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

[Shusha]

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.

The discussion is not about physical, genetic or blood descent of individuals. The discussion is about a collective over-taking of the indigenous population (the Jewish people) and replacing that culture with another culture(s). Thus EVERY SINGLE Arab Muslim by DEFINITION is "descended" from the Arabs who originated in other places and over-took the local, native, indigenous population. Why? Because the ARAB CULTURE was imported and, by one method or another, imposed on the local, native, indigenous culture (the Jewish culture). And we can test this by examining and comparing the Arab Muslim cultures to other Arab Muslim cultures and contrasting it to local, native, indigenous Hebrew, Jewish, Israeli cultures.

It ignores the ancient history of the place and existence of many peoples in that area

Let's take a look at that. Which peoples existed in that area? How many peoples? Can you name them? What names would you assign to them? How do you differentiate this peoples from that peoples? How do you assign 'history' to this peoples or that peoples? What criteria are you using to determine any of these things?

And I'm going to add another piece to the pie. What is the POINT in trying to acknowledge indigenous cultures? What is the reason why we are trying to do it, as a global community?

 

[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.

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.

Israel and Arab countries are developing diplomatic relations, from Egypt and Jordan earlier, to more recently Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. The “palestinians” are outliers and are even viewed with scorn by Arabs themselves.
Abd Al-Bari Atwan: The Arab Leaders Are Praying That Israel Will Get Rid of the Palestinians Once and for All

 

[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.

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.

The idea of Arabs identifying by the name “palestine,” Britain’s fictional name for the British Mandate for the establishment of Israeli statehood, which came from a fictional Roman name imposed on Jews, palaestina, is ridiculous.

 

[Sixties Fan]

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.

And this forgery must also be cleared, that it only happens against the Land of the Jews, against the Jews, against Israel.

No other indigenous people on the planet are going through such forgery with any other people, no matter how long they have been on the land, calling themselves the Indigenous people of that land.

This is simply another form of denial of Jewish history and rights which has been happening since the Arabs Countries lost their last military attack on Israel in 1973.

One will not find any such claims by any Arabs, the Arab League, etc, during that time that the Palestinian Arabs are or should be considered Indigenous to the land.

There is only the endless promise that they will make the Zionists leave, that they will win, that it is MUSLIM, not Palestinian, land.

Since 1973, historical fact, Muslims and Christians have been delegitimizing the Jews as in: The Jews are from Europe, there is no Jewish History, the Temple Mount was never Jewish, they are the native Philistines (Who where not indigenous but of Greek Descent), etc., the inhabitants of Canaan were Arabs.....

The attempt to create forgery of the Arabs who now live in what is the Land of Israel, as being ALSO Indigenous of the Land of Israel, Canaan, is simply a continuation of that attempt to delegitimize the Jews, the Samarians, the Amorites, etc, as being the Indigenous people, the ones who were there before the Arabs ever showed up.

But, let us please note......that the only ones being dilegitimized as being Indigenous of that land.....are the Jews.

The Arabs are not the Samarians, the Amorites or any other indigenous tribe/nation which lived on the land, who deserve to be called Indigenous.

Migrating, does not make one Indigenous of an area. This has been pointed out before.

People from Yemen moving to the area of Medina, would still be considered to be Indigenous of the area of Yemen. It does not matter if they are Arabs or not, since it is all part of Arabia.

The same thing could be said of one tribe in Africa, Kenya, moving to another part of Africa, South Africa. If their origins are in Kenya, they are indigenous of Kenya, no matter how many centuries and generations may now have lived in S. A. .

 

[Sixties Fan]

And more point:

No one on the Pro Israel group is denying that the Palestinians are now a people who need a State, anymore than there are any group of Jews denying that there is such a nationality now called Jordanian. Especially as Jordan is made of newly arrived Arabs, kicked out of their lands in Arabia, the Hashemites.

The problem continues to be the Palestinian leaders specifically who have milked the idea of a nationality and a state which they want nothing at all with.

Their documents, textbooks, media, etc, focuses on lonely one thing. Denying the Jews their identity, their history, their temples, their lands, their lives.

Until all Leaders who do not want an Israel and sovereign Jews next to them are replaced, there is going to continue to be this "education" that Palestinians have equal right to the land they invaded to begin with, never kept a hold of because of other invaders, and are intent in killing and destroying Jews and Israel because their Muslim education/ideology cannot abide by having Jews or any non Muslim have a hold on any land once conquered by Muslims.

All one has to do is study Muslim history including all the endless attacks on Jews, because of what Islam teaches about Jews.


Who is Indigenous to the land of Canaan, Israel, Palestine?

Jews, Amorites, Samrians, Hitites, etc. Those are the native, indigenous tribes and nations of the region.

And again, nowhere else does anyone else see an endless attempt to delegitimize the indigenous people in order to take their land by taking their place.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

The discussion is not about physical, genetic or blood descent of individuals. The discussion is about a collective over-taking of the indigenous population (the Jewish people) and replacing that culture with another culture(s). Thus EVERY SINGLE Arab Muslim by DEFINITION is "descended" from the Arabs who originated in other places and over-took the local, native, indigenous population. Why? Because the ARAB CULTURE was imported and, by one method or another, imposed on the local, native, indigenous culture (the Jewish culture). And we can test this by examining and comparing the Arab Muslim cultures to other Arab Muslim cultures and contrasting it to local, native, indigenous Hebrew, Jewish, Israeli cultures.

It ignores the ancient history of the place and existence of many peoples in that area

Let's take a look at that. Which peoples existed in that area? How many peoples? Can you name them? What names would you assign to them? How do you differentiate this peoples from that peoples? How do you assign 'history' to this peoples or that peoples? What criteria are you using to determine any of these things?

And I'm going to add another piece to the pie. What is the POINT in trying to acknowledge indigenous cultures? What is the reason why we are trying to do it, as a global community?

And I'm going to add another piece to the pie. What is the POINT in trying to acknowledge indigenous cultures? What is the reason why we are trying to do it, as a global community?

And an excellent point it is. Do we need to go back to the cave man? Even they would be from someplace else. People have been on the move since the beginning of time. Every "people" evolve and new people and new ideas are a part of that evolution.

Look across America with all its different colors, languages, and religions. Can you point out someone who does not belong here? Of course not. Everyone is American.

Everyone living in, or expelled from, Palestine is Palestinian.

 

[Sixties Fan]

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.

The discussion is not about physical, genetic or blood descent of individuals. The discussion is about a collective over-taking of the indigenous population (the Jewish people) and replacing that culture with another culture(s). Thus EVERY SINGLE Arab Muslim by DEFINITION is "descended" from the Arabs who originated in other places and over-took the local, native, indigenous population. Why? Because the ARAB CULTURE was imported and, by one method or another, imposed on the local, native, indigenous culture (the Jewish culture). And we can test this by examining and comparing the Arab Muslim cultures to other Arab Muslim cultures and contrasting it to local, native, indigenous Hebrew, Jewish, Israeli cultures.

It ignores the ancient history of the place and existence of many peoples in that area

Let's take a look at that. Which peoples existed in that area? How many peoples? Can you name them? What names would you assign to them? How do you differentiate this peoples from that peoples? How do you assign 'history' to this peoples or that peoples? What criteria are you using to determine any of these things?

And I'm going to add another piece to the pie. What is the POINT in trying to acknowledge indigenous cultures? What is the reason why we are trying to do it, as a global community?

And I'm going to add another piece to the pie. What is the POINT in trying to acknowledge indigenous cultures? What is the reason why we are trying to do it, as a global community?

And an excellent point it is. Do we need to go back to the cave man? Even they would be from someplace else. People have been on the move since the beginning of time. Every "people" evolve and new people and new ideas are a part of that evolution.

Look across America with all its different colors, languages, and religions. Can you point out someone who does not belong her? Of course not. Everyone is American.

Everyone living in, or expelled from, Palestine is Palestinian.

Every point you have made is WRONG when it comes to who is Indigenous from where.

Thanks for the try to delegitimize EVERY Indigenous people on the planet just to be able to Legitimize the Arabs as if they were "Indigenous" from Palestine.

Born in one place and being Indigenous are totally different everywhere in the world.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

The discussion is not about physical, genetic or blood descent of individuals. The discussion is about a collective over-taking of the indigenous population (the Jewish people) and replacing that culture with another culture(s). Thus EVERY SINGLE Arab Muslim by DEFINITION is "descended" from the Arabs who originated in other places and over-took the local, native, indigenous population. Why? Because the ARAB CULTURE was imported and, by one method or another, imposed on the local, native, indigenous culture (the Jewish culture). And we can test this by examining and comparing the Arab Muslim cultures to other Arab Muslim cultures and contrasting it to local, native, indigenous Hebrew, Jewish, Israeli cultures.

It ignores the ancient history of the place and existence of many peoples in that area

Let's take a look at that. Which peoples existed in that area? How many peoples? Can you name them? What names would you assign to them? How do you differentiate this peoples from that peoples? How do you assign 'history' to this peoples or that peoples? What criteria are you using to determine any of these things?

And I'm going to add another piece to the pie. What is the POINT in trying to acknowledge indigenous cultures? What is the reason why we are trying to do it, as a global community?

And I'm going to add another piece to the pie. What is the POINT in trying to acknowledge indigenous cultures? What is the reason why we are trying to do it, as a global community?

And an excellent point it is. Do we need to go back to the cave man? Even they would be from someplace else. People have been on the move since the beginning of time. Every "people" evolve and new people and new ideas are a part of that evolution.

Look across America with all its different colors, languages, and religions. Can you point out someone who does not belong her? Of course not. Everyone is American.

Everyone living in, or expelled from, Palestine is Palestinian.

Every point you have made is WRONG when it comes to who is Indigenous from where.

Thanks for the try to delegitimize EVERY Indigenous people on the planet just to be able to Legitimize the Arabs as if they were "Indigenous" from Palestine.

Born in one place and being Indigenous are totally different everywhere in the world.

Every point you have made is WRONG when it comes to who is Indigenous from where.

So, who were the cave men from that place?

This whole argument is stupid.

 

[MartyNYC]

And more point:

No one on the Pro Israel group is denying that the Palestinians are now a people who need a State, anymore than there are any group of Jews denying that there is such a nationality now called Jordanian. Especially as Jordan is made of newly arrived Arabs, kicked out of their lands in Arabia, the Hashemites.

The problem continues to be the Palestinian leaders specifically who have milked the idea of a nationality and a state which they want nothing at all with.

Their documents, textbooks, media, etc, focuses on lonely one thing. Denying the Jews their identity, their history, their temples, their lands, their lives.

Until all Leaders who do not want an Israel and sovereign Jews next to them are replaced, there is going to continue to be this "education" that Palestinians have equal right to the land they invaded to begin with, never kept a hold of because of other invaders, and are intent in killing and destroying Jews and Israel because their Muslim education/ideology cannot abide by having Jews or any non Muslim have a hold on any land once conquered by Muslims.

All one has to do is study Muslim history including all the endless attacks on Jews, because of what Islam teaches about Jews.


Who is Indigenous to the land of Canaan, Israel, Palestine?

Jews, Amorites, Samrians, Hitites, etc. Those are the native, indigenous tribes and nations of the region.

And again, nowhere else does anyone else see an endless attempt to delegitimize the indigenous people in order to take their land by taking their place.

How come no “palestinians“ are named Palestini? Palestinians are plain Arabs, from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Arab countries. Arafat, father of palestinian nationalism, was born and educated in Egypt. Common palestinian surnames reflect their foreign origins, such as al-Masri “the Egyptian,” al-Iraqi, Maghrebi (North Africa), even Bushnaq, signifying Bosnia.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indigenous to Palestine?
⁜→ et al,

BLUF: This is called the selective application of political policy; or selective prosecution. In cases of "malfeasance," I've heard it used in terms of "vindictive application or enforcement."

No other indigenous people on the planet are going through such forgery with any other people, no matter how long they have been on the land, calling themselves the Indigenous people of that land.

(COMMENT)

This is a clear practice of discretionary application brought forward for political traction rather than one being brought as a matter of course in the normal functioning of the prosecuting or enforcement.

For instance, Russia actually did take the Crimea, and Russia did hold the Occupation while offering the Crimeans the opportunity tore integrate with Russia. While the US and European Union saw this as unfavorable treatment of the Tartars in the Crimea, → the annexation of the Peninsula was implemented anyway.

Annexation is a matter of political acceptance, and not really a matter of law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

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.

The discussion is not about physical, genetic or blood descent of individuals. The discussion is about a collective over-taking of the indigenous population (the Jewish people) and replacing that culture with another culture(s). Thus EVERY SINGLE Arab Muslim by DEFINITION is "descended" from the Arabs who originated in other places and over-took the local, native, indigenous population. Why? Because the ARAB CULTURE was imported and, by one method or another, imposed on the local, native, indigenous culture (the Jewish culture). And we can test this by examining and comparing the Arab Muslim cultures to other Arab Muslim cultures and contrasting it to local, native, indigenous Hebrew, Jewish, Israeli cultures.

It ignores the ancient history of the place and existence of many peoples in that area

Let's take a look at that. Which peoples existed in that area? How many peoples? Can you name them? What names would you assign to them? How do you differentiate this peoples from that peoples? How do you assign 'history' to this peoples or that peoples? What criteria are you using to determine any of these things?

And I'm going to add another piece to the pie. What is the POINT in trying to acknowledge indigenous cultures? What is the reason why we are trying to do it, as a global community?

And I'm going to add another piece to the pie. What is the POINT in trying to acknowledge indigenous cultures? What is the reason why we are trying to do it, as a global community?

And an excellent point it is. Do we need to go back to the cave man? Even they would be from someplace else. People have been on the move since the beginning of time. Every "people" evolve and new people and new ideas are a part of that evolution.

Look across America with all its different colors, languages, and religions. Can you point out someone who does not belong here? Of course not. Everyone is American.

Everyone living in, or expelled from, Palestine is Palestinian.

Look across America with all its different colors, languages, and religions. Can you point out someone who does not belong here? Of course not. Everyone is American.

Everyone living in, or expelled from, Palestine is Palestinian.

This is an argument against any sort of indigeneity. This argument claims that there is no such thing as foreign settlers on any land.

Yet you frequently argue that Jews are "foreign settlers". You can't have it both ways. So which part of your argument did you want to withdraw?

My guess, since this has come up before, is that you will continue to assert that no peoples are foreign settlers, well, except Jews. Which confirms Sixties point that the Jewish people are UNIQUELY set apart.

 

[MartyNYC]

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.

The discussion is not about physical, genetic or blood descent of individuals. The discussion is about a collective over-taking of the indigenous population (the Jewish people) and replacing that culture with another culture(s). Thus EVERY SINGLE Arab Muslim by DEFINITION is "descended" from the Arabs who originated in other places and over-took the local, native, indigenous population. Why? Because the ARAB CULTURE was imported and, by one method or another, imposed on the local, native, indigenous culture (the Jewish culture). And we can test this by examining and comparing the Arab Muslim cultures to other Arab Muslim cultures and contrasting it to local, native, indigenous Hebrew, Jewish, Israeli cultures.

It ignores the ancient history of the place and existence of many peoples in that area

Let's take a look at that. Which peoples existed in that area? How many peoples? Can you name them? What names would you assign to them? How do you differentiate this peoples from that peoples? How do you assign 'history' to this peoples or that peoples? What criteria are you using to determine any of these things?

And I'm going to add another piece to the pie. What is the POINT in trying to acknowledge indigenous cultures? What is the reason why we are trying to do it, as a global community?

And I'm going to add another piece to the pie. What is the POINT in trying to acknowledge indigenous cultures? What is the reason why we are trying to do it, as a global community?

And an excellent point it is. Do we need to go back to the cave man? Even they would be from someplace else. People have been on the move since the beginning of time. Every "people" evolve and new people and new ideas are a part of that evolution.

Look across America with all its different colors, languages, and religions. Can you point out someone who does not belong here? Of course not. Everyone is American.

Everyone living in, or expelled from, Palestine is Palestinian.

Look across America with all its different colors, languages, and religions. Can you point out someone who does not belong here? Of course not. Everyone is American.

Everyone living in, or expelled from, Palestine is Palestinian.

This is an argument against any sort of indigeneity. This argument claims that there is no such thing as foreign settlers on any land.

Yet you frequently argue that Jews are "foreign settlers". You can't have it both ways. So which part of your argument did you want to withdraw?

My guess, since this has come up before, is that you will continue to assert that no peoples are foreign settlers, well, except Jews. Which confirms Sixties point that the Jewish people are UNIQUELY set apart.

Arafat, father of ”palestinian” nationalism, was “indigenous” to Egypt, where he was born and educated.

 

[Coyote]

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.

The discussion is not about physical, genetic or blood descent of individuals. The discussion is about a collective over-taking of the indigenous population (the Jewish people) and replacing that culture with another culture(s). Thus EVERY SINGLE Arab Muslim by DEFINITION is "descended" from the Arabs who originated in other places and over-took the local, native, indigenous population. Why? Because the ARAB CULTURE was imported and, by one method or another, imposed on the local, native, indigenous culture (the Jewish culture). And we can test this by examining and comparing the Arab Muslim cultures to other Arab Muslim cultures and contrasting it to local, native, indigenous Hebrew, Jewish, Israeli cultures.

It ignores the ancient history of the place and existence of many peoples in that area

Let's take a look at that. Which peoples existed in that area? How many peoples? Can you name them? What names would you assign to them? How do you differentiate this peoples from that peoples? How do you assign 'history' to this peoples or that peoples? What criteria are you using to determine any of these things?

And I'm going to add another piece to the pie. What is the POINT in trying to acknowledge indigenous cultures? What is the reason why we are trying to do it, as a global community?

And I'm going to add another piece to the pie. What is the POINT in trying to acknowledge indigenous cultures? What is the reason why we are trying to do it, as a global community?

And an excellent point it is. Do we need to go back to the cave man? Even they would be from someplace else. People have been on the move since the beginning of time. Every "people" evolve and new people and new ideas are a part of that evolution.

Look across America with all its different colors, languages, and religions. Can you point out someone who does not belong here? Of course not. Everyone is American.

Everyone living in, or expelled from, Palestine is Palestinian.

Look across America with all its different colors, languages, and religions. Can you point out someone who does not belong here? Of course not. Everyone is American.

Everyone living in, or expelled from, Palestine is Palestinian.

This is an argument against any sort of indigeneity. This argument claims that there is no such thing as foreign settlers on any land.

Yet you frequently argue that Jews are "foreign settlers". You can't have it both ways. So which part of your argument did you want to withdraw?

My guess, since this has come up before, is that you will continue to assert that no peoples are foreign settlers, well, except Jews. Which confirms Sixties point that the Jewish people are UNIQUELY set apart.

Frankly...when people have lived there for hundreds if not thousands of years. It doesn't matter - they are not "settlers" they are not "foreign" and they are not "invaders". Every time I hear these arguments, whether it's directed at Jews or directed at Arab Palestinians - I have to ask - what is your agenda? I have never heard anyone argue forcefully for one or the other, who doesn't think the "other" deserves fewer rights.

 

[Coyote]

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.

The discussion is not about physical, genetic or blood descent of individuals. The discussion is about a collective over-taking of the indigenous population (the Jewish people) and replacing that culture with another culture(s). Thus EVERY SINGLE Arab Muslim by DEFINITION is "descended" from the Arabs who originated in other places and over-took the local, native, indigenous population. Why? Because the ARAB CULTURE was imported and, by one method or another, imposed on the local, native, indigenous culture (the Jewish culture). And we can test this by examining and comparing the Arab Muslim cultures to other Arab Muslim cultures and contrasting it to local, native, indigenous Hebrew, Jewish, Israeli cultures.

It ignores the ancient history of the place and existence of many peoples in that area

Let's take a look at that. Which peoples existed in that area? How many peoples? Can you name them? What names would you assign to them? How do you differentiate this peoples from that peoples? How do you assign 'history' to this peoples or that peoples? What criteria are you using to determine any of these things?

And I'm going to add another piece to the pie. What is the POINT in trying to acknowledge indigenous cultures? What is the reason why we are trying to do it, as a global community?

And I'm going to add another piece to the pie. What is the POINT in trying to acknowledge indigenous cultures? What is the reason why we are trying to do it, as a global community?

And an excellent point it is. Do we need to go back to the cave man? Even they would be from someplace else. People have been on the move since the beginning of time. Every "people" evolve and new people and new ideas are a part of that evolution.

Look across America with all its different colors, languages, and religions. Can you point out someone who does not belong here? Of course not. Everyone is American.

Everyone living in, or expelled from, Palestine is Palestinian.

Look across America with all its different colors, languages, and religions. Can you point out someone who does not belong here? Of course not. Everyone is American.

Everyone living in, or expelled from, Palestine is Palestinian.

This is an argument against any sort of indigeneity. This argument claims that there is no such thing as foreign settlers on any land.

Yet you frequently argue that Jews are "foreign settlers". You can't have it both ways. So which part of your argument did you want to withdraw?

My guess, since this has come up before, is that you will continue to assert that no peoples are foreign settlers, well, except Jews. Which confirms Sixties point that the Jewish people are UNIQUELY set apart.

Arafat, father of ”palestinian” nationalism, was “indigenous” to Egypt, where he was born and educated.

Well then, according to your logic - Jews who were born in Germany are "indigenous" to Germany where they were born and educated. Do you see where this argument goes?

 

[Coyote]

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.

The discussion is not about physical, genetic or blood descent of individuals. The discussion is about a collective over-taking of the indigenous population (the Jewish people) and replacing that culture with another culture(s). Thus EVERY SINGLE Arab Muslim by DEFINITION is "descended" from the Arabs who originated in other places and over-took the local, native, indigenous population. Why? Because the ARAB CULTURE was imported and, by one method or another, imposed on the local, native, indigenous culture (the Jewish culture). And we can test this by examining and comparing the Arab Muslim cultures to other Arab Muslim cultures and contrasting it to local, native, indigenous Hebrew, Jewish, Israeli cultures.

It ignores the ancient history of the place and existence of many peoples in that area

Let's take a look at that. Which peoples existed in that area? How many peoples? Can you name them? What names would you assign to them? How do you differentiate this peoples from that peoples? How do you assign 'history' to this peoples or that peoples? What criteria are you using to determine any of these things?

And I'm going to add another piece to the pie. What is the POINT in trying to acknowledge indigenous cultures? What is the reason why we are trying to do it, as a global community?

And I'm going to add another piece to the pie. What is the POINT in trying to acknowledge indigenous cultures? What is the reason why we are trying to do it, as a global community?

And an excellent point it is. Do we need to go back to the cave man? Even they would be from someplace else. People have been on the move since the beginning of time. Every "people" evolve and new people and new ideas are a part of that evolution.

Look across America with all its different colors, languages, and religions. Can you point out someone who does not belong her? Of course not. Everyone is American.

Everyone living in, or expelled from, Palestine is Palestinian.

Every point you have made is WRONG when it comes to who is Indigenous from where.

Thanks for the try to delegitimize EVERY Indigenous people on the planet just to be able to Legitimize the Arabs as if they were "Indigenous" from Palestine.

Born in one place and being Indigenous are totally different everywhere in the world.

Every point you have made is WRONG when it comes to who is Indigenous from where.

So, who were the cave men from that place?

This whole argument is stupid.

There is always going to be someone who was there before - ancient people moved around, a lot. Cultures overran indigenous cultures.

The thing is -if a people have lived in an area a long long time, it doesn't matter. They are NOT foreign invaders. They are the resident population and for all practical purposes indigenous.

 

[Coyote]

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.

I disagree it is a forgery. The Palestinians, include in their ancestry, people who have been there as long as the people who currently identify as Jewish.

That is indigenous.

 

[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.”

No. Actually. They are not. "Arab" has a cultural aspect. When they conquered or, through trade, spread their culture, a very large part of the Middle East/Africa became Arabicized without a single person descending from Arabia.

It's no different than when the English conquered large parts of the world and spread their culture. Are all those areas English who's population descended fro England?

 

[MartyNYC]

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.

The discussion is not about physical, genetic or blood descent of individuals. The discussion is about a collective over-taking of the indigenous population (the Jewish people) and replacing that culture with another culture(s). Thus EVERY SINGLE Arab Muslim by DEFINITION is "descended" from the Arabs who originated in other places and over-took the local, native, indigenous population. Why? Because the ARAB CULTURE was imported and, by one method or another, imposed on the local, native, indigenous culture (the Jewish culture). And we can test this by examining and comparing the Arab Muslim cultures to other Arab Muslim cultures and contrasting it to local, native, indigenous Hebrew, Jewish, Israeli cultures.

It ignores the ancient history of the place and existence of many peoples in that area

Let's take a look at that. Which peoples existed in that area? How many peoples? Can you name them? What names would you assign to them? How do you differentiate this peoples from that peoples? How do you assign 'history' to this peoples or that peoples? What criteria are you using to determine any of these things?

And I'm going to add another piece to the pie. What is the POINT in trying to acknowledge indigenous cultures? What is the reason why we are trying to do it, as a global community?

And I'm going to add another piece to the pie. What is the POINT in trying to acknowledge indigenous cultures? What is the reason why we are trying to do it, as a global community?

And an excellent point it is. Do we need to go back to the cave man? Even they would be from someplace else. People have been on the move since the beginning of time. Every "people" evolve and new people and new ideas are a part of that evolution.

Look across America with all its different colors, languages, and religions. Can you point out someone who does not belong here? Of course not. Everyone is American.

Everyone living in, or expelled from, Palestine is Palestinian.

Look across America with all its different colors, languages, and religions. Can you point out someone who does not belong here? Of course not. Everyone is American.

Everyone living in, or expelled from, Palestine is Palestinian.

This is an argument against any sort of indigeneity. This argument claims that there is no such thing as foreign settlers on any land.

Yet you frequently argue that Jews are "foreign settlers". You can't have it both ways. So which part of your argument did you want to withdraw?

My guess, since this has come up before, is that you will continue to assert that no peoples are foreign settlers, well, except Jews. Which confirms Sixties point that the Jewish people are UNIQUELY set apart.

Arafat, father of ”palestinian” nationalism, was “indigenous” to Egypt, where he was born and educated.

Well then, according to your logic - Jews who were born in Germany are "indigenous" to Germany where they were born and educated. Do you see where this argument goes?

You actually think Jewish nationalism started in Germany?

 

[Coyote]

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.

The discussion is not about physical, genetic or blood descent of individuals. The discussion is about a collective over-taking of the indigenous population (the Jewish people) and replacing that culture with another culture(s). Thus EVERY SINGLE Arab Muslim by DEFINITION is "descended" from the Arabs who originated in other places and over-took the local, native, indigenous population. Why? Because the ARAB CULTURE was imported and, by one method or another, imposed on the local, native, indigenous culture (the Jewish culture). And we can test this by examining and comparing the Arab Muslim cultures to other Arab Muslim cultures and contrasting it to local, native, indigenous Hebrew, Jewish, Israeli cultures.

It ignores the ancient history of the place and existence of many peoples in that area

Let's take a look at that. Which peoples existed in that area? How many peoples? Can you name them? What names would you assign to them? How do you differentiate this peoples from that peoples? How do you assign 'history' to this peoples or that peoples? What criteria are you using to determine any of these things?

And I'm going to add another piece to the pie. What is the POINT in trying to acknowledge indigenous cultures? What is the reason why we are trying to do it, as a global community?

Sometimes...I wonder.

What you call people who's ANCESTORS have been there as long as the Jewish people?

How do they suddenly become "invaders" when their people never left the area?

 

[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.”

No. Actually. They are not. "Arab" has a cultural aspect. When they conquered or, through trade, spread their culture, a very large part of the Middle East/Africa became Arabicized without a single person descending from Arabia.

It's no different than when the English conquered large parts of the world and spread their culture. Are all those areas English who's population descended fro England?

Arabs themselves define Arabs as having originated from Arabia, from Arab tribes. Period. End of story.