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

[rylah]

I don't actually think it matters. I think "resident" is as important if not more, than "indiginous". It's very difficult to define and determine who is "indiginous" because there is almost always someone there before and each succeeding wave of immigrants or invaders alters culture/language/religion of the current inhabitents.

The oldest, surviving, recognizable, pre-invasion culture. Not so difficult after all.

But I have no problem with your understanding that residence (current possession) of the territory trumps everything else. As long as that is applied equally. The problem that I am having is with those who want special rules to apply to the Jewish people. ie Palestinians have RoR, but the Jewish people don't. Palestinians are indigenous, but the Jewish people are not. Arab Muslims invaders and Roman invaders confer rights, but Jewish "invaders" confer no rights.

Indigenous Palestinians? Well, no...

View attachment 451174

How come nobody is named al-Palestini?

How come they can't even pronounce 'P-alestine',
without learning a foreign language?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I don't actually think it matters. I think "resident" is as important if not more, than "indiginous". It's very difficult to define and determine who is "indiginous" because there is almost always someone there before and each succeeding wave of immigrants or invaders alters culture/language/religion of the current inhabitents.

The oldest, surviving, recognizable, pre-invasion culture. Not so difficult after all.

But I have no problem with your understanding that residence (current possession) of the territory trumps everything else. As long as that is applied equally. The problem that I am having is with those who want special rules to apply to the Jewish people. ie Palestinians have RoR, but the Jewish people don't. Palestinians are indigenous, but the Jewish people are not. Arab Muslims invaders and Roman invaders confer rights, but Jewish "invaders" confer no rights.

Indigenous Palestinians? Well, no...

View attachment 451174

How come nobody is named al-Palestini?

How come they can't even pronounce 'P-alestine',
without learning a foreign language?

Juvenile.

 

[Lee Edwin]

I don't actually think it matters. I think "resident" is as important if not more, than "indiginous". It's very difficult to define and determine who is "indiginous" because there is almost always someone there before and each succeeding wave of immigrants or invaders alters culture/language/religion of the current inhabitents.

The oldest, surviving, recognizable, pre-invasion culture. Not so difficult after all.

But I have no problem with your understanding that residence (current possession) of the territory trumps everything else. As long as that is applied equally. The problem that I am having is with those who want special rules to apply to the Jewish people. ie Palestinians have RoR, but the Jewish people don't. Palestinians are indigenous, but the Jewish people are not. Arab Muslims invaders and Roman invaders confer rights, but Jewish "invaders" confer no rights.

Europeans that converted to Judaism are not indigenous to Palestine. Full stop. They are Europeans. The native people that continued to live in Palestine and converted to different religions for convenience or faith over the centuries are as close as indigenous as you can get in such a busy place like Palestine.

Um, palestine is a European word, referring to philistines who were Europeans from the Aegean. The Romans, who were European, imposed the name palaestina on Jews, the indigenous population. Yeah, Jews have a really long history in their homeland.

Not to split hairs,

just an interesting information I've came around recently reading about the beginnings of Rome, which also happens to answer many questions regarding this specific topic of indigeneity, and common misconceptions regarding the Levant and attempts to derive anthropological evidence from modern genetic studies of populations. The point is that there's enough historic, folklore and archaeological evidence to the story of Rome being founded by what Europeans called 'Phoenicians', i.e. general name for Levantene people. Aside from Rome, Italy, there were significant settlements in Spain, and of course Carthage.

That said, Philistinies were different to Levantenes, as their name tells, a different civilization, unlike A(a)rmenians for example, who intermixed significantly and were essentially a brotherly nation to Levantenes, and who's cultural presence and influence remained evident throughout the region, and especially in Hebrew civilization.

Phoenicians were Canaanites—No relation to Romans who were Italian. Philistines, after whom palestine was named, were Aegean in origin and are believed to have been Mycenaean Greeks, among the Sea Peoples who settled on the eastern Mediterranean coast.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I don't actually think it matters. I think "resident" is as important if not more, than "indiginous". It's very difficult to define and determine who is "indiginous" because there is almost always someone there before and each succeeding wave of immigrants or invaders alters culture/language/religion of the current inhabitents.

The oldest, surviving, recognizable, pre-invasion culture. Not so difficult after all.

But I have no problem with your understanding that residence (current possession) of the territory trumps everything else. As long as that is applied equally. The problem that I am having is with those who want special rules to apply to the Jewish people. ie Palestinians have RoR, but the Jewish people don't. Palestinians are indigenous, but the Jewish people are not. Arab Muslims invaders and Roman invaders confer rights, but Jewish "invaders" confer no rights.

Europeans that converted to Judaism are not indigenous to Palestine. Full stop. They are Europeans. The native people that continued to live in Palestine and converted to different religions for convenience or faith over the centuries are as close as indigenous as you can get in such a busy place like Palestine.

Um, palestine is a European word, referring to philistines who were Europeans from the Aegean. The Romans, who were European, imposed the name palaestina on Jews, the indigenous population. Yeah, Jews have a really long history in their homeland.

Not to split hairs,

just an interesting information I've came around recently reading about the beginnings of Rome, which also happens to answer many questions regarding this specific topic of indigeneity, and common misconceptions regarding the Levant and attempts to derive anthropological evidence from modern genetic studies of populations. The point is that there's enough historic, folklore and archaeological evidence to the story of Rome being founded by what Europeans called 'Phoenicians', i.e. general name for Levantene people. Aside from Rome, Italy, there were significant settlements in Spain, and of course Carthage.

That said, Philistinies were different to Levantenes, as their name tells, a different civilization, unlike A(a)rmenians for example, who intermixed significantly and were essentially a brotherly nation to Levantenes, and who's cultural presence and influence remained evident throughout the region, and especially in Hebrew civilization.

Phoenicians were Canaanites—No relation to Romans who were Italian. Philistines, after whom palestine was named, were Aegean in origin and are believed to have been Mycenaean Greeks, among the Sea Peoples who settled on the eastern Mediterranean coast.

OK, and?

 

[Lee Edwin]

I don't actually think it matters. I think "resident" is as important if not more, than "indiginous". It's very difficult to define and determine who is "indiginous" because there is almost always someone there before and each succeeding wave of immigrants or invaders alters culture/language/religion of the current inhabitents.

The oldest, surviving, recognizable, pre-invasion culture. Not so difficult after all.

But I have no problem with your understanding that residence (current possession) of the territory trumps everything else. As long as that is applied equally. The problem that I am having is with those who want special rules to apply to the Jewish people. ie Palestinians have RoR, but the Jewish people don't. Palestinians are indigenous, but the Jewish people are not. Arab Muslims invaders and Roman invaders confer rights, but Jewish "invaders" confer no rights.

Europeans that converted to Judaism are not indigenous to Palestine. Full stop. They are Europeans. The native people that continued to live in Palestine and converted to different religions for convenience or faith over the centuries are as close as indigenous as you can get in such a busy place like Palestine.

Um, palestine is a European word, referring to philistines who were Europeans from the Aegean. The Romans, who were European, imposed the name palaestina on Jews, the indigenous population. Yeah, Jews have a really long history in their homeland.

Not to split hairs,

just an interesting information I've came around recently reading about the beginnings of Rome, which also happens to answer many questions regarding this specific topic of indigeneity, and common misconceptions regarding the Levant and attempts to derive anthropological evidence from modern genetic studies of populations. The point is that there's enough historic, folklore and archaeological evidence to the story of Rome being founded by what Europeans called 'Phoenicians', i.e. general name for Levantene people. Aside from Rome, Italy, there were significant settlements in Spain, and of course Carthage.

That said, Philistinies were different to Levantenes, as their name tells, a different civilization, unlike A(a)rmenians for example, who intermixed significantly and were essentially a brotherly nation to Levantenes, and who's cultural presence and influence remained evident throughout the region, and especially in Hebrew civilization.

Phoenicians were Canaanites—No relation to Romans who were Italian. Philistines, after whom palestine was named, were Aegean in origin and are believed to have been Mycenaean Greeks, among the Sea Peoples who settled on the eastern Mediterranean coast.

OK, and?

You‘re wasting a ridiculous amount of your life arguing over “palestine” which was originally related to non-indigenous, non-semitic raiders from Europe who didn’t even name anything palestine, and which designated a different location, on the Mediterranean coast.

 

[rylah]

I don't actually think it matters. I think "resident" is as important if not more, than "indiginous". It's very difficult to define and determine who is "indiginous" because there is almost always someone there before and each succeeding wave of immigrants or invaders alters culture/language/religion of the current inhabitents.

The oldest, surviving, recognizable, pre-invasion culture. Not so difficult after all.

But I have no problem with your understanding that residence (current possession) of the territory trumps everything else. As long as that is applied equally. The problem that I am having is with those who want special rules to apply to the Jewish people. ie Palestinians have RoR, but the Jewish people don't. Palestinians are indigenous, but the Jewish people are not. Arab Muslims invaders and Roman invaders confer rights, but Jewish "invaders" confer no rights.

Indigenous Palestinians? Well, no...

View attachment 451174

How come nobody is named al-Palestini?

How come they can't even pronounce 'P-alestine',
without learning a foreign language?

Juvenile.

What is juvenile, that you can't refute it,
or that you're cheering people killing themselves and others,
over what you claim is theirs, but they can not even properly pronounce?

I wouldn't call that juvenile, rather sick or sociopathic, yet unfortunately remains fact.

 

[Lee Edwin]

I don't actually think it matters. I think "resident" is as important if not more, than "indiginous". It's very difficult to define and determine who is "indiginous" because there is almost always someone there before and each succeeding wave of immigrants or invaders alters culture/language/religion of the current inhabitents.

The oldest, surviving, recognizable, pre-invasion culture. Not so difficult after all.

But I have no problem with your understanding that residence (current possession) of the territory trumps everything else. As long as that is applied equally. The problem that I am having is with those who want special rules to apply to the Jewish people. ie Palestinians have RoR, but the Jewish people don't. Palestinians are indigenous, but the Jewish people are not. Arab Muslims invaders and Roman invaders confer rights, but Jewish "invaders" confer no rights.

Indigenous Palestinians? Well, no...

View attachment 451174

How come nobody is named al-Palestini?

How come they can't even pronounce 'P-alestine',
without learning a foreign language?

Juvenile.

What is juvenile, that you can't refute it,
or that you're cheering people killing themselves and others,
over what you claim is theirs, but they can not even properly pronounce?

I wouldn't call that juvenile, rather sick or sociopathic, yet unfortunately remains fact.

Arabs conventionally call it Filastin, though it’s not a native Arabic word—Filastin is an Arab adaptation of palestine, which is English, and Greek and Latin in origin.

 

[rylah]

I don't actually think it matters. I think "resident" is as important if not more, than "indiginous". It's very difficult to define and determine who is "indiginous" because there is almost always someone there before and each succeeding wave of immigrants or invaders alters culture/language/religion of the current inhabitents.

The oldest, surviving, recognizable, pre-invasion culture. Not so difficult after all.

But I have no problem with your understanding that residence (current possession) of the territory trumps everything else. As long as that is applied equally. The problem that I am having is with those who want special rules to apply to the Jewish people. ie Palestinians have RoR, but the Jewish people don't. Palestinians are indigenous, but the Jewish people are not. Arab Muslims invaders and Roman invaders confer rights, but Jewish "invaders" confer no rights.

Europeans that converted to Judaism are not indigenous to Palestine. Full stop. They are Europeans. The native people that continued to live in Palestine and converted to different religions for convenience or faith over the centuries are as close as indigenous as you can get in such a busy place like Palestine.

Um, palestine is a European word, referring to philistines who were Europeans from the Aegean. The Romans, who were European, imposed the name palaestina on Jews, the indigenous population. Yeah, Jews have a really long history in their homeland.

Not to split hairs,

just an interesting information I've came around recently reading about the beginnings of Rome, which also happens to answer many questions regarding this specific topic of indigeneity, and common misconceptions regarding the Levant and attempts to derive anthropological evidence from modern genetic studies of populations. The point is that there's enough historic, folklore and archaeological evidence to the story of Rome being founded by what Europeans called 'Phoenicians', i.e. general name for Levantene people. Aside from Rome, Italy, there were significant settlements in Spain, and of course Carthage.

That said, Philistinies were different to Levantenes, as their name tells, a different civilization, unlike A(a)rmenians for example, who intermixed significantly and were essentially a brotherly nation to Levantenes, and who's cultural presence and influence remained evident throughout the region, and especially in Hebrew civilization.

Phoenicians were Canaanites—No relation to Romans who were Italian. Philistines, after whom palestine was named, were Aegean in origin and are believed to have been Mycenaean Greeks, among the Sea Peoples who settled on the eastern Mediterranean coast.

They could have also been related to predecessors of Vikings,
but anyway those redhead 'sea people' were definitely not Bedouins,
and not indigenous according the name given to them in the local language.

 

[Lee Edwin]

I don't actually think it matters. I think "resident" is as important if not more, than "indiginous". It's very difficult to define and determine who is "indiginous" because there is almost always someone there before and each succeeding wave of immigrants or invaders alters culture/language/religion of the current inhabitents.

The oldest, surviving, recognizable, pre-invasion culture. Not so difficult after all.

But I have no problem with your understanding that residence (current possession) of the territory trumps everything else. As long as that is applied equally. The problem that I am having is with those who want special rules to apply to the Jewish people. ie Palestinians have RoR, but the Jewish people don't. Palestinians are indigenous, but the Jewish people are not. Arab Muslims invaders and Roman invaders confer rights, but Jewish "invaders" confer no rights.

Europeans that converted to Judaism are not indigenous to Palestine. Full stop. They are Europeans. The native people that continued to live in Palestine and converted to different religions for convenience or faith over the centuries are as close as indigenous as you can get in such a busy place like Palestine.

Um, palestine is a European word, referring to philistines who were Europeans from the Aegean. The Romans, who were European, imposed the name palaestina on Jews, the indigenous population. Yeah, Jews have a really long history in their homeland.

Not to split hairs,

just an interesting information I've came around recently reading about the beginnings of Rome, which also happens to answer many questions regarding this specific topic of indigeneity, and common misconceptions regarding the Levant and attempts to derive anthropological evidence from modern genetic studies of populations. The point is that there's enough historic, folklore and archaeological evidence to the story of Rome being founded by what Europeans called 'Phoenicians', i.e. general name for Levantene people. Aside from Rome, Italy, there were significant settlements in Spain, and of course Carthage.

That said, Philistinies were different to Levantenes, as their name tells, a different civilization, unlike A(a)rmenians for example, who intermixed significantly and were essentially a brotherly nation to Levantenes, and who's cultural presence and influence remained evident throughout the region, and especially in Hebrew civilization.

Phoenicians were Canaanites—No relation to Romans who were Italian. Philistines, after whom palestine was named, were Aegean in origin and are believed to have been Mycenaean Greeks, among the Sea Peoples who settled on the eastern Mediterranean coast.

They could have also been related to predecessors of Vikings,
but anyway those redhead 'sea people' were definitely not Bedouins,
and not indigenous according the name given to them in the local language.

DNA research locates the philistines originally in the southern Europe/Aegean region. Ramses III at his famous temple at Medinet Habu recorded their attack on Egypt, indicating they arrived on warships from foreign islands...

 

[Open Bolt]

So the Jews the invading and colonizing people (Battle of Jericho and all that) cannot be indigenous by definition. Next.

Except the Jews are not the invading and colonizing people. They are an original indigenous population.

In any case, people claiming to be indigenous must at least have lived in an area for some time. I don't think living in Europe for 2,000 years can make a people indigenous to a place on another continent.

The indigenous people are the original population. That includes the Jews.

The Palestinians who have ancestry back to the Canaanites, Philistines etc. (as well as to invading Israelites) are thus closest to being indigenous.

Philistines?? Really?

The Jews have ancestry back to the Canaanites too. Thus they as well are closest to being indigenous.

So, the Jews are not indigenous as by your definition invaders can't be indigenous.

The Jews are not invaders. As descendants of the original population they are very much indigenous.

Europeans that converted to Judaism are not indigenous to Palestine. Full stop. They are Europeans.

They didn't convert. European Jews are descended from the original Canaanite population.

The European Jews are certainly not indigenous to the Middle East or Palestine

That is incorrect. European Jews are indigenous to the West Bank area.

All the Jewish migrants to Israel were/are from somewhere else outside of Palestine.

That is incorrect. Jewish migrants to Israel are descended from the original indigenous population of the West Bank area.

Look, the Jews were from somewhere outside of Palestine and invaded the area, so they are not indigenous.

That is incorrect. The Jews are descended from the original population of the West Bank area, so are very much indigenous.

But Jews were conquerors, they came from somewhere else.

That is incorrect. The Jews are descended from the original Canaanites.

The Europeans that colonized Palestine were culturally European and ethnically European.

Perhaps. But they are still descended from the original Canaanites.

The Jews invaded Canaan, that's a fact.

History, DNA, and archaeology say that it's not a fact.

The colonists are the Jews. They came from elsewhere,

Not according to history, archaeology, and DNA.

the Muslims and Christians of Palestine are, by definition, the native people.

The Palestinians should learn to share with other indigenous people.

 

[Open Bolt]

3. The Jewish people have lived continuously in the territory in question going back thousands of years.​

Not the ones out of Europe.

DNA and history say otherwise. The Jews from Europe are part of the original indigenous population of the West Bank area.

Do you have any proof that they were not there before the Jews or are you just babbling?

Well, since archeology shows that the Jews are descended from the original indigenous population, no one at all was there before them.

 

[surada]

Except the Jews are not the invading and colonizing people. They are an original indigenous population.



The indigenous people are the original population. That includes the Jews.



Philistines?? Really?

The Jews have ancestry back to the Canaanites too. Thus they as well are closest to being indigenous.



The Jews are not invaders. As descendants of the original population they are very much indigenous.



They didn't convert. European Jews are descended from the original Canaanite population.



That is incorrect. European Jews are indigenous to the West Bank area.



That is incorrect. Jewish migrants to Israel are descended from the original indigenous population of the West Bank area.



That is incorrect. The Jews are descended from the original population of the West Bank area, so are very much indigenous.



That is incorrect. The Jews are descended from the original Canaanites.



Perhaps. But they are still descended from the original Canaanites.



History, DNA, and archaeology say that it's not a fact.



Not according to history, archaeology, and DNA.



The Palestinians should learn to share with other indigenous people.

Most Palestinians are descended from Jewish farmers who didn't leave in the first century.

 

[Open Bolt]

The maps above shows the brutal conquest of Palestine

The maps are a lie.

Israel was not "reestablished" , it did not exist, "Israel" was a person not a place.

History and archaeology say that you are wrong.

I don’t give a damn whether Israel was the name of a kingdom. And having said that, you cannot provide any historical proof because there isn’t any, none, nada, zip. You can find books and movies about folklore and mythology, but you cannot find one single historical fact to support claims.

That is incorrect. There is ample archaeological evidence for the existence of both Jewish kingdoms. As just one example: the Omrides' vital role in the coalition that defeated the Neo-Assyrians.

 

[surada]

DNA and history say otherwise. The Jews from Europe are part of the original indigenous population of the West Bank area.



Well, since archeology shows that the Jews are descended from the original indigenous population, no one at all was there before them.

In 500 BC Sargon 2 settled four Arab tribes in Samaria. There were a half dozen Canaanite tribes living in Palestine.

 

[Open Bolt]

Most Palestinians are descended from Jewish farmers who didn't leave in the first century.

That doesn't give them any right to deny reentry to the descendants of those who were forced to leave.

In 500 BC Sargon 2 settled four Arab tribes in Samaria. There were a half dozen Canaanite tribes living in Palestine.

The Israelis were Canaanite tribes too.

Palestinians have always lived there..

The Israelis too, except for when they were forced to leave against their will.

and for most of its history Israel was under the control of an outside power.

When do you start the clock? The Canaanites ruled themselves for thousands of years before the Egyptian New Kingdom conquered them.

In any case, European Jews don't have an exclusive claim on Palestine.

Perhaps not exclusive. But as descendants of the original indigenous population, they do have a claim.

 

[Open Bolt]

1. No, the Jews, more properly called Hebrews, invaded Canaan from elsewhere.

DNA, history, and archaeology say they didn't.

This is not only a secular archeological fact, it is what the bible states.

That is incorrect. Secular archaeology shows that the Jews are descended from the original indigenous population of the West Bank area.

Plus, these Hebrews fell later to the Neo-Assyrians in 900 BC or so.

Judah did not fall to the Neo-Assyrians.

2. Of course there is a cultural connection between the Palestinians and the Canaanites.

There are also cultural connections between the Jews and the Canaanites.

The Jews are direct descendants of the Canaanites.

Here are a few excerpts from secular historical treatises on the subject. Note: I have chosen a few in which the historian is Jewish.
‘Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries; since the seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture.’
Dowty, Alan (2008). Israel/Palestine. London, UK: Polity. p. 221.

Jews are also the descendants of indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine.

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

Jews are also an indigenous people who either live in or originate from historical Palestine.

“[being of] Canaanite origin, Palestinians have priority; their descendants have continued to live there, which gives them continuity; and (except for the 800,000 dispossessed refugees of 1948 – as determined by Israeli officials at the time, not including the hundreds of thousands subsequently expelled), they are still living there, which gives them present possession. Thus we see that on purely statistical grounds they have a proven legal right to their land.”
Prof. Ilene Beatty, highly renowned historian/anthropologist and specialist on the “Holy Land” in Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan, 1957.

Being of Canaanite origin, Jews also have priority, with a proven legal right to their land.

The Arab population of Palestine was native in all the senses of the word, and their roots in Palestine can be traced back at least 40 centuries.
Professor Maxime Rodinson, Professor of law at the Sorbonne University in Paris, Israel and the Arabs, 1968.

Jewish roots in the region trace back just as far.

3. The Palestinians have lived continuously in the area from before the arrival of the Jews.

That is incorrect. The Jews are descended from the original population.

How can fact be a lie?

By not being a fact to begin with.

The Jews that colonized Palestine came from outside of Palestine.

That is incorrect. European Jews are descended from the original Canaanite population of the West Bank area.

The non-Jews had been living in Palestine had been living in Palestine for many generations. That's just a fact.

That doesn't give the Palestinians any right to wage endless war against other indigenous populations.

 

[surada]

That doesn't give them any right to deny reentry to the descendants of those who were forced to leave.



The Israelis were Canaanite tribes too.



The Israelis too, except for when they were forced to leave against their will.



Where do you start the clock? The Canaanites ruled themselves for thousands of years before the Egyptian New Kingdom conquered them.



Perhaps not exclusive. But as descendants of the original indigenous population, they do have a claim.

I know they were also Canaanites... And before them the Natufians.. and then the Akkadians and the Amorites.

 

[Open Bolt]

I know they were also Canaanites... And before them the Natufians.. and then the Akkadians and the Amorites.

Then we agree that both the Palestinians and the Jews are equally indigenous??

 

[surada]

Then we agree that both the Palestinians and the Jews are equally indigenous??

Yes. I get the Jews sought sanctuary in Palestine. I don't get how they treated the Palestinians.

 

[Open Bolt]

Yes. I get the Jews sought sanctuary in Palestine. I don't get how they treated the Palestinians.

All they are doing is defending themselves when the Palestinians attack them.