Origins of Palestinians and Jews in Palestine/Israel

Jews maintained a presence throughout the millennia and never truly left. The land was Ottoman territory for 800 years and then fell under British control after WWI, who allocated it to be the Jewish homeland and the international community approved of this. During the 800 years of Ottoman control, they as Muslims, never recognized a Palestine or Palestinian people. Case closed.
 
"Of the 1.7M people of the population living in the country last year (2014), 75% (1.2+M) are considered "Sabras" - native-born Israeli."

Not sure where you are getting your numbers from, but there are more than 1.7 Million Jews living in Israel. But no matter, they are descendants of Jewish migrants who went to Palestine and displaced the native people. It really makes no difference where they were born.

100% of the white South Africans that ruled Apartheid South Africa were native born and had arrived in Africa centuries before. It did not change the fact that they were colonists from another continent.

The Palestinians are the native people of Palestine that were displaced by Jews from elsewhere in the furtherance of a European colonial project. That is just a fact. All the ancillary BS is just that, BS. Taken to the core, it was an European colonial project that resulted in the dispossession of the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine. And, as history has shown, European colonies, especially those in which the Europeans were unable to destroy the native culture or eliminate the native population eventually revert to the natives, notwithstanding the overwhelming military power of the colonial regime.

(REMEMBER)


It does not make any difference whether natives exercised sovereignty or not. The Covenant of the League of Nations makes no distinction, it sets forth that:

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."


and

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

or

"Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population."

No where does it allow for the transfer of a European population to any of the former colonies and territories or for the subjugation of the indigenous populations to a European population in colonial fashion, as was done in Palestine.

In fact, the Covenant reiterates that the the interests of the indigenous population are paramount.

Your dog won't hunt.
Post of the day!
 
Jews maintained a presence throughout the millennia and never truly left. The land was Ottoman territory for 800 years and then fell under British control after WWI, who allocated it to be the Jewish homeland and the international community approved of this. During the 800 years of Ottoman control, they as Muslims, never recognized a Palestine or Palestinian people. Case closed.

The Jews were absent from the area for over 2,000 years and returned as Zionists. Israel,is the result of a European colonial project and has no legitimacy. Case closed.
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, in the context of the comment I made, this was not true. In fact, it is arguable if it is true now.

No indigenous citizen of the territory, that included Palestine, ever exercised sovereignty authority over that territory

It is the people who have sovereignty. Governments or states have sovereignty as an extension of the people. A government derives its legitimacy by the consent of the governed.

External interference that denies the exercise of sovereignty is a crime.
(COMMENT)

Your concept of governance only applies to democracies (of which there are none on the planet at the moment) In which the supreme power Is held completely by the people.

You are very confused. The people (you and me) do not exercise territorial sovereignty in any meaningful way. Under American Law, the Executive Branch exercises issues of territorial sovereignty. But it is not the same for all governments and it has not always been true. Throughout the second millennium, various sovereign powers have had varying forms of government. Clearly, the Middle East has experienced all kinds of government. Until the end of WWI, the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, was subordinate to the Sultan. Clearly, your description was not generally understood under the rule of the Sultan who claimed almost full sovereignty in practical terms.

External Interference is a 20th Century concept. No Middle Eastern Government, within the Region under discussion, was established divorced of external interference; with the Possible exception of Saudi Arabia.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
"Of the 1.7M people of the population living in the country last year (2014), 75% (1.2+M) are considered "Sabras" - native-born Israeli."

Not sure where you are getting your numbers from, but there are more than 1.7 Million Jews living in Israel. But no matter, they are descendants of Jewish migrants who went to Palestine and displaced the native people. It really makes no difference where they were born.

100% of the white South Africans that ruled Apartheid South Africa were native born and had arrived in Africa centuries before. It did not change the fact that they were colonists from another continent.

The Palestinians are the native people of Palestine that were displaced by Jews from elsewhere in the furtherance of a European colonial project. That is just a fact. All the ancillary BS is just that, BS. Taken to the core, it was an European colonial project that resulted in the dispossession of the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine. And, as history has shown, European colonies, especially those in which the Europeans were unable to destroy the native culture or eliminate the native population eventually revert to the natives, notwithstanding the overwhelming military power of the colonial regime.

(REMEMBER)


It does not make any difference whether natives exercised sovereignty or not. The Covenant of the League of Nations makes no distinction, it sets forth that:

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."


and

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

or

"Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population."

No where does it allow for the transfer of a European population to any of the former colonies and territories or for the subjugation of the indigenous populations to a European population in colonial fashion, as was done in Palestine.

In fact, the Covenant reiterates that the the interests of the indigenous population are paramount.

Your dog won't hunt.

Now THATS funny! "Jews displaced the native people of Palestine." And here I actually believed Jews were indigenous Palestinians since antiquity when not a single Muslim even existed, let alone Muslim Palestinians. Very clever those Zionists displacing their own people. Amazing what we can learn here from Monte.
 
The indiginous people of Palestine included Jews, Christians and Muslims (descendents of native peoples who converted to Islam).
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, in the context of the comment I made, this was not true. In fact, it is arguable if it is true now.

No indigenous citizen of the territory, that included Palestine, ever exercised sovereignty authority over that territory

It is the people who have sovereignty. Governments or states have sovereignty as an extension of the people. A government derives its legitimacy by the consent of the governed.

External interference that denies the exercise of sovereignty is a crime.
(COMMENT)

Your concept of governance only applies to democracies (of which there are none on the planet at the moment) In which the supreme power Is held completely by the people.

You are very confused. The people (you and me) do not exercise territorial sovereignty in any meaningful way. Under American Law, the Executive Branch exercises issues of territorial sovereignty. But it is not the same for all governments and it has not always been true. Throughout the second millennium, various sovereign powers have had varying forms of government. Clearly, the Middle East has experienced all kinds of government. Until the end of WWI, the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, was subordinate to the Sultan. Clearly, your description was not generally understood under the rule of the Sultan who claimed almost full sovereignty in practical terms.

External Interference is a 20th Century concept. No Middle Eastern Government, within the Region under discussion, was established divorced of external interference; with the Possible exception of Saudi Arabia.

Most Respectfully,
R

"You are very confused. The people (you and me) do not exercise territorial sovereignty in any meaningful way. Under American Law, the Executive Branch exercises issues of territorial sovereignty. "

You are very, very confused. Kind of like when you claimed the Palestinians were Shia.

Article IV of the U.S Constitution, says in part, “the United States shall guarantee to every state a Republican form of government.” In fact, democracy is not mentioned anywhere in the United States Constitution. We are a republic and in a republic the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and can be exercised by the people, either directly or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specifically delegated. The latter is the case of the United States.

If we were a democracy sovereignty would be in the entire group of citizens. In a republic the sovereignty is in each one of the citizens.
 
montelatici, et al,

Apples and Oranges again.

Article IV of the U.S Constitution, says in part, “the United States shall guarantee to every state a Republican form of government.” In fact, democracy is not mentioned anywhere in the United States Constitution. We are a republic and in a republic the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and can be exercised by the people, either directly or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specifically delegated. The latter is the case of the United States.

If we were a democracy sovereignty would be in the entire group of citizens. In a republic the sovereignty is in each one of the citizens.
(COMMENT)

I was talking about "EXERCISING TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY."

The Constitution of the United States said:
Article IV (Article 4 - States' Relations)
Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2
1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

2: A Person charged in any State with 11

Section 3
1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within theJurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

As you can see, Article IV deals with States Rights. This is where states get their powers.

Sovereignty is NOT mentioned once in the Constitution.

Individual sovereignty is a different thing; a very different conversation.

(APOLOGY)

BY THE WAY: I stand corrected. You are very correct, I did get the population of Israel wrong in Post #20. It doe not change the thrust of the point.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
"Of the 1.7M people of the population living in the country last year (2014), 75% (1.2+M) are considered "Sabras" - native-born Israeli."

Not sure where you are getting your numbers from, but there are more than 1.7 Million Jews living in Israel. But no matter, they are descendants of Jewish migrants who went to Palestine and displaced the native people. It really makes no difference where they were born.

100% of the white South Africans that ruled Apartheid South Africa were native born and had arrived in Africa centuries before. It did not change the fact that they were colonists from another continent.

The Palestinians are the native people of Palestine that were displaced by Jews from elsewhere in the furtherance of a European colonial project. That is just a fact. All the ancillary BS is just that, BS. Taken to the core, it was an European colonial project that resulted in the dispossession of the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine. And, as history has shown, European colonies, especially those in which the Europeans were unable to destroy the native culture or eliminate the native population eventually revert to the natives, notwithstanding the overwhelming military power of the colonial regime.

(REMEMBER)


It does not make any difference whether natives exercised sovereignty or not. The Covenant of the League of Nations makes no distinction, it sets forth that:

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."


and

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

or

"Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population."

No where does it allow for the transfer of a European population to any of the former colonies and territories or for the subjugation of the indigenous populations to a European population in colonial fashion, as was done in Palestine.

In fact, the Covenant reiterates that the the interests of the indigenous population are paramount.

Your dog won't hunt.

Now THATS funny! "Jews displaced the native people of Palestine." And here I actually believed Jews were indigenous Palestinians since antiquity when not a single Muslim even existed, let alone Muslim Palestinians. Very clever those Zionists displacing their own people. Amazing what we can learn here from Monte.

The Jewish Zionist migrants came from Europe to colonize Palestine . The native people, Christian and Muslims, lived in Palestine when the Europeans arrived in Palestine in the late 1880s to begin their colonial project.

Were you unaware of that? You really should bone up on the subject matter before making embarrassing gaffes.
 
Like everyone knows that the European Jews have a close genetic match to the Jews who never left the land than they have to any Europeans. Or like the fact that most of the palestinians come from Egypt and Syria, and not from the land known as Palestine.

Link!

Only zionuts "know" of this fabled genetic link...

The Jews never left the land? Are you sure? You might find that history proves otherwise....

The fact that most Jews came from Europe gives Palestinians from Egypt and Syria closer ties to the land known as Palestine!






Then produce this evidence instead of deflecting and trolling all the time. Show that there was a gap of occupancy during which not one Jew lived as a Jew in the whole of Judea and Samaria. The fact that most Jews didn't come from Europe shows that the ties to the land are greater than those of land grabbing muslim illegal immigrants. The siege of Massada alone proves you wrong, along with the dead sea scrolls and many Jewish cemeteries scattered all throughout Judea and Samaria. But the icing on the cake is the words in the koran and hadiths where mo'mad admits that the land is Jewish and that the Jews have never left their birthright. Occupying the land after taking it by violent means is not the same as sweating blood to defend it.
 
Like everyone knows that the European Jews have a close genetic match to the Jews who never left the land than they have to any Europeans. Or like the fact that most of the palestinians come from Egypt and Syria, and not from the land known as Palestine.
There was nobody living in Palestine until when?






The Romans named it Palestine of course, and they were the Jews who lived there. No arab muslims were in Palestine until 800 years after the Romans called it Palestine, and then they were kicked out and had no sovereignty over Palestine ever again.
That did not answer the question.





Yes it did, just not the answer you wanted to see
 
montelatici, et al,

Of the 1.7M people of the population living in the country last year (2014), 75% (1.2+M) are considered "Sabras" - native-born Israeli.

• Of the Palestinian Refugees, in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), fighting over the "right-of-return:" HOW ANY WERE BORN IN ISRAEL?

• How many of these claimants --- were actually deported or forcible transferred from a previous residence in Israel? (It certainly cannot be as many as there are native Israelis. Why should they be threatened by alien Arabs?)

[Why should the native Palestinians leave their ancestral home to European the offspring of the European newcomers?
(COMMENT)

The question you ask is nebulous. We must narrow it down and be more specific.

• The legality of an action taken in 1918 through 1922, is base on what the law was in 1918 through 1922. To discuss what the law is today and attempt to apply it to the conditions of a near century ago is totally impossible.

• Similarly, the legality of an action taken in 1948 or 1967, must be evaluated in terms of the law and the customary action of nations in the 1948 and 1967 era. You cannot apply more recent laws to events or actions taken a half-century ago.
And it is even more difficult to evaluate the application of customary laws when, the indigenous population, no matter how long they have lived on the territory, never the had sovereignty over the territory.

(REMEMBER)

No indigenous citizen of the territory, that included Palestine, ever exercised sovereignty authority over that territory (not in the second millennium). It could be argued that while there were several period of Arab Rule in the First Millennium, those rules came from all over the region; but were not indigenous. Even Saladin, First Grand Sultan of Egypt and Syria --- Liberator of Jerusalem, was a Kurd from Tikrit. And again, the Ismaili Islamic Caliphate was a Shi'ite sect associated with the Fatimah following (descent from Fatima bin Muhammad, daughter of Islamic prophet PBUH) were from the Hejaz.

Most Respectfully,
R
No indigenous citizen of the territory, that included Palestine, ever exercised sovereignty authority over that territory​

It is the people who have sovereignty. Governments or states have sovereignty as an extension of the people. A government derives its legitimacy by the consent of the governed.

External interference that denies the exercise of sovereignty is a crime.





And as you freely admit the arab muslims did not have sovereignty over the land as the Ottomans held it. They denied the arab muslims any autonomy and kept then down by violent means. As their census shows the Jews outnumbered the arab muslims right up until 1917 when they were defeated, Ottomans and arab muslims alike.
 
"Of the 1.7M people of the population living in the country last year (2014), 75% (1.2+M) are considered "Sabras" - native-born Israeli."

Not sure where you are getting your numbers from, but there are more than 1.7 Million Jews living in Israel. But no matter, they are descendants of Jewish migrants who went to Palestine and displaced the native people. It really makes no difference where they were born.

100% of the white South Africans that ruled Apartheid South Africa were native born and had arrived in Africa centuries before. It did not change the fact that they were colonists from another continent.

The Palestinians are the native people of Palestine that were displaced by Jews from elsewhere in the furtherance of a European colonial project. That is just a fact. All the ancillary BS is just that, BS. Taken to the core, it was an European colonial project that resulted in the dispossession of the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine. And, as history has shown, European colonies, especially those in which the Europeans were unable to destroy the native culture or eliminate the native population eventually revert to the natives, notwithstanding the overwhelming military power of the colonial regime.

(REMEMBER)


It does not make any difference whether natives exercised sovereignty or not. The Covenant of the League of Nations makes no distinction, it sets forth that:

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."


and

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

or

"Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population."

No where does it allow for the transfer of a European population to any of the former colonies and territories or for the subjugation of the indigenous populations to a European population in colonial fashion, as was done in Palestine.

In fact, the Covenant reiterates that the the interests of the indigenous population are paramount.

Your dog won't hunt.

Now THATS funny! "Jews displaced the native people of Palestine." And here I actually believed Jews were indigenous Palestinians since antiquity when not a single Muslim even existed, let alone Muslim Palestinians. Very clever those Zionists displacing their own people. Amazing what we can learn here from Monte.

The Jewish Zionist migrants came from Europe to colonize Palestine . The native people, Christian and Muslims, lived in Palestine when the Europeans arrived in Palestine in the late 1880s to begin their colonial project.

Were you unaware of that? You really should bone up on the subject matter before making embarrassing gaffes.






So what about the 1.2 million that came from the surrounding area in 1948 evicted by arab muslims, then the further 1.5 million that migrated between 1917 and 1967 from the Islamic nations. Until they were stopped because of the claims of genocide and ethnic cleansing that were being spread.
 
Jews maintained a presence throughout the millennia and never truly left. The land was Ottoman territory for 800 years and then fell under British control after WWI, who allocated it to be the Jewish homeland and the international community approved of this. During the 800 years of Ottoman control, they as Muslims, never recognized a Palestine or Palestinian people. Case closed.

The Jews were absent from the area for over 2,000 years and returned as Zionists. Israel,is the result of a European colonial project and has no legitimacy. Case closed.




Evidence as the history books say you are LYING. You do realise that what you have said means that the Jews left Judea and Samaria as far back as 1000 BCE don't you
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, in the context of the comment I made, this was not true. In fact, it is arguable if it is true now.

No indigenous citizen of the territory, that included Palestine, ever exercised sovereignty authority over that territory

It is the people who have sovereignty. Governments or states have sovereignty as an extension of the people. A government derives its legitimacy by the consent of the governed.

External interference that denies the exercise of sovereignty is a crime.
(COMMENT)

Your concept of governance only applies to democracies (of which there are none on the planet at the moment) In which the supreme power Is held completely by the people.

You are very confused. The people (you and me) do not exercise territorial sovereignty in any meaningful way. Under American Law, the Executive Branch exercises issues of territorial sovereignty. But it is not the same for all governments and it has not always been true. Throughout the second millennium, various sovereign powers have had varying forms of government. Clearly, the Middle East has experienced all kinds of government. Until the end of WWI, the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, was subordinate to the Sultan. Clearly, your description was not generally understood under the rule of the Sultan who claimed almost full sovereignty in practical terms.

External Interference is a 20th Century concept. No Middle Eastern Government, within the Region under discussion, was established divorced of external interference; with the Possible exception of Saudi Arabia.

Most Respectfully,
R






Try the Isle of Man that has the only true democracy, and it meets once a year to discuss what is needed
 
The indiginous people of Palestine included Jews, Christians and Muslims (descendents of native peoples who converted to Islam).






NOPE as right up until 1960 the only Palestinians were the Jews, then the Russians told Arafat that he needed a name to give his cause credibility. To call an arab muslim a Palestinian before this time was a serious insult that would result in your blood being spilt.
 
15th post
The indiginous people of Palestine included Jews, Christians and Muslims (descendents of native peoples who converted to Islam).






NOPE as right up until 1960 the only Palestinians were the Jews, then the Russians told Arafat that he needed a name to give his cause credibility. To call an arab muslim a Palestinian before this time was a serious insult that would result in your blood being spilt.
So when did the Christians become Palestinian?
 
The indiginous people of Palestine included Jews, Christians and Muslims (descendents of native peoples who converted to Islam).






NOPE as right up until 1960 the only Palestinians were the Jews, then the Russians told Arafat that he needed a name to give his cause credibility. To call an arab muslim a Palestinian before this time was a serious insult that would result in your blood being spilt.
So when did the Christians become Palestinian?






Did they ever become Palestinians, or did they just take on the name for clarity. The facts remain that from the time of the Roman conquest right up until 1960 the only Palestinians were the Jews. The muslims were Syrians and the Christians were Christians by their own words.
 
The indiginous people of Palestine included Jews, Christians and Muslims (descendents of native peoples who converted to Islam).






NOPE as right up until 1960 the only Palestinians were the Jews, then the Russians told Arafat that he needed a name to give his cause credibility. To call an arab muslim a Palestinian before this time was a serious insult that would result in your blood being spilt.
So when did the Christians become Palestinian?






Did they ever become Palestinians, or did they just take on the name for clarity. The facts remain that from the time of the Roman conquest right up until 1960 the only Palestinians were the Jews. The muslims were Syrians and the Christians were Christians by their own words.

That's completely false.

From: Palestinians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dowty, Alan (2008). Israel/Palestine.
Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries; since they seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture.

‘Genetic Disease in Palestine and Palestinians,’ in Dhavendra Kuma (ed.) Genomics and Health in the Developing World, OUP 2012 pp.700-711, p.700.
Palestinians are an indigenous people who either live in, or originate from, historical Palestine... Although the Muslims guaranteed security and allowed religious freedom to all inhabitants of the region, the majority converted to Islam and adopted Arab culture.' Bassam Abu-Libdeh, Peter D. Turnpenny, and Ahmed Teebi, ‘Genetic Disease in Palestine and Palestinians,’ in Dhavendra Kuma (ed.) Genomics and Health in the Developing World, OUP 2012 pp.700-711, p.700.

David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi claimed that the population at the time of the Arab conquest was mainly Christian, of Jewish origins, which underwent conversion to avoid a tax burden, basing their argument on 'the fact that at the time of the Arab conquest, the population of Palestine was mainly Christian, and that during the Crusaders’ conquest some four hundred years later, it was mainly Muslim. As neither the Byzantines nor the Muslims carried out any large-scale population resettlement projects, the Christians were the offspring of the Jewish and Samaritan farmers who converted to Christianity in the Byzantine period; while the Muslim fellaheen in Palestine in modern times are descendants of those Christians who were the descendants of Jews, and had turned to Islam before the Crusaders’ conquest.’ Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine,634-1099 Cambridge University Press, (1983) 1997 pp.222-3

'The process of Arabization and Islamization was gaining momentum there. It was one of the mainstays of Umayyad power and was important in their struggle against both Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula.... Conversions arising from convenience as well as conviction then increased. These conversions to Islam, together with a steady tribal inflow from the desert, changed the religious character of Palestine’s inhabitants. The predominantly Christian population gradually became predominantly Muslim and Arabic-speaking. At the same time, during the early years of Muslim control of the city, a small permanent Jewish population returned to Jerusalem after a 500-year absence.' Encyclopedia Britannica, Palestine,'From the Arab Conquest to 1900,'.

'While population transfers were effected in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian periods, most of the indigenous population remained in place. Moreover, after Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 the population by and large remained in situ, and did so again after Bar Kochba's revolt in AD 135. When the vast majority of the population became Christian during the Byzantine period, no vast number were driven out, and similarly in the seventh century, when the vast majority became Muslim, few were driven from the land. Palestine has been multi-cultural and multi ethnic from the beginning, as one can read between the lines even in the biblical narrative. Many Palestinian Jews became Christians, and in turn Muslims. Ironically, many of the forebears of Palestinian Arab refugees may well have been Jewish.'Michael Prior,Zionism and the State of Israel: A Moral Inquiry, Psychology Press 1999 p.201

'the word 'Arab' needs to be used with care. It is applicable to the Bedouin and to a section of the urban and effendi classes; it is inappropriate as a description of the rural mass of the population, the fellaheen. The whole population spoke Arabic, usually corrupted by dialects bearing traces of words of other origin, but it was only the Bedouin who habitually thought of themselves as Arabs. Western travelers from the sixteenth century onwards make the same distinction, and the word 'Arab' almost always refers to them exclusively. . .Gradually it was realized that there remained a substantial stratum of the pre-Israelite peasantry, and that the oldest element among the peasants were not 'Arabs' in the sense of having entered the country with or after the conquerors of the seventh century, had been there already when the Arabs came.' James Parkes, Whose Land? A History of the Peoples of Palestine,(1949) rev.ed.Penguin, 1970 pp.209-210.​
 
montelatici, et al,

Apples and Oranges again.

Article IV of the U.S Constitution, says in part, “the United States shall guarantee to every state a Republican form of government.” In fact, democracy is not mentioned anywhere in the United States Constitution. We are a republic and in a republic the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and can be exercised by the people, either directly or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specifically delegated. The latter is the case of the United States.

If we were a democracy sovereignty would be in the entire group of citizens. In a republic the sovereignty is in each one of the citizens.
(COMMENT)

I was talking about "EXERCISING TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY."

The Constitution of the United States said:
Article IV (Article 4 - States' Relations)
Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2
1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

2: A Person charged in any State with 11

Section 3
1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within theJurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

As you can see, Article IV deals with States Rights. This is where states get their powers.

Sovereignty is NOT mentioned once in the Constitution.

Individual sovereignty is a different thing; a very different conversation.

(APOLOGY)

BY THE WAY: I stand corrected. You are very correct, I did get the population of Israel wrong in Post #20. It doe not change the thrust of the point.

Most Respectfully,
R


Sovereignty and from whence it flows does not have to be mentioned. It is an intrinsic characteristic of the U.S. republic.
 
Back
Top Bottom