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

[Hollie]

Not self-proclaimed at all. That's what they are, source documents from academic and governmental archives.

Oh, that's funny. The same two cut and paste articles that you cut and paste endlessly across multiple threads? That's what they are; two selected articles that you spam across multiple threads because they appeal to your biases and self-loathing. LOL.

 

[Challenger]

Zionism did not pop up out of the blue in the late 1800's.

Correct, it didn't. It was invented by English Protestant religious fanatics in the 17th century called Puritans.

Oh please. Like it never occurred to the Jewish people to go back to their homeland? Give me a break. Yawn.

You make an interesting point. With the exception of the Crusades and short periods of Muslim "persecution" there has never been any restrictions on Jewish people travelling and settling in the Levant/Holy land/Palestine over the last 1000 years or so. Why then did so few ever bother to make the trip? The answer is because they were already in their respective homelands: England, France, The Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Russia, Morocco, Yemen, etc, etc. following their religion in their native homelands.

 

[Challenger]

..except there's no such thing as a "Jewish ethnicity"outside of Zionist dogma, although I'd be prepared accept "Judean" if he could prove his ancestors came from the Judean hills (which would make him a Palestinian), as opposed to the Massif Centrale, or the Voges.

So, if I labelled them the Israelites and the Judeans, or possible the Hebrew people, you'd suddenly be okay with it?

I'd be okay if you called the indigenous people, Palestinians, which is who they are now.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Zionism did not pop up out of the blue in the late 1800's.

Correct, it didn't. It was invented by English Protestant religious fanatics in the 17th century called Puritans.

Oh please. Like it never occurred to the Jewish people to go back to their homeland? Give me a break. Yawn.

You make an interesting point. With the exception of the Crusades and short periods of Muslim "persecution" there has never been any restrictions on Jewish people travelling and settling in the Levant/Holy land/Palestine over the last 1000 years or so. Why then did so few ever bother to make the trip? The answer is because they were already in their respective homelands: England, France, The Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Russia, Morocco, Yemen, etc, etc. following their religion in their native homelands.

Going to live in, or visit, the Promised Land in past generations was not like hopping on an El-Al flight today. It would mean selling all your earthly goods to make the arduous journey by sea. Heck, alot of posters on this Board in this day and age, like Tinmore, have never even visited Israel/Palestine!

 

[montelatici]

They are

Not self-proclaimed at all. That's what they are, source documents from academic and governmental archives.

Oh, that's funny. The same two cut and paste articles that you cut and paste endlessly across multiple threads? That's what they are; two selected articles that you spam across multiple threads because they appeal to your biases and self-loathing. LOL.

I am not sure what "articles" you are speaking of. Either they are source (contemporaneous) news articles, excerpts of official reports by the Mandatory as archived by the League of Nations and subsequently the UN, excerpts of peace treaties and international agreements such as the Covenant of the League of Nations archived by the UN and academic institutions, UN resolutions available from academic institution libraries as well as the UN itself or excerpts from the Anglo-American Committee's Survey of Palestine commissioned by the British Foreign office and the U.S. Department of State.

What of the above are you referring to?

 

[Phoenall]

..except there's no such thing as a "Jewish ethnicity"outside of Zionist dogma, although I'd be prepared accept "Judean" if he could prove his ancestors came from the Judean hills (which would make him a Palestinian), as opposed to the Massif Centrale, or the Voges.

So, if I labelled them the Israelites and the Judeans, or possible the Hebrew people, you'd suddenly be okay with it?

I'd be okay if you called the indigenous people, Palestinians, which is who they are now.

As in Palestinian Jews which is what they were from 70 C.E. until 1960 when Arafat stole the name. Have you noticed that the muslims steal everything and then claim it as their own starting with God ?

 

[Phoenall]

They are

Not self-proclaimed at all. That's what they are, source documents from academic and governmental archives.

Oh, that's funny. The same two cut and paste articles that you cut and paste endlessly across multiple threads? That's what they are; two selected articles that you spam across multiple threads because they appeal to your biases and self-loathing. LOL.

I am not sure what "articles" you are speaking of. Either they are source (contemporaneous) news articles, excerpts of official reports by the Mandatory as archived by the League of Nations and subsequently the UN, excerpts of peace treaties and international agreements such as the Covenant of the League of Nations archived by the UN and academic institutions, UN resolutions available from academic institution libraries as well as the UN itself or excerpts from the Anglo-American Committee's Survey of Palestine commissioned by the British Foreign office and the U.S. Department of State.

What of the above are you referring to?

How about the ones you cherry pick and manipulate to meet your POV, and when pulled on it put the other person on ignore as if that will cause them to stop posting

 

[Challenger]

Zionism did not pop up out of the blue in the late 1800's.

Correct, it didn't. It was invented by English Protestant religious fanatics in the 17th century called Puritans.

Oh please. Like it never occurred to the Jewish people to go back to their homeland? Give me a break. Yawn.

You make an interesting point. With the exception of the Crusades and short periods of Muslim "persecution" there has never been any restrictions on Jewish people travelling and settling in the Levant/Holy land/Palestine over the last 1000 years or so. Why then did so few ever bother to make the trip? The answer is because they were already in their respective homelands: England, France, The Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Russia, Morocco, Yemen, etc, etc. following their religion in their native homelands.

Going to live in, or visit, the Promised Land in past generations was not like hopping on an El-Al flight today. It would mean selling all your earthly goods to make the arduous journey by sea. Heck, alot of posters on this Board in this day and age, like Tinmore, have never even visited Israel/Palestine!

It wasn't as arduous as you make out; the level of riverine and Mediterranean shipping and trade was in some cases higher in antiquity and medieval times than it is today and cheaper in real terms. The various banking systems throughout history made travel safer as well since if you sold up you didn't need to carry large amounts of cash about with you.

 

[Art__Allm]

Why then did so few ever bother to make the trip? The answer is because they were already in their respective homelands: England, France, The Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Russia, Morocco, Yemen, etc, etc. following their religion in their native homelands.

That was already the case 2000 years ago.
How could so many merchants and money lenders survive in Palestine?

The ancient Israelite society was an agricultural society.
Palestina could never feed more than about 300 000 people.

In the Roman Empire there were a couple of million Jews, most of them lived in the ancient Megacities, like Alexandria, Rome, etc.

And Jews who lived outside of Palestine were not expelled from Palestine, we are talking about ancient converts to Judaism. So Alexandrian Jews were Native Alexandrians. Persian Jews were native Persians. Roman Jews were native Romans.

Judaism rejected agriculture as something that Jews should never do.

Jews did not have any peasants 2000 years ago, they could feed themselves only via selling things and lending money.

The Romans did not expel any Jews, with the exception of a few Zealots, speak ancient terrorists.

Diaspora was a logic consequence of Judaism. Jews were selling things, lending money, etc,, and leading a semi-nomadic lifestyle already 2000 years ago, and that continued till the 20th century.

 

[Phoenall]

Why then did so few ever bother to make the trip? The answer is because they were already in their respective homelands: England, France, The Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Russia, Morocco, Yemen, etc, etc. following their religion in their native homelands.

That was already the case 2000 years ago.
How could so many merchants and money lenders survive in Palestine?

The ancient Israelite society was an agricultural society.
Palestina could never feed more than about 300 000 people.

In the Roman Empire there were a couple of million Jews, most of them lived in the ancient Megacities, like Alexandria, Rome, etc.

And Jews who lived outside of Palestine were not expelled from Palestine, we are talking about ancient converts to Judaism. So Alexandrian Jews were Native Alexandrians. Persian Jews were native Persians. Roman Jews were native Romans.

Judaism rejected agriculture as something that Jews should never do.

Jews did not have any peasants 2000 years ago, they could feed themselves only via selling things and lending money.

The Romans did not expel any Jews, with the exception of a few Zealots, speak ancient terrorists.

Diaspora was a logic consequence of Judaism. Jews were selling things, lending money, etc,, and leading a semi-nomadic lifestyle already 2000 years ago, and that continued till the 20th century.

Palestine yes, ancient Israel could feed many more. See what happens when you remove the best farmers from the land, people suffer starvation. Proven when the Ottomans asked the Jews to migrate in the 18C and farm the lands of Palestine, the land gave better yields under Jewish methods and created more wealth for the poor arab soil grubbers.

Make your mind were they agricultural or were they merchants, or could there have been both but to admit that would mean that you are wrong. The Romans took many 100's of 1,000's of Jewish slaves back to their homes in Europe, what is now Italy, Germany, Austria, Czech republic, former Yugoslavia, Poland and Russia.


Seems that in your case if you cant find any support for your claims make the LIES disjointed and as hard to believe as possible

 

[Challenger]

Judaism rejected agriculture as something that Jews should never do.

Jews did not have any peasants 2000 years ago, they could feed themselves only via selling things and lending money.

I think you're confusing "Jews" (the religious group) with ordinary Judeans, many of whom were also Jewish (followed the religion) or followed local pagan traditions. Jewish people in Antiquity had their own social stratas which included peasants, only the fact that Christians forbade them to own land, turned them into primarily traders and financiers.

It's also interesting theat Josephus mentions that the siege of Jerusalem was so destructive of the Jewish (religion) people, because the Romans arrived during a major Jewish religious festival that had attracted the majority of the Jewish population to their cult centre, thus trapping them. There may be a case to bemade that the siege virtually wiped out Judaism in the Roman province of Judea and the subsequent Bar Kokhba rebellion finished the job

"Up until this date the Bar Kokhba documents indicate that towns, villages and ports where Jews lived were busy with industry and activity. Afterwards there is an eerie silence, and the archaeological record testifies to little Jewish presence until the Byzantine era, in En Gedi. This picture coheres with what we have already determined in Part I of this study, that the crucial date for what can only be described as genocide, and the devastation of Jews and Judaism within central Judea, was 135 CE and not, as usually assumed, 70 CE, despite the siege of Jerusalem and the Temple's destruction" The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea

The religion therefore must have survived outside of Judea/Palestine amongst the expatriate community and converts to Judaism before the ultimate triumph of Christianity in the 4th Century which resulted in suppression of Judaism throughout the Roman Empire reducing it to small scattered die-hard communities of converts and maybe some surviving Judeans.

 

[Phoenall]

Judaism rejected agriculture as something that Jews should never do.

Jews did not have any peasants 2000 years ago, they could feed themselves only via selling things and lending money.

I think you're confusing "Jews" (the religious group) with ordinary Judeans, many of whom were also Jewish (followed the religion) or followed local pagan traditions. Jewish people in Antiquity had their own social stratas which included peasants, only the fact that Christians forbade them to own land, turned them into primarily traders and financiers.

It's also interesting theat Josephus mentions that the siege of Jerusalem was so destructive of the Jewish (religion) people, because the Romans arrived during a major Jewish religious festival that had attracted the majority of the Jewish population to their cult centre, thus trapping them. There may be a case to bemade that the siege virtually wiped out Judaism in the Roman province of Judea and the subsequent Bar Kokhba rebellion finished the job

"Up until this date the Bar Kokhba documents indicate that towns, villages and ports where Jews lived were busy with industry and activity. Afterwards there is an eerie silence, and the archaeological record testifies to little Jewish presence until the Byzantine era, in En Gedi. This picture coheres with what we have already determined in Part I of this study, that the crucial date for what can only be described as genocide, and the devastation of Jews and Judaism within central Judea, was 135 CE and not, as usually assumed, 70 CE, despite the siege of Jerusalem and the Temple's destruction" The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea

The religion therefore must have survived outside of Judea/Palestine amongst the expatriate community and converts to Judaism before the ultimate triumph of Christianity in the 4th Century which resulted in suppression of Judaism throughout the Roman Empire reducing it to small scattered die-hard communities of converts and maybe some surviving Judeans.

Changing your stance from one of racial hatred to religious hatred does not alter the facts that you are posting hatred against one specific group. It is still illegal in the U.K. unless you are posting based on facts

 

[theliq]

Judaism rejected agriculture as something that Jews should never do.

Jews did not have any peasants 2000 years ago, they could feed themselves only via selling things and lending money.

I think you're confusing "Jews" (the religious group) with ordinary Judeans, many of whom were also Jewish (followed the religion) or followed local pagan traditions. Jewish people in Antiquity had their own social stratas which included peasants, only the fact that Christians forbade them to own land, turned them into primarily traders and financiers.

It's also interesting theat Josephus mentions that the siege of Jerusalem was so destructive of the Jewish (religion) people, because the Romans arrived during a major Jewish religious festival that had attracted the majority of the Jewish population to their cult centre, thus trapping them. There may be a case to bemade that the siege virtually wiped out Judaism in the Roman province of Judea and the subsequent Bar Kokhba rebellion finished the job

"Up until this date the Bar Kokhba documents indicate that towns, villages and ports where Jews lived were busy with industry and activity. Afterwards there is an eerie silence, and the archaeological record testifies to little Jewish presence until the Byzantine era, in En Gedi. This picture coheres with what we have already determined in Part I of this study, that the crucial date for what can only be described as genocide, and the devastation of Jews and Judaism within central Judea, was 135 CE and not, as usually assumed, 70 CE, despite the siege of Jerusalem and the Temple's destruction" The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea

The religion therefore must have survived outside of Judea/Palestine amongst the expatriate community and converts to Judaism before the ultimate triumph of Christianity in the 4th Century which resulted in suppression of Judaism throughout the Roman Empire reducing it to small scattered die-hard communities of converts and maybe some surviving Judeans.

Changing your stance from one of racial hatred to religious hatred does not alter the facts that you are posting hatred against one specific group. It is still illegal in the U.K. unless you are posting based on facts

He said NO such thing

 

[Phoenall]

Judaism rejected agriculture as something that Jews should never do.

Jews did not have any peasants 2000 years ago, they could feed themselves only via selling things and lending money.

I think you're confusing "Jews" (the religious group) with ordinary Judeans, many of whom were also Jewish (followed the religion) or followed local pagan traditions. Jewish people in Antiquity had their own social stratas which included peasants, only the fact that Christians forbade them to own land, turned them into primarily traders and financiers.

It's also interesting theat Josephus mentions that the siege of Jerusalem was so destructive of the Jewish (religion) people, because the Romans arrived during a major Jewish religious festival that had attracted the majority of the Jewish population to their cult centre, thus trapping them. There may be a case to bemade that the siege virtually wiped out Judaism in the Roman province of Judea and the subsequent Bar Kokhba rebellion finished the job

"Up until this date the Bar Kokhba documents indicate that towns, villages and ports where Jews lived were busy with industry and activity. Afterwards there is an eerie silence, and the archaeological record testifies to little Jewish presence until the Byzantine era, in En Gedi. This picture coheres with what we have already determined in Part I of this study, that the crucial date for what can only be described as genocide, and the devastation of Jews and Judaism within central Judea, was 135 CE and not, as usually assumed, 70 CE, despite the siege of Jerusalem and the Temple's destruction" The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea

The religion therefore must have survived outside of Judea/Palestine amongst the expatriate community and converts to Judaism before the ultimate triumph of Christianity in the 4th Century which resulted in suppression of Judaism throughout the Roman Empire reducing it to small scattered die-hard communities of converts and maybe some surviving Judeans.

Changing your stance from one of racial hatred to religious hatred does not alter the facts that you are posting hatred against one specific group. It is still illegal in the U.K. unless you are posting based on facts

He said NO such thing

Of course he didn't, to admit he did would show that you know that he is inciting religious and racial hatred that he hopes will result in Jews being hurt, seriously injured or even murdered. The same thing you are hoping for with your racial/religious hatred you spout every day of the week

 

[theliq]

Judaism rejected agriculture as something that Jews should never do.

Jews did not have any peasants 2000 years ago, they could feed themselves only via selling things and lending money.

I think you're confusing "Jews" (the religious group) with ordinary Judeans, many of whom were also Jewish (followed the religion) or followed local pagan traditions. Jewish people in Antiquity had their own social stratas which included peasants, only the fact that Christians forbade them to own land, turned them into primarily traders and financiers.

It's also interesting theat Josephus mentions that the siege of Jerusalem was so destructive of the Jewish (religion) people, because the Romans arrived during a major Jewish religious festival that had attracted the majority of the Jewish population to their cult centre, thus trapping them. There may be a case to bemade that the siege virtually wiped out Judaism in the Roman province of Judea and the subsequent Bar Kokhba rebellion finished the job

"Up until this date the Bar Kokhba documents indicate that towns, villages and ports where Jews lived were busy with industry and activity. Afterwards there is an eerie silence, and the archaeological record testifies to little Jewish presence until the Byzantine era, in En Gedi. This picture coheres with what we have already determined in Part I of this study, that the crucial date for what can only be described as genocide, and the devastation of Jews and Judaism within central Judea, was 135 CE and not, as usually assumed, 70 CE, despite the siege of Jerusalem and the Temple's destruction" The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea

The religion therefore must have survived outside of Judea/Palestine amongst the expatriate community and converts to Judaism before the ultimate triumph of Christianity in the 4th Century which resulted in suppression of Judaism throughout the Roman Empire reducing it to small scattered die-hard communities of converts and maybe some surviving Judeans.

Changing your stance from one of racial hatred to religious hatred does not alter the facts that you are posting hatred against one specific group. It is still illegal in the U.K. unless you are posting based on facts

He said NO such thing

Of course he didn't, to admit he did would show that you know that he is inciting religious and racial hatred that he hopes will result in Jews being hurt, seriously injured or even murdered. The same thing you are hoping for with your racial/religious hatred you spout every day of the week

Don't be Foolish

 

[Phoenall]

Judaism rejected agriculture as something that Jews should never do.

Jews did not have any peasants 2000 years ago, they could feed themselves only via selling things and lending money.

I think you're confusing "Jews" (the religious group) with ordinary Judeans, many of whom were also Jewish (followed the religion) or followed local pagan traditions. Jewish people in Antiquity had their own social stratas which included peasants, only the fact that Christians forbade them to own land, turned them into primarily traders and financiers.

It's also interesting theat Josephus mentions that the siege of Jerusalem was so destructive of the Jewish (religion) people, because the Romans arrived during a major Jewish religious festival that had attracted the majority of the Jewish population to their cult centre, thus trapping them. There may be a case to bemade that the siege virtually wiped out Judaism in the Roman province of Judea and the subsequent Bar Kokhba rebellion finished the job

"Up until this date the Bar Kokhba documents indicate that towns, villages and ports where Jews lived were busy with industry and activity. Afterwards there is an eerie silence, and the archaeological record testifies to little Jewish presence until the Byzantine era, in En Gedi. This picture coheres with what we have already determined in Part I of this study, that the crucial date for what can only be described as genocide, and the devastation of Jews and Judaism within central Judea, was 135 CE and not, as usually assumed, 70 CE, despite the siege of Jerusalem and the Temple's destruction" The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea

The religion therefore must have survived outside of Judea/Palestine amongst the expatriate community and converts to Judaism before the ultimate triumph of Christianity in the 4th Century which resulted in suppression of Judaism throughout the Roman Empire reducing it to small scattered die-hard communities of converts and maybe some surviving Judeans.

Changing your stance from one of racial hatred to religious hatred does not alter the facts that you are posting hatred against one specific group. It is still illegal in the U.K. unless you are posting based on facts

He said NO such thing

Of course he didn't, to admit he did would show that you know that he is inciting religious and racial hatred that he hopes will result in Jews being hurt, seriously injured or even murdered. The same thing you are hoping for with your racial/religious hatred you spout every day of the week

Don't be Foolish

You just cant stand seeing the truth can you. Your game is up and now you are trying to change it to anti religion and opposed to anti race

 

[Phoenall]

I think you're confusing "Jews" (the religious group) with ordinary Judeans, many of whom were also Jewish (followed the religion) or followed local pagan traditions. Jewish people in Antiquity had their own social stratas which included peasants, only the fact that Christians forbade them to own land, turned them into primarily traders and financiers.

It's also interesting theat Josephus mentions that the siege of Jerusalem was so destructive of the Jewish (religion) people, because the Romans arrived during a major Jewish religious festival that had attracted the majority of the Jewish population to their cult centre, thus trapping them. There may be a case to bemade that the siege virtually wiped out Judaism in the Roman province of Judea and the subsequent Bar Kokhba rebellion finished the job

"Up until this date the Bar Kokhba documents indicate that towns, villages and ports where Jews lived were busy with industry and activity. Afterwards there is an eerie silence, and the archaeological record testifies to little Jewish presence until the Byzantine era, in En Gedi. This picture coheres with what we have already determined in Part I of this study, that the crucial date for what can only be described as genocide, and the devastation of Jews and Judaism within central Judea, was 135 CE and not, as usually assumed, 70 CE, despite the siege of Jerusalem and the Temple's destruction" The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea

The religion therefore must have survived outside of Judea/Palestine amongst the expatriate community and converts to Judaism before the ultimate triumph of Christianity in the 4th Century which resulted in suppression of Judaism throughout the Roman Empire reducing it to small scattered die-hard communities of converts and maybe some surviving Judeans.

Changing your stance from one of racial hatred to religious hatred does not alter the facts that you are posting hatred against one specific group. It is still illegal in the U.K. unless you are posting based on facts

He said NO such thing

Of course he didn't, to admit he did would show that you know that he is inciting religious and racial hatred that he hopes will result in Jews being hurt, seriously injured or even murdered. The same thing you are hoping for with your racial/religious hatred you spout every day of the week

Don't be Foolish

Changing your stance from one of racial hatred to religious hatred does not alter the facts that you are posting hatred against one specific group. It is still illegal in the U.K. unless you are posting based on facts

He said NO such thing

Oh, ignore Phoney, he's just trolling as usual. He wouldn't know a fact if it walked up and introduced itself, responding to him just encourages the idiot.

You don't even know what a troll is, so how would you be able to spot one. Your posts are the epitome of the U.K. governments definition of a troll, I wonder when you will get the call ?

Again STOP being Foolish

OK, got it, you just like pulling his chain. That can be fun at times, I admit, but boredom soon sets in as he's never got anything substantial, original or worthwhile to contribute to any discussion.

Do you the number of times you are pulled up short and proven to be wrong

 

[Tientei]

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

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

And, they were certainly the native inhabitants that the Covenant of the League of Nations referred to.

1. The people who became the Jewish people were one of many warring tribes in the region who largely shared the same culture. The Canaanites became the Jewish people. All the other warring tribes were absorbed into competing cultures and did not survive.

2. There is absolutely no cultural connection between the Arab Muslim "Palestinians" and the Canaanites or the Israelites. None. Zero. The culture of the present day Arab Muslims is the culture of the invading and colonizing peoples. The definition of indigenous depends on pre-invasion cultures.

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


And you don't really want to argue that the displacement or expulsion of part of a group renders the entire group as being non-indigenous and without rights, do you? Because that is going to cause you some serious problems in the discussions about the "Palestinian" RoR.

1. No, the Jews, more properly called Hebrews, invaded Canaan from elsewhere. This is not only a secular archeological fact, it is what the bible states. Plus, these Hebrews fell later to the Neo-Assyrians in 900 BC or so.

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

‘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 adopte

d 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.

“[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.

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.

As neither the Byzantines nor the Muslims carried out any large-scale population resettlement projects, the Christians were the offspring of the Jewish and Samaritan farmers who converted to Christianity in the Byzantine period; while the Muslim fellaheen in Palestine in modern times are descendants of those Christians who were the descendants of Jews*, and had turned to Islam before the Crusaders’ conquest.

Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, Cambridge University Press. pp 634-1099.

3. The Palestinians have lived continuously in the area from before the arrival of the Jews. That they practiced the Canaanite or other religions does not change the people's DNA.

Surely a more relevant or a question important to ask after we come to a consensus on who is indigenous to Palestine is whether this means that they have a greater right to the land? No one can reverse the establishment of the state of Israel but the real controversy is whether Palestine can exist in the current political climate.

 

[Challenger]

No one can reverse the establishment of the state of Israel

Dream on.

Countries rise and fall, come into existance and disappear. Just look at the historical perspective of the last 1000 years

 

[Phoenall]

No one can reverse the establishment of the state of Israel

Dream on.

Countries rise and fall, come into existance and disappear. Just look at the historical perspective of the last 1000 years

And your dream is to have 12 million bodies around the world that will be the last of the Jews. This will have completed your forebears wishes and eliminated the least threat to your world conquest. Israel is entrenched in international law and can not be destroyed that simply. Even if the arab league does attack and rids the M.E. of the Jews and takes over Israel then the land is still Israel as decreed in the UN charter. So the whole object of your hatred is foiled by International law, and you are left like a fish out of water.