'Palestinian'

[montelatici]

The only people that had the legal right to self determination in Palestine, pursuant to the LoN, were the inhabitants of Palestine at the time of signing of the LoN. The inhabitants of Palestine practiced different religions at the time, Judaism included. People that practiced these religions that were not inhabitants, did not have the right to self-determination in Palestine. It's really quite simple, the LoN did not envision the colonization of Palestine by Europeans, for example.

You haven't been keeping up with the discussion on this thread. rylah brought all kinds of proofs and links to prove that the Arabs of Palestine came from different Arab tribes from Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, etc. All the proof was so overwhelming that Tinmore claimed that he was an American despite the fact that his grandparents came from Scotland and Germany; therefore Palestinians whose grandparents came from Egypt are still Palestinians. I then called Tinmore a hypocrite and asked why then can't my cousins, whose grandparents came from Poland after WW2, not be called Israelis? Then you come along and say that the Palestinians are direct descendants from the Canaanites of long ago. Tinmore had already conceded, by that point, that the Arabs of Palestine came from all over Arabia and the Middle East. Try to keep up!

There was no proof at all, just Zionist propaganda. But it really doesn't matter, the LoN was clear that the inhabitants were to be protected and receive the tutelage to achieve self-determination. The inhabitants were 95% Christians and Muslims. The Europeans were not inhabitants. Get it?

 

[Challenger]

The Arabs in Palestine at the time were still pursuing the the Syrian self determination, Jews were pursuing self determination in Palestine.

Zionists were pursuing a nationalist colonialst agenda disguised as a persuit of "self-determination" for a religious group composed of varying European ethnicities with only a very tenuous link to Palestine, based on their book of fables.

The link is very intense, not "tenuous." And when you say "book of fables" what are you talking about? If you're talking about the Garden of Eden, the Flood or the Tower of Babel, then that's a matter of debate between believers and unbelievers. If you're saying that there was no Kingdom of Judea that was defeated by the Romans in 70 CE, then you're out of your mind, as history contradicts you.

The link was made up by Zionists creating the myth of a Jewish "nation" in Palestine, cynically using biblical mythology and perverting the tenets of Judaism to invent a link between European converts to Judaism to a place they had no historical or ethnic ties to.

As for history, there was no "Kingdom of Judea" to be defeated by Romans, it was a Roman province in which a group of religious extremist terrorists fomented a rebellion which was crushed...a bit like IS today.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

The Arabs in Palestine at the time were still pursuing the the Syrian self determination, Jews were pursuing self determination in Palestine.

Zionists were pursuing a nationalist colonialst agenda disguised as a persuit of "self-determination" for a religious group composed of varying European ethnicities with only a very tenuous link to Palestine, based on their book of fables.

The link is very intense, not "tenuous." And when you say "book of fables" what are you talking about? If you're talking about the Garden of Eden, the Flood or the Tower of Babel, then that's a matter of debate between believers and unbelievers. If you're saying that there was no Kingdom of Judea that was defeated by the Romans in 70 CE, then you're out of your mind, as history contradicts you.

The link was made up by Zionists creating the myth of a Jewish "nation" in Palestine, cynically using biblical mythology and perverting the tenets of Judaism to invent a link between European converts to Judaism to a place they had no historical or ethnic ties to.

As for history, there was no "Kingdom of Judea" to be defeated by Romans, it was a Roman province in which a group of religious extremist terrorists fomented a rebellion which was crushed...a bit like IS today.

So basically what you are saying is that there were no Kingdoms of Israel and Judah during Biblical times, and furthermore that there was no Maccabean Kingdom of Judea prior to it being turned into a Roman puppet state during the time of King Herod. OK.

 

[rylah]

The only people that had the legal right to self determination in Palestine, pursuant to the LoN, were the inhabitants of Palestine at the time of signing of the LoN. The inhabitants of Palestine practiced different religions at the time, Judaism included. People that practiced these religions that were not inhabitants, did not have the right to self-determination in Palestine. It's really quite simple, the LoN did not envision the colonization of Palestine by Europeans, for example.

You haven't been keeping up with the discussion on this thread. rylah brought all kinds of proofs and links to prove that the Arabs of Palestine came from different Arab tribes from Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, etc. All the proof was so overwhelming that Tinmore claimed that he was an American despite the fact that his grandparents came from Scotland and Germany; therefore Palestinians whose grandparents came from Egypt are still Palestinians. I then called Tinmore a hypocrite and asked why then can't my cousins, whose grandparents came from Poland after WW2, not be called Israelis? Then you come along and say that the Palestinians are direct descendants from the Canaanites of long ago. Tinmore had already conceded, by that point, that the Arabs of Palestine came from all over Arabia and the Middle East. Try to keep up!

There was no proof at all, just Zionist propaganda. But it really doesn't matter, the LoN was clear that the inhabitants were to be protected and receive the tutelage to achieve self-determination. The inhabitants were 95% Christians and Muslims. The Europeans were not inhabitants. Get it?

Of course Europeans were inhabitants too, Bushnaks are Bosnian Palestinians and they were the ruling class, as other notable families of Arabian tribes and North African immigrants. These people are still dominating the Palestinian ruling class today.

The LoN was also clear on the establishing a national home for the Jews, there was no mention of a 'Palestinian national home' as far as I know, because the Arabs did not want another country for their own, they identified as Syrians and wanted to continue their colonial project in the ME.

 

[rylah]

The Arabs in Palestine at the time were still pursuing the the Syrian self determination, Jews were pursuing self determination in Palestine.

Zionists were pursuing a nationalist colonialst agenda disguised as a persuit of "self-determination" for a religious group composed of varying European ethnicities with only a very tenuous link to Palestine, based on their book of fables.

The link is very intense, not "tenuous." And when you say "book of fables" what are you talking about? If you're talking about the Garden of Eden, the Flood or the Tower of Babel, then that's a matter of debate between believers and unbelievers. If you're saying that there was no Kingdom of Judea that was defeated by the Romans in 70 CE, then you're out of your mind, as history contradicts you.

The link was made up by Zionists creating the myth of a Jewish "nation" in Palestine, cynically using biblical mythology and perverting the tenets of Judaism to invent a link between European converts to Judaism to a place they had no historical or ethnic ties to.

As for history, there was no "Kingdom of Judea" to be defeated by Romans, it was a Roman province in which a group of religious extremist terrorists fomented a rebellion which was crushed...a bit like IS today.

Mythology and heritage are among the main properties that define an ethnic group.
Is there any distinct 'Palestinian heritage' that connects the Arabs to this land?

 

[montelatici]

The Arabs in Palestine at the time were still pursuing the the Syrian self determination, Jews were pursuing self determination in Palestine.

Zionists were pursuing a nationalist colonialst agenda disguised as a persuit of "self-determination" for a religious group composed of varying European ethnicities with only a very tenuous link to Palestine, based on their book of fables.

The link is very intense, not "tenuous." And when you say "book of fables" what are you talking about? If you're talking about the Garden of Eden, the Flood or the Tower of Babel, then that's a matter of debate between believers and unbelievers. If you're saying that there was no Kingdom of Judea that was defeated by the Romans in 70 CE, then you're out of your mind, as history contradicts you.

The link was made up by Zionists creating the myth of a Jewish "nation" in Palestine, cynically using biblical mythology and perverting the tenets of Judaism to invent a link between European converts to Judaism to a place they had no historical or ethnic ties to.

As for history, there was no "Kingdom of Judea" to be defeated by Romans, it was a Roman province in which a group of religious extremist terrorists fomented a rebellion which was crushed...a bit like IS today.

Mythology and heritage are among the main properties that define an ethnic group.
Is there any distinct 'Palestinian heritage' that connects the Arabs to this land?

Now that's as funny as your Arab "tribe" propaganda. How colonists from other continents can have a stronger tie to the land than the native inhabitants is logic only Rylah can espouse.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

The Arabs in Palestine at the time were still pursuing the the Syrian self determination, Jews were pursuing self determination in Palestine.

Zionists were pursuing a nationalist colonialst agenda disguised as a persuit of "self-determination" for a religious group composed of varying European ethnicities with only a very tenuous link to Palestine, based on their book of fables.

The link is very intense, not "tenuous." And when you say "book of fables" what are you talking about? If you're talking about the Garden of Eden, the Flood or the Tower of Babel, then that's a matter of debate between believers and unbelievers. If you're saying that there was no Kingdom of Judea that was defeated by the Romans in 70 CE, then you're out of your mind, as history contradicts you.

The link was made up by Zionists creating the myth of a Jewish "nation" in Palestine, cynically using biblical mythology and perverting the tenets of Judaism to invent a link between European converts to Judaism to a place they had no historical or ethnic ties to.

As for history, there was no "Kingdom of Judea" to be defeated by Romans, it was a Roman province in which a group of religious extremist terrorists fomented a rebellion which was crushed...a bit like IS today.

Mythology and heritage are among the main properties that define an ethnic group.
Is there any distinct 'Palestinian heritage' that connects the Arabs to this land?

Now that's as funny as your Arab "tribe" propaganda. How colonists from other continents can have a stronger tie to the land than the native inhabitants is logic only Rylah can espouse.

I understand rylah's logic very well. Israelis have a very distinct heritage--language, foods, flag, anthem, customs, etc. A Palestinian's heritage isn't distinct from 22 others.

 

[montelatici]

That's like saying that a Colombian does not have a distinct heritage because a Colombian's heritage and language is not that distinct from 20 or so other Latin American countries.

 

[Shusha]

That's like saying that a Colombian does not have a distinct heritage because a Colombian's heritage and language is not that distinct from 20 or so other Latin American countries.

Um. If Colombia's heritage is NOT distinct from its neighbors, how are you going to claim it has a distinct heritage?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Zionists were pursuing a nationalist colonialst agenda disguised as a persuit of "self-determination" for a religious group composed of varying European ethnicities with only a very tenuous link to Palestine, based on their book of fables.

The link is very intense, not "tenuous." And when you say "book of fables" what are you talking about? If you're talking about the Garden of Eden, the Flood or the Tower of Babel, then that's a matter of debate between believers and unbelievers. If you're saying that there was no Kingdom of Judea that was defeated by the Romans in 70 CE, then you're out of your mind, as history contradicts you.

The link was made up by Zionists creating the myth of a Jewish "nation" in Palestine, cynically using biblical mythology and perverting the tenets of Judaism to invent a link between European converts to Judaism to a place they had no historical or ethnic ties to.

As for history, there was no "Kingdom of Judea" to be defeated by Romans, it was a Roman province in which a group of religious extremist terrorists fomented a rebellion which was crushed...a bit like IS today.

Mythology and heritage are among the main properties that define an ethnic group.
Is there any distinct 'Palestinian heritage' that connects the Arabs to this land?

Now that's as funny as your Arab "tribe" propaganda. How colonists from other continents can have a stronger tie to the land than the native inhabitants is logic only Rylah can espouse.

I understand rylah's logic very well. Israelis have a very distinct heritage--language, foods, flag, anthem, customs, etc. A Palestinian's heritage isn't distinct from 22 others.

And besides that, what difference does it make?

 

[Hollie]

The Arabs in Palestine at the time were still pursuing the the Syrian self determination, Jews were pursuing self determination in Palestine.

Zionists were pursuing a nationalist colonialst agenda disguised as a persuit of "self-determination" for a religious group composed of varying European ethnicities with only a very tenuous link to Palestine, based on their book of fables.

The link is very intense, not "tenuous." And when you say "book of fables" what are you talking about? If you're talking about the Garden of Eden, the Flood or the Tower of Babel, then that's a matter of debate between believers and unbelievers. If you're saying that there was no Kingdom of Judea that was defeated by the Romans in 70 CE, then you're out of your mind, as history contradicts you.

The link was made up by Zionists creating the myth of a Jewish "nation" in Palestine, cynically using biblical mythology and perverting the tenets of Judaism to invent a link between European converts to Judaism to a place they had no historical or ethnic ties to.

As for history, there was no "Kingdom of Judea" to be defeated by Romans, it was a Roman province in which a group of religious extremist terrorists fomented a rebellion which was crushed...a bit like IS today.

Mythology and heritage are among the main properties that define an ethnic group.
Is there any distinct 'Palestinian heritage' that connects the Arabs to this land?

Now that's as funny as your Arab "tribe" propaganda. How colonists from other continents can have a stronger tie to the land than the native inhabitants is logic only Rylah can espouse.

Now that's pretty darn funny. Since when at what point did invading Turks, invaders / squatters from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, and invaders / colonists from Europe - invading Christian Crusaders become the "native inhabitants"?

 

[Hollie]

The link is very intense, not "tenuous." And when you say "book of fables" what are you talking about? If you're talking about the Garden of Eden, the Flood or the Tower of Babel, then that's a matter of debate between believers and unbelievers. If you're saying that there was no Kingdom of Judea that was defeated by the Romans in 70 CE, then you're out of your mind, as history contradicts you.

The link was made up by Zionists creating the myth of a Jewish "nation" in Palestine, cynically using biblical mythology and perverting the tenets of Judaism to invent a link between European converts to Judaism to a place they had no historical or ethnic ties to.

As for history, there was no "Kingdom of Judea" to be defeated by Romans, it was a Roman province in which a group of religious extremist terrorists fomented a rebellion which was crushed...a bit like IS today.

Mythology and heritage are among the main properties that define an ethnic group.
Is there any distinct 'Palestinian heritage' that connects the Arabs to this land?

Now that's as funny as your Arab "tribe" propaganda. How colonists from other continents can have a stronger tie to the land than the native inhabitants is logic only Rylah can espouse.

I understand rylah's logic very well. Israelis have a very distinct heritage--language, foods, flag, anthem, customs, etc. A Palestinian's heritage isn't distinct from 22 others.

And besides that, what difference does it make?

Quite clearly, "Pal'istanian" is an invented national identity, invented by an Egyptian as a label for an invented people.

 

[Eloy]

Palestinians 'became a people' as a result of the occupation- not in spite of it.

They became Palestinians in 1924. They were the same people before that but had a different name.

What were Native Americans called before it was America? Weren't they the same people who were there before the name change?

You are correct. Similarly, no-one ever heard of Israelis before 1948.

 

[Hollie]

Palestinians 'became a people' as a result of the occupation- not in spite of it.

They became Palestinians in 1924. They were the same people before that but had a different name.

What were Native Americans called before it was America? Weren't they the same people who were there before the name change?

You are correct. Similarly, no-one ever heard of Israelis before 1948.

No one ever heard of "Pal'istanian" as a national identity before 1967 when it was invented by Arafat, an Egyptian.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinians 'became a people' as a result of the occupation- not in spite of it.

They became Palestinians in 1924. They were the same people before that but had a different name.

What were Native Americans called before it was America? Weren't they the same people who were there before the name change?

You are correct. Similarly, no-one ever heard of Israelis before 1948.

No one ever heard of "Pal'istanian" as a national identity before 1967 when it was invented by Arafat, an Egyptian.

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

You are full of Israeli shit, as usual.

 

[Hollie]

Palestinians 'became a people' as a result of the occupation- not in spite of it.

They became Palestinians in 1924. They were the same people before that but had a different name.

What were Native Americans called before it was America? Weren't they the same people who were there before the name change?

You are correct. Similarly, no-one ever heard of Israelis before 1948.

No one ever heard of "Pal'istanian" as a national identity before 1967 when it was invented by Arafat, an Egyptian.

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

You are full of Israeli shit, as usual.

Such an angry Islamist. Yet, despite your ipso facto'ing, there was never any materialization of your invented "country of Palistan"

Why would Arafat need to invent "Pal'istanians" if they already existed?

Ipso facto, an Egyptian invented a national identity for an invented people.

Indeed.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinians 'became a people' as a result of the occupation- not in spite of it.

They became Palestinians in 1924. They were the same people before that but had a different name.

What were Native Americans called before it was America? Weren't they the same people who were there before the name change?

You are correct. Similarly, no-one ever heard of Israelis before 1948.

No one ever heard of "Pal'istanian" as a national identity before 1967 when it was invented by Arafat, an Egyptian.

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

You are full of Israeli shit, as usual.

Such an angry Islamist. Yet, despite your ipso facto'ing, there was never any materialization of your invented "country of Palistan"

Why would Arafat need to invent "Pal'istanians" if they already existed?

Ipso facto, an Egyptian invented a national identity for an invented people.

Indeed.

So you post an Israeli invention.

 

[Hollie]

They became Palestinians in 1924. They were the same people before that but had a different name.

What were Native Americans called before it was America? Weren't they the same people who were there before the name change?

You are correct. Similarly, no-one ever heard of Israelis before 1948.

No one ever heard of "Pal'istanian" as a national identity before 1967 when it was invented by Arafat, an Egyptian.

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

You are full of Israeli shit, as usual.

Such an angry Islamist. Yet, despite your ipso facto'ing, there was never any materialization of your invented "country of Palistan"

Why would Arafat need to invent "Pal'istanians" if they already existed?

Ipso facto, an Egyptian invented a national identity for an invented people.

Indeed.

So you post an Israeli invention.

Arafat, the inventor of 'Pal'istanians", was Egyptian.

Try paying attention.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are correct. Similarly, no-one ever heard of Israelis before 1948.

No one ever heard of "Pal'istanian" as a national identity before 1967 when it was invented by Arafat, an Egyptian.

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

You are full of Israeli shit, as usual.

Such an angry Islamist. Yet, despite your ipso facto'ing, there was never any materialization of your invented "country of Palistan"

Why would Arafat need to invent "Pal'istanians" if they already existed?

Ipso facto, an Egyptian invented a national identity for an invented people.

Indeed.

So you post an Israeli invention.

Arafat, the inventor of 'Pal'istanians", was Egyptian.

Try paying attention.

Israeli bullshit.

 

[Hollie]

No one ever heard of "Pal'istanian" as a national identity before 1967 when it was invented by Arafat, an Egyptian.

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

You are full of Israeli shit, as usual.

Such an angry Islamist. Yet, despite your ipso facto'ing, there was never any materialization of your invented "country of Palistan"

Why would Arafat need to invent "Pal'istanians" if they already existed?

Ipso facto, an Egyptian invented a national identity for an invented people.

Indeed.

So you post an Israeli invention.

Arafat, the inventor of 'Pal'istanians", was Egyptian.

Try paying attention.

Israeli bullshit.

Deflection.