Talk:Palestinian people/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →

Contents

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)

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)

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., [1]. 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)

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)

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)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.7.251.36 (talk • contribs)

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)

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)

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)

Picture of Palestinian children

Palestnian Imagery

I figure that same as with other nationalitiesexamples: [2], [3], 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)

Suggested Prominent Palestinians

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

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.—Preceding unsigned comment 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!" —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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." [4] 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 [5] "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.")" [6]. 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)

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 [7]. 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)

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).