The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?

[Coyote]

This argument is repeated ad nauseam over and over and over and over. What's the point? Or maybe the real question is - WHY is it SO important for some to deny the existence of the other?

Jews were originally called “palestinians,” by the British, in the British Mandate. It’s a made-up word. Arabs later began using it, as anti-Israel propaganda.
PLO head honcho in 1977: “Palestinian identity is just a tactical ploy”

Again. What's the point?

Why is it so important to deny another their identity?

Point is, the “palestinian“ identity has been adopted for political, anti-Israel objectives.

That is both debatable and irrelevant. They exist, as a people now. So what is the point of denying them their identity?

 

[Sixties Fan]

This argument is repeated ad nauseam over and over and over and over. What's the point? Or maybe the real question is - WHY is it SO important for some to deny the existence of the other?

Jews were originally called “palestinians,” by the British, in the British Mandate. It’s a made-up word. Arabs later began using it, as anti-Israel propaganda.
PLO head honcho in 1977: “Palestinian identity is just a tactical ploy”

Again. What's the point?

Why is it so important to deny another their identity?

Point is, the “palestinian“ identity has been adopted for political, anti-Israel objectives.

That is both debatable and irrelevant. They exist, as a people now. So what is the point of denying them their identity?

Are you not aware how the Palestinian Arabs deny the very existence of any Jewish history on the land?

And that has been going on since the lost the war in 1948.

Let them discuss, whatever they wish to discuss. It should not be upsetting anyone, as it is a free thread to discuss the issue freely.

 

[Coyote]

This argument is repeated ad nauseam over and over and over and over. What's the point? Or maybe the real question is - WHY is it SO important for some to deny the existence of the other?

Jews were originally called “palestinians,” by the British, in the British Mandate. It’s a made-up word. Arabs later began using it, as anti-Israel propaganda.
PLO head honcho in 1977: “Palestinian identity is just a tactical ploy”

Again. What's the point?

Why is it so important to deny another their identity?

Point is, the “palestinian“ identity has been adopted for political, anti-Israel objectives.

That is both debatable and irrelevant. They exist, as a people now. So what is the point of denying them their identity?

Are you not aware how the Palestinian Arabs deny the very existence of any Jewish history on the land?

And that has been going on since the lost the war in 1948.

Let them discuss, whatever they wish to discuss. It should not be upsetting anyone, as it is a free thread to discuss the issue freely.

Yup. That's what I did not say one or the other.

And I too, am allowed to discuss this freely

 

[rylah]

This argument is repeated ad nauseam over and over and over and over. What's the point? Or maybe the real question is - WHY is it SO important for some to deny the existence of the other?

Jews were originally called “palestinians,” by the British, in the British Mandate. It’s a made-up word. Arabs later began using it, as anti-Israel propaganda.
PLO head honcho in 1977: “Palestinian identity is just a tactical ploy”

Again. What's the point?

Why is it so important to deny another their identity?

Point is, the “palestinian“ identity has been adopted for political, anti-Israel objectives.

That is both debatable and irrelevant. They exist, as a people now. So what is the point of denying them their identity?

Because if such forgery of indigenous identity becomes a precedent,
it makes all indigenous rights void by definition, a great injustice.
For anyone looking to re-constitute their native civilization.

 

[Coyote]

This argument is repeated ad nauseam over and over and over and over. What's the point? Or maybe the real question is - WHY is it SO important for some to deny the existence of the other?

Jews were originally called “palestinians,” by the British, in the British Mandate. It’s a made-up word. Arabs later began using it, as anti-Israel propaganda.
PLO head honcho in 1977: “Palestinian identity is just a tactical ploy”

Again. What's the point?

Why is it so important to deny another their identity?

Point is, the “palestinian“ identity has been adopted for political, anti-Israel objectives.

That is both debatable and irrelevant. They exist, as a people now. So what is the point of denying them their identity?

Because if such forgery of indigenous identity becomes a precedent,
it makes all indigenous rights void by definition, a great injustice.

It's not precedent. It's doing what is right. Recognizing the existence and rights to two different peoples. That's it. To do other wise is to create a great injustice. You can't rectify one injustice by creating another.

 

[Sixties Fan]

This argument is repeated ad nauseam over and over and over and over. What's the point? Or maybe the real question is - WHY is it SO important for some to deny the existence of the other?

Jews were originally called “palestinians,” by the British, in the British Mandate. It’s a made-up word. Arabs later began using it, as anti-Israel propaganda.
PLO head honcho in 1977: “Palestinian identity is just a tactical ploy”

Again. What's the point?

Why is it so important to deny another their identity?

Point is, the “palestinian“ identity has been adopted for political, anti-Israel objectives.

That is both debatable and irrelevant. They exist, as a people now. So what is the point of denying them their identity?

Are you not aware how the Palestinian Arabs deny the very existence of any Jewish history on the land?

And that has been going on since the lost the war in 1948.

Let them discuss, whatever they wish to discuss. It should not be upsetting anyone, as it is a free thread to discuss the issue freely.

Yup. That's what I did not say one or the other.

And I too, am allowed to discuss this freely

Was that a discussion, or an attempt to make others stop discussing it?

Re read your first post.

And I do stop here, just in case you wish to continue to turn it into an issue that does not exist, which you started.

 

[Coyote]

This argument is repeated ad nauseam over and over and over and over. What's the point? Or maybe the real question is - WHY is it SO important for some to deny the existence of the other?

Jews were originally called “palestinians,” by the British, in the British Mandate. It’s a made-up word. Arabs later began using it, as anti-Israel propaganda.
PLO head honcho in 1977: “Palestinian identity is just a tactical ploy”

Again. What's the point?

Why is it so important to deny another their identity?

Point is, the “palestinian“ identity has been adopted for political, anti-Israel objectives.

That is both debatable and irrelevant. They exist, as a people now. So what is the point of denying them their identity?

Are you not aware how the Palestinian Arabs deny the very existence of any Jewish history on the land?

And that has been going on since the lost the war in 1948.

Let them discuss, whatever they wish to discuss. It should not be upsetting anyone, as it is a free thread to discuss the issue freely.

Yup. That's what I did not say one or the other.

And I too, am allowed to discuss this freely

Was that a discussion, or an attempt to make others stop discussing it?

Re read your first post.

And I do stop here, just in case you wish to continue to turn it into an issue that does not exist, which you started.

Good grief. It's my OPINION. And like you, I"m entitled to express it.

 

[MartyNYC]

This argument is repeated ad nauseam over and over and over and over. What's the point? Or maybe the real question is - WHY is it SO important for some to deny the existence of the other?

Jews were originally called “palestinians,” by the British, in the British Mandate. It’s a made-up word. Arabs later began using it, as anti-Israel propaganda.
PLO head honcho in 1977: “Palestinian identity is just a tactical ploy”

Again. What's the point?

Why is it so important to deny another their identity?

Point is, the “palestinian“ identity has been adopted for political, anti-Israel objectives.

That is both debatable and irrelevant. They exist, as a people now. So what is the point of denying them their identity?

Because if such forgery of indigenous identity becomes a precedent,
it makes all indigenous rights void by definition, a great injustice.

It's not precedent. It's doing what is right. Recognizing the existence and rights to two different peoples. That's it. To do other wise is to create a great injustice. You can't rectify one injustice by creating another.

Arabs are a people. “Palestinians” are Arabs. Palestine was Britain‘s name for the British Mandate that became Israel. Jews were first called palestinians. There is no distinct palestinian language, religion, culture, or historic identity.

 

[Sixties Fan]

This argument is repeated ad nauseam over and over and over and over. What's the point? Or maybe the real question is - WHY is it SO important for some to deny the existence of the other?

Jews were originally called “palestinians,” by the British, in the British Mandate. It’s a made-up word. Arabs later began using it, as anti-Israel propaganda.
PLO head honcho in 1977: “Palestinian identity is just a tactical ploy”

Again. What's the point?

Why is it so important to deny another their identity?

Point is, the “palestinian“ identity has been adopted for political, anti-Israel objectives.

That is both debatable and irrelevant. They exist, as a people now. So what is the point of denying them their identity?

Because if such forgery of indigenous identity becomes a precedent,
it makes all indigenous rights void by definition, a great injustice.

It's not precedent. It's doing what is right. Recognizing the existence and rights to two different peoples. That's it. To do other wise is to create a great injustice. You can't rectify one injustice by creating another.

The thread is about Who is indigenous to the Land, and not "Do either one has the right to be recognized" which is what you keep turning the issue into.

Are the Arabs ingenious to the Land of Israel/Palestine, or not?

It is not about "They are here now, so they have the right to have their new nationality recognized as indigenous to the land, as the other group is"

 

[Coyote]

This argument is repeated ad nauseam over and over and over and over. What's the point? Or maybe the real question is - WHY is it SO important for some to deny the existence of the other?

Jews were originally called “palestinians,” by the British, in the British Mandate. It’s a made-up word. Arabs later began using it, as anti-Israel propaganda.
PLO head honcho in 1977: “Palestinian identity is just a tactical ploy”

Again. What's the point?

Why is it so important to deny another their identity?

Point is, the “palestinian“ identity has been adopted for political, anti-Israel objectives.

That is both debatable and irrelevant. They exist, as a people now. So what is the point of denying them their identity?

Because if such forgery of indigenous identity becomes a precedent,
it makes all indigenous rights void by definition, a great injustice.

It's not precedent. It's doing what is right. Recognizing the existence and rights to two different peoples. That's it. To do other wise is to create a great injustice. You can't rectify one injustice by creating another.

The thread is about Who is indigenous to the Land, and not "Do either one has the right to be recognized" which is what you keep turning the issue into.

Are the Arabs ingenious to the Land of Israel/Palestine, or not?

It is not about "They are here now, so they have the right to have their new nationality recognized as indigenous to the land, as the other group is"

What ever you say.

 

[Sixties Fan]

This argument is repeated ad nauseam over and over and over and over. What's the point? Or maybe the real question is - WHY is it SO important for some to deny the existence of the other?

Jews were originally called “palestinians,” by the British, in the British Mandate. It’s a made-up word. Arabs later began using it, as anti-Israel propaganda.
PLO head honcho in 1977: “Palestinian identity is just a tactical ploy”

Again. What's the point?

Why is it so important to deny another their identity?

Point is, the “palestinian“ identity has been adopted for political, anti-Israel objectives.

That is both debatable and irrelevant. They exist, as a people now. So what is the point of denying them their identity?

Because if such forgery of indigenous identity becomes a precedent,
it makes all indigenous rights void by definition, a great injustice.

It's not precedent. It's doing what is right. Recognizing the existence and rights to two different peoples. That's it. To do other wise is to create a great injustice. You can't rectify one injustice by creating another.

Arabs are a people. “Palestinians” are Arabs. Palestine was Britain‘s name for the British Mandate that became Israel. Jews were first called palestinians. There is no distinct palestinian language, religion, culture, or historic identity.

Marty, save your fingers from typing, because she is always going on about a different issue than the one this thread is about. I will do the same.

One can give all the opinions they want about the topic of the thread, but cannot go on changing what the topic this thread is really about.

 

[rylah]

 

[Coyote]

This argument is repeated ad nauseam over and over and over and over. What's the point? Or maybe the real question is - WHY is it SO important for some to deny the existence of the other?

Jews were originally called “palestinians,” by the British, in the British Mandate. It’s a made-up word. Arabs later began using it, as anti-Israel propaganda.
PLO head honcho in 1977: “Palestinian identity is just a tactical ploy”

Again. What's the point?

Why is it so important to deny another their identity?

Point is, the “palestinian“ identity has been adopted for political, anti-Israel objectives.

That is both debatable and irrelevant. They exist, as a people now. So what is the point of denying them their identity?

Because if such forgery of indigenous identity becomes a precedent,
it makes all indigenous rights void by definition, a great injustice.

It's not precedent. It's doing what is right. Recognizing the existence and rights to two different peoples. That's it. To do other wise is to create a great injustice. You can't rectify one injustice by creating another.

Arabs are a people. “Palestinians” are Arabs. Palestine was Britain‘s name for the British Mandate that became Israel. Jews were first called palestinians. There is no distinct palestinian language, religion, culture, or historic identity.

Marty, save your fingers from typing, because she is always going on about a different issue than the one this thread is about. I will do the same.

One can give all the opinions they want about the topic of the thread, but cannot go on changing what the topic this thread is really about.

Don't be so sanctimonious about it. Recognizing the existence of the other is part of the same argument otherwise you wouldn't natter on about one being an "invented people". As I said in my initial response - the argument on indigenous origins is debatable. If I were to believe your claims, it would be believing that every single non-Jewish Palestinian descended from Arabs in the Arabian peninsula, and that is simply not true. It ignores the ancient history of the place and existence of many peoples in that area prior to and since the Jewish people who've mixed it up. The real reason most (I won't say all) people want to deny this for either Palestinians or Jews is to diminish any rights they may have to Place. Now go ahead and pretend it's not on topic.

 

[MartyNYC]

This argument is repeated ad nauseam over and over and over and over. What's the point? Or maybe the real question is - WHY is it SO important for some to deny the existence of the other?

Jews were originally called “palestinians,” by the British, in the British Mandate. It’s a made-up word. Arabs later began using it, as anti-Israel propaganda.
PLO head honcho in 1977: “Palestinian identity is just a tactical ploy”

Again. What's the point?

Why is it so important to deny another their identity?

Point is, the “palestinian“ identity has been adopted for political, anti-Israel objectives.

That is both debatable and irrelevant. They exist, as a people now. So what is the point of denying them their identity?

Because if such forgery of indigenous identity becomes a precedent,
it makes all indigenous rights void by definition, a great injustice.

It's not precedent. It's doing what is right. Recognizing the existence and rights to two different peoples. That's it. To do other wise is to create a great injustice. You can't rectify one injustice by creating another.

Arabs are a people. “Palestinians” are Arabs. Palestine was Britain‘s name for the British Mandate that became Israel. Jews were first called palestinians. There is no distinct palestinian language, religion, culture, or historic identity.

Marty, save your fingers from typing, because she is always going on about a different issue than the one this thread is about. I will do the same.

One can give all the opinions they want about the topic of the thread, but cannot go on changing what the topic this thread is really about.

Don't be so sanctimonious about it. Recognizing the existence of the other is part of the same argument otherwise you wouldn't natter on about one being an "invented people". As I said in my initial response - the argument on indigenous origins is debatable. If I were to believe your claims, it would be believing that every single non-Jewish Palestinian descended from Arabs in the Arabian peninsula, and that is simply not true. It ignores the ancient history of the place and existence of many peoples in that area prior to and since the Jewish people who've mixed it up. The real reason most (I won't say all) people want to deny this for either Palestinians or Jews is to diminish any rights they may have to Place. Now go ahead and pretend it's not on topic.

Arabs are obviously indigenous to Arabia. No Arabs genuinely claim to be indigenous to “palestine.”

 

[Coyote]

This argument is repeated ad nauseam over and over and over and over. What's the point? Or maybe the real question is - WHY is it SO important for some to deny the existence of the other?

Jews were originally called “palestinians,” by the British, in the British Mandate. It’s a made-up word. Arabs later began using it, as anti-Israel propaganda.
PLO head honcho in 1977: “Palestinian identity is just a tactical ploy”

Again. What's the point?

Why is it so important to deny another their identity?

Point is, the “palestinian“ identity has been adopted for political, anti-Israel objectives.

That is both debatable and irrelevant. They exist, as a people now. So what is the point of denying them their identity?

Because if such forgery of indigenous identity becomes a precedent,
it makes all indigenous rights void by definition, a great injustice.

It's not precedent. It's doing what is right. Recognizing the existence and rights to two different peoples. That's it. To do other wise is to create a great injustice. You can't rectify one injustice by creating another.

Arabs are a people. “Palestinians” are Arabs. Palestine was Britain‘s name for the British Mandate that became Israel. Jews were first called palestinians. There is no distinct palestinian language, religion, culture, or historic identity.

Marty, save your fingers from typing, because she is always going on about a different issue than the one this thread is about. I will do the same.

One can give all the opinions they want about the topic of the thread, but cannot go on changing what the topic this thread is really about.

Don't be so sanctimonious about it. Recognizing the existence of the other is part of the same argument otherwise you wouldn't natter on about one being an "invented people". As I said in my initial response - the argument on indigenous origins is debatable. If I were to believe your claims, it would be believing that every single non-Jewish Palestinian descended from Arabs in the Arabian peninsula, and that is simply not true. It ignores the ancient history of the place and existence of many peoples in that area prior to and since the Jewish people who've mixed it up. The real reason most (I won't say all) people want to deny this for either Palestinians or Jews is to diminish any rights they may have to Place. Now go ahead and pretend it's not on topic.

Arabs are obviously indigenous to Arabia. No Arabs genuinely claim to be indigenous to “palestine.”

Except that Arabization is cultural. Not all or even most “Arabs” descend from the Arabian peninsula.

However, part of Bedouin’s indiginous territory Includes part of Palestine.

why does it matter?

 

[MartyNYC]

This argument is repeated ad nauseam over and over and over and over. What's the point? Or maybe the real question is - WHY is it SO important for some to deny the existence of the other?

Jews were originally called “palestinians,” by the British, in the British Mandate. It’s a made-up word. Arabs later began using it, as anti-Israel propaganda.
PLO head honcho in 1977: “Palestinian identity is just a tactical ploy”

Again. What's the point?

Why is it so important to deny another their identity?

Point is, the “palestinian“ identity has been adopted for political, anti-Israel objectives.

That is both debatable and irrelevant. They exist, as a people now. So what is the point of denying them their identity?

Because if such forgery of indigenous identity becomes a precedent,
it makes all indigenous rights void by definition, a great injustice.

It's not precedent. It's doing what is right. Recognizing the existence and rights to two different peoples. That's it. To do other wise is to create a great injustice. You can't rectify one injustice by creating another.

Arabs are a people. “Palestinians” are Arabs. Palestine was Britain‘s name for the British Mandate that became Israel. Jews were first called palestinians. There is no distinct palestinian language, religion, culture, or historic identity.

Marty, save your fingers from typing, because she is always going on about a different issue than the one this thread is about. I will do the same.

One can give all the opinions they want about the topic of the thread, but cannot go on changing what the topic this thread is really about.

Don't be so sanctimonious about it. Recognizing the existence of the other is part of the same argument otherwise you wouldn't natter on about one being an "invented people". As I said in my initial response - the argument on indigenous origins is debatable. If I were to believe your claims, it would be believing that every single non-Jewish Palestinian descended from Arabs in the Arabian peninsula, and that is simply not true. It ignores the ancient history of the place and existence of many peoples in that area prior to and since the Jewish people who've mixed it up. The real reason most (I won't say all) people want to deny this for either Palestinians or Jews is to diminish any rights they may have to Place. Now go ahead and pretend it's not on topic.

Arabs are obviously indigenous to Arabia. No Arabs genuinely claim to be indigenous to “palestine.”

Except that Arabization is cultural. Not all or even most “Arabs” descend from the Arabian peninsula.

However, part of Bedouin’s indiginous territory Includes part of Palestine.

why does it matter?

Arabs define themselves as having originated from Arab tribes in Arabia. Merely speaking Arabic doesn’t make someone an Arab.

 

[rylah]

This argument is repeated ad nauseam over and over and over and over. What's the point? Or maybe the real question is - WHY is it SO important for some to deny the existence of the other?

Jews were originally called “palestinians,” by the British, in the British Mandate. It’s a made-up word. Arabs later began using it, as anti-Israel propaganda.
PLO head honcho in 1977: “Palestinian identity is just a tactical ploy”

Again. What's the point?

Why is it so important to deny another their identity?

Point is, the “palestinian“ identity has been adopted for political, anti-Israel objectives.

That is both debatable and irrelevant. They exist, as a people now. So what is the point of denying them their identity?

Because if such forgery of indigenous identity becomes a precedent,
it makes all indigenous rights void by definition, a great injustice.

It's not precedent. It's doing what is right. Recognizing the existence and rights to two different peoples. That's it. To do other wise is to create a great injustice. You can't rectify one injustice by creating another.

Arabs are a people. “Palestinians” are Arabs. Palestine was Britain‘s name for the British Mandate that became Israel. Jews were first called palestinians. There is no distinct palestinian language, religion, culture, or historic identity.

Marty, save your fingers from typing, because she is always going on about a different issue than the one this thread is about. I will do the same.

One can give all the opinions they want about the topic of the thread, but cannot go on changing what the topic this thread is really about.

Don't be so sanctimonious about it. Recognizing the existence of the other is part of the same argument otherwise you wouldn't natter on about one being an "invented people". As I said in my initial response - the argument on indigenous origins is debatable. If I were to believe your claims, it would be believing that every single non-Jewish Palestinian descended from Arabs in the Arabian peninsula, and that is simply not true. It ignores the ancient history of the place and existence of many peoples in that area prior to and since the Jewish people who've mixed it up. The real reason most (I won't say all) people want to deny this for either Palestinians or Jews is to diminish any rights they may have to Place. Now go ahead and pretend it's not on topic.

The argument of indigenous origins is actually very simple.
No need to reserve to oversimplified strawman fallacies.

Better let's clarify 2 basic points of confusion:

1. Indigenous rights are not dealing with persons
but ancient civilizations in their specific native place of origin.

2. Indigeneity is not based on mere presence in a land.
And it doesn't cover modern identities, which are fine on their own,
but cannot be granted indigenous status by banally appropriating identity
and folklore of every other foreign nation that passed in a given location.

The motivations behind people who argue against each group can be similar or different.
That doesn't mean one of them isn't the correct and just one to be exemplified.

Look, the history of the Jewish people is one of the longest documents of a connection of a people, civilization to its land of origin. It's pretty difficult to take seriously an attempt to argue at this, when it has already become an integral part of world heritage backed by all the archaeology and historic data that can fill museums spanning 3.5 millennia.

"Ancient Palestinian Arab civilization"...no such thing really.
Only some modern sketches on variations of absurdity.

The point is Jews and Arabs have a lot to accomplish together, a lot at stake.
But it's impossible for cousins to talk eye to eye with one playing a false identity.
Arabs playing "Palestinians" doesn't allow us to honor Avraham Avinu A"H as is intended.

 

[Coyote]

This argument is repeated ad nauseam over and over and over and over. What's the point? Or maybe the real question is - WHY is it SO important for some to deny the existence of the other?

Jews were originally called “palestinians,” by the British, in the British Mandate. It’s a made-up word. Arabs later began using it, as anti-Israel propaganda.
PLO head honcho in 1977: “Palestinian identity is just a tactical ploy”

Again. What's the point?

Why is it so important to deny another their identity?

Point is, the “palestinian“ identity has been adopted for political, anti-Israel objectives.

That is both debatable and irrelevant. They exist, as a people now. So what is the point of denying them their identity?

Because if such forgery of indigenous identity becomes a precedent,
it makes all indigenous rights void by definition, a great injustice.

It's not precedent. It's doing what is right. Recognizing the existence and rights to two different peoples. That's it. To do other wise is to create a great injustice. You can't rectify one injustice by creating another.

Arabs are a people. “Palestinians” are Arabs. Palestine was Britain‘s name for the British Mandate that became Israel. Jews were first called palestinians. There is no distinct palestinian language, religion, culture, or historic identity.

Marty, save your fingers from typing, because she is always going on about a different issue than the one this thread is about. I will do the same.

One can give all the opinions they want about the topic of the thread, but cannot go on changing what the topic this thread is really about.

Don't be so sanctimonious about it. Recognizing the existence of the other is part of the same argument otherwise you wouldn't natter on about one being an "invented people". As I said in my initial response - the argument on indigenous origins is debatable. If I were to believe your claims, it would be believing that every single non-Jewish Palestinian descended from Arabs in the Arabian peninsula, and that is simply not true. It ignores the ancient history of the place and existence of many peoples in that area prior to and since the Jewish people who've mixed it up. The real reason most (I won't say all) people want to deny this for either Palestinians or Jews is to diminish any rights they may have to Place. Now go ahead and pretend it's not on topic.

The argument of indigenous origins is actually very simple.
No need to reserve to oversimplified strawman fallacies.

Better let's clarify 2 basic points of confusion:

1. Indigenous rights are not dealing with persons
but ancient civilizations in their specific native place of origin.

2. Indigeneity is not based on mere presence in a land.
And it doesn't cover modern identities, which are fine on their own,
and cannot be granted indigenous status by banally appropriating identity
and folklore of every other foreign nation that passed in a given location.

The motivations behind people who argue against each group can be similar or different.
That doesn't mean one of them isn't the correct and just one to be exemplified.

Look, the history of the Jewish people is one of the longest documents of a connection of a people, civilization to its land of origin. It's pretty difficult to take seriously an attempt argue at this, when it has already become an integral part of world heritage backed by all the archaeology and historic data that can feel museums spanning 3.5 millennia.

Ancient Palestinian Arab civilization...no such thing really.
Only some modern sketches on variations of absurdity.

The point is Jews and Arabs have a lot to accomplish together, a lot at stake.
But it's impossible for cousins to talk eye to eye with one playing a false identity.
Arabs playing "Palestinians" doesn't allow us to honor Avraham Avinu A"H as is intended.

Yes..to what I bolded. In fact much of what you say makes a certain sense. But I disagree with your claim of false identity. Regardless of a history of culture...these people, who now call themselves Palestinians, have roots that go back far, further, in many cases than the Arabization of the region. That can’t be simply discounted.

what do you mean by: honor Avraham Avinu A"H as is intended.

 

[rylah]

This argument is repeated ad nauseam over and over and over and over. What's the point? Or maybe the real question is - WHY is it SO important for some to deny the existence of the other?

Jews were originally called “palestinians,” by the British, in the British Mandate. It’s a made-up word. Arabs later began using it, as anti-Israel propaganda.
PLO head honcho in 1977: “Palestinian identity is just a tactical ploy”

Again. What's the point?

Why is it so important to deny another their identity?

Point is, the “palestinian“ identity has been adopted for political, anti-Israel objectives.

That is both debatable and irrelevant. They exist, as a people now. So what is the point of denying them their identity?

Because if such forgery of indigenous identity becomes a precedent,
it makes all indigenous rights void by definition, a great injustice.

It's not precedent. It's doing what is right. Recognizing the existence and rights to two different peoples. That's it. To do other wise is to create a great injustice. You can't rectify one injustice by creating another.

Arabs are a people. “Palestinians” are Arabs. Palestine was Britain‘s name for the British Mandate that became Israel. Jews were first called palestinians. There is no distinct palestinian language, religion, culture, or historic identity.

Marty, save your fingers from typing, because she is always going on about a different issue than the one this thread is about. I will do the same.

One can give all the opinions they want about the topic of the thread, but cannot go on changing what the topic this thread is really about.

Don't be so sanctimonious about it. Recognizing the existence of the other is part of the same argument otherwise you wouldn't natter on about one being an "invented people". As I said in my initial response - the argument on indigenous origins is debatable. If I were to believe your claims, it would be believing that every single non-Jewish Palestinian descended from Arabs in the Arabian peninsula, and that is simply not true. It ignores the ancient history of the place and existence of many peoples in that area prior to and since the Jewish people who've mixed it up. The real reason most (I won't say all) people want to deny this for either Palestinians or Jews is to diminish any rights they may have to Place. Now go ahead and pretend it's not on topic.

The argument of indigenous origins is actually very simple.
No need to reserve to oversimplified strawman fallacies.

Better let's clarify 2 basic points of confusion:

1. Indigenous rights are not dealing with persons
but ancient civilizations in their specific native place of origin.

2. Indigeneity is not based on mere presence in a land.
And it doesn't cover modern identities, which are fine on their own,
and cannot be granted indigenous status by banally appropriating identity
and folklore of every other foreign nation that passed in a given location.

The motivations behind people who argue against each group can be similar or different.
That doesn't mean one of them isn't the correct and just one to be exemplified.

Look, the history of the Jewish people is one of the longest documents of a connection of a people, civilization to its land of origin. It's pretty difficult to take seriously an attempt argue at this, when it has already become an integral part of world heritage backed by all the archaeology and historic data that can feel museums spanning 3.5 millennia.

Ancient Palestinian Arab civilization...no such thing really.
Only some modern sketches on variations of absurdity.

The point is Jews and Arabs have a lot to accomplish together, a lot at stake.
But it's impossible for cousins to talk eye to eye with one playing a false identity.
Arabs playing "Palestinians" doesn't allow us to honor Avraham Avinu A"H as is intended.

Yes..to what I bolded. In fact much of what you say makes a certain sense. But I disagree with your claim of false identity. Regardless of a history of culture...these people, who now call themselves Palestinians, have roots that go back far, further, in many cases than the Arabization of the region. That can’t be simply discounted.

what do you mean by: honor Avraham Avinu A"H as is intended.

That doesn't fulfill the basic criteria of a nation, let alone indigenous.

Not to mention your whole argument is based on the same logical error that would grant indigenous status to average residents of Milwaukee on mere presence and an unproven theory of a statistical possibility that someone among the residents might be a member of a foreign civilization that happened to pass by. Which as already mentioned above, doesn't suffice the basic criteria in the first place.

The need to appeal to such sketchy basis, rather shows certain level of abuse of justice to overcompensate for an apparent lack of basic material, properties to suffice the category.

That's why it's important this doesn't become a precedent.

 

[Shusha]

Because if such forgery of indigenous identity becomes a precedent,
it makes all indigenous rights void by definition, a great injustice.
For anyone looking to re-constitute their native civilization.

This. For emphasis.

The forgery of indigeneity for political purposes is real. And needs to be addressed for what it is -- a forgery.