Talk:Palestinian people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Palestinian people: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh


Here are some tasks you can do:
    Globe icon The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
    Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.
    Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
    NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
    ??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
    ??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
    		After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
    WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

    Contents

    [edit] Archive

    Note that previous discussions on this topic are archived here:

    Talk:Palestinian/Archive 1 2001-July 14, 2003 Talk:Palestinian people/Archive 2 July 15, 2003-July 15, 2004 Talk:Palestinian people/Archive 3 July 16, 2004-July 16, 2005

    [edit] Reference has been disabled

    The link to reference #25 (The Arnaiz-Villena paper) is broken and does not work. Can someone please fix it? 64.121.193.126 03:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)ps

    [edit] Misunderstanding Indeed

    Mr Majd Mash you have a misunderstanding of History.

    It was the Romans who conquered ISRAEL, and renamed it 'Palestina' as a term of Insult to the Jews (who had defeated and scattered their non-native enemy Philistines). They also renamed Jerusalem 'Aela Capitolina' which did not stick.

    The above is just one reason your comparison to "calling Americans" "Indians" doesn't work. If one refers to the real and original names it makes perfect sense; "Jews" are from..... Ju-dea. (and surrounds) Hark!

    Arabs are from Arab-ia; the Arabian Peninsula, Now Saudi Arabia. They didn't get to be the 'natives' of anywhere else until agressive Mohammedenism swept them through the Middle East, North Africa, and Southern Europe from the 7th-12th century AD. Just vestiges of the Original populations of Animists, Polytheists, and Christians such as Assyrians, Copts, Phoenicians, byzantines, etc, remain in these conquered and cleansed lands.

    BUT, the point of my correction below was to the 20th century usage of the term which is Mistaken by Wiki. That is what I corrected as it was/IS mistaken. My point was not to get into ancient history as I just did above, but merely to correct who was called, (and who considered themselves) 'Palestinians' in the 20th Century.. and that would be.. Jews.

    abu afak, abu_afak2@yahoo.com

    [edit] Misunderstanding of the term "Palestinian"

    The term "palestinian" is refered to all of those people that nativley lived in the area of palestine, this area was called "Philisteen" or in Arabic : "فلسطين" . see Palestine it says: "The term "Palestine" derives from the word Philistine, the name of a non-Semitic ethnic group, originating from Southern Greece,closely related to early Mycenaean civilization. They inhabited a smaller area on the southern coast, called Philistia"

    it says too that they exist before, on and after the 830s BC.

    Another thing, use your logic and your mind, it doesn't make sense at all to call a "Jew" by "Palestinian", it's pretty much the same as calling an "American" by "Indian", or vice versa if you like it...

    Arabs did not say that jews did not exist on the holy land of Palestine, I didn't say that either. we recognise that Jews lived in the holy land, but you need to be fair to history and acknoledge the same thing towards Arabs and towards Palestinians, just becuase we are in a conflict doesn't mean we are free to kill facts from our common history...

    Majd Mash195.229.242.88 15:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] The Term "Palestinian"

    Is referred to in the current article like this: ""Under the British mandate period from 1918 to 1948, the term "Palestinian" referred to anyone native to Palestine, regardless of their religion; Muslim, Christian, Jew, or Druze. [1]""

    But in FACT::: The Term 'Palestinian', until about the middle 1960's referred to 'Jews'. Not Druze, NOT Arab, etc.

    If you said 'Palestinian' in 1900, or 1920, or 1940 .. or even as late as 1960 you were talking about a 'Jew'! Before Statehood, ie, for one or two of dozens of examples, the Jerusalem Post was the 'Palestine Post', The Israel Philharmonic was the 'Palestine Philharmonic'. The Jews and their Companies/organizations were known as 'Palestinian'. The Palestine Brigades of WWII fighting for the Brits were Jewish.


    "Palestinians" [are an] Arab people no one heard of before 1967 before Israeli governments certified this piece of propaganda... As has been noted many times before, prior to 1948, that is before Jews had begun to call themselves Israelis, the Only persons known as "Palestinians" were Jews, with the Arabs much preferrring to identify themselves as part of the great Arab nation.

    - David Basch


    "...Palestine does not belong to the "Palestinians" and never did. They did not even call themselves Palestinians until the middle 1960s. Before that, the word "Palestinian" meant "Jewish," while the local Arabs called themselves simply "Arabs." The creation of the PLO by Gamal Abdul Nasser in 1964 was a brilliant ploy to distort the parameters of the dispute, largely for propaganda purposes. It was inconvenient to have a conflict between 20-odd Arab states with an area 530 times greater than Israel, a population more than 30 times greater than Israel's and enormously richer natural resources. Far better to invent a "Palestinian" nation that would be the eternal "underdog," - a nation consisting partly of immigrants from Syria and other Arab countries who came to benefit from the rapidly growing economy Zionist Jews created. .."

    westerndefense.org


    "...Arab activist Musa Alami despaired: as he saw the problem, "how can people struggle for their nation, when most of them do not know the meaning of the word? ... The people are in great need of a 'myth' to fill their consciousness and imagination. . . ." According to Alami, an indoctrination of the "myth" of nationality would create "identity" and "self-respect."8

    However, Alami's proposal was confounded by the realities: between 1948 and 1967, the Arab state of Jordan claimed annexation of the territory west of the Jordan River, the "West Bank" area of Palestine -- the same area that would later be forwarded by Arab "moderates" as a "mini-state" for the "Palestinians." Thus, that area was, between 1948 and 1967, called "Arab land," the peoples were Arabs, and yet the "myth" that Musa Alami prescribed-the cause of "Palestine" for the "Palestinians" -- remained unheralded, unadopted by the Arabs during two decades. According to Lord Caradon, "Every Arab assumed the Palestinians [refugees] would go back to Jordan.9.."

    EretzYisroel


    "....There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass. But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today. Greed. Pride. Envy. Covetousness. No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough...."

    - Joseph Farah, Arab-American journalist, (referring to the current usage of 'Palestinian')


    CORRECTION or DEBATE is in order

    Thank you, abu afak, abu_afak2@yahoo.com (previous conrtibutions were made by me in the definition/entry for 'abu afak' and used to correct the one that previously had existed) Revisionism is Rampant and needs to be corrected in many places.


    —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.183.132 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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 [1]. 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)

    [edit] 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).

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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

    [edit] 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.

    [edit] 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)

    [edit] 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/Khazars.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

    [edit] Who Are the Palestinians?:'

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


    "A rebuttal:

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

    1. When was it founded and by whom?

    2. What were its borders?

    3. What was its capital?

    4. What were its major cities?

    5. What constituted the basis of its economy?

    6. What was its form of government?

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

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

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

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

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

    12. Have the Palestinians left any artifacts behind?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    "Palestinian" Identity As Propaganda Device'

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

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

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

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

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

    . . .

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

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

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

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

    . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    © Mark S. Rosenblit"



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


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

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

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

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

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

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


    "The Israel - Palestine Situation in brief


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ==

        PALESTINE: THE BIG SPIN

    Seeking Truth in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict ==


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

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

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

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

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

    2)Israel is occupying" Palestinian" land.

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

    3)Palestinians deserve a homeland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    7)Israeli soldiers kill innocent children.

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

    8)The Jews fire upon "Christian" Bethlehem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    12)Palestinians are freedom fighters not terrorists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [edit] NPOV and editting Talk:Palestinian People

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

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

    [edit] Comparing the Palestinian refugee situation to other refugee cases

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

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

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

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

    [edit] Removed text

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

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

    The Palestinians do not have a common ethnic origin or a common religion. What joins them together is simply the fact that they and their ancestors have lived in the land of Palestine from as far back as any of them can record. In their veins run the blood of the ancient Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Crusaders and Turks ... It must be fully conceded that the Palestinians are a very mixed group of people ... each group of Palestinians traces its ancestry over differing lengths of time. [2]

    Arniep 00:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Palestinian Dialect

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

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

    [edit] huh?

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

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

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

    [edit] arguments for NPOV dispute

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

    [edit] Middle East Forum link

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

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

    It's a scholarly source and there are no grounds in policy for removing it. Or are you suggesting only one POV should be represented? The page also needs a references section. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry but I wouldn't link to neo nazi pages on the holocaust page or a website run by republicans on John Kerry's page. If there is an obvious known bias in an organization we should not consider it WP:NPOV. Arniep 03:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    It's not a neo-Nazi site. Don't be silly. It's an article by an American professor of economics. I've started a references section. Perhaps you could start adding citations instead of removing material you don't like. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    I never said it was a neo nazi site, please don't misquote me. I was using examples of where people or organizations have shown a clear bias against something we should not link to them on the article pages. The Middle East Forum is a neo-conservative pro israel organization and therefore cannot be considered a neutral source for Palestinian history. Similarly I would not link to a Hamas site full of Jewish conspiracy theories on the Israel page. Arniep 12:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

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

    It is along the same lines and was endorsed by the founder of the Middle East Forum, Daniel Pipes. I don't think we can consider any information from the Middle East Forum to be created from a neutral perspective so it's existence on this page is not appropriate in my opinion. Arniep 22:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    It is completely unacceptable to have this link on this page - it IS just as bad as putting a link to a Muslim fundementalist site on Jew. As regards the other links they are all neutral in their presentation except for Palestine Monitor which I will remove. Arniep 23:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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

    I agree, I removed it but SlimVirgin restored it. Arniep 12:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    I didn't restore it when Ramallite removed it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    You are totally out of order, Arnie. DO NOT remove a scholarly source and DO NOT attempt to poison the well with your own description of it. Read WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV and start editing in accordance with them. Just because you personally don't like something has no bearing on whether Wikipedia publishes or links to it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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

    Daniel Pipes himself has stated that there should be no Palestinian state. An article on a website founded by a person that says that cannot be considered WP:NPOV or anywhere near it for this article. Arniep 00:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Huh? There are Palestinians (and others) who say there should be no Israel as well, or a bi-national state, or whatever. Please quote a specific policy-based reason for deleting this. Oh, and if you mention any ridiculous "Nazi" comparisons, I'll invoke Godwin's Law, and you will have immediately forfeited any right to further discussion or reverting. Jayjg (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    I did quote a policy, WP:NPOV. I would not include a research paper by a Muslim historian claimed to be anti semitic by many people on any Jewish or Israel related pages just as I would not include this link here. Arniep 00:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    There are several arguably anti-Semitic scholarly sources, and sources who are hostile to Israel, who are used in Israel-related articles. The point is whether the person is a mainstream scholar in a relevant field. I can only repeat: read the content policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'll quote from the only one you seem to have glanced at, NPOV: "NPOV is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. The three policies are complementary, non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editor's consensus. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. (my emphasis) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Scholars can still have extreme biases, including race based bias. Please point out the anti semitic links on Israel related pages and I will see if I think they should be removed. Arniep 00:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    I can't keep arguing with you. You would be as wrong to remove scholarly sources from other pages just because I don't like them, as you are to remove this one from this page because you don't like it. I won't be responding to any more of this. Please use the time to read the policy pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Are you claiming the author of this particular article is the equivalent of an anti-Semite? On what grounds? Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    I'll quote from the WP:NPOV policy as well: All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. We link to anti-Zionist sites from the Israel article (e.g. Electronic Intifada, Indymedia), why wouldn't we link to this site from here? Again, I'd like to see a policy-based reason for not linking to this site. Jayjg (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    It is not that I don't like the article, it is the fact that it comes from a clearly biased source. I would find it disturbing and distasteful for "scholarly" papers written by known anti semitic academics to be linked to as reliable sources on Jewish or Israeli pages just as I find the linking of this site distasteful on this page. I believe the Middle East Forum cannot be considered a reliable source as it has a clear bias against Muslims and Palestinians. Arniep 00:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    I don't see why MEF would not qualify as WP:RS. I don't believe it is the MEF that is the problem here, I tend to think it is the article's topic (something Ed Poor also touches upon in the next talk section). Here's a relevant quote from 1930 Hope Simpson Royal Commission: The Chief Immigration Officer has brought to notice that illicit immigration through Syria and across the northern frontier of Palestine is material. This question has already been discussed. It may be a difficult matter to ensure against this illicit immigration, but steps to this end must be taken if the suggested policy is adopted, as also to prevent unemployment lists being swollen by immigrants from TransJordania. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    It is not a reliable source as it is a political organization with extreme bias against Palestinians. Arniep 00:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    First, that is your POV, but more importantly, what does that have to do with the academic whose paper we link to? Also, I must insist that you edit in accordance with the policies and guidelines. WP:CITE says specifically that we should not add our own descriptions to links. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    You keep repeating yourself, but you refuse to provide any evidence for your claims. Also, please do not mess around with citations; there is a proper citation style, and one shouldn't attempt to introduce POV into citations by adding your own take on them. Jayjg (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    I can't see anywhere in WP:CITE that says that the publisher of a source cannot be given. Also, I still believe the link as it currently stands violates WP:NPOV as a reader may click on it not realising that the website has a known bias. It is a fact that the Middle East Forum is a neoconservative thinktank so that should be made clear on the link too. Arniep 01:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    You keep saying things like "has a known bias" without any evidence or reliable citations. Jayjg (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    Oh, and you could hardly claim it's more biased than the links to the "PLO Negotiations Affairs Department" or the article from Al Jazeera; neither of which are anywhere near as scholarly. Jayjg (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    I actually just added those to try to defuse the situation. I just removed the PLO link as it is doesn't directly bear on the "Palestinian people" article, per se. Lokiloki 01:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

    The specific article is about the origins of the Palestinian people, and their economics, in the period 1921-1931. How on earth could it not be relevant? Jayjg (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    It's clearly relevant, Lulu, and it's a scholarly source so there are no grounds in policy for removing it, as Arnie has been doing repeatedly, and WP:CITE says we shouldn't add our own descriptions to citations, as he has also done. The Middle East Quarterly is now linked to and its article says it was founded by Pipes, so the information is there for anyone who needs it. I suggest this one link has been discussed enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Neutrality vs. POV-pushing

    This article appears at first glance designed to prove the point that the "real Palestinians" are the Palestinian Arabs and not the Palestinian Jews. Since this point is the focus of one of the foremost political and military disputes of modern times, I would like Wikipedia to treat it with the most scrupulous neutrality.

    Say rather that "most people think" or "this politician said" or whatever. But please do not simply assert that the Arab definition of "Palestinian" is correct. Let it be a matter of dispute, and let each reader decide for himself.

    This is important because much of the Arab-Israeli conflict is a dispute about who really belongs to Palestine (region) who and its rightful owners or dwellers are. The Definitions of Palestine and Palestinians are crucial to this, and we should not take either a pro-Israeli or pro-Arab side, but simply lay out the issues as clearly as possible. --Uncle Ed 16:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

    I don't think it is actually true to say that this article is "designed to prove the point that the "real Palestinians" are the Palestinian Arabs and not the Palestinian Jews". That's a pretty interesting assessment. I see this article as just basically referring to common usage of 'Palestinian' in contemporary times, something I have not seen anybody having trouble with. Is there an actual "Arab definition" of 'Palestinian'? The only 'Arab definitions' I can find include Jews who lived in the area prior to 1948 (or whenever the 'Zionist invasion' is supposed to have started). So there is no actual definition that excludes all Jews. Your concerns also seem to indicate that Israeli Jews may be offended that the term 'Palestinian' does not include them - but the vast majority of Israelis would not be offended at all. Sure, the word 'Palestinian' referred to all inhabitants of Palestine at one point in time, but I'm not sure the past is relevant to this particular article. In other words, I don't really think that the majority of people would see this article as biased just for the reason you state, but more input from others would be appreciated.
    And another thing, the flag you removed is not the 'Flag of the PLO-declared State of Palestine', it actually represented the Palestinian Arabs before there was a PLO (which decided to adopt this flag after it formed), and was a symbol of the Palestinians' nationalism once that nationalism started to form earlier in the 20th century. Ramallite (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    You make a lot of good points here, but please forgive me if I only address one right now. On the flag image, I may be mistaken. I seem to remember that flag as being the "flag of the State of Palestine", which would indicate a political statement. Ethnic groups don't generally have flags, do they? A flag is a symbol of a country. And what does the flag of the Palestinian National Authority look like? I should check if it's the same as the one I removed from the article. Uncle Ed 16:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Begging the question

    Deleted from The origins of Palestinian identity:

    However, the Palestinians, like most Arab nationalities, have come to view themselves as primarily Palestinians (rather than as primarily Arabs, or Syrians, or citizens of a particular town) mostly in the past century.

    This sentence assumes that there is (or has been) a particular group called "Palestinians" but it does not explain how this group came into being. Nor does it explain how this group, if it previously existed, came to self-designate as "Palestinians". Since this is the key part of the article and the main focus of this section, I'd like to see at least SOME detail here.

    This sentence implies that some Arabs of Palestine became a nationality (or wanted a nationality, or wanted to create yet another Arab nation in Palestine). It's not clear which.

    This sentence does not, however, explain what it means to "view themselves as Palestinians". And it seems to contradict the etymological material just a few sentences earlier, which identifies "Palestinians" with Filisteeni (which sounds a lot like the "Philistines" of the Old Testament. --Uncle Ed 19:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] What's with the flag?

    This image - Image:Flag of Palestine.svg is the official flag of the Palestinian Authority. Why is it "widely considered the symbol of the Palestinian people"? And what does that mean, anyway?

    Do non-Arab Palestinians feel that the PNA flag represents them? Do Israeli Arabs feel that the flag of the Palestinian Authority is an ethnic symbol for them? Or a political symbol? Or what?

    Much of this is not clear. --Uncle Ed 16:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)\

    As Ramalite cites above, please see this source, e.g., [3]. Lokiloki 19:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    I object. The NPOV dispute has not been settled. At issue is the meaning of the phrase "the Palestinian people" (among other things). Please put back the NPOV tag until the dispute is settled. --Uncle Ed 14:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Terrorist use of Palestinian Arab children

    Where should the following factsideas go?

    • USA Today correspondent Jack Kelley reported:
      Children serve as infantry in the confrontations between Israeli and Palestinian soldiers. In scenes reminiscent of Iranian children sent to the Iraqi front equipped with plastic keys to heaven, Palestinian children are sent close to Israeli positions with rocks and Molotov cocktails, while the gunmen and snipers fire from positions hundreds of yards back.
    • Palestinian terrorist groups use many different methods of encouraging the youth to embrace the ways of terror. The most important method is of ensuring that an environment of hatred is maintained in the society. And the youths are kept in a perpetual state of anger. To accomplish this goal, radical Islamism as represented by Hamas, Hezbollah and other Arab terrorist groups make sure that no one in the society speak against their methods. There are reports that Palestinian armed groups have pressured families of those who have been killed while carrying out attacks, including children, not to condemn but to welcome and endorse their relatives' actions.

    The article should have a link to anti-Israeli terrorism or "freedom fighting" or whatever these people think they're doing. --Uncle Ed 19:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

    You are very fast losing my respect if you take racist garbage like this and refer to it as 'facts'. Ramallite (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    Note change from "facts" to "ideas". --Uncle Ed 20:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    You might be interested in this. Please note that peddling these sorts of articles is like insisting on quoting garbage out of Protocols of the Elders of Zion on Wikipedia. I take great offense to both sorts of crap. I will assume good faith and believe that you do not have malicious intentions with these dehumanization articles. Ramallite (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

    Disgusting garbage. Keep it out. --Zerotalk 13:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

    Whether or not information is disgusting to you has no bearing on the factual status of said information. Facts should be included. Tastes should be excluded. yonkeltron 06:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

    This is factual evidence that needs to be addressed. It is neither racist, or inaccurate. Keep your anti-semitism out of this, Arab garbage. ---(insert IP here)

    [edit] Allegations can be checked

    According to Amnesty International, since 2001 there have been other cases in which Palestinian children have been used by Palestinian armed groups to carry out or attempt to carry out suicide bombings or other attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers.

    The above could be googled. I don't think anyone's ever accused AI of being racist. --Uncle Ed 20:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

    "Cases of children being used" is not the same as "scenes reminiscent of the Iranian army sending their children out with plastic keys" - AI can quote alleged cases, but that's all they are - cases. Making this into a dehumanizing propaganda article is a different ball game. What's next? These Palestinians hate Jews more than they love their kids? Oh wait - that has already been uttered by the likes of Kelley and Marcus. Yes, all those Palestinians are terrorist monsters who deserve to be H-bombed out of existence. Ramallite (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

    I think I see your point. Good, reliable primary sources are what we need. (Sure am glad I didn't stick that rubbish in the article; I guess this is what the "discussion" page is for.)
    For what it's worth, I believe in *you*, Ramallite. --Uncle Ed 02:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    Furthermore, the tone of the article from which I quoted was not that all Arabs in or near Palestine are monsters but rather that powerful groups within the culture are exploiting young people. And given that article's premise that the bombing campaign has no overarching moral or political justification, it regards these groups as driving young people to hideous crimes of murder and suicide.
    I personally do not advocate the "nuclear solution" - I assume that was extreme rhetoric. Perhaps a solution can be found, one that maybe no one has thought of yet (or has received little publicity).
    Anyway, I'm not here to debate the issues but to describe them fairly. If there are deep issues relevant to the inhabitants of Palestine (including longterm Arab natives, their descendants and recent immigrants if any; plus the Palestinian Jews who are now all or almost all "Israeli" Jews), then we MUST describe these issues as clearly and rationally as we can. We can also be sympathetic and gentle, but we must not let our writing become partisan here at Wikipedia. Rather, we should describe the partisan views of the various parties who espouse them. Okay? --Uncle Ed 13:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


    First, thanks for your believing in me. Second, including any sort of writing such as this would automatically make WP partisan, not to mention a right-wing propaganda machine. You ought to keep in mind that you are talking about my own country here, and I know more than anybody else on these pages what does or does not happen. Obviously I cannot inject my own knowledge here, but when I see garbage, I will call it as such. Let me state a few points in relation to the above:

    1. Powerful groups within the culture are exploiting young people. This is the sort of claim that would need to be verified by sociologists or people who actually interview these 'young people'. What is happening here is a right wing racist journalist is seeing Palestinian kids throw rocks at Israeli soldiers, and because of his hate agenda, writes the conclusion that this is because kids are 'coerced' and that groups propagate a 'culture of hate'. That's exactly like seeing a few Jews being the heads of major cooperations, and writing an article about a Jewish targeted agenda to take over the world (in other words, taking a few observations and spinning a pile of garbage out of it). Let me tell you a little secret: even young kids know what lack of freedom means. They do not have to be taught it - being harrassed by foreign occupying soldiers since the day they were born is enough evidence that something is wrong. The Palestinian people (including young kids) are not some kind of regimented robot army that takes commands from some hate source and acts accordingly.
    2. Describe them fairly: First, you would actually need to show verifiable sources that these things exist in the first place - if something doesn't exist, how would it be described?
    3. Driving young people to hideous crimes of murder and suicide. There can be no question that these actions are hideous crimes, but the notion that there is a culture that 'drives young people to do it' is false and, I can't believe I have to say something so obvious, racist and dehumanizing. There is a lot of hate built up in Palestine against the occupation, and trust me on this: nobody needs to be 'taught' this, it's in your face all the time. It's like the old canard that Palestinian textbooks are full of anti-Semitic hate. Well I graduated high school in the nineties, and the textbooks we used were all stamped with Israeli seals. In fact, the word 'Palestine' was erased in our textbooks and replaced by the word 'Israel'. The Palestinian Authority did revise the curriculum during those years, and there has been much garbage spewed about the contents of these textbooks. But organizations that have actually bothered to read them (and I don't mean the pathological liars over at Palestine Media Watch) have found that, while not perfect, they come nowhere near being as bad as these allegations state. In fact, the degree of 'negativity' towards the Israelis and the occupation is comparable to the degree of negativity that Israeli textbooks have towards Palestinians.
    4. In short - if somebody wants to quote sources about Palestinian culture, one ought to rely on knowledgeable sources (keeping in mind that not all sources that claim to be knowledgeable are in fact so, especially those that are not actually based in Palestine). I can't write my own knowledge about my own country on Wikipedia, but I can call people on garbage when I see it.
    5. Throughout history, mass dehumanization has usually been the precursor to some bigger crime against a people (like genocide or mass deportation). I continue to fear that this is not a far-fetched concept for Palestinians, just look at the standards we are held against compared to other peoples of the world. So when I see propaganda material that is clearly dehumanizing, it just reenforces my fears that things are not going to end very well for us at all.
    6. I have recently tried to avoid spilling my personal opinions on WP discussion pages (I used to do that a lot just to clarify things about Palestinians that are usually taken for granted in the case of any other people, like the fact that we are human beings too). So I apologize to all who read this that I'm off pontificating again. But that's my natural response to hate-filled propaganda that tries to pass 'matter-of-factly' around here.

    Ramallite (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

    R, your monologue above is exactly the reason that original research is not permitted in these articles. For all I know you are a raging terrorist out to murder Jews, Brits and Americans, purposely attempting to sound semi moderate to conceal evil intent (we certainly have had enough of those recently in many Western countries). I could post a long article claiming to be a Palestinian Christian suffering the discrimination and brutality of having to live amongst a bunch of intolerant bloodthirsty Muslims (and those Christians probably exist), but it wouldn't be true. The whole point of Wiki is to have third party mainstream objective sources as the sole source of information. That will provide some validity to these articles. The fact that you (or I) don't like a particular point of view is something you or I might find disconcerting, but if a mainstream source says something, and you don't believe it's accurate, you don't delete the source, you provide another source that has a contrary point of view. I personally find the views of Eduard Said and Noam Chomsky vile, untruthful, and crazed - but I wouldn't delete them from an article, I would just make sure that a view I considered more accurate was also cited. R, that's what democracy is all about, not drowning out those you disagree with, but offering alternatives to allow interested persons to make up their own mind. And that's why ultimately democracy wins out over rival systems that involved censorship and intolerance, people want the right to make up their own mind. Observe the rules, post mainstream sources, suck it up when reading views you don't like, and you will be a good editor on this article.Incorrect 12:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

    Wow - an unprovoked tirade against me!There is no tirade against you, just pointing out you could be a 4 legged greendskined alien from Mars, no one has anyway of determining who/what you are when you post here, therefor such postings report material that is totally irrevelant, even in the talk pageIncorrect 01:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • "you are a raging terrorist out to murder Jews, Brits and Americans, purposely attempting to sound semi moderate to conceal evil intent". So you find out that I'm a Palestinian and so it becomes okay to throw such despicable insults at me? That is highly offensive. Such insults are not tolerated, and perpetrators are normally blocked. Read WP:Civil.Again, how do any of us know who or what you are, your postings are irrelevant for that reasonIncorrect
    • "I could post a long article claiming to be a Palestinian Christian suffering the discrimination and brutality...." No you could not, because WP is not a place for posting personal articles, true or otherwise. This here is a discussion page, and not the actual article. I suggest you look into blogs, that's where you could post your articles. Read WP:NOR.Excuse me, you've totally missed the point - your posting was that of a blogger, my point was that my posting, yours, or anyone else's could be totally falseIncorrect 01:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • "if a mainstream source says something, and you don't believe it's accurate, you don't delete the source, you provide another source that has a contrary point of view." Right. If on the other hand a source is NOT mainstream and is NOT reliable, then you would have two options: post nonsense from it anyway, then go and counter it with another source, and clutter up the WP article with back and forth bickering over something that is factually not true anyway; or not bother with it at all and stay only with reliable sources. I prefer the second. Read WP:V.
    • "I personally find the views of Eduard Said and Noam Chommpsky vile, untruthful, and crazed - but I wouldn't delete them from an article" Good for you, neither would I, because they are scholars, as opposed to the people you are presumably referring to, who are not. Read WP:RS.
    • "R, that's what democracy is all about, not drowning out those you disagree with, but offering alternatives to allow interested persons to make up their own mind". Unfortunately certain 'alternatives' are allowed to be used on WP with much less scrutiny than other certain 'alternatives'. However, read the policy regarding Wikipedia and democracy. If you mean postings from the Nazi party are under more scutiny than those from the NY Times, you're correct.Incorrect 01:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • "And that's why ultimately democracy wins out over rival systems that involved censorship and intolerance". Censorship and intolerance, especially intolerance, are what my post above was about. Read it again. I read it again, it's a long, personal ramble, out of place on Wiki.Incorrect 01:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    Regards, the raging terrorist also known as Ramallite (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    Calm down Incorrect. This behavior is ridiculous. --(Mingus ah um 01:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC))


    "For all I know you are a raging terrorist out to murder Jews, Brits and Americans, purposely attempting to sound semi moderate to conceal evil intent (we certainly have had enough of those recently in many Western countries)."

    For all anyone knows, you could one the many manipulative jews that seem to have been bred that would very much like the west to fight their battles for them(you'll find plenty of this variety of jew in western countries and on pretty much EVERY online forum which is israel/jew related)

    "I could post a long article claiming to be a Palestinian Christian suffering the discrimination and brutality of having to live amongst a bunch of intolerant bloodthirsty Muslims (and those Christians probably exist)"

    I too could post several articles from many Palestinians forced to live amongst barbaric bloodthirsty jews who wouldn't think twice about massacring whole families and stealing land but i don't need to as anyone who lives in the real world is probably already aware of this(and many thousands of these Palestinians do exist)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.7.251.36 (talk • contribs).

    [edit] Dead link

    During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

    maru (talk) contribs 05:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Clean up

    OK, this is a message to the admins, isn't it time for this page to go thru a total clean up, its filled with the ranting of propagandists, anti-arab racists who not only stole the lands of palestinians but are now trying to deprive them from their identity.


    Without a doubt this page should be cleaned up. However, the allegations that the above writer makes about "anti-arab racists" are unfounded and belligerent.Mr.lightbulb 02:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] palestinian ancestry part ridicilous

    see History of Palestine. Cannanites weren't among the first and whole section has nothing to do with palestinian arab people. Amoruso 06:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    Amoruso, this is the Palestinian heritage as it is in books.Almaqdisi 19:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    with respect, the "books" are obviously false, and the sources cited do not adhere to WP:RS. It needs a total re-write. Amoruso 02:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

    Amoruso, it mentions that the Canaanites were among the first to build cities and inhabit cities which is quite true. For example, they did build Jerusalem. The Canaanites/Jebusites. Almaqdisi 04:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

    So the Cannanites are the Jebusites and that's it ? This needs to be re-written completly from the scholary point of other articles like the history capital. Don't remove the tag please and removing it is also not a minor change. Amoruso 08:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

    Amoruso, do not remove the new reference I am including. Here is what Lewis says: Bernard Lewis mentions in his book The Arabs in History:

    "According to this, Arabia was originally a land of great fertility and the first home of the Semitic peoples. Through the millennia it has been undergoing a process of steady desiccation, a drying up of wealth and waterways and a spread of the desert at the expense of the cultivable land. The declining productivity of the peninsula, together with the increase in the number of the inhabitants, led to a series of crises of overpopulation and consequently to a recurring cycle of invasions of the neighbouring countries by the Semitic peoples of the peninsula. It was these crises that carried the Assyrians, Aramaeans, Canaanites (including the Phoenicians and Hebrews), and finally the Arabs themselves into the Fertile Crescent."[1]

    I am not of course adding this quote to the article since it is irrelevant to the topic in general. But I am only adding the reference. I am including this quote however in the Arabian Peninsula article.

    I am leaving the DISPUTED tag, sorry! Almaqdisi 08:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

    Amoruso, please do not delete a well respected citation like that of Bernard Lewis. These are facts even if you do not like them. This is not in Lewis' book only by the way. But I just want this book in specific to stop any disputes about this subject. You have three references, MSN encarta, History Channel, and Bernard Lewis Book. There are other books I am not adding to this article. I will keep your changes as is until this dispute is over. To your further information, this has not only been mentioned by Lewis. It is mentioned by old Arab historians centuries before. I do not want to include these until this moment, but if needed I will. In general, these should go to the Arabian Peninsula article. Moreover, I want to keep the citations very well recent and also avoid arabic sources whom you might not believe in! Unles this becomes a necessity to resolve the dispute, I will go ahead and do it. Almaqdisi 20:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

    The quote from Lewis is correct, but I am humbly pointing out that it says: "Canaanites (including the Phoenicians and Hebrews)", thus including the Hebrews among the Canaanites. If the reference to Lewis is to be correct, it must be complete. That said, Arabs in History is a pretty dated work; its first edition was published back in 1947 when population genetics did not even exist as a science. The view of Arabia as a common homeland of the Semitic people is still popular, but much debated nowadays. Beit Or 20:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Picture of Palestinian children

    [edit] Palestnian Imagery

    I figure that same as with other nationalitiesexamples: [4], [5], the front image should be of prominant figures rather than an obscure image of two smiling children. Jaakobou 09:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

    • Agreed. 72.188.213.216 00:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Suggested Prominent Palestinians

    feel free to expand namelist and/or add from the list to the template...

    [edit] main talk

    When I pull up the page on Palestinian people, the first thing that cries out to me is this picture here of two children. Why is it here? Does it have anything at all to do with the topic of Palestinian people? How could this possibly be NPOV? To me it seems that its only purpose there is to evoke sympathy for Palestinians. That is not NPOV. 68.162.178.7 22:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC) David

    Oh good grief, Palestinians don't have kids? Should every Wiki page about a group of people remove any pics of children because it's obviously an attempt to evoke sympathy. I have been readin these discussion pages because I learn more about thr subject this way, but seriously this last comment is ridiculous.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.186.22.233 (talk • contribs).
    I agree with the first anon: both pictures showing children carry no encyclopedic value whatsoever and are here solely to evoke sympathy. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with the grandparent (David), the picture is the first thing you see when you look at the page, and it is clearly there to draw sympathy. It doesn't have a place as the main picture for an encyclopedia entry. Nemilar 06:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

    I wholeheartedly disagree, and can't help but feel offended that Palestinians expressing a basic human trait - friendship - is characterized as "trying to evoke sympathy" as if the pictures were those of tortured prisoners or starving kids in a famine, or as if the only pictures of Palestinians allowed must be of those carrying bombs or otherwise they are unacceptable. The kids are all smiling - are we not allowed to smile now? Is it too offensive to anon #1 (David) that two friends, who happen to be Palestinians, have their arms around each other instead of the obligate M-16 while posing for a snapshot? That's just shameful. I previously wanted to take the pictures out, once I found something better, for an entirely different reason: they evoke ridicule. But now I'm too pissed off to think about removing them. Ramallite (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry Ramallite, you have only confirmed my point: pure emotions and zero encyclopedic value. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

    Contrast with the images for Kurdish people, French people, and Egyptians. It would be much more useful and encyclopaedic to picture prominent Palestinians or perhaps some traditional garb than a generic picture of children. TewfikTalk 16:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

    Well I had already seen these pages previously and that is exactly what I have been attempting to compile for a while now but with limited success because of copyright problems and limited time on WP. But that's a separate issue. The very accusation that smiling Palestinian children are meant to 'evoke sympathy' is just offensive to me (but I'm Palestinian too so maybe I don't count). Why? Because I think if there were smiling Swedish children on the Swedish people page, nobody would have made that sort of accusation - that they are there to evoke sympathy. What's sad about children smiling? One can only surmise that David above thinks that Palestinian kids are not supposed to smile, but perhaps carry bombs instead because that's what the Western stereotype is. It just goes to show (and I know people are sick of me saying this) how it's acceptable to dehumanize Palestinians - a very ominous thing indeed. So go ahead and use the "encyclopaedic" excuse if you want, because regardless of whether the pictures are encyclopaedic or not (and I agree they may not be), the damage has been done and the offense has been committed. Ramallite (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    Ramallite's reaction is perfectly understandable. I suspect the unfortunate effects of typical media portrayal involving Palestinian children contribute to a certain stereotype so that a simple picture of smiling children "cries out" to the anon in a way that wouldn't if they were children of another people. It appears the picture is being interpreted differently just because of who the children are. Since pictures of children tend to have a humanizing effect, the fact that there is reaction against these humanizing pictures ironically produces a dehumanizing effect, as if this is a people not human enough for warm pictures like these. And this is what I imagine has offended our fellow editor Ramallite (and me as well, for that matter). Meanwhile, the picture is certainly encyclopedic as it is simply an illustration of the article topic, Palestinian people. I see no reason "people" articles should not have pictures of children that represent the people being discussed. The emotions some may attach to this particular picture are projections by the viewer and likely differ depending on the viewer. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you MPerel for nicely articulating exactly what I was feeling. For me, it is not about whether the pictures are 'encyclopaedic' or whatever. It is the fact that somebody used the pretext of these pictures to voice a general sentiment about Palestinians that I found very offensive. So appropriately or not, I was responding here to that very offensive statement, and I was not really debating the contents of the article per se. Ramallite (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Again, emotions and nothing more than that. Beit Or 21:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Very good, Beit Or. Thank you very much. Ramallite (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    I am not in one bit surprised by David or Humus Sapiens comments (Humus previously been on record for voting "kill" as a "joke" in an afd for a peace activist in Palestine). The statement that the images have no encyclopedic value is a joke- oh wait! I forgot that, according to zionists, Palestinian people don't even exist so maybe they do qualify as unencyclopedic according to their own version of history... Arniep
    Arniep, your comments (this and following) directed personally against other editors and putting words in others' mouths are not helpful to the discussion. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Oh those Zionists, they are so bloodthirsty for Palestinian children. I suggest you find another venue for your hatred, Arniep. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    Wow that's a good one- you're the one who came in here basically saying that Palestinian children were actually not Palestinian or people, or, did I misunderstand you? Arniep 01:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Wrong, Arniep. See above: it was you who keeps making these outlandish statements. Not only you "misunderstand", but you attempt to misrepresent me in the worst possible bad faith manner. But this is not a proper place to discuss your behavior. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry Humus, you claimed that the images of the Palestinian children "carry no encyclopedic value whatsoever and are here solely to evoke sympathy.". You still haven't explained why they aren't Palestinian people and the claim I put it there for sympathy is rubbish (see below). Arniep 03:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    I stand by my words. OTOH, Arniep, you are a liar. "they aren't Palestinian people" is your words, not mine. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    As it happens, Swedish people features no images of smiling Swedish children in the infobox. Instead, I can see portraits of Jöns Jakob Berzelius, Anders Jonas Ångström, Carolus Linnaeus, and Erik Axel Karlfeldt: three scientists and one poet. All adults. Beit Or 21:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    So what, those children are Palestinian people, it's a nice image, so it should stay at the top. Arniep 01:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    The question is not whether they are Palestinian or not, or is this a nice image. What encyclopedic information does it convey? Those who defend it, please demonstrate anything similar in WP. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    The reason I used that image is we have hardly any free images of writers, academics and generally non political type people who are usually used to make up these collages. We have a poor quality old black and white one of a family but that doesn't really show Palestinians as they are today, whereas the image of the children is a nice image and shows two Palestinian persons (i.e. people) in a modern setting without any implication of politics or religion (which there shouldn't be in the main image of an article about the Palestinian people in general). Arniep 03:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    The question is, what encyclopedic information does the image convey? ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with Tewfik: the palestinian children picture is not in line with other people pages' pictures. I checked a dozen or so people pages, and although I couldn't think of any other people as close to such a heated controversy as Palestinians are, all of the others featured either pictures of prominent people, historical pictures (probably thought to depict a typical person from that people), or traditional garb, or no picture at all. I don't think it is of much importance, but it would be better to change it to follow the line of more typical pictures (when such become available). RandomMonitor 10:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (The peoples I checked were, among others, Tamils, Koreans, Persians, Kurds, Russians, Chechen people, Turkish people, Finnish people, Sami people, Arabs, and Israelis, which, by the way, is also somewhat differing in that it depicts some kind of a congregation instead of merely typical or prominent people. RandomMonitor 10:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC))

    Personally I think this is a nice photo. I prefer looking at this than at Arafat... same goes for other peoples. Amoruso 10:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Randommonitor the Israelis depict the declaration of indepedence. Amoruso 10:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC) I agree that there should be a conformity though - all peoples articles should have a standard format. If the format like proven above is indeed showing a few pictures of prominent X's, then it should be in every artice, also here. . Amoruso 00:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

    I don't see what the big deal here is. The children are people and they are Palestinian. More than 50% of Palestinian population are children under the age of 18; i.e. they form a majority of the population. To put in a historical picture would be to consign Palestinians to history, and to put in a picture of a prominent Palestinian, would be to ask "which one?" Note also that the Israelis page has pictures of "Israelis on the street", two random people smiling, as well as other random human shots. The motivations of the anon who opened this debate are offensive, and those supporting his objection so far, with the exception of Tewfiq, generally seem to share in his offensive POV. If another more suitable photo is located, we could discuss moving the photo into the main body of the article. But for now, seeing as it is not inappropriate and there are no concrete alternatives, it should stay exactly where it is. Tiamut 01:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

    I don't think it is a big deal, but as there is some merit to the point that the picture deviates from the common line, I think it is fair that the conformity is maintained (as fast as a suitable picture is available). Note that the conformity I am talking here only applies to the picture in the infobox - I think it is totally appropriate to move the pic of children somewhere else, like in the demographics section. (If there is a mention about the figure of children somewhere, I seem to have missed it. Maybe it should be added?) The point being pursued here is that the picture in infobox should be informative ("Who are these people?"), and if other similar pages have emphasized prominent people or historical background, that should be the case here as well. The question of "which prominent Palestinian" is fair, but a completely different question. I don't know much about them. How were the scientists and the poet chosen in case of Swedes? RandomMonitor 09:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    The reason we don't have a collage of writers, scientists, artists etc. like other people articles have is that we don't have many images that are availiable under a free license which must be used to make a collage. Arniep 14:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

    I honestly do not see what is the problem here really. But in any case, I also suggest to have some more pictures or let's say a picture gallery form Palestinians in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Latin America, Europe, North America, and of course from inside Palestine itself, both West Bank and Gaza, and Palestine48 populations. This picture gallery when added to this page may give some indication about the social and economical status of the Palestinian people in general and their condition wherever they have to be at. I hope this gallery be as much representative as possibly can be. Almaqdisi 05:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

    Israelis have babies and children too! Why not post a photo of cute, smiling Israeli children on the Israeli Wikipedia page? This articles screams of bias from the very top image. "We're Palestians! We're cute and innocent!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.189.174.189 (talk • contribs).

    While I appreciate that you don't think that I am motivated by an 'offensive POV,' I don't believe that there is evidence to warrant accusing others of that either. As far as the picture, I don't see how displaying prominent Palestinian authors or scientists would be 'consigning the Palestinians to history' any more than the Kurds, French, Egyptians, or any of the other examples discussed here are consigned to history. I found several suitable candidates by browsing the subcategories of Category:Palestinian people - perhaps you have someone in mind? Cheers, TewfikTalk 03:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

    Hello, David Here again. I think that the preceeding discussion has been interesting, and thought-provoking. Most people made good points. Generally, I see that the argument for the picture up until now has been that "the children are people and they are Palestinian," as stated by Taimut. In fact they don't factually misrepresent Palestinians. Why then would we argue about it? Does anyone argue that the child in a Welch's grapejuice commercial is there only to be informative and represent Welch's grapejuice? Anyone who does is utterly foolish. A child to most represents innocence and goodness. When we see a child, we immediately sympathize, are drawn in. That is a simple fact about pictures of children. Now, since it is an undeniable fact that Palestinians have children, how would those who support the picture feel about it being accompanied by another picture representing the "other end of the spectrum" of Palestinians. While it is undeniable that Palestinians have children (and many innocent people that they represent) it is also undeniable that there are Palestinian suicide bombers. Not every Palestinian is a suicide bomber, but not every Palestinian is a child either. I submit that we should have a picture of a suicide bomber with a huge belt of C4 strapped to himself right alongside this picture of two innocent children holding hands. Let's display the facts people. -David

    You miss the point. 50% of Palestinians are under the age of 18 constituting a majority of the Palestinian population, suicide bombers account for less than 1% of the population. While suicide bombers receive more press time than dead or living Palestinian children, the picture of children is far more representative of the Palestinian population as a whole than a picture of bombers. Just because the Western media likes to hype a stereotypical picture of Palestinians, does not mean we should mimick that tendency in this encyclopedia. Tiamut 13:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    I think we just need photos showing what typical Palestinians look like. Children and oldies both. If you want to portray something of the life of an average Palestinian today, a group of people waiting at a checkpoint would be a pretty accurate summary. --Zerotalk 13:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    In that case I'd have to agree with David, because suicide bombings are the reason for those checkpoints to be there in the first place. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    I would have to strongly disagree with you Humus sapiens. Checkpoints have been consistently used by Israel since day one. In 1988 and 1987, checkpoints throughout the West Bank became part of the life of every Palestinian. Suicidal attacks started only 25 years later after the 1967. Please be aware of these basic facts. I think the comments by David are simply hateful, and should be disregarded by me, you, and other users if we are to WP:AGF. Cheers Almaqdisi talk to me 22:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    I couldn't agree with Almaqdisi more. Some of this discussion is deeply disturbing and exceedingly inappropriate. --Ian Pitchford 04:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

    This is not true Almaqdisi, checkpoints were only a result of security problems. There are many checkpoints within the green line as well and temporary ones when suicide bombers are roaming free - this is an everyday thing for every Israeli. After 67, Israel allowed the building of mosques, universities, facilities, things that Jordan surpressed. Up until the infidata (suicide attacks were during the intifada such as in bus 405 even if still not technologically advanced as bombings) there was free movement in all the west bank I used to drive freely to all cities no checkpoints hardly. Amoruso 20:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

    Sure, and the occupation in '67 itself was really benevolent. The 350,000 civilians fleeing the West Bank and refugees in Jordan barely even noticed the IDFs use of napalm, bombardment of civilian areas, the destruction of entire villages and mass demolition of houses, 850 out of 2000 in Qalqilya alone. --Ian Pitchford 20:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    Moshe Dayan didn't allow the population to flee and closed the borders for some reason. If IDF bombarded civlians areas there wouldn't be any qasams on Sderot and Ashkelon ever. This is not the IDF policy for better or worse. Anyway, the liberation of Judea and Samaria was indeed benevolent to an absurd compared to the complete destruction of Jewish life in Jerusalem earlier by Jordan etc. Amoruso 21:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Link Removed

    Removed the link to the WorldNetDaily article denying the existence of the Palestinian people. An outdated propaganda piece seemed out of place.

    it doesn't reject existence of people. it discusses the definition and scope of it. it's an external link. Amoruso 06:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Actually WorldNetDaily is a well known controversial right wing website as is the other site which basically repeats the same premise (Middle East Forum). They both try and delegitimise the Palestinians by saying they are made up of immigrants from other Arab countries- this is a well known tactic that has been used by people such as Golda Meir to portray Zionism as a righteous and fair cause (reclaiming a land for the native inhabitants- of course in reality a large percentage of Palestinians share the cohen haplotype indicating there are indeed native to the area and probably descended from Jews who converted to Christianity (later to Islam)). Arniep 12:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    An example of WorldNetDaily's output: "President Bush is not to blame for the rampant immorality of blacks",
    comments on Daniel Pipes, the founder of Middle East Forum:
    "Christopher Hitchens, who is also a prominent critic of Islamists, also expressed "bafflement" at this appointment in a critical essay entitled "Daniel Pipes is not a man of peace" in Slate. [3] Hitchens claimed that Pipes "employs the fears and insecurities created by Islamic extremism to slander or misrepresent those who disagree with him" and that this contradicted the USIP's position as "a somewhat mild organization [...] devoted to the peaceful resolution of conflict." Hitchens concluded his opposition to Pipes' nomination by claiming that Pipes "confuses scholarship with propaganda" and pursues "petty vendettas with scant regard for objectivity.""
    comments by Pipes ""Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene...All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most." (National Review, November 19, 1990)"
    I hardly think these organizations qualify as credible non partisan sources on Palestinian history. Arniep 13:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Do you mean that "a non-partisan source" is the one you agree with, while "a partisan source" is the one you disagree with? One should be more tolerant to other points of view. Beit Or 14:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    No, It's nothing to do with what I think. The mainstream opinion is that these websites are further right wing than normal "right wing", and people associated with it have been described by many people as racists and propaganda mongers. Arniep 14:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Described by whom and who represents the "mainstream"? Let's name names. Then, what is "further right wing than normal 'right wing'"? Nowadays, there are many ways you can divide politicians into left-wing and right-wing; what is your division criterion? And what do views on politics have to do with an analysis of the deifnition of "Palestinians"? Beit Or 17:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

    Worldnetdaily is the right-wing equivalent of Counterpunch; if you were to remove the approximately 400 links to Counterpunch on Wikipedia, you might consider removing Worldnetdaily links as well. Oh, and for that matter, Middle East Forum is pretty much the equivalent of Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, though obviously from the opposite viewpoint. Jayjg (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

    We'll be able to say these publications are equivalents when Washington Report on Middle East Affairs has contributors like Khaleel Mohammed or Denis MacEoin, who has written most articles on the Baha'i faith in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Beit Or 21:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    According to WP:RS organizations known to be racist should not be used as sources except on the organizations themselves. It is irrelevant what publications you think are the equivalents of WorldNetDaily and Middle East Quarterly. The question is are they known to have a strong bias against the article subject- and I would say the answer is yes, so, we should certainly not use these as reliable sources for Palestinian ancestry or history. Arniep 14:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    Which organizations are "known to be racist"? Jayjg (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    I agree that World Net Daily can serve as a reference for a particular point when described for what it is in an article, but I thought external links were held to a higher standard. In other words, I would object to placing World Net Daily as an external link, particularly if it is to an article by Daniel Pipes, [text removed per WP:BLP] as evidenced by Arniep's quote from his work above. Placing a link to an article by him in the external links would not allow for editors to provide appropriate context to his work and seem to be an endorsement of his [text removed per WP:BLP] rather marginal and discredited views. Tiamut 01:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    Pipes certainly upsets many Muslims and Arabs, but his views aren't really "marginal" or "discredited"; or rather, they're "marginal" and "discredited" in the same way that Edward Said's views are "marginal and discredited". Anyway, keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to Talk pages as well. Jayjg (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    Well, since you thought it fit to blank out my unsourced opinion on the man, consider this instead. In her 2003 Presidential address to MESA, Lisa Anderson, dean of Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs spoke of how the: "desire to appeal to bigotry and intolerance while simultaneously disavowing it was widespread. During the summer Congressional recess, the Bush Administration appointed a conservative polemicist, Daniel Pipes, to the board of the government-funded United States Institute of Peace, thereby avoiding what would have been tendentious hearings exploring widespread complaints about his anti-Muslim bias." [6] As I said, there are many who find his views to be "racist" and "bigoted", though I attributed that to my own opinion rather than citing a phenomenon or a WP:RS. So, it's not as definitive as I made it out to be, but the information is certainly relevant when we are considering who or what is WP:RS. I noticed that the news station run by Hezbollah (or Hizballah), al-Manar, has been rejected as a credible source at the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict page. One person invoked WP:RS which states that "Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist groups, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is to say they may be used in articles discussing the opinions of that organization. Even then they should be used with great caution, and should be supported by other sources." I certainly think that Pipes and MEF fall under this designation, which is why I said earlier, that I don't mind him being used as a reference in the article as long as his work is properly qualified. As an external link to an article on the Palestinian people though, no way in *%@$! Tiamut 21:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    You should thank me for blanking out your opinions, since WP:BLP is a blocking offense. As for external links, the rules for inclusion are actually somewhat looser than for reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

    PS Edward Said has never been accused of being an racist or a bigot, except maybe by the most marginal voices in the spectrum of debate on Israel-Palestine. That is where he and Pipes differ and per this section on WP:RS. A more appropriate comparison would be to ask if on an article on the Jewish people one would accept an external link to a neo-Nazi cite. Tiamut 21:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

    "Conservative polemicist" is not the same as "racist" and "bigot". In addition, even you'd find some people calling him a "racist" and a "bigot", you'd still ahve to demonstrate that such a description is universally accepted and thus NPOV. And remind me please, why are we discussing Daniel Pipes here? Beit Or 21:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    Indeed, "conservative polemicist" is not the same as a "racist" or "bigot". Said might not have been generally accused of being racist, but he was a near-hysterical polemicist, whose theories of Orientalism were both circular and self-serving. And comparing Pipes to a Neo-Nazi is rather bizarre, almost histrionic. Pipes is a rather successful commentator, author, and scholar; your dislike for the man's views does not automatically make him an unreliable source. Jayjg (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    I don't have to prove that Pipes is universally regarded as a "bigot". Such a standard wasn't upheld in regard to al-Manar, and many people don't think they are "racist" and a sizable segment of the world's population don't view them as "Terrorists" but rather as a "national liberation movement". In the case of the Israeli-Lebanon conflict article, al-Manar is the media outlet of one of the parties to the conflict, and it has still been disqualified from even being used as a reference in the article, which is a wrong-headed application of WP:RS to me. Their information is certainly relevant to that article. A mention of Pipes' views properly put into context in this article might be okay. But just how is the information of man considered to be a "bigot" by most of the people he studies, and who denies and/or questions the existence of Palestinians, in any way a good choice for a reliable or credible external link? Tiamut 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    This is an encyclopedia, prove to us by WP:RS (or, indeed, otherwise) that Edward Said "was a near-hysterical polemicist, whose theories of Orientalism were both circular and self-serving". PalestineRemembered 10:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    We've been provided with powerful evidence that Pipes is a racist to the strictest meaning of the word. He's being discussed in here because the WorldNetDaily publishes articles of his. PalestineRemembered 10:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    This "powerful evidence" is simply your own, personal interpretation. Beit Or 10:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, there are two sourced quotes above, one a primary source that indicates "bigotry" on Pipes part and the other a secondary source (I added the link to the article) that discusses the allegations of anti-Muslim bias against him. These are not merely personal opinions. Your unsourced assrtion that Pipes in a credible source is a personal opinion. Tiamut 12:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    Pipes is a respected academic, who has published books through academic presses, like Yale University Press, and in scholarly journals, like Foreign Affairs. Your interpretation of a quote is your problem. Allegations of anti-Muslim bias are simply mud-slinging. Beit Or 14:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    He is not a respected academic- see Hitchen's description of him. Arniep 19:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    Are you contending that Christopher Hitchens is a respected academic? Beit Or 20:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    No, he is not an academic, but I would say he is a centrist. Noone outside neocons and likudniks listen to Pipes. Arniep 20:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    You're simply sticking political labels. Scholarly authority is not determined by political views. Beit Or 20:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    Pipes is not a serious scholar. He is not respected by the academic community. In fact, he hunts other academics down using their "political views" to undermine their "scholarly authority" and credibility, based solely on how much they differ from his own fanatical views on Muslims and Israel. See his site www.campuswatch.org. The Churches for Middle East Peace called on the President [7] "not to appoint Daniel Pipes to the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace. Pipes is not qualified – he rejects peace negotiations and is so hostile to Muslims that he must be called a bigot." The Guardian newspaper notes that, "Within the community of Middle East scholars, he is regarded as extreme. He opposes the "road map" for the Middle East, as he opposed the Oslo peace accords, and objected to efforts to reform the Palestinian Authority." The Council on American Islamic Relations has noted that "Pipes added that he doesn't perceive the Islamic people as divided into two groups: the radical terrorists and those who are not. He said 'there is no history behind such an outlook and nothing that would support such optimism.' 'It would be like saying there were good and bad Nazis,' Pipes noted." (SEE: http://www.cnsnews.com/ Search using the term "Daniel Pipes.")" [8]. Now, I would say that his views pretty much disqualify him from being an external link on an article about Palestinian people, who are largely Muslim. An article on Zionist extremists, an article on people who incite genocide through the abuse of language and pretense to "scholarship", maybe an article on Israel and extremism and racism among Israeli supporters. He doesn't even represent the Israeli mainstream (at least I hope he doesn't. That you call a man who denies the existence of Palestinians, supports racial profiling against Muslims and compares them to Nazis, a "conservative polemicist", disturbs me deeply. I thought we learned something from that scapegoating episode that led to the deaths of millions of people by 1945.) In any case, Daniel Pipes might be a legitimate source for an article on Israelis or Israeli identity, but he is in no way credible or serious as regards his views on Palestinians. He views need to be put in proper context if they are to be included at all. And certainly not as en external link in some kind of endorsement of his completely marginal and biased viewpoint that is certainly not informed by serious scholarship. Tiamut 22:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    This is just more political name-calling. Beit Or 14:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    Don't think so - Tiamut has made a powerful case for Pipes not being treated as WP:RS. If you think differently, then it is incumbent on you to provide some indication that it's not necessarily so.
    PalestineRemembered 23:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Population Genetics and General Comments

    I have never seen as much patent nonsense as much of this page's silliness. I am a Jew, an American, and a Zionist (meaning, I support the sovereignty of the State of Israel), and I support the rights of the Palestinian people as well. The genetic substrate of Ashkenazi Jews should be apparent to anyone who has traveled the world and visited synagogues in cities. If you go to synagogue in Sweden, you will see that almost 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 at Yeshiva, we were taught the same myth someone mentioned above, that Jews maintained genetic purity until the beginning of Reform Judaism 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." Even at that time, this myth was suspicious. Why do Jews in most European countries resemble their neighbors? All the new Jewish Histories explain how intermarriage was a constant fact in Jewish history as far back as the Roman Empire. Juvenal (second century AD), 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 Hungarian immigrants to the United States; I doubt if I have much in common genetically with my friend, who is descended from two signers of the Declaration of Independence. 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, as well as a distinct culture and ethos. 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 European Christians. Irish Catholics are different from Italian Catholics, and Italian Catholics are even different from French Catholics, who live right next to them. German Jews conceived of themselves as different from Hungarian Jews, who in turn looked differently at Polish Jews. And how any human being could complain of a photograph of two smiling children as pushing a point of view is unimaginable. If the complaint were that the children were not in fact Palestinian, it would make sense. But the attempt to deligitimize the photo by comparing it to other photos in other articles, and arguing that "this photo does not depict prominent citizens, as other photos of e.g. Swedes do" is just revolting. We all know that the article for every country, ethnic group, or religion is going to present photos showing the best and the most attractive representation of its citizens or members. The article on Jews is not going to present a photo of Ivan Boesky in a prominent position, the article on Christianity is not going to trumpet Torquemada or Khmelnytsky, and the article on Islam is not going to display the handsome features of Osama bin Laden as its calling card. This article is no different, and should not have to meet a different standard. Jews should know enough about persecution, suffering and being marginalized to refrain from speaking of Palestinians the way Jews were spoken of for hundreds of years in Europe. 66.108.105.21 02:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth
    I agree with anonymous 66.108.105.21 posting above. At the same time, why some people insist on keeping the Disputed tag in regard to the ancestry section. Would they explictly say what is disputed there. Would they tell us what is the supposed ancestry of the Palestinians and give us other references aprat from these already there. If not then, the tag will be removed in the few days ahead! Thanks. Almaqdisi talk to me 03:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

    Glad you bring this up. As you recall, Haldrik explains here why all this information in the section is wrong [9]. The Caananites reference is totally wrong as is the reference to the long refuted Sir James Frazer. It's all explained in the link and it's why section needed to be re-written from start and as it is now it's totally disputed. Amoruso 10:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

    It appears to me that Sir James for you is like Mark Twain for me. In any case, he was a notable anthropolgist and that was his area os specilization. Plus, it does not sees that DNS results contradict that the Palestinian population is an original typical Mediterranean population, with offshoots to the Canaanites, and others, similar to Jews in many case. Plus it is interesting to note that Much of the Muslim Population of Palestine is a convert population from Pre-Islamic invasion populations. This is really confirmed by the fact that Umayyid's had to put their army in Ramle instead of Jerusalem which continued to be mostly Christians until just before th Abbasid time. Similar may be said to other parts of the Levant. I do not see therefore the Palestinian ancestry part very outrageous. If you have strong evidence that the Palestinian population in general is a new blood strem not related in any way to Pre-Islamic invastion, then plese provide those for use to discuss here. Also, note that I use the word Pre-Islamic invasion, becuase as we discussed before, you recall that Arabs were in Palestine much longer than the arrival of Islam. This is related to Tadmor and Nabateans and other trbes living in Palestine. As a matter of fact, I have the Quote from Patriarck Sophronius who before Umar Bin al-Khattab visited, was presented with this dilemma. This dilemma being that it was not an issue for him whether Palestine will be Arab or not, because as he mentioned that much of the residents in Judea were already Arabs. He was of course worried about the conversion and change of religions. This all shows that Arabs in the Levant were present even before Islam arrival. Finally, you may consider this article propoganda, but it might be good to have a look at Jerusalem.. 5,000 Years of Arab History. Also you may want to have a look and thisEverything You Ever Knew About Jerusalem Is Wrong (Well, Almost) Almaqdisi talk to me 12:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    That article is indeed not very serious as it starts by saying that Jebusites were Arabs but they didn't descend from the Arab Peninsula which is the definition for this. Haldrik explained that After King David conquered the area during the Iron Age, all Canaanites (south of Lebanon) either assimilated into the dominant Israelite culture or went extinct. Jews are the surviving remnant of the Canaanites. Hebrew is the local dialect of the Canaanite language. There are no other Canaanites in this area after the Iron Age. Any Palestinian who claims to be a "Canaanite" is infact claiming to be a Jew and cant be an Arab. He explained this in detail there, it's why the section is written from a wrong perspective. Amoruso 12:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    But it is also interesting to note that in Arabic history, very much earlier than this century, I am talking about hundreds of years before, Arabs considered, Ghassan, Adnan, Kahtan, Canaan, etc as all Arabian tribes that have all affliliations in the Peninsula. The Arabian Peninsula even at some point in time included South Iraq and Jordan in its defitions. But in any case, this was only confirmed by modern researchers that indeed Canaanites are Arabians in origin. Note that the word Arab better discrbes someone who speaks Arabic, while Arabian better fits the description of someone with origin in the Arabian Peninsula. Arabic as a languaged, just as Hebrew evoloved for thousands of years. It is quite clear that much of the current Hebrew/Arabic words are closly related to the Canaanite and Aramaic expressions. So it is really quite hard to think that this is not the case. The Canaanites absorbed all cultures, including the Hebrews and Philistines. Almaqdisi talk to me 12:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    If Arabic is defined solely by the language it's a different issue, but it isn't and rightfully so. Else, most Palestinians will be Jews because they speak Hebrew these days. I agree with Haldrik that Probably some of the Palestinian Christians are "Canaanites". In other words, they are the descendents of ancient Canaanites who became Jews who converted to Christianity and who resisted the Arab Muslim invaders. Palestinians dont come from the "Canaanites". Palestinians come dominantly from Arabs and also Nabateans, and European Crusaders. They arent Canaanites. Amoruso 12:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    But I think the article is not claiming otherwise, it is only showing that Palestinians have deep history in their land, and that they have strong ties with Pre Islamic invasions along with intermarriage with new invadors. Most Muslim Palestinians were christians at one point in time. christianity was the prime religion of Arabs in the Levant before Islam. That is known. Plus again, it seems all citations here are only confirming this. I do not see really any problem with that. Almaqdisi talk to me 13:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    The article gets it wrong. Haldrik explained for instance why this sentence is wrong "Canaanites are considered to be among the first to live in cities in Palestine. [18][19]. Some of the Canaanites are believed to have migrated in the 3rd millenium BC from the inner Arabian Peninsula" . This is also not related "Additionally, Israelites, Philistines, Romans, Arabs, Crusaders, and other people have all settled in the region and some intermarried" - it's simply not a serious discussion. Also, the use of Fraser make the section disputed as he was debunked completley later as seen above. Amoruso 13:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    So what is the origin of the Palestinians as you suggest? They all came from the deserts of Arabia? This is too simplistic and contradicts all history books and is basically wrong. Tons of references in this section already that argues otherwise. What is the point here in discrediting this info. It is all relevant and sounds accurate Almaqdisi talk to me 14:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    I said it above: "Palestinians come dominantly from Arabs and some from also Nabateans, and European Crusaders, but mostly Arab immigration. Anyway, Arabs, Nabateans, and European Crusaders - the point is NOT cananites. Amoruso 14:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    I do not understand what is meant by Arab immigration. I think such immigration has already been refuted by many. There has been a Jewish immigratin to Palestine in the last century, but not an Arab one. I think you realise that after 1948, only 170,000 Arabs remained. Now they are more than 1,200,000. Is this immigration or what? Please explain...? Almaqdisi talk to me 14:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    Nobody denies there was Arab immigration to Palestine. First of all it's never been refuted, the scope of it has been questioned. But basically the demographic stats are facts. Also, you're confusing with the time of the immigration, immigration occured anyway, the question is how much and when. This is irrelevant since immigration took place anyway whether you believe it was in the 7th century and whether you accept the fact that a lot of it happened in the 19th century, it doesn't matter. Amoruso 15:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    I think that a lot of the confusion here results from conflating ethnic, religious and racial categories. Let me try to explain by an example: The French are racially the same as the Italians or the English; they are Caucasians. But there is still a significant difference, owing to ethnic, linguistic and cultural differences. I think that Palestinians are racially identical to Egyptians or Saudis, or Sephardic Jews, for that matter; they are Arabs (a distinct race, or at least a distinct subgroup among the Caucasians). Yemeni or Iraqi Jews, for example, are Arabs. But not Muslim Arabs, obviously. But when you start to discuss whether Palestinians are Canaanites, you are making a category mistake, I believe. Canaanites were just one subculture among the many ancient Near Eastern Arabs. They are akin to Amorites, Hebrews, Assyrians, etc. There was no faith of Islam for anyone to belong to for another fifteen hundred years, at least. The birth of Islam is a relatively late event in the formation of the Arab peoples. By the time of Muhammad, Arab ethnicity had existed for at least three thousand years. The bottom line in areas such as the Near East or Continental Europe is that there has been a continuous migration of peoples for thousands of years, and a consequence of that is that the attempt to delimit a classificatory system of peoples or ethnic groups is virtually impossible. An excellent example is the Balkans, which bears a great similarity to the Near East in this respect. Serbians, Poles, Croats, Bosnians, Slavs, Bulgarians, Moldavians, Macedonians, White Russians, Ukranians, Jews, Muslims, Turks, Magyars and others have been migrating back and forth, warring amongst each other for over two thousand years. For anyone to attempt even remotely to achieve any sort of consensus is well-nigh hopeless, and likely to result in fiascos such as followed the First World War and the Treaty of Trianon, with the catastrophes that inevitably resulted. Finally, I repeat my earlier comments above: What is the goal of such enquiry? If it is ordinary anthropological research, I can see the point. But if there is an underlying motivation of assessing "rights" to disputed land in Israel/Jordan/West Bank, etc., I again state that the entire inquiry is ill-founded: It is as if someone were to claim that France really "belongs" to Italy, because the Romans possessed Gaul, until the Franks "invaded" and took it by force. What happened a thousand years ago is, with the rarest of exceptions, irrelevant to contemporary politics. France is a sovereign nation. No country can lay claim today to part of her with any moral force. Similarly with Israel, and with similar countries in the region, such as Jordan or Kuwait. These are sovereign nations, and the staking of "claims" to their territories is an ill-founded pursuit, likely to result in nothing but suffering for the peoples involved. The creation of the State of Israel, like that of Jordan, Syria, or Iraq, is a result of the confluence in the early twentieth century, of forces such as nationalism, foreign intervention by Great Britain and France, the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, the importance of oil to the world's economy, and religious, ethnic, and economic forces of a global nature that impinged on the areas involved. The relevance of the type of genetic and ethnic research to issues of politics is, in my opinion, rather limited. Whatever injustices may have occured in the past have little real importance to the politics on the land today. France and the Roman Empire is my similar example. Or--to select something more recent--the United States and its development at the expense of the native American tribes. I may be misinterpreting unstated premisses of the discussion here. If so, my comments may be ignored. 66.108.105.21 01:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth (I am going to establish a User account, as I see it is helpful.


    Amoruso, why remove Frazer when he talks about the topic at hand, and keep Mark Twain comments at Palestine article who is not giving or coming up with any numbers there??? I seriously do not understand what is going on here?? This all makes no sense to me at all. Farzer mentioned something that was only proven correct by many DNA tests, and by many archeological evidences, and reported and mentiond by many Arab and Muslim hsitorians that the Population in the Levant was never uprooted by Muslims but instead people changed faith! The only uprooting in Palestine happened during the Crusade times. Except, that the Palestinians are a continuation of pre Islam existing populations including some ancient arabian tribes like the Canaanites and others! Same can be said to the whole levant area in general! The Palestinians did not come from China! Stop the nonsense please Almaqdisi talk to me 21:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Golden Bough reference

    The article states:

    According to Sir James Frazer, the majority of Palestinian Arabs are descendants of the ancient Jebusites and Canaanites. In 1902, he wrote in his book The Golden Bough:

    "The Arabic-speaking peasants of Palestine are the progeny of the tribes which settled in the country before the Israelite invasion. They are still adhering to the land. They never left it and were never uprooted from it." [2]

    The Golden Bough is a book about mythology and religion. I couldn't find this quote by using the index in the print version, so I downloaded the e-text from Project Gutenberg [10] and searched for mentions of Palestine. As far as I can tell the quote doesn't exist, so I'll remove the reference - if anyone can find it, please restore it and give a page number this time!

    May the Palestinians achieve a stable, peaceful, independent liberal democracy soon. 41.241.197.231 13:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

    I can't find it either. I'm also dubious about using Frazer as a source since ancient migrations were not his specialty and also because we should prefer modern sources. He's clearly way ahead of Twain as a historical source, but we shouldn't have to compromise standards at all when so much has been written by modern experts. --Zerotalk 23:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks a lot 41.241.197.231. It's a very good step in changing the section to a factual version and not repeating some sources twice etc. Amoruso 03:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    Per this, I removed the Frazer quote. The genetic study has been discussed twice in the same section, that's why it was removed. As for the Caananites, see discussion above - it's simply not relevant to the section and it's also false, it's a misunderstanding of what the source says, discussed above and see the discussion at the discussion page of Palestine too. Amoruso 12:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    I agree that Frazer is not a good source for this at all, but Amoruso, please don't reinsert the dubious material drawing a parallel between the Nakba and Mizrahi immigration to Israel. Palmiro | Talk 12:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Druze?

    The Druze article says they don't consider themelves Palestinian. So why are they listed here? Adding Jews is confusing too I think havinga a definition at the begining that no one uses is a bad idea.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.57 (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

    [edit] Are Palestinians an ethnicity?

    I hope this doesn't offend anybody, but I'm not sure that Palestinian is not an ethnicity, at least not in the same sense as groups with ethnicity templates (such as Into-Aryans or Greeks). At best, it is a nationality. The word "Palestinian," when used to describe the Arabs that once lived in the British Mandate of Palestine and their decendants, is a term that is only about 50 years old. I noticed that Jordanians and Saudi Arabians do not have their own ethnicity template, even though those nationalities are older than Palestinians. I propose deleting the Palestinian ethnicity template. --GHcool 05:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

    An ethnicity is not racial, but rather a group that has a self-understanding as a group that shares values, traditions, and aspirations. It is somewhat presumptuous to tell other groups that they are not a true ethnicity. The fact of the matter it is a vague conception. Also nationality is often interchanged with ethnicity, because nationality can define a group with a shared set of values, traditions, etc, depending on how well developed the nation is. It is true that the issue of the Palestinians has been politicized and there have been repeated denunciations by various Israelis and supports of Zionism that there are no Palestinians, just some nomadic Arabs, but again, it is presumptuous to say that another group isn't a real ethnic group. In fact, it generally agreed that the Palestinians were not a well defined ethnic group prior to their shared experiences with Zionism. But since then, they now share a very unique and thoroughly defining experience with Zionism, such shared and significant experiences are what create new identity groups, because the Palestinians now have a significantly different historical experience, and thus self identity and values and aspirations, than neighboring Arabs communities. --64.230.126.5 17:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    Hmm, this is a difficult and, often subjective, issue. The Palestinians are, from a larger context, Levantine Arabs related to Syrians, Lebanese and Jordanians moreso than to say Egyptians (who do have an article and rightly so) or Saudis and other peninsular Arabs. The people of the Levant represent a fusion of various Semitic groups (including Jews who were most likely converted to Christianity and Islam over time and adopted an Arab identity or simply mixed with them) and invaders such as the Philistines, Greeks, Persians, Crusaders etc. The best way to go would be to either keep Palestinians as an ethnic group OR create a Levantine Arab category, but that would create other problems such as the view of Maronites who may view themselves as the descendents of the Phoenicians moreso than Arabs etc. Recent genetic studies by Nat'l Geographic support the view that many Lebanese (and some Tunisians who can be linked to Carthage) are related to the Phoenicians. Since the Palestinians are indigenous to the area and show a historical continuity and have a culture (that does mirror that of their neighors not surprisingly), they are a group, but there was always fluidity in the region in that people in the Levant moved around in their area. Today, they are often identified as a type of Arab, often congregate and identify with each other so in that sense they are an ethnic group. Either way it's a difficult issue. Tombseye 18:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    My original question remains: If "Palestinian" is an ethnic group, why isn't "Jordanian," "Saudi Arabian," or "Lebanese?" The suggestion of creating an all encompassing Levantine Arab category seems to me to be the most ethnographically neutral thing to do. --GHcool 20:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    I disagree with your idea. The combination that you are pushing for doesn't seem appropriate, but I could see a renaming of this article to something along the lines of "Arab Palestinians" or "Palestinian Arabs" which is a conception similar to the existing useful article entitled "Jewish Americans" (which is also categorized as an ethnic group.) Britannica says that there are two ethnic groups in Israel, Jews and Palestinian Arabs (which is further broken down into Muslims, Christians and Druze.) See [11]. According to the CIA guide to ethnic groups [12], the West Bank is composed of "Palestinian Arab and other 83%, Jewish 17%". --64.230.126.5 21:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    Well, there is no reason why we can't create articles for the Jordanians (actually the group known as Bedouins as that is how other references breakdown the Jordanian population as in this case with Palestinians as somewhat distinct and see the Universal Almanac for a rendition on the matter) and Saudis actually. Or just Arabians even in the case of the Arabian peninsula. Ethnic groups that speak the same language can be tricky as views vary. For the context of the Israeli-Palestinian situation (and the status of Palestinians in other countries), the Palestinians ARE an ethnic group, but one that is not necessarily without overlap with their neighbors. The Maronites have an article that is both religious and relates to their ethnic identity already. Also, for much of the 20th century, the Palestinians have increasingly been cohesive as an ethnic group since they are refugees and/or 2nd class citizens (i.e. outsiders) in the countries outside the Occupied Territories (such as Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Jordan etc.). Social dynamics can lead to the creation of an ethnic group and so from that context they are an ethnic group. Clearly, if the Library of Congress is looking at them as a group, then there is some validity to them as a group of sorts. Also, in Lebanon they remain somewhat distinct. Ultimately, the Palestinians are also part of an intricate system of tribal affiliation which in the Arab context means that regional Arabs intermarry and interact and are thus more similar to each other. The Levantines can breakdown into a north-south divide, while in Jordan the Bedouin group (as opposed to the Pals who moved to the area following the Arab-Israeli war in 1948 and some ocnflicts afterwards) is considered more native then the Pals of the East Bank. These are considerations when discussing the issue of whether Pals are an ethnic group or not. I'm not sure this warrants eliminating this article though so much as creating a Levantine article AND articles for other regional Arabs since we already have that with the Maronites and Egyptians. Tombseye 21:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    I may have misrepresented myself, and if I have, I sincerely appologize. My argument does not apply to the title of this article, "Palestinian people," which I believe is an extremely useful and well written article about a group of people that are internationally known as Palestinians (and certainly Wikipedia should reflect this reality). What I object to is the Template on the right-hand side of the article which describes "Palestinian" as an ethnicity in the same sense as Greeks, Indo-Aryans, Persians, and other undisputed ethnicities that go back hundreds or thousands of years. I'm not an anthropologist, but my understanding of the term "ethnicity" is that a group of people that has been around for less than 100 years should not be called an ethnic group. --GHcool 06:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    I totally support GHcool, you cannot call a group that is both Jewish and Arab Palestinains and claim it's an etnicity. you could have done it back at 1900.. but not after 450,000 jews came to the land (USSR and Europe) and another 500,000 arabs came to the land from the nearby Arab lands (there wer'nt that many states at the time)... i'm talking pre-1947, for those who are not aware, more than 400,000 arabs came to the land between 1920-1945 in an arab attempt to keep the entire land islamic by force. Jaakobou 09:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

    GHcool's case would be good if ethnicity was defined only according to biology. However, according to all the dictionaries I consulted, the phrase includes groups defined by other criteria, especially by cultural ties. American Heritage Dictionary: "Identity with or membership in a particular racial, national, or cultural group and observance of that group's customs, beliefs, and language." Wordnet: "an ethnic quality or affiliation resulting from racial or cultural ties". Oxford English Dictionary ("ethnic"): "Pertaining to race; peculiar to a race or nation; ethnological. Also, pertaining to or having common racial, cultural, religious, or linguistic characteristics..." Finally, the box is not a legal document. The Palestinian people clearly have a strong case for inclusion. --Zerotalk 11:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

    The definition of therm "ethnicity" is a complicated isue. Nowadays it is usually understood as self-identification. Other definitions ae also possible, but to my knowledge, this is the only workable one. Beit Or 16:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    The American Heritage and Wordnet definitions found by Zero are way too broad for the term as I understand it. I think the Oxford one is closer to how people actually use the term. If Palestinian is an ethnicity (and by the Wordnet and American Heritage definitions, it clearly is), then where do we draw the line? Is American an ethnicity? There have been people themselves Americans since 1776 (almost 200 years before people started calling themselves Palestinians). Certainly Americans share national and cultural ties and observe similar customs, beliefs, and a common language. We can even go further: are Trekkies an ethniciy? They share common cultural characteristics and even have their own language that they read and speak (Klingon) and one could argue that they even share common customs and beliefs. There have been people calling themselves Trekkies almost as long as people have been calling themselves Palestinians. It is not difficult to extend the logic of what is an ethnicity according to the American Heritage Dictionary to Trekkies or even to less distinctive groups (such as the Democratic Party). --GHcool 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    Your correct GHcool that there is a fuzzy line between ethnic groups and identity groups. Democrats are clearly an identity group. On the boarder subject, I recommend reading the ethnogenesis article, it describes the process of how ethnic groups are created. I find the article on imagined communities to also be fascinating. --70.51.228.137 23:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    Interesting articles. I still think there are many more groups that don't have ethnicity templates that deserve them more than the Palestinians and a lot of groups that do not deserve ethnicity templates that could argue that they are ethnicities under these broad definitions. --GHcool 00:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups is not confined to ethnic groups in the narrow sense, nor are its templates. The use of the template is not a judgment on the status of the group. Fundamentally, nations (not states), ethnic subgroups, and associated groupings of ethnic groups (e.g. the natives of a certain region of the Americas) are handled the same way. We just had to keep the project name from getting too cumbersome. - Jmabel | Talk 19:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Ancestry of the Palestinians

    Tewfik you removed the paragraph below claiming that it is original research. This despite the fact that almost every sentence in the paragraph is sourced, often with multiple sources. Is there a dispute to the quality of the sources?

    Canaanites are considered to be among the first to live in cities in Cna'an, (later renamed Palestine by the Roman Empire). Both Arab Palestinians and Jews (Diaspora and Palestinain Jews) are considered to be closely related to the Canaanites. [13][14]. Some of the Canaanites are believed to have migrated in the 3rd millennium BC from the inner Arabian Peninsula,[3] Additionally, Israelites, Philistines, Romans, Arabs, Crusaders, and other people have all settled in the region and some intermarried [15][16]. Some of their descendants converted to Christianity and later to Islam, and spoke different languages depending on the lingua franca of the time. Ramallite (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

    What's the connection of the above paragraph to the Palestinians? Beit Or 16:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    The connection is the title of the section. Why? Ramallite (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    Do you have reliable sources tracing the origins of Palestinians to Canaanites? Beit Or 20:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    Do you have reliable sources that they aren't? I do hope you're not dwelling on this "Palestinians are recent immigrants" canard. To answer your question, 1- some of the sources above are specific to Palestinians even though the text fails to mention it because it seems to be implied. 2- I have genetic studies done at Hebrew University provided by User:Haldrik for another article, but using genetics in an article like this is (to me) demeaning, since the Palestinians people are not lab rats. Ramallite (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    The burden of proof lies on the editor who wants to include a claim. If you want to include into the article the claim that Palestinians are descendants of Canaanites, you must bring reliable sources supporting that claim. Beit Or 20:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    Right. Ramallite (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    It should be noted that people have really been hammering away on the ancestry section. It used to be quite different and more extensive, see [17]. --70.51.228.137 23:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    The old version of the article contained:
    According to Sir James Frazer, the majority of Palestinian Arabs are descendants of the ancient Jebusites and Canaanites. In 1902, he wrote in his book The Golden Bough: "The Arabic-speaking peasants of Palestine are the progeny of the tribes which settled in the country before the Israelite invasion. They are still adhering to the land. They never left it and were never uprooted from it."
    The genetic studies of the Palestinians have supported the original claims of Sir James Frazer: "Archaeologic and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites, who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian and Anatolian peoples in ancient times." [18]
    It seems straight forward to me. The last reference is hosted on rense.com, but it is a peer-reviewed academic paper with a bunch of citations according to Google Scholar. As I understand, Ramallite is a long time Wikipedia of Palestinian descent, who thankfully has a lot of patience, one should be kind to him. --70.51.228.137 23:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

    I don't think that Beit Or was trying to say that anyone is a recent immigrant. For starters, the claim of Canaanite background is relatively recent. Secondly, people identifying as Palestinians has not existed much longer (used by Jews, Muslims, etc.) and the region's Arabs did not consider themselves of a separate nationality to their Arab relatives to their borders. There are some traditions that Jews share with Canaanites, however none that I know of that has been passed on to Palestinian Arabs. The vast majority of today's Palestinian Arabs descend from the Arabs who arrived with or following the conquering of Syria. Only a few arrived with the Umayyads, but with the Fatimids and as Arab conquest expanded many more came along. --Shamir1 01:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

    "the region's Arabs did not consider themselves of a separate nationality to their Arab relatives" What? Are you kidding me? Read "Palestinian Identity" by Rashid Khalidi.
    "The vast majority of today's Palestinian Arabs descend from the Arabs who arrived with or following the conquering of Syria." Really? Come on Shamir1, I know so many people would LOVE to believe that, but where's the evidence? Not in our genes, that's for sure. Ramallite (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    If and when you should meet a relative of yours from let's say...1800, and ask if him how he identifies himself, there is no question in my mind he would not say Palestinian. Palestine had no borders then, and for most people it certainly did not include the Negev desert which it did in 1917. So how would the Arabs of Beersheba identify? As Arabs, Muslims, even Syrians. They considered themselves Arabs just like the Arabs in Amman or Medina. Oh and while you're at it, ask him if he has ever heard of being descendants of Canaanites. I'm sure many people would LOVE to believe that. What do you think that Canaanites just evolved into Arabs somehow? Look at the Moroccans. They can so easily find traces of Berber in their Arabic language even long after the Arab expansion. The Ethiopian Jewish language of Ge'ez can so easily find traces of Hebrew. Certainly there must be at least one Canaanite custom, at least one word, something...if it is true. Historians have not been able to find if the Canaanites survived or not or where they would be, similar to the Lost Ten Tribes. --Shamir1 19:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    Well let me ask you: what would a Jew in Jerusalem have responded? What about a Jew in Yemen? Don't kid yourself, Shamir1. As for my relative (let's assume it's my great great great grandfather Avigdor Yusuf Al-Kamrava), I don't know if he would use "Palestine" (although it's not like people didn't use the name), but he would definitely say he was from Ramallah. And that's the point you fail to realize: It doesn't matter WHAT you call yourself. What matters is that your basic human rights are respected. Now imagine that some relative of mine was asked: "What is your religion?" And then being told "sorry, in that case you can't stay in Ramallah and you can't call yourself a Ramallite. You have no rights in this land". That's the essence of the problem today. And as for languages, you definitely haven't done your Arabic homework. Lastly, it's nice of you to repeat a lot of what I say, but I would LOVE it if you got your own phrases. Ramallite (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    Well, I guess you can say I just LOVE your phrases so much. The point about saying who is Palestinian is that it does not make sense for Canaanites to somehow evolve into a separate people. It did not matter WHAT you call yourself, but it is not like there is a separate race of Palestinians that your great-great grandfather identified with. If your grandfather left Ramallah for Amman would he feel as if he left the country, left a nation? Even Khalidi's book hardly goes beyond 1880. And I've done enough Arabic homework to know that the Arabic language spoken by Palestinians does not have any distinct Canaanite roots. This is unlike Moroccan Arabic. Hmm... you must be talking about the Arab Higher Committee who declared a strike in 1947. Or the Arab League that started war in 1948. It was certainly them who first had such a problem with a religious group having rights in the land. What do you think they would have done to them if it were them who had won, eh? Muslim Israelis have more representation than Muslim Jordanians or Muslim Kuwaitis, and enjoy the fullest extent of political rights. And as for the essence of the problem today, why wasn't any "essence" of a problem created after the Spanish Inquisition, or perhaps the Pale of Settlement? --Shamir1 20:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    I'm flattered that you love my phrases. Again, when you say "it is not like there is a separate race of Palestinians that your great-great grandfather identified with", that is true for about any people that developed a "nationality", which is more a European concept, in the 20th century. I ask again, what would a Jew who lived in Baghdad identify herself as in the 17-18th centuries? It makes perfect sense for races to intermarry and intermingle as eons go by. The question is, why aren't Americans being subjected to genetic tests in order to give them citizenship and rights? Why aren't you, Shamir1, being told "Your (great great)^7 grandfather didn't call himself American, so you cannot be a descendent of the Native peoples of North America and therefore, you have no claim to human rights as the rest of humanity does." ??? If my grandfather had left to another city, it is up to him, not to you, how he identified himself. It's not your decision!!!. As it happens, he did not leave Ramallah, and that's what matters. Please spare me the standard lecture about rights of Arabs in Jordan versus in Israel. I am not Jordanian, and not Israeli, so I couldn't care less, it doesn't affect me. Also, comparative suffering is not how I measure things. You can go back in time to argue who was the racist then (once you figure out all the facts about then from all sides), or you can join the present and address the problems now. What's this all about anyway? That Palestinians are not descended from Canaanites? First of all, you can't prove or disprove that either way, and second, for the reasons I gave above (the American example), who gives a hedgehog's groin? We're here aren't we? We don't belong anywhere else do we? We don't identify ourselves as anything else do we? Ramallite (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    No time, or more correctly no willingness, to answer every baseless statement but will tell you that the people of the past were people. If they could make it work, so can you. Also, cities do not denote a race. My grandfather Shokrollah and his Armenian neighbor Vahagn both were of families who lived in Isfahan for centuries but my grandfather had more in ethnically in common with other Persians. (Same with his Arab wife whose family emigrated from Baghdad.) And don't tell me how you do not care since you are not Jordanian or Israeli, it was you who made a comment about no rights based on religion. Perhaps Palestinians should learn to live in the now and just say what a Kuwaiti journalist said about a year ago: that Arabs have won more by making peace with Israel than by their numerous declared wars against them. Throughout these wars, they played with fire and they got burned; it is up to them to get the bandage. So live in the now and spend money on bandages, rather than rockets... --Shamir1 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    Also, I never said there was no such thing is a Palestinian, did you confuse for Zuhayr Muhsin? I am glad you got to see what is in Israeli media though, it is beautifully democratic, and has the highest degree of freedom of press and news in the Middle East, similar to Europe and America. "...I don't see any problem with criticizing corruption or political phenomena in the territories. Our problem is that in this part of the world, they don't sue you for damaging someone, they simply shoot you. Therefore, I have to be careful." -Othman Al Haj Mohammed, journalist from Ramallah (has been given a permit to distribute his newspaper in Israel)

    [edit] Genetics additions

    [edit] Genetic Evidence for the Ancestry of Palestinians

    Haplogroup J (Y-DNA)(previously known as HG9 or Eu9/Eu10) is one of more than 150 Haplogroups found in humans around the world. It is group of genes on the Y Male chromosome and represent a Paternal ancestry that originated in the Levant in the middle East 10000 years ago. Haplogroup J1 is a sub Haplogroup J found mainly in Arabs ( meaning people from Arabic countries including Palestinians have the highest percentage of this Haplogroup on their Y chromosomes in the world). The recently discovered genetic signature in J1 known as The Cohen Modal Haplotype found only in Jewish people of Cohenite ancestry ( ie the claimants to be descendents of Aaron among jews worldwide). J1 haplogroup became a marker of the Arab expansion in the early medieval period (Semino et al. 2004)[[19]]. A genetic study by (Nebel et al. 2000) of Hadasa Hospital (Jerusalem University)[[20]] found another signature in J1 termed the Modal Haplotype of the Galilee (MH Galilee) that is considered a marker of moslem Arab population in North Israel (Galilee). Later He and many reseachers found the same signature (MH Galilee) in several Arabic countries (NW Africa, the Southern Levant, and Yemen). A quote from the study by Nebel reads "The highest frequency of Eu10 (30%–62.5%) has been observed so far in various Moslem Arab populations in the Middle East (Semino et al. 2000; Nebel et al. 2001). The most frequent Eu10 microsatellite haplotype in NW Africans is identical to a modal haplotype (DYS19-14, DYS388-17, DYS390-23, DYS391-11, DYS392-11, DYS393-12) of Moslem Arabs who live in a small area in the north of Israel, the Galilee (Nebel et al. 2000). This haplotype, which is present in the Galilee at 18.5%, was termed the modal haplotype of the Galilee (MH Galilee) (Nebel et al. 2000). Notably, it is absent from two distinct non-Arab Middle Eastern populations, Jews and Muslim Kurds, both of whom have significant Eu10 frequencies—18% and 12%, respectively (Nebel et al. 2001). Interestingly, this modal haplotype is also the most frequent haplotype (11 [~41%] of 27 individuals) in the population from the town of Sena, in Yemen (Thomas et al. 2000). Its single-step neighbor is the most common haplotype of the Yemeni Hadramaut sample (5 [~10%] of 49 chromosomes; Thomas et al. 2000). The presence of this particular modal haplotype at a significant frequency in three separate geographic locales (NW Africa, the Southern Levant, and Yemen) makes independent genetic-drift events unlikely." Palestinians have 39% of J1 second only to Beduins in Arabic countries.

    I am pretty sure the above is not OR as Tewfik stated in a short edit summary, thus I have moved it to the talk page. I was reading through the sources provided and they mention explicitly the Palestinian Arab popluation, especially with regards to the Eu10 frequencies. It should be cut down because some of the contextual connections are not necessary, the author of the above is probably a professor/academic type who wants to describe the full academic context. Tewfik's accusations of OR seems completely out of place though. --64.230.120.196 18:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

    Also this article should be renamed "Palestinian Arabs" or a similar article should be created. --64.230.120.196 18:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    I second that. --GHcool 20:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

    It is OR because it does not actually support the hypothesis, but merely discusses general Arabian population expansion. If anything, a paper like this one would probably be much more relevant (by some of the same authors), though I am not sure in what context. TewfikTalk 23:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


    I'm not sure this article needs to be renamed. Judaism is, for example, a religion and not an ethnic group so since there was a small Palestinian Jewish population before first aliyah, they would, in essence, constitute Jewish Palestinians/Arabs just as there are Muslim and Christian Arabs. Thus, in this manner everyone is a Palestinian, with Muslims making up the majority followed by Christians, Jews, Druze etc. Given the nature of how ethnic groups are perceived, it's pretty much redundant to call the article Palestinian Arabs as that is obvious. Even tiny minorities like Armenians generally speak Arabic (I've met a few from Jordan who were more at home with Arabic than Armenian for example). I think the article, as it exists seems okay to me. Tombseye 03:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

    Are you insinuating that Jews living in the Land of Israel before Zionism (if that's what you mean under "first aliyah") were actually Arabs? Beit Or 17:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    (not related to this debate) I didn't know the two words 'Arab' and 'Jew' were mutually exclusive... are they? Ramallite (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    This is an interesting question. My stepmother is a Jew that traces her ancestry to Iraq. She is clearly a Mizrahi Jew, but is she an Arab? I say she is, but she insists that she is not. Her family spoke Arabic, they are a Semitic people, they lived in the Middle East for hundreds (thousands?) of years. If somebody can explain to me why my stepmother is not equally an Arab Jew and a Mizrahi Jew (she cannot without using ethnocentrism) in the same way that a someone can call themselves an Ashkenazi Jew and a Russian Jew, I would be very greatful. --GHcool 20:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    Well you always hear "Arab Muslims" and "Christian Arabs". I know I hear "Arab Jews" a lot in my own environment, especially when describing "50% of the population of Israel" or people like Amir Peretz or Yitzhak Mordechai and others. But the Jewish people are also a nation as well as a religion. In that sense, they are like Armenians. Armenians live dispersed in many countries, and consider themselves Armenian as well as French or Lebanese or American or whatever. Ramallite (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, in essence all Jews living in Arab lands were Arabs just as Persian Jews were Persians and German Jews were German (regardless of what the Nazis believed). They spoke the language, culturally were very similar if not identical and historical records show that many Jews converted to Islam so there is no doubt a wide variety of intrinsic relations. Of course, since the creation of Israel that identity has shifted to a "Jewish" one, which for some people has been a religious identification (many Austrian Jews for example viewed themselves as Austrians first and Jews second as was also the case with many Berber Jews). They are today like the Armenians etc. in that they view themselves as both a religious and an ethnic group (but this too varies from person to person). It's also just as viable to view Jews as Iraqi Jews, Persian Jews, Cochin Jews, etc. If they were historically from Palestine, then they would be Arab Jews and Palestinians like the Muslims and Christians though. Tombseye 18:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    You're projecting modern nationalities too far back into the past. I know that's way history came to be revised in Europe beginnign from the 19th century when historians suddenly saw Germans, Dutch, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, Russians etc. in the Middle Ages, but unfortunately, that was agenda-driven revisionism rather than serious scholarship. True, many German Jews thought of themselves as Germans of Jewish faith. However, this line of thinking only emerged somewhere in the mid-19th century together with the notion of German and other nationalities in Europe. Panarabism and local Arab nationalisms emrged only in the 20th century. Speaking of "nationalities" in the Middle East before that time is anachronistic. Before the notion of nationality was imported from Europe, one could only speak of religions, tribes, and ethnicities. Ethnically, Jews never qualified as Arabs. I can see another claim here, that "Of course, since the creation of Israel that identity has shifted to a "Jewish" one". The sentence implies that Jews living in Arab lands identified as Arabs (or Arabs first, Jews second). This is again a fantasy. Traditional Muslim societies were organized strictly along religious lines with Muslims, Jews, Christians etc. forming well-identified and separated communities. In those societies, Arabs were defined as Muslims who trace their paternal line to the inhabitants of the Arab peninsula. Granted, many Muslims were able to forge their genealogies to prove they were Arabs, but otherwise it was well known who among the Muslims were Arabs and who were not, since the division had legal implications (for example, for marriage). To say that Jews of Muslim lands identified as Arabs is makes no sense: they wouldn't have been allowed to do so, even some of them had wanted to. Beit Or 08:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    The phrase "Arab Jews" was very common in the late 19th and first part of the 20th century and is fairly common in academic literature still today. I don't think it was generally used to denote a genetic connection, but rather to describe Jews who were Arab in culture, language, etc.. The dispute about the phrase seems to be mostly a result of Zionist ideology. As Ella Shohat wrote ("The Invention of the Mizrahim", J. Pal. Studies, Vol. 29 (1999), pp. 5-20): "official Israeli/Zionist policy urges Arab Jews (or, more generally, Oriental Jews, also known as Sephardim or Mizrahim) to see their only real identity as Jewish. The official ideology denies the Arabness of Arab Jews, positing Arabness and Jewishness as irreconcilable opposites. For Zionism, this Arabness, the product of millennial cohabitation, is merely a Diasporic stain to be "cleansed" through assimilation. Within Zionist ideology, the very term "Arab Jew" is an oxymoron and a misnomer, a conceptual impossibility. ... in the case of Middle Eastern Jews, the Euro-Israeli separation of the "Jewish" and "Middle Eastern" parts has ideologically facilitated the actual dismantling of the Jewish communities of the Muslim world, while pressuring the Oriental Jews in Israel to realign their identity according to Zionist Euro-Israeli paradigms." (Not sure how this relates to the present article, though.) --Zerotalk 09:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    The phrase "Arab Jews" is no more problematic than phrases "American Jews", "Russian Jews", or "Persian Jews". The problem is rather the idea, advocated by some editors here, that Jews of Arab lands could be legitimately called "Arabs". This idea is largely based on the anachronistic and otherwise unjustified projection of the modern European concept of nationality onto the pre-modern Orient. Beit Or 09:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    All nationalisms are based upon the modern "European" definition anyway so it's not a question of projecting, but simply what is. Now how would say Arabs who are pagan and Christian and Jewish then exist if not as a collective group called Arabs? Muhammad appears to have viewed the Jews of Medina as a religious group, but they were also Arab tribes. The application of the term "Arab" is itself difficult to define. For many people it's simply someone who speaks Arabic and often Arabs from Arabia look at people from the Maghrib (not just the Berbers) as non-Arab as well. Who then is the Arab and how much of a factor is religion. In fact, the question is not one of universal acceptance, but rather of what is. Were German Jews any less German just because Hitler viewed them as non-Germans? Yet we're all digressing here as the question is the Palestinian people and that should be a group that covers all of the people who live and lived in the area regardless of religion, which was really my main point. Tombseye 00:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    This talk page is not an appropriate place to discuss your personal opinions on miscellaneous unrelated issues. Beit Or 07:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    Just because you don't agree with me does not me it's a "personal opinion". My history professor discussed the Jews of the Arab world so it's actually an academic opinion whereas your views appear to more less opinions. Tombseye 01:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

    Haplogroup J1 ( Y-DNA) is the semetic ancestry (the only paternal semetic ancestry) ar verified in Wikipedia- [[Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA). if you look on the Y haplogroups map you see J1 is highest in arabic countries, means its origin. For this reason the researchers who claim that Cohen Modal Haplotype ( marker of the descendents of Aaron) insist that only the CMH in J1 represent descent from Aaron ( descendent of Abraham father of the Arabs) J2 is a different ancestry that split from J2 10000 years ago, So Aaron or any given human being on the earth can be only from one haplogroup. Their insistance on J1 for their modal is because the Arabs have the highest of J1 in the world. Come that J1 is not the ancestry of Aaron, then this Cohen Modal Haplotype are non jews period ( ie not descendent from Aaron or Jacob or Abraham). Now, Bedoin of the Negev desert in Israel are descendents of Nabataeans, yet they have J1 THE highest in the world 82%, next in line the Palestinians ( 50%), this makes Palestinians Arabs. However the minor haplogroups found in Arabic countries including palestinians are markers for well known peoples ( markers of their own rights). Some of these nations live completely in arabic countries like Berber, some live disparesely in arabic countries (Kurds, Armenians, Checkess, Chechens, Turks, Anatolians, European turks ( Albanians, Bosnians, etc) To claim that these minor markers in the palestinians is outragous because these markers belong to different home lands ( Albanians have R1a1 for example its home is north of the black sea( people from north of the black sea are not known to be the ingiginous people of Palestine (!?) Hope this explains little. Adam

    [edit] Pictures

    As someone correctly pointed out, the pictures of the children do not make the article look good. I know it's been already discussed but the pictures are still there. Plus the article needs some sources, seriously, just the minimum effort. It contains countless of POV and countless of references to Palestinian websites that don't exactly qualify as the most credible of sources. Miskin 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

    Please elaborate:
    1. What was pointed out about the pictures that you decreed to be correct? ;)
    2. Which specific Palestinian websites are problematic? Or did you mean all of them?
    Thanks, Ramallite (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

    The pictures of children (3 or so in total) make the article look biased. It's as if they want to make the reader feel sorry for Palestians. Aside the fact that it doesn't reflect the real will of the palestianian nation (which probably doesn't want to be looked at with pity), it can in some ways be interpreted as political propaganda. I don't know about all, but some of those sites (depending on the content), are not credible sources. Plus the majority of sections about historical and cultural information do not provide any references whatsoever. Miskin 01:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

    <wisecrack>Obviously someone has chosen pictures of smiling children in order to hide the widespread malnutrition and psychological damage suffered by Palestinian children due to the occupation. [21] [22] [23] They should be replaced by pictures of unhappy children immediately. --Zerotalk 03:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC) </wisecrack>

    Right. How about replacing them with pictures of adults? Miskin 10:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

    Do you have any? Ramallite (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

    Nope, but I wouldn't believe for a minute that the current angelic pictures were put there because they were the only thing that could be found. Miskin 01:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

    Would you have said the same thing if the Norwegians page had similar pictures of Norwegian kids? Look, I am not a fan of all these pictures either, but not for the dehumanizing reasons that were expressed in an earlier section above. That discussion was nauseating and I actually stopped editing for a while after seeing the mindsets that are on some of these pages. Ramallite (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

    That article would have never followed that practice, and yes I would have said the same thing, probably for different reasons. Miskin 13:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

    Here is one of my photos of Palestinian adults. --Zerotalk 12:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

    Why can't you find something normal? Something that won't have any implications on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Is that too much to ask for the sake of NPOV? Miskin 13:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

    Perhaps because the situation as described in Zero's picture is, in fact, normal everyday routine. Ramallite (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    Couldn't a picture of four well-known Palestinians be used, this done in other articles. List of Palestinians has many.--Rudjek 13:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    The problem is, excluding politicians, there aren't many pictures there.--Rudjek 13:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

    This is a good idea. I'm sure we can find notable non-politician personalities within the Palestinian diaspora. Miskin 14:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

    Sari Nusseibeh could definitely be included.--Rudjek 14:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    I think the current picture is an excellent one. Palmiro | Talk 20:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

    Yeah me too, let's enforce this practice by adding pictures of holocaust victims in the pages of Israel and Jews. Miskin 22:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

    Excuse me? First, you automatically assumed that the pictures are there "make the reader feel sorry for Palestians". Well, it's "Palestinians" not "Palestians", and if you think that pictures of smiling children are there "to make people feel sorry", JUST because they are Palestinian and they are children, you have serious personal problems that you need to contemplate elsewhere, not on WP. Second, are you comparing pictures of smiling children in this century with pictures of the dead victims of the worst crime of the 20th century? You must be joking, or not, I don't know which is more offensive and/or sick. You are crossing a line of civility; racism and Holocaust mockery are not welcome here. Ramallite (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

    I'm not objecting to this because it's in the article about Palestinians, but because I see it as a clearly non-neutral practice. I was troubled myself when I first saw the picture until I noticed that other people had brought this up in the talk page already. I would object to this in any article involving a political dispute, but when it comes to a dispute of such a magnitude, I'm really surprised that this hasn't been dealt with already. In fact I'm surprised you don't even realise its importance. Besides all that, have you personally asked those children if they want to be on the internet as representatives of the Palestinian people? It's rather ironic to see how you accuse me of uncivil behaviour and insult me in the very same post. Spare me the lecture, I wasn't insulting neither Hebrews nor Palestinians, and any neutral editor can see that. Yes it's true that I used a caricatured example as a counter-argument to irrational behaviour, but I wasn't delivering any offence at anybody. You're not in position to define which words I'm allowed or not allowed to use, this is an international place offering the right of free speech, whether you like it or not is irrelevant. It takes much more than throwing around strong terms such as "sick", "racism" and "mockery" to take that right away from me. Miskin 23:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

    Again, you make automatic assumptions. The Palestinian people are NOT a political dispute, they are human beings. Okay? Articles having to do with disputes are a dime a dozen around here. But whatever you say to defend the notion that these pictures are here "for sympathy" will just deepen the offense you've already caused. If you read my earlier entries, you'd see that I am not a fan of these pictures either, but not because of the dehumanizing reasons that you and others have conveyed. That dehumanization is what sickens me. So if you want to have a civil discussion, remove from your head the notion that the Palestinian people, all those people, can be summed up in your words as a "political dispute". This is not meant to be a political article. So clearly, when you say that you weren't delivering any offence to anybody, you actually were. On what bases do you insinuate that I am a non-neutral editor? What edits to actual articles have I done that appear non-neutral? Lastly, sorry if the words "sick", "racism", and "mockery" insulted you. I was merely reacting to what I saw was a deeply offensive set of statements. I think User:MPerel's response to the earlier discussion on this topic sums up nicely why. Ramallite (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

    What I don't understand is how you reached the conclusion that I don't regard Palestinians as human beings by merely pointing out their grave geopolitical importance. I also don't understand what you mean by "dehumanization", for all I know those children do not even know that they're being held on public display, and chances are that as adults they would never agree to it. Furthermore, precisely because this article should be treated exactly as any other ethnic article, you should follow the practice of other articles and have a picture of four notable Palestianian individuals in the infobox. Miskin 00:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

    Our children are notable. They are the future. And they are far more important than the photos of any of the rotten so called leaders you want to replace them with.Abu ali 00:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks for demonstrating the non-neutral, partisan attitude I've been referring to. Miskin 00:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

    Most Palestinians are ordinary people trying to lead ordinary lives in difficult circumstances. I don't see why the picture on this page should not represent ordinary Palestinian people, why such a representation should be seen as non-neutral, or why we should depict famous people instead. Okay, we could follow the model of Swedish people and have pictures of Fadwa Tuqan, Hanan Ashrawi, Leila Khalid and Sahar Khalifa, which would be very representative of famous Palestinians as it would show a political activist, a freedom fighter, a poet and a novelist as well as two West Bank Palestinians, one from the diaspora and one from the 1948 territories. But most Palestinians aren't famous, and a picture of anonymous Palestinian children is far more representative than any selection of famous faces. And if the children have the temerity to smile, well, good luck to them. Palmiro | Talk 00:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

    Are you implying that the majority of Swedish people are famous and that therefore a picture of famous Swedes is representative of the lot? This doesn't make any sense. Plus this is not a Swedish model, it's a wikipedia model, you can only count in your fingers the articles that don't follow it. I will insist on the question about the identity of the depicted children, I personally find it immoral to violate and/or exploit their personal lives in such a manner. And for some reason I suspect that they're not even aware of it at the moment, as they won't be in position to criticise such an action for another 10 years. Miskin 01:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

    No, I'm not making any statement about the majority of Swedes being famous, only about the majority of Palestinians not being famous. But I do think my comments would be valid in other cases. Anyway, I'm not aware of any WP policy or guideline regarding who should be depicted in X-people articles. But I suppose if you're really upset about the use of pictures of children (though I really don't understand this) you could propose use of Zero0000's image of adults, which is certainly typical. Palmiro | Talk 01:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

    Let's check the source of the picture: "Justin McIntosh is an independent artist, photo-journalist, activist and web designer from Boston. He has recently returned form traveling in Lebanon and the West bank, occupied Palestine"[24]. That's just great, some american guy took a tourist trip to the middle east and then decided to post pictures of children on the internet. And I'm sure this guy informed every single person about his intentions right before he took their pictures. In my book this is called exploitation. Miskin 01:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

    After arguing this for some time, you have yet to come up with any reason except a fear that someone might feel sympathetic towards Palestinians. This says more about you than about the article. --Zerotalk 04:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

    I believe the argument was that this should be in line with the convention on all other like articles. Not everything need be viewed in terms of bad-faith POV. TewfikTalk 17:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

    The reasons given were nothing but bad-faith POV. Ramallite (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

    I only pointed out that in my opinion, the fact that this is not in line with common convention is the result of a certain POV. If you don't want to accept it that's fine, it still doesn't change the fact that it doesn't follow regular procedures. And the justification I received was honestly very poor. Miskin 21:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

    Ramallite, being that you agreed above that the pictures may not be encyclopaedic, then aren't we all really in agreement? Perhaps someone with photoediting software can put together some notable personalities? Perhaps Sakakini or one of the Beidas TewfikTalk 03:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    I would disagree. Your "notable personalities" have their own pages containing there own pictures. But the vast majority of Palestinians are ordinary unfamous people and this is reflected in the pictures. I have no objection to adding the photo of building labourers pictured above. But I am tired of Israelis and Americans telling us who can and who can not represent us. And I suspect that the real objection to the current pictures is that they do not deamonize Palestinians sufficiently Abu ali 12:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    How could pictures of notable personalities like Sakakini or Beidas be viewed as demonising? Perhaps other editors have suggestions for who to include to bring this into line with other comparable entries? TewfikTalk 21:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

    [sigh] not this again... The current pic is a beautiful, charming picture that illustrates the article topic, Palestinian people, just fine. What is the problem with pictures of children anyway? Maybe more articles on people topics should use them. I see no reason why convention would require adult-only pictures. What type of picture do people want, something a little less humanizing, something more demonic looking? I mean c'mon. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

    We were saying that it would better fit the convention (and encyclopaedic nature of] other comparable entries by instead including notable personalities like Sakakini or one of the Beidas, or anyone else that editors would like to suggest - there is nothing demonic about them AFAIK. TewfikTalk 00:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see any convention in place per se, but I wouldn't see a problem with mixing pictures of smiling children and ordinary people with the notables you mention, as is done in Filipino people, for example. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    Something along those lines seems to be what was requested all along. I appreciate that this whole topic is a sensitive one to many people which makes it even more imperative that we not use words like "demonisation" so quickly. If we all assume each others' good faith, then the willingness by MPerel, Tewfik, Ramallite, Miskin, Zero0000, Rudjek, and Palmiro [stated above] to discuss alternatives to the current layout would be far more obvious, far quicker, and with far less tension Image:Smile eye.png. TewfikTalk 04:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

    Abu ali, unless you can point me to a nation or people whose vast majority is composed of celebrities or non-simple people, your argument doesn't stand. How do you expect me to view your opinion as a neutral one when you accuse me for trying to "demonise" the Palestinians. This is just over the top. MPerel I came up with a dozen of serious reasons as to why those pictures are unappropriate, including:

    • not following common wikipedia conventions
    • giving space for implications on a serious political issue
    • the violation of the children's personal identity

    If none of the above are enough to convince you that something's not right, then I've nothing more to add. By the way I'm neither, American, nor Arab, nor Muslim, nor Palestinian, nor Jewish nor Israeli - I'm probably the only real non-partisan on the issue. Miskin 00:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

    Hi Miskin, my response to the concerns you express:

    • not following common wikipedia conventions: In browsing through people articles, I don't see that there's any consistency or common convention. It appears the majority of people articles don't even have a picture at all. Is there a policy or manual style preference written up somewhere I'm missing that says we should use only adult pictures?
    • giving space for implications on a serious political issue: I'm not sure I understand how a picture of smiling children implies anything political. The meaning I sense behind this is what concerns me. Would you explain more clearly, what political message do you think this picture of children implies?
    • the violation of the children's personal identity: If this is a concern, then it's a Wikipedia-wide problem because there are all sorts of articles with pictures of children in them. Should we remove the pictures of children from the Children article?

    --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 01:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

    Precisely because I'm a non-partisan I find it naive to shut our eyes before the fact that this article is about a people involved in a serious political conflict. For that reason I'm acknowledging that it is comparatively important to refrain from revealing the identities/faces of innocent people. In other words I don't think it's as important in the children article, though one thing I know for certain, is that the children in this article are not aware of their expose. It is equally important to refrain from provoking emotional feelings that might be interpreted as an implication on the political issue. My personal reaction when I saw those pictures was sorrow, sympathy, and quick thoughts about the issue. It didn't occur to me because I'm an oversensitive person or anything like that, I'm sure it happens to most people who visit this article, and something tells me that it wouldn't happen with articles such as Italians or Germans. The fact that there is a chance that it occurs to some people, means that it should be changed. I think it's unfair to both readers and the children. Most importantly, I feel that this practice aims to exploit a child's innocence in order to serve as the means of political sub-propaganda. This is as clear as I can get. Miskin 01:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

    Miskin says "It is equally important to refrain from provoking emotional feelings that might be interpreted as an implication on the political issue" etc. Hmmm, let me get this straight... so the mere thought or picture of a smiling Palestinian child makes you feel sorrow and sympathy and think about the issue... but as long as it was a picture of an adult, that would ensure that you would feel no empathy? If that's the case, then the problem is as I suspected. It's easier somehow to dehumanize and demonize adults, but since it's harder on the conscience to justify demonizing children, we know that pictures of children are obviously just "propaganda" tools to try to make us view the Palestinians as human, right? Btw, people who keep insisting how non-partisan they are tend to get my antennae up. I find it's usually an exemption-seeking preface to something offensive about to be said. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

    Oh I get it, so someone who doesn't agree with your practices is automatically a partisan, an anti-Palestinian, someone who wants to demonize Palestinian, or even maybe a Jew. Someone called me racist earlier because I dared to mention the word "Holocaust" and allegedly make a mockery out of it. I've got to admit, I've known cynical, but this is something over the top - no wonder why some articles will always be at a bad shape. I'm amazed on how you managed to twist around what I said and conclude that "since I don't want the article to inspire sympathy, I want it to inspire antipathy", or even worse to "demonise" Palestinians. You and all others who have been so cynical towards me, haven't even thought of once that I might be simply interested in enforcing the NPOV policy by criticising both sympathetic, and demonising elements. Funny that you mention it, but for the time being I'm the only person who's being offended here. Miskin 11:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

    You don't get it. The very fact that you think pictures of children, just because they are Palestinian, are meant for 'sympathy' is the problem. Ramallite (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Politics section -let's delete it

    I propose to delete the section "Politics" altogether. There are already countless articles on this topic and we don't need another one here to attract the same old edit wars that happen in all the other places. More generally, we need to resist the temptation to expand every Palestine-related or Israel-related article until it covers the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --Zerotalk 09:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

    A very good point - done. TewfikTalk 03:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Disinformation Campaign?

    Is there a disinformation campaign here...? Why Egyptian people are allowed to talk about the Pharoahs, Lebanese talk about the Phonecians, Jews about Israelites, but yet the Palestinians has no origin and descendend from the moon! Ummayids ruled Sudan; The Sudanese speak Arabic but yet, their ancestry is not pure Arab and has a strong African element! There are plenty of sources to support the Ancestry of the Palestinians section and relating it to pre-Umayyid times. I do not want to flood that section, but a representing sample of information is eonugh. If todays Jews from Russia are related to Israelites, then I do not see any reason to block information discussing the Palestinian ancestry and how too it is very native to Palestine. Unless someone here wants only to disinform. These are not political statements but rather very well known history. There is a lot of tal about the roots of the Palestinian families. This has been studied in Arabic books 6 or 7 centuries back too. Mideast families always trace their origins and it is not surprising that there is just too much materialon that which can be included in this section on the Ancestry of the Palestinians.

    Here is more to read:

    But turning Palestinians into Jews does not mean that they can have access to their own Palestinian Hebrew ancestors. On the contrary, it is precisely through Zionism’s appropriation of the history of the Palestinian Hebrews as the ancestors of the European-Jewsturned- anti-Semites that the Palestinian Arabs lose any connection to their Hebrew ancestry. While neighboring Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese, and Iraqis can narrate a national history that extends to the Pharaohs, the Nabateans, the Phoenicians, and the Babylonians, Palestinians cannot lay any national claims to Palestine’s past. As recent converts to landless Jewishness, they cannot access the past of a land colonized by anti-Semitic Hebraic Jews, nor can they claim ancestors uncovered by Zionism to be the Jews’ own exclusive progenitors. This is not so unlike the process through which the Hebrew prophets were abducted from the Jewish tradition into Christianity. It is, however, ironic, and particularly scandalous for Zionism, in this regard to find that a young David Ben Gurion had postulated in 1918 that it was indeed the Palestinian peasants who were the descendants of the Jews who had remained in Palestine, and that, despite the Islamic conquest, these peasants had held on to their Hebrew ancestors’ traditions, most obviously through maintaining the same names for their villages. Ben Gurion went so far as to assert that “in spite of much intermixing, the majority of the [Palestinian] fellahin in Western Palestine are unified in their external appearance and in their origin, and in their veins, without a doubt, flows much Jewish blood—from the Jewish peasants who in the days of the persecutions and terrible oppression had renounced their tradition and their people in order to maintain their attachment and loyalty to the land of the Jews.”

    Almaqdisi talk to me 05:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    Nothing is being blocked. Extensive passages from The Golden Bough, which is not recognised as a scientific work, don't belong here, as well as information about other inhabitants of Palestine without any claimed connection other than that made through juxtaposition, ie OR. The line about Raja Ibn Haywah is similarly OR as it lacks any published argument. The Arnaiz-Villena paper, which you didn't add this last time, is already discussed at length in the article. Sometimes I miss information already in the article, so make sure you read carefully before adding more. TewfikTalk 06:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

    Egyptians talk about the Pharaos and Lebanese about the Phoenicians because no-one cares enough to remove their POV. Everybody knows the truth. Miskin 22:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

    User:Tewfik and User:Miskin, then some one should also go to all Israeli articles and remove the connection between Israeli Jews and Israelites as it is too according to what you both are saying is OR. The material on the Palestinian Ancestry is being supported by resources and citations. The material about Raja Ibn Haywah is found in many Arabic literature and in this english one I added as a citation. If you cannot read the citation, then do not remove it. just Ask, and I can simply send it by email for verification. Please User:Tewfik consider your removals again. I am sure that there is not much time for us to waste on this. By the way, I hope you did find Ben Gurion's statements interesting too. Also I am including two books from Frazer and not only one. One of them was recntly republished! Almaqdisi talk to me 18:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

    I explained above exactly what is wrong with your additions. The Canaanite connection is made b juxtaposing sources and not by verifiable RS = OR. Frazer's work is not an RS for scientific arguments. There is no published linguistic argument about Raja Ibn Haywah. The Arnaiz-Villena paper is already discussed, along with its extremely important criticism. This information just doesn't belong here. TewfikTalk 17:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

    Almaqdisi I don't know what you're talking about, I didn't make any comments on the article's content except that it provided very few and/or non-credible sources (such as partisan websites). In my opinion the use of "genetic research" in ethnic articles to serve any purpose whatsoever is not a serious practice. I haven't looked at the Israeli article for awhile but I'd be against the inclusion of any non-historical information likewise. Palestinians are an arab people, looking into genetics in order to find what percentage of their ancestry dates to pre-arab settlement is like searching for a needle in a haystack. What if you found a percentage of Chinese ancestry, would it interest to put it in the article? I don't think so. Simply put, any implications to "race" are unscientific and can only have political motivation - and I'm not talking specifically about this article, so think twice before starting calling me names. Miskin 01:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

    But the Canaanites themsevles are Arabs and came from the Arabian Peninsula. The history of Arabs in Palestine pre-dates the Islamic invasion of the 7th Century. This is what concerns me really. The article fails to mentions such important information. In fact, I realize that there is a huge gap between what Arabs read and what is in non-Arabic resources. The Arabs claim that Canaanites are one of the non-Ishmaelite Arabic tribes. They call them Arab Arebah, that is the original Arabs. At the same time, there is Ishmaelite Arabs whom Arabs call Arab mustarebeh... The history of Arabs in the levant is much much before the Islamic invasion. Also, many of the people of Palestine in the Umayyid period were Christians. Some of these Christians are Nazarene, or Jewish Christians. A significant part of them converted to Islam like others in the Arabian Peninsula. These populations in their whole make up much of the origin of Palestinians. By the way, the Peasants have deep roots in Palestine. Palestinians in cities are more mixed. Anyway, I hope do not see why we should exclude resources.. Anyway, I will look for better ones in the upcoming days. Almaqdisi talk to me 00:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

    that's some pretty interesting perspective/manipulation on history. no offense, but the cnaanites and jevusites pre-date arabs/hebrews who are both considered to be decendants of abraham (might be a cnaanite). the hebrews were the ones who created the kingdom of israel while the decendants of Ishmael made their fortune in different areas of the levant... in any event, arab/muslim hold on occupied kingdom of israel took hold only at the 7th century and not beforehand... perhaps you should explore on how muhammad killed the exiled jews of israel in saudi-arabia and then propagated his religion elsewhere... i'm suspect you are not aware of all the return attempts of jews to their homeland that were met with muslim massacres... anyways... i think the biggest problem for the palestinians with resources is that in arab culture (and please excuse me as this is a known phenomenon and not meant to reflect on every arab but only stated as an observation) there is such a thing as "figurative speech" in which situations are made up or enhanced in order to support a theory... this off course exists in other societies as well... but it is not as accepted as in arab society.. (best i know of) examples? i suggest you look up "blaming the jews" on google video... and if you think it's not a good enough sample to make a point.. you can drop by memrifilms.org for a nice ensamble of the "the zinoinsts gah!" conspiracy theory... on the topic.. i figure each source can (hopefully) be judged fairly by the community here at wiki but i don't think the palestinian conceptions on their geneology are nessecarily accurate... esp. if you consider some/most people claiming that abraham was a palestinian... *ghasp* (170AD, kingdom of israel renamed Palestine under Roman rule). Jaakobou 02:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    Jaakobou, well, interestignly you have raised several issues. Well, first regarding the name Palestine and Kingdom of Israel. It is not true that the name Palestine was initiated by the Romans... It was in use even before Christ. There are many reports of anceint greeks and ancient egyptians using the term to refer to this land. The term God of Israel and Land of Israel are really biblical and are not necessarily used by other cicilization of the time. Israel was simply Jacob.. Even muslims use the name Israel to refer to Jacob as done many times in the Quran. Notice that ancient Egyptians dealt with the Philistines and Egyptians called what Moses called the Land of Israel, they called it in some writings Canaan and others Land of the Philistines. Philistine is the same name used in Arabic Filistin to refer to Palestine. Also, when I talk about Arab culture, I really mean the literature written by the earliest of Arabs, I am talking about books written at least 800 years back. There are many books document the various immigration of Arabs. Ibn Khaldoun fir example clearly mentions that most of the population in the Levant is related to the pre-Islamic invasion. Again, it is more accurate to describe it as Islamic invasion and not Arab invasion. Arabs were present in the Levant. You can check the article Arab. Finally, regarding the issue that Canaanites are of Arabian origin, this is something not only mentioned by centuries old Arabic texts. But it is also verified by writers like Bernard Lewis, Philip Khuri Hitti, and others. You can check the Bernard Lewis book the The Arabs in History where he says:

    "According to this, Arabia was originally a land of great fertility and the first home of the Semitic peoples. Through the millennia it has been undergoing a process of steady desiccation, a drying up of wealth and waterways and a spread of the desert at the expense of the cultivable land. The declining productivity of the peninsula, together with the increase in the number of the inhabitants, led to a series of crises of overpopulation and consequently to a recurring cycle of invasions of the neighbouring countries by the Semitic peoples of the peninsula. It was these crises that carried the Assyrians, Aramaeans, Canaanites (including the Phoenicians and Hebrews), and finally the Arabs themselves into the Fertile Crescent."[4]

    You can also check [25], and [26] and [27].

    The earliest known events in Arabian history are migrations from the peninsula into neighboring areas. About 3500 bc, Semitic-speaking peoples of Arabian origin migrated into the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Mesopotamia, supplanted the Sumerians, and became the Assyro-Babylonians. Another group of Semites left Arabia about 2500 bc and settled along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea; some of these migrants became the Amorites and Canaanites of later times.[28]

    In anycase, I think WikiPedia should present most of these relevant info as they are directly related to the ancestry section. I feel sad that other editors think that this is OR and POV and so forth. Honestly, I do not have the time to fight for this, and want the cooperation of other editors. Else, I feel it is really becoming useless to keep editing at WikiPedia. I understands that WikiPedia is about presenting the most relevant documented info regarding a subject. I think all the previous resources I presented are related to this including those that User:Tewfik keeps removing without any convincing argument. Finally, regarding Ishmael, the descendands of him are called Arabized Arabs. This is how it is in the Arabic literature again. The Prophet Muhammad is from these Arabized Arabs who descende from Ishmael and who are the cousins of the Israelites. Canaanites are not Ishmaelites, but instead originated from a sequence from immigrations from the Arabian peninsual startinc in the years 2500BC, long before abraham himself.
    Almaqdisi talk to me 06:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    I don't have that much time myself to go over all the links, however, i can tell you that "Palestine" is different (in so many ways) from "Pleshet" which is the name given to the Philistine controlled areas on the land... (note: philistines are not palestinians.. the root of the word has completely different meannings) which were according to archeological and historical records living at the areas of the gaza strip and not all accross the land... i also tend to object to the notions that arabs were before cnaanites/jevusites in the kingdom of israel area. it sounds like revisionism to me considering the archeological diggins i've seen here on my many trips... have you ever read historical records (or seen archeological excavations) on the land from the people living here or are you basing your information only on american/muslim writers? ... anyways.. i don't think your issue is solvable unless you have more time to promote it... that is the case with wiki.. time is of the essense and we don't have enough of it. Jaakobou 10:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

    None of the sources presented deal with the subject of this article - the Palestinian people. You may believe that the Canaanites are the same people, but without reliable sources making that argument, that is your own original research (speaking of RS, you should really discriminate more, as one of your sources included the following ridiculous passage: There [Jerusalem] stands on top of one high mountain, with the odour of the sea spreading all around it and the roaring waves heard from the tops of its homes constructed close to each other). TewfikTalk 03:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

    With my respect to you Tewfik and Jaakobou, I have ponder much on this. The fact that some resources are seen unrelated as Tewfik mentioned does not bother me a lot. At the end, it seems that WikiPedia is not the best place to know about neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians. I have strong feelings that Wikipedia is not areliable source for anything related to History, or Politics. Simply, facts will always be distorted. Always someone will like to see information the way he likes. there should be no harm for all of us of accepting the truth even if we do not like it. If one needs to know about the Palestinian people, he better go and read the Journal of Palestine Studies, and many other places where he can find out about the Palestinians villages, their culture, and words Palestinians still use today of Canaanite origin, their accent, etc... Their connection to the Israelites as well as the various immigration from the Arabian Peninsula, including the Islamic conquest of the area. Anyway, I wanted to help out on WikiPedia, but as long as people keep removing resources, it is a waste of time. I consider this not different from Book burning. Some of the references that you can read includes The Peasantry of Late Ottoman Palestine , Studies in the Ottoman Archives--I, Two Journeys to Seventeenth Century Palestine, Palestinian historiography in relation to the territory of Palestine, etc.... I think one should realize that this is not the place to present the most authentic and scientific resources regarding the subject. I do not think there is any academic spirit here. So sorry to say this, but it is the truth. No hope from bringing peace even to articles that talk about the Palestinians! Almaqdisi talk to me 05:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    Unless the sources argue a connection between Canaanites and Palestinian people, making such an argument, however convincing or obvious it may seem to you, is original research. TewfikTalk 08:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    10th century BCE: The Land of Israel, including the United Kingdom of Israel
    10th century BCE: The Land of Israel, including the United Kingdom of Israel
    Almaqdisi, a map for your inspection - note "philistia". Jaakobou 09:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks Jaakobou, I am aware of the map. But I do not know how it helps here. The fact the the word Filistin in Arabic comes from Philistine is not my own suggestion. It is what everybody knows. The word filistin has been traced in many writing, Egyptian and greek, much earlier than the Roman invasion of the region. The biblical Israelites called the Holy Land the "Land of Israel", and called even God "the God of Israel"... Also Tewfik, if you read what is in the Article, they all suggest the Canaanite connection! This is not my own research. All the genetic studies proved that, and people like Frazer who studied the folkloric stuff said that before. No new information here. I do not think you are in a position to just claim that the sources I had there do not make sense and are my Original Research. I am not the author of these articles! These sources are by people who particularly studied this issue. You are welcome to find a reference which suggests another possible ancestry of the Palestinians than what is commonly known throught the region, confirmed by several methods. These methods are, folokloric, accent, names of cities, agricultute style, dressings, cookings, the use of Taboon and Saboon in the Palestinian villages, what people wrote about themselves since centuries, the documentation of many of the large Palestinian family roots, and finally genetics which did not contradict any of the above.......Almaqdisi talk to me 04:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    Almaqdisi I don't think you understand the problems behind such "studies" - they are made/used with the intention of making/supporting political agendas - anyone who's knowledgable knows that abraham is the forefather of both arabs and jews and going back to cnaanite times to prove that "only palestianins are cnaanites" without adding abraham and the jews into the mix is a subverted attempt for revisionism (lord knows there's plenty of those around). on the topic of your bible translation - i'm sure you have not read the jewish bible in it's hebrew text and i find it a little funny that you change the text of the bible to fit your theory about the philistines in comparisment with now days palestinians... i'd go as far as calling it "pseudo research" even. Jaakobou 10:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


    Thanks Jaakobou. I am not saying and neither any of the sources here say the Palestinians == Philistines. We were discussing the origin of the name Palestine, which is Filistin in Arabic. I was only mentioning that Filistin in Arabic derives from Philistine. I was also saying that using the term Philistine or Filistin to call that Holy Land was common even before the Roman period. In fact some Egyptian writings and Ancient Greek writings used this to call this piece of Land. The name itself does not have any political implications. The term Land of Israel is the one that is brought every now and then to connect today's Israelis with the ancient Israelites... My contributions to the ancestry of the Palestinians is only to cut through the noise I read here and there. This noise is as follows: Palestinians are Arabs, and therefore should go back to Mecca. Palestinians did not exists. The term Palestine is abusive to Jews... Muslims cleansed the indigenous population of the Holy Land, and hence only today's Jews have the right for it. Jews to Judea and Arabs to Arabia... Etc..... I am sure you are familiar yourself with much of this disinformation.
    The matter of the fact that, although Palestinians speak Arabic, it is because Arab culture dominates the Middle East. Palestinians are Arabic speaking, true. So is their Muslims, Christians and Jews.
    Now the term Arab as I have said before has three meansings. Three ways to be called an Arab:
    First, if your origin traces back to the Arabian Peninsula. This includes all tribes before the period of Abraham including the Canaanites. These are called Original Arabs, or in Arabic "Arab Aribah". These tribes spread outside the Arabian Peninsula because of the severe drought and lack of water 4 BC. These are all historic data you can find [29] [30]
    Second, are the extinct Arabs, these include all tribes and towns destoryed like those of Aaa, Thamud, etc....
    Third, Arabized Arabs 'Arab mustarebah', like the Ishmaelites. These descend from Abraham and through Ishmael, and from them is the Prophet Muhammad.
    Fourth, those who speak Arabic regardless of their genetic or ethnic affiliation.
    Finally, the Canaanite culture was adopted by the Jews. The Hebrew language is related to the Canaanite languages no question about that. The ancient Jews are related to the Canaanites, no one denies that. Todays Jews particularly those not native to the middle east are a different story. They have mixed ancestries and Judaism is a religion in this sense rather than ethnicity. See Bernard Lewis work on this.
    That article could be rather enhanced and tuned to a language we all agree on instead of removing any material. We can have it more neutral. The resources I attach adhere to Wikipedia's verifiablity conditions. They are not my original research, and it is going to enrich the genetic data section by combining things from history writer and anthropologists like Frazer and Ibn Khaldoun.
    Almaqdisi talk to me 21:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    If you read my comments above, you'll see what the problems with those additions were (ie they are either already in this entry, aren't RS for the claims they make, or don't make the claims attributed to them). TewfikTalk 22:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] What does historical recognition have to do with it?

    at 29 January 2007, material regarding the status of jewish palestinians on the Palestinian National charter was removed - see the changed edit. the question asked was: "Does anyone claim all Jews should be called Palestinians?".

    i think that's a very important question, i think, from all the materials i've read and the people i encountered that arabs/muslims would like to claim that "there are no jewish palestinians" (unless they are under muslim rule), which in my personal view is wrong from it's base considering that this claim comes from the lack of land definition in muslim lands over the difinitive definition of countries made in europe... interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject and also in regards for inserting this material back into the article. Jaakobou 10:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

    There should probably be mention of the ideas in article 20 ("Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood"), just as article 11's admission of some Jews is mentioned. TewfikTalk 17:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    since my edits are encountering resistance (pun intended), perhaps you could make the change seing that you agree with me on this point. Jaakobou 04:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Arab Palestinian Culture of Jihad

    i'm sure that if i'll insert any material on the culture of jihad by arab palestinians that it will be removed since, it would seem, edits are made based on emotions rather than based on encyclopedic value. however, i promote we add an "Arab palestinian culture of jihad" segment to the article since it is such an integral part of the current-day palestinian culture.examples: [31][32][33][34][35] your thoughts? Jaakobou 04:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

    Are you kidding? Tiamut 03:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Palestinians genetic links to the country

    It has genetically been proven that ancestrally, the Palestinians descend from all the indigenous Semitic groups that have lived in Palestine for the past several millennia, including the Philistines, the Canaanites, the Hebrews themselves, and other groups. The Jews of Israel today are closer to the Palestinians then the Palestinians are to the people of Saudi Arabia. This should prove that just as the Iraqis descend from Arabized Assyrians and Babylonian, the Lebanese descend from Arabized Phoenicians and the Egyptians descend from Arabized Pharonic Egyptians and Greco-Romans, the Palestinians descend from Arabized Hebrews and Canaanites. This makes them very much indigenous to that country and have as much a right to it as the Israelis if not a stronger right. Ironically, there are groups of Jews such as the Beta Israel from Ethiopia and the Bene Menashe from northeast India who have no Semitic ancestry whatsoever, and yet live in Israel in perfect harmony with all rights, priveleges, etc. Bnei Menashe in particulary have settlement rights in the West Bank. If you ask me, the Palestinian peasant has full right over that land and the Bnei Menashe should just go back to his native hills in Northeast India, rather then settle on a claim that for all we know was partially concocted by British imperialists or made up by a tribal chieftain to gain favor with missionaries or some other religious-motivated reason. Afghan Historian 03:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

    This talk page is not the place for expressing personal opinions advocating ethnic cleansing (i.e. "the Bnei Menashe should just go back to his native hills in Northeast India."). --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    I think Mperel's comment here is totally uncalled for. It would be enough to ask User:Afghan Historian to state the relationship f his comments to the talk page. He didn't adovcate "ethnic cleansing", he expressed a controversial opinion that a group of recent immigrant to Israel go back home. It might be bad taste for some, but it certainly isn't advocacy for a war crime. I don't think more hyperbole here is necessarily the best repsonse. With respect. Tiamut 12:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

    You said "if you ask me", well we didnt ask you... I suggest you read more about Wikipedia as this is not a free-for-all forum. --Shamir1 05:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks for your friendly advice. Tiamut 04:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Isn't the actual population of the west bank and gaza strip only 2.5 million?

    --J intela 04:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] New additions to edits

    There are several problems with the some new (and some old) edits on this page. First, is the "accent" ordeal.

    The line regarding the Palestinian pronunciation of qaf as kaf is incorrectly written in the ancestry section. It appears to try to suggest that it is proof of a separate ethnicity. It is not. Syrians and Lebanese similarly use the kaf, as do many other Arab nationals. Secondly, the language beforehand in the land (Aramaic) has the same letter (qof) which makes the same noise. Also, none of that would prove anything anyway. Accents are regional. Does it prove that the residents of Long Island are a separate ethnic group because they replace "uh's" with "ur's" and vice-versa? Of course not. --Shamir1 05:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

    Many edits are not based on sources, misrepresent the sources, or violate WP:NPOV. Some of them are stated as facts when they are opinion.

    Other sources are used to suggest a point that is not suggested by the source. Other statements are written and are completely not even supported by the source given. This includes the History Channel source and Encarta.

    As for the book quotes, they are opinions. The quotes given by James Frazer is not a historical account, it is his belief. When Christopher Columbus landed in America, he, and many others, said and truly believed that the inhabitants were Indians. Cortez even believed that a tribe he saw descended from "the House of Israel." Does that prove anything? No.

    These are facts that need to be considered:

    • The Canaanites, like the Lost Ten Tribes, are unknown to have even survived through history. Some believe they adopted Maronite Christianity, and their descendants are the Lebanese Maronites, but even that has not been accurately proven.
    • Palestinian genes show similarities with other Arabs, and like other Arabs they are related to Jews. All Arab groups, including Palestinians, show Black-African similarities.
    • Incomplete studies have suggested that Palestinians are more related to Jews than other Arab groups.
    • Palestinians do have differences. There is a higher frequency of Eu10, which the American Society of Human Genetics suggests originated from the southern part of the Fertile Crescent. This is also found among Bedouin Arabs.
    • Several studies have suggested that the difference is based on European blood, which they say is found more among Palestinian Arabs.

    For more information see the sources given in the article. --Shamir1 22:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

    Apparently Shamir1 that is your own research. The fact that Canaanites are of Arabian origin is well-established. You should not remove resources when they are given and very relevant to the subject at hand. The information attached is well cited and there is no point in removing this informative material. There is a long history for Arabs/Arabians in Palestine even before Islam. All this is relevant to this article. Almaqdisi talk to me 03:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    My own research? It is actually the sources at hand. For starters, you have misrepresented sources. You have also used unreputable sources for unsubstantiated claims. There is no history of Arab/Arabians in Palestine before Islam. You are mistaken. As for the Canaanites (a claim you distorted on Wikipedia), there is no say that they even survived history. Some suggest their descendants are the Maronites, but the results are suggestive and inconclusive.[36][37]
    As for the bogus claim of "own research", where does this boloney come from: "As used in this context modelled by traditional Arab nationalism, "Arab citizenship" is independant of any specific religious affiliation. Jews of Palestinian origin, however, were only considered Palestinians "if they were willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine". A clear oxymoron that was once accompanied with more crap: "However, due to the introduction of European Zionism and the very establishment of Israel as an explicitly Jewish State created for the ingathering of world Jewry in the Palestinian Mandate, Jews of Palestinian origin were only considered Palestinians..."
    You will also need not only a source for the accent thing, but a reason why it means anything. Obviously it does not, since the pre-Arabic language there (Aramaic) has the letter qof which makes that noise that they apparently do not. Moreover, accents are regional. The people of Barcelona are not a separate race because they pronounce s's with th's. --Shamir1 19:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

    Shamir1, STOP being ridiculuous! No history of Arabs before Islam.!!! What a funny statement... Who were the Nabateans?? who were the Ghassanids who ruled all the way from Damascus? Who were the Canaanites themselves???? Read below:

    Encyclopedias and Ancient Arabia books mention the following:

    4 Die Keilinschriften and das Alte Testament, p. 181.

    These explanations are endorsed by Driver (Genesis,on Gen. x.). 6 See the relevant articles in Ency. Bib. and Cheyne's Genesis and Exodus. from about 4000 B.C. 1 a wave of Semitic migration poured out of Arabia, and flooded Babylonia certainly, and possibly, more or less, Syria and Palestine also. Also that between 2800 and 2600 B.C. a second wave from Arabia took the same course, covering not only Babylonia, but also Syria and Palestine and probably also Egypt (the Hyksos). It is soon after this that we meet with the great empire-builder and civilizer, Khammurabi (2267-2213), the first king of a united Babylonia. It is noteworthy that the first part of his name is identical with the name of the father of Canaan in Genesis (Ham or Kham), indicating his Arabian origin. 2 It was he, too, who restored the ancient supremacy of Babylonia over Syria and Palestine, and so prevented the Babylonizing of these countries from coming to an abrupt end. [38]

    From Bernard Lewis book:

    "According to this, Arabia was originally a land of great fertility and the first home of the Semitic peoples. Through the millennia it has been undergoing a process of steady desiccation, a drying up of wealth and waterways and a spread of the desert at the expense of the cultivable land. The declining productivity of the peninsula, together with the increase in the number of the inhabitants, led to a series of crises of overpopulation and consequently to a recurring cycle of invasions of the neighbouring countries by the Semitic peoples of the peninsula. It was these crises that carried the Assyrians, Aramaeans, Canaanites (including the Phoenicians and Hebrews), and finally the Arabs themselves into the Fertile Crescent."

    From History Channel[39]:

    "The earliest known events in Arabian history are migrations from the peninsula into neighboring areas. About 3500 bc, Semitic-speaking peoples of Arabian origin migrated into the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Mesopotamia, supplanted the Sumerians, and became the Assyro-Babylonians. Another group of Semites left Arabia about 2500 bc and settled along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea; some of these migrants became the Amorites and Canaanites of later times."

    From MSN Encarta[40]:

    "The earliest known events in Arabian history are migrations from the peninsula into neighbouring areas. About 3500 bc, Semitic-speaking peoples of Arabian origin migrated into the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Mesopotamia, supplanted the Sumerians, and became the Assyro-Babylonians (see Sumer). Another group of Semites left Arabia about 2500 bc and settled along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea; some of these migrants became the Amorites and Canaanites of later times."

    But turning Palestinians into Jews does not mean that they can have access to their own Palestinian Hebrew ancestors. On the contrary, it is precisely through Zionism’s appropriation of the history of the Palestinian Hebrews as the ancestors of the European-Jewsturned- anti-Semites that the Palestinian Arabs lose any connection to their Hebrew ancestry. While neighboring Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese, and Iraqis can narrate a national history that extends to the Pharaohs, the Nabateans, the Phoenicians, and the Babylonians, Palestinians cannot lay any national claims to Palestine’s past. As recent converts to landless Jewishness, they cannot access the past of a land colonized by anti-Semitic Hebraic Jews, nor can they claim ancestors uncovered by Zionism to be the Jews’ own exclusive progenitors. This is not so unlike the process through which the Hebrew prophets were abducted from the Jewish tradition into Christianity. It is, however, ironic, and particularly scandalous for Zionism, in this regard to find that a young David Ben Gurion had postulated in 1918 that it was indeed the Palestinian peasants who were the descendants of the Jews who had remained in Palestine, and that, despite the Islamic conquest, these peasants had held on to their Hebrew ancestors’ traditions, most obviously through maintaining the same names for their villages. Ben Gurion went so far as to assert that “in spite of much intermixing, the majority of the [Palestinian] fellahin in Western Palestine are unified in their external appearance and in their origin, and in their veins, without a doubt, flows much Jewish blood—from the Jewish peasants who in the days of the persecutions and terrible oppression had renounced their tradition and their people in order to maintain their attachment and loyalty to the land of the Jews.”


    Almaqdisi talk to me 04:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] weasel Today, Palestinian Jews generally identify as "Israelis".

    I think this is a weasel and thus have marked it as such. My attempt at change was reverted. Lobbuss 08:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

    Your change was reverted because it constituted vandalism. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV. You are claiming that NK represents Orthodox Jews. Let me tell you that I am NOT a Zionist. My seforim include Vayoel Moshe and Al HaGeuloh VeAl HaTemuroh, which are great seforim and in which I fully believe. I am affiliated with the Edah HaChareidis. You do not need to suspect me of being a Tzioni. But you can suspect me of wanting to keep Wikipedia a civilized place, where facts and only facts are to be written. Most Palestinian Jews nowadays do identify as Israelis, and not just the non-religious. And Neturei Karta does not represent 'Orthodox Jews'. NK is a tiny fringe group even in Meah Sheorim. Most Yerushalmi people that I know do not want to have anything to do with them and consider them to be total outcasts. That includes people affiliated with all other groups in Yerushalaim including Dushinsky, Satmar, Toldos Aharon, Anshei Yerushalaim, Yerushalmi Litvaks, and Yerushalmi Lubavitchers. --Bear and Dragon 09:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/l/Talk%7EPalestinian_people_09a1.html"