Origins of Palestinians and Jews in Palestine/Israel

[Phoenall]

Simple enough. All Jewish inhabitants in the Gaza Strip were forceably removed by the Zionist Israeli regime in pursuit of their aparheid agenda; said regime then built barriers and fences preventing any possibility of their return and simultaneously imprisoning the Muslim and Christian populations within the strip.

Oh for the love of all that is holy. Its like saying Canada forceably removed all the French people after the War of 1812 in pursuit of their apartheid agenda and then built barriers to create the open air prison that is the USA.

No it isn't.

Yes it is but you refuse to see it as it would burst your Jew hatred bubble

Comments such as the one made by Challenger here highlight three common characteristics of arguments made from the Palestinian narrative:

1. The complete lack of assignation of responsibility to both the people and the governments of Gaza and "Palestine".
2. The unilateral justification of and support for terrorist violence against innocent civilians.
3. The demonization of Israel (and often Jews) as always having evil intent even when Israel is acting in accordance with the expressed wishes of the government and people of Gaza and "Palestine" under international pressure.

I find similar characteristics from the Israeli narrative:
1. The complete lack of assignation of responsibility to both the people and the governments of Israel in this conflict.
2. The uncritical justification for inequities in the Israeli criminal and justice system in regards to Palestinians and Jews.
3. The systemic dehuminization and demonization of Palestinians.

As you have been shown Israel's hands are tied by International law that dictates they must enforce the judicial system in operation at the time the land was occupied. This was that of Jordan and so they must act in the same manner as Jordan would act. The Israeli government stop short of firing on civilians caged in refugee camps as Jordanian legislation allowed in the 1970's, They also stop short of executions and stoning's as they don't have them as part of their judicial system.

 

[Coyote]

Some of them are, just like some of the Jews are immigrants from Europe.

Yet those same genetics show close ties between Jews and "Palestinians".
Blood brothers: Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots

The Muslims are descendents of indiginous people who converted to Islam and migrants from surrounding areas.

The only purpose here is to show the extent people like you will go to to demonize people who have lived in the area for centuries. I'm not demonizing anyone. I freely agree that the indiginous population comprises Jews, Christians and Muslims.

The only reason to say otherwise in the face of history is to try to disenfranchise one or the other - is that what you are doing?

And the arab muslims say they are Syrians and Egyptians. The studies done show that in the 1800's the arab muslims were nomadic and travelled around the whole area. They were not static and could be working in Hebron today and Homs next week. So are they Palestinian or Iranian ? The tests come up with an 85% to 90% match which is the same for man and the great apes down to man and a banana, so how does this mean that Palestinians and Jews are closely related. Look at the studies presented by monte that claim the whole of the European Jewish community is descended from just 4 females. That would mean the inter-breeding would have created genetic mutations and a survival rate of today of less than 10%.

You want to look at demonization then look no further than team palestine's attacks on the Jews around their ancestry and history, with the claims of fictional groups being the Ashkenazi Jews of today.

Some were but many were settled farmers. The studies done refer to the Beduoin. The word "Arab" was used to classify a broad range of people.

To listen to you the only inhabitants of that region until 1960 were Jews and that's a blatant falsehood.

Then you are employing selective hearing and should be ashamed of yourself.

I'm going by exactly what you said - are you backing away from that claim now?

The Jews lived and worked the land for 4,500 years, in the middle they were conquered by the Roman empire and the Christian sect of Judaism was invented. The Christians grew into a world religion with teaching of hate against the Jews because they did not want their roots in Judaism to be well known. Then in the 7C a camel herder with a mental defect invented islam and proceeded to take over the world, starting with the Jews when they refused to accept him as the Messiah.

Ok...let's review this.

Multiple ancient people's lived in the area referred to as "Palestine"....

Canaan
The earliest references refer to "Canaan". At that time, the indigenous people of Canaan worshiped many gods but, chief among them, the goddess Astarte and her consort Baal. Women had some pretty decent rights... "Women could and did serve as Priestesses, could own land, enter into contracts and initiate divorce". That's just a sidenote, but surprising.

Then, a bunch of unruly slaves led by a madman who got his orders from talking burning bushes invaded Canaan, "subdued" the native population and conquered it's cities and in installed their newly invented monotheistic religion.

Palestine

Then, the Phillistines invaded (a term that still means course, vulgar and barbarian) and were partially subdued by the Israelites.
Then the Assyrians invaded, subdued the Phillistines completely, sacked and raped their way to glory and sold the inhabitants into slavery.
Eventually - Alexander the Great "liberated" Palestine and claimed it.
Then the Roman's claimed it.

Then along comes a zombie messiah - Christianity was invented and sweeps through the the region.

Then along comes a camel herder in the Arabian Peninsula who hears voices in a cave, invents Islam which then sweeps through the region. Muslims captured Jeruselum in 638 AD, not - as you say "in fact the arab muslims arrived between the late 1890's and the mid 1960's." Your claim isn't even remotely close.

In all these successive invasions, conquering and migrations - religions moved along with people and the indiginous inhabitants often converted to the new religions.

So who has the longevity in the area as it certainly isn't the Christian immigrants or the arab muslim immigrants. What you are saying is that you have more rights in America than the original inhabitants, while saying that the immigrants in Palestine also have more rights than the original inhabitants as well. The arab muslims ( clue is in their racial name ) and Christians don't have more rights to the land as they are mostly recent arrivals, in fact the arab muslims arrived between the late 1890's and the mid 1960's. This is shown by the UN having to create a new body because the arab muslims did not meet the criteria for refugee status having less than 2 years habitual residence in the area.

Stop right there. That is NOT what I'm saying. It is YOU saying that one group has "more rights" than another. They don't. None of them do. They are closely bound together and have been so thousands of years weathering a succession of conquering peoples...starting with the Israelites. The whole argument of rights determined by ancient history is idiotic and depends on a completely arbritary system of determining what is considered "long enough" to be "legitimate".

No you are saying that because you are anti Jew they have no rights to the land.

Sorry dude - I've never ever said that. If you are going to make that claim - provide a quote or admit you are lying. The indiginous people of Palestine include Jews as well as Christians, Muslims, Druze and others.

OK then how about we look at international law and rights to the land. In 1923 the Jews were granted sovereignty over 22% of Palestine, the remainder was granted to the arab muslims with a Saudi prince as their ruler. There has been no international law or treaty since giving any of the Jewish portion to the arab muslims. So by what legal right are you and them claiming sovereignty over Jewish land ?

That's another topic.

 

[Phoenall]

Some of them are, just like some of the Jews are immigrants from Europe.

Yet those same genetics show close ties between Jews and "Palestinians".
Blood brothers: Palestinians and Jews share genetic roots

The Muslims are descendents of indiginous people who converted to Islam and migrants from surrounding areas.

The only purpose here is to show the extent people like you will go to to demonize people who have lived in the area for centuries. I'm not demonizing anyone. I freely agree that the indiginous population comprises Jews, Christians and Muslims.

The only reason to say otherwise in the face of history is to try to disenfranchise one or the other - is that what you are doing?

And the arab muslims say they are Syrians and Egyptians. The studies done show that in the 1800's the arab muslims were nomadic and travelled around the whole area. They were not static and could be working in Hebron today and Homs next week. So are they Palestinian or Iranian ? The tests come up with an 85% to 90% match which is the same for man and the great apes down to man and a banana, so how does this mean that Palestinians and Jews are closely related. Look at the studies presented by monte that claim the whole of the European Jewish community is descended from just 4 females. That would mean the inter-breeding would have created genetic mutations and a survival rate of today of less than 10%.

You want to look at demonization then look no further than team palestine's attacks on the Jews around their ancestry and history, with the claims of fictional groups being the Ashkenazi Jews of today.

Some were but many were settled farmers. The studies done refer to the Beduoin. The word "Arab" was used to classify a broad range of people.

To listen to you the only inhabitants of that region until 1960 were Jews and that's a blatant falsehood.

Then you are employing selective hearing and should be ashamed of yourself.

I'm going by exactly what you said - are you backing away from that claim now?

The Jews lived and worked the land for 4,500 years, in the middle they were conquered by the Roman empire and the Christian sect of Judaism was invented. The Christians grew into a world religion with teaching of hate against the Jews because they did not want their roots in Judaism to be well known. Then in the 7C a camel herder with a mental defect invented islam and proceeded to take over the world, starting with the Jews when they refused to accept him as the Messiah.

Ok...let's review this.

Multiple ancient people's lived in the area referred to as "Palestine"....

Canaan
The earliest references refer to "Canaan". At that time, the indigenous people of Canaan worshiped many gods but, chief among them, the goddess Astarte and her consort Baal. Women had some pretty decent rights... "Women could and did serve as Priestesses, could own land, enter into contracts and initiate divorce". That's just a sidenote, but surprising.

Then, a bunch of unruly slaves led by a madman who got his orders from talking burning bushes invaded Canaan, "subdued" the native population and conquered it's cities and in installed their newly invented monotheistic religion.

Palestine

Then, the Phillistines invaded (a term that still means course, vulgar and barbarian) and were partially subdued by the Israelites.
Then the Assyrians invaded, subdued the Phillistines completely, sacked and raped their way to glory and sold the inhabitants into slavery.
Eventually - Alexander the Great "liberated" Palestine and claimed it.
Then the Roman's claimed it.

Then along comes a zombie messiah - Christianity was invented and sweeps through the the region.

Then along comes a camel herder in the Arabian Peninsula who hears voices in a cave, invents Islam which then sweeps through the region. Muslims captured Jeruselum in 638 AD, not - as you say "in fact the arab muslims arrived between the late 1890's and the mid 1960's." Your claim isn't even remotely close.

In all these successive invasions, conquering and migrations - religions moved along with people and the indiginous inhabitants often converted to the new religions.

So who has the longevity in the area as it certainly isn't the Christian immigrants or the arab muslim immigrants. What you are saying is that you have more rights in America than the original inhabitants, while saying that the immigrants in Palestine also have more rights than the original inhabitants as well. The arab muslims ( clue is in their racial name ) and Christians don't have more rights to the land as they are mostly recent arrivals, in fact the arab muslims arrived between the late 1890's and the mid 1960's. This is shown by the UN having to create a new body because the arab muslims did not meet the criteria for refugee status having less than 2 years habitual residence in the area.

Stop right there. That is NOT what I'm saying. It is YOU saying that one group has "more rights" than another. They don't. None of them do. They are closely bound together and have been so thousands of years weathering a succession of conquering peoples...starting with the Israelites. The whole argument of rights determined by ancient history is idiotic and depends on a completely arbritary system of determining what is considered "long enough" to be "legitimate".

And through all of that there was a core group of people (Muslims, Christians, and Jews) who stayed and put down roots. Those are your Palestinians.

YES but the muslims and Christians are in the mionority as shown by the Catholic Encyclopaedia

 

[Coyote]

Oh for the love of all that is holy. Its like saying Canada forceably removed all the French people after the War of 1812 in pursuit of their apartheid agenda and then built barriers to create the open air prison that is the USA.

No it isn't.

Yes it is but you refuse to see it as it would burst your Jew hatred bubble

Comments such as the one made by Challenger here highlight three common characteristics of arguments made from the Palestinian narrative:

1. The complete lack of assignation of responsibility to both the people and the governments of Gaza and "Palestine".
2. The unilateral justification of and support for terrorist violence against innocent civilians.
3. The demonization of Israel (and often Jews) as always having evil intent even when Israel is acting in accordance with the expressed wishes of the government and people of Gaza and "Palestine" under international pressure.

I find similar characteristics from the Israeli narrative:
1. The complete lack of assignation of responsibility to both the people and the governments of Israel in this conflict.
2. The uncritical justification for inequities in the Israeli criminal and justice system in regards to Palestinians and Jews.
3. The systemic dehuminization and demonization of Palestinians.

As you have been shown Israel's hands are tied by International law that dictates they must enforce the judicial system in operation at the time the land was occupied. This was that of Jordan and so they must act in the same manner as Jordan would act. The Israeli government stop short of firing on civilians caged in refugee camps as Jordanian legislation allowed in the 1970's, They also stop short of executions and stoning's as they don't have them as part of their judicial system.

And as you have been shown, that is not entirely accurate because otherwise "settlers" would be subject to the same laws.

 

[Phoenall]

And the arab muslims say they are Syrians and Egyptians. The studies done show that in the 1800's the arab muslims were nomadic and travelled around the whole area. They were not static and could be working in Hebron today and Homs next week. So are they Palestinian or Iranian ? The tests come up with an 85% to 90% match which is the same for man and the great apes down to man and a banana, so how does this mean that Palestinians and Jews are closely related. Look at the studies presented by monte that claim the whole of the European Jewish community is descended from just 4 females. That would mean the inter-breeding would have created genetic mutations and a survival rate of today of less than 10%.

You want to look at demonization then look no further than team palestine's attacks on the Jews around their ancestry and history, with the claims of fictional groups being the Ashkenazi Jews of today.

Some were but many were settled farmers. The studies done refer to the Beduoin. The word "Arab" was used to classify a broad range of people.

To listen to you the only inhabitants of that region until 1960 were Jews and that's a blatant falsehood.

Then you are employing selective hearing and should be ashamed of yourself.

I'm going by exactly what you said - are you backing away from that claim now?

The Jews lived and worked the land for 4,500 years, in the middle they were conquered by the Roman empire and the Christian sect of Judaism was invented. The Christians grew into a world religion with teaching of hate against the Jews because they did not want their roots in Judaism to be well known. Then in the 7C a camel herder with a mental defect invented islam and proceeded to take over the world, starting with the Jews when they refused to accept him as the Messiah.

Ok...let's review this.

Multiple ancient people's lived in the area referred to as "Palestine"....

Canaan
The earliest references refer to "Canaan". At that time, the indigenous people of Canaan worshiped many gods but, chief among them, the goddess Astarte and her consort Baal. Women had some pretty decent rights... "Women could and did serve as Priestesses, could own land, enter into contracts and initiate divorce". That's just a sidenote, but surprising.

Then, a bunch of unruly slaves led by a madman who got his orders from talking burning bushes invaded Canaan, "subdued" the native population and conquered it's cities and in installed their newly invented monotheistic religion.

Palestine

Then, the Phillistines invaded (a term that still means course, vulgar and barbarian) and were partially subdued by the Israelites.
Then the Assyrians invaded, subdued the Phillistines completely, sacked and raped their way to glory and sold the inhabitants into slavery.
Eventually - Alexander the Great "liberated" Palestine and claimed it.
Then the Roman's claimed it.

Then along comes a zombie messiah - Christianity was invented and sweeps through the the region.

Then along comes a camel herder in the Arabian Peninsula who hears voices in a cave, invents Islam which then sweeps through the region. Muslims captured Jeruselum in 638 AD, not - as you say "in fact the arab muslims arrived between the late 1890's and the mid 1960's." Your claim isn't even remotely close.

In all these successive invasions, conquering and migrations - religions moved along with people and the indiginous inhabitants often converted to the new religions.

So who has the longevity in the area as it certainly isn't the Christian immigrants or the arab muslim immigrants. What you are saying is that you have more rights in America than the original inhabitants, while saying that the immigrants in Palestine also have more rights than the original inhabitants as well. The arab muslims ( clue is in their racial name ) and Christians don't have more rights to the land as they are mostly recent arrivals, in fact the arab muslims arrived between the late 1890's and the mid 1960's. This is shown by the UN having to create a new body because the arab muslims did not meet the criteria for refugee status having less than 2 years habitual residence in the area.

Stop right there. That is NOT what I'm saying. It is YOU saying that one group has "more rights" than another. They don't. None of them do. They are closely bound together and have been so thousands of years weathering a succession of conquering peoples...starting with the Israelites. The whole argument of rights determined by ancient history is idiotic and depends on a completely arbritary system of determining what is considered "long enough" to be "legitimate".

No you are saying that because you are anti Jew they have no rights to the land.

Sorry dude - I've never ever said that. If you are going to make that claim - provide a quote or admit you are lying. The indiginous people of Palestine include Jews as well as Christians, Muslims, Druze and others.

OK then how about we look at international law and rights to the land. In 1923 the Jews were granted sovereignty over 22% of Palestine, the remainder was granted to the arab muslims with a Saudi prince as their ruler. There has been no international law or treaty since giving any of the Jewish portion to the arab muslims. So by what legal right are you and them claiming sovereignty over Jewish land ?

That's another topic.

No it is pertinent to this one as Palestine did not exist as anything but a place until 1923 when the LoN defined its area and who were its people. Is it because to take it on board you would have to admit that the arab muslims have no legal rights in Jewish Palestine and should be driven out

 

[Coyote]

And the arab muslims say they are Syrians and Egyptians. The studies done show that in the 1800's the arab muslims were nomadic and travelled around the whole area. They were not static and could be working in Hebron today and Homs next week. So are they Palestinian or Iranian ? The tests come up with an 85% to 90% match which is the same for man and the great apes down to man and a banana, so how does this mean that Palestinians and Jews are closely related. Look at the studies presented by monte that claim the whole of the European Jewish community is descended from just 4 females. That would mean the inter-breeding would have created genetic mutations and a survival rate of today of less than 10%.

You want to look at demonization then look no further than team palestine's attacks on the Jews around their ancestry and history, with the claims of fictional groups being the Ashkenazi Jews of today.

Some were but many were settled farmers. The studies done refer to the Beduoin. The word "Arab" was used to classify a broad range of people.

To listen to you the only inhabitants of that region until 1960 were Jews and that's a blatant falsehood.

Then you are employing selective hearing and should be ashamed of yourself.

I'm going by exactly what you said - are you backing away from that claim now?

The Jews lived and worked the land for 4,500 years, in the middle they were conquered by the Roman empire and the Christian sect of Judaism was invented. The Christians grew into a world religion with teaching of hate against the Jews because they did not want their roots in Judaism to be well known. Then in the 7C a camel herder with a mental defect invented islam and proceeded to take over the world, starting with the Jews when they refused to accept him as the Messiah.

Ok...let's review this.

Multiple ancient people's lived in the area referred to as "Palestine"....

Canaan
The earliest references refer to "Canaan". At that time, the indigenous people of Canaan worshiped many gods but, chief among them, the goddess Astarte and her consort Baal. Women had some pretty decent rights... "Women could and did serve as Priestesses, could own land, enter into contracts and initiate divorce". That's just a sidenote, but surprising.

Then, a bunch of unruly slaves led by a madman who got his orders from talking burning bushes invaded Canaan, "subdued" the native population and conquered it's cities and in installed their newly invented monotheistic religion.

Palestine

Then, the Phillistines invaded (a term that still means course, vulgar and barbarian) and were partially subdued by the Israelites.
Then the Assyrians invaded, subdued the Phillistines completely, sacked and raped their way to glory and sold the inhabitants into slavery.
Eventually - Alexander the Great "liberated" Palestine and claimed it.
Then the Roman's claimed it.

Then along comes a zombie messiah - Christianity was invented and sweeps through the the region.

Then along comes a camel herder in the Arabian Peninsula who hears voices in a cave, invents Islam which then sweeps through the region. Muslims captured Jeruselum in 638 AD, not - as you say "in fact the arab muslims arrived between the late 1890's and the mid 1960's." Your claim isn't even remotely close.

In all these successive invasions, conquering and migrations - religions moved along with people and the indiginous inhabitants often converted to the new religions.

So who has the longevity in the area as it certainly isn't the Christian immigrants or the arab muslim immigrants. What you are saying is that you have more rights in America than the original inhabitants, while saying that the immigrants in Palestine also have more rights than the original inhabitants as well. The arab muslims ( clue is in their racial name ) and Christians don't have more rights to the land as they are mostly recent arrivals, in fact the arab muslims arrived between the late 1890's and the mid 1960's. This is shown by the UN having to create a new body because the arab muslims did not meet the criteria for refugee status having less than 2 years habitual residence in the area.

Stop right there. That is NOT what I'm saying. It is YOU saying that one group has "more rights" than another. They don't. None of them do. They are closely bound together and have been so thousands of years weathering a succession of conquering peoples...starting with the Israelites. The whole argument of rights determined by ancient history is idiotic and depends on a completely arbritary system of determining what is considered "long enough" to be "legitimate".

And through all of that there was a core group of people (Muslims, Christians, and Jews) who stayed and put down roots. Those are your Palestinians.

YES but the muslims and Christians are in the mionority as shown by the Catholic Encyclopaedia

Why should we believe a "Catholic Encyclopaedia"? The city of Jeruselum was the only region that had a Jewish majority population.

MidEast Web - Population of Palestine

 

[Phoenall]

No it isn't.

Yes it is but you refuse to see it as it would burst your Jew hatred bubble

Comments such as the one made by Challenger here highlight three common characteristics of arguments made from the Palestinian narrative:

1. The complete lack of assignation of responsibility to both the people and the governments of Gaza and "Palestine".
2. The unilateral justification of and support for terrorist violence against innocent civilians.
3. The demonization of Israel (and often Jews) as always having evil intent even when Israel is acting in accordance with the expressed wishes of the government and people of Gaza and "Palestine" under international pressure.

I find similar characteristics from the Israeli narrative:
1. The complete lack of assignation of responsibility to both the people and the governments of Israel in this conflict.
2. The uncritical justification for inequities in the Israeli criminal and justice system in regards to Palestinians and Jews.
3. The systemic dehuminization and demonization of Palestinians.

As you have been shown Israel's hands are tied by International law that dictates they must enforce the judicial system in operation at the time the land was occupied. This was that of Jordan and so they must act in the same manner as Jordan would act. The Israeli government stop short of firing on civilians caged in refugee camps as Jordanian legislation allowed in the 1970's, They also stop short of executions and stoning's as they don't have them as part of their judicial system.

And as you have been shown, that is not entirely accurate because otherwise "settlers" would be subject to the same laws.

No because they are not arab muslim Palestinians but Jewish and are not occupied as the arab muslim Palestinians are. Different rules apply as you should be well aware of

 

[Coyote]

Some were but many were settled farmers. The studies done refer to the Beduoin. The word "Arab" was used to classify a broad range of people.

To listen to you the only inhabitants of that region until 1960 were Jews and that's a blatant falsehood.

Then you are employing selective hearing and should be ashamed of yourself.

I'm going by exactly what you said - are you backing away from that claim now?

The Jews lived and worked the land for 4,500 years, in the middle they were conquered by the Roman empire and the Christian sect of Judaism was invented. The Christians grew into a world religion with teaching of hate against the Jews because they did not want their roots in Judaism to be well known. Then in the 7C a camel herder with a mental defect invented islam and proceeded to take over the world, starting with the Jews when they refused to accept him as the Messiah.

Ok...let's review this.

Multiple ancient people's lived in the area referred to as "Palestine"....

Canaan
The earliest references refer to "Canaan". At that time, the indigenous people of Canaan worshiped many gods but, chief among them, the goddess Astarte and her consort Baal. Women had some pretty decent rights... "Women could and did serve as Priestesses, could own land, enter into contracts and initiate divorce". That's just a sidenote, but surprising.

Then, a bunch of unruly slaves led by a madman who got his orders from talking burning bushes invaded Canaan, "subdued" the native population and conquered it's cities and in installed their newly invented monotheistic religion.

Palestine

Then, the Phillistines invaded (a term that still means course, vulgar and barbarian) and were partially subdued by the Israelites.
Then the Assyrians invaded, subdued the Phillistines completely, sacked and raped their way to glory and sold the inhabitants into slavery.
Eventually - Alexander the Great "liberated" Palestine and claimed it.
Then the Roman's claimed it.

Then along comes a zombie messiah - Christianity was invented and sweeps through the the region.

Then along comes a camel herder in the Arabian Peninsula who hears voices in a cave, invents Islam which then sweeps through the region. Muslims captured Jeruselum in 638 AD, not - as you say "in fact the arab muslims arrived between the late 1890's and the mid 1960's." Your claim isn't even remotely close.

In all these successive invasions, conquering and migrations - religions moved along with people and the indiginous inhabitants often converted to the new religions.

So who has the longevity in the area as it certainly isn't the Christian immigrants or the arab muslim immigrants. What you are saying is that you have more rights in America than the original inhabitants, while saying that the immigrants in Palestine also have more rights than the original inhabitants as well. The arab muslims ( clue is in their racial name ) and Christians don't have more rights to the land as they are mostly recent arrivals, in fact the arab muslims arrived between the late 1890's and the mid 1960's. This is shown by the UN having to create a new body because the arab muslims did not meet the criteria for refugee status having less than 2 years habitual residence in the area.

Stop right there. That is NOT what I'm saying. It is YOU saying that one group has "more rights" than another. They don't. None of them do. They are closely bound together and have been so thousands of years weathering a succession of conquering peoples...starting with the Israelites. The whole argument of rights determined by ancient history is idiotic and depends on a completely arbritary system of determining what is considered "long enough" to be "legitimate".

No you are saying that because you are anti Jew they have no rights to the land.

Sorry dude - I've never ever said that. If you are going to make that claim - provide a quote or admit you are lying. The indiginous people of Palestine include Jews as well as Christians, Muslims, Druze and others.

OK then how about we look at international law and rights to the land. In 1923 the Jews were granted sovereignty over 22% of Palestine, the remainder was granted to the arab muslims with a Saudi prince as their ruler. There has been no international law or treaty since giving any of the Jewish portion to the arab muslims. So by what legal right are you and them claiming sovereignty over Jewish land ?

That's another topic.

No it is pertinent to this one as Palestine did not exist as anything but a place until 1923 when the LoN defined its area and who were its people. Is it because to take it on board you would have to admit that the arab muslims have no legal rights in Jewish Palestine and should be driven out

If you want to talk about who has what RIGHTS to the land - that is another topic. This thread was split off from another in order to discuss the historic origins of the people in Palestine.

 

[Phoenall]

Some were but many were settled farmers. The studies done refer to the Beduoin. The word "Arab" was used to classify a broad range of people.

To listen to you the only inhabitants of that region until 1960 were Jews and that's a blatant falsehood.

Then you are employing selective hearing and should be ashamed of yourself.

I'm going by exactly what you said - are you backing away from that claim now?

The Jews lived and worked the land for 4,500 years, in the middle they were conquered by the Roman empire and the Christian sect of Judaism was invented. The Christians grew into a world religion with teaching of hate against the Jews because they did not want their roots in Judaism to be well known. Then in the 7C a camel herder with a mental defect invented islam and proceeded to take over the world, starting with the Jews when they refused to accept him as the Messiah.

Ok...let's review this.

Multiple ancient people's lived in the area referred to as "Palestine"....

Canaan
The earliest references refer to "Canaan". At that time, the indigenous people of Canaan worshiped many gods but, chief among them, the goddess Astarte and her consort Baal. Women had some pretty decent rights... "Women could and did serve as Priestesses, could own land, enter into contracts and initiate divorce". That's just a sidenote, but surprising.

Then, a bunch of unruly slaves led by a madman who got his orders from talking burning bushes invaded Canaan, "subdued" the native population and conquered it's cities and in installed their newly invented monotheistic religion.

Palestine

Then, the Phillistines invaded (a term that still means course, vulgar and barbarian) and were partially subdued by the Israelites.
Then the Assyrians invaded, subdued the Phillistines completely, sacked and raped their way to glory and sold the inhabitants into slavery.
Eventually - Alexander the Great "liberated" Palestine and claimed it.
Then the Roman's claimed it.

Then along comes a zombie messiah - Christianity was invented and sweeps through the the region.

Then along comes a camel herder in the Arabian Peninsula who hears voices in a cave, invents Islam which then sweeps through the region. Muslims captured Jeruselum in 638 AD, not - as you say "in fact the arab muslims arrived between the late 1890's and the mid 1960's." Your claim isn't even remotely close.

In all these successive invasions, conquering and migrations - religions moved along with people and the indiginous inhabitants often converted to the new religions.

So who has the longevity in the area as it certainly isn't the Christian immigrants or the arab muslim immigrants. What you are saying is that you have more rights in America than the original inhabitants, while saying that the immigrants in Palestine also have more rights than the original inhabitants as well. The arab muslims ( clue is in their racial name ) and Christians don't have more rights to the land as they are mostly recent arrivals, in fact the arab muslims arrived between the late 1890's and the mid 1960's. This is shown by the UN having to create a new body because the arab muslims did not meet the criteria for refugee status having less than 2 years habitual residence in the area.

Stop right there. That is NOT what I'm saying. It is YOU saying that one group has "more rights" than another. They don't. None of them do. They are closely bound together and have been so thousands of years weathering a succession of conquering peoples...starting with the Israelites. The whole argument of rights determined by ancient history is idiotic and depends on a completely arbritary system of determining what is considered "long enough" to be "legitimate".

And through all of that there was a core group of people (Muslims, Christians, and Jews) who stayed and put down roots. Those are your Palestinians.

YES but the muslims and Christians are in the mionority as shown by the Catholic Encyclopaedia

Why should we believe a "Catholic Encyclopaedia"? The city of Jeruselum was the only region that had a Jewish majority population.

MidEast Web - Population of Palestine

Wrong it was the sanjak of Jerusalem that took in part or what is now Jordan, the upper part of what is Israel extending down to gaza. Just leaving the Negev as not counted in any census. It is an informed historical report drawn up by the Ottomans and the LoN that every member of team Palestine wants to debunk and cant without re-writing history.

 

[Phoenall]

Then you are employing selective hearing and should be ashamed of yourself.

I'm going by exactly what you said - are you backing away from that claim now?

The Jews lived and worked the land for 4,500 years, in the middle they were conquered by the Roman empire and the Christian sect of Judaism was invented. The Christians grew into a world religion with teaching of hate against the Jews because they did not want their roots in Judaism to be well known. Then in the 7C a camel herder with a mental defect invented islam and proceeded to take over the world, starting with the Jews when they refused to accept him as the Messiah.

Ok...let's review this.

Multiple ancient people's lived in the area referred to as "Palestine"....

Canaan
The earliest references refer to "Canaan". At that time, the indigenous people of Canaan worshiped many gods but, chief among them, the goddess Astarte and her consort Baal. Women had some pretty decent rights... "Women could and did serve as Priestesses, could own land, enter into contracts and initiate divorce". That's just a sidenote, but surprising.

Then, a bunch of unruly slaves led by a madman who got his orders from talking burning bushes invaded Canaan, "subdued" the native population and conquered it's cities and in installed their newly invented monotheistic religion.

Palestine

Then, the Phillistines invaded (a term that still means course, vulgar and barbarian) and were partially subdued by the Israelites.
Then the Assyrians invaded, subdued the Phillistines completely, sacked and raped their way to glory and sold the inhabitants into slavery.
Eventually - Alexander the Great "liberated" Palestine and claimed it.
Then the Roman's claimed it.

Then along comes a zombie messiah - Christianity was invented and sweeps through the the region.

Then along comes a camel herder in the Arabian Peninsula who hears voices in a cave, invents Islam which then sweeps through the region. Muslims captured Jeruselum in 638 AD, not - as you say "in fact the arab muslims arrived between the late 1890's and the mid 1960's." Your claim isn't even remotely close.

In all these successive invasions, conquering and migrations - religions moved along with people and the indiginous inhabitants often converted to the new religions.

So who has the longevity in the area as it certainly isn't the Christian immigrants or the arab muslim immigrants. What you are saying is that you have more rights in America than the original inhabitants, while saying that the immigrants in Palestine also have more rights than the original inhabitants as well. The arab muslims ( clue is in their racial name ) and Christians don't have more rights to the land as they are mostly recent arrivals, in fact the arab muslims arrived between the late 1890's and the mid 1960's. This is shown by the UN having to create a new body because the arab muslims did not meet the criteria for refugee status having less than 2 years habitual residence in the area.

Stop right there. That is NOT what I'm saying. It is YOU saying that one group has "more rights" than another. They don't. None of them do. They are closely bound together and have been so thousands of years weathering a succession of conquering peoples...starting with the Israelites. The whole argument of rights determined by ancient history is idiotic and depends on a completely arbritary system of determining what is considered "long enough" to be "legitimate".

No you are saying that because you are anti Jew they have no rights to the land.

Sorry dude - I've never ever said that. If you are going to make that claim - provide a quote or admit you are lying. The indiginous people of Palestine include Jews as well as Christians, Muslims, Druze and others.

OK then how about we look at international law and rights to the land. In 1923 the Jews were granted sovereignty over 22% of Palestine, the remainder was granted to the arab muslims with a Saudi prince as their ruler. There has been no international law or treaty since giving any of the Jewish portion to the arab muslims. So by what legal right are you and them claiming sovereignty over Jewish land ?

That's another topic.

No it is pertinent to this one as Palestine did not exist as anything but a place until 1923 when the LoN defined its area and who were its people. Is it because to take it on board you would have to admit that the arab muslims have no legal rights in Jewish Palestine and should be driven out

If you want to talk about who has what RIGHTS to the land - that is another topic. This thread was split off from another in order to discuss the historic origins of the people in Palestine.

And it deals with those historical origins as it shows nearly 100 years ago the arab muslims were asked to take up residence elsewhere or agree to live in peace. Another fly in the ointment is the fact the UN had to invent a refugee system for the arab muslims fleeing Palestine as they did not match the two years residency criteria needed to be a refugee in 1949.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I'm going by exactly what you said - are you backing away from that claim now?

Ok...let's review this.

Multiple ancient people's lived in the area referred to as "Palestine"....

Canaan
The earliest references refer to "Canaan". At that time, the indigenous people of Canaan worshiped many gods but, chief among them, the goddess Astarte and her consort Baal. Women had some pretty decent rights... "Women could and did serve as Priestesses, could own land, enter into contracts and initiate divorce". That's just a sidenote, but surprising.

Then, a bunch of unruly slaves led by a madman who got his orders from talking burning bushes invaded Canaan, "subdued" the native population and conquered it's cities and in installed their newly invented monotheistic religion.

Palestine

Then, the Phillistines invaded (a term that still means course, vulgar and barbarian) and were partially subdued by the Israelites.
Then the Assyrians invaded, subdued the Phillistines completely, sacked and raped their way to glory and sold the inhabitants into slavery.
Eventually - Alexander the Great "liberated" Palestine and claimed it.
Then the Roman's claimed it.

Then along comes a zombie messiah - Christianity was invented and sweeps through the the region.

Then along comes a camel herder in the Arabian Peninsula who hears voices in a cave, invents Islam which then sweeps through the region. Muslims captured Jeruselum in 638 AD, not - as you say "in fact the arab muslims arrived between the late 1890's and the mid 1960's." Your claim isn't even remotely close.

In all these successive invasions, conquering and migrations - religions moved along with people and the indiginous inhabitants often converted to the new religions.


Stop right there. That is NOT what I'm saying. It is YOU saying that one group has "more rights" than another. They don't. None of them do. They are closely bound together and have been so thousands of years weathering a succession of conquering peoples...starting with the Israelites. The whole argument of rights determined by ancient history is idiotic and depends on a completely arbritary system of determining what is considered "long enough" to be "legitimate".

No you are saying that because you are anti Jew they have no rights to the land.

Sorry dude - I've never ever said that. If you are going to make that claim - provide a quote or admit you are lying. The indiginous people of Palestine include Jews as well as Christians, Muslims, Druze and others.

OK then how about we look at international law and rights to the land. In 1923 the Jews were granted sovereignty over 22% of Palestine, the remainder was granted to the arab muslims with a Saudi prince as their ruler. There has been no international law or treaty since giving any of the Jewish portion to the arab muslims. So by what legal right are you and them claiming sovereignty over Jewish land ?

That's another topic.

No it is pertinent to this one as Palestine did not exist as anything but a place until 1923 when the LoN defined its area and who were its people. Is it because to take it on board you would have to admit that the arab muslims have no legal rights in Jewish Palestine and should be driven out

If you want to talk about who has what RIGHTS to the land - that is another topic. This thread was split off from another in order to discuss the historic origins of the people in Palestine.

And it deals with those historical origins as it shows nearly 100 years ago the arab muslims were asked to take up residence elsewhere or agree to live in peace. Another fly in the ointment is the fact the UN had to invent a refugee system for the arab muslims fleeing Palestine as they did not match the two years residency criteria needed to be a refugee in 1949.

The immigration law created by the Mandate specified two years residency criteria for citizenship. I don't think it was the UN that made that up.

 

[Phoenall]

No you are saying that because you are anti Jew they have no rights to the land.

Sorry dude - I've never ever said that. If you are going to make that claim - provide a quote or admit you are lying. The indiginous people of Palestine include Jews as well as Christians, Muslims, Druze and others.

OK then how about we look at international law and rights to the land. In 1923 the Jews were granted sovereignty over 22% of Palestine, the remainder was granted to the arab muslims with a Saudi prince as their ruler. There has been no international law or treaty since giving any of the Jewish portion to the arab muslims. So by what legal right are you and them claiming sovereignty over Jewish land ?

That's another topic.

No it is pertinent to this one as Palestine did not exist as anything but a place until 1923 when the LoN defined its area and who were its people. Is it because to take it on board you would have to admit that the arab muslims have no legal rights in Jewish Palestine and should be driven out

If you want to talk about who has what RIGHTS to the land - that is another topic. This thread was split off from another in order to discuss the historic origins of the people in Palestine.

And it deals with those historical origins as it shows nearly 100 years ago the arab muslims were asked to take up residence elsewhere or agree to live in peace. Another fly in the ointment is the fact the UN had to invent a refugee system for the arab muslims fleeing Palestine as they did not match the two years residency criteria needed to be a refugee in 1949.

The immigration law created by the Mandate specified two years residency criteria for citizenship. I don't think it was the UN that made that up.

It was adopted by the UN as part of the criteria for claiming refugee status, the arab muslims failed so the UN invented a new body

 

[Coyote]

Then you are employing selective hearing and should be ashamed of yourself.

I'm going by exactly what you said - are you backing away from that claim now?

The Jews lived and worked the land for 4,500 years, in the middle they were conquered by the Roman empire and the Christian sect of Judaism was invented. The Christians grew into a world religion with teaching of hate against the Jews because they did not want their roots in Judaism to be well known. Then in the 7C a camel herder with a mental defect invented islam and proceeded to take over the world, starting with the Jews when they refused to accept him as the Messiah.

Ok...let's review this.

Multiple ancient people's lived in the area referred to as "Palestine"....

Canaan
The earliest references refer to "Canaan". At that time, the indigenous people of Canaan worshiped many gods but, chief among them, the goddess Astarte and her consort Baal. Women had some pretty decent rights... "Women could and did serve as Priestesses, could own land, enter into contracts and initiate divorce". That's just a sidenote, but surprising.

Then, a bunch of unruly slaves led by a madman who got his orders from talking burning bushes invaded Canaan, "subdued" the native population and conquered it's cities and in installed their newly invented monotheistic religion.

Palestine

Then, the Phillistines invaded (a term that still means course, vulgar and barbarian) and were partially subdued by the Israelites.
Then the Assyrians invaded, subdued the Phillistines completely, sacked and raped their way to glory and sold the inhabitants into slavery.
Eventually - Alexander the Great "liberated" Palestine and claimed it.
Then the Roman's claimed it.

Then along comes a zombie messiah - Christianity was invented and sweeps through the the region.

Then along comes a camel herder in the Arabian Peninsula who hears voices in a cave, invents Islam which then sweeps through the region. Muslims captured Jeruselum in 638 AD, not - as you say "in fact the arab muslims arrived between the late 1890's and the mid 1960's." Your claim isn't even remotely close.

In all these successive invasions, conquering and migrations - religions moved along with people and the indiginous inhabitants often converted to the new religions.

So who has the longevity in the area as it certainly isn't the Christian immigrants or the arab muslim immigrants. What you are saying is that you have more rights in America than the original inhabitants, while saying that the immigrants in Palestine also have more rights than the original inhabitants as well. The arab muslims ( clue is in their racial name ) and Christians don't have more rights to the land as they are mostly recent arrivals, in fact the arab muslims arrived between the late 1890's and the mid 1960's. This is shown by the UN having to create a new body because the arab muslims did not meet the criteria for refugee status having less than 2 years habitual residence in the area.

Stop right there. That is NOT what I'm saying. It is YOU saying that one group has "more rights" than another. They don't. None of them do. They are closely bound together and have been so thousands of years weathering a succession of conquering peoples...starting with the Israelites. The whole argument of rights determined by ancient history is idiotic and depends on a completely arbritary system of determining what is considered "long enough" to be "legitimate".

And through all of that there was a core group of people (Muslims, Christians, and Jews) who stayed and put down roots. Those are your Palestinians.

YES but the muslims and Christians are in the mionority as shown by the Catholic Encyclopaedia

Why should we believe a "Catholic Encyclopaedia"? The city of Jeruselum was the only region that had a Jewish majority population.

MidEast Web - Population of Palestine

Wrong it was the sanjak of Jerusalem that took in part or what is now Jordan, the upper part of what is Israel extending down to gaza. Just leaving the Negev as not counted in any census. It is an informed historical report drawn up by the Ottomans and the LoN that every member of team Palestine wants to debunk and cant without re-writing history.

Demographic history of Jerusalem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Muslim or Jewish "relative majority"

Between 1838 and 1876, conflicting estimates exist regarding whether Muslims or Jews constituted a "relative majority" (or plurality) in the city.


Writing in 1841, the biblical scholar Edward Robinson noted the conflicting demographic estimates regarding Jerusalem during the period, stating in reference to an 1839 estimate by Moses Montefiore: "As to the Jews, the enumeration in question was made out by themselves, in the expectation of receiving a certain amount of alms for every name returned. It is therefore obvious that they here had as strong a motive to exaggerate their number, as they often have in other circumstances to underrate it."[17] In 1843, Reverend F.C. Ewald, a Christian traveler visiting Jerusalem, reported an influx of 150 Jews from Algiers. He wrote that there were now a large number of Jews from the coast of Africa who were forming a separate congregation.[18]


Between 1856 and 1880, Jewish immigration to Palestine more than doubled, with the majority settling in Jerusalem.[19] The majority of these immigrants were Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe, who subsisted on Halukka.[19]


In 1881–82, a group of Jews arrived from Yemen as a result of messianic fervor.[20][21] After living in the Old City for several years, they moved to the hills facing the City of David, where they lived in caves.[22] In 1884, the community, numbering 200, moved to new stone houses built for them by a Jewish charity.[23]​

This same Wikipedia source shows the fluxuating relative populations over several hundred years with the caution that boundaries for Jeruselum fluxuated over time.

According to this book: Israel Or Palestine? Is the Two-state Solution Already Dead? the population of Palestine, by the middle of the 19th century was 84% Muslim Arab, 10% Christian Arab, 1% Druze and 5% Jewish.

You're source seems to be the only one making this population claim - so either it's wrong, or it refers to only a portion of the Jeruselum sanjak - I don't know, I can't find original sources.

 

[P F Tinmore]

And the arab muslims say they are Syrians and Egyptians. The studies done show that in the 1800's the arab muslims were nomadic and travelled around the whole area. They were not static and could be working in Hebron today and Homs next week. So are they Palestinian or Iranian ? The tests come up with an 85% to 90% match which is the same for man and the great apes down to man and a banana, so how does this mean that Palestinians and Jews are closely related. Look at the studies presented by monte that claim the whole of the European Jewish community is descended from just 4 females. That would mean the inter-breeding would have created genetic mutations and a survival rate of today of less than 10%.

You want to look at demonization then look no further than team palestine's attacks on the Jews around their ancestry and history, with the claims of fictional groups being the Ashkenazi Jews of today.

Some were but many were settled farmers. The studies done refer to the Beduoin. The word "Arab" was used to classify a broad range of people.

To listen to you the only inhabitants of that region until 1960 were Jews and that's a blatant falsehood.

Then you are employing selective hearing and should be ashamed of yourself.

I'm going by exactly what you said - are you backing away from that claim now?

The Jews lived and worked the land for 4,500 years, in the middle they were conquered by the Roman empire and the Christian sect of Judaism was invented. The Christians grew into a world religion with teaching of hate against the Jews because they did not want their roots in Judaism to be well known. Then in the 7C a camel herder with a mental defect invented islam and proceeded to take over the world, starting with the Jews when they refused to accept him as the Messiah.

Ok...let's review this.

Multiple ancient people's lived in the area referred to as "Palestine"....

Canaan
The earliest references refer to "Canaan". At that time, the indigenous people of Canaan worshiped many gods but, chief among them, the goddess Astarte and her consort Baal. Women had some pretty decent rights... "Women could and did serve as Priestesses, could own land, enter into contracts and initiate divorce". That's just a sidenote, but surprising.

Then, a bunch of unruly slaves led by a madman who got his orders from talking burning bushes invaded Canaan, "subdued" the native population and conquered it's cities and in installed their newly invented monotheistic religion.

Palestine

Then, the Phillistines invaded (a term that still means course, vulgar and barbarian) and were partially subdued by the Israelites.
Then the Assyrians invaded, subdued the Phillistines completely, sacked and raped their way to glory and sold the inhabitants into slavery.
Eventually - Alexander the Great "liberated" Palestine and claimed it.
Then the Roman's claimed it.

Then along comes a zombie messiah - Christianity was invented and sweeps through the the region.

Then along comes a camel herder in the Arabian Peninsula who hears voices in a cave, invents Islam which then sweeps through the region. Muslims captured Jeruselum in 638 AD, not - as you say "in fact the arab muslims arrived between the late 1890's and the mid 1960's." Your claim isn't even remotely close.

In all these successive invasions, conquering and migrations - religions moved along with people and the indiginous inhabitants often converted to the new religions.

So who has the longevity in the area as it certainly isn't the Christian immigrants or the arab muslim immigrants. What you are saying is that you have more rights in America than the original inhabitants, while saying that the immigrants in Palestine also have more rights than the original inhabitants as well. The arab muslims ( clue is in their racial name ) and Christians don't have more rights to the land as they are mostly recent arrivals, in fact the arab muslims arrived between the late 1890's and the mid 1960's. This is shown by the UN having to create a new body because the arab muslims did not meet the criteria for refugee status having less than 2 years habitual residence in the area.

Stop right there. That is NOT what I'm saying. It is YOU saying that one group has "more rights" than another. They don't. None of them do. They are closely bound together and have been so thousands of years weathering a succession of conquering peoples...starting with the Israelites. The whole argument of rights determined by ancient history is idiotic and depends on a completely arbritary system of determining what is considered "long enough" to be "legitimate".

No you are saying that because you are anti Jew they have no rights to the land.

Sorry dude - I've never ever said that. If you are going to make that claim - provide a quote or admit you are lying. The indiginous people of Palestine include Jews as well as Christians, Muslims, Druze and others.

OK then how about we look at international law and rights to the land. In 1923 the Jews were granted sovereignty over 22% of Palestine, the remainder was granted to the arab muslims with a Saudi prince as their ruler. There has been no international law or treaty since giving any of the Jewish portion to the arab muslims. So by what legal right are you and them claiming sovereignty over Jewish land ?

That's another topic.

OK then how about we look at international law and rights to the land.​

Maybe someone should start a thread.

 

[Shusha]

There are no Jews in Palestine other than the IDF and the Settlers. From 1948 to 1967 there were no Jews at all in gaza or the west bank as the arab muslims either murdered them or kicked them out. So how could they work for the government or represent their fellow Jews in the P.A.

To my knowledge there are no Israeli citizens (read: no Jews) at all in any of the Palestinian-controlled areas (Areas A and B and Gaza), so of course, they would not be able to work for the PA government or represent their fellow Jews. If I am wrong on this, someone please correct me and quote your source.

Area C is under Israeli control, pending negotiations and an end-of-conflict treaty. Area C is not "Palestine". There are no Israelis or Jews in "Palestine".

 

[Shusha]

I find similar characteristics from the Israeli narrative:
1. The complete lack of assignation of responsibility to both the people and the governments of Israel in this conflict.
2. The uncritical justification for inequities in the Israeli criminal and justice system in regards to Palestinians and Jews.
3. The systemic dehuminization and demonization of Palestinians.

Hmmm. Interesting. This is not my experience. Its getting a bit off-topic for this thread, but if you can find examples, preferrably from this thread, I would be happy to address them or even possibly agree with you. I have never witnessed individuals who primarily argue from the Israeli narrative to dehumanize or demonize Palestinians, let alone systemically. But perhaps you can convince me otherwise with some examples.

 

[montelatici]

I find similar characteristics from the Israeli narrative:
1. The complete lack of assignation of responsibility to both the people and the governments of Israel in this conflict.
2. The uncritical justification for inequities in the Israeli criminal and justice system in regards to Palestinians and Jews.
3. The systemic dehuminization and demonization of Palestinians.

Hmmm. Interesting. This is not my experience. Its getting a bit off-topic for this thread, but if you can find examples, preferrably from this thread, I would be happy to address them or even possibly agree with you. I have never witnessed individuals who primarily argue from the Israeli narrative to dehumanize or demonize Palestinians, let alone systemically. But perhaps you can convince me otherwise with some examples.

You've have to be kidding.

 

[montelatici]

There are no Jews in Palestine other than the IDF and the Settlers. From 1948 to 1967 there were no Jews at all in gaza or the west bank as the arab muslims either murdered them or kicked them out. So how could they work for the government or represent their fellow Jews in the P.A.

To my knowledge there are no Israeli citizens (read: no Jews) at all in any of the Palestinian-controlled areas (Areas A and B and Gaza), so of course, they would not be able to work for the PA government or represent their fellow Jews. If I am wrong on this, someone please correct me and quote your source.

Area C is under Israeli control, pending negotiations and an end-of-conflict treaty. Area C is not "Palestine". There are no Israelis or Jews in "Palestine".

Of course it is Palestine. It is Palestine formally under Israeli control. All of Palestine is de facto under Israeli control anyway. Who are you trying bamboozle.

″"Area C" means areas of the West Bank outside Areas A and B, which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in accordance with this Agreement″.

THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN INTERIM AGREEMENT

 

[Shusha]

″"Area C" means areas of the West Bank outside Areas A and B, which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in accordance with this Agreement″.

Its not "Palestine". (There is no "Palestine". It will not come into existence until there is a negotiated treaty in place which delineates borders and ends the conflict.) Area C is disputed territory, subject to negotiation, and under Israeli control.

If and when it is transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction, and certainly before, as this pertains to this thread, Jewish people have every right NOT to be ethnically cleansed from their homes.

 

[Coyote]

I find similar characteristics from the Israeli narrative:
1. The complete lack of assignation of responsibility to both the people and the governments of Israel in this conflict.
2. The uncritical justification for inequities in the Israeli criminal and justice system in regards to Palestinians and Jews.
3. The systemic dehuminization and demonization of Palestinians.

Hmmm. Interesting. This is not my experience. Its getting a bit off-topic for this thread, but if you can find examples, preferrably from this thread, I would be happy to address them or even possibly agree with you. I have never witnessed individuals who primarily argue from the Israeli narrative to dehumanize or demonize Palestinians, let alone systemically. But perhaps you can convince me otherwise with some examples.

I will have to start a new thread for that and shall