Wrong again. DNA shows that they are the direct descendants of the Israelites.
oralloy wrote:DNA shows that they are the direct descendants of the Israelites.
No, it doesn't show that. What it DOES in fact show is that Palestinian and Jewish DNA are essentially indistinguishable, and that the range of Palestinian variation falls smack in the middle of the range of Jewish variation.
Oralloy persistently misreads it.
They've always been part of the same population.
Which means the Palestinians are not indigenous to Israel. They come from somewhere else.
Which means the Palestinians are not indigenous to Israel. They come from somewhere else.
They ARE THE SAME PEOPLE genetically and by religion and culture.
. Some Palestinians are Muslims who practice Islam; some are Christians and some practice Judaism. Going back 2000 years ago all were Palestinians who gradually chose different religions.
oralloy wrote:Which means the Palestinians are not indigenous to Israel. They come from somewhere else.
To use one of your favorite words, oralloy.
What it means, oralloy, is that the Palestinians have been there all along.
They are as indigenous to the land as the Jews
(and anyway, indigeneity has never been the question. It's just your red herring.
there are rights recognized under international law, including rights of return of people displaced by war, which the Israelis have violated for decades, and that's the true question).
Read the often-cited artticle on Palestinian and Jewish DNA. It simply does not say what you keep saying it does.
Just the opposite. When I point out the fact that the Palestinians are from somewhere other than Israel, that is called telling the truth.
I'll agree, native Palestinian Jews and native Palestinians share the same roots with the exception of the newly arrived European Jews who believe they have a god-given right to kick the natives out.
Going back 2000 years ago all were Palestinians who gradually chose different religions.
The religion, Islam, came along 600 years later, and is observed today by the descendants of the original people.
The poster Advocated reminded me that Islam did not exist prior to 600 years ago.
Israel is desperately hungry for land and will not stop until its taken over all of the West Bank with the silent acquiescence of the US.
Israel is trying to capture all the land which once belonged to ancient Israel over 2000 years ago.
The Zionist nature knows full well no court in the land will recognize such a laughably preposterous claim that the ancient land of Israel from 2000 years ago rightfully belong to European Jews.
Israel cannot live as just a purely Jewish state forever, or else it will take on the label of Apartheid....some call it that already, comparing it to the former South African apartheid state.
In this case, you are going against history and science, which is quite clear that the Israelis are the indigenous population and the Palestinians come from somewhere else.
The only people here who are trying to kick out the natives, are the Palestinians.
It's certainly understandable that the Jews would hope to be restored to their anscestral homeland.
The simplistic idea that "the Jews" have an ancestral homeland in Palestine is a part of Zionist ideology that's based on religious mythology. The Jewish religion began in Palestine, "the Jews" have origins in the various parts of the world where they live. The Ashkenazim, the Jews that came up with Zionism, are a European people.
Well flip my flapjacks, Blue. I could have sworn they were clustered about Jerusalem until about 1900+/- years ago.
The destruction of the temple in 70 CE changed things in a big way.
Don't flip your skirt too high. This is just more simplistic thinking. There was a minority of Jews living "clustered about Jerusalem," during that timeline. Most Jews lived outside of Palestine throughout the Roman Empire by the time of the destruction of the second temple. These Jews were mostly coverts from what is now Syria who helped spread their religion and language, Aramaic, throughout the Middle East. It was these Jews, for the most part, that spread the religion westward and then throughout Central and Eastern Europe.
There were no Ashkenazi Jews "clustered about Jerusalem" during your timeline.
Not so fast. oralloy. Are you forgetting where the words Palestine and Palestinians come from? Every etymology I'm familiar with suggests that it's a relatively recent (last 1,000 years or so) corruption of the ethnic identification of Philistines who were the original inhabitants of Canaan and of the real estate package which eventually became the twin kingdoms of Judea and Israel. That's according to the Bible anyway.
Again, according to the Bible --
The Israelites certainly did not arise out of a Canaanite Bronze Age culture.
The ancestors of the Israelites, led by Abraham, were native to Mesopotamia, specifically a city called Ur of the Chaldees (that's modern-day Iraq).
Read the story of Samson if you want to know who the Philistines were. They were the original occupants of the area and fought the invading Hebrews.
Now whether modern-day Palestinians can actually claim descent from the Philistines of old is just as meaningless and irrelevant a question as whether modern-day Jews are really direct descendants of those polytheistic nomads who, under Father Abraham, came into Palestine from Iraq. It has little bearing on the contemporary situation in the Near East,
Please note: you are probably aware that I am generally allied with you on this one issue of supporting the rights of Israelis against Palestinian terrorism. You'll get no arguments from me on that. But you do our cause no service by muddling generally accepted historical facts.
The fact that the Israelis are indigenous to the area does give them a certain right to live in their homeland
If the story of Samson says that the Philistines were the original inhabitants, that is a good reason to disbelieve the story's accuracy regarding the Philistines.
MPs have voted in favour of recognising Palestine as a state alongside Israel.
The House of Commons backed the move "as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution" - although less than half of MPs took part in the vote.
The result, 274 to 12, is symbolic but could have international implications.
Ministers abstained on the vote, on a motion put forward by Labour MP Grahame Morris and amended by former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
Middle East Minister Tobias Ellwood said the UK reserved the right to recognise Palestine when it was "appropriate for the peace process".
In 2012 the UN General Assembly voted to upgrade the Palestinians' status to that of "non-member observer state". Some 41 nations - including the UK - abstained.
Current UK government policy is that it "reserves the right to recognise a Palestinian state bilaterally at the moment of our choosing and when it can best help bring about peace".
During the Commons debate on Monday Mr Morris said recognising Palestine as a state would be a "symbolically important" step towards peace, saying relations between Israelis and Palestinians were "stuck at an impasse".
The full motion stated: "That this House believes that the government should recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution."
Explaining Labour's support, shadow foreign minister Ian Lucas said it would "strengthen the moderate voices among the Palestinians who want to pursue the path of politics, not the path of violence".
"This is not an alternative to negotiations. It is a bridge for beginning them," he said.
Conservative Nicholas Soames said: "I'm convinced that to recognise Palestine is both morally right and is in our national interest."
Another former foreign secretary, Conservative MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind, said he too wanted to see a two-state solution but added: "Symbolism sometimes has a purpose. It sometimes has a role. But I have to say you do not recognise a state which has not yet got the fundamental ingredients that a state requires if it's going to carry out its international functions and therefore, at the very least, I would respectfully suggest this motion is premature."
It is convention that ministers abstain when voting takes place on a backbench MP's motion and those of both the Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties did so. It is, however, Lib Dem policy to support recognition of Palestinian statehood.
The government is not bound to do anything as a result of the vote. Mr Ellwood said the timing of when the UK opts to accept Palestinian statehood was "critical", insisting: "You can after all only play this card once."
He added that Israel lived "in a tough neighbourhood" and had the right to defend itself. But he said its recent expansion settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem made it hard for its friends, including the UK, to make the case that it was committed to peace.
Mr Ellwood also said: "Only an end to the occupation will ensure that Palestinian statehood becomes a reality on the ground. The UK will bilaterally recognise a Palestinian state when we judge that it can best help bring about the peace."
The vote comes amid moves elsewhere in Europe to recognise Palestinian statehood officially, more than 100 countries having done so.
Israel says moves to recognise Palestine are premature and undermine efforts to reach a peace settlement between the two sides.
But Palestinian officials say they have been forced to pursue measures including seeking greater recognition internationally because a succession of peace talks has failed.
Labour has twice called on the government - in 2011 and 2012 - to back Palestine's request for official state recognition at the UN.
oralloy wrote:The fact that the Israelis are indigenous to the area does give them a certain right to live in their homeland.
No, it doesn't. Not two thousand years after theyir ancestors went to live somewhere else.
And if you think it does then you have to admit that the Palestinians who are also indigenous have the same rights to the land, and by any reasonable standard have more right, because their ancestors didn't leave.
And to repeat, supposed indigeneity is not a basis in international law for who has rights.
oralloy wrote:If the story of Samson says that the Philistines were the original inhabitants, that is a good reason to disbelieve the story's accuracy regarding the Philistines.
So basically you're saying that if the bible can be somehow be made to support your view of history it's true, but if it doesn't support it, it's false.
That's cherry picking, oralloy, and it's logically indefensible.
In addition of course the bible proudly talks about the genocide committed by the Israelites to construct their teeny tiny state, which you apparently gloss over,
and never even dealing with the Roman conquest at all. If one conquest is all right with you, then the others should logically be too.
Now this is historic, and a probable bellwether of change. The news on my phone just said that Parliament in the UK voted 274 to 12 to recognize the Palestinian state.