Stop trying to divide "Jews" from "Zionists."

[HistoryBefore67]

So you're claiming that the Palestinian people spontaneously appeared out of nowhere?

The modern "Palestinians" most certainly appeared out of nowhere when the PLO started using the term (again, as ADMITTED by a PLO official).

Every group of people has ancestors, but they are not a distinct people until they identify themselves as such by virtue of common religion, culture, etc.

So, yes... a "people" have a "start date." For the " Palestinians," the earliest possible start date is long after the Jews' start date.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

It doesn't matter if "Jews existed before the term "Syria Palestina" was coined" - that's playing semantics.

People have been called various things over the centuries but they are still the same people.

The people now referred to as Palestinians didn't spontaneously appear when the term was coined - they'd been there as long as the Jews and they included Jews prior to the establishment of Israel.

No, they haven't, because THEY WERE NOT A DISTINCT PEOPLE. The Jews were.

It doesn't matter if they were a DISTINCT PEOPLE - their ANCESTORS were there. They are no LESS legitimate than the Jews.

That's moronic. Its also wrong. There is no basis to conclude that their ancestors originated in Israel.

 

[Coyote]

So you're claiming that the Palestinian people spontaneously appeared out of nowhere?

The modern "Palestinians" most certainly appeared out of nowhere when the PLO started using the term (again, as ADMITTED by a PLO official).

The term appeared out of nowhere.

The people had always been there.

Every group of people has ancestors, but they are not a distinct people until they identify themselves as such by virtue of common religion, culture, etc.

They don't have to be a "distinct people" to have rights.

So, yes... a "people" have a "start date." For the " Palestinians," the earliest possible start date is long after the Jews' start date.

No. They don't.

They have lived there as long as the Jews. Simply because they don't carry the right label does not mean they don't exist or have rights.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

I'm done wasting my time with your idiocy. You're just plain wrong, and no matter how many times I prove it, you just keep spouting the same nonsense.

Have a good night.

 

[Coyote]

I'm done wasting my time with your idiocy. You're just plain wrong, and no matter how many times I prove it, you just keep spouting the same nonsense.

Have a good night.

You are the one trying to claim some people have a greater legitmacy over others despite both having ancestry stretching back the same amount of time to a particular area.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

I'm done wasting my time with your idiocy. You're just plain wrong, and no matter how many times I prove it, you just keep spouting the same nonsense.

Have a good night.

You are the one trying to claim some people have a greater legitmacy over others despite both having ancestry stretching back the same amount of time to a particular area.

No, I'm not. Try actually reading for a change. You're the one trying to make it about speculative claims of as ancestry. That's idiotic, as all people arguably have ancestors from Africa.

The issue is about the claims of distinct groups of people. You know that, but you constantly try to import nebulous claims of ancestry to bolster your liberal playbook mantra of "everyone is equal." Do you really think we can't see through your tactic?

 

[MHunterB]

It's not semantics. It's people.

It's you who are playing semantics.

Please, Coyote, explain - I do not quite understand you are disagreeing with or why.

It doesn't matter if "Jews existed before the term "Syria Palestina" was coined" - that's playing semantics.

People have been called various things over the centuries but they are still the same people.

The people now referred to as Palestinians didn't spontaneously appear when the term was coined - they'd been there as long as the Jews and they included Jews prior to the establishment of Israel.

I do not think the bolded part is accurate: remember when I said your description wasn't all that accurate? It seems you're making an assumption that is not 'knowable' from the current research/contradicts the findings.

"Be not alarmed", lol! Written words convey about 7% of the meaning a face-to-face conversation can transmit. I think that's the source of the current 'flap'. The findings seem to indicate a 'common ancestral group' (from Neolithic times!), rather than suggesting the Jews split off from the 'Palestinians'. Yes, that matters: it's exactly like claiming 'humans are descended from apes'.

 

[Coyote]

Please, Coyote, explain - I do not quite understand you are disagreeing with or why.

It doesn't matter if "Jews existed before the term "Syria Palestina" was coined" - that's playing semantics.

People have been called various things over the centuries but they are still the same people.

The people now referred to as Palestinians didn't spontaneously appear when the term was coined - they'd been there as long as the Jews and they included Jews prior to the establishment of Israel.

I do not think the bolded part is accurate: remember when I said your description wasn't all that accurate? It seems you're making an assumption that is not 'knowable' from the current research/contradicts the findings.

"Be not alarmed", lol! Written words convey about 7% of the meaning a face-to-face conversation can transmit. I think that's the source of the current 'flap'. The findings seem to indicate a 'common ancestral group' (from Neolithic times!), rather than suggesting the Jews split off from the 'Palestinians'. Yes, that matters: it's exactly like claiming 'humans are descended from apes'.

In the end though, what does it really mean? It means we have two groups of people with considerable genetic, cultural, and historic overlap, who have been there a very long time and who have the same rights to the same region. And that is what we must deal with - not trying to claim one group or the other is more entitled or a "new comer" or "invaders". That is how I see it and why I argue this.

 

[MHunterB]

Comparing DNA Patterns of Sephardi, Ashkenazi & Kurdish Jews - Society for Crypto Judaic Studies

NB: Kurdish Jews are part of the Mizrachim. In the paragraph below, the smaller the number, the closer the genetic relationship.

Of all the groups, the Ashkenazim are most closely related, in order, to Palestinian Arabs (18), 'Muslim Kurds (21), Cypriots (22), Greeks (23), Kurdish Jews (25), Bedouin (26), Sephardi Jews (27), Egyptians (27), Turks (28), and Pakistani Parsi (31). Sephardim are most closely related to Italians (18), Turks (20), Ossetians, Georgia (20), Kurdish Jews (22), Muslim Kurds (24), Greeks (24), Armenians (26), Cypriots (26), Ashkenazi Jews (27), and Pakistani Parsi (28). Kurdish Jews are most closely related to Sephardi Jews (22) and Muslim Kurds (22), Pakistani Parsi (23), Ashkenazi Jews (25), Turks (26), Palestinian Arabs (28), Ossetians (30), Cypriots (31), Greeks (32), and Armenians (35). On the other hand, for nineteen Central and Eastern European populations, the Ashkenazim averaged 55.1, the Sephardim averaged 48.2, and the Kurdish Jews averaged 55.5. The Georgia Ossetians (X=29.7) and the Romanians (X=33.0) were the closest to all three of the Jewish groups. For thirteen western European populations, the Ashkenazim averaged 71.6, the Sephardim averaged 47.9, and the Kurdish Jews averaged 63.0. The Sephardim were most closely related to the Southern Portuguese (33), Dutch (36) and French (36), and Northern Portuguese (40). None of these were particularly close, but they were much closer than they were for Ashkenazim or Kurdish Jews."

Note that this doesn't suggest whether one group ins 'included' in another.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

I'm done wasting my time with your idiocy. You're just plain wrong, and no matter how many times I prove it, you just keep spouting the same nonsense.

Have a good night.

You are the one trying to claim some people have a greater legitmacy over others despite both having ancestry stretching back the same amount of time to a particular area.

No, I'm not. Try actually reading for a change. You're the one trying to make it about speculative claims of as ancestry. That's idiotic, as all people arguably have ancestors from Africa.

The issue is about the claims of distinct groups of people. You know that, but you constantly try to import nebulous claims of ancestry to bolster your liberal playbook mantra of "everyone is equal." Do you really think we can't see through your tactic?

Be that as it may, the Jews and Palestinians are both a Semitic people, and both share an Abrahamic religion. These things alone make them closer than many other pairs of distinct peoples.

 

[Coyote]

I'm done wasting my time with your idiocy. You're just plain wrong, and no matter how many times I prove it, you just keep spouting the same nonsense.

Have a good night.

You are the one trying to claim some people have a greater legitmacy over others despite both having ancestry stretching back the same amount of time to a particular area.

No, I'm not. Try actually reading for a change. You're the one trying to make it about speculative claims of as ancestry. That's idiotic, as all people arguably have ancestors from Africa.

The issue is about the claims of distinct groups of people. You know that, but you constantly try to import nebulous claims of ancestry to bolster your liberal playbook mantra of "everyone is equal." Do you really think we can't see through your tactic?

I don't know about my "tactic" but yours is fairly clear. You are attempting to disenfranchise one group of people who occupy and have occupied a region for thousands of years based on historical claims of a nation that existed thousands of years ago. Prior to the reinvention of Israel, they were ALL Palestinians - Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze etc. Then, suddenly - they had to be divided and that division determined legitimacy and who had rights to land.

When it comes to people who have occupied a territory for centuries or millinia - yes, they ARE equal, and attempts to seperate out who is "more equal" based on vague ancient claims is both dishonest and bigoted.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

I don't have time to to point point out all the ways that you've mischaracterized my views.

I don't know if you've adopted the PLO narrative out of bias or ignorance, nor do I care.

 

[MHunterB]

It doesn't matter if "Jews existed before the term "Syria Palestina" was coined" - that's playing semantics.

People have been called various things over the centuries but they are still the same people.

The people now referred to as Palestinians didn't spontaneously appear when the term was coined - they'd been there as long as the Jews and they included Jews prior to the establishment of Israel.

I do not think the bolded part is accurate: remember when I said your description wasn't all that accurate? It seems you're making an assumption that is not 'knowable' from the current research/contradicts the findings.

"Be not alarmed", lol! Written words convey about 7% of the meaning a face-to-face conversation can transmit. I think that's the source of the current 'flap'. The findings seem to indicate a 'common ancestral group' (from Neolithic times!), rather than suggesting the Jews split off from the 'Palestinians'. Yes, that matters: it's exactly like claiming 'humans are descended from apes'.

In the end though, what does it really mean? It means we have two groups of people with considerable genetic, cultural, and historic overlap, who have been there a very long time and who have the same rights to the same region. And that is what we must deal with - not trying to claim one group or the other is more entitled or a "new comer" or "invaders". That is how I see it and why I argue this.

I don't see it all that much differently - but I do prefer to be as accurate as possible.

 

[Coyote]

If you're views are mischaracterized, then explain.

If you can't or won't, then stick with the insults.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Rather than explaining again, I'll simply direct you to actually read my posts.

 

[Coyote]

I do not think the bolded part is accurate: remember when I said your description wasn't all that accurate? It seems you're making an assumption that is not 'knowable' from the current research/contradicts the findings.

"Be not alarmed", lol! Written words convey about 7% of the meaning a face-to-face conversation can transmit. I think that's the source of the current 'flap'. The findings seem to indicate a 'common ancestral group' (from Neolithic times!), rather than suggesting the Jews split off from the 'Palestinians'. Yes, that matters: it's exactly like claiming 'humans are descended from apes'.

In the end though, what does it really mean? It means we have two groups of people with considerable genetic, cultural, and historic overlap, who have been there a very long time and who have the same rights to the same region. And that is what we must deal with - not trying to claim one group or the other is more entitled or a "new comer" or "invaders". That is how I see it and why I argue this.

I don't see it all that much differently - but I do prefer to be as accurate as possible.

I appreciate that and what you add to it. For example, I had no idea certain groups of Jews were not considered "real Jews". Genetics is only a small part of it, in the end anyway I find it an interesting subject though I'm more familiar with genetics when it comes to dogs or horses

 

[Coyote]

Rather than explaining again, I'll simply direct you to actually read my posts.

What you said was: The issue is about the claims of distinct groups of people.

What I'm saying is how can one group have a greater claim when generations of both groups have been occupying the same area for a millenia or more? The "group" by virtue of it's historical distinction as a group might have a claim - but does that mean it has greater rights or claims than individuals not of that group who have been there as long?

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Rather than explaining again, I'll simply direct you to actually read my posts.

What you said was: The issue is about the claims of distinct groups of people.

What I'm saying is how can one group have a greater claim when generations of both groups have been occupying the same area for a millenia or more? The "group" by virtue of it's historical distinction as a group might have a claim - but does that mean it has greater rights or claims than individuals not of that group who have been there as long?

Because the group that calls themselves "Palestinians" don't fit your description. As a group, their existence began when the PLO created an artificial distinction from other Arab groups for the purpose of fighting Israel. That group has no legitimate basis for their stated goal of destroying Israel and taking all of the land "from river to sea."

 

[Roudy]

Yes, it is: Jews, Palestinians have close genetic ties, say researchers - Beliefnet News

Ariella Oppenheim Ph.D., a researcher at Hebrew University and the Hadassah Medical School labs, has published the result of DNA studies which show that both the Palestinians and Jews are descended from the Kurds of Iraq and Turkey.

That should astonish no one since both the Bible and the Koran say the Jews and Arabs are descended from a common ancestor, an ancient Caldean who the Koran calls Ibrahim. The Bible says he was named Abraham.

Perhaps more surprising, Oppenheim found the Ashkenazi Jews from Europe are genetically closer to the Palestinians than Middle East Jews.

Oppenheim also isolated and traced the chromosome for the “priestly” Cohen line.

“We find that Arabs also carry this chromosome,” she noted in a documentary film, which claims that some Palestinians are also Cohens, genetically.​

Also: Jews Are The Genetic Brothers Of Palestinians, Syrians, And Lebanese

The study, published in the May 9 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that Jewish men shared a common set of genetic signatures with non-Jews from the Middle East, including Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese, and these signatures diverged significantly from non-Jewish men outside of this region. Consequently, Jews and Arabs share a common ancestor and are more closely related to one another than to non-Jews from other areas of the world. ​

That isn't supported by genetic research. Differences appear very minor with considerable overlap among the different groups. I think you need to give up on that line of argument as a justification for any sort of special considerations. They're effectively the same people, with long standing ties to that region. Neither side can claim any "special connection" or claim to be indiginous where the other is not.

What's your point? You just proved my point. Jews are a Semetic people so of course there would be common genes with people in the region. The Palestinians are identical to their neighboring Arabs. There is no "Palestinian people" that differs them from Syrians Jordanians or Egyptians. But there are differences between Jews and other Semites in the region, including the Palestinians.

Finding common genes between the British and Germans doesn't give Germans rights to British territory. LOL.

The genetic links show that there is considerable overlap - Palestinians have the so-called Cohen gene and not all Jews do. The only thing it proves is really, they are essentially the same and they all go back very far. Trying to make a case for possession based on ancient lineage is a farce - they're both "indiginous".

If you are looking at who are the descendants of the ancient Jews or Israelites? Of course without a doubt it is today's Jews. Aid there Jewish DNA in other people's, especially those who are also semetic? Yes of course. That goes without saying as well. Just as Europeans, Africans, Asians share common genes so do Semitic people.