roots. As with other national movements, extreme advocates of this view anachronistically read back into the history of Palestine over the past few centuries a nationalist consciousness and identity that are in fact relatively modern. Among the manifestations of this outlook are a predilection for seeing in peoples such as the Canaanites, Jebusites and Philistines the lineal ancestors of the modern Palestinians.
Palestinian Identity: Rashid Khalidi: 9780231105156: Amazon.com: Books

Eminent Middle East Historian Bernard Lewis

By [Arabs] bypassing the Biblical Israelites and claiming kinship with the Canaanites, it is possible to assert a historical claim antedating the biblical promise and possession put forward by the Jews. This line of argument isaccompanied by the common practice in Arab countries, in textbook, museums and exhibitions of minimizing the Jewish role in ancient history or, more frequently, presenting it in very negative terms.

In terms of scholarship as distinct from politics, there is no evidence whatsoever for the assertion that the Canaanites were Arabs.
Amazon.com: Political Words and Ideas in Islam (9781558764248): Bernard Lewis: Books

Harvard University Semitic Museum: The Houses of Ancient Israel The Houses of Ancient Israel § Semitic Museum

In archaeological terms The Houses of Ancient Israel: Domestic, Royal, Divine focuses on the Iron Age (1200-586 B.C.E.). Iron I (1200-1000 B.C.E.) represents the premonarchical period. Iron II (1000-586 B.C.E.) was the time of kings. Uniting the tribal coalitions of Israel and Judah in the tenth century B.C.E., David and Solomon ruled over an expanding realm. After Solomon's death (c. 930 B.C.E.) Israel and Judah separated into two kingdoms.
Israel was led at times by strong kings, Omri and Ahab in the ninth century B.C.E. and Jereboam II in the eighth.

Harvard University Semitic Museum: Jerusalem During The Reign Of King Hezekiah--New Exhibition At The Semitic Museum Re-Creates Numerous Aspects Of Ancient Israel Harvard Gazette: Jerusalem during the reign of King Hezekiah

The Semitic Museum has installed a new exhibition that brings the world of biblical Israel into vivid, three-dimensional reality. "The Houses of Ancient Israel: Domestic, Royal, Divine" immerses the viewer in Israelite daily life around the time of King Hezekiah (8th century B.C.), creating an experiential environment based on the latest archaeological, textual, and historical research.

The centerpiece of the exhibition is a full-scale Israelite house, open on one side, filled with authentic ancient artifacts that show how life was lived by common inhabitants of ancient Jerusalem. Agricultural tools, a cooking area, and a stall occupied by a single, scruffy ram fill the ground floor of the cube-shaped, mud-brick structure, which, thankfully, is not olfactorily authentic. The upper story, reached by a ladder, is devoted to eating and sleeping.

Yale University Press: The Archaeology of Ancient Israel The Archaeology of Ancient Israel - Ben-Tor, Amnon; Greenberg, R. - Yale University Press

In this lavishly illustrated book some of Israel's foremost archaeologists present a thorough, up-to-date, and readily accessible survey of early life in the land of the Bible, from the Neolithic era (eighth millennium B.C.E.) to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the First Temple in 586 B.C.E. It will be a delightful and informative resource for anyone who has ever wanted to know more about the religious, scientific, or historical background of the region.

 

[Saigon]

OK, Stone, I'll try and speed things up a bit here by trying to post a few conclusions here.

I have noticed that a lot of people new to this debate tend to get very bogged down in the names. It's all about Canaanites! It's all about the Phoenicians!

Actually it isn't, and if you discuss these issues with Palestinians and Israelis, you may never hear those words. Do you really think the issue with Palestine and Israel would shift if it were suddenly proved beyond all shadow of a doubt that Canaanites were Arabs?

It just isn't a big issue - for most of us actually involved in this debate, it's a red herring. I don't know if Phoenicians were Arabs and really couldn't care less.

Here is what the issue is about:

Palestinians have permanantly occupied land in the Levant for at least 3,000 years. The same land, the same cities of Jericho, Akko and Jaffa. Genetic tests have proven this. There is no doubt. It is not disputed.

Unfortunately, Jews have also lived in cities like Jericho and Jerusalem for close to 3,000 years. They were always a small minority, but they were there. We know this for a fact.

The issue for the modern era really rests upon that, and events sparked by the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and into the 1920s.

I hope you'll give these points some serious consideration, although I suspect you won't.

 

[Lipush]

JStone -

Congratulations on having what was not a particularly difficult point to get.

NO nation states existed in the time of the bible. Not one.

Most cities and regions mentioned in the bible never became nation states.

Hence, using the bible as the basis for the legitimacy of nation states is about as much use as using the bible as a basis for buying iPads or sneakers.

Again - Palestinians haved lived in the Levant for well over 1,000 years, during which time they formed more than 90% of the population. If you do not consider this a basis for the formation of a legitimate state, please explain why you do consider Italy to be legitimate.

1000 years? there were nothing like, or similar, or that could have been mistaken for "Palestine" or the "Palestinian people" in the earlier century. "Palestine" in its root is not even in Arabic. this word is originally from HEBREW.

 

[JStone]

Eminent Middle East Historian Dr. Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, Author, "The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years," "The Future of the Middle East," "The Shaping of the Modern Middle East," "The End of Modern History in the Middle East," Faith and Power: Religion and Politics in the Middle East"

The adjective Palestinian is comparatively new. This, I need hardly remind you, is a region of ancient civilization and of deep-rooted and often complex identitites. But, Palestine was not one of them. People might identify themselves for various purposes, by religion, by descent, or by allegiance to a particular state or ruler, or, sometimes, locality. But, when they did it locally it was generally either the city and the immediate district or the larger province, so they would have been Jerusalemites or Jaffaites or Syrians, identifying with the larger province of Syria

The constitution or the formation of a political entity called Palestine which eventually gave rise to a nationality called Palestinian were lasting innovations of the British Mandate [1922-1948]

American Library Association

"For more than four decades, Bernard Lewis has been one of the most respected scholars and prolific writers on the history and politics of the Middle East. In this compilation of more than 50 journal articles and essays, he displays the full range of his eloquence, knowledge, and insight regarding this pivotal and volatile region."
Oxford University Press: Search Results

 

[Saigon]

1000 years? there were nothing like, or similar, or that could have been mistaken for "Palestine" or the "Palestinian people" in the earlier century. "Palestine" in its root is not even in Arabic. this word is originally from HEBREW.

That is nonsense, of course.

There is absolutely no question that people have lived in cities like Akko and Jericho for 4,000 years or so, and that genetically the people who live there today are closely related to the people who lived there before Christ.

Do you understand the difference between the words 'Prussian', 'German' and 'Saxon'?

Do you understand the difference between the words 'Genovese' 'Piedmontese' and 'Italian'?

Then you can understand the differences involved here. If you want to understand.

 

[Lipush]

1000 years? there were nothing like, or similar, or that could have been mistaken for "Palestine" or the "Palestinian people" in the earlier century. "Palestine" in its root is not even in Arabic. this word is originally from HEBREW.

That is nonsense, of course.

There is absolutely no question that people have lived in cities like Akko and Jericho for 4,000 years or so, and that genetically the people who live there today are closely related to the people who lived there before Christ.

Do you understand the difference between the words 'Prussian', 'German' and 'Saxon'?

Do you understand the difference between the words 'Genovese' 'Piedmontese' and 'Italian'?

Then you can understand the differences involved here. If you want to understand.

That's pure nonsense, in the previous centuries there was nothing but sand and mud in Israel, the Arabs clans braught almost nothing new to the area, the simply took over it, Mark Twain when visiting the land called it "Etetz Habekka" in his book, "The Land of tears", because there was nothing, there were no actual cities, the immigranted of the first and second Aliya did most of the job.

The terminology of calling the Arabs of Gaza and West Bank "Palestinians" and the Jews of Israel "Zionists" is all but a twist of agendas and politics. If such a thing as a "Palestinian" exist, the Palestinian is the man or woman who sat in the land before it was called "Israel" since 1948. If that is the case, then the Jews who sat in this land before 48 are also "Palestinians". that makes many of todays Israeli Jews "Palestinians" as well. Yet they are not called that. Why?

 

[Saigon]

The myth:

in the previous centuries there was nothing but sand and mud in Israel,?

The reality:

Jericho is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world, with evidence of settlement dating back to 9000 BCE. By about 9400 BCE the town had grown to more than 70 dwellings, and was home to over 1000 people. The most striking aspect of this early town was a massive stone wall over 3.6 metres high, and 1.8 metres wide at the base. Inside this wall was a tower over 3.6 metres high, contained an internal staircase with 22 stone steps. The wall and tower were unprecedented in human history, and would have taken a hundred men more than a hundred days to construct it. The use of this wall and tower was likely for defence against flood water and mud flows from the nearby Jordan river.

Jericho went from being an administrative centre under Persian rule to serving as the private estate of Alexander the Great between 336 and 323 BCE after his conquest of the region. In the middle of the 2nd century BCE Jericho was under Hellenistic rule, and the Syrian General Bacchides built a number of forts to strengthen the defences of the area around Jericho against invasion by the Macabees (1 Macc 9:50). One of these forts, built at the entrance to Wadi Qelt, was later refortified by Herod the Great, who named it Kypros after his mother.

Herod originally leased Jericho from Cleopatra after Mark Antony gave it to her as a gift. After their joint suicide in 30 BCE Octavian assumed control of the Roman Empire and granted Herod free rein over Jericho. Herod’s rule oversaw the construction of a hippodrome-theatre (Tel es-Samrat) to entertain his guests and new aqueducts to irrigate the area below the cliffs and reach his winter palace built at the site of Tulul al-Alaiq.

 

[JStone]

Eminent Middle East Historian Dr. Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, Author, "The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years," "The Future of the Middle East," "The Shaping of the Modern Middle East," "The End of Modern History in the Middle East," Faith and Power: Religion and Politics in the Middle East"

The adjective Palestinian is comparatively new. This, I need hardly remind you, is a region of ancient civilization and of deep-rooted and often complex identitites. But, Palestine was not one of them. People might identify themselves for various purposes, by religion, by descent, or by allegiance to a particular state or ruler, or, sometimes, locality. But, when they did it locally it was generally either the city and the immediate district or the larger province, so they would have been Jerusalemites or Jaffaites or Syrians, identifying with the larger province of Syria

The constitution or the formation of a political entity called Palestine which eventually gave rise to a nationality called Palestinian were lasting innovations of the British Mandate [1922-1948]

American Library Association

"For more than four decades, Bernard Lewis has been one of the most respected scholars and prolific writers on the history and politics of the Middle East. In this compilation of more than 50 journal articles and essays, he displays the full range of his eloquence, knowledge, and insight regarding this pivotal and volatile region."
Oxford University Press: Search Results

 

[Saigon]

Stone -

Why do you post quotes from books you have not read?

 

[Jos]

That's pure nonsense, in the previous centuries there was nothing but sand and mud in Israel, the Arabs clans braught almost nothing new to the area, the simply took over it, Mark Twain when visiting the land called it "Etetz Habekka" in his book, "The Land of tears", because there was nothing, there were no actual cities, the immigranted of the first and second Aliya did most of the job.

The terminology of calling the Arabs of Gaza and West Bank "Palestinians" and the Jews of Israel "Zionists" is all but a twist of agendas and politics. If such a thing as a "Palestinian" exist, the Palestinian is the man or woman who sat in the land before it was called "Israel" since 1948. If that is the case, then the Jews who sat in this land before 48 are also "Palestinians". that makes many of todays Israeli Jews "Palestinians" as well. Yet they are not called that. Why?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WXBX2KWkT0]19th Century Palestine - YouTube[/ame]

Sand and mud?

 

[JStone]

That's pure nonsense, in the previous centuries there was nothing but sand and mud in Israel, the Arabs clans braught almost nothing new to the area, the simply took over it, Mark Twain when visiting the land called it "Etetz Habekka" in his book, "The Land of tears", because there was nothing, there were no actual cities, the immigranted of the first and second Aliya did most of the job.

The terminology of calling the Arabs of Gaza and West Bank "Palestinians" and the Jews of Israel "Zionists" is all but a twist of agendas and politics. If such a thing as a "Palestinian" exist, the Palestinian is the man or woman who sat in the land before it was called "Israel" since 1948. If that is the case, then the Jews who sat in this land before 48 are also "Palestinians". that makes many of todays Israeli Jews "Palestinians" as well. Yet they are not called that. Why?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WXBX2KWkT0]19th Century Palestine - YouTube[/ame]

Sand and mud?

Jos






18th century would be during the Ottoman Empire. There was no palestine. Bogus youtube.

Go to the dunce corner, dunce.

Cambridge University Press

In Ottoman times, no political entity called Palestine existed. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, European boundary makers began to take greater interest in defining territorial limits for Palestine. Only since the 1920s has Palestine had formally delimited boundaries, though these have remained subject to repeated change and a source of bitter dispute.
Palestine Boundaries 1833–1947 - Cambridge Archive Editions

Eminent Middle East Historian Dr. Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, Author, "The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years," "The Future of the Middle East," "The Shaping of the Modern Middle East," "The End of Modern History in the Middle East," Faith and Power: Religion and Politics in the Middle East"

The adjective Palestinian is comparatively new. This, I need hardly remind you, is a region of ancient civilization and of deep-rooted and often complex identitites. But, Palestine was not one of them. People might identify themselves for various purposes, by religion, by descent, or by allegiance to a particular state or ruler, or, sometimes, locality. But, when they did it locally it was generally either the city and the immediate district or the larger province, so they would have been Jerusalemites or Jaffaites or Syrians, identifying with the larger province of Syria

The constitution or the formation of a political entity called Palestine which eventually gave rise to a nationality called Palestinian were lasting innovations of the British Mandate [1922-1948]
http://www.amazon.com/Political-Wor...&ie=UTF8&qid=1323825054&sr=1-38&tag=ff0d01-20

 

[Saigon]

Stone -

In the 18th century Palestine was a region of the Ottoman Empire.

Seriously, dude...how can you not know that?

 

[JStone]

Cambridge University Press

In Ottoman times, no political entity called Palestine existed. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, European boundary makers began to take greater interest in defining territorial limits for Palestine. Only since the 1920s has Palestine had formally delimited boundaries, though these have remained subject to repeated change and a source of bitter dispute.
Palestine Boundaries 1833–1947 - Cambridge Archive Editions

Eminent Middle East Historian Dr. Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, Author, "The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years," "The Future of the Middle East," "The Shaping of the Modern Middle East," "The End of Modern History in the Middle East," Faith and Power: Religion and Politics in the Middle East"

For Arabs, the term Palestine was unacceptable. For Muslims it was alien and irrelevant but not abhorrent in the same way as it was to Jews. The main objection for them was that it seemed to assert a separate entity which politically conscious Arabs in Palestine and elsewhere denied. For them there was no such thing as a country called Palestine. The region which the British called Palestine was merely a separated part of a larger whole [of Syria]. For a long time organized and articulate Arab political opinion was virtually unanimous on this point.
Amazon.com: Political Words and Ideas in Islam (9781558764248): Bernard Lewis: Books

 

[Saigon]

Stone -

Why not actually try and debate the topic sensibly?

No one said Palestine had formal boundaries as part of the Ottoman Empire - very few of their Ottoman regions did have formal borders. But it was a region, it was called Palestine, and everyone knew that it extended from the Jordan River in the East to the cities of Akko and Jaffa in the west.

These aren't difficult points to get, surely?

 

[theliq]

JStone -

How much archeological evidence would you like, and in what format?

Would you prefer I suggest academic books, post my own pictures, or link to perhaps 10 or 12 archeological sites which confirm my points?

Siagon you are dealing with a CRETIN-CRETINS.steve

 

[JStone]

Cambridge University Press

In Ottoman times, no political entity called Palestine existed. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, European boundary makers began to take greater interest in defining territorial limits for Palestine. Only since the 1920s has Palestine had formally delimited boundaries, though these have remained subject to repeated change and a source of bitter dispute.
Palestine Boundaries 1833–1947 - Cambridge Archive Editions

Eminent Middle East Historian Dr. Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, Author, "The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years," "The Future of the Middle East," "The Shaping of the Modern Middle East," "The End of Modern History in the Middle East," Faith and Power: Religion and Politics in the Middle East

At first, the country of which Palestine was a part was felt to be Syria. In Ottoman times, that is, immediately before the coming of the British, Palestine had indeed been a part of a larger Syrian whole from which it was in no way distinguished whether by language, culture, education, administration, political allegiance, or any other significant respect. The dividing line between British-mandated Palestine and French-mandated Syria-Lebanon was an entirely new one and for the people of the area was wholly artificial. It was therefore natural that the nationalist leadership when it first appeared should think in Syrian terms and describe Palestine as southern Syria

For Arabs, the term Palestine was unacceptable. For Muslims it was alien and irrelevant but not abhorrent in the same way as it was to Jews. The main objection for them was that it seemed to assert a separate entity which politically conscious Arabs in Palestine and elsewhere denied. For them there was no such thing as a country called Palestine. The region which the British called Palestine was merely a separated part of a larger whole [of Syria]. For a long time organized and articulate Arab political opinion was virtually unanimous on this point.

With the British conquest in 1917-1918 [After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire] and the subsequent of a mandated territory in the conquered areas, Palestine became the official name of a definite territory. To begin with, this designation was acceptable neither to Jews not ro Arabs. From the Jewish point of view it restored a name associated in the Jewish historic memory with the largely successful Roman attempt to destroy and obliterate the Jewish identity of the land of Israel. It was a name which had never been used in Jewish history or literature, and the very associations of which were hateful. From the outset, Jews living under the Mandate refused to use this name in Hebrew but instead used what had become the common Jewish designation of the country---Eretz Yisrael, the land of Israel. After a long battle, it was agreed that the official designation of the country in Hebrew on postage stamps, coins, etc would be Palestina, transcribed into Hebrew letters but followed by the abbreviation "aleph yod" For Jews, this was a common abbreviation for Eretz Yisrael.

 

[Roudy]

Well, this text dates Akko back to around 3,000 BC. Is that old enough for you?!

"The port city of Akko (also known as Acre) is located on a promontory at the northern end of Haifa Bay. The earliest city was founded during the Bronze Age at Tel Akko (in Arabic Tel el-Fukhar mound of the potsherds), just east of the present-day city. Akko is mentioned in ancient written sources as an important city on the northern coast of the Land of Israel. The wealth of finds, including remains of fortifications uncovered in the excavations at Tel Akko, attest to the long and uninterrupted occupation of the site during biblical times.

The ancient site of Akko was abandoned during the Hellenistic period. A new city named Ptolemais, surrounded by a fortified wall, was built on the site of present-day Akko. The Romans improved and enlarged the natural harbor in the southern part of the city, and constructed a breakwater, thus making it one of the main ports on the eastern Mediterranean coast."

wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age

Well, thanks for providing proof that it was called "land of Israel" and NOT Palestine, even back then. These fools don't even realize when they post something that blows up their own argument.