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

[montelatici]

Yes,

The early Zionists knew who the indigenous people were, they knew that the Muslim and Christian Arabs were the indigenous people and planned, from the beginning, to steal the land from them. The revisionist propaganda is designed to justify the expropriation and ethnic cleansing of said indigenous people, the Muslims and Christians.

Monte, I gotta hand it to you, you often make a better argument for my side than I do.

See, this is EXACTLY why the Arab Muslims had to give a negative meaning to "Zionism" -- so they could sell the narrative that the Jewish people and "Zionists" are somehow disconnected from each other and not the same people. In fact, it is imperative to the Arab narrative that this disconnection happen. Elsewise, people will start to realize .... "Hey, wait a minute. The Jewish people were there in the land before the Arabs and Christians, the Arabs and the Christians invaded and conquered the Jewish people, the Jewish people ARE the indigenous people. Its rather self-evident.

The early Jewish people knew who the indigenous people were.... Yep. They sure did.

Yes they did. You just have never read the source documents. Vladimir Jabotinsky, an influential Zionist, knew full well, for example.

The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)
by Vladimir Jabotinsky
The Jewish Herald
November 26, 1937

"......The inhabitants fought the white settlers not out of fear that they might be expropriated, but simply because there has never been an indigenous inhabitant anywhere or at any time who has ever accepted the settlement of others in his country. Any native people – its all the same whether they are civilized or savage – views their country as their national home, of which they will always be the complete masters. They will not voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new partner.

And so it is for the Arabs. Compromisers in our midst attempt to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked by a softened formulation of our goals, or a tribe of money grubbers who will abandon their birthright to Palestine for cultural and economic gains. I flatly reject this assessment of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are 500 years behind us, spiritually they do not have our endurance or our strength of will, but this exhausts all of the internal differences.

We can talk as much as we want about our good intentions; but they understand as well as we what is not good for them. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile. This childish fantasy of our "Arabo-philes" comes from some kind of contempt for the Arab people, of some kind of unfounded view of this race as a rabble ready to be bribed in order to sell out their homeland for a railroad network.

This view is absolutely groundless. Individual Arabs may perhaps be bought off but this hardly means that all the Arabs in Eretz Israel are willing to sell a patriotism that not even Papuans will trade. Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement. That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of "Palestine" into the "Land of Israel"...."

The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)

You always manage to waste a lot your time (and bandwidth), with these long cut and paste dumps. What you don't understand is the Arab-Moslem squatters / colonists you like to call "indigenous Arabs" were just a more recent collection of invaders.

You have never studied the history of the area and you don't understand that the owners of much of your invented "country of Pal'istan" were the Ottoman Turks and secondarily, foreigners.

While you find the facts disagreeable, those are facts.

Just facts, while you make things up. The Zionists themselves stated that the Arabs were the indigenous inhabitants, who are you to disagree?

 

[Shusha]

Yes they did. You just have never read the source documents.

Sweeties, I most surely have read the source documents. Did you want to start with the archaeological inscriptions, then?

 

[Hollie]

Yes,

The early Zionists knew who the indigenous people were, they knew that the Muslim and Christian Arabs were the indigenous people and planned, from the beginning, to steal the land from them. The revisionist propaganda is designed to justify the expropriation and ethnic cleansing of said indigenous people, the Muslims and Christians.

Monte, I gotta hand it to you, you often make a better argument for my side than I do.

See, this is EXACTLY why the Arab Muslims had to give a negative meaning to "Zionism" -- so they could sell the narrative that the Jewish people and "Zionists" are somehow disconnected from each other and not the same people. In fact, it is imperative to the Arab narrative that this disconnection happen. Elsewise, people will start to realize .... "Hey, wait a minute. The Jewish people were there in the land before the Arabs and Christians, the Arabs and the Christians invaded and conquered the Jewish people, the Jewish people ARE the indigenous people. Its rather self-evident.

The early Jewish people knew who the indigenous people were.... Yep. They sure did.

Yes they did. You just have never read the source documents. Vladimir Jabotinsky, an influential Zionist, knew full well, for example.

The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)
by Vladimir Jabotinsky
The Jewish Herald
November 26, 1937

"......The inhabitants fought the white settlers not out of fear that they might be expropriated, but simply because there has never been an indigenous inhabitant anywhere or at any time who has ever accepted the settlement of others in his country. Any native people – its all the same whether they are civilized or savage – views their country as their national home, of which they will always be the complete masters. They will not voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new partner.

And so it is for the Arabs. Compromisers in our midst attempt to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked by a softened formulation of our goals, or a tribe of money grubbers who will abandon their birthright to Palestine for cultural and economic gains. I flatly reject this assessment of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are 500 years behind us, spiritually they do not have our endurance or our strength of will, but this exhausts all of the internal differences.

We can talk as much as we want about our good intentions; but they understand as well as we what is not good for them. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile. This childish fantasy of our "Arabo-philes" comes from some kind of contempt for the Arab people, of some kind of unfounded view of this race as a rabble ready to be bribed in order to sell out their homeland for a railroad network.

This view is absolutely groundless. Individual Arabs may perhaps be bought off but this hardly means that all the Arabs in Eretz Israel are willing to sell a patriotism that not even Papuans will trade. Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement. That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of "Palestine" into the "Land of Israel"...."

The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)

You always manage to waste a lot your time (and bandwidth), with these long cut and paste dumps. What you don't understand is the Arab-Moslem squatters / colonists you like to call "indigenous Arabs" were just a more recent collection of invaders.

You have never studied the history of the area and you don't understand that the owners of much of your invented "country of Pal'istan" were the Ottoman Turks and secondarily, foreigners.

While you find the facts disagreeable, those are facts.

Just facts, while you make things up. The Zionists themselves stated that the Arabs were the indigenous inhabitants, who are you to disagree?

Just providing facts which you have insulated yourself from. The kingpin of Arab-Moslem terrorists has stated that Pal'istanians are invented. I have no reason to disagree.

 

[montelatici]

Making things up again. The same old Zionist bullshit claiming that there are no Palestinians. No one believes that.

 

[Hollie]

Making things up again. The same old Zionist bullshit claiming that there are no Palestinians. No one believes that.

The same old Islamist slogans. Arab-Moslem invaders / colonists somehow became citizens of a "country of Pal'istan" who have invented and believe existed.

Who believes that?

 

[montelatici]

Yes they did. You just have never read the source documents.

Sweeties, I most surely have read the source documents. Did you want to start with the archaeological inscriptions, then?

View attachment 103218

What does that have to do with Europeans? The people that made those inscriptions are the ancestors of the native Muslims and Christians of Palestine, not Europeans.

 

[Hollie]

Yes they did. You just have never read the source documents.

Sweeties, I most surely have read the source documents. Did you want to start with the archaeological inscriptions, then?

View attachment 103218

What does that have to do with Europeans? The people that made those inscriptions are the ancestors of the native Muslims and Christians of Palestine, not Europeans.

Good boy. And who were the "ancestors" of the invader / colonist Arabs/moslems?

 

[bripat9643]

Again, why do we need a special term, with negative connotation, for Jewish self-determination and sovereignty?

Should we invent a special term for Catalan self-determination? Or Tibetan? Or Kurdish? Or Palestinian? How about AlQudsism?

Let's take some examples from today:

My experience is that the AlQudists lie.

It is clear that the AlQudists knew full well that the indigenous peoples were the Jews, were aware that the land was populated and that they had a superiority complex that all Arabs had vis-a-vis the native indigenous population of Israel.

The early Zionists knew who the indigenous people were, they knew that the Muslim and Christian Arabs were the indigenous people and planned, from the beginning, to steal the land from them. The revisionist propaganda is designed to justify the expropriation and ethnic cleansing of said indigenous people, the Muslims and Christians.

Your antisemitic cloven hoof is showing.

Just facts, nothing antisemitic about presenting facts.

Right, douche bag, you didn't accuse the Jews of being thieves and mass murderers.

Here's a fact: virtually everyone who uses the term "Zionist" is an antisemite.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Again, why do we need a special term, with negative connotation, for Jewish self-determination and sovereignty?

Should we invent a special term for Catalan self-determination? Or Tibetan? Or Kurdish? Or Palestinian? How about AlQudsism?

Let's take some examples from today:

My experience is that the AlQudists lie.

It is clear that the AlQudists knew full well that the indigenous peoples were the Jews, were aware that the land was populated and that they had a superiority complex that all Arabs had vis-a-vis the native indigenous population of Israel.

The early Zionists knew who the indigenous people were, they knew that the Muslim and Christian Arabs were the indigenous people and planned, from the beginning, to steal the land from them. The revisionist propaganda is designed to justify the expropriation and ethnic cleansing of said indigenous people, the Muslims and Christians.

Your antisemitic cloven hoof is showing.

Just facts, nothing antisemitic about presenting facts.

Right, douche bag, you didn't accuse the Jews of being thieves and mass murderers.

Here's a fact: virtually everyone who uses the term "Zionist" is an antisemite.

The antisemite card is no longer the ace of trump.

 

[bripat9643]

Again, why do we need a special term, with negative connotation, for Jewish self-determination and sovereignty?

Should we invent a special term for Catalan self-determination? Or Tibetan? Or Kurdish? Or Palestinian? How about AlQudsism?

Let's take some examples from today:

My experience is that the AlQudists lie.

It is clear that the AlQudists knew full well that the indigenous peoples were the Jews, were aware that the land was populated and that they had a superiority complex that all Arabs had vis-a-vis the native indigenous population of Israel.

The early Zionists knew who the indigenous people were, they knew that the Muslim and Christian Arabs were the indigenous people and planned, from the beginning, to steal the land from them. The revisionist propaganda is designed to justify the expropriation and ethnic cleansing of said indigenous people, the Muslims and Christians.

Your antisemitic cloven hoof is showing.

Just facts, nothing antisemitic about presenting facts.

Right, douche bag, you didn't accuse the Jews of being thieves and mass murderers.

Here's a fact: virtually everyone who uses the term "Zionist" is an antisemite.

The antisemite card is no longer the ace of trump.

What does Trump have to do with the fact that you're an antisemite?

 

[Shusha]

What does that have to do with Europeans?

Wrong question. The true question is why you can't draw a straight line between the Hebrew peoples of 3000 years ago and the Hebrew (Jewish) people of today. Why do you need to break the line?

 

[P F Tinmore]

What does that have to do with Europeans?

Wrong question. The true question is why you can't draw a straight line between the Hebrew peoples of 3000 years ago and the Hebrew (Jewish) people of today. Why do you need to break the line?

How many Jews can trace their ancestry back to the holy land?

What land did they own?

Links?

 

[bripat9643]

What does that have to do with Europeans?

Wrong question. The true question is why you can't draw a straight line between the Hebrew peoples of 3000 years ago and the Hebrew (Jewish) people of today. Why do you need to break the line?

How many Jews can trace their ancestry back to the holy land?

What land did they own?

Links?

How many people can trace their ancestry back 2000 years? None. Most can't even trace it back 200 years. However, their DNA will show that Jews are descended from the tribe that inhabited Israel in 0 A.D.

 

[Shusha]

How many Jews can trace their ancestry back to the holy land?

There are at least three answers to that.

The first is none of us. Not one of us on the whole planet have the resources or capability or knowledge to definitely know, beyond a doubt, using any sort of science at our disposal, where our ancestors were living three thousand years ago. It is an impossibility. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.

The second is all of us. Every one. From a religious standpoint, every Jew stood, personally, at Mt. Sinai and heard and accepted the covenant from our G-d. That is why we were born Jews or chose to become Jews. Because our souls were already present and given to and accepted into the covenant.

The third is those who choose to be there. Whether it is through some sort of fate, or family or personal choice, we have chosen to be a part of the Jewish culture. The mark of belonging to a culture is belonging to a culture. It is not a product of skin color or hair color or genetic material. It doesn't matter if you and your fathers and your grandfathers have lived on the land for three thousand years, or if you and your fathers and your grandfathers have lived in Europe for a hundred years of a thousand, or if you converted when you married your wife ten years ago or if you converted last week.

The measure of belonging to a culture is belonging to a culture. What language do you speak? What holidays do you celebrate? What life events do you celebrate? What religious practices do you hold? What laws do you follow? What cultural traditions do you follow? What special foods do you eat? What special clothes do you eat?

Personally, I think the first two are not valid reasons to formulate a national self-determination. I also don't think physical possession of territory is the be all and end all of national self-determination.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

How many Jews can trace their ancestry back to the holy land?

There are at least three answers to that.

The first is none of us. Not one of us on the whole planet have the resources or capability or knowledge to definitely know, beyond a doubt, using any sort of science at our disposal, where our ancestors were living three thousand years ago. It is an impossibility. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.

The second is all of us. Every one. From a religious standpoint, every Jew stood, personally, at Mt. Sinai and heard and accepted the covenant from our G-d. That is why we were born Jews or chose to become Jews. Because our souls were already present and given to and accepted into the covenant.

The third is those who choose to be there. Whether it is through some sort of fate, or family or personal choice, we have chosen to be a part of the Jewish culture. The mark of belonging to a culture is belonging to a culture. It is not a product of skin color or hair color or genetic material. It doesn't matter if you and your fathers and your grandfathers have lived on the land for three thousand years, or if you and your fathers and your grandfathers have lived in Europe for a hundred years of a thousand, or if you converted when you married your wife ten years ago or if you converted last week.

The measure of belonging to a culture is belonging to a culture. What language do you speak? What holidays do you celebrate? What life events do you celebrate? What religious practices do you hold? What laws do you follow? What cultural traditions do you follow? What special foods do you eat? What special clothes do you eat?

Personally, I think the first two are not valid reasons to formulate a national self-determination. I also don't think physical possession of territory is the be all and end all of national self-determination.

Haha, first I've heard of ppl eating clothes. Just kidding! ;-)

 

[Phoenall]

Yes,

The early Zionists knew who the indigenous people were, they knew that the Muslim and Christian Arabs were the indigenous people and planned, from the beginning, to steal the land from them. The revisionist propaganda is designed to justify the expropriation and ethnic cleansing of said indigenous people, the Muslims and Christians.

Monte, I gotta hand it to you, you often make a better argument for my side than I do.

See, this is EXACTLY why the Arab Muslims had to give a negative meaning to "Zionism" -- so they could sell the narrative that the Jewish people and "Zionists" are somehow disconnected from each other and not the same people. In fact, it is imperative to the Arab narrative that this disconnection happen. Elsewise, people will start to realize .... "Hey, wait a minute. The Jewish people were there in the land before the Arabs and Christians, the Arabs and the Christians invaded and conquered the Jewish people, the Jewish people ARE the indigenous people. Its rather self-evident.

The early Jewish people knew who the indigenous people were.... Yep. They sure did.

Yes they did. You just have never read the source documents. Vladimir Jabotinsky, an influential Zionist, knew full well, for example.

The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)
by Vladimir Jabotinsky
The Jewish Herald
November 26, 1937

"......The inhabitants fought the white settlers not out of fear that they might be expropriated, but simply because there has never been an indigenous inhabitant anywhere or at any time who has ever accepted the settlement of others in his country. Any native people – its all the same whether they are civilized or savage – views their country as their national home, of which they will always be the complete masters. They will not voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new partner.

And so it is for the Arabs. Compromisers in our midst attempt to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked by a softened formulation of our goals, or a tribe of money grubbers who will abandon their birthright to Palestine for cultural and economic gains. I flatly reject this assessment of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are 500 years behind us, spiritually they do not have our endurance or our strength of will, but this exhausts all of the internal differences.

We can talk as much as we want about our good intentions; but they understand as well as we what is not good for them. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile. This childish fantasy of our "Arabo-philes" comes from some kind of contempt for the Arab people, of some kind of unfounded view of this race as a rabble ready to be bribed in order to sell out their homeland for a railroad network.

This view is absolutely groundless. Individual Arabs may perhaps be bought off but this hardly means that all the Arabs in Eretz Israel are willing to sell a patriotism that not even Papuans will trade. Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement. That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of "Palestine" into the "Land of Israel"...."

The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)

ALTERING THE FACTS AGAIN TO MEET WITH YOUR POV, THIS MUST BE A BREACH OF THE RULES THAT WARRANTS A BAN. THE PRECEEDING WORDS TO YOUR CUT AND PASTE ARE

Another point which had no effect at all was whether or not there existed a suspicion that the settler wished to remove the inhabitant from his land. The vast areas of the U.S. never contained more than one or two million Indians.

So nothing at all to do with the I/P conflict and as such a deflection/derailment of the thread because you are losing the argument.



And it is from the heyday of nazism as this was written in 1937 and as such is old news that has no context in todays existence.

 

[Phoenall]

Again, why do we need a special term, with negative connotation, for Jewish self-determination and sovereignty?

Should we invent a special term for Catalan self-determination? Or Tibetan? Or Kurdish? Or Palestinian? How about AlQudsism?

Let's take some examples from today:

My experience is that the AlQudists lie.

It is clear that the AlQudists knew full well that the indigenous peoples were the Jews, were aware that the land was populated and that they had a superiority complex that all Arabs had vis-a-vis the native indigenous population of Israel.

The early Zionists knew who the indigenous people were, they knew that the Muslim and Christian Arabs were the indigenous people and planned, from the beginning, to steal the land from them. The revisionist propaganda is designed to justify the expropriation and ethnic cleansing of said indigenous people, the Muslims and Christians.

Your antisemitic cloven hoof is showing.

Just facts, nothing antisemitic about presenting facts.

WRONG it is the manner and context in which you present the "facts" that matters. In your case it is blatant anti semitism and racism

 

[there4eyeM]

Being Semitic, the 'Palestinians' are related to the other Semites that have been in the Middle East since that group, the Semites, arrived there thousands of years ago.

 

[montelatici]

What does that have to do with Europeans?

Wrong question. The true question is why you can't draw a straight line between the Hebrew peoples of 3000 years ago and the Hebrew (Jewish) people of today. Why do you need to break the line?

How many Jews can trace their ancestry back to the holy land?

What land did they own?

Links?

How many people can trace their ancestry back 2000 years? None. Most can't even trace it back 200 years. However, their DNA will show that Jews are descended from the tribe that inhabited Israel in 0 A.D.

The DNA will show no such thing.

" While the Jewish religion began in the Near East, and the Ashkenazi Jews were believed to have origins in the early indigenous tribes of this region, new evidence from mitochondrial DNA, which is passed on exclusively from mother to child, suggests that female ancestors of most modern Ashkenazi Jews converted to Judaism in the north Mediterranean around 2,000 years ago and later in west and central Europe."

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...21/title/Genetic-Roots-of-the-Ashkenazi-Jews/

"The closest genetic relatives of the European group of Jews are Northern Italians, followed by Sardinians and French."

read more: Blood brothers: Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots

" at least 80 percent of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry comes from women indigenous to Europe while 8 percent originated in the Near East, with the rest uncertain.

Ashkenazi Jewish women descended mostly from Italian converts, new study asserts | Genetic Literacy Project

The Palestinians (Muslim and Christian) are genetically closer to being of Middle Eastern origin than Jews in general, not only vis-a-vis European Jews.

 

[montelatici]

How many Jews can trace their ancestry back to the holy land?

There are at least three answers to that.

The first is none of us. Not one of us on the whole planet have the resources or capability or knowledge to definitely know, beyond a doubt, using any sort of science at our disposal, where our ancestors were living three thousand years ago. It is an impossibility. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.

The second is all of us. Every one. From a religious standpoint, every Jew stood, personally, at Mt. Sinai and heard and accepted the covenant from our G-d. That is why we were born Jews or chose to become Jews. Because our souls were already present and given to and accepted into the covenant.

The third is those who choose to be there. Whether it is through some sort of fate, or family or personal choice, we have chosen to be a part of the Jewish culture. The mark of belonging to a culture is belonging to a culture. It is not a product of skin color or hair color or genetic material. It doesn't matter if you and your fathers and your grandfathers have lived on the land for three thousand years, or if you and your fathers and your grandfathers have lived in Europe for a hundred years of a thousand, or if you converted when you married your wife ten years ago or if you converted last week.

The measure of belonging to a culture is belonging to a culture. What language do you speak? What holidays do you celebrate? What life events do you celebrate? What religious practices do you hold? What laws do you follow? What cultural traditions do you follow? What special foods do you eat? What special clothes do you eat?

Personally, I think the first two are not valid reasons to formulate a national self-determination. I also don't think physical possession of territory is the be all and end all of national self-determination.

I can choose to become Hindu, but that does not give me the right to evict a Muslim Indian from his house. LOL