Jump to content

Talk:Palestinians/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Archive 2001-July 14, 2003

RK: I don't agree with all of Joseph's comments, but how you can describe them as "Blatant antisemitism and pro-terrorism/pro-Al Qaeda propaganda" is quite beyond me. -- SJK

I'd like to see a source for the following:

In any case these refugees have never been allowed to return to their homes, and properties (many homes and properties have been expropriated from the refugees, by the state of Israel).

I haven't followed this topic until recently but I do know that there are some refugee camps for Palestinians outside the area of Palestine and Israel that have been in existence for some 30 years plus now. user:Arab

Yes, that is true. Many Arab nations have virtually imprisoned hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs, for many years. In contrast, the State of Israel gave freedom to Jewish refugees from every Arab nation that they were expelled from. The difference in how Israel treated Jewish refugees and how Arab nations treated Arab refugees is shocking. This is why many Jews feel that the most anti-Arab discrimination comes from within the Arab world itself. RK

I thought that Israel allowed Arabs to become citizens. Ed Poor

They lived under military rule within the Green Line till 1966 (just before the Six Day War), and Arabs who fled had their property registered in the tabu (state registry) and given to others. A classic case is the village of Ikrit along the Lebanese border. Though the Israeli army asked them to leave for a few days until the area could be "cleaned up," they have not been allowed to return to their homes for over fifty years, despite promises, appeals to Israel's Supreme Court and peaceful demonstrations. Israeli Arabs that did remain in their homes are citizens, but they have long suffered from economic and social discrimination--i.e., try becoming an urban planner if you are an Arab. The situation is changing, of course, but there is still a long way to go. Danny
Israel has always allowed Arabs within Israel proper to be citizens. I am uncertain of why Danny didn't mention or realize this.
I fully realize that. I am just pointing out that there has also been discrimination and that there still is. On the other hand, there have also been vast strides forward for Israel's Arab population, which, I would go so far as to say, has more rights than the Arab population in many Arab states. Danny

This entry was vandalized by an a pro-Palestinian, who filled this entry not only with an anti-Israeli diatribe, but with a justification of terrorism against Jews. In this era of daily mass-murder suicide bombings against Jews in Israel, and mass anti-Semitic attacks against Jews all over Europe, I hope that Wikipedia community members will condemn such hatespeech. RK

I also hope that those feel that the Palestinians are oppressed are also able to express their view point without censure user:Arab
You misunderstand. This is an encyclopaedia, not a vehicle for anti-Zionist tirades. If you have historically correct information to present, and if you back it up and present it in context, please do so. We all welcome this kind of cooperation. But we should not allow these encyclopaedia entries to be used by angry people who are out to make the State of Israel look bad. This isn't a forum for anti-Israeli feeling. It is an encyclopaedia with a neutral point of view. RK

Childish taunting removed from the entry "There was no room there for the Palestinians, Israel from the start never wanted Peace, but pieces of the land, till it was all theirs."

True or false, the situation as of March 2002 was such: A Saudi proposal of Land for Peace AND recognition by ALL arab countries was made. The day the proposal was to be made formal by the Arab League was the day the Israeli's under the command of Ariel Sharon began the invasion of the Palestinian self-rule areas. user:Arab.
I don't understand the relevence of this statement. What does that have to do with the removed quote in question? You are making illogical leaps from subject to another. Please try and keep focused. It looks like you are using an ad homenim attack Israel to "prove" that the previous unrelated quote should be restored.
In any case, as for the Saudi Arabian peace proposal, the Israelis did indeed start protecting themselves on that day by going into Palestinian areas to arrest suicide bombers and their suppliers. I am disappointed to see you ignore the fact that the Israeli incursion was a *response to the mass murder of Jewish women, men, children and babies, all by suicide bombers who had the intent of murdering civilians. Without mentioning this critical context, your critique is not only misleading, but perhaps dishonest.

Childish terrorist-incitement removed from the entry "The Zionists really started it -- it was not the Arabs who had the weapons & the training, it was the Zionists, with the Irgun & Stern gangs. Remember if Israel suffers from terrorism now, it is because she herself was founded on terror & injustice."

Further, I have removed a conspiracy-ridden statement from this entry. Someone changed the Arab statements on the cause of the Palestinian refugees to read "Zionist" statement on the cause of the refugees. I am aware that there is much conspiracy theory that exists within the Palestinian community, but such shockingly obvious lies really do not belong in an encyclopaedia. RK

This page really needs some NPOV editing. --Uriyan

About the Palestinian Exodus... None of the new historians see that the reason for the exodus would be that the Arab leaders called upon them to flee. Instead, they call that pure propaganda. Morris claims that it was the war that created the refugee problem, Shlaim goes further and claims that it was an organized effort to wipe out the Palestinian population. The Bir Zeit University's study also ruled out that the Arab leaders calls had any significane (if they even DID call). Anyway, the claim that 700-800.000 people would have adhered to their leaders and left their homes makes no sense (to me). The quotes used to support this theory comes from the years following the cease fire, most of them from newspapers, and I HIGHLY doubt their truthfullness. ESPECIALLY when they are contradicted by Morris and Shlaim. --BL

From article:

Positions of both sides regarding the state of Israel

The Palestinians oppose the claim that if they had accepted partition, they wouldn't have lost even more of their territory in the war by quoting Eamon De Valera, the president of Ireland, who declared it was impossible. To one visitor who had solicited his support for partition he replied: "I read the Old Testament many years ago. I am afraid I have forgotten many things I read; but one passage I recall clearly. It is the story of Solomon's judgement of the two women who desired the same baby. I remember how when Solomon ruled that the baby be divided the real mother screamed, "No! No! Give the baby to the other woman!" That is my answer to partition. The rightful owners of a country will never agree to partition".

Israelis would point out that the real mother in the story of Solomon's judgement preferred that her own baby be raised by the false mother just so that the baby she loved should live and thrive (which would be similar to Jewish acceptance of the partition offer, in spite of the fact that resulting Jewish state would have indefensible borders and would not include Judaism's most cherished holy sites). Therefore, De Valera should have said, "The rightful owners of a country are those that prefer to share the land they love with another, rather than subjecting it to devastation and neglect". As the Israelis claim, it was the Arab leadership's full ignoring of the existence of 600,000 Jews aspiring for statehood as much as they do, and the total refusal to share the land in any form eventually lay the ground for their own disaster, which they might have as well averted by accepting a mutually profitable peace.

The above is great stuff, and it should be in the Wikipedia somewhere. I just don't see how an article defining who the "Palestinians" are, is the right place. How about Zionism or anti-Zionism? --Ed Poor

I removed the following statement as it is a violation of NPOV. RK

(Keep in mind there is no such thing as a Palestinian. They always have been living in other countries and never wanted their own country except to arouse a cause from which to bring Jihad agsainst those who they do not like, whomever they may be at the time. The 'Palestinian' cause is used as an excuse by many tyrannical, despotic government to murder in cold blood innocent civilians, including harmless women and children).
Agreed. The removed text is apparently a personal opinion. While it bears some similarity to fact, the way it is written is unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. The "no such thing as a Palestinian" claim is a viable concept, however, and could go somewhere if properly attributed. I seem to recall a statement by an Arab leader that the concept of Palestinian identity was made up, as a ruse or pretext to justify the replacement of Israel with an Arab-ruled Palestinian state, but the article would have to quote that statement rather than make the claim directly. --Ed Poor
Ed is absolutely correct. The original position held by the various Arab governments was, indeed, that there isn't and never was such a thing as a "Palestinian". The modern day concept of a separate national or ethinic Arab Palestinian group is a very new phenomenon, one that only came into existence in the past 40 years. This is not to deny that new ethnicities or nationalities can appear over time; after all Americans are a new people, and they didn't exist as a people before the mid 1700s. They didn't fully become a nationality in legal terms until 1776, and even then they didn't become a real nation in practice (it could be argued) until the end of America's Civil War. So the article should point out the original Arab position. Indeed needs to do so to counter the illegitimate historical revisionism that some people dishonestly use to "prove" that the Palestinians have a centuries or milennia old ethnicity. If I may attempt to defuse a flame war before it begins, note that the argurments for a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza should not (ideally) be affected by understanding that the Palestinians are a new people. In fact, although I am a Zionist and thus pro-Israeli, I believe that the only tenable long-term prospect for peace involves the creation of a second Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. (One defacto Arab Palestinian state already exists in the nation of Jordan, which is 78% of the British Mandate of Palestine.) Do I think it is fair that a second Arab Palestinian state be created? No, not at all. But at this point its clear that there is no way around this issue. And frankly I don't think that the Arab peers of Palestinians have any real love for them. Their best interests in the long run are, in all likelihood, served by peacefully negotiating a truce, peace agreement, and then a final status accord with Israel, and then living in peace as neighbors. RK

I think the noun Palestinian is often used as shorthand for "Palestinian nationalist", i.e., a person advocating the establishment of a new Islamic or Arab state in Palestine.

Another, overlapping meaning of Palestinian is "rightful owner of the occupied Palestinian territories" with "Palestinian territories" being defined as "the lands belonging to the Palestinians" -- which seems to me a circular definition. --Ed Poor

Hmm, is "person living in Palestine before the creation of the State of Israel, or descendent of such a person", an accurate definition?

It's the definition I prefer above all others! However, that's not the definition of the current article, which seems intended to exclude Palestinian Jews. Citizens of Jordan are nearly all "persons living in Palestine before the creation of the State of Israel", but the way the news media use Palestinian seems to exclude Jordanians. --Ed Poor

Then that would be: "person living in Palestine before the creation of the State of Israel, or descendent of such a person, exclusive of Jordanians"
Sounds like narrowing Palestinian to mean "non-Jordanian Palestinian" -- do I understand you correctly?

I would vote for the above definition without "exclusive of Jordanians". In regard to the fact that the jordanian population consists to over 50% of Palestinian refugees the last words would appear misleading. --Elian

Elian, it sounds like you would like to add that definition to the article. If you do, to which advocacy group will you attribute the definition? (It can't just be "three like-minded contributors to Wikipedia" :-) --Ed Poor

I'll try to find out a advocacy group tomorrow - libraries are closed now. Can we attribute views to encyclopedia britannica or brockhaus (its german equivalent)? ;-) I think it would be quite enlightening to have their definitions for such issues as a base for further discussion. --Elian

"A said B about C" is my usual formulation. In the case of Britannica, unless you think they're biased, they wouldn't be an "advocate" but a "source". Something like "the EB defines Palestinians as ..." --Ed Poor

The changes I made today attempt to answer these questions: "What is a Palestinian? What does the noun Palestinian mean?"

I thought I would start with the meaning I encounter most in American news media.

Still to be addressed are views which presume that Palestinians are a distinct ethnic group, having discernable important differences from other Arabs. That is way out of my scope of understanding, as I am not an ethnographer or anthropologist.

And some mention must be made of the claim by Golda Meir and echoed by one or two Arab leaders that the concept of a Palestinians as a distinct people was fabricated for political purposes.

I hesitate to move quickly on this delicate question, and I welcome comprehensive discussion before and after any changes. (By the way, I rarely object if someone reverts one of my changes, provided they either (A) copy the text to talk or (B) give a reason for the reversion -- preferably both!) --Ed Poor

"on the other hand, numerous divisions among them persist, in language, religion and culture"

the division is mainly a religious one. Language (palestinian arabic dialect) and culture are quite similar for all. However, there are, as in every society, divisions concerning educational levels and social status. --Elian

I rewrote the entire article, bit by bit, and you can see what I by following the "Older versions" link. Please do so, before reverting. But don't worry, I won't fight you. I utterly refuse to engage in an edit war on this article, which is just about the most highly contentious article in Wikipedia; I want to set a good example.

Below, you will find some stuff I couldn't integrate. --Ed Poor 22:23 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

Palestinian Arabs

One of the most common views states that the Palestinians are the descendants of the Arab inhabitants of the British Mandate of Palestine. This definition, then, would include:

  1. Those who are citizens of Israel ("Israeli Arabs")
  2. Those who live in West Bank and Gaza Strip; most are currently under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority
  3. Those who live in Jordan and identify themselves as "Palestinians"; many are refugees (or descendants of refugees) from the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the 1967 Six-Day War. They were granted Jordanian citizenship.
  4. Those who live elsewhere, in the Arab world (where many have never received a citizenship) and out of it (where many have).

Overall, there are about 4 million people belonging to groups (1) and (2); estimates indicate there are about 5 more million in groups (3) and (4).

Note that this definition excludes non-Arab residents of the British Mandate. Some writers use the term Palestinians to include all residents of the British mandate, and the term Arab Palestinians when speaking only of Arab residents.

The word Palestinian is a highly loaded term, being used in arguments and slogans implying that some or all of the British Mandate is the rightful property of Arabs rather than Jews (see Arab-Israeli conflict, etc.).

Most writers deem Palestinians to be Arabs. However, some Palestinians are members of Arab ethnic groups that stretch far beyond the borders of historic Palestine; on the other hand, numerous divisions among them persist, in language, religion and culture. However, most Palestinians believe in a common joint identity. In the opinion of many, this is enough to qualify them as a unique nationality, and by the way of romantic nationalism makes them eligible for statehood. Many others disagree with opinion (see proposals for a Palestinian state).

Palestinians are nearly all Muslim, but there are some Christians as well. A very small number of Palestinians are humanists, atheists or agnostics. Over the past few years, many Palestinian Christians have moved to Europe and North America, citing the rise of Islamic parties and accompanying intolerance and discrimination in the major cities of the West Bank (see: Palestine/Christian), including by the Palestinian Authority itself.

In general – it is not offensive to me. I would not dispute the neutrality of this article. I have some particular comments.

There have indeed been Jewish residents of Palestine, and some people were even issued passports listing their nationality as Palestinian. However, very few people today accept the concept of a Jewish Palestinian and would prefer to use the term Palestinian to exclude Palestinian Jews.

The PLO has a very small number jewish members. I use to know one. Some of these Jewish PLO people are quite high ranking. There are Jews, though not many who choose to live in the Occupied territories with their Palistinian neighbours, and not in settlements (excluding those who are members of the PLO. I would think that these Jews are Palistinians. They are clearly claiming that they are, and if they are in the PLO, the PLO is claiming that they are too. Are these Jews traitors? (If so – that would be really interesting.)

A great many Jews consider this tiny extremist group to indeed be "traitors". Many Jews, even some Orthodox Jews, consider this fanatical group to be anti-Semitic. See the entry on this tiny ultra-Orthodox sect, the Neturei_Karta for more details. I have heard both Orthodo and Conservative Jews refer to them as pro-terrorist and Jewish anti-Semitites. Based on their hatespeech towards other Jews that they have published, I see little difference between them and the PLO itself. RK
to see them as trators is not what I was talking about, but to define them as trators, through law. The question is whether all Jews are subject to the laws of israel, or whether they may choose to live lives apart from israel, or even in opposition to israel. Is Israel citizenship a privlidge or a duty? (Clearly some people believe that all Jews must be loyal to Jews, and that supporting the PLO does not count.) Not all Jews who have joined the PLO are members of the ultra-Orthodox sects. Some are decidedly left wing. Ok, I know of one who is. I see a certain amount of difference between the PLO and Jewish groups who oppose Israel and support the PLO based on religious grounds. The PLO has far fewer choices open it than the ultra-Orthodox sects. I would not say that Israel is any less of a terrorist nation than the PLO, and I would say that Israel is not necessary any less of a racist society than the PLO, anti-semitism or not. Karl

Israeli Arabs are not generally considered "Palestinians", as they bear Israeli citizenship. Arabs who are citizens of Jordan are also not generally considered to be Palestinians.

Israeli Arabs are not generally considered "Palestinians", as they bear Israeli citizenship. Arabs who are citizens of Jordan are also not generally considered to be Palestinians. I don’t follow the issue well enough to flatly disagree, but I’m real suspicious. I believe that Israeli Arabs ARE Palestinians in terms of personal identification. Palistinian Israeli citizens receive special (ie torture) attention in the Israli political system. This is along with inadequate funding of education, for exampel Israel considers them palistinians in a negative sense. – see amnisty international year in review (I think).

Many Israeli Arabs do consider themselves to be "Palestinians". Many Israeli Jews now also view them in this way. RK

There is a negative definition – like that Hitler created. A jew is whom I say it is – so that under Nazi law I am a Jew. Under Jewish law I am not. (Great I have a choice between racism and sexism. Ops – that wasn’t called for!) I’m not sure if this type of definition should be included – it may be impossible to make it NPOV.

I don't think that NPOV is the problem. The problem is that there isn't any one tightly defined group of people called "Palestinians", and we confuse and mislead ourselves when we try to pretend otherwise. Palestinian Arabs as a distinct nationalist certainly have never existed before 1948 at the very earliest, and one can argue that they didn't really exist before 1967. They are an emerging people in flux, and it will be a century or more before we can talk about this new group in the same definitive way that we talk about long-established nationalities. RK

And then there are the Druze… 1) they believe themselves to be Druze & Arab and Palestinian and the oppression they suffered for being Druze leading to their assimilation into Israel. The Druze also live in the occupied territories. I don’t know the numbers, but am under the impression that it is more than just a few. There are also a few Christians who choose to live in the Occupied Territories with the Palistinians.

Many Palestinian Arabs always have been Christians.
yes, but I haven't seen mention of the Druze in the article, and I suspect that they should be in there some where, with some sort of analysis on Palistinian Druze and Israli Druze. I am curious whether the Palistinian oppression of the Druze throws a curve into the identification of "Palestinian".

Re: Jordan: I understand that Jordan has allowed some palistinian refugees to settle and live there, without living in refugee camps. Would these people loose their palistinian identiy? I’m just picking at things – I don’t plan to make any changes at this time. Karl

The majority of Jordanians are ethnically identical to the Arab people in the West Bank who call themselves Palestinians. The PLO itself held, until recently, that their goal was never to make a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, but rather to make a Palestinian state in all of Jordan and the West bank, Gaza and Israel. RK
I should have posted the items I was looking at before - sorry. I was originally responding to --Ed Poor. RK - do you think the article is NPOV? Karl

RK, you cannot say that Golda Meir's statement is not a mainstream Israeli position. After all, she was prime minister when she made it. Perhaps today, there are far fewer people who would make such a comment, but the attitude lives on and certainly has an impact on the discourse within Israeli society. For instance, a common argument used against Palestinian statehood is that there are so many other Arab states. This is, in effect, a denial of a distinctive Palestinian identity, though it is not saying it in as many words. Danny

This isn't what I meant. I understand that 30 years ago, when she said that, many Israelis felt this way, and she was probably right. The PLO themselves publicly used to admit that there was no such thing as a "Palestinian", and they repeatedly publicly admitted that they created this pseudo-nationality simply as part of the Pan-Arab effort to destroy Israel. And this fact is discussed, with quotes and references, in the appropriate article. However, none of this is why I made my edit; I edited out that claim because the writer was clearly implying that this was the mainstream Israeli view, and that is totally false. Many things have changed since then. For one, there really now is a nascent Palestinian Arab nationality developing. The writer created a historical anachronism to explain something today, which was misleading. RK
I had been under the impression that Meir's claim meant that there were no "Palestinians" per se, only "Palestinian Arabs" and "Palestinian Jews" (and others), i.e. that those Arabs who call themselves "Palestinians" do not have an exclusive claim to that name. True? Spurious? --FOo

I haven't been following the exchange above as closely as I should. But let me just add that I think the definition of the word Palestinian is crucial to any discussion of the rightness or wrongness of establishing a "Palestinian state". --Uncle Ed

This recent addition must be changed: "Advocates of the Israeli side, however, view the definition of a Palestinian as a more complex problem. The rest of the article deals with these problems. Some Israelis (and also Americans) refuse to accept the term Palestinian in general (cmp. Golda Meirs statement: "There are no Palestinians" which was interpreted in various ways), some prefer to speak of "Arab nationalists" which already implies the political goal which is commonly ascribed to the"

This is factually wrong on many levels. First (see my comments above) most Israelis do not hold this belief today. Secondly, it takes a statement that was made totally out of its context, and makes Gold Meir out to look like a pathological liar. In point of fact, if we are to be fair we must note that most Arab leaders denied the existence of any "Palestinian people" in the 1940s and 1950s, and the PLO themselves publicly admitted that they created this idea solely as part of a Pan-Arab plan against Israel. Thirdly, it is absolutely false to claim that Israelis or Jews refer to Palestinian Arabs as "Arab nationalists". That's totally out of the question; no one uses this as a euphamisim for the Palestinians, no one at all. The phrase "Arab nationalists" has a totally different meaning. Frankly, the entire paragraph looks like a modern day PLO press release, meant to deligitimize everything else in this entry. It makes fun of people who are seriously working on discussing this complex issue, and basically implies "Of course any honest person knows who Palestinians are, its only those stubborn Israelis who can't see the truth". That's just bunk. We had an entire article, and all of the article is basically dismissed as ignorant by this insertion. That is wrong. RK

I agree with you, and I appreciate your patience. Let's wait another hour or two for the new IP guy to finish stating his case, then we can:

  • clean it up, bit by bit
  • revert it to your last "clean" version
  • or I could even protect the page

I've written to the mailing list (see here), asking for advice and/or help. --Uncle Ed

Rater than try to prevent biased comments, what about something like this:

Historically, the Muslim faith did not encourage countries or national identity in the same way as Christianity in the west. It seems that who is a Palestinian, and how important this is has changed over time.

It is most likely that a solution to the “Palestinian Problem” will require negations between the State of Israel, and the PLO. Both of their views on who is a Palestinian is probably biased.

This is the position of the PLO on who is a Palestinian and the history of the Palestinian People

This is the position of the State of Israel on who is a Palestinian and the history of the Palestinian People

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?

This page is an old discussion page. I've moved your post to Talk:Palestinian_people#Comparing_the_Palestinian_refugee_situation_to_other_refugee_cases. Arniep 01:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Inflammatory Quotes

Karl, thanks for your suggestion, but I seem to recall that we already tried something like that, but it didn't work. The question of how to solve the Middle East crisis is so tangled up with the definition of who a Palestinian is, that it seems best (to me) to come up with an unambiguous definition. If that is impossible, as I guess it is, then the next best thing is to list and describe the various major definitions. It is meaningless to have a series of article about "Palestinians" when the referent of that term is undefined. The news media does it, but their goals are different from the goals of an encyclopedia. --Uncle Ed

Arab vs Palestinian

from talk:Anti-Semitism

I prefer to use the term Arab in preference to the term Palestinian wherever possible. Everyone knows who the Arabs are. It's not as easy to determine who a "Palestinian" is. Sometimes there has arisen controversy over this, and the 'pedia is better off not taking sides in any controversy. One way to sidestep the issue, using neutral terminology, is to refer to "Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza say X", or "supporters of the Islamic ideal of a Palestinian state say Y". Ed Poor, Friday, June 21, 2002

When it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict, or anti-Semitism, who is confused about the word "Palestinian"? When people see this word on TV, the radio, the Internet or in print media, everyone knows who it refers to: Palestinian Arabs. Who else do people think it now refers to? Sure, in the past the word "palestinian" had a different meaning, but in modern every day conversation it now carries a specific meaning: Palestinian Arabs. In any case, Arabs don't all have the same government, beliefs, or tactics, and it frequently is necessary to use the terms Palestinian, Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese, etc, in order to describe who is holding a iven position. However, I totally agree with you that sometimes people use the term "Palestinian" when "Arab" should be used, and vice-versa, and that we should all be careful about using the word most fitting for the context. RK

Thanks to Uriyan and RK for clearing up the definition of "Palestinian". I might take a crack at refactoring the new info I got thereby, into the beginnings of an article like Palestine, Palestinian or Palestinian homeland. Ed Poor

I would be careful with that, Ed. Once again, the problem seems to be that you want definitions with sharp boundaries: i.e., this falls within the definition; this does not. The problem is, especially with such a contentious issue as what defines a Palestinian, is that the boundaries are not so clear at all. In fact, that is what all the contention is about. Danny
Thanks for the warning; I will heed it. As a software engineer, I spend the bulk of my professional life devising tests that distinguish between various categories: there IS or IS NOT enough money in the account, etc. Perhaps it is a vain hope that such thinking might apply to politics. Ed Poor, Monday, June 24, 2002

Archive July 15, 2003-July 15, 2004

How often want these uninformed fools spread Islamofascist propaganda? - 212.137.33.208 14:37, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Several administrators think that stating the facts is equal with "vandalism".
It is not allowed even to mention these facts:

The term "Palestinian" as a political factor was invented by Islamfascists (check the discussion and history page of Islamfascists and you see what I mean, if it was not already deleted by "administrators") after the Six-Day War 1967 to have a new instrument to destroy the Jewish state of Israel and to create an Islamic Palestine from the River to the Sea.

"Palestinians" are no nation but ordinary Syrians and Egyptians without citizenship.

An Arabic independent state called "Palestine" never existed.
It was in fact only an underdeveloped border region of Arab Syria.

Arafat is fomenting "Palestinian" chauvinism.

"Militant Islamic groups" is an euphemism. They are in reality Islamfascist murder gangs.

Obviously truth hurts.
Check the facts and you will find it out for yourself. - 195.218.116.8 12:51, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Proof

"There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. . . . Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it."

Local Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937 

"There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not."

   Professor Philip Hitti, Arab historian to Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, 1946


"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria." 

       Delegate of Saudi Arabia United Nations Security Council, 1956

Roman historian Dio Cassius reffering to the land as Judea not palestine

"Thus nearly the whole of Judea was made desolate, a result of which the people had had forewarning before the war. For the tomb of Solomon, which the Jews regarded as an object of veneration, fell to pieces of itself and collapsed. And many wolves and hyenas rushed howling into the cities. Many Romans, however, perished in this war. Therefore, Hadrian, in writing to the Senate, did not employ the opening phrase commonly affected by emperors: 'If you and your children are in health it is well and I and my legions are in health.'"

The condition of Israel under foreign administration

"Nothing there [Jerusalem] to be seen but a little of the old walls which is yet remaining and all the rest is grass, moss and weeds." 

                                                                   -- English pilgrim in 1590



"The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is of a body of population" 

                                                     -- British consul in 1857


"There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent [valley of Jezreel] -- not for 30 miles in either direction . . . . One may ride 10 miles hereabouts and not see 10 human beings.


"For the sort of solitude to make one dreary, come to Galilee . . . Nazareth is forlorn . . . Jericho lies a moldering ruin . . . Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation . . . untenanted by any living creature . . . .


"A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds . . a silent, mournful expanse . . . a desolation . . . . We never saw a human being on the whole route . . . . Hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country . . . .


"Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes . . . desolate and unlovely . . . ." 

                                                                -- Mark Twain

                                                                   The Innocents Abroad, 1867

More quotes

"The fact is that today's Palestinians are immigrants from the surrounding nations! I grew up well knowing the history and origins of today's Palestinians as being from Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Christians from Greece, Muslim Sherkas from Russia, Muslims from Bosnia, and the Jordanians next door. The civil and tribal wars between Yemmenites (from Yemen) and Kessites (from Banu Kais of Saudi Arabia) ... are well known among Palestinians. "My grandfather, who was a dignitary in Bethlehem, almost lost his life by Abdul Qader Al-Husseni (the leader of the Palestinian revolution) after being accused of selling land to Jews. He used to tell us that his village Beit Sahur (The Shepherds Fields) in Bethlehem County was empty before his father settled in the area with six other families. The town has now grown to 30,000 inhabitants."

- Walid, a Palestinian Arab defector, talking about the recent immigration of Arabs to Palestine. quoted from "Answering Islam"

The concept of "Palestinians" is one that did not exist until about 1948, when the Arab inhabitants, of what until then was Palestine, wished to differentiate themselves from the Jews. Until then, the Jews were the Palestinians. There was the Palestinian Brigade of Jewish volunteers in the British World War II Army (at a time when the Palestinian Arabs were in Berlin hatching plans with Adolf Hitler for world conquest and how to kill all the Jews); there was the Palestinian Symphony Orchestra (all Jews, of course); there was The Palestine Post; and so much more. The Arabs who now call themselves "Palestinians" do so in order to persuade a misinformed world that they are a distinct nationality and that "Palestine" is their ancestral homeland. But they are no distinct nationality at all. They are the same - in language, custom, and tribal and family ties - as the Arabs of Syria, Jordan, and beyond. There is no more difference between the "Palestinians" and the other Arabs of those countries than there is between, say, the citizens of Minnesota and those of Wisconsin.

What's more, many of the "Palestinians", or their immediate ancestors, came to the area attracted by the prosperity created by the Jews, in what previously had been pretty much of a wasteland.

- New York Times, June 12, 2000 (via CFICEJ's ISRAEL REPORT May/June 2000)

"There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria." - Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader, to the Peel Commission, 1937

"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria." - Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, to the UN Security Council

I'll tidy up these quotes when I not busy

Okay, that's it for me till next week. Is everyone happy? Do we have a solid definition of who is a "Palestinian"? I guess that would be the Arab and European definition of West Bank + Gaza + refugees = "stateless Arabs of Palestine". Let me know what you all think.

And remember, I'm not in charge of this article. We're all equal here, signed-in or not. We all strive for a neutral article as defined at tedious length on the NPOV page. --Uncle Ed

I don't want to comment on the content of the page, just to point out the salient point that applies to disputes over whether a text is neutral: if there is in fact a dispute over whether a text is neutral, it probably isn't. That is because one side--who cares enough to be making the point--thinks that the article is making a point that other people would want to disagree with. If so, NPOV applies. I'd put this in blazing, flashing, annoying neon lights, if I could: == That something is allegedly a fact DOES NOT make the bald statement of that fact neutral!!! ==

Neutrality is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced you are that your facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties disagrees with you, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties. Larry Sanger

I have temporarilly removed the following, and am explaining why:

There has always been a Palestinian/Arab presence in Palestine. For all the invasions and changes in its rulers, the core of Palestine's population has been ethnically stable for millennia, posessing for the last thirteen hundred years a culture that has been unambiguously Arab.
This is illogical. The terms Arab and Palestinian are not synonomous. In fact, Arab historical sources deny the existence of Palestinians altogether. According to pre-1950 Arab history books, newspaper, academic journals and government documents, no such people or ethnicity ever existed. Even after the Arab-Israeli wars, when Arab grovernements suddenly began speaking to westerners (in English and French) about "Palestinans", they sometimes admitted publicly to their own public (in Arabic) that Palestinians were a total fiction, created solely as a way to fight the existence of the Jewish state in Israel. What pre-1950 Arab sources note the existence of an independent Palestinian culture or nationality? None. Have all Arab governments and historians been lying for the last 500 years? RK 19:44 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Many popular images of the Zionist movement portray the land as desolate or empty of a vibrant people and culture. Golda Meir announced that they never existed as evidenced in this famous quote "There was no such thing as Palestinians...It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist." This kind of propaganda could never have been really convincing outside Israel because so many people - travellers, merchants, missionaries, and soldiers - had actually seen the Palestinians and knew that they existed even if they did not know much about them.
Um, you took her quot so badly out of context that it is badly misleading. She never denied the existence of Arabs in the middle-east, including Arabs in the former Bristish Mandate of Palestine. Her quote already is examined in context within a Wikipedia article. Without context, we are only left with propaganda, and that is something we must stribe hard to avoid. RK 19:44 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
There are now somewhere between 6.5 - 7 million Palestinians worldwide, some live as a minority in Israel proper, some live in the West Bank and Gaza portions of Palestine, most are refugees in many parts of the world (mainly the Middle East, Europe, and North and South America) living a life of diaspora, as displaced persons. Few Palestinians have assimilated to their host countries. Most feel too strong, a sense of identity, with their Palestinian nationalism.
Now this claim has some kind of data to support it, and we can work it into the article. However, note that these numbers are widely contested. In fact, even the United Nations says that the actual number of Palestinian refugees is much smaller if you use their normal definition of refugees. Curiously (many would say dishonestly) the United Nations then created a second definition of the word "refugee" which applies only to Arabs who used to live in Palestine. Hmm, why would that be?
In 1948 Palestine ceased to exist politically, however, its people remain a vital and integral part of the land, known variously as: 'the Holy land', Israel, Palestine, etc. They remain Palestinians awaiting their political and national rights.
Pure PLO propaganda. No State of Palestine ever existed, ever. RK 19:44 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

As a disinterested Wikipedian -- i.e., neither a Jew nor a Palestinian -- I take issue with RK running roughshod over other Wikipedia contributors, in this article and in other articles. I say this after reviewing many of the articles to which RK has contributed.

Sorry, but your personal attacks don't override historical facts. You can't retroactively change what is in Arab textbooks by insulting me. Please stick to the issues, do some historical research, and maybe you can help out in a productive fashion. My concern is making this a respectable and reliable encyclopedia. We are obliagted to maintain a high standard of accuracy.RK 01:20 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

When the facts are in dispute, as they are here, the only way to honor Wikipedia's NPOV policy is to present the factual claims of *ALL* parties to a dispute in a "He said; she said" fashion, taking great care to state who said what. Moreover, engaging in personal attacks in re what is or is not the propaganda of other parties and/or removing the factual claims of others from an article is just plain wrong, no matter how wrong the factual claims of others may be. -- NetEsq 23:46 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

How can something be a "factual claim" and at the same time not be a fact? And it is a violation of Wikipedia policy to report minority viewpoint claims, when no evidence exists, on an equal basis with mainstream peer-reviewed historical analysis. Anyone could come here and write "The American people have lived in the geographical area of the United States for thousands of years..." and by your logic, we would be obligated to report this as a valid opinion. But that is nonsense. This is an encyclopedia, where we report confirable facts, not political propaganda. RK 01:20 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Now, we can note that there is a historical revisionist movement in the Arab community which is making these new claims, sure. But we would then also have to note that Arab (and non-Arab) historical sources provide no support for this view pre-1950. We would also have to note that some PLO and PA spokesmen since 1950 have, on occasion, publicly admitted that no ethnic Palestinian people has ever existed. This isn't about scoring points against me, or against the Jews. This is about responsible historical scholarship. RK 01:20 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I think some scholarship is necessary on our part though: we're not obliged to report everything that's claimed as fact. If one side claims something that is generally held by historians/sociologists/etc. to be counterfactual, we should report it as such (e.g. "[blah] claim [such and such], but this is generally considered inaccurate."). We don't have to report as fact "the Iraqi Information Minister claims the US troops have not yet landed in the region", for example. And I'd argue a lot of claims in this article fall rather close to that level of ludicrousness (ludicrosity?). --Delirium 23:58 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
<< We don't have to report as fact "the Iraqi Information Minister claims the US troops have not yet landed in the region", for example.>>

I wholeheartedly disagree. Indeed, that is an excellent example of a factual claim that should be reported concomitantly with the factual claims of other parties, such as the factual claims of embedded reporters who were present in Iraq while the Information Minister was making his bizarre assertions, ultimately leaving the reader to determine who is more credible. -- NetEsq 00:23 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps while things are actually happening we can say this, but at some point we need to make judgments as to who's more credible ourselves. Otherwise we'll be stuck with ridiculous things like reporting all the pseudo-science nonsense out there on par with real science, or reporting on the people who claim slavery never happened on par with those who claim it did, and so on. --Delirium 00:35 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
<< [A]t some point we need to make judgments as to who's more credible ourselves.>>
As long as there are noteworthy groups of people who make factual assertions that the Earth is flat and/or that the world was created in six days, Wikipedia's NPOV policy obliges us to report these factual assertions and report who is making them. Indeed, it was not that long ago that the people who made contrary factual claims -- which are now the majority consensus -- were persecuted for making them. -- NetEsq 00:54 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
No, Netesq, we do not have to report the claim that the Earth is flat in the science articles on the Earth or in Earth science. On the other hand, we certainly can report such views in our articles on conspiracy theory, or on pseudoscience. But to push such non-historical and non-scientific claims into our main articles on science and history would destroy the credibility of Wikipedia, it would be unjustifiable, and it would give a terribly distorted picture of what is accepted as factual, and what is historically provable. RK

In case you [RK] should misinterpret my future silence in response to your comments as taking offense, or as surrender, please be advised that I find your confrontational behavior quite amusing and see no point in attempting to engage you in dialogue, at least not at this time and not in this forum. Given your present disposition to engage in recklessly contentious behavior with others, it is only a matter of time before you find yourself ostracized. I've seen it happen countless times before. -- NetEsq 01:39 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Huh? I am trying to focus on our need for historical scholarship, and the need to differentiate mainstream historical views from non-mainstream views. I truly wish you would focus on the topic. Yet every few hours you come in, disrupt our discussion with personal attacks, and then (oddly) claim that I am being confrontational. It is clear to me that you do not possess the research skills and history background necessary to work on this article, and you are only contributing here because you have some dislike of me. The feeling is not mutual, but then, you seem to have your own non-academic agenda. Too bad. Bye! RK 01:44 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
And another thing! Does anyone know who did the makeup for the movie _Chicken Run_? -- NetEsq 02:15 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Depending on how one defines the word "refugee", there are now somewhere between one million to six million Palestinians worldwide. Unlike refugees from every other nation or locale in the world, Palestinians alone have a special definition of the term "refugee". According to the the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, "Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict". This means that any Arab that moved into this area and resided there for two years now counts as if they were an indigenous resident of the land who had lived there all his/her life. Israelis complain that this definition of refugee wildly exagerrates the number of Palestinian refugees, as a huge number of Arabs had immigrated into Palestine during this time period.

I removed the above text, since it is out of place in this article. It should probably be intigrated into Palestinian refugee. - Efghij 06:19 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I deleted the quote from Zahir Muhsein because it gives a false impression that such an opinion was common amongst the Palestinian leadership at that time. It wasn't. Zuhayr Muhsin was the Secretary General of the group Sa`iqa which consisted of mostly of Syrian Ba'athists and was established by the Syrian government in opposition to Fatah. His membership of the PLO was due to pressure from Syria even though his pan-Arab position (i.e. the Syrian position) put him at constant conflict with the mainstream Palestinian nationalists. At one point he even supported Syrian armed conflict against the PLO in Lebanon. In 1979 he was assassinated. Quoting him as indicative of Palestinian opinion is wrong wrong wrong. --bdm

This article did not claim that his view was indicative of Palestinian opinion, although it may well have been so at the time. Palestinian Arabs in the 1940s and 1950s certainly did not believe that they were part of some ancient Palestinian ethnic group that was somehow distinct from other Arabs in the region! Only their children and grandchildren, many decades later, began to believe this story. I was merely giving one example of an Arab Palestinian who admits that the Palestinians are not an ancient distinct ethnic group with their own distinct history and culture. What is the big deal? Many Arabs at the time admitted this; many still do. RK 23:56, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Before this quote was added, Wikipedia articles on this topic were biased, because they only presented propaganda-like views of Arab historical revisionsists, who were portraying Palestinians as an ancient culture or nationality. Today, millions of Arabs have been brainwashed into believing that Palestinians always existed in Israel, that "the Jews" today are not really Jewish, the Israelites never existed in the land of Israel, and that there are no archaeological sites in Israel that show any evidence of a Jewish presence in Biblical times, etc. Obviously, every one of these claims is false, and they all are rejected by mainstream historians. Even many Arab historians reject these claims as pure propaganda. RK 23:56, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The problem is that many Wikipedians assume that all Arabs fall for this conspiracry driven propaganda. They present what they believe to be "the Arab view", when in fact they only present the most stridently anti-Israel position. Wikipedia contributors somehow overlook the very sizable minority Arab positions that, while not pro-Israel, are nonetheless historically viable, non-propaganda ladden, and quite reasonable. The angry and uneducated Arab masses are often assumed to be the only "true" Arab voice, and any quote that in any way agrees with any mainstream historical view is assumed to be "pro Israel", and thus not truly Arab. Well, that is just not so. Arabs are not monolithic. There is a great diversity of views amongst them. Thus, this material should be restored, or at least similar views from other Arab statesmen or scholars should be added. RK 23:56, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Of course there never was a Palestinian state, but nobody ever claimed there was. All of the many (must be hundreds) of mentions of this I've seen are claims that there is a claim, not the claim itself. In other words, it's a strawman. Actually in many circles it is a deliberate strawman which serves to confuse people who might otherwise wonder what nation states, or nationalist sentiment, have to do with the right of people to live where they are born.
What is true is that there have been people, overwhelmingly of Arab extraction, living in Palestine for centuries. They did not have a sense of distinct national identity though there were local cultural and linguistic characteristics just like there were in other parts of the Arab world. You can find these local differences described in countless sources of the time. (An illustrative aside: in 1918 Chaim Weizmann wrote to his wife that King Feisal had told him that he "is contemptuous of the Palestinian Arabs whom he doesn't even regard as Arabs".) The Arabs of Palestine shared in the growing Arab nationalism of the 19th century but it was only when the threat of Zionism became apparent (early 20th century) that a distinct Palestinian nationalism started to grow. Palestinian nationalism was a major factor in the "revolt" of 1936-1939 but even then a more pan-Arab viewpoint was common. The Nakhba of 1948 was the thing that most impressed the nationalistic viewpoint on the ordinary people, though little in the way of actual organization happened until the 1960s. The quote you had before is a minority viewpoint for the time and doesn't belong in the article when the majority viewpoint is hardly represented. If the history of Palestinian nationalism belongs in the article (not clear), that should be done properly and not by means of one or two misleading quotations. -- bdm

Overall this is a very poor article. Yes the word "Palestinian" has meant different things to different people but the differences were not really all that great. The only exception was the usage of the word by some Zionists as including only themselves. Otherwise it meant a person who lives in Palestine or whose ancestors lived in Palestine, with Israeli Jews excluded from the phrase during the years after Israeli independence. The rest of the story is just details--whether some minority ethnic groups were included and so on. Especially when it comes to the meaning of the word today, most of the "disagreement" is just huffing and puffing from people with axes to grind. In fact there is hardly any disagreement at all amongst Palestinians as to who is one of them, and that ought to be good enough. As Amos Oz wrote years ago:

He who declares on behalf of the Palestinians that they are not a group with a separate national identity but an extension of the 'greater pan-Arabic nation' is no different from Arafat, who presumes to declare that the Jews are nothing more than a religious sect and therefore unworthy of national self-determination. Just as I vehemently reject the religious decree of Rabbi Yassir Arafat in the question 'Who is a Jew,' I do not recognize the right of anyone other than the Palestinians themselves to decide for themselves, 'Who is an Arab' or 'What is a Palestinian'."

Btw, most Palestinians living in Jordan are Jordanian citizens despite the ignorant statement to the contrary in this article. - bdm

BDM writes "Of course there never was a Palestinian state, but nobody ever claimed there was. All of the many (must be hundreds) of mentions of this I've seen are claims that there is a claim, not the claim itself. In other words, it's a strawman. Actually in many circles it is a deliberate strawman ..."

I must strongly disagree. Many Arabs do claim that there was a distinct Palestinian Arab ethnicity, history, culture, etc. This is the basis of most Arab propaganda for the past 40 years. I agree with you that such claims are historically false, but these claims do exist, they are even taught in Arab school textbooks in the middle-east! This is by no means a straw-man; I myself have met many Arabs who believe that "the Jews" are trying to erase the existence of a historical Palestinian nationality! Their beliefs are paranoid and baseless, but they do exist. RK 14:04, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Is it so difficult to read what you are replying to? I wrote that nobody claims there was a Palestinian state. STATE, get it, STATE. Of course there are plenty of people who claim that Palestinians had a distinct culture and they would be right. They had distinct clothing styles, their own peculiar colloquialisms, and some differences in social customs. It is a matter of degree; do (non-French) Canadians have a different culture from Americans? The problem is not with the facts, it is the political purposes to which the facts (and distortions of the facts) are put. The only reason anyone except anthropologists and historians cares about the alleged lack of Palestinian distinctness is that it has been used by Zionists for more than a century to deny that the Palestinians had their own rights that couldn't be satisfied by doing deals with Arabs from elsewhere. The a-historical back-dating of Palestinian nationalism by some Palestinians is a defensive reaction.
You miss my thrust; I am refuting a different point. I agree with you that pre-Israel, the Arabs in the British Mandate of Palestine had their own distinct clothing styles, their own peculiar colloquialisms, and some differences in social customs. However, I am responding to a different claim: Many Arabs today - including "professors of history" at Palestinian schools - deny what you write; instead, they claim that the Arabs of Palestine had a very distinct peoplehood, and that they were a distinct own Arab nation for hundreds, if not thousands of years. (They do not claim that they formally had their own recognized nation, of course.) Their pseudo-academic historical revisionism is so extreme, that some Palestinian Authority "academics", as well as spokespeople, claim that ancient Canaanite archaeological finds are "proof" of early settlement by the same Palestinian people that exist today! It is this pseudo-historical hogwash that I am disagreeing with. All of your points I agree with. Does this make sense? RK 14:06, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

BDM writes "What is true is that there have been people, overwhelmingly of Arab extraction, living in Palestine for centuries. They did not have a sense of distinct national identity though there were local cultural and linguistic characteristics just like there were in other parts of the Arab world."

I agree with you. No one disputes this. In fact, this is precisely my position, and I am arguing against the pseudo-historical Arab propaganda which denies what you state here. RK 14:04, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
That's why the middle eastern articles are amongst the most useless in all the Wikipedia. Too many people think it is the place for conducting their personal crusades. It probably scares away the people who have genuine knowledge rather than political motives, and nobody is left to write straight articles. - BDM

BDM writes "The Arabs of Palestine shared in the growing Arab nationalism of the 19th century but it was only when the threat of Zionism became apparent (early 20th century) that a distinct Palestinian nationalism started to grow."

This is also my point, and this is something that even the most staunch pro-Israel supporters themselves agree with. RK 14:04, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

BDM writes "The quote you had before is a minority viewpoint for the time and doesn't belong in the article when the majority viewpoint is hardly represented. If the history of Palestinian nationalism belongs in the article (not clear), that should be done properly and not by means of one or two misleading quotations."

I think you still don't understand my point. After all, that quote agrees with your point of view. Maybe I can try another clarification: I did not add his quote to claim that Palestinian Arabs were not interested in nationalism. Of course they were. Rather, I added that quote only to prove that Arabs admitted that Palestinian Arabs were not some sort of separate ethnicity or nationality. RK 14:04, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Unfortunately you don't seem to have a concept of how history is conducted or of how it is properly written. A quote from a maverick with an ulterior motive (in this case, Syrian patronage) proves nothing. It doesn't matter whether it is correct or incorrect, it is still useless as evidence. There is a vast amount of genuine historical research on the Palestinian people that could be cited in place of sporadic nonsense. Start with the standard works of Porath and Muslih; have you read them? -- bdm
BDM, he might have been considered a maverick for his political views, but that does not mean that every statement he makes is false. His view on this particular issue was that of many other Arabs... and in fact it is the view of moderate and educuated Palestinian Arabs today. Not all Palestinians believe their own propaganda, and many of them understand that they are a new nationality in development. In any case, I am sympathetic to your concern that due to his political leanings, people might disregard the point being made. Fine; we can leave it out. I am only saying that this article should have some quotes by Arab sources which refute pseudo-historical revisionism. Would you like to offer any? RK 14:06, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
No, I am not prepared to play the quotations game that you seem to love so much. The only article I would be prepared to write would be one that tells a straight story as a narrative. Quotations only belong in unusual circumstances (only quotations from the main players in events are relevant and then rarely). Btw, I saw you defending Joan Peters in another place; this is positive proof that you know nothing about the subject, which is the conclusion I was tending towards. Actually you seem to be here purely for political purposes. People like you are the scourge of Wikipedia. -- bdm
I have been politely working with you in order to make Wikipedia together. Yet you always respond with personal attacks. Unless you want people to simpl revert every one of your changes, please learn to work with others, and control your anger. RK 14:40, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I'm not angry, and I'm perfectly willing to work with anyone who has the knowledge to write accurate and informative articles on mideast subjects. When I look around that section of Wikipedia, what I see is a small amount of good work that has been turned into a battleground by zealots who think they know a bit of history because they have a collection of "quotations" or read some trash like "From Time Immemorial". I'm not criticising only the zealots on your side of the fence, you just happenned to be the zealot around at the time. The zealots on other side aren't any better. The question in my mind is whether this is a permanent state of affairs that I'd be wasting my time trying to correct. -- bdm

Oh no, not another RK playground! Throughout the Mandate period there was a conflict between the the Palestinian nationalists and the pan-Arabists. This conflict continued until 1948 and to a much lesser extent even afterwards. Of course it is all too easy to find statements made by people on one side of that conflict and claim there was no other opinion. Scores of junk sites on the internet have done exactly that, for each side of said conflict. (But they don't do any actual research, they just copy off each other mistakes and all.) Wikipedia should strive for a higher standard. At a minimum we should expect writers to be at least a little informed, for example to have read a real history book on the subject such as the excellent book of Porath which RK cites but almost surely has never seen.

RK wrote (in the article, alas): Arabs who happened to live in Palestine denied that they had a unique Palestinian identity. The First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations (in Jerusalem, Feb. 1919) met for the purpose of selecting Palestinian Arab representative for the Paris Peace Conference. They adopted the following resolution: "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds." (Yehoshua Porath, Palestinian Arab National Movement: From Riots to Rebellion: 1929-1939, vol. 2, London: Frank Cass and Co., Ltd., 1977, pp. 81-82.)
It is real chutzpah for RK to quote from a book called "Palestinian Arab National Movement" (Volume 2 even) in order to prove that there was no such thing. What RK doesn't tell us, probably because he doesn't know, is that the Palestinian nationalists had gained the upper hand by the next Congress (Dec 1920). They passed a resolution calling for an independent Palestine. Then they wrote a long letter to the League of Nations (which I have) about "Palestine, land of Miracles and the supernatural, and the cradle of religions", demanding, amongst other things, that a "National Government be created which shall be responsible to a Parliament elected by the Palestinian People, who existed in Palestine before the war." In this letter they even call themselves "Palestinians" (in which name they included Jews other than Zionists).

RK wrote (in the article, alas): According to testimony in British Peel Commission, local Arabs in the 1930s still did not have any sense of Palestinian identity; rather, they saw themselves as Syrians. "There is no such country {as Palestine}! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria." (comments by Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi to the Peel Commission, Jerusalem Post, November 2, 1991)
but so you would expect the General Secretary of the minority Istiqlal party (the only significant Arab party in Palestine with a pan-Arab platform at that time) to say. What does this have to do with "local Arabs" in general? Of course it is true that "Syria" encompassed a much larger area before WW1 including most of Palestine other than Negev. However, it wasn't the fault of the Arabs that the area was divided and quite illogical to pick one of the parts and deny it characteristics that are not denied in the others.

I wonder how RK would react if someone littered the Zionism article with "admissions" from Jews that Jews were not a nation? Finding a collection of such quotes from around the time of the Balfour Declaration would be no problem at all. I guess RK would be upset and might even accuse the perpetrator of nasty motivations. He would probably be right, and I would for once agree with him. Why is it then that RK cannot see he is doing exactly the same thing? -- zero 09:10, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Please do not personalize this. I agree with you that some Arabs during the 1920s did call for the creation of an independent Palestinian Arab nation. However, I think we somehow have missed each other's point. I agree with every fact you just stated. I am not denying that in this time period a new phenomenon developed, and that some Arabs believed that Palestinian Arabs should create a new Arab nation. I was hoping to be clear that I was speaking about a different point: Most of these same Arabs did not claim that there was a distinct Palestinian Arab nationality and/or ethnicity, with its own culture and history significantly different from that of their surrounding Arab nations. There is a big differnece between admitting that a new nationalist movement was being created at the time (I admit this) and claiming that the Palestinians always had their own very distinct ethnicity, so much so that they saw themselves as some sort of separate nation (I deny this.) RK 23:34, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No one denies that over time a Palestinian nationality has been created. I have been trying to counter, waht seems to me, a very different claim - the claim that such a nationality has been there all along. No matter how many times I have tried to make this distinction, somehow people keep mixing up these two related but distinct points. RK 23:34, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, an Arab-American historian, stated "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not." (Testimony before the Anglo-American Committee , 1946) -- I removed this because I looked through the transcript of evidence given to the Anglo-American inquiry and couldn't find Hitti at all. I also tried the records of the 1937 Peel Commission and he isn't there either. Hitti might have said this sometime, but without a more sound reference this quotation is out. This example is symptomatic of the whole article, which any day now I am going to replace completely. --zero 10:47, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Discussion

The term Palestinian is millenia old.

In the Arabic speaking world, Filastini has long been used to identify people from Palestine. Filastini is a "nisbah", a peculiar Arab/Muslim custom of using geographical nicknames to identify a persons origin. Thus amongst Muslims who will see the use of surnames such as "Baghdadi", "Andalusi", "Rumi", "Jawi". The famous mystic Rumi is known as such because he was born in Turkey (the old Arab word being "Rum").

Evidence for the use of filastini can be seen in the following article excerpt:

"The ascetic `Abdallah b. Muhayriz al-Jumahi al-Filastini who lived in Jerusalem (and probably died between 88-99/706/17) became seriously ill during the Byzantine summer expedition." http://www.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/IAS/HP-e2/eventreports/Lecker.html

11.49, Monday November 3, 2003 (GMT+8)

Not sure why this passage was deleted:

Before that date the state of Jordan acted as this legitimate representation. There are also Arabs in Jordan who still have not acquired Jordanian citizenship. Those Palestinians themselves don't consider Jordan a Palestinian state.

Which of the three points expressed here is disputed? --Uncle Ed 18:22, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The first sentence is meaningless because legitimate representation is not a defined concept. (Which competent body granted this legitimacy? Answer: none.) The second sentence is true but isn't connected to the first and the word "also" has no referrant. The third sentence is irrelevant to the article. Actually the Jordan=Palestine crap ought to be excised from this article in totality and I am sharpening my knife. --Zero 22:22, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A hopefully non-conflict creating proposal for an addition to the article: The historical origin of Palestinians. I know there is debate among Palestinians over this. (To the best of my knowledge,) some maintain a purely Arab descent, while others claim a Canaanite (yet still non-Jewish) descent. I would venture to say that Palestinians are descended (primarily) from Canaanites/Jews, Greeks and Arabs. If a paragraph is dedicated to this, it must give several different theories. I'm tired of facts being distorted in the name of conviction. --D.E. Cottrell 07:59, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This article's focus ought to be completely different. For what other ethnic group is most of the article devoted to examining the history of the name? This should be talking about (or at least linking to) Palestinian culture, cuisine, dialect, history, traditions... This needs a lot of work. - Mustafaa 18:32, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Definition of "Palestinian"

This was the intro paragraph:

A Palestinian is a native of Palestine.

Does this mean that there are Jewish "Palestinians"? How far back in history do you have to go to be an "indigenous people" as the link above says?

I don't think "indigenous people" or "native" is going to satisfy everyone. That's why I created an entirely separate article that deals with the 3 major ways the term "Palestinian" is used. --Uncle Ed 20:40, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there are Jewish Palestinians - so the PLO calls them, anyway! I don't know if they accept that identity, but it is certainly used to describe Jews who immigrated to Palestine in pre-Zionist times. - Mustafaa 17:37, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What do we need a discussion of "Palestinian refugee" for here, when that has its own article? - Mustafaa 19:25, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad that the paragraph about ethnicity was deleted. I found it to be highly idiosyncratic. -- Dissident (Talk) 20:24, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

Is this article's neutrality still under dispute? - Mustafaa 23:59, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a Palestinian. Show references to term "palestinian" pre-1967. sayyed_al_afghani Sayyed al afghani 00:32, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the article's neutrality, IMHO the following points should be addressed:

  • Instead of blaming Israel for all ills, shouldn't the article reflect the real reasons for misery of Palestinian refugees:
    • (a) inability or unwillingness of Arab leadership to compromise on any of numerous partitions,
    • (b) existential wars they waged on the Jewish state,
    • (c) using the refugees for blaming Israel or as a pawn in bargaining,
    • (d) legendary corruption of the PLO leaders.
  • Remember what late Abba Eban used to say, "The Palestinian leadership has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Despite of massive international aid (Aid to Palestinians Exceeds Marshall Plan Aid to Europe), not a single Palestinian refugee has been moved out of this status. Why?
  • IMHO, the article should mention the levels of genocidal (and self-destructing, BTW) incitement in the P. society. Results: YASSER ARAFAT AND THE PA CONDEMN A YOUNG GENERATION TO HATRED AND DEATH, 2003: 62% of Palestinians support suicide operations (81% in 2001, 24% in 1997).
  • Just as an example of successful refugee absorption program, perhaps it's worth to mention www.jimena-justice.org: "In 1945 there were nearly 900,000 Jews living in communities throughout the Arab world. Today, there are fewer than 8,000. Approximately 600,000 were absorbed by Israel".
  • There is already Palestinian refugee article. Why Palestinian#Palestinian refugees? --Humus sapiens|Talk 21:45, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with most of the above, but concur that the section Palestinian#Palestinian refugees does not belong in this article (as I stated previously). - Mustafaa 22:09, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have stopped, now that the Palestinian refugees section has been put where it belongs. Is this article's neutrality still disputed? If no answer comes in the next day or so, I'll remove the tag. - Mustafaa 09:12, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

None has come, so I'm removing it. - Mustafaa 06:45, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Just A Side-Note

The text translates the Levant into al-Sham...shouldn't it be al-Mashriq? I'm not 100% sure about that, but that's how I've always known it... --Jad 08:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ash-Sham is what it was called after the Arab conquest. That doesn't mean it wasn't called other things at other times. See History of Palestine for a bit more. --Zero 11:05, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I'd see al-Mashriq as referring to a larger area than ash-Sham, including Iraq and maybe even Egypt. - Mustafaa 11:37, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

There seems to be a misunderstanding that the current predominant usage of Palestinian refers only to Arabs. Ignoring for the moment those Palestinians who regard themselves as Canaanite, the commonest usage of the term "Palestinian" includes (without being limited to) the pre-1967 inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including most Samaritans, and a couple of thousand Neturei Karta Jews consider themselves, and are considered by the Palestinian government, as Palestinian; and Palestinians often call the small minority of Israeli Jews whose ancestors lived there before the Mandate "Palestinian". You may find the Definitions of Palestine article informative in this respect, or indeed the remainder of this article. - Mustafaa 00:56, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________

The date of Palestinian as pre-1918 is fundamentally flawed, as thousands of people considered Palestinian were descendants of Syrian immigrants in the 1920s and 1930s. With off-spring, this number ranges into the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians; therefore a more accurate definition would be 1948 and the creation of the Israeli state as non-Jewish immigrants. Also the word modern could be tagged onto it, as the modern Palestinian.

"during the centuries"

Why don't we change the phrase (note the the)

...the the people, mainly Arabs, whose ancestors had inhabited British Mandate Palestine during the centuries immediately before 1918...
to neutral: ...the people, mainly Arabs, who had inhabited the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine before 1918...

My reason: "ancestors during the centuries" is unnecessarily politically charged argument: the "Palestinians - from time immemorial, Jews - recent immigrants". Mustafaa says: "not unnecessary at all - without it, the definition would have to exclude almost half of all Palestinians alive today". I don't see how it excludes anyone: "the people" includes ancestors, no matter how long they lived there. As a matter of fact, the article should include the etymology of the term, the Philistines, Hadrian, etc. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:02, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We can't lose "ancestors" or we lose almost all Palestinians. We can and should lose "British Mandate" because it didn't exist before 1918. ("Palestine" is less well defined but that matches reality in the definition of "Palestinian".) However, I think that "centuries" is unnecessarily restrictive. I suggest "whose ancestors had inhabited Palestine during the period immediately before 1918". --Zero 03:14, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to lose almost all Palestinians and think this is more neutral, thanks, Zero. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zero's version works for me - I put "British Mandate" only to avoid accusations of partisanship. - Mustafaa 18:45, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Israeli Arab redirect

I was redirected to Palestinian from Israeli Arabs. I was expecting though to find an article about arabs living in Israel though. Now correct me if I'm wrong but don't palestinians consider themselves neither israeli nor arabs? 02:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)~

You've got a point - Israeli Arabs are widely considered Palestinians, but given how different their situation is from other Palestinians' - and the fact that some of them really do see themselves as Israeli - one could argue that they deserve a separate article. However, I don't plan to write one anytime soon... - Mustafaa 23:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I made an article stub for Israeli Arabs. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mustafaa, but they are not identical with the Arabs you described in your Palestinians article. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 21:41, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not identical - rather, they are a decidedly atypical subset of them. I've expanded the article a bit (but you know, it's poor form to have the only link in an article on this conflict be to a manifestly partisan site, though I do realize Google isn't very helpful in this regard.) - Mustafaa 22:08, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry: I agree about the "poor form" thing (makes me feel like Captain Hook being chided in Peter Pan). Thanks for noticing the stub so quickly and adding some balance. I cannot do this by myself! --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 12:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Possible 3rd party GNU FDL violation using this article.

Compare the paras that start with "As genetic techniques have advanced" here, and at globalpolitician.com. --mav 23:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First, from the entire Muslim world, there were 1.2 million immigrants according to some sources. But this is pointless for the article, as it is about Palestinians, not Israelis. Second, I believe this article is not neutral, as too much credibility is given to Palestinian claims with no proof. For instance, with Palestinians claiming to be descended of Caananites, it should be noted that there is no evidence of this. Second, the removal of Jewish populations from the percentages of people living in the region should be removed. Its a worthless statistic, which makes Zionism look like even more of a takeover; there was a sizable Jewish population in the area, and until the twentieth century, Jerusalem had a larger Jewish population than Muslim.

Actually, not only is there evidence for the Palestinians' Canaanite descent, this evidence is given in the article. And this article deals with Palestinians, not with all inhabitants of Palestine irrespective of ethnicity; some proportion of the Jews in Palestine in 1918 (all, by the PLO charter) were considered Palestinian, but their descendants mostly reject this classification. - Mustafaa 07:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arafat as "Father' of "Palestinian Nation"

AFAIK, after Arafat's death he was lauded as "Father of Palestinian Nation". I guess that's correct because he imposed this notion in the 60s and 70s. --83.148.71.5 03:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With the PLO charter inclusion, I no longer have any issue regarding the "1918" tag. But I'd prefer not the reference to "Zionist invasion" and to mark the PLO defines Palestinian as, well, non-Zionists before 1947. Also, the fact Canaanites have no known descendants is another big point, because there is no evidence that Canaanites survived the invasions of Joshua, and if the Palestinians are descended from the Kingdom of Israel, it should be a note of the Aramaic tribes, not the Canaanites. Furthermore, the statistic of Demographics without the inclusion of Jews is unnecessary, since there were Palestinian Jews. This statistic would be neutral only if non-immigrant Jews are included, a small portion, and if only non-immigrant Palestinians are included (In other words, no Syrian Immigrants); only then can this statistic be fair towards the whole idea of "Palestinian". Until this is included, I dispute the neutrality of the article, as this statistic is inherently not neutral.-JMW000 (I am trying to use this instead of my IP address, but I'm not outrageously sure how to do this...)

You sign your comments with four tilde signs in a row, like this: ~~~~ Jayjg (talk) 15:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Kingdom of Israel was not Aramaic, it was Jewish. And indeed, it is extremely plausible that the Palestinians are actually of Jewish ancestry - but neither side wishes to opt for that interpretation of the data... However, it is not even disputed that the Canaanites survived the invasion of Joshua. (What is disputed, actually, is whether there ever even was an invasion of Joshua.) King David was still fighting them (remember the Jebusites?), and the Phoenicians were Canaanites, and called themselves Canaanites. Moreover, Hebrew is a Canaanite language; the fact that the Hebrews ended up speaking it implies a long period of coexistence. As for the demographic statistic, adding the Jewish population would not only be impossible (unless you have sources for the proportion of them that were recent immigrants), it would make comparisons with the current situation impossible, since most Palestinian Jews have rejected that identity. - Mustafaa 02:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The fact that there is no knowledge of what a Phoenician looks like is the point. Even if there is no invasion of Joshua, as it is disputed once again, what happened to the Canaanites since then? The reason I say Aramaic instead of Hebrew is based on the fact that the Palestinians would have descended, if from the Kingdom of Israel, from the Roman Empire (Assuming they weren't slaughtered in the Crusades) of people who spoke Aramaic. Furthermore, just because the Hebrews spoke a Canaanite language isn't relevent, because the Franks spoke both Frankish "German" and Latin, but mostly Latin, and the fact that conquerers can take on the language of the conquered shows that because a language is spoken doesn't mean that a nation survives. Furthermore, even the fact that Jews themselves are descendents of those from Judea is open to speculation, and reasonable speculation at that. And, once again, I point to the Phoenician ancestry being completely altered at some point between the Hellenistic Period and the British Empire to the point of complete assimilation or extinction. Therefore, there is once again no evidence that anyone is purely descended of Phoenicians, and therefore no Phoenician Canaanites-frankly, there is as much evidence of Italians being descended from Canaanites by this logic as well, but I will not go into immigrations into the Italian Peninsula (They're not needed) except that Semitic languages ended up there as well as Italian words. In other words, we have these possibilities:
Jews are descended of Canaanites
Syrians are descended of Canaanites
North Africans are descended of Canaanites
Greeks are descended of Canaanites
Turks are descended, Italians, et cetera...
Its an unfounded claim, as once again, very little is known about the population of the area beginning with the Roman period until the end of the Ottoman Empire. Pro-Israeli sources claim under 100,000 Palestinians were in the region in the 1800s. This could be cited also, which once again hurts the Canaanite claim because this figure seems untenable to be mostly Canaanite in lieu of Arab, Turkish, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Italian, Syrian dominance of the region. And furthermore, some Palestinians who claim that they are descended from Canaanites occasionally also claim that the Kingdom of Israel was located in modern Yemen. This fact, which is cited in pro-Israeli bias, makes the claim even more difficult. It is more likely that the Palestinians are descended of a mix of Hebrews, Romans, Greeks, Syrians, Arabs and other misc. groups. The only of these groups that would be descended possibly from Canaanites are the Hebrews, period, showing no direct, pure descending from any group.
But the reason I disagree with the calling of it a "Zionist Invasion" is just unnecessary for the article. It is harsh PLO rhetoric which can be softened bordering on anti-Semitism. This article isn't supposed to be endorsing PLO claims, or about the PLO, but rather about the Palestinian Identity; nor is it supposed to be about Israeli Identity (Minus Israeli Arabs). There are ways to put that in the article without inflammatory rhetoric. The PLO Charter is not a balanced source of definition for the conflict, and should be used as reference, but definitely not quoted as means of a valid definition. It should, in fact, be quoted only when mentioning an irreconcilable point or when referencing the viewpoint of the PLO (Not the Palestinians). It is pretty much accepted that the PLO is not the sole representative of the Palestinians among nearly anyone in the world today, as you have more moderate groups and more extremist groups competing for power today. It is tantamont to saying that the Nazis killed Jews to "irradicate Marxism"; the Nazis held the two as interchangable terms. One could easily make the point of the Nazis killing Jews without giving it any sort of justification based on the point of view of the killer. In reality, the Palestinians oppose Zionist Immigration, which they term an invasion. If you go with the PLO definition, furthermore, you allow it to be said that all immigration anywhere poses an invasion, such as a Mexican invasion of the south, such as a Jewish/Italian Invasion of New England, etc.
After all, Patrick Buchanan defines immigration as invasion. That doesn't make it neutral. Its a loaded word. It amounts to Immigration and what is summarized from the PLO charter as immigration.
And furthermore, the deletion of the religion statistic is inherently anti-Jewish, because once again, Syrian Immigrants are questionably called Palestinian. Today they are accepted as such (as during the time of the immigration, there was no real difference between a Syrian and Palestinian, aside from Syrian living in Palestine), but on the time of the census of the region, they would definitely not be any more Palestinian than any immigrant would be to a new country. Even then, the definition of Palestinian was questionable, as did it mean person from Palestinian Arab or someone living in Jewish Palestine? The Palestinian Identity up until about 1920 was mostly Syrian, and only after this period does it break off (to deny a separate identity for Palestinians today is folly, as there has been nearly 100 years of isolation from Syria, and this is more than enough time-to say Palestinians do not exist is along the same lines to say that different Romantic Peoples are actually Romans...), but there was no definition for "Palestinian" except someone living in "Palestine" at this time. The Jews therefore could only reject their identification as "Arab", but not Palestinian. Jews also were not Arab, for they typically spoke Hebrew, or at least some other Jewish descended language. Therefore, Jews would have a typically different identity than the surrounding population, but so would immigrants to a large extent. The only way to neutrally omit the Jews from this definition would to basically rename the Palestinians "Syrian" which, of course, few Palestinians today would accept. And once again, I don't have the stats, but if stats can not be found, this is an inherently bias point of view, and should be omitted from this article, or mention of an uncountable large Syrian Immigration DILUTING this count significantly should be mentioned.Jmw0000 07:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Imagine a hypothetical population of 1 million men and 1 million women (all hetero ;-) who in each generation pair up at random and have two children each (so the population remains at 2 million). Now suppose there is exactly one Canaanite among them. After 25 generations, probably every one of the 2 million population will be a descendant of that single Canaanite. If you don't believe it, do your sums. Of course in practice population dynamics are much more complicated, but this just means it takes a few more generations to achieve the same mixing. Thus, if a single Canaanite went to China more than 2000 years ago and left descendants, then today essentially all Chinese would have a Canaanite ancestor. At the other extreme, some the modern DNA methods investigate only the single male line or only the single female line, out of the vast number of lines of descent we all have. So even defining the problem is not so simple. Some population studies use characteristics inherited from both parents then study them statistically so that one can say things like that most of the ancestors of most of one group come from the same place as most of the ancestors of most of some other group. Such studies tend to show Ashkenazi Jews and Palestinians closer together than Ashkenazi and Yemenite Jews are (for example). It's a field I don't trust much because the data is very irregular and multidimensional and this allows the wishes of the experimenter too much freedom in interpretation. --Zero 10:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article isn't about the PLO Charter, or about calling Zionists Invaders. The PLO Charter is a bias source of data and its content need not be questioned. However, it is inflammatory rhetoric in violation of wikipedia policy. If you want to do an article on the PLO Charter calling the immigration a "Zionist Invasion" feel free to. It definitely does not belong here.Jmw0000 07:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quotes don't have to be NPOV (they aren't even supposed to be.) The reason this quote is essential is because it is not clear whether by "Zionist invasion" they mean 1948, 1918, or even the "first Aliyah". If you can find a authoritative source that elucidates that point, then I could see an argument for replacing it. - Mustafaa 23:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Once again, that's Zionist Immigration, and the PLO Charter describes this as Zionist Invasion. Therefore, a neutral description is that the Palestinian Authority accepts Arabs before 1947 and Jews before the Zionist Immigrations, albiet this second point is unclear.Jmw0000 01:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, that would not be an accurate description. The whole point is that "Zionist invasion" might refer to the literal Zionist invasion of 1948, the literal but not entirely Zionist British invasion of 1917, or the figurative "invasion" of the beginnings of Zionist immigration. We have no business assuming we know which of these is meant without a supporting statement from the PLO. - Mustafaa 19:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There was a war in 1948, not really an invasion. What was invaded? Territory that was already Israel? Places where the Syrians and Egyptians came? Wouldn't that not make it a Zionist Invasion but a Syrian and Egyptian invasion? It might be unclear, but it definately points to pre-1948. Jmw0000 18:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"whose ancestors inhabited Palestine before 1918."

Isn't the definition of a Palestinian refugee someone who lived in Palestine before 1946? Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The UN definition of a Palestinian refugee is "whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict", but I'm not sure this has any broader applicability. The PLO charter definition, however, might be good to quote: "The Palestinian identity [is] transmitted from parents to children... The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian. The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians."[1] - Mustafaa 01:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Palestinian Constitution is more authoritative, but vaguer: - Mustafaa 01:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article (12)
Palestinian nationality shall be regulated by law, without prejudice to the rights of those who legally acquired it prior to May 15 ,1948 , or the rights of the Palestinians residing in Palestine prior to that date, and were forced into exile or departed there from or denied return thereto. This right passes on from fathers or mothers to their progenitor. It neither disappears nor elapses unless voluntarily relinquished as provided by law.
No Palestinian shall be deprived of his nationality. The acquisition and renouncement of Palestinian nationality shall be regulated by law. The rights and duties of citizens with multiple nationalities shall be governed by law.
Article (13)
Palestinians who were forced out of Palestine, or departed there from as a result of the 1948 War, and were denied return thereto, shall have the right to return to the State of Palestine and bear its nationality. It is a permanent, inalienable, irrevocable right and shall not lapse by prescription.

State of Palestine shall strive to apply the legitimate right of return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes, and to obtain compensation in accordance with the United Nations Resolution 194 of 1948 , and the principles of International Law, through negotiations, and political and legal channels.

NPOV

This is getting absurd. What exactly is Jmw0000's objection to quoting one of the defining Palestinian political documents on the definition of a Palestinian? - Mustafaa 01:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I took a long break from here and never got a chance to answer, nor did I notice. The answer is simple. Upon the definition of a Palestinian, it is fundamentally unbalanced to cite a document that is, itself, bias as an authoritative definition. Even if the document is to be cited in any form, using the document to define Zionism as an invasion is wholly inappropriate, xenophobic, and has nothing to do with the actual definition of a Palestinian, except to say who is not a Palestinian and in flagrantly unbias terms. This is the objection. If it is simply stated as Zionist Immigrations, that's different. If it is an article on the PNC, that too is different. However, its inappropriate here. Jmw0000 21:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Although I'm trying, I still don't understand your objection. The words "Zionist invasion" are in quotation marks to indicate that this is taken directly from a source, they are not the words of whoever wrote that sentence. It cites one definition for the word "Palestinian", not the definition. And it is outdated, because for example the phrase "from the male line" is not true nowadays (either male or female can bestow a Palestinian ID card on offspring). Ramallite (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't object to it any more. Its simply a definition based on a bias source, and not appropriate. This is appropriate. 68.161.37.126 01:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

WikiPortal

Editors of this article may be interested in Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Palestine. - Mustafaa 23:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Immigrants after 1918 not Palestinian?

Since when are Arabs who entered after 1918 not considered Palestinian? The PLO Charter includes Arabs up to 1947 and I'm sure the current PA accepts this, so where does this idea that it only includes people up to 1918 come from??? Kuratowski's Ghost 21:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1918 is the last date before which both Arabs and Jews are accepted as Palestinians by modern-day Palestinians. - Mustafaa 18:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ancestry

Looks like there are a deceptive half-truths in this section aimed at implying a continuity that does not exist in reality. Sargon settled Arabs in Samaria? Maybe if you really stretch the definition of Arab to mean people from regions that are today Arab. Besides these are ancestors of the Samaritans not Palestinian Arabs. Arabic elements in Nabatean and Edomite inscriptions, sure, but this does not mean that there is any connection to the current Bedouin of the region. The Edomites were converted to Judaism, they didn't become Arabs. The Nabateans assimilated into both the Jewish and Byzantine Greek populations after moving out of their traditional regions, the last identifiable Nabateans were a group of celibate monks at Petra at the time of the Islamic conquest. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The word "Arab" is first mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions, actually; I'm not sure why you think the Assyrians were "stretching the definition" in using it, nor what your evidence for their being ancestors of the Samaritans is. Incidentally, the Samaritans and Jews are, of course, among the ancestors of Palestinian Arabs; conversions to Islam were widespread. The Nabataeans are mentioned long after the Islamic conquest in Arabic texts; they were so widespread that their name eventually became a synonym with "peasant". I've never heard of an Edomite mass conversion to Judaism, but I'd be interested to read about it... - Mustafaa 18:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Both the Edomites and the Nabataeans, in fact, are good examples of the pre-Islamic Arabization of the southern fringe of the Fertile Crescent, which also led to the major pre-Islamic Arab kingdoms of the Ghassanids and Lakhmids in southern Iraq. This process is unquestionably relevant to the history of how Palestine got an majority-Arab population. - Mustafaa 18:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The mass Edomite conversion by the Hasmoneans is well known history and is recorded by Josephus. I have never heard of Nabateans later than the Islamic conquest, where are they mentioned? What evidence links them to modern Bedouin? (The appearance of Arabic like elements in inscriptions is insufficient.) I have always read that the Nabataeans assimilated into the general Byzantine Christian population before the Islamic period.
According to www.nabateans.org: "The Nabatean, who were tent dwellers for hundreds of years, began to build splendid houses at their transition to the life of farmers. By the third century C.E. the Nabateans lost their Aramaic language to Greek, and by the forth century the lost their pagan Semitic religion to Christianity." Kuratowski's Ghost 22:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This language claim, besides completely contradicting the Arabic sources (in which "Nabataean" eventually even became a general synonym for Aramaic-speaker, as noted in the Wikipedia article, from the 1911 Britannica), seems implausible on more general grounds. The language of the Fertile Crescent in pre-Islamic and early Islamic times was overwhelmingly Aramaic; I am aware of no significantly sized Greek-speaking regions there, in Jordan any more than in Palestine. - Mustafaa 00:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also early forms of the word "Arabian" denoted people of the Syrian desert who are not identical to the later Arab nation as we understand the word today which only emerged in Late Antiquity in the Arabian peninsula (a comparison usually given is that similarly the "Romanians" are not the same nation as the "Romans"). It is even questionable if the name of the ancient Arabians of the Syrian desert is identical in meaning to that of the later Arab nation or merely a coincidental similarity. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sargon didn't settle "ancient Arabians". Sargon's people were Akkadians, and they came from the Arabian peninsula. It could be argued that Akkadians are Ancient Arabians but the word Akkadian should be used. Whups, wrong Sargon Yuber(talk) 22:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The appearance of Arabic like elements in inscriptions is insufficient." Actually, it's quite convincing proof that the people in question were speaking Arabic, and hence by definition Arab or Arabized - though not as convinving as the widespread use of an unquestionably Arabic language in the Safaitic inscriptions, in both the Negev and Nabataea proper.

But it is not at all convincing that there is any real continuity between these people and the the present Bedouins. We are talking about a gap of about 2500 years Kuratowski's Ghost 22:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The earliest Arabic inscriptions offer a seamless transition from Nabataean to Arabic script; indeed, it is frequently debated whether Imru' al-Qays's famous tomb inscription was written in early Arabic or late Nabataean alphabet. As for the Edomites, there seems to be some question about whether the attempted forced conversion was actually successful ([2]),

Yannai's forced conversions were indeed denounced by Rabbinal Judaism, but the reality is that the Edomites ended up assimilating into the Jewish people. Edomites are no longer mentioned as a separate group to the Jews after Herod the Great who being of Edomite ancestry was derogatarily still called an Edomite. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's not very convincing; if the Edomites are no longer mentioned, how does that indicate that they had all become Jews, rather than being assimilated to various different ethnicities? And a conversion of Arabized Edomites would be an excellent explanation of the Jewish Arabs mentioned below. - Mustafaa 23:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

but even if it was, there is no reason to believe this interrupted their Arabization; many notable Arab tribes, particularly in the northwest and the south, were Jewish at Muhammad's time, as Dhu Nuwas and Samaw'al ibn Adiya illustrate. The Arabs mentioned by the Assyrians lived in the same place and the same manner as the later Arabs, and spoke the same language (Gindibu is a good Arabic word, not as far as I know found in Semitic generally), and in all probability were, indeed, ancestral to the later Arabs - just as the Romanians are, indeed, among the Romans' descendants. As for Nabataeans, a quick search of alwaraq.com, a database of medieval texts, yields 276 hits for نبطي and 350 for النبطي from such texts as Tabari, Zamakhshari, Ibn al-Nadim, and suggests that many had assimilated to Syriac culture (they are often confused with the Chaldeans), but certainly not to Greek.

Incidentally, for another illustration of the Arabization of Nabataea, see Pre-Islamic Arabic inscriptions (currently restricted to those in the Arabic alphabet).

PS: Yuber, you're mixing up claims here. The resettlement in question is by the Assyrians of Arabs; see Sargon II. - Mustafaa 22:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is this based on an Assyrian inscription or merely an interpretation of what the Bible says? The Bible has in the book of Kings "2Ki 17:24 And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Avva, and from Hamath and Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria". These are all places in Mesopotamia. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Then that would seem to imply that it's based on an Assyrian inscription. I didn't write Sargon II, so I don't know. The Arab mention I'm familiar with myself is of Gindibu, from Shalmaneser III's reign. - Mustafaa 23:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Apparently, yes: [3]. - Mustafaa 23:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Gindibu, from what I understand the Assyrian description of him means a person from the region of Arabaya in the northern Syrian desert. The name Arabaya may simply mean desert region or steppe and thus only indirectly related to the word "Arab" if the latter also comes from the same root although what I've read it is understood to mean "eloquent" the antonym to "Ajam". Kuratowski's Ghost 23:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quite, but that more probably comes from the ethnic use, rather than being its source. What etymological justification is there for the idea that "Arabaya may simply mean desert region or steppe"? - Mustafaa 23:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The fact that `aravah means that in Hebrew. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Religion? Nation?

The text reads

The Palestinians .. designation is independent of nationality and religion (though the vast majority are Muslim).

to be absolutely precise, we should change this to

The Palestinian population is largely Sunni Moslem, with Orthodox Christian, Druze and Jewish minorities.

One problem with the current text as it stands is that it includes Sephardic and Mizrahic Israelis as Palestinians.

The second problem is that the Palestinian people, wherever they may born (ie including those born in exile), are indeed a nation. In this characteristic, they are much like the Jewish people.

Alternatively we can leave the italicised text out.

I wanted to check before jumping in.

Sorry if this is being petty. It's not always easy to be precise. I try to be where I can. --Philopedia 6 July 2005 09:32 (UTC)

The Palestinian National Covenant does officially define Palestinian as including, certainly not all Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews, but all Jews whose ancestors lived in Palestine before "the beginning of the Zionist invasion", presumably 1918. However, I agree that "citizenship" should be substituted for "nationality". -

Sea People

I think the section on origins ought to mention the Sea People (also known as Philistines) who arrived from the Aegean in the 12 century BCE.

The Philistines occupied a thin strip along the coast from Gaza until somewhat short of the (present day) Lebanese border and figured prominently in the Hebrew Bible, especially during the early Kingdoms.

The Sea People seem to have worshipped bulls (drawings on the Temple of Knossos, Ariadne and the maze, invention of bullfighting, etc), so it is tempting to identify their influence with the story of Moses and the golden calf, although evidence that they had already established a presence in the Sinai at such an early date is lacking.

Another theory, which the Palestinians themselves support, identifies the them as a mixture between the Sea People and the Jebusites. The Jesubites were a Canaanite tribe and the original founders of Jerusalem. However, I am not aware of the evidence to support this theory. What's more the geography is wrong. Jerusalem was far away from early Philistine settlements, and the Jesubites are much more likely to have been vanquished and absorbed by the Israelites. So, IMO the claim is likely to be politically motivated.

So far as I can tell, accounts of the ancient Philistines stop shortly before the Babylonian invasion. Keenly valuing their independence, the Philistines would, presumably, have resisted and been defeated. Then it would have been consistent were they to have shared the experience of the Isrealites, many being taken into captivity in Babylon, some remaining behind and, like the Samaritans, mixing with exiles from elsewhere in the Middle East, and then, much later, with invaders from the Arabian peninsula during the Islamic expansion.

Could this be the make up of the Modern Palestinians? Much is speculation, but there must be an archeological record too. Does anyone know better? --Philopedia 7 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)

Firstly it is not known with any certainty if there really is a connection between the Sea Peoples and the Philstines, all that is known is that one group of Sea People the P-r-s-t in Egyptian has a name resembling Hebrew P'lishti for Philistine (Egyptian didn't have an l sound distinct from r). The earliest Philistines are called Avvites in the Bible which says also that they were conquered by newcomers from "Caphtor". Traditionally Caphtor was understood to be Damietta in Egypt, although there are other suggestions about where it was including Crete, Cyprus, Asia Minor, nothing can be said with certainty.

The Philistines gradually assimilated into the Israelites having disappeared as a distinct group already in the Persian period with the last pagans descended from them being converted to Judaism under the Hasmoneans. The Jebusites were conquered by the Israelites and together with the remnants of other conquered Canaanite people became part of the Jewish class known as the Nethinim having a specific religious role of caring for the Temple but who are no longer mentioned as a separate class already at the time of the Maccabees possibly having all been killed by the Seleucids. Clearly no direct connection to modern Palestinians who are separated from them by literally thousands of years of history. Kuratowski's Ghost 7 July 2005 13:18 (UTC)

My understanding is that Palestinians are far more likely to be descended from the Jews, the Samaritans, and any unconverted Canaanites than from the Philistines; the name is inherited via Greek, thanks to administrative boundaries in the early Caliphate, and there is no evidence of a distinct Philistine people by the Arab conquest. - Mustafaa 7 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)

So, the idea is that the original Sea People (Philistines) gave their name to the land, and then, much later, another, nameless, people appeared and took their name from that same land?

Could be, and I suppose it wouldn't be the first time that that happened. --Philopedia 8 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)

No reason to believe they were "nameless"; they just changed their name. It's scarcely unprecedented; look at the etymology of France. - Mustafaa 8 July 2005 20:21 (UTC)
I've heard of a few Palestinians claiming descent from the Philistines, but more claim descent from the Canaanites (even Arafat did at one point I think). The paragraph about to the possible origins of the people should be included in a shortened form . There should also be emphasis on the fact that it is a minority view that is almost impossible to confirm.Heraclius 8 July 2005 23:21 (UTC)

Well, if there is such a minority view, it should perhaps be mentioned; but if so, it must also be mentioned that this is really quite implausible. For a start, there were never any Philistines in most of Palestine; they occupied only the Gaza Strip and its surroundings. Second, the Philistines are not mentioned anywhere after Assyrian times (though the idea that they were destroyed by David is wrong; they are mentioned after David, if I recall.) - Mustafaa 8 July 2005 23:24 (UTC)

Word Palestinian similar to word American

There is a debate about who is or is not a Palestinian. There is a similar debate about who is or is not an American. But most people when they hear the word know what it means (even if they wish that word wasn't used to mean that). For some a Palestinian is defined by residency: a Palestinian lives in Palestine. The same is true of an American: he or she lives in American (that is, the United States). Today scholars research the origins of the Palestinians. In the future, historians may marvel at the diverse and varied origins of the Americans. Are the Palestinians a stateless nation? What then the Americans: a nationless nation? I've heard that there are no Palestinians, but only Arabs; that Palestinian is "made up". Are there Americans then? There are many people of the Earth with a long, unbroken, pure history of ethnicity reaching back into prehistory, but I wonder how accurate these histories are. I wonder if the Palestinian and the American pattern of national origin is not a fine human tradition reaching back through the millenia to our beginnings. -Acjelen 22:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Historical Section

The historical labeling of Palestinian was for Christian Levantines, not Muslims or Jews. Their ancestry in the region went back to the Philistines, which included brief periods of prominence at junctions in between. When Syria Palaestina was made Roman, it was for the "benefit" of the Hellenic population of Palestine. When the Kingdom of Jerusalem was made Catholic, it was for the "benefit" of Orthodox population. In any case, Palestine as a name is not Arabic or Hebrew. Philistines were the anciently resident Japhethic or Caucasoid citizens of the land, regardless of what is now going on with the Arabs and Israelis battling over it. This is like Galatia and Troy in present day Turkey. TheUnforgiven 23:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I hope you're just kidding, and don't seriously believe any of that. Tomer TALK 23:35, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you can shove your POV nonsensicals about the Arab-Israeli conflict to a tee. It still doesn't prove that either one of your sides is right. It's not just you lot who have lived there, but your incessant violence is sure to keep it that way. TheUnforgiven 23:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Look, I'm truly sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but none of what you're saying makes any sense whatsoever. Tomer TALK 02:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

You are not sorry one damned bit. You have yet to refute what I have written. All you do is pass the insults as if it were salt on the dinner table. This is on every article in which we disagree. If you have something useful and constructive to say, then don't be a harpy troll. TheUnforgiven 03:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Is the whole dispute about the link to the Philistines article? The Philistines article is already linked within this article, so there's really no problem.Heraclius 03:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

That's what he doesn't care to understand. He made a huge fuss, only to get his buddy User:Jayjg to revert and make me break the 3RR. I hate this fucking shite they pull! He's painting me as the sort who would say that Hellenic Philistines and Arab Palestinians were/are the same. Since he maybe believes this, he could have presented it as an outright accusation. He chose to make it an edit war for control of the media content, so I doubt such sincerity. Then when out of steam, he got his Israelophile and likewise Jewish partner-in-crime Jayjg to cover him. This coordination of influence is remarked on my User Page. TheUnforgiven 09:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I still don't understand your theory. You're saying the Philistines were Hellenic (which is true) but that they were all converted to Christianity and thus became "Christian Levantines". That is a very hard thing to prove. The use of the word "Levantine" as a description for people is also not very common and is only present in some Lebanese nationalistic rhetoric.Heraclius 16:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see a Palestinian here. This would be the first ever time I did meet one. Basically, Rome took Palestine because the Judeans/Jews were treating Philistines horribly(aka David killing Goliath). The Crusades were also initiated to protect these people and a state was created to be a haven for them. In each circumstance, the Italian West/Catholic came to the "aid"(aside from the imperialist excursions) of the Greek East/Orthodox. First, it was to make Syria Palaestina out of Philistia. Second, it was to make the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem out of Muslim conquests. In the first time, the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus was involved. In the second time, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was involved. As in the case of Gallic Galatians, the West of Europe via the East of Europe has had an important interest in Palestine. The whole Mediterranean Sea/Black Sea basins/watersheds were European by race in ancient times and a population shift slowly followed the retreating ice sheets northwards. Of course, no Arab-Israeli would care to stop and think about what they pursue and how it affects European-American peoples who are extremely sensitive to the affairs of that region. TheUnforgiven 11:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're completely wrong. The Philistines invaded Palestine about the same time as the Hebrews did, the Romans conquered Palestine long after the last attested mention of Philistines (and Rome never invaded places just to help other "natives"), and there is no "European race". - Mustafaa 13:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

That's your problem. Perhaps you think you don't belong to any race? Nice way to reinvent history. TheUnforgiven 21:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa, with all do respect, if The Unforgiven really wrote the paragraph preceeding yours, I think we can safely say s/he is best left ignored. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

demographic research

This article on Palestinian demographics was twice removed from the article: first because it is "unnecessary", and then because "Actually it's a pack of lies. Gottheil is the economist who pretended to be a demographer for Joan Peters". Please provide a link/ref to a better research or explain what is wrong with this one. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The link belongs in From Time Immemorial, not here. Gottheil is not a professional in the field of demography, or even in history, and there are no professional demographers that support his allegations. Proving the worthlessness of his article is quite easy. For example, he mentions that Schmelz tabulated the places of birth of persons living in the Jerusalem and Hebron districts in 1905, but carefully avoids stating Schmelz's figures. Percentage of Muslims born outside Palestine: Jerusalem city 11.7%, Jerusalem villages 0.4%, Hebron city 0.8%, Hebron villages 0.8%. In other words, Gottheil is discussing a very small fraction of the total population but hides that fact from us. Another example is how he keeps referring to the 1931 census but never mentions the entire section on illegal immigration that appears in the 1931 census report. I could go on... --Zero 08:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

TheUnforgiven's recent cut

I am not sure what to make of it. However, before restoring the material TheUnforgiven deleted, I would ask someone to provide sources, I mean (with all due respect) to Ibn Kaldun, the passage referred to other scholars. I'd appreciate knowing who they are. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest the same. We Palestinians know where we came from, but could editors of this piece please cite sources to prevent unnecessary revert wars? Ramallite (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, most of it is just common knowledge, equally applicable to almost the whole Arab world, but a quick Encyclopedia Britannica quote:

For various reasons, the Umayyads paid special attention to Palestine. The process of Arabization and Islamization was gaining momentum there... Conversions arising from convenience as well as conviction then increased. These conversions to Islam, together with a steady tribal inflow from the desert, changed the religious character of Palestine's inhabitants. The predominantly Christian population gradually became predominantly Muslim and Arabic-speaking. (Palestine, in 15th ed. of EB, 1990)

The purely genetic arguments for continuity are already well described. - Mustafaa 23:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Link?

A number of people have been deleting this link:

Apparently there are some comments in Talk: by Zero0000 as to why, but I can't see them here. From what I can tell, it is more encyclopedic than 90% of the links provided in Palestinian related articles. Can someone articulate the specific objections? Jayjg (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Although I haven't messed with that link myself, it seems that whoever wrote "The Smoking Gun" is neither a professional in his field, nor supported by people who are. If so, then this link is, according to Wikipedia policy, a dubious source. Furthermore, that the writer is so easily refuted in his claims reinforces the dubious nature of the article. Therefore, the article is actually inflammatory and misleading. So if what Zero says above is true, adding this link here would be like adding a link to the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" under Wikipedia's "Zionism" article, and worse, having it be one of only two external references there. I think it's worth investigating Zero's claims before attempting to re-insert. (Zero?) Ramallite (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I see Zero's section now, I didn't see it before. Well, there are an awful lot of links that will need to go if we're actually going to insist on encyclopedic and non-biased ones; as I estimated before, about 90% of them on these kinds of articles. Jayjg (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Although most non-encyclopedic and biased ones - coming from any side of any conflict - still have some truth to them in that they may state facts but exaggerate their implications, e.g. A poked fun at B (fact), therefore A must be proficient at playing a Swedish harmonica and is also a hater of blind Bhuddists (exaggerated implication). These could serve as a source that A poked fun at B because of (whatever reason) as long as there is an opposing view stated in order to maintain neutrality. We run into this in science all the time: a journal article will describe a set of well-designed experiments in which the authors came to a certain conclusion, but another scientist reads the paper, sees the same data, and arrives at a completely different conclusion. As long as the data is sound, the paper can be sourced and interpreted at will. But when the data itself is fabricated (as seems to be the case above), that's something else. Ramallite (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Jewish minorities?

"The Palestinian population is largely Sunni Muslim, with Christian, Druze, Jewish, and Samaritan minorities." Who comprises the Jewish minority of the Palestinian population? Jayjg (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Palestinian#Religions: "there are also about 300 Samaritans and a few thousand Jews from the Neturei Karta group who consider themselves Palestinian." - Mustafaa 22:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
For which see their site: "We seek to live in the land of Palestine as anti Zionist Jews. To reside as loyal and peaceful Palestinian citizens..." - Mustafaa 23:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I see, that is their goal? And yet they are currently not living there, nor do they call themselves Palestinians, nor are they Palestinian citizens. Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I think that statement refers to the original term "Palestinian" which encompassed anybody living on the land. Also, a top official of Neturei Karta, Rabbi Moshe Hirsch, was "Minister for Jewish Affairs" in the first PA government in 1996. If we want to get into specifics, we have at least one couple who are close friends of my family where the husband is Palestinian and the wife is Jewish, born abroad and now "naturalized" inasmuch as that makes sense in a non-sovereign country. Both have Palestinian IDs and are residents. And I know of a few other similar cases as well. So both historically and currently, to claim that there are no Palestinians who are Jewish is untrue. Ramallite (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
The original statements was a theoretical political position, not an actual reflection of reality. And regarding the tiny number of Jews who have Palestinian IDs, I suspect that there are probably several Buddhists who are Palestinians as well; should they be mentioned? The "Jewish minority", such as they are, are an insignificant number, and they are only listed here for political purposes. Jayjg (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
The problem here is that the meaning of the term "Palestinian" has changed over the years. I have read books from the 1940s that speak of Palestinians taking it for granted that the term refers to Jews living in the Yishuv. I would propose that we can have a subcategory under Category:Palestinian people called Category:Palestinian Jews or something along those lines. I am trying to figure out the political implications of such a categorization - on the one hand, it makes the point that there are lots of Jews native to the area prior to the establishment of Israel; on the other, it is consistent with the PLO charter that the Palestinian nationality has nothing to do with language (though it is supposed to be part of the pan-Arabic nation). --Leifern 22:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If you find the Buddhists, by all means. But the Jewish minority has much more of a history.

Lapsed Pacifist 04:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

It does? What exactly is that history? An Israeli member of Neturei Karta acting as a propaganda-tool/"Minister of Jewish Affairs"? Please specify what you mean. Jayjg (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Neta Golan, a thirty-year-old Israeli peace activist and Buddhist, lives with her Palestinian husband in Ramallah See: http://www.ralphmag.org/BK/neta-golan.html --PinchasC 05:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Neturei Karta can point to a long tradition of living in Palestine, predating most Jewish settlement. Palestinian Buddhists do not have this history. But if you find more, by all means, include them.

Lapsed Pacifist 05:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Living in Palestine? Possibly. Depends on what you define as Palestine. They live in Israel. 1949 Armistice Lines Israel. I still haven't noticed them calling themselves "Palestinian". Have you? Jayjg (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

By their definition, 1949 Armistice Lines Israel is Palestine. By the PNC definition, most are Palestinian; by their own website's claims, they are Palestinian; and at least one has served in the Palestinian government, a post which would scarcely be opened to a non-Palestinian. The number of Palestinian Samaritans is significantly smaller, but, again, of special historical relevance. - Mustafaa 12:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If you complain that they aren't notable enough for the intro, discussion of them (and, of course, the Samaritans) could be postponed to the religions section, and replaced in the intro with "others" or something, although by the PNC definition they might be as much as ~5%. However, they, like the Samaritans, certainly merit mention in the article - as would Palestinian Buddhists, in the unlikely event that there actually is a verifiable Palestinian Buddhist community. - Mustafaa 13:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mustafaa, if the inclusion is controversial it should just be put lower down and its controvertiality noted.Heraclius 17:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
It might be relevant to put a description of them in the Religions section, provided it actually dealt in a factual way with their only theoretical/purely political existence. Jayjg (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
A brief description is already there (have you read this article yet?), and a minister in the PNA is rather more than a "theoretical" entity. - Mustafaa 18:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I see the description. "Minister of Photo Opportunities" is a real entity, but only in the realm of political theatre. Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Flag caption

I would like to say that the Flag of the Palestinian people is that of the Arab Revolt, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar or seriously deluded. PJaz.

The caption on the flag in the info box says that the flag was adopted in 1948. Could whoever put that assertion in there please source it? Or anyone else? Please? Thanks. Until then, I'm taking it out. Tomer TALK 03:01, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

One link that it is 1948 is here. Also, the statement that this is the "widely recognized symbol of the Palestinian Authority" but not necessarily the Palestinian people is utter absolute rubbish. This flag has symbolized the Palestinian people long before there was any PA or PLO in fact. The colors of the flag are used by many Arabic speaking countries, but this specific pattern was adopted by the Palestinians a long time ago. Ramallite (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
The flag is a symbol of Palestinian nationalism wherever one goes. Hamas is put in a peculiar position in that nationalism goes against its Salafist "all for the ummah" views, but it still sees itself as a Palestinian nationalist group. Therefore, even Hamas members would look to the flag as a symbol of the Palestinian people.Heraclius 03:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Ramalite and Heraclius are quite correct. --Zero 04:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't think including a flag is appropriate. The Palestinian flag symbolizes a nationalist movement not an ethnic group. Also many Hamas members don't look to the flag as a symbol of the people, but a symbol of other nationalist factions. You may even notice they wave other flags at their rallies, with the Palestinian nationalist flag almost always absent. For the sake neutrality I think the flag should be removed. --Yodakii 14:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Read the text above. The flag symbolizes a nationalist movement because of the fact that it symbolizes (or has come to symbolize) the Palestinian people. Hamas people carry their party flag at rallies, but there is no dispute as to what the "Palestinian flag" is, and they are carried at Hamas rallies as well (unfortunately). Ramallite (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. The flag has always been an explicitely Arab nationalist symbol [4]. There is a dispute within Palestinian society as to whether or not the "Palestinian flag" represents the people. Besides a large anti-nationalist Islamic population, there are Israeli citizens and a diaspora population which includes people considered Palestinian who would identify more with their host governments' flags than the Palestinian one. I think the main reason the flag is mistaken to represent the entire people is because the nationalist faction for various political reasons is still the only one recognised by the "international community" as representing the people. This isn't a neutral position. If this article was about Palestinian nationalism, including the flag would be appropriate. This article is about the Palestinian people. The Israeli flag is not the flag of all Jewish people, the Japanese flag is not flag of all Japanese people, and the Palestinian flag is not the flag of all Palestinian people. --Yodakii 17:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I honestly don't follow. First, I belong to Palestinian society (although admittedly not the diaspora community) and have never heard of the dispute you speak of. Second, if I understand your point, which I may not, do we not use a flag that represents a people because a number of individuals have emigrated to other countries and are now citizens of other countries? I've been to numerous Palestine-related functions abroad, and even though the event participants are citizens of their respective countries, the Palestinian flag is displayed as it is a Palestine-related event. Expatriates and their children often use the flag to symbolize their heritage, just like any expatriate community anywhere. Third, it is also the only flag recognized by Palestinians themselves as representing the Palestinian people, not just the international community (this pertains to the discussion above). Fourth, you seem to be splitting hairs unnecessarily, because I'm sure there are anarchists in every country who don't recognize the legitimacy of their national flag, but is that a reason to remove the flag from an encyclopedia? I don't know if you are of Palestinian heritage or not, but I definitely am, and if you don't want to take my opinion into consideration (most people don't when it comes to Palestine, heck I'm only Palestinian!!), would you at least consider getting other opinions before removing it? Thanks ;) Ramallite (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • My heritage and yours doesn't count here.
When it comes to describing opinions on the discussion page, it helps in certain contexts. You stated "There is a dispute within Palestinian society as to whether or not the "Palestinian flag" represents the people" which to me is original research, and since you brought original research into this, I figured I would offer a more accurate perspective, and justify my "accuracy" by pointing out my heritage. This is a discussion page after all. The only source that comes close is this op-ed piece in which the writer laments the use of factional flags in rallies, but I cannot find evidence that certain Palestinian factions (even those talked about in the link) do not recognize the "Palestinian flag" as representing their nation. Ramallite (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think we're misunderstanding each other but I've never heard of using a flag to represent emigrants. Palestine-related events are almost always political and often organised by Palestinian nationalists and who are more visible at such events compared with other groups. When expatriates use a flag to represent themselves they make an explicity political statement.
Because of the unique situation of the Palestinian people and their lack of independence, it is inevitable that any such function is tied to nationalism. It's part of who the Palestinians are at this moment in time, for better or for worse. Also, many times, people looking at the conflict from the outside tend to confuse "political" with "humanitarian". Ramallite (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The absence of other widely recognised flags is irrelevant.
Then we truly are misunderstanding each other, because if there is one "flag of Palestine" that Palestinians claim represents them, and there is no dispute over that (notwithstanding OR), and there are no other flags, widely recognized or not, I guess I fail to see your point. Ramallite (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The existence of people who don't recognise the legitimacy of the flag means there isn't a consensus on the issue. It is reason enough to remove it from the article. There is a whole other article about the Palestinian flag in this encyclopedia (which could be expanded, by the way).
Again, do you have sourced material to back up your claim that there are Palestinians who "don't recognise the legitimacy of the flag"? Ramallite (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
--Yodakii 14:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Look, basically I object to having a large flag in such a prominent position in an article about an ethnic group. As a compromise, how about putting an image of the flag in the "nationality" or "representatives" section, somewhere near the image of Arafat (another widely recognised symbol of the Palestinian people)?
Again, I wish to have consensus from others who are familiar with the history of the flag (and can source such claims) other than myself (regardless of heritage). Perhaps you could ask other Wikipedians to weigh in, because I myself don't know who here would know enough about this subject. There must still be a misunderstanding, because I fail to see why you are making an issue out of what would be otherwise regarded as a non-issue. There is no dispute that I can find about the flag representing all Palestinians, regardless of the fact that Hamas prefers to display their factional flags at rallies (to show off). Have you seen the Hamas Emblem? As for Arafat, I would argue that there is enough evidence to apply your objections above to him. In other words, everything you said above regarding the dispute of who represents Palestinians is certainly more applicable to Arafat than the flag, because he represented the "leadership" and is now dead, and many factions or individuals did not regard him as their leader, while the flag is far more representative of the Palestinians then Arafat was. I don't think, based on sources that I can find, that the two are equivalent. Ramallite (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
--Yodakii 14:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I admit, the dispute I'm talking about is based on original research, as its based mostly on personal familiarity with members of Islamic groups such as Muslim Brothers and others among Palestinians who consider the Palestinian flag a colonial and nationalist symbol. I haven't found any sources showing Palestinians explicitly rejecting the national flag. But I think it is a well-known fact that many Muslims are anti-nationalist and rejection of nationalist symbols would go without saying. The piece you link to illustrates nationalists' intolerance of other banners besides their own and confirms somewhat what I know, that the Palestinian flag is seen as another factional flag by some people. But its not English, and I haven't found any sources myself... In any case, I still think keeping the Palestinian flag at the top of the article is a nationalist POV. I haven't found any other articles about an ethnic group in wikipedia that displays a national flag, whether that is deliberate or not, I think it makes sense. I don't know where to look for other opinions here. ... anyone reading who has an opinion on this: please share! (especially if you agree with me) --Yodakii 16:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
If your objections are based on the fact that other articles you looked at don't have a flag, I guess my response would be that, although there is no real reason to remove it (in my mind), there is no absolute necessity to have it. If nobody else weighs in during the weekend, and you still feel strongly about it, I won't object to it being reduced in size or removed, but it would be nice to have some other illustration, like a dance troupe or something similar, for example, like here. Ramallite (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there any way to center the flag than the Arab table?Heraclius 23:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the flag should be replaced with the word "Allah" written in purple Arabic caligraphy. --Zeno of Elea 00:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
False parallel, the reason being that there is no dispute amongst the Palestinian community about whether or not the flag is a symbol of the Palestinian people. That was a nice try, though.Heraclius 00:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I've centered the image (look at the diff to see how). I still hold in doubt the assertion that it was adopted in 1948 as the banner of the Palestinian people...the "history" given at Ramallite's webreference sounds pretty revisionist to me. Until I have something concrete to argue against it, however, I'll just leave it be. Tomer TALK 02:25, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sources

Sources for Zuhayr Muhsin (used to be Zuhair Mohsen) which are probably too specialised to attach to the article:

While I'm typing, I'll dispose of another common quote that does not belong in the article. Ahmed Shukairy, who would later become the first leader of the PLO, told the UN Security Council in 1956 that "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria". The reason that this was not a Palestinian expression of pan-Syrianism is that Shukairy at the time was the Syrian representative on the UNSC (Official Records, 724th Meeting, page 10). He had to present the Syrian position regardless of his own opinions. His statement was supposed to counter the Israeli claim to sovereignty over the DMZ between Israel and Syria.

--Zero 13:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

This article needs fixing my an entire section accidently got deleted while I was correcting spelling (read accident as household pet on keyboard).

My changes

I don't know why my changes were removed. they all fixed contradictions in the article itself. Not all Palestinians come from "Palestine". many come from other places, like Syria and Lebanon, and if youre going to claim that Neturei kara are palestinians, then you can't claim they came from "Palestine". The article also says that whether Arab Israelis are Palestinian or not is debated, then in the next sentence says that theyre palestinian. that's a contradiction. next you claim that a unique accent is a feature of Palestinians, then say only rural palestinians have it. that's another contradiction. so I fixed it to say that rural palestinians have it. next you claim "many" Palestinans thought Palestine was their country, but the whole paragraph above says mostly the opposite, and you provide no proof it was many. John McW 00:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

full of contradictions

This from the article:

"The current draft of the Palestinian constitution, which will take effect should the Palestinian Authority be dismantled and an independent state is established, states that: "Palestinian citizenship shall be organized by law without prejudicing the right of anyone who acquired it before 15 May 1948 in accordance with the law or the right of the Palestinian who was resident in Palestine before that date. This right is transmitted from fathers and mothers to their children. The right endures unless it is given up voluntarily." [1]

Let's see now...am I getting this right? There is no Palestinian State at this point, but if there is one, then anyone who was a Palestinian citizen 60-odd years ago ...what? And if it isn't your state anymore, then how can you determine what your 'rights' are. The Israelis decide who lives in Israel. There was never a state called Palestine. It was an area, a neighborhood, which included Jordan, West Bank.. see "Palestine Under British Mandate Map here: MAP To call Jews "Palestinians" (line 1) today seems a rather disingenuous way to claim ownership of all of Israel under the nomen of "Palestine". Juanita 02:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

You probably misunderstood - the constitution is for a State of Palestine that was supposed to be the outcome of the final status agreements with Israel (that never took place) and is now envisioned in the Road Map. Also, what you added about all inhabitants of British mandate territory being call "Palestinians" I don't think is true, because the name "transjordan" quickly took precedence according to what I've read.
---- the speed by which the name changes means little. Look at the speed with which the name "Palestinian" became associated with Arabs only, just since 1967! A linquistic vacuum developed when Israel became a modern state and called her citizens Israelis. Israel by becoming 'Israelis',(which they have only been for ~58 years of so, this time round) left it open for the Arabs to identify themselves as "Palestinians" and today they are in reality the ONLY Palestinians. To say that Jews are Palestinians today is disingenuous, to say the least. Juanita

Culture

Jayg, as for that last edit, I don't have a reference as of now which says what was added in so many words, however I have done a little searching and found many sites that mention both of those new points in passing. One good example is this one: http://www.cafearabica.com/issue1/sections/culture/farah&hanan/commit2.html The author of that site is talking about an organisation dedicated to Palestinian culture. She mentions "Arab and specifically Palestinian culture," and talks about collecting Palestinian and Syrian (another Arabic culture) artifacts. I am not sure about how citation works on Wikipedia, I'll check on that if you want a link to that and/or some other pages which corroborate this point. It seems, though, a pretty minor and uncontroversial point, and this might be needless clutter for the external links. She also mentions a bit about the history (in terms of the cultural artifacts she is interested in) in "Gauze from Gaza, damask from Damascus." This is at least reference to the information I added - that Palestinian culture is Arabic, and the Mediterranean region is historically well-travelled (involved in trade, what have you). The history of other nearby countries has resulted in a similar situation to the one I pointed out in my edit. For example, check out Demographics of Lebanon for corroboration that historical diversity of population is a typical feature of this region. Still, Lebanese culture is generally considered Arabic.

I have been consulting Wikipedia and contributing occasionally on and off for a few years, but I only recently registered as a contributor. Is it common practice to simply delete an edit if you have a question about it? Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but I thought it was supposed to be discussed first. That said, I would like to restore my edit, but I won't do so immediately in case I'm missing something important - awaiting contributions from you or others. Joomba 09:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Joomba

The edit was highly POV - please review WP:NPOV to understand the issue. Jayjg (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I must ask you to be more specific in your objections. I actually have reviewed that page in the past, again more recently, and briefly again now. Also, I would like you to go over section 9.7 of that page.
You added the following text: "While most Palestinians define themselves as Arabs, their ancestry is most probably a combination of many tribes that inhabited the region over many centuries. This is typical, of many modern populations defining themselves as Arab - especially in the historically well-traveled Mediterranean region. Palestinian culture is steadfastly Arabic." The claims you added are points of view - what evidence do you have to back them up? How do you know that this is "typical"? What does a cultre being "steadfastly Arabic" even mean? And what is section 9.7 of the page - it only goes up to section 6. Jayjg (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I meant section 9.7 of this page. Also, you're mistaken: the only lines I added were "This is typical, (comma sic) of many modern populations defining themselves as Arab - especially in the historically well-traveled Mediterranean region. Palestinian culture is steadfastly Arabic." Please view the article's history. As support for my additions, however, I provided a reference to the demographics of Lebanon page (showing that other modern Arab populations are both Arabic in culture and ancestrally diverse), and a link to an archivist of Palestinian culture who mentions "Arab and specifically Palestinian culture," and talks about collecting Palestinian and Syrian (the significance being that Syrians are also Arabs, and are culturally similar) cultural artifacts as part of her work. Why did you ignore these pieces of evidence? Did you miss them? All you have done is reiterated that you feel my additions were POV. I have provided links, and you seem to have missed them. Anyway, the first sentence is entirely verifiable, and therefore not POV. Perhaps "steadfastly" was not the clearest word to use, but the point stands. I will omit that. If you have something to add, more than reiteration of your objection, please do.Joomba 10:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Palestinian culture is just arabic culture. Nothing special except maybe a speciality in terrorism.

Ancestry

Humus Sapiens, I have to object to your most recent edit. You said it was in order to NPOV the article, however I don't think that helped at all. Also, the word "Semitic" can refer to the people. Check out this entry from Webster's: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=semitic and this entry from Oxford http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/semite?view=uk. I think that pretty much wraps up that issue. As far as saying that the Palestinians themselvs make this claim, I think that would require a lot of qualifications (which Palestinians, and says who) and evidence, whereas saying that they "are considered" as such, as was written in the last edit, is NPOV, because it relies on the facts (the facts listed in the very next sentences, which you left unchanged). I assume you don't dispute the validity of these facts, so in what way is your change more NPOV?

First, in the future please type ~~~~ to auto-sign your posts in Talk.
Second, sorry, I'll have to disappoint you: in modern context, "semitic" does indeed refer to languages and your links actually confirm that (thank you). We are not using ancient or religious terminology here, and it won't help you anyway. The phrase "Arabs, Crusaders, Romans, Jews, and other Semetic people" was very bad.
Third: "Palestinians are considered to have a very mixed ancestry" -- by whom? Proof please. Ironically, in another article some editors insist that "Zionism is racism". I am looking forward to you telling them that it's impossible to have racism against "very mixed ancestry". Cheers. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about the lack of signature. I checked the two links again, and I don't see where they confirm your contention. As for their use (neither is marked as archaic), I will paste what the sources say here: ' a member of a people speaking a Semitic language, in particular the Jews and Arabs.' and 'A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.' Both sources say that "Semite" and "Semitic" can mean "Arab". Yes, they do refer to the languages as well, but as I'm sure you're aware, plenty of words have more than one meaning. See, for example, http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=French . I'm not sure what you mean by "help" me, but until I see some evidence that the words "Semite" and "Semitic" are not valid in the way they were used originally, I think we have to consider your position unsupported, and the original usage supported by two important English dictionaries.
I can accept that "are considered" requires too much qualification and needs rewording. However, I will point out again that your rewording is not helpful in this respect. Not only does it require citation as well, but it is much more contentious - it violates [article 6] by implying that this stance is somehow unreliable because it originates from Palestinians (you may find some examples of Palestinians who take this stance, but without massive clarification and setting bounds on the use of the word it will still be a characterisation) and is without independent support. A better rewording can be found. In any case, there is support for the position - that the Palestinians have a mixed ancestry - in the very article, and in fact in the next few lines themselves.
Anyway, any good anthropology book will tell you that race is a social construct, and is in the eye of the beholder. Whatever ones ancestry is, mixed or not, one can be the victim of racism simply by being perceived a member of a certain "race" by someone else. That's not really relevant to what we're talking about. Awaiting your response before making fixes. Joomba 10:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
We are not that far apart. Of course we are talking about people. But it is not Semitic people but rather people speaking S. languages. Including into this group the Romans and Crusaders is plain wrong. By "won't help", I simply meant that such definition is too broad and therefore is conterproductive = unhelpful.
I do not contest their mixed ethno-religious ancestry. IMHO, "are considered" (by whom?) is even worse than "they claim" (I realize the Palestinians have wildly different opinions, but at least the reader would know where to start). In a serious encyclopedia, I would prefer to have "According to scholar X ..." Cheers. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Can anybody provide a serious source or citation for the "Jews, Romans, Arabs, Crusaders, and other people have all settled in the region and intermarried" claim? The two citations provided link to partisan sites, one of which claims Palestinian ancestry to the Canaanites. Please provide an academic source for significant amount of Jews having remained in Palestine after 300 CE and intermarried with the other groups cited.

Unfortunately (for some), there are some topics that only parties of direct relation will write about that foreign parties will have no interest in. If a Ukrainian publication writes about the history of the Ukrainian people, I don't think anybody would call that 'partisan'. At the same time, I don't think Greek historians would have much interest in writing about the Ukrainian people. As such, it seems that Palestinians are the only people in the world who are not allowed to write any sort of history about themselves without having a 'partisan' or 'biased' label automatically attached. So please keep in mind two completely radical concepts: One, not everything written about the Palestinian people is automatically political, and two, Palestinians (or the non-Jewish natives of the holy land, whatever you wish to call them) are human beings too, and it is not a far-fetched idea that human beings love and marry other natives of the same land. Ramallite (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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://en.wikipedia.org/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
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinians/Archive_1&oldid=1278759084"