Talk:Palestinians/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Palestinians. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Talk page censored?

My comments on this talk page were somehow deleted by User_talk:Jayjg.

What are you talking about? What comments, and when did I delete them? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The term "Palestinian" refers to the peoples that have lived in this territory (British Mandate Palestine and preceding). Palestinians can be Jewish, Arab(Muslim or Christian), Circassian, etc. Actually, pre- 1948 the term Palestinian referred to Jews. Today the term is typically and commonly used to refer to Arab Palestinians, but it's important to recognize/acknowledge equally the other Palestinian communities and ethnicities as well. Furthermore, Palestine is simply the territorial land (British Mandate 1919-1922). Palestine is analogous to Antarctica today. Antarctica is a territory, not a country. A country called Antarctica doesn't exist! Like Antarctica today, Palestine too was a territory. Two sovereign countries have emerged out of the territory (20th century). One sovereign country is Israel and the other is Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Jordanian. Jews of Palestine (Jewish Palestinians) have their county (called Israel), and Arabs of Palestine have their country (called Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Jordania).216.58.42.49MO.

Antarctica was never inhabited (unless you watch sci-fi movies), and a colonial power's defining of the borders of land they ruled (and giving it a name) has absolutely no bearing on the native population's ties to specific parts of that region where their history and culture lies. The vast majority of Palestinians west of the River have/had strong ties not necessarily to "Palestine" but to their native towns and villages where they were born and bred and that happen to be in a region a colonial power named "Palestine" (and the name stuck, so what? Big deal!). So let's see: Jews of Palestine have their country, but what about the Jews that are not of Palestine (which is pretty much the Ashkenazi population of Israel as well as Yemenites, Moroccans, etc)? Isn't Israel their country too? But they do not fit your description of 'Palestinian Jews'. Next, what about Israeli Arabs? Are you saying Israel isn't their country? Lastly, what about the Palestinians (in today's modern terminology, not the one which you claim is from 1922) in the occupied territories? Are you saying Jordan is their country? Should they pack up and move to 'their country'? Never mind they have absolutely no ties to the land that Jordan was founded on whatsoever (except relatives who are still refugees living there). You are right in pointing out that colonial powers drew the maps of the region; you are wrong in creating artificial assignments of people to land based on those maps instead of basing it on their actual history. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The population of Antarctica (cold desert territory) is approx. 1000 (depending upon the season)(see permanent,year round research stations for details). As per the issue whether Israel (Jewish Palestinian country) also belongs to Ashkenazi Jews, Muslim Arabs, Christian Arabs, Circassians, and immigrants world wide (including Bahai,Ethiopians,Rusians,Europeans,Americans,Canadians,Oriental community,etc.)the answer is yes,it is their country too. Israel is a democracy open to immigrants of the world (see current population strata within Israel). By contrast,Jordan/Jordania/Trans-Jordan(Arab Palestinian country) is a totalitarian authoritarian dictatorship/monarchy. Jordan's immigration policy is best characterized as discouraging, and at worst 'hostile'(see Jordan's immigration/naturalization policy). Finally, I base my definition of 'Palestinian' to include all ethnic communities that lived in British Mandate Palestine territory so not to exclude anyone (ethnic group) arbitrarily. 216.58.42.49 22:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)MO.

So now Israel is also the country of Ashkenazi Jews, Muslim Arabs, Christian Arabs, Circassians, and immigrants world wide (including Bahai,Ethiopians,Rusians,Europeans,Americans,Canadians,Oriental community,etc)? That is good to know, maybe a whole bunch of these people should apply for citizenship there. While you have not directly responded to my point above regarding being wrong about arbitrarily assigning homes based on a colonial power's drawing of borders at one particular point in history (and not other points in history), I thank you for expressing your views on this talk page. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"The breakdown of Israel's population is as follows: Jews - 4.9 million, Muslims 936,000; Christians - 131,000; Druze - 101,000; religion not registered - 152,000. The "Expanded Jewish Population" (including immigrants and their children who are not registered as Jews by the census bureau) is 5.1 million, 81.5% of the country's population. These figures are based on a random survey conducted by the Central Bureau of Statistics for the new year." (Dec. 30, 1999: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

"In 1999, there was a significant rise in the number of new immigrants - 77,000, as compared to 60,000 in 1998, a rise of 28%. Immigration caused Israel's population to grow 160,000 (2.7%) in 1999, up from 2.4% in 1998. The Arab population rose by 3.7% and the Jewish population rose by 2.4% in 1999, up from 3.4% and 2.2% respectively, in 1998. 40% of Israel's growth in 1999 was due to immigration, up from 35% in 1998, and accounted for 42% of the increase in the Jewish population."(Dec. 30,1999: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

Regarding the issue of territorial borders drawn by the old colonial powers at specific points in time, historically, nearly every country and territory on the planet was formed via this method (formed by: British, French, Spanish, Ottoman-Turks, Chinese, Romans, Egyptians etc.)216.58.10.18 00:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)MO.

As per the article regarding: 'Palestinians', I have some concerns: the flag implies sovereignty: 'Palestine' (British Mandate Palestine/Ottoman-Turks Empire territory/etc.) was a territory like Antarctica today; it was never a sovereign country. 2)the flag is adopted by an Arab nationalistic community living in the territory (Note: the flag is nearly identical to that of Jordan/Trans-Jordan/Jordania; also adopted by Arab nationalists living in 'Palestine' territory now known as Jordan (Arab 'Palestinian'country)). The other ethnic communities living in this territory, don't identify themselves under this flag: Circassians, Jewish, etc., even though they too, are equally 'Palestinian.' 216.58.9.149 18:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)MO.

I remain deeply concerned about the 'Palestinian' page. It's far too exclusive of the other 'Palestinian' communities: Jewish, Circassian, etc. Neither communities identify themselves under the Arab 'Palestinian' flag.

The 'medieval' map is disturbing. Syria and Palestine were provinces under the Ottoman-Turk Empire; not countries. Jordan (Tans-Jordan/Jordania) didn't exist prior to 1922. Pre-1922, this land too was British Mandate Palestine/former Ottoman-Turk Empire territory.216.58.10.48MO.

I remember viewing this page perhaps two years ago and seeing that it was full of contradictions and heated in-text confrontation by various contributors with various axes to grind... I just read through it again (and made a small contribution), though, and I find that the tone has become much more factual and NPOV. I'm not really sure now if there's anything left to this NPOV dispute, or if it's just a relic of the era when this page was still being fleshed out, and everyone has just been too uncertain to take it off. So, I would like to suggest we remove the NPOV dispute flag; it seems pretty resolved, no? Does anyone want to bring up any more MAJOR points before we do so? I would also like to congratulate all contributors on the resolution of this article - that's a good example of how Wikipedia is supposed to work.

Two Points.

The genetic tests are far too narrow a scope, it is impossible to test Ashkenazi Jewish populations in Israel, against something known as Palestinian and Arab.

The Arab people are far too mixed You will if one is using a Narrow scope find among the gaza population. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=semitic Negroid/Nilotics from the Army of Egypt which stayed.

Arab Bedouins (arabized adanite)

Arab Bedouin (qahtani)

Arab Syrian (adanite)

Arab Syrian Christian (adanite-Greek)

Trans Caucasians (circumcision/Chechen/daghestani)

It is impossible unless these tests are going to use such mind boggling definitions to single out a specific haplotype and say this is Arab.

to suggest Ashkenazi Jews are derived from the middle east is likewise ridiculous.

and Lastly,

The Palestinian Flag is the Flag of the Great Arab Revolt.

T.Y. Jazz

Canaanites???

No, you are gravely mistaken....genetics researches proved that despite their light(similiar in many cases to non jewish Europians) look they generally have, they(the ashkenazi Jews) match perfectly in the the genetic map of middle-eastern peoples. that Ashkenazi Jews are much more related genetically to the middle eastern populations and especially to the Sephardi Jews and to other Jewish non ashkenazi groups, despite their over all appearance, than to any of their non-Jews neighbors in Europe...(in general)and by the way-European-like appearances(i.e white skin,bright hair and eyes) although rare relatively ,have been present in the middle east, specifically in where the Jews originated from(i.e the place Abraham originated-in modern day Iraq more or less), since for ever with a "blondism" phenotype that is original as much as the European one...climate is also likely to influence and change pigmentation and is a viable option,as it happened all through history to different migrating groups, all originally(humanity) coming from africa as research indicates.

Appearances are deceiving(Even though plenty and many of of them have typical jewish-semitic physical recognizable distinguishable jewish features,And even though it is genotype that counts here most,not phenotype-which can be and is quite "skin deep" with surface indicatio on origins on many occasions), and genetically they match up with their Sephardi Jewish brothers and other Jewish groups, and with the near east's different peoples quite well, most closely, to the Kurds according to genetic researches. that is not to say that during the centuries and millenia, that non Jews haven't mixed with Ashkenazi Jews or with other Jewish groups(what people hasn't had people from other peoples mix with them to some degree or the other?), but their influence and occurrence was relatively insignificant as far as genetics are concerned....the genetics of the people of Israel, the Jewish poeople, has been quite constant for thousnds of years. The people of israel, i.e the jewish people has a ditinct ethnic identity which has remained pretty much as it was, since biblical times, despite different geographies, locations in the world and distances from one another-they are the direct decendents, for the most part, of the ancient israelites - they are the modern israelites, hebrews, jews.

the people of israel,the jewish people, for the most part are a pretty tight group, genetically speaking:

http://www.sdss.jhu.edu/~ethan/jFAQ.html

http://www.imninalu.net/myths-pals.htm

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769

http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~siamakr/Kurdish/KURDICA/2001/3/jewkurd.html

http://www.familytreedna.com/nature97385.html

and so on....

True, but all the research which attests to this truth - that the majority of gene sequence of Ashkenazim is mostly Middle Eastern (with some little European and Central Asian [presumably Khazar] admixture) are true ONLY for the paternal ancestry (Y chromosome) of the Ashkenazim. All research findings on the maternal ancestry (mtDNA) of the Ashkenazim show that the origins of the Ashkenazim are indeed in Europe. Basically, what this means, is that the patriarchs of Ashkenazim were Middle Easterners, but the matriarchs were gentile Europeans. Since Jewishness is inherited from the mother, that means that Ashkenazi matriarchs were converts to the Jewish faith, or else the current Ashkenazi population would not today be Jewish. And do realise that the only geneflow into the Ashkeanzi population was from one source (from native gentile Europeans, as indeed they were in Europe for over a thousand years), while the Middle Eastern element was confined to that initial input provided by the Middle Eastern forebears that were responsable for the Ashkenazim being in Europe in the first place.

You may ask "but if this were true, if the Ashkenazim were now genetically Europeans and Middle Easterners only in a distant descent, why would they still show the markers pointing their origins (paternall only, as I have pointed out) as being almost entirely from the Middle East"? I will answer in an analogy; if an African man (who immigrated to Europe in the year 1015) and a European woman bear a baby mulatto boy, that boy's Y chromosome will place his origins in Africa, but his mtDNA will place his origins in Europe. When that mulatto boy grows up and in turn has a baby boy with another European woman, that boy's Y chromosome will again place his origins in Africa (even though he is 1/4 african), and his mtDNA will place his origins in Europe. Then if that boy has a baby boy with yet another European woman, that baby boy's Y chromosome will yet again place his origins in Africa (even though by this stage he is 1/8 african), and his mtDNA will again place his origins in Europe.

And as for the "jewish people has a ditinct ethnic identity which has remaind preety much as it was, since biblical times", well that is just not true. That "ditinct ethnic identity" is the view propagated by modern Zionism, which itself is a concept born of European Jewry in an social atmosphere unique to Europe (nationalism was a phenomenon originally native to Europe and the different groups of Europe). Most Jews before the rise of European Zionism, and most non-European Jews even after the rise of European Zionism, did not think of Jewishness as an ethnicity. Iraqi Jews, for example, generally viewed themselves as Arabs of the Jewish faith, with the distinction between Iraqis being religious (Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc.) rather than as a separate race or nationality. Jewish nationalism is a recent phenomenon resulting from the birth of Zionism in Europe (a continent where the concept of nationality itself was born, the reason for the birth of Zionism, a form of nationalism).

When the non-European Jews made it to Israel, most were not even familiar with the concepts of Zionism much less with the idea that Jewishness was a nationality. Most saw themselves as ethnic groups of the countries from which they originated (Arabs, Kurds, etc.) except for the fact that they were of the Jewish faith. Their reception by Ashkenazim in Israel also testifies to the fact that this Zionist "Jewish nationalism" was in name only (at least not intended for those Jews not of European origin), as they were discriminated for being Arab Jews, Kurdish Jews, Yemenite Jews, etc. and the discrimination goes on today. Most European Jews were not even aware of non-European Jewish populations, and this explains the background of Zionism's "Jewish Nationalism" as just another sprout of nationalism of Europeans. I could quote a myriad of racist statements made by the Zionist (Ashkenazi) founding fathers of Israel that attest to the fact that Zionist nationalism never meant to encompass Jews who were non-Europeans. They only came to be included after the state was born, when the Jewish population still needed to be augmented. It was only then that they turned with contempt to the Oriental Jews (Mizrahim). Except for the fact that they were of the Jewish faith, Mizrahim were seen as no better than other Arabs, in fact the founders of Israel viewed the Mizrahi as lesser than the local non-Jewish Arabs of Israel. Now today you have the Ethiopian Jews, Lembas, Indian Jews, etc, they are all also very discriminated and even unrecognized by some Jews, even though genetic studies also show them to be descendants of ancient Israelites (at least in the case of Indian Jews and Lembas, because the Ethiopians show little if any ancient Israelit ancestry). Is this the "ditinct ethnic identity " that you speak of? Al-Andalus 17:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC).

Sorry, bub. But all of this sounds like garden-variety anti-semitism to me. If you claim that non-Ashkenazi Jews are actively discriminated against by the State of Israel (notice I say STATE, not people; I'm sure there are some small minded nutbags in Israel, just like any other country, and they will hate anybody. But they are people, not the government), why do they stay? Why don't they leave? Certainly, the Bnei Menashe (some of the Indian Jews you mentioned) will not have any problems on India's end if they choose to return. There was never any anti-semitism or anything like that from Hindus, and the Bnei Menashe weren't driven out in a "final solution" or anything like that. In fact, many Indian politicians were reluctant to let the Bnei Menashe Jews do their Aliyah. Therefore they can come back to India if they are sooo "Discriminated Against" by "Evil Israel". I'm sure that similar rguments can be made against other Jews from outside Europe who went to Israel. The fact that they STAY in Israel alone is sufficient evidence that there is no intolerable state sanctioned persecution against them, and they're basically doing OK, barring the usual problems faced by all Israelis. It seems you're just trying to foster hatred against Israel, and this is a wikipedia talk page, not a hate site.[[[User:Subhash bose|Netaji]] 10:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)]

Anti-Semitic rhetoric it is. Your analogy is flawed: Because unlike your single African male example... Jews in Europe did not assimilate with their host populations for the majority of history-most of it they were primarly and very Religious and did not assimilate and most jews today are the resuly of that pattern,and not only geneticly speaking,whereas your African example and all of his male descendants did, and those who are Jewish today are for the most part the result of not assimilating(intermarriage ans so on) ancestors- And those who did,and there were, for different reasons,mostly vanished from the Jewish People and genome(they assimilated completely)....if and when any non-Jews enterd the jewish People(conversion and the likes), they were assimilated into the Jewish People and not the other way around....a few generations down the line and their genetic contribution would experience dilution if existent at all in the descendants who would have been the products of mainly Jewish genetic(and ethnic) unions-the non-Jewish genetic contribution quickly became genetically irrelevant...with mild genetic significance(as shown by genetic researches all over).outside gene flow was virtually non existent(more or less) through out most of the Ashkenazi Jews history as they were isolated both physically, religiously and colturly...if any "outside" geneflow was involved it was much more likely to come from jews from other communities and other geographical regions who they came in contact with...(as in Jewish merchants and so forth) Most non-jewish Europians in the dark ages were illiterate ...there would have been great cultural differences between the much different religious Jewish studious culture which was anything but illitirate...and that of dark aged non-jewish masses-very little in common,generally speaking. intermarriage has long been a taboo in the Jewish religion and colture, and especially since the days of Ezra and Nehemya(after the return from Babylon)...and the isolation....jews were isolated both by inside forces and factors and by outside ones( their host populations)... Until recently(and there's still alot of work to be done),Ashkenazim Mitochondriac research was quite inconclusive and not as you put it....as though it conclusively shown the matriarchs as being irrefutably not Jewish\Israelite,not Near-Eastern genetically and just non jewish Europian...that's false. Research shows things differently....as explained-your analogy is wrong- and even if the speculation that the Ashkenazim Jewish population is the result of initial unions between Jewish merchants(or something...)and local non Jewish women( actully the most founded theory so far is that The Ashkenazim orginated from Roman Jews,and who said there were only Jewish men...?Jewish women simply vanished, only jewish men remained?please...),was true to some extent-Eventhough tradition and custom and patterns of Jewish migration\displacement in history has it, Jewish families (both women and men together) moved to different regions of Europe as well as different regions of the world -even in that case,history, Tradition and what not...are backed up by the science of genetics which still stronglly indicate the Ashkenazim to be a tightly nit group genetically in general(meaning, even if initially that was the case-the newly formed communities sealed themselves early on to outsiders, and only married within themselves Jews exclusively mostly...so hardly no gene inflow(non-Jews) for 1000 years and quite more...the little that was,was quite diluted through the generations... the Ashkenazim Jews experienced,so it seems Several genetic bottle neck periods... founder effects are a trace of that which can be observed for example in the form of all sorts of genetic diseases that are common in the Ashkenazim....they hardly ever mixed most of their history...and that's basically a fact supported among other things, by genetics...and with the High percentage of Y chromosomes of Ashkenazim matching quite perfectly with their brothers in other Jewish groups ,stronger than to any other People out there ,which is a very strong indication,(that's not one or 2 individuals but the majority of the people of israel\Jewish people) on roughtly(more or less) half of their origins and genetics(That's how mostly population genetics is done to determine general genetic closeness between different population groups)-because it's quite common in the Ashkenazim as it is in most Jewish groups,plus considering assimilation and converts was not their style but isolation sure was) -More over,The Jewish people of today,are for the most part the direct decendents and the related group of and to the ancient israelites and are their successors in all and is their direct continuation,They,The Hebrews of today have the strongest affiliation,be it genetic, coltural, relegious,historical to the ancient Hebrews\Jews,Israelites (most peoples who have stayed mostly in their own countries and were not exiled(unlike most of the exiled People of israel) can not claim "genetic pureness"...-The People of israel, ever since it was created has not ceased-and Jews of today and throughout history are proof to that fact-it's that simple. those who remained part of the jewish people(including those with admixture in their origins but are part of the jewish people nonetheless), the people of israel that continueously throughout the ages stayed jewish and part of the People. In any case, converts to Judaism,("Gere zedek" - those who went through proper "Giyure") are, by that process,adopted into the nation and People of israel much like with some indian tribes and their adoption of white individuals in the past,not just into the religion, which are intertwined(Religion ad nationality since practically forever in the Jewish identity), and gain all rights resrved for members of that nation and People Including The exclusive right and claim to it's anicent national home-The land of Israel...The genetics of the jewish people just strengthens it's justice and direct link to the ancient Hebrews-their ancestors,the group the modern jews are their direct continuos heirs and for the most part,direct decendents. Jews\Hebrews\Israelites,the Jewish People is indeed,for the most, a distinctive authentic ethnic(with it's own common distinct genetic, historical, coltural, religious,origin connections) group(with sub-groups in it Like the Ashkenazim, Spharadim,Kurdim,Babylonian-Iraqi and so on...),with a common very strong genetic link to each other(Jews from all over the world),which is stronger,populations-genetics speaking, than those to their host non Jewish populations and to non jewish populations in general...their genetic identity,mostly, has not changed significantly-and what's for sure,their national one(israel,jewish)hasn't(although as with any other People,there was outside genflow involved to some degree-genetialy not very much significant as it seems, and that stands for generally most jewish groups-outside genflow has effected to one degree or another most peoples in world), despite thousands of years in the diaspora...they remained genetically quite tight and linked to each other, the different jewish groups from different parts of the world(linked to each other ad to the region...(with genetic variations distinct sometimes to mainly one group or another)and to other peoples of the area as well-So far, the kurds seem to be the closest.

as for most of the Jews not considering themselves a Ditinct People(Jewish people) and thinking that Judaism is only a religion , not a nation\people too, before the 19th century-that's absurd! (only ignorant Jews or those who didn't want to stand out from their host population-like the german jews in the 19th and mid 20th centuries-"Germans of the faith of moses"-they may have been german in almost everything but they still belonged to the jewish people by blood(partly anyway in some cases), though they were german by citizenship and much of their colture and so on...,or just self-hating Jews, could have thought or think like that...Also, Ignorance could be the only reason why a Europian Jew would not know that that non Europian Jews exist...also, Europian jews were not and aren't eactly all Ahkenazim...lots were and are not.....Sphardim-spanish jews for instance...in short-unless you were completely clueless about where you come from...which is unlikely for most jews in Europe for most of their history there since they were devoutly religious-Babylonian talmud,exile and all...it was common knwoladge that the jewish people is dispersed around the globe-not only in Europe,certainly known to the jews themselves...not including the ignorant ones ) Jewish\hebrew\israelite history, tradition and religion all say differently....judiasm,Jewishness is and has been both nationhood and a religion for practically forever....the people of Israel has been a separate nation\people much longer than most peoples and nations in existence today-the nation of Israel is one of the most ancient peoples in the world...for close to 3500 years or so, it exists and leaves it's mark on the world,one way or another,long before the awakening in Europe...nations have existed long before the 19th century...Modern Zionism is the Legitimate national liberation movement of the People of israel(the Jewish people), the product of The re-awakening of Jewish nationhood,nationalism and so forth..(nationality that was always there),the desire to return and gain once again dominion over their rightful natioanl homeland(for 3000 and somewhat hundreds years and continued\consistent jewish\hebrew presence in the land of close to 4000 years since the days of Joshua and the -) began taking actual physical shape- the belief in the Right of the jewish people to it's ancestral national homeland-The land of israel, and a a policy of active pursuit of returning and regaining Sovereignty over their ancient Homeland,and the modern form of this ancient want and need was inspired by what was happening in Europe at the time including dangerous rises in Anti-Ssemitism,but with great ancient foundation in Jewish(and world) History, Religion, Culture,Tradition,and in actual backed up factuality which is quite recorded.

http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html - Jewish Genetics: Abstracts and Summaries

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ashkenazi#Ethnic_definition

There's nothing really more to add here-Actual History and Factuality and Truth,Countering the many lies, distotions of truth and Anstisemitic(in it's different reincarnations)propoganda, quite nicely and wholly for the understnading and taking-in by readers...but only for those who actually seek to find it: The Jewish people\The People of Israel is an actual Authantic People and nation,a common ditinct ehnic identity for most of them(with continueous 3500 or so years of existence under it's belt as a sound and quite recorded basis)-Unlike the anti-true,un-just, propoganda created, "Palestinian people"...which, well... is the Most successful Bluff\Lie in history so far...misinformation\unfounded lies\distorted truth+antisemitism+ingnorance (it doesn't always take all the factors mentioned)=surefire recipe for success with this blatant transparent lie, as it seems....:

I have never seen as much patent nonsense as the above silliness. I am a Jew, an American, and a Zionist (meaning, I support the existence of the State of Israel), and I support the rights of the Palestinian people as well. The genetic substrate of Ashkenazi Jews should be patently obvious to anyone who has traveled the world and visited synagogues in cities. If you go to synagogue in Sweden, you will see that all Jews have yellow flaxen hair. Not exactly a Middle Eastern characteristic. Go to France, and you will find most Jews look French. You would not generally confuse a Danish Jew with a Russian Jew. Why is this? When I was a student in Yeshiva, we were taught that Jews maintained genetic purity until the Reform movement began in nineteenth-century Germany, by refraining from intermarriage with the Christian host civilizations throughout Europe. Well, we were taught a lot of other such incorrect "facts." All the new Jewish Histories explain how intermarriage was a constant fact in Jewish history as far back as the Roman Empire. Juvenal, in one of his satires, jokes that the old Roman aristocratic families were becoming so intermarried with Jews, that it was becoming more and more difficult to enjoy a good meal of pork in a Roman household. None of this really matters, in any case. What is anyone trying to "prove" by these silly arguments? My parents were immigrants to the United States; I am certain that I have no genetic connection with my country; does that make me less of an American? The State of Israel is a sovereign nation. Of what interest is the genetic makeup of its citizens? Similarly, Palestinians, whether Muslim, Jewish, or Christian, whose families lived in that region for a period of time, and have cultural, religious, ethnic, and other connections to the land, are clearly Palestinians, regardless of any silly "genetic" claims of any kind. Why must there be disputes over such elementary notions? These people clearly have a connection to the land. It should also be clear that Palestinians have a separate identity from Saudis, Iraqis, or Egyptians, just as Frenchmen, Italians, and Germans have different cultural identities, despite the fact that they are all white Europeans Christians. Irish Catholics are different from Italian Catholics, and Italian Catholics are even different from French Catholics, who live right next to them. Jews should know enough about persecution, suffering and discrimination to refrain from describing Palestinians the way they were described for hundreds of years in Europe. 66.108.105.21 02:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Who Are the Palestinians?:

Who Are the Palestinians? by Yashiko Sagamori November 25, 2002

"A rebuttal:

If you are so sure that “Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded history”, I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of "Palestine":

1. When was it founded and by whom?

2. What were its borders?

3. What was its capital?

4. What were its major cities?

5. What constituted the basis of its economy?

6. What was its form of government?

7. Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?

8. Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?

9. What was the language of the country of Palestine?

10. What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?

11. What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and try and find the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, British pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date.

12. Have the Palestinians left any artifacts behind?

13. Do you know of a library where one could find a work of Palestinian literature produced before 1967?

14. And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?

If you are lamenting the “low sinking” of “once proud” nation, then please tell me, when exactly was that “nation” proud and what was it so proud of?

And here is the least sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call “Palestinians” are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over - or thrown out of - the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat by Israel in the 1967Six Day War?

I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern day “Palestinians” to the Biblical Philistines: substituting etymology for history won't work here.

The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel; they still cherish it today. Having time and again failed to achieve their evil goal through military means, they decided to fight Israel by proxy. For that purpose, they created a terrorist organization, cynically called it “the Palestinian people” and installed it in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. How else can you explain the refusal by Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the “West Bank” and Gaza, respectively, in the aftermath of the 1967 war?

The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have much less of a claim to nationhood than the American Indian tribe that successfully emerged in Connecticut with the purpose of starting a tax-exempt casino: at least that tribe had a constructive goal that motivated them. The so-called “Palestinians” have only one motivation: the destruction of Israel. In my book that is not sufficient to consider them a “nation” -- or anything else -- except what they really are: a terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled.

In fact, there is only one way to achieve piece in the Middle East. Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war against Israel and, as the losing side, should pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited upon it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organization from the land of Israel and acceptance of Israel's ancient sovereignty over Gaza, Judea, and Samaria.

That will mark the end of the Palestinian people. What are you saying again was its beginning?

Why don't you try answering the same questions with respect to israel before 1948, & please avoid the temptation to trace the modern day “Israelis” to the Biblical Israelis: substituting etymology for history won't work here. There are answers to your questions regarding palestinians, i just don't think I should be doing your homework for you, however if you are really interested I will be happy to guide you to the sources. By the way try explaining these 2 facts for me as your first assignment. If the people of Israel really managed to preserve their distinct ethnic identity, how come we have black, brown, white, yellow ( may be even blue) jews all around, what is so distinct about that, & who were all the people carrying thier lugguage & elders trying to escape the Israeli massacres in the 1940's, I mean you get their pictures every where even from western sources, i wonder if the arabs used stuffed dummies to convince the world their were people living in palestine before the jew immigrants arrive. I bet this sounds like an acceptable explanation to you, since you are a stuffed dummy yourself.

Yashiko Sagamori is a New York-based Information Technology consultant."

"Palestinian" Identity As Propaganda Device

"A prime example of propaganda masquerading as fact can be found in the modern assertion by "Palestinian" Arab and other revisionist historians that, even before the dawn of Christianity, an ancient nation-state known as "Palestine", inhabited by "Palestinians", was in existence, and that it continued to exist, even under the yoke of successive conquering empires, until the creation of modern Israel brutally usurped it in 1948 -- the implication being that Today's "Palestinian" Arabs are the descendants of those ancient "Palestinians".

Prior to the Christian era, as a result of the successful Jewish revolt against the Hellenic-Syrian Seleucid Empire in the second century BCE -- commemorated as the Jewish holiday of Chanukah -- the geographic area identified by these revisionist historians as "Palestine" instead hosted the independent nation-state known as Judea, successor entity to the northern biblical kingdom of Israel and to the southern biblical kingdom of Judah; and it was inhabited, not by Arabs, but by Jews. Several hundred years later, in 135, after having long-become a province of the Roman Empire, Judea's third and final revolt against Rome was crushed by Emperor Hadrian; but Rome's army also suffered devastating losses, including the complete annihilation of its illustrious XXII Legion. In furtherance of Rome's costly victory, Hadrian -- in a blatant propaganda effort to delegitimize further national Jewish claims to the Land -- renamed the province Palestina (Palestine) after the Philistines, a long-extinct Aegean people who had disappeared from History more than 700 years earlier after being extirpated by the Babylonian Empire. However, although the province had been converted from Judea (-- Land of the Jews --) into Palestina (-- Land of the Philistines --), and although a vengeful Rome massacred and expelled much of the Land's inhabitants, it nonetheless continued to be populated by Jews, together with substantial minority populations of Christians and Samaritans, but hardly any Arabs, at least until the great Arab invasion of 638. However, even under the rule of the Arab and all subsequently superseding empires, the Jewish people nevertheless maintained a continuous national presence in "Palestine" -- right up until the resurrection therein of the Jewish nation-state of Israel in 1948.

In contrast, the ersatz people identified nowadays as the "Palestinians" are a collection of diverse Arab clans plus a smattering of other ethnic groups (such as Serbs -- these are the so-called Bosnian Muslims who were Serbian Orthodox Christians before their forced conversion to Islam -- as well as Circassians and Chechens, all imported by the Ottoman Empire from their lands of origin to the Middle East, including the Land of Israel, several centuries ago), which, for reasons virtually identical to those of the Roman Empire, have, since Israel's Six Day War of 1967, publicly declared themselves to be a distinct ethnic nation named after those very same defunct Philistines -- this despite the fact that the ancient Philistines were not even Arabs. That the "Palestinian" Arabs constitute a faux people is hardly surprising due to the fact that, by 1948, a substantial portion of the "Palestinian" Arab population resident in British-administered Mandatory Palestine originated, not from that territory, but rather from the surrounding Arab lands which now comprise the modern states of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt.

In this regard, it is noteworthy that none of the foundational international instruments which deal with the Middle East conflict ever referred to the Arab inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine as the "Palestinian" people; for, prior to Israel's resurrection as a Jewish nation-state in 1948, only the Jewish inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine called themselves, and were known to the World as, "Palestinians", while the Arab inhabitants thereof insisted on identifying themselves as "southern Syrians". In deference to this non-assertion of "Palestinian" Arab ethnic identity, the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine of 1922 referred to the local Arab population, collectively, as "existing non-Jewish communities" while United Nations Security Council Resolution no. 242 of 1967 referred to them, collectively, as "the refugee problem". In other words, the very language of these international instruments confirms that the vaunted concept of a "Palestinian" ethnic identity is a fabrication of more recent origin (popularized together with the nouveau appellation "West Bank" -- a de-Judaizing substitution for the historical names Judea and Samaria -- in the aftermath of the Six Day War).

Moreover, during the 19 years (from 1948 to 1967) that Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, and Gaza were illegally occupied, respectively, by Jordan and Egypt, neither the Arab inhabitants of those areas nor the larger Arab and Muslim worlds ever asserted the existence therein of either an ethnically distinct "Palestinian" people or a historical nation-state of "Palestine"; and, consequently unremarkably, during this same period, there was never any demand from any quarter for the establishment in Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, and Gaza of a "Palestinian" state. In fact, the Arabs of Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, after having emphatically insisted that they were “southern Syrians” prior to Israel’s 1948 War of Independence, supinely accepted that they were “Jordanians” from 1948 to 1967 -- only to assert their identity as “Palestinians” after the Jewish people’s reacquisition of these territories in the Six Day War. Moreover, the leadership of the "Palestinian" people even went so far as to publicly disavow any claim to these very areas during those 19 years of illegal occupation by Jordan and Egypt per Article 24 of the National Covenant of the Palestine Liberation Organization enacted May 28, 1964. The Covenant operatively declared, in part, as follows:

. . .

Article 1. Palestine is an Arab homeland bound by strong Arab national ties to the rest of the Arab countries which together form the large Arab homeland.

Article 2. Palestine with its boundaries at the time of the British Mandate is a regional indivisible unit.

Article 3. The Palestine Arab people has the legitimate right to its homeland and is an inseparable part of the Arab nation. It shares the suffering and aspiration of the Arab nation and its struggle for freedom, sovereignty, progress and unity.

Article 4. The people of Palestine determine their destiny when they complete the liberation of their homeland in accordance with their own wishes and free will and choice.

. . .

Article 17. The partitioning of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of Israel are illegal and false regardless of the lapse of time, because they were contrary to the wish of the Palestine people and its natural right to its homeland, and in violation of the basic principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, foremost among which is the right to self-determination.

Article 18. The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate system and all that has been based upon them are considered a fraud. The claims of historic and spiritual ties between Jews and Palestine are not in agreement with the facts of history or with the true basis of sound statehood. Judaism, because it is a divine religion, is not a nationality with independent existence. Furthermore, the Jews are not one people with an independent personality because they are the citizens of the countries to which they belong.

Article 19. Zionism is a colonialist movement in its inception, aggressive and expansionist in its goal, racist and segregationist in its configurations and fascist in its means and aims. Israel, in its capacity as the spearhead of this destructive movement and the pillar of colonialism, is a permanent source of tension and turmoil in the Middle East in particular and to the international community in general. Because of this the people of Palestine is worthy of the support and sustenance of the community of nations.

Article 20. The causes of peace and security and the needs of right and justice demand from all nations, in order to safeguard true relationships among peoples and to maintain the loyalty of citizens to their homelands, that they consider Zionism an illegal movement and outlaw its presence and activities.

Article 21. The Palestine people believes in the principle of justice, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, human dignity, and the right of peoples to practice these principles. It also supports all international efforts to bring about peace on the basis of justice and free international cooperation.

Article 22. The people of Palestine believe in peaceful co-existence on the basis of legal existence, for there can be no co-existence with aggression, nor can there be peace with occupation and colonialism.

Article 23. In realizing the goals and principles of this Covenant the Palestine Liberation Organization carries out its complete role to liberate Palestine in accordance with the fundamental law of this Organization.

Article 24. This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, in the Gaza Strip or the Himmah area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.

Article 25. This Organization is charged with the movement of the Palestine people in its struggle to liberate its homeland in all liberational, organizational, political and financial matters, and in all other needs of the Palestine Question in the Arab and international spheres.

Article 26. The Liberation Organization cooperates with all Arab Governments, each according to its ability, and does not interfere in the internal affairs of any Arab State.

. . .

Since the Palestine Liberation Organization's original Covenant explicitly recognized Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, and Gaza as belonging to other Arab states, the only "homeland" of "Palestine" which that organization sought to "liberate" in 1964 was the State of Israel. However, in response to the Jewish people's reclamation in the 1967 Six Day War of those illegally-occupied areas, the Palestine Liberation Organization thereupon revised its Covenant on July 17, 1968 to, inter alia, remove the operative language of Article 24 therefrom, thereby rescinding its prior declaration that those areas were not occupied "Palestine" and thereby newly asserting a "Palestinian" claim of sovereignty thereto.

Furthermore, as regards its dominant Arab element, the "Palestinian" people is not ethnically distinct from the great masses of Arab clans ranging through 22 sovereign Arab nations from Mauritania in the West to Oman in the East. Moreover, never in the annals of History, did the ancestors of the people who now call themselves "Palestinians" ever rule -- or even reside in -- a nation-state of "Palestine", as such a sovereign entity never existed.

Lastly, even the quintessential symbol of the "Palestinian" people, namely, the Palestine Liberation Organization chairman and Palestinian Authority president Yasser Arafat, serves to prove its nonexistence. Mr. Arafat is an Egyptian national born in Cairo in1929 -- some four decades before any assertion of the existence of an ethnically distinct "Palestinian" people -- who continued to live there through the creation of modern Israel (i.e., he is neither a "Palestinian" nor a refugee). And his predecessor as P.L.O. chairman, Ahmed Shukeiry, was a Saudi Arabian national.

In truth, the "Palestinian" designation is geographical rather than ethnic; for, the "Palestinian" Arabs are no more a distinct ethnic people than are Texans or Californians (and no one suggests that either of the latter have the juridical right to establish a separate ethnic nation-state).

Occasionally, even "Palestinian" leaders themselves admit as much. As candidly stated by Zahir Muhsein, then head of the P.L.O. Military Department and a member of its Executive Committee: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the State of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality, Today, there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak, Today, about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan -- which is a sovereign state with defined borders -- cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While, as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beersheba and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan." (Amsterdam-based newspaper "Dagblad de Verdieping Trouw", March 31, 1977).

Consequently, the spurious claim of a separate and distinct "Palestinian" ethnic identity -- together with its corollary assertion of contemporary "Palestinian" ownership of the Land of Israel by virtue of the prior existence therein of a fictional nation-state of "Palestine" -- is merely a modern adaptation by the Arab nations and the larger Muslim world of that ancient propaganda device fashioned by the Roman Empire to delegitimize the almost four millennia old national Jewish claim to the biblical Land of Israel.

[Note: Just as the "Palestinians" are not an authentic ethnic group, neither are the Israelis -- comprising Jews, Circassians, Samaritans, Arabs and (those descendants of Arabs known as) Druzim -- an authentic ethnic group. However, the Jews -- unlike the "Palestinians" -- are such an ethnic group.]

Dont try to revise\distort History and truth and facts; The Following are Links that should be in the main page,or atleast some of them(but were removed time and time again)countering misinformation\unfounded claimes and lies\distorted truth\half truths in the links on the main article page,as well as in the article itself and as well as in mainstream world media who's got it backwards for the last 40 years or so...The Following should provide you with the actual scoop and the right perspective on the whole subject in question:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/print.php3?what=article&id=1614 - Who Are the Palestinians?

http://www.palestinefacts.org/ - Palestine Facts

http://www.pmw.org.il/home.htm - "Palestinian" Media Watch

http://www.middleeastfacts.com/index.php - Middle East facts

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28222 - Palestinian people do not exist

http://www.rosenblit.com/Palestine.htm -"Palestinian" Identity As Propaganda Device

"The Israel - Palestine Situation in brief

ARAB PSYCHOLOGIST FORESEES 'MURDEROUS GENERATION' This is appalling....

A pro-Israel initiative by the Coalition Against Terrorism in the relentless war of international public relations appears at . A movie clip on the site entitled "Seeds of Hate" includes the following on its sound track: Young teacher: "We are teaching the children that suicide bombs is the only thing that makes the Israeli people very frightful. Furthermore we are teaching them that we have the right to do it. Moreover we are teaching them that the man who does it [suicide bombs] goes to the highest step of Paradise."

Narrator: "Palestinian psychologist Dr. [inaudible] Massalha conducted a study last year among Palestinian children aged 6-11. The most astonishing fact presented by Dr. Massalha was that more than 50% of children aged 6-11dream of becoming suicide bombers who wear explosives belts. Dr. Massalha states that in about ten years, a very murderous generation will come of age, full of hatred and ready to die in suicide missions."

Narrator: "In a society in which the legitimization of child murderers becomes a part of its ideology, then normative human morality no longer exists. Which moral rules shall these children pass onto their children when they in turn become parents?"

[Child yelling, "I will eat the flesh of my conqueror," on the backdrop of Arab men yelling and holding up pieces of human meat.]

Narrator: "All of this has been orchestrated quite methodically by the Palestinian Authority... What kind of government calls upon its citizens to become uncompromising killers, while presenting itself to the world as a victim striving only for its peace? This untenable hypocrisy should not be tolerated by enlightened civilization - yet this is the reality happening here and now."

Where is the outrage of the 'Human Rights' groups in face of this kind of activity????????????

Recently, it has been loudly stated that Islam means “peace.” And, in a perverted way, it does. Its real meaning is “submission to Allah.” To the Arab mind, when all have submitted themselves to Islamic law, there will be peace. But this is the peace of despotism. As we have seen, it is also a peace that declares war. The mentality of Islam is that of subjugation and the myriad legalisms of Arab culture.

==

    PALESTINE: THE BIG SPIN

Seeking Truth in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict ==

One could listen to the news, read the newspaper and yet stay quiet uninformed and even misinformed concerning the true situation in the Middle East. Half-truths, biases, myths, confusion, and propaganda knowingly or unknowingly dominate many articles that are printed concerning the conflict in Israel. The fabrications concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict give new definition to the word spin.

Entire books have been written about the issues concerning this conflict. To attempt to separate truth from fiction in a brief expose´ is a challenge. In order to present an article as short as possible, issues have been condensed to a few sentences. However, truth has not been compromised in the condensation. A longer expose´ would only serve to shed more light on more propaganda.

Let’s examine a few statements or assumptions that need to be clarified.

1)Some Bibles label the land as Palestine; the "Palestinians" must be the rightful owners to the land in Israel.

Truth: Let’s examine the origin of the word Palestine. Before 1948 all of the land of Israel was called Palestine—the land and the people. Rome conquered the land of Israel in 70 AD and again in 135, the Romans rebuilt the city and renamed the area Palestine, after a former enemy of Israel—the Philistines. It was a way for them to add insult to injury. Before 1948 the Jews living there were called "Palestinians." The Jerusalem Post was called the Palestinian Post. A noted Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi is quoted as saying to the Peel Commission in 1936: "There is no such country as Palestine! Palestine is a term the Zionist invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Palestine is alien to us; it is the Zionists who introduced it." Even Bibles that have labeled the land of Israel as Palestine are in error.

2)Israel is occupying" Palestinian" land.

Truth: The Jews have occupied the land of Israel continuously for the last 3300 years, and they are the only people to have done so. In recognition of that undeniable historic fact, all of "Palestine" was to be given to the Jews for a national homeland by a 1917 ruling of the League of Nations. Rich Arabic Oil Countries pressured Britain and steadily the Jews were betrayed by Britain’s administration of the mandate. By 1948, when the Jews finally are granted a homeland, three fourths of the original land had been parceled out to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc. Some would wonder why Israel didn’t protest. Actually they were quite angry. Considering what they had just come through—the Holocaust—they were grateful to have a homeland after so long. Israel is now accused of "occupying" land that actually has been theirs for over 3000 years.

3)Palestinians deserve a homeland.

Truth: There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. Palestinians are Arabs, as are Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Therefore, to use the word to distinguish a group of Arabs, who want to be known, as the rightful heirs to the land is outrageous. It is interesting that when Mark Twain visited Israel in 1860 he noted that the land was desolate and with only a few shepherds living there. The Jews began to return to Israel in 1881; the Jews made the deserts bloom again. Arabs began to come to the area to get jobs. Only in 1967 did Arabs begin to claim they were the true Palestinians and that the land of Israel had always belonged to them. World media eagerly promotes that lie. Yet in 1948, Arabs owned a mere 3 percent of so-called "Palestine". Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass. Another way to look at the situation: Arabs control over 5,000,000 square miles yet there is only one Jewish state consisting of only 8,000 square miles—Israel. Why haven’t Jordan, Syria, or Egypt offered to given the "Palestinians" a homeland? These Arabs who call themselves "Palestinian" deserve a home. They may remain in Israel and abide by their laws, living in peace with their neighbors; if they cannot live in peace in Israel they can move to an Arab country.

4)The West Bank belongs to the "Palestinians." Israel stole land from the Palestinians in 1967.

Truth: The West Bank is not a narrow strip of land adjacent to the Jordan River. The West Bank includes the Jordan Valley. The West Bank also consists of Judea and Samaria, very Biblical areas. These Biblical areas have ancient Biblical roots that existed long before Mohammad was born in 570 A.D. Prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, there was no serious movement for a Palestinian homeland. Upon winning the war of 1967 Israel captured the West Bank and Old Jerusalem, areas with ancient Jewish roots. An important fact that has been overlooked: The West Bank and Old Jerusalem were captured from Jordan’s King Hussein not Yasser Arafat.

Both the war of 1948 and the war of 1967 were acts of aggression against Israel. The intent of Arab countries each time was to annihilate the Jews. When you go against another country and you loose you do not get to keep the land you had before the acts of war. Israel did give back portions to Egypt and Jordan. (Neither has the US 'given back' Texas to Mexico!)

The "Palestinians" claim that these three different areas were taken from them in 1967—Judea, Samaria (the Jordan Valley) and Gaza. These ancient biblical sites have a Jewish population of over 100,000. Some of these "settlers" as the Palestinian Authority calls them have lived in these areas long before the Oslo agreements, which began the "land for peace" negotiations. The Palestinian Authority wants these areas for their State—three different areas.

When the British Mandate had offered this land to the Arabs for a state within a Jewish state in 1948 the Arab countries refused the offer and chose to go to war against Israel in an attempt to destroy Israel and have all the land. Again, during the peace talks of 2000 just prior to the latest intifada, Arafat turned down a huge offer of "land for peace". He wanted more.

One way for Americans to understand this situation more clearly is to consider that many of our states in our country have ethnic communities. We have a vast assortment of ethnic communities: Jewish, Hispanic, Greek, Chinese, Vietnamese, just to name a few. Israel is about the size of New Jersey. Now would we allow an ethnic community to terrorize the rest of a state, warring for independence? Absolutely not. Ethnic communities must live in harmony with the State.

5)The "Palestinian" refugees should have the "right to return".

Truth: When the phrase "right to return" is used it is in reference to the Arabs who lived in Jerusalem before the war of Independence in 1948. Now you may be wondering if the Arabs were living there why did they leave anyway. The reasons for the Arabic flight are varied to include: fear, safety, break down in leadership, and it seems that the Arabic leadership (Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and Jordan) told the Arabs to get out of the way so they could destroy the Jews; then those Arabs who had left their homes could return after the Jews were annihilated. The only trouble with that plan was it didn’t work. The Jews actually won both wars so it was impossible for the Arabs to return.

It is interesting that about the same number of Jews (870,000) were evicted from Arab countries. Most of these Jews were absorbed into Israel. It would have been quite easy for the Arab countries to absorb the refugee Arabs, even giving them the homes and possessions of the evicted Jews. It seems that the Arab countries prefer to keep refugees homeless to get sympathy from the World. To allow these Arabs and their descendents to "return" to Jerusalem (2 to 3 million) would be demographic suicide for the little country of Israel.

6)Israel is trying to keep Islamic "holy" sites from the "Palestinians". Jerusalem is Islam’s third holiest city.

Truth: The Koran says nothing about Jerusalem. It mentions Mecca hundreds of times. It mentions Medina countless times. It never mentions Jerusalem. Mohammad never visited Jerusalem. Meanwhile the Bible mentions Jerusalem over 800 times and the Jews can trace their roots in Jerusalem back to the days of Abraham. Israel became a nation 2000 years before the rise of Islam. The first Jewish temple built on the Temple Mount by Solomon was built over 1600 years before the Moslems built the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount.

7)Israeli soldiers kill innocent children.

Truth: "Palestinian" children are taught to hate Israel from an early age at home, at school, by television, by radio, and books. They are put in the line of fire, as are women; men are behind with weapons. Israeli soldiers try to avoid hitting children but many times it cannot be prevented. Children should not be in those dangerous situations. It makes Israel look bad in the eyes of the international community when children are killed—which is just what the Palestinian Authority wants. Israeli intelligence has proved that Palestinian snipers have killed some of these children. But of course that news doesn’t print nearly so well.

8)The Jews fire upon "Christian" Bethlehem.

Truth: Christians primarily occupied the city of Bethlehem until the mid 1980’s. Muslim Arabs began to buy the land and now it is mostly arab muslim and not Christian. It certainly makes great headlines for Jews to be shooting into Christian cities but this statement is far from truth. (NOTE from Barbara: Despite continuing so-called 'press releases' about so-called Israeli offenses in Bethlehem, I reported two weeks ago that I personally met with two Bethlehem Christians while I was in Israel recently who both told me the suffering they are enduring is at the hands of the Palestinians, not at the hands of Israel. They admitted that they pray for Israel to take back Bethlehem because they had a better life under Israeli rule than they do under the PA.)

9)The Palestinians insist that they will allow Jerusalem to be an International Holy City for all religions.

Truth: Now the "Palestinians" cry out for East Jerusalem to be returned to them. They insist that they will allow the holy city to be an international city for all nations. It should be noted that from 1948 to 1967 no Jews could visit the city. Even today, though Israel controls the Temple Mount and Western Wall, the Palestinian Authority governs the Temple Mount. Jews and Christians are not allowed to pray on the Temple Mount. For over a year the Palestinian Authority has been involved in heavy excavations of the Temple Mount destroying ancient ruins while building additional mosques. To avoid additional violence Israel has not resisted these efforts. Just last month scientists noticed that cracks and bulges are appearing in the foundational walls. Should we really believe that the Palestinian Authority would allow the holy city to be an international city for all nations? Only Israel can be trusted to control and govern the Temple Mount. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.

10)The cycle of violence in the Middle East must stop. Palestinians are enduring a war of aggression; state supported terrorism, and ethnic cleansing.

Truth: The media would like for us to believe that both terrorist actions and Israel’s retaliation are acts of terrorist aggression. The truth is: terrorists target innocent civilians; Israel targets terrorists. There is no "cycle of violence." Israel should be allowed to protect their citizens. There is a great deal of difference between the actions of terrorists and government retaliation. However, when the media reports the number of deaths it looks like Israel is the bad guy because more Palestinians are killed. That is a consequence of war when someone puts himself or herself in the position of aggression. It is not ethnic cleansing. Many "Palestinians" are killed in what Israel lists as "work related" accidents. This means they were killed while creating a bomb that goes off prematurely or killed while transporting the bomb to its destination. Of course suicide bombers are killed along with several innocent Israeli citizens. If Israel is waging a war of aggression, state supported terrorism, or ethnic cleansing then the United States is guilty too.

11) Terrorism in the Middle East is different from the terrorism that landed in America on September 11.

Truth: We are being told that the Palestinians use terrorism because Israel provokes them. We cannot believe that it is ever justified for innocent citizens to be targeted. The come-lately "Palestinians" are sustained by the world in the lie that they are the original owners of this land. As a result, terrorism is perpetrated not only against Israel but, also now, in this latest act against the US to apply pressure to force Israel out of its rightful land. Israel has been pressured all year long to not deal violently with the terrorists, to show restraint, to not target terrorists for assassination. Isn’t it interesting that we are dealing much differently with those who terrorize us? Why should the tiny country of Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, be forced to give in to the demands of the terrorists? Make no mistake, for the United States to pressure and even demand that Israel negotiate under impossible conditions of Palestinian violence that have taken place against civilians on a daily basis for more than a year would reward terrorism and encourage more violence not only in the Middle East but around the world to include America.

12)Palestinians are freedom fighters not terrorists.

Truth: Targeting innocent civilians can never be justified. Palestinians do not want freedom; they want to annihilate Israel. It is interesting to note that Palestinian maps produced by the Palestinian Authority label the whole geographic area known as Israel as Palestine. There is no mention of Israel. The PLO charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Now, if we decide to call "Palestinians" freedom fighters, what freedom are they fighting for: the freedom to destroy Israel?

13)Arafat is a peace partner, a man who can be trusted.

Truth: Arafat is a terrorist. He is history’s bloodiest most vicious and successful terrorist. Arafat and his PLO held the record for the largest hijacking (four aircraft in a single operation)—which has just been equaled on 9/11, the greatest number of hostages held at one time (300), the greatest number of people shot at an airport, the largest ransom collected ($5 million paid by Lufthansa), the greatest variety of targets (40 civilian passenger aircraft, five passenger ships, 30 embassies or diplomatic ministries plus innumerable fuel depots and factories), etc. Instead of being tried by an international tribunal, as were the Nazi and Serbian leadership, Arafat exploits gained for him acceptance as a peace prizewinner (John Laffin, The PLO Connections, Transworld, 1982,18). Before he could come to the US during the Oslo peace talks his passport had to be amended because he was listed as a terrorist. On September 11 national television showed clips of "Palestinian" children rejoicing over the collapse of the twin towers. What you may not know is that the PA arrested and warned reporters not to report those images. It made Arafat and his Palestinian Authority look bad.

14)The "Palestinians" just want a state of their own; once they get their own state they will be peace-loving neighbors.

Truth: Well, actually that is what Arafat says to the press but, to his own people in Arabic, he says that an official state will be a springboard for further aggression against Israel until Israel is no more. The borders of Israel would be indefensible. Iraqi and Egyptian tanks could roll into this new State and attack Israel at will.

To quote a PA leader who outlines the true goals of a Palestinian state: "The goal of the current Intifada is a Palestinian state, but afterwards, there will be even greater things for which to strive . . .There is no room for more than one state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean." (Marwan Bargouti, PA leader of Palestinian Tanzim militia (anti-Israel militant group), Arutz 7, July 3, 2001).

15) "Jews are responsible for the destruction in the US on September 11. Jews are responsible for assassinating the Israeli cabinet member."

Truth: These latest lies are just too absurd to even refute.

If there is to be a man made peace solution to the violence in the Middle East it needs to begin with truth. Pretending will only lead to more chaos. Treating a 3500-year-old(or os) birthright backed by over whelming historical and archaeological evidence equally with illegitimate claims, wishes and wants give diplomacy a bad name. Israel has been tricked into giving away "land for peace" to people who do not want peace.

The spinning must stop. The truth must be told. Reporters must return to being truth seekers—investigating for truth and exposing lies and propaganda."

Which brings me to the position that I've held for over most of my life. And that is, every single "Palestinian" should be loaded on a train and shipped to live in either Lebanon and/or Syria. Palestinian's can choose their destination as long as it is out of Israel. That's the only way there's ever going to be peace within Israel. No land for peace nonsense. The biggest roadblock to this is that Israeli business owners would suffer as a result of the loss of cheap labor. That can be made up by funding the importation of Jewish people from poorer countries. Israel must be a land where Jews can have a homeland and not live in fear of some insane Islamic lunatic blowing themselves up to kill Israeli's. Jtpaladin 13:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and editting Talk:Palestinian People

Two Things: First: Can we archive this to have talk only contain information regarding the page currently? My own arguments from months ago regarding NPOV are long settled. This is far longer than preferable and difficult for us with ADD to read through. Second, I see no reason the tag is up on the talk page. Unless someone posts a relevent reason for why it is up-no matter how disagreeable-by January 20th, I myself will remove this tag believing it to be leftover and unsupported. Note: One person claiming this tag should be there would gain legitimacy to me. But nothing clear in the talk describes why it is there now. Jmw0000 10:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Archived...Arniep 01:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparing the Palestinian refugee situation to other refugee cases

The Vietnamese boat people exodus from Vietnam was happening when I was in university. Shocked by the number of people affected; 1.5 to 2 million, and somewhat pleased with the Orderly Departure Program, I looked at the Palestine issue in order to understand the magniture of the boat exodus and was appalled to see estimates for the Palestinian exodus of from 9 to 15 million displaced people with no international resettlement response.

I continue to see acusations that it was the arab states responsibility to take in all the refugees, yet I cannot conceive of the effect it would have had on their economies for the bordering nations to handle 15 million refugees as the estimate which was given and the size of their own populations. Even 9 million would be crushing to the bordering nations whose populations are: Syria 18 million, Jordon 6 million, Lebanon 4 million, and more remotely Saudi Arabi 26 million

This is the extent of my investigation on the issue and I remain appalled. How accurate is the information I have presented here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.8.84 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 14 January 2006.

I think you might be confused, even the most loose estimate of the initial Palestinian Estimate was 900,000, the 9 to 15 million number might be the entire current population of Palestinians, sorry but your "investigation" seems off to an inauspicious start.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, I concur with you. As per my suggestion above, the remaining Palestinians can be shipped out in an orderly fashion to Lebanon or Syria and Israel can finally achieve internal peace. Jtpaladin 13:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The total number of palestinians is about 11 million (or slightly less). Of these about 4 million live in the West Bank and Gaza and the rest are refugees. Furthermore, many of the people inside the West Bank and Gaza also count as 'displaced people' or 'refugees' because they originally moved to these areas from inside the green zone after the 1948 war. The number of 'displaced palestinians' counts the total number from 1948, which includes several generations, many of whome are dead. 128.100.36.123 11:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed text

Another editor removed the text below which I initially reverted but, on looking at the source it doesn't look particularly neutral so I'm moving it here for comments:

While most Palestinians define themselves as Arabs, their ancestry is most probably a combination of many tribes that inhabited the region over many centuries. According to one study:

The Palestinians do not have a common ethnic origin or a common religion. What joins them together is simply the fact that they and their ancestors have lived in the land of Palestine from as far back as any of them can record. In their veins run the blood of the ancient Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Crusaders and Turks ... It must be fully conceded that the Palestinians are a very mixed group of people ... each group of Palestinians traces its ancestry over differing lengths of time. [1]

Arniep 00:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Without further research, I would agree with that assessment. That region has been populated by various people's for so long that it's probably impossible to look at it in any other way. Jtpaladin 13:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian Dialect

Hi, there's a paragraph in the introduction that discusses the "palestinian Dialect". the paragraph contains incorrect information. the more accurate linguistic information is in the link under Palestinian Arabic. Sorry i posted here, but, i didnot know how to fix it. If someone would delete it or copy the correct information from Palestinian Arabic and post it there, i would appreciate it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.12.83 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 24 January 2006.

I've taken out the obvious inaccuracies. Feel free to make any more changes you feel are warranted. Palmiro | Talk 15:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

huh?

Today the existence of a unique Palestinian nationality/identity is generally recognized even by most Israelis ([25]).

http://www.rosenblit.com/Palestine.htm

The source used for this bit of information doesn't really seem to add up to what's being said in the article - it claims that there IS no such thing as the palestinians. Can someone sort this out? I don't really know enough about the topic to change anything around, but it looks a bit dodgy to me. XYaAsehShalomX 15:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

arguments for NPOV dispute

In this talk page there is no clear argument supporting the non-NPOV tag in the article. Would somebody please add any?--BMF81 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Middle East Forum link

I have removed the link below added by User:SlimVirgin as the Middle East Forum is a well known neo conservative anti palestinian organization so it is inappropriate to link to a site with such obvious lack of WP:NPOV. I would appreciate other peoples opinions of course. Thanks Arniep 03:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

* Gottheil, Fred M. "The Smoking Gun: Arab Immigration into Palestine", 1922-1931]

It's a scholarly source and there are no grounds in policy for removing it. Or are you suggesting only one POV should be represented? The page also needs a references section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I wouldn't link to neo nazi pages on the holocaust page or a website run by republicans on John Kerry's page. If there is an obvious known bias in an organization we should not consider it WP:NPOV. Arniep 03:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a neo-Nazi site. Don't be silly. It's an article by an American professor of economics. I've started a references section. Perhaps you could start adding citations instead of removing material you don't like. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said it was a neo nazi site, please don't misquote me. I was using examples of where people or organizations have shown a clear bias against something we should not link to them on the article pages. The Middle East Forum is a neo-conservative pro israel organization and therefore cannot be considered a neutral source for Palestinian history. Similarly I would not link to a Hamas site full of Jewish conspiracy theories on the Israel page. Arniep 12:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this a From Time Immemorial redux? I wouldn't be surprised if Zero0000 were to show up, ripping the article apart. -- Dissident (Talk) 03:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It is along the same lines and was endorsed by the founder of the Middle East Forum, Daniel Pipes. I don't think we can consider any information from the Middle East Forum to be created from a neutral perspective so it's existence on this page is not appropriate in my opinion. Arniep 22:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It is completely unacceptable to have this link on this page - it IS just as bad as putting a link to a Muslim fundementalist site on Jew. As regards the other links they are all neutral in their presentation except for Palestine Monitor which I will remove. Arniep 23:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My concern is the other site - the PMW site - this is a propaganda site that is highly biased and is definitely not scholarly nor is it subject to third-party verification. Furthermore, if it is to be included on any article on WP, this wouldn't be it - this is an article on the Palestinian people and not a political article nor one about the fighting. I'm removing it, it is best suited elsewhere. Ramallite ^(talk) 04:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I removed it but SlimVirgin restored it. Arniep 12:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't restore it when Ramallite removed it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You are totally out of order, Arnie. DO NOT remove a scholarly source and DO NOT attempt to poison the well with your own description of it. Read WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV and start editing in accordance with them. Just because you personally don't like something has no bearing on whether Wikipedia publishes or links to it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Arniep, on what specific grounds are you removing the article? "Middle East Forum is a well known neo conservative anti palestinian organization" according to whom? If we removed all POV website links, there'd be precious few external links in Wikipedia, if any at all. The last time this article was deleted from the page, against my objections, the ostensible reason was that it was "non-factual" - of course, that really doesn't jibe with our WP:V policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes himself has stated that there should be no Palestinian state. An article on a website founded by a person that says that cannot be considered WP:NPOV or anywhere near it for this article. Arniep 00:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? There are Palestinians (and others) who say there should be no Israel as well, or a bi-national state, or whatever. Please quote a specific policy-based reason for deleting this. Oh, and if you mention any ridiculous "Nazi" comparisons, I'll invoke Godwin's Law, and you will have immediately forfeited any right to further discussion or reverting. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I did quote a policy, WP:NPOV. I would not include a research paper by a Muslim historian claimed to be anti semitic by many people on any Jewish or Israel related pages just as I would not include this link here. Arniep 00:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There are several arguably anti-Semitic scholarly sources, and sources who are hostile to Israel, who are used in Israel-related articles. The point is whether the person is a mainstream scholar in a relevant field. I can only repeat: read the content policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll quote from the only one you seem to have glanced at, NPOV: "NPOV is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. The three policies are complementary, non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editor's consensus. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. (my emphasis) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Scholars can still have extreme biases, including race based bias. Please point out the anti semitic links on Israel related pages and I will see if I think they should be removed. Arniep 00:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't keep arguing with you. You would be as wrong to remove scholarly sources from other pages just because I don't like them, as you are to remove this one from this page because you don't like it. I won't be responding to any more of this. Please use the time to read the policy pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming the author of this particular article is the equivalent of an anti-Semite? On what grounds? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll quote from the WP:NPOV policy as well: All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. We link to anti-Zionist sites from the Israel article (e.g. Electronic Intifada, Indymedia), why wouldn't we link to this site from here? Again, I'd like to see a policy-based reason for not linking to this site. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not that I don't like the article, it is the fact that it comes from a clearly biased source. I would find it disturbing and distasteful for "scholarly" papers written by known anti semitic academics to be linked to as reliable sources on Jewish or Israeli pages just as I find the linking of this site distasteful on this page. I believe the Middle East Forum cannot be considered a reliable source as it has a clear bias against Muslims and Palestinians. Arniep 00:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why MEF would not qualify as WP:RS. I don't believe it is the MEF that is the problem here, I tend to think it is the article's topic (something Ed Poor also touches upon in the next talk section). Here's a relevant quote from 1930 Hope Simpson Royal Commission: The Chief Immigration Officer has brought to notice that illicit immigration through Syria and across the northern frontier of Palestine is material. This question has already been discussed. It may be a difficult matter to ensure against this illicit immigration, but steps to this end must be taken if the suggested policy is adopted, as also to prevent unemployment lists being swollen by immigrants from TransJordania. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source as it is a political organization with extreme bias against Palestinians. Arniep 00:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

First, that is your POV, but more importantly, what does that have to do with the academic whose paper we link to? Also, I must insist that you edit in accordance with the policies and guidelines. WP:CITE says specifically that we should not add our own descriptions to links. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You keep repeating yourself, but you refuse to provide any evidence for your claims. Also, please do not mess around with citations; there is a proper citation style, and one shouldn't attempt to introduce POV into citations by adding your own take on them. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't see anywhere in WP:CITE that says that the publisher of a source cannot be given. Also, I still believe the link as it currently stands violates WP:NPOV as a reader may click on it not realising that the website has a known bias. It is a fact that the Middle East Forum is a neoconservative thinktank so that should be made clear on the link too. Arniep 01:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying things like "has a known bias" without any evidence or reliable citations. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and you could hardly claim it's more biased than the links to the "PLO Negotiations Affairs Department" or the article from Al Jazeera; neither of which are anywhere near as scholarly. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually just added those to try to defuse the situation. I just removed the PLO link as it is doesn't directly bear on the "Palestinian people" article, per se. Lokiloki 01:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

My commentary on the Middle East Forum citation/link was requested by Arniep, and I've (cursorily) read over this discussion thread and the article history. I do share much of Arniep's concern that Middle East Forum is very partisan source—I probably don't agree with anything they've ever published. That said, it is roughly within the realm of scholarly discussion, so a link that doesn't endorse the content of that site is reasonable to include. I believe that Arniep's latest edit which adds a brief description of the organization as a neo-conservative advocacy group is appropriate to include for context, though much more "refutation" than that characterization would belabor the point. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Followup: Looking at it slightly more, I'm not really sure what good motivation there is for including the MEF reference. I don't believe that WP:RS prohibits its use, per se; but it is also far from clear to me why that particular link, out of however many thousands of articles that have been written about the Palestinian people, is particularly germane. Yeah, it's vaguely on the right topic, but it doesn't feel like a resource that really adds anything helpful to the article. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The specific article is about the origins of the Palestinian people, and their economics, in the period 1921-1931. How on earth could it not be relevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's clearly relevant, Lulu, and it's a scholarly source so there are no grounds in policy for removing it, as Arnie has been doing repeatedly, and WP:CITE says we shouldn't add our own descriptions to citations, as he has also done. The Middle East Quarterly is now linked to and its article says it was founded by Pipes, so the information is there for anyone who needs it. I suggest this one link has been discussed enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, not only do I agree but I also find the phrase "neo conservative anti palestinian" insulting. Everytime someone makes a pro-Israel statement, automatically the response is that the person making the statement is a "neo-con". That shows an ignorance of the support that Israel has from Americans. That support bridges politcal affiliation and includes American liberals as well. A good example is a speaker and attendee line up of people that attend AIPAC conferences. In my mind, anyone using the "neo-con" label is in fact anti-conservative and anti-Israel. Pure and simple. Jtpaladin 14:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)