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

[rylah]

The number of people who would have converted by will or by force is minuscule, compared to the majority of the people who remained Jewish, Bedouins, Druze, and all others who did live there at the time.

There is no way of knowing with any accuracy how many.

But what the Arab Muslim Palestinians have been doing with their BDS campaign, check Abbas' quotes, is to say that the Palestinians people have been there for 5000 years. No, 10,000 years. No, One Million Years.........

About that 10,000-year history in Jericho, Mr. Erekat

Palestine Office Tourism Website Illustrates Absurdity Of Palestinian Narrative

Another Abbas Lie: Palestinians are the Descendants of the Canaanites


Which one could possibly be true? And without any archeological proof.

The first one is hardly a scientific article nor one written by historical experts. What is your point?

Same with the second one.

The third one could, oddly have some merit based on the dna analysis referred to in the National Geographic article you refer to as "mistaken".

The point in all of them is that the PA, Abbas and others, are going around changing their story of how long the Palestinians have actually been in the area.

Those articles were not written out of a vacuum, but based on what Abbas, Erekart and other Palestinian leaders have been telling the Western world for the past 10 to 20 years.

Why would they do that? Do they not know how far back the Palestinian people have lived on the land and exactly where?

Are they the Canaanite tribe? The Hitites? Edomites? Jebusites? Any and all of them?


And the Palestinian Museum remains empty.

They can change their stories, it's all political and designed to suit their agenda. I don't disagree there. But it doesn't change the fact that the Palestinians do descend from much older peoples then the Arabs, with a mixture of later Arab blood. In fact in the genetic study I quoted earlier - they are much closer to a number of Jewish groups and Syrians then they are to the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula (such as the Saudi's).

Actually Jews cluster genetically with Lebanese Druze and Christians while Palestinian Arabs with Saudis, Jordanians and Bedouins, they almost entirely don't cluster with Syrians.

That doesn’t agree with this diagram from Hammers study, which shows a different clustering.

http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/files/2009/01/Hammer_2000_Jew_Arab_Ychromosome.png

Actually it does, try looking into bigger diagrams to see the distances, and compare to later studies that usually include bigger databases. I really don't like this notion of discussing genetics regarding anything to do with Jews, I think You can appreciate why, and respect that. Genetics at the service of politics doesn't look good at all.

(Jews cluster with Lebanese Druze and Christians while Palestinian Arabs with Saudis, Jordanians and Bedouins, they almost entirely don't cluster with Syrians.)

I'd appreciate if we put this discussion aside, and focus on politics.
This forum has a specially bad taste using genetics, I'm not saying that's You, and that's not to say that it's not a valid subject, but I think in any case genetics for politics is a dirty business. Already starting to look ugly - I was unpleasantly surprised You went that way.

 

[Shusha]

Their heritage in terms of bloodlines and place most certainly did.

Their heritage exists only in reference to Arab conquests. They have no heritage in absence of the Arab conquests. They define themselves by their Arabness. You can't take the "Arabness" out of them and have them be the same.

The idea of blood purity, and claims or rights based on blood purity, is abhorrent.

I am not talking about blood purity. If you are bound and determined to insist the Palestinians have ties going back no further than the Arab conquest, then genetics refutes that and shows they have been in that place far longer then their detractors wish to acknowledge, maybe not as a recognizable people but as PEOPLE.

You can’t have it both ways and claim Jews have ancestral ties to a piece of land based on blood but the Palestians do not.

Its not based on blood for the Jewish people. Its based on culture and on them being a recognizable people. No one is denying that the Arab conquest mixed with a local population and over-ran their culture.

 

[Coyote]

It is not a legit argument, it's an inhuman one.

Its an inhuman argument to claim that Palestine (all of it) was divided into two States. 75% of the territory went to the Arab peoples of the region, for their sovereignty. 25% of the territory went to the Jewish people, for their sovereignty.

How the F*&K is that "inhuman"?

I was referring to the forced transfer of people.

There absolutely are those who think that Palestinians should be expelled elsewhere. I'll look them up but for a start - look at MJB's posts.

I read this board every day. I'm VERY familiar with all the posters here and their beliefs. No one claims that Arabs should be segregated from Jews because they are Arabs. No one suggests that all Arabs should be expelled from Israel due to their ethnicity. Israel certainly does not support that, and has gone to considerable lengths to oppose it in law. (As opposed to Gaza and "Palestine" who refuse to entertain the idea of a Jew living in 'their' land). Even the most extreme of posters, those who DO suggest expulsion (and I know who they are, I see them) only do so because of the violence.

I have been on here for years and some truly ugly stuff posted by both sides, and there is not a a division between violent and non violent. I have seen calls for mass expulsions, the justification the inhumane treatment of children in the detention, expelling them to Jordan, calling them animals, the deliberate promotion of false memes designed to demonize (such as the picture claiming to be a mass wedding of child brides) and a total denial of Palestinian humanity. Some of those posters no longer post here, but they were quite vociferous. Calling for expulsion BECAUSE they were Arab, send them to another Arab country. This forum has toned down some, but maybe you ought to look at what some say more critically.[/QUOTE]

 

[Coyote]

Their heritage in terms of bloodlines and place most certainly did.

Their heritage exists only in reference to Arab conquests. They have no heritage in absence of the Arab conquests. They define themselves by their Arabness. You can't take the "Arabness" out of them and have them be the same.

The idea of blood purity, and claims or rights based on blood purity, is abhorrent.

I am not talking about blood purity. If you are bound and determined to insist the Palestinians have ties going back no further than the Arab conquest, then genetics refutes that and shows they have been in that place far longer then their detractors wish to acknowledge, maybe not as a recognizable people but as PEOPLE.

You can’t have it both ways and claim Jews have ancestral ties to a piece of land based on blood but the Palestians do not.

Its not based on blood for the Jewish people. Its based on culture and on them being a recognizable people. No one is denying that the Arab conquest mixed with a local population and over-ran their culture.

Yes they are. Sixties for example calling them descendents so Arab invaders and migrants and the many people denying their ties to older peoples.

 

[Coyote]

But there is no relationship between Jews and Cambodian Temples. There is a relationship between ... Muslims and Jews to some of the same sites.

There IS? A relationship between Arab Muslims and the place of the Holy Temple? How so?

I said some of the same sites.

What sites, if not the Holy Temple? The Cave of the Patriarchs? Rachel's Tomb?

These are all Jewish sites. They are completely unrelated to Islam except that Islam decided to usurp both the places and the stories. Thousands of years later.

It is precisely a parallel to building a Jewish synagogue on top of the site of Cambodian Temples. And yet, you seem to think the one is ridiculous and the other to be ignored.

Isn’t Jewish history and doctrine part of Christian and Muslim history and doctrine? How is Cambodian history and doctrine part of Jewish history and doctrine?

 

[yiostheoy]

Their heritage in terms of bloodlines and place most certainly did.

Their heritage exists only in reference to Arab conquests. They have no heritage in absence of the Arab conquests. They define themselves by their Arabness. You can't take the "Arabness" out of them and have them be the same.

The idea of blood purity, and claims or rights based on blood purity, is abhorrent.

I am not talking about blood purity. If you are bound and determined to insist the Palestinians have ties going back no further than the Arab conquest, then genetics refutes that and shows they have been in that place far longer then their detractors wish to acknowledge, maybe not as a recognizable people but as PEOPLE.

You can’t have it both ways and claim Jews have ancestral ties to a piece of land based on blood but the Palestians do not.

Its not based on blood for the Jewish people. Its based on culture and on them being a recognizable people. No one is denying that the Arab conquest mixed with a local population and over-ran their culture.

Yes they are. Sixties for example calling them descendents so Arab invaders and migrants and the many people denying their ties to older peoples.

People don't seem to know that Arabs are not Palestians nor vice versa.

People make that mistake about Persians too.

Palestinians are a unique people who derive their heritage from the ancient Philistines.

As such, they are more closely related to the ancient Greeks than anybody else.

 

[Shusha]

I disagree that it should be the one way street you seem to think it should and I think the uniqueness of this situation be recognized.

Which I acknowledged in the rest of my post, making it very much a three way street. The Jewish people have absolutely no problem with other people and faiths worshiping at their own holy spots near the Jewish ones. As is very evident in Jerusalem. It is part of Jewish theology. Its not the Jewish people causing problems here.

It isn’t like some new found cult decided that the Cambodian Temp,es were part of their sacred landscape.

Yes, it is. Its exactly like that with Islam. (Not that I would use the term 'cult' for Islam, as it is demeaning).

The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties. However you might feel about the religions themselves, you can’t ignore this.

But people and faiths who use violence as a means to control spaces and other people should not be catered to. The violence has to stop. And the other side of the "all religions must have access to holy spaces" coin is that all religions must do so peacefully -- or else they shouldn't be able to have access to holy spaces. Again, its not the Jewish people causing problems here.

And the Holy Land is only important to one faith. There is nothing holy about the land to Muslims and Christians. There may be certain specific locations, but not the land in general.

As a result it needs to be treated as a sacred space and the rights of all three respected, not demeaned by claims of usurption,

The Jewish peoples, as the original aboriginal creators of those sacred spaces, must be acknowledged. Its not demeaning to recognize the facts of one's faith. its not demeaning to recognize things done in the past which have had an extremely negative affect on other peoples. For other peoples, that is the basis of reconciliation. In my synagogue, we acknowledge and thank the First Nations peoples, on whose land the building sits. There is nothing demeaning AT ALL about that. Its a powerful acknowledgement of the pain caused.

 

[Shusha]

Isn’t Jewish history and doctrine part of Christian and Muslim history and doctrine? How is Cambodian history and doctrine part of Jewish history and doctrine?

There is NO connection between Islam and Jewish history other than the fact that they "borrowed" Jewish stories. Their doctrine is their own. There is no more connection between Islam and Jews than there is between Cambodia and Jews.

 

[Coyote]

There is no way of knowing with any accuracy how many.

The first one is hardly a scientific article nor one written by historical experts. What is your point?

Same with the second one.

The third one could, oddly have some merit based on the dna analysis referred to in the National Geographic article you refer to as "mistaken".

The point in all of them is that the PA, Abbas and others, are going around changing their story of how long the Palestinians have actually been in the area.

Those articles were not written out of a vacuum, but based on what Abbas, Erekart and other Palestinian leaders have been telling the Western world for the past 10 to 20 years.

Why would they do that? Do they not know how far back the Palestinian people have lived on the land and exactly where?

Are they the Canaanite tribe? The Hitites? Edomites? Jebusites? Any and all of them?


And the Palestinian Museum remains empty.

They can change their stories, it's all political and designed to suit their agenda. I don't disagree there. But it doesn't change the fact that the Palestinians do descend from much older peoples then the Arabs, with a mixture of later Arab blood. In fact in the genetic study I quoted earlier - they are much closer to a number of Jewish groups and Syrians then they are to the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula (such as the Saudi's).

Actually Jews cluster genetically with Lebanese Druze and Christians while Palestinian Arabs with Saudis, Jordanians and Bedouins, they almost entirely don't cluster with Syrians.

That doesn’t agree with this diagram from Hammers study, which shows a different clustering.

http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/files/2009/01/Hammer_2000_Jew_Arab_Ychromosome.png

Actually it does, try looking into bigger diagrams to see the distances, and compare to later studies that usually include bigger databases. I really don't like this notion of discussing genetics regarding anything to do with Jews, I think You can appreciate why, and respect that. Genetics at the service of politics doesn't look good at all.

(Jews cluster with Lebanese Druze and Christians while Palestinian Arabs with Saudis, Jordanians and Bedouins, they almost entirely don't cluster with Syrians.)

I'd appreciate if we put this discussion aside, and focus on politics.
This forum has a specially bad taste using genetics, I'm not saying that's You, and that's not to say that it's not a valid subject, but I think in any case genetics for politics is a dirty business. Already starting to look ugly - I was unpleasantly surprised You went that way.

Since you requested I will put aside genetics, but doing so allows people to make false claims about Palestinians that I can’t then refute with science. Genetics and the movement and interrelationships of different peoples fascinates me and always has. It should not be a bad thing.

 

[Coyote]

Isn’t Jewish history and doctrine part of Christian and Muslim history and doctrine? How is Cambodian history and doctrine part of Jewish history and doctrine?

There is NO connection between Islam and Jewish history other than the fact that they "borrowed" Jewish stories. Their doctrine is their own. There is no more connection between Islam and Jews than there is between Cambodia and Jews.

I guess I don’t see it that way. I see Islam and Christianity as having built upon Judaism and each other. You can’t ignore their interrelatedness.

 

[Shusha]

I was referring to the forced transfer of people.

I have never suggested a forced transfer of people.

I have seen calls for mass expulsions, the justification the inhumane treatment of children in the detention, expelling them to Jordan, calling them animals, the deliberate promotion of false memes designed to demonize (such as the picture claiming to be a mass wedding of child brides) and a total denial of Palestinian humanity. Some of those posters no longer post here, but they were quite vociferous. Calling for expulsion BECAUSE they were Arab, send them to another Arab country. This forum has toned down some, but maybe you ought to look at what some say more critically.

I have seen some of these things. It is almost always related to violence. Boston used to call for mass expulsions -- but not because they were Arabs, because they were violent and weren't able to live in peace with Jews. He was specific about it. Several others have also said such things, always in the context of violence. Some of it is ugly. I'm aware of it. But I think you are missing the context.

 

[Shusha]

I guess I don’t see it that way. I see Islam and Christianity as having built upon Judaism and each other.

Sure. All you've done is soften the language. "built upon" = "usurped"

That is exactly, literally, what Islam did. It built a shrine on top of someone else's Holy Place and then borrowed a story to make a connection where there was none.

It would be exactly the same as if some Jewish person built a shrine at Angkor Wat and then claimed a Cambodian story.

 

[Coyote]

I disagree that it should be the one way street you seem to think it should and I think the uniqueness of this situation be recognized.

Which I acknowledged in the rest of my post, making it very much a three way street. The Jewish people have absolutely no problem with other people and faiths worshiping at their own holy spots near the Jewish ones. As is very evident in Jerusalem. It is part of Jewish theology. Its not the Jewish people causing problems here.

It isn’t like some new found cult decided that the Cambodian Temp,es were part of their sacred landscape.

Yes, it is. Its exactly like that with Islam. (Not that I would use the term 'cult' for Islam, as it is demeaning).

The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties. However you might feel about the religions themselves, you can’t ignore this.

But people and faiths who use violence as a means to control spaces and other people should not be catered to. The violence has to stop. And the other side of the "all religions must have access to holy spaces" coin is that all religions must do so peacefully -- or else they shouldn't be able to have access to holy spaces. Again, its not the Jewish people causing problems here.

And the Holy Land is only important to one faith. There is nothing holy about the land to Muslims and Christians. There may be certain specific locations, but not the land in general.

As a result it needs to be treated as a sacred space and the rights of all three respected, not demeaned by claims of usurption,

The Jewish peoples, as the original aboriginal creators of those sacred spaces, must be acknowledged. Its not demeaning to recognize the facts of one's faith. its not demeaning to recognize things done in the past which have had an extremely negative affect on other peoples. For other peoples, that is the basis of reconciliation. In my synagogue, we acknowledge and thank the First Nations peoples, on whose land the building sits. There is nothing demeaning AT ALL about that. Its a powerful acknowledgement of the pain caused.

1. I have emphasized multiple times the importance of peaceful behavior. Do I need to repeat it? Nor have I said Jews are the cause of the violence.

2. I don’t have any issue with Jews as the creators of those sacred spaces being acknowledged and with gratitude, in fact that is a really nice tradition.

3. I Dont see how it matters whether the entire land or specific sites are important. Those specific sites ARE important to those faiths and they have a right to access those sites as a result.

 

[Coyote]

I guess I don’t see it that way. I see Islam and Christianity as having built upon Judaism and each other.

Sure. All you've done is soften the language. "built upon" = "usurped"

That is exactly, literally, what Islam did. It built a shrine on top of someone else's Holy Place and then borrowed a story to make a connection where there was none.

It would be exactly the same as if some Jewish person built a shrine at Angkor Wat and then claimed a Cambodian story.

Well...I disagree. I notice you only claim it of Islam, not Christianity.

 

[yiostheoy]

But there is no relationship between Jews and Cambodian Temples. There is a relationship between ... Muslims and Jews to some of the same sites.

There IS? A relationship between Arab Muslims and the place of the Holy Temple? How so?

I said some of the same sites.

What sites, if not the Holy Temple? The Cave of the Patriarchs? Rachel's Tomb?

These are all Jewish sites. They are completely unrelated to Islam except that Islam decided to usurp both the places and the stories. Thousands of years later.

It is precisely a parallel to building a Jewish synagogue on top of the site of Cambodian Temples. And yet, you seem to think the one is ridiculous and the other to be ignored.

Isn’t Jewish history and doctrine part of Christian and Muslim history and doctrine? How is Cambodian history and doctrine part of Jewish history and doctrine?

 

[Coyote]

I guess I don’t see it that way. I see Islam and Christianity as having built upon Judaism and each other.

Sure. All you've done is soften the language. "built upon" = "usurped"

That is exactly, literally, what Islam did. It built a shrine on top of someone else's Holy Place and then borrowed a story to make a connection where there was none.

It would be exactly the same as if some Jewish person built a shrine at Angkor Wat and then claimed a Cambodian story.

They built a shrine on an older holy place, something religious conquests have done for ages and ethics were completely different. How is that usurped? Did the Jews usurp stories from older religions and cultures to create their narratives? Yes. Biblical floods for one, the story of Moses for another.

What do you mean borrowed a story? It seems they have their own story associated with al Akhsa.

I think claiming usurption is insulting, a way of delegitimizating a religion’s rights to holy places. I agree with Jewish primacy there, but I think similar respect should be given to all the faiths.

 

[yiostheoy]

I disagree that it should be the one way street you seem to think it should and I think the uniqueness of this situation be recognized.

Which I acknowledged in the rest of my post, making it very much a three way street. The Jewish people have absolutely no problem with other people and faiths worshiping at their own holy spots near the Jewish ones. As is very evident in Jerusalem. It is part of Jewish theology. Its not the Jewish people causing problems here.

It isn’t like some new found cult decided that the Cambodian Temp,es were part of their sacred landscape.

Yes, it is. Its exactly like that with Islam. (Not that I would use the term 'cult' for Islam, as it is demeaning).

The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties. However you might feel about the religions themselves, you can’t ignore this.

But people and faiths who use violence as a means to control spaces and other people should not be catered to. The violence has to stop. And the other side of the "all religions must have access to holy spaces" coin is that all religions must do so peacefully -- or else they shouldn't be able to have access to holy spaces. Again, its not the Jewish people causing problems here.

And the Holy Land is only important to one faith. There is nothing holy about the land to Muslims and Christians. There may be certain specific locations, but not the land in general.

As a result it needs to be treated as a sacred space and the rights of all three respected, not demeaned by claims of usurption,

The Jewish peoples, as the original aboriginal creators of those sacred spaces, must be acknowledged. Its not demeaning to recognize the facts of one's faith. its not demeaning to recognize things done in the past which have had an extremely negative affect on other peoples. For other peoples, that is the basis of reconciliation. In my synagogue, we acknowledge and thank the First Nations peoples, on whose land the building sits. There is nothing demeaning AT ALL about that. Its a powerful acknowledgement of the pain caused.

1. I have emphasized multiple times the importance of peaceful behavior. Do I need to repeat it? Nor have I said Jews are the cause of the violence.

2. I don’t have any issue with Jews as the creators of those sacred spaces being acknowledged and with gratitude, in fact that is a really nice tradition.

3. I Dont see how it matters whether the entire land or specific sites are important. Those specific sites ARE important to those faiths and they have a right to access those sites as a result.

I have been to the temple mount, King David's tomb, the garden Gethsemane, the garden tomb, Bethlehem chapel, the crusader church of the holy mount, the crusader castle in Acre, Jaffa, the archeological dig at Jericho, the fortress Masada, the Catholic shrine of the hill of beatitudes, the Sea Of Tiberias, and the IDF checkpoint at Naharia.

Beautiful place. A heritage for Christians and Jews.

 

[Coyote]

I was referring to the forced transfer of people.

I have never suggested a forced transfer of people.

No, but what you said in response to my post took me by surprise.

I said:

Denying them ties to the region is denying them rights to it - and I see that [often enough when they talk of sending them to Jordan for example.

And you responded with a description of how it was divided, and saying it was a legitimate solution. Sending the Palestinians to Jordan would likely mean a forced transfer and that is not in my mind a legitimate solution. It would be inhumane.

 

[Coyote]

I disagree that it should be the one way street you seem to think it should and I think the uniqueness of this situation be recognized.

Which I acknowledged in the rest of my post, making it very much a three way street. The Jewish people have absolutely no problem with other people and faiths worshiping at their own holy spots near the Jewish ones. As is very evident in Jerusalem. It is part of Jewish theology. Its not the Jewish people causing problems here.

It isn’t like some new found cult decided that the Cambodian Temp,es were part of their sacred landscape.

Yes, it is. Its exactly like that with Islam. (Not that I would use the term 'cult' for Islam, as it is demeaning).

The Holy Land, which is probably the best term for this area, is important to all three that it has been the flashpoint of so much senseless violence as a result of religious ties. However you might feel about the religions themselves, you can’t ignore this.

But people and faiths who use violence as a means to control spaces and other people should not be catered to. The violence has to stop. And the other side of the "all religions must have access to holy spaces" coin is that all religions must do so peacefully -- or else they shouldn't be able to have access to holy spaces. Again, its not the Jewish people causing problems here.

And the Holy Land is only important to one faith. There is nothing holy about the land to Muslims and Christians. There may be certain specific locations, but not the land in general.

As a result it needs to be treated as a sacred space and the rights of all three respected, not demeaned by claims of usurption,

The Jewish peoples, as the original aboriginal creators of those sacred spaces, must be acknowledged. Its not demeaning to recognize the facts of one's faith. its not demeaning to recognize things done in the past which have had an extremely negative affect on other peoples. For other peoples, that is the basis of reconciliation. In my synagogue, we acknowledge and thank the First Nations peoples, on whose land the building sits. There is nothing demeaning AT ALL about that. Its a powerful acknowledgement of the pain caused.

1. I have emphasized multiple times the importance of peaceful behavior. Do I need to repeat it? Nor have I said Jews are the cause of the violence.

2. I don’t have any issue with Jews as the creators of those sacred spaces being acknowledged and with gratitude, in fact that is a really nice tradition.

3. I Dont see how it matters whether the entire land or specific sites are important. Those specific sites ARE important to those faiths and they have a right to access those sites as a result.

I have been to the temple mount, King David's tomb, the garden Gethsemane, the garden tomb, Bethlehem chapel, the crusader church of the holy mount, the crusader castle in Acre, Jaffa, the archeological dig at Jericho, the fortress Masada, the Catholic shrine of the hill of beatitudes, the Sea Of Tiberias, and the IDF checkpoint at Naharia.

Beautiful place. A heritage for Christians and Jews.

There is a wealth of history in those places...I would love to see them. And I have to say I trust the Israeli’s far more than any other group to conserve, conduct responsible archeological investigations and preserve fair access.

 

[Shusha]

I was referring to the forced transfer of people.

I have never suggested a forced transfer of people.

No, but what you said in response to my post took me by surprise.

I said:

Denying them ties to the region is denying them rights to it - and I see that [often enough when they talk of sending them to Jordan for example.

And you responded with a description of how it was divided, and saying it was a legitimate solution. Sending the Palestinians to Jordan would likely mean a forced transfer and that is not in my mind a legitimate solution. It would be inhumane.

But I did not suggest a forced transfer. Or any transfer. You are putting things on me that I do not believe and did not say. This is why I suggest you are misunderstanding and missing the context of some of the TI posters here.