Debunking the claim that “Palestinians” are the indigenous people of Israel

[bripat9643]

Firstly, I believe the mods typically request that entire articles not be cut and pasted but referenced by link.

I'm guessing that you did not bother to go to the link and look at the source in your haste to spew an anti-mod comment.

Secondly, item 3 from your link, (which is confirmed in various other sources), is in direct contradiction to the wailing that takes place when that fact is presented to the more excitable of the screamers and shouters.

3. Zionist settlement between 1880 and 1948 did not displace or dispossess Palestinians.

And, your point is what exactly?

Lastly, your article should have mentioned that the geographic area of Pal'istan was inhabited. However, it's worth noting that the geographic area was not the formal structure of a "country" as many of the screamers / wailers represent it to be.

And, your point is what exactly?

Joan Peter's was extremely inaccurate as a source for demographics.

Now, if you're arguing that that there was no huge Zionist displacement of Arabs according to available demographic information. I agree.

If you're arguing that Jews are also indiginous and did not spontaniously appear when immigrants came over from Europe. I agree.

You posted far more than 500 words, which is a copyright violation, and no one ever claimed that all the Jews in Israel are indigenous. The point is that most of the so-called "Palestinians" are not indigenous. They are immigrants from other countries.

Where is 500 words a copyright infringement according to the rules of USMB? Here, I'll help you, since you and Holly have clearly NOT gone to the link itself, and seen the extremely long article with the graphs and table.

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

The point is...according to the article from which a posted a "medium" size section, there is no way to prove how many are or are not indiginous, and since your title states that the claim any are is "debunked" ... and you state "most are not indiginous" - your claim is debunked by this information.

There's no need to prove the exact number of so-called "Palestinians" are indigenous. The evidence indicates that the vast majority of them aren't. In fact, because of interbreeding, virtually none of them are indigenous. The so-called "indigenous" Palestinians were swamped by vast numbers if immigrants.

No evidence to support that claim. In fact, even genetically - Palestinians are still very close to the indiginous Jewish population.

It doesn't matter how close they are "genetically." Their genes didn't come from people who lived there before 1948.

 

[P F Tinmore]

A good critique of Joan Peters book, and other issues.

Norman Finkelstein - Legitimate vs. Illegitimate Disagreements on the Israel/Palestine Conflict

 

[Coyote]

I'm guessing that you did not bother to go to the link and look at the source in your haste to spew an anti-mod comment.

And, your point is what exactly?

And, your point is what exactly?

Joan Peter's was extremely inaccurate as a source for demographics.

Now, if you're arguing that that there was no huge Zionist displacement of Arabs according to available demographic information. I agree.

If you're arguing that Jews are also indiginous and did not spontaniously appear when immigrants came over from Europe. I agree.

You posted far more than 500 words, which is a copyright violation, and no one ever claimed that all the Jews in Israel are indigenous. The point is that most of the so-called "Palestinians" are not indigenous. They are immigrants from other countries.

Where is 500 words a copyright infringement according to the rules of USMB? Here, I'll help you, since you and Holly have clearly NOT gone to the link itself, and seen the extremely long article with the graphs and table.

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

The point is...according to the article from which a posted a "medium" size section, there is no way to prove how many are or are not indiginous, and since your title states that the claim any are is "debunked" ... and you state "most are not indiginous" - your claim is debunked by this information.

There's no need to prove the exact number of so-called "Palestinians" are indigenous. The evidence indicates that the vast majority of them aren't. In fact, because of interbreeding, virtually none of them are indigenous. The so-called "indigenous" Palestinians were swamped by vast numbers if immigrants.

No evidence to support that claim. In fact, even genetically - Palestinians are still very close to the indiginous Jewish population.

It doesn't matter how close they are "genetically." Their genes didn't come from people who lived there before 1948.

Are you now claiming that the Palestinians spontaneously appeared in 1948? That those people did not exist before then? That only Jews lived in Palestine region?

 

[Shusha]

Are you now claiming that the Palestinians spontaneously appeared in 1948? That those people did not exist before then? That only Jews lived in Palestine region?

Well, the people existed, obviously. But they were not a distinct culture or national group until after the beginnings of the conflict. Some would say they are not a distinct culture now. I would say their distinction developed because of the conflict. (Which is fine. Conflict is often a catalyst for change and for cementing self and other. There is no crime or problem in the fact that Palestinian identity is a result of the conflict.)

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

OK, this is the (what pilots call) the turn onto the final approach. If we agree that the "rights and title" to the territory were legitimately passed from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic to the Allied Powers, then we also agree that the future of the territory was place in the hands of the Allied Powers (AKA: the parties concerned).

.
•• TO WHOM did Turkey renounce all rights and title over the territory currently being fought over by the Arabs and Israelis?

Wasn't it the Allied Powers...?

(FIRST COMMENT ON THE ORIGINAL QUESTION)

Q: Debunking the claim that “Palestinians” are the indigenous people of Israel: Does this have an impact on the question?

A: No Definitely not! "An official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body." But for all practical purposes, the Arabs had the cultural majority in the region for more than a century.

Notation: The term, as it applies to the question, is itself a question. But I submit that the UN Forum . The resolution on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/C.3/71/L.17/Rev.1) was adopted without a vote on 22 November 2016 at the Third Committee”s 55th Meeting. But is is very clear that the UN Division for Social Policy and Development for Indigenous Peoples think along the lines "that Indigenous Peoples are inheritors and practitioners of unique cultures and ways of relating to people and the environment."

Relative to the Original Posting and Question: This presents a Problem, in that the definition of a "Palestinian" (a nationality descriptor) and the definition of Indigenous Peoples (a cultural descriptor) are apples and oranges. And "Arab Palestinian" could be either a Indigenous or non-Indigenous. Just as there are Jewish natives that could be either Indigenous or non-Indigenous.

You cannot legitimately apply a 21st Century undefined term to decisions made in the first half of the last century.
​

(COMMENT ON THE CURRENT CLARIFICATION)

We can say that the tacit approval on the disposition of the territory in favor of the Jewish People has a greater legitimacy than does the Arab Violence in an attempt to over come the legitimate rights and title of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

Here we go, tripping over these definitions.

Are you now claiming that the Palestinians spontaneously appeared in 1948? That those people did not exist before then? That only Jews lived in Palestine region?

(COMMENT)

In February 1948, when the Arabs declined to participate in the process of addressing the "Step Preparatory to Independence," a Palestinian included both Jewish and Arab Citizens. In 1916, the year of the Balfour Declaration, Arabs of the territory were called Arabs (not Palestinians - Palestine Arab Delegation at the Hotel Cecil in London). Today, the Arabs refer to themselves as Palestinians.

Even today, the Arab Palestinians differ in the meaning of the territorial term, "Palestine."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Even today, the Arab Palestinians differ in the meaning of the territorial term, "Palestine."

It is interesting that Palestinians rarely us the term Israel. They usually call that territory 48. They don't use the term Arab Israelis they are called 48 Palestinians. It is the same for Palestinians in Palestine and here in the US.

Take that for what you will.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Today, the Arabs refer to themselves as Palestinians.

As did the 1925 citizenship order. The Palestinians have been legally Palestinians since the Treaty of Lausanne.

 

[Coyote]

Are you now claiming that the Palestinians spontaneously appeared in 1948? That those people did not exist before then? That only Jews lived in Palestine region?

Well, the people existed, obviously. But they were not a distinct culture or national group until after the beginnings of the conflict. Some would say they are not a distinct culture now. I would say their distinction developed because of the conflict. (Which is fine. Conflict is often a catalyst for change and for cementing self and other. There is no crime or problem in the fact that Palestinian identity is a result of the conflict.)

My beef is certain people tend to claim that they did not exist before as a means of denying them rights. They claim they are mostly immigrants from elsewhere - pretty much the same claim made by others against the Jews. But they aren't - whether they were a culture or not before - they were human beings who were there.

 

[Hollie]

Even today, the Arab Palestinians differ in the meaning of the territorial term, "Palestine."

It is interesting that Palestinians rarely us the term Israel. They usually call that territory 48. They don't use the term Arab Israelis they are called 48 Palestinians. It is the same for Palestinians in Palestine and here in the US.

Take that for what you will.

I'll take it as another tactic used by Arabs-Moslems to deny the existence of Israel. Call it a collective "Baghdad Bob" syndrome where they can shut themselves off from reality and dwell in some alternate universe.

 

[RoccoR]

Hollie, et al,

Actually, this is a controversial position to take.

Even today, the Arab Palestinians differ in the meaning of the territorial term, "Palestine."

It is interesting that Palestinians rarely us the term Israel. They usually call that territory 48. They don't use the term Arab Israelis they are called 48 Palestinians. It is the same for Palestinians in Palestine and here in the US.

Take that for what you will.

I'll take it as another tactic used by Arabs-Moslems to deny the existence of Israel. Call it a collective "Baghdad Bob" syndrome where they can shut themselves off from reality and dwell in some alternate universe.

(COMMENT)

As often as the Arab Palestinian makes claims under international law, there is a dilemma on this issue.

Point ONE:
ARTICLE 6
CONVENTION ON RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES

The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.

Point TWO:
LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO PRIME MINISTER RABIN
September 9, 1993 (Excerpt)

Yitzhak Rabin Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.
... ... ...

Yasser Arafat, Chairman. The Palestine Liberation Organization
​

This recognition issue is just an internal conflict with the people of the West Bank and Gaza Strip that still follow the 1967 Khartoum Resolution (The Three No's).

Given that, in terms of International Laws, both sides pay little heed to the meaning unless it specifically favors their position.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

I see the Zionist bullshitters are at again. The Muslim and Christian Palestinians are descendants of the same people that lived in the area since before Jews arrived in the area. The indigenous people didn't just disappear, they interbred, they changed religions etc., but they are still descendants of the indigenous people in large part, notwithstanding migration and invasion.

 

[montelatici]

Coyote, et al,

Here we go, tripping over these definitions.

Are you now claiming that the Palestinians spontaneously appeared in 1948? That those people did not exist before then? That only Jews lived in Palestine region?

(COMMENT)

In February 1948, when the Arabs declined to participate in the process of addressing the "Step Preparatory to Independence," a Palestinian included both Jewish and Arab Citizens. In 1916, the year of the Balfour Declaration, Arabs of the territory were called Arabs (not Palestinians - Palestine Arab Delegation at the Hotel Cecil in London). Today, the Arabs refer to themselves as Palestinians.

Even today, the Arab Palestinians differ in the meaning of the territorial term, "Palestine."

Most Respectfully,
R

They called themselves the people of Palestine bullshitter.

"Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable...."
https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/48A7E5584EE1403485256CD8006C3FBE

 

[P F Tinmore]

Q: Debunking the claim that “Palestinians” are the indigenous people of Israel: Does this have an impact on the question?

A: No Definitely not! "An official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body." But for all practical purposes, the Arabs had the cultural majority in the region for more than a century.

OK, but what terms did the LoN use?

• inhabited by peoples
• development of such peoples
• tutelage of such peoples
• development of the people
• Certain communities
• wishes of these communities
• interests of the indigenous population.
• in their own countries
• native inhabitants of territories

As you can see, the LoN used several terms to define the people of the place. None of these imply foreigners.

It is true that the population of Palestine was relatively stable all through the Ottoman period. How can anyone say that the do not have rights to that territory? The thought is absurd.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.
... ... ...

Yasser Arafat, Chairman. The Palestine Liberation Organization

This recognition issue is just an internal conflict with the people of the West Bank and Gaza Strip that still follow the 1967 Khartoum Resolution (The Three No's).

Arafat acted without the knowledge or approval of the Palestinians.

 

[Shusha]

My beef is certain people tend to claim that they did not exist before as a means of denying them rights.

You and I have the same beef, then. The fact that they did not exist before has absolutely no significance to the fact that they exist and have rights now.

They claim they are mostly immigrants from elsewhere - pretty much the same claim made by others against the Jews.

Again, I think we agree. Settler migration is a common and normal part of the human experience, with or without the conflict that sometimes arises from it. The fact that people migrate, and migrate for various reasons, should never be a reason to delegitimize an entire peoples, imo.

I honestly think, though, that the reason Team Israel continually points out Arab immigration into Palestine (the geographical area) is to point out the double standard held by Team Palestine in that immigrant Jews are foreigners but immigrant Arabs are "natives". Like you said, its the same claim. But immigrant Arabs are legit while immigrant Jews are thieves.

I also think we have to seriously consider who we call "immigrants". Are returnees immigrants? Why or why not? And again, not hold a double standard there.

But they aren't - whether they were a culture or not before - they were human beings who were there.

Yep. Of course. But one of the questions to ask yourself is why the Arabs could not (still can't) accept "immigrants". What was (is) the problem?

 

[Shusha]

I see the Zionist bullshitters are at again. The Muslim and Christian Palestinians are descendants of the same people that lived in the area since before Jews arrived in the area. The indigenous people didn't just disappear, they interbred, they changed religions etc., but they are still descendants of the indigenous people in large part, notwithstanding migration and invasion.

What's your point? That the indigenous peoples are the ones still living in the territory, notwithstanding migration and invasion? Okay. Then the "indigenous" peoples in Israel will be the ones who, in a hundred years speak Hebrew, practice Judaism, rebuild the Temple, adhere to Torah law and eat kosher. They will be the descendants of the indigenous peoples. They won't disappear -- they will interbreed and change religions and yet (by your definition) they will still be the indigenous peoples.

Do you get my point? You can't defend the indigeniety of a culture as being a mix of originating cultures and migrating and invading cultures while ALSO trying to demand that a culture be free from migration and invasion. You are trying to have it both ways. And you can't have it both ways.

 

[Phoenall]

Coyote, et al,

And I think there in rest some confusion.

Are you saying the Palestinians have no legitimacy then...? There is also legitimacy gained in living in an area for long period of time ("squatters rights" in some laws).

(COMMENT)

• ON THE ONE-HAND: "Squatters Rights" really deals with the abandonment of real property.

• ON THE OTHER HAND: "Rights and Title" really deals with Sovereignty and Independence.

There is question of legitimacy to the land in terms of civil ownership. This is an entirely different matter. And a complicated one at that.

Sovereignty and Independence are not affected by on it. The Ottoman Empire had Sovereignty over the territory for centuries. The Sultan ruled without regard to who lived on the land.

We still have the first question...

•• TO WHOM did Turkey renounce all rights and title over the territory currently being fought over by the Arabs and Israelis?

Most Respectfully,
R

The victors of that aspect of WW1 who happen to be the LoN

 

[Phoenall]

Firstly, I believe the mods typically request that entire articles not be cut and pasted but referenced by link.

I'm guessing that you did not bother to go to the link and look at the source in your haste to spew an anti-mod comment.

Secondly, item 3 from your link, (which is confirmed in various other sources), is in direct contradiction to the wailing that takes place when that fact is presented to the more excitable of the screamers and shouters.

3. Zionist settlement between 1880 and 1948 did not displace or dispossess Palestinians.

And, your point is what exactly?

Lastly, your article should have mentioned that the geographic area of Pal'istan was inhabited. However, it's worth noting that the geographic area was not the formal structure of a "country" as many of the screamers / wailers represent it to be.

And, your point is what exactly?

Joan Peter's was extremely inaccurate as a source for demographics.

Now, if you're arguing that that there was no huge Zionist displacement of Arabs according to available demographic information. I agree.

If you're arguing that Jews are also indiginous and did not spontaniously appear when immigrants came over from Europe. I agree.

You posted far more than 500 words, which is a copyright violation, and no one ever claimed that all the Jews in Israel are indigenous. The point is that most of the so-called "Palestinians" are not indigenous. They are immigrants from other countries.

Where is 500 words a copyright infringement according to the rules of USMB? Here, I'll help you, since you and Holly have clearly NOT gone to the link itself, and seen the extremely long article with the graphs and table.

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

The point is...according to the article from which a posted a "medium" size section, there is no way to prove how many are or are not indiginous, and since your title states that the claim any are is "debunked" ... and you state "most are not indiginous" - your claim is debunked by this information.

There's no need to prove the exact number of so-called "Palestinians" are indigenous. The evidence indicates that the vast majority of them aren't. In fact, because of interbreeding, virtually none of them are indigenous. The so-called "indigenous" Palestinians were swamped by vast numbers if immigrants.

No evidence to support that claim. In fact, even genetically - Palestinians are still very close to the indiginous Jewish population.

Only according to a selected source of information, that has been mostly debunked and proven to be false. The same criteria followed shows that we are closely related to the high apes by the same amount of DNA match.

 

[bripat9643]

You posted far more than 500 words, which is a copyright violation, and no one ever claimed that all the Jews in Israel are indigenous. The point is that most of the so-called "Palestinians" are not indigenous. They are immigrants from other countries.

Where is 500 words a copyright infringement according to the rules of USMB? Here, I'll help you, since you and Holly have clearly NOT gone to the link itself, and seen the extremely long article with the graphs and table.

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

The point is...according to the article from which a posted a "medium" size section, there is no way to prove how many are or are not indiginous, and since your title states that the claim any are is "debunked" ... and you state "most are not indiginous" - your claim is debunked by this information.

There's no need to prove the exact number of so-called "Palestinians" are indigenous. The evidence indicates that the vast majority of them aren't. In fact, because of interbreeding, virtually none of them are indigenous. The so-called "indigenous" Palestinians were swamped by vast numbers if immigrants.

No evidence to support that claim. In fact, even genetically - Palestinians are still very close to the indiginous Jewish population.

It doesn't matter how close they are "genetically." Their genes didn't come from people who lived there before 1948.

Are you now claiming that the Palestinians spontaneously appeared in 1948? That those people did not exist before then? That only Jews lived in Palestine region?

I'm claiming that most of the people who call themselves "Palestinian" are descended from people who lived elsewhere before 1948. They are no more "indigenous" than the Jews who migrated after 1948.