Talk:Palestinians/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Just A Side-Note

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

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

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

Opening paragraph

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

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

"during the centuries"

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

...the the people, mainly Arabs, whose ancestors had inhabited British Mandate Palestine during the centuries immediately before 1918...

to neutral: ...the people, mainly Arabs, who had inhabited the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine before 1918...

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

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

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

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

"Israeli Arab redirect

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

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

I made an article stub for Israeli Arabs. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mustafaa, but they are not identical with the Arabs you described in your Palestinians article. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 21:41, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not identical - rather, they are a decidedly atypical subset of them. I've expanded the article a bit (but you know, it's poor form to have the only link in an article on this conflict be to a manifestly partisan site, though I do realize Google isn't very helpful in this regard.) - Mustafaa 22:08, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry: I agree about the "poor form" thing (makes me feel like Captain Hook being chided in Peter Pan). Thanks for noticing the stub so quickly and adding some balance. I cannot do this by myself! --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 12:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Possible 3rd party GNU FDL violation using this article.

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

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

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

---

Arafat as "Father' of "Palestinian Nation"

---

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

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

You sign your comments with four tilde signs in a row, like this: ~~~~ Jayjg ^(talk) 15:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Israel was not Aramaic, it was Jewish. And indeed, it is extremely plausible that the Palestinians are actually of Jewish ancestry - but neither side wishes to opt for that interpretation of the data... However, it is not even disputed that the Canaanites survived the invasion of Joshua. (What is disputed, actually, is whether there ever even was an invasion of Joshua.) King David was still fighting them (remember the Jebusites?), and the Phoenicians were Canaanites, and called themselves Canaanites. Moreover, Hebrew is a Canaanite language; the fact that the Hebrews ended up speaking it implies a long period of coexistence. As for the demographic statistic, adding the Jewish population would not only be impossible (unless you have sources for the proportion of them that were recent immigrants), it would make comparisons with the current situation impossible, since most Palestinian Jews have rejected that identity. - Mustafaa 02:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact that there is no knowledge of what a Phoenician looks like is the point. Even if there is no invasion of Joshua, as it is disputed once again, what happened to the Canaanites since then? The reason I say Aramaic instead of Hebrew is based on the fact that the Palestinians would have descended, if from the Kingdom of Israel, from the Roman Empire (Assuming they weren't slaughtered in the Crusades) of people who spoke Aramaic. Furthermore, just because the Hebrews spoke a Canaanite language isn't relevent, because the Franks spoke both Frankish "German" and Latin, but mostly Latin, and the fact that conquerers can take on the language of the conquered shows that because a language is spoken doesn't mean that a nation survives. Furthermore, even the fact that Jews themselves are descendents of those from Judea is open to speculation, and reasonable speculation at that. And, once again, I point to the Phoenician ancestry being completely altered at some point between the Hellenistic Period and the British Empire to the point of complete assimilation or extinction. Therefore, there is once again no evidence that anyone is purely descended of Phoenicians, and therefore no Phoenician Canaanites-frankly, there is as much evidence of Italians being descended from Canaanites by this logic as well, but I will not go into immigrations into the Italian Peninsula (They're not needed) except that Semitic languages ended up there as well as Italian words. In other words, we have these possibilities:

Jews are descended of Canaanites

Syrians are descended of Canaanites

North Africans are descended of Canaanites

Greeks are descended of Canaanites

Turks are descended, Italians, et cetera...

Its an unfounded claim, as once again, very little is known about the population of the area beginning with the Roman period until the end of the Ottoman Empire. Pro-Israeli sources claim under 100,000 Palestinians were in the region in the 1800s. This could be cited also, which once again hurts the Canaanite claim because this figure seems untenable to be mostly Canaanite in lieu of Arab, Turkish, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Italian, Syrian dominance of the region. And furthermore, some Palestinians who claim that they are descended from Canaanites occasionally also claim that the Kingdom of Israel was located in modern Yemen. This fact, which is cited in pro-Israeli bias, makes the claim even more difficult. It is more likely that the Palestinians are descended of a mix of Hebrews, Romans, Greeks, Syrians, Arabs and other misc. groups. The only of these groups that would be descended possibly from Canaanites are the Hebrews, period, showing no direct, pure descending from any group.

But the reason I disagree with the calling of it a "Zionist Invasion" is just unnecessary for the article. It is harsh PLO rhetoric which can be softened bordering on anti-Semitism. This article isn't supposed to be endorsing PLO claims, or about the PLO, but rather about the Palestinian Identity; nor is it supposed to be about Israeli Identity (Minus Israeli Arabs). There are ways to put that in the article without inflammatory rhetoric. The PLO Charter is not a balanced source of definition for the conflict, and should be used as reference, but definitely not quoted as means of a valid definition. It should, in fact, be quoted only when mentioning an irreconcilable point or when referencing the viewpoint of the PLO (Not the Palestinians). It is pretty much accepted that the PLO is not the sole representative of the Palestinians among nearly anyone in the world today, as you have more moderate groups and more extremist groups competing for power today. It is tantamont to saying that the Nazis killed Jews to "irradicate Marxism"; the Nazis held the two as interchangable terms. One could easily make the point of the Nazis killing Jews without giving it any sort of justification based on the point of view of the killer. In reality, the Palestinians oppose Zionist Immigration, which they term an invasion. If you go with the PLO definition, furthermore, you allow it to be said that all immigration anywhere poses an invasion, such as a Mexican invasion of the south, such as a Jewish/Italian Invasion of New England, etc.

After all, Patrick Buchanan defines immigration as invasion. That doesn't make it neutral. Its a loaded word. It amounts to Immigration and what is summarized from the PLO charter as immigration.

And furthermore, the deletion of the religion statistic is inherently anti-Jewish, because once again, Syrian Immigrants are questionably called Palestinian. Today they are accepted as such (as during the time of the immigration, there was no real difference between a Syrian and Palestinian, aside from Syrian living in Palestine), but on the time of the census of the region, they would definitely not be any more Palestinian than any immigrant would be to a new country. Even then, the definition of Palestinian was questionable, as did it mean person from Palestinian Arab or someone living in Jewish Palestine? The Palestinian Identity up until about 1920 was mostly Syrian, and only after this period does it break off (to deny a separate identity for Palestinians today is folly, as there has been nearly 100 years of isolation from Syria, and this is more than enough time-to say Palestinians do not exist is along the same lines to say that different Romantic Peoples are actually Romans...), but there was no definition for "Palestinian" except someone living in "Palestine" at this time. The Jews therefore could only reject their identification as "Arab", but not Palestinian. Jews also were not Arab, for they typically spoke Hebrew, or at least some other Jewish descended language. Therefore, Jews would have a typically different identity than the surrounding population, but so would immigrants to a large extent. The only way to neutrally omit the Jews from this definition would to basically rename the Palestinians "Syrian" which, of course, few Palestinians today would accept. And once again, I don't have the stats, but if stats can not be found, this is an inherently bias point of view, and should be omitted from this article, or mention of an uncountable large Syrian Immigration DILUTING this count significantly should be mentioned.Jmw0000 07:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Quotes don't have to be NPOV (they aren't even supposed to be.) The reason this quote is essential is because it is not clear whether by "Zionist invasion" they mean 1948, 1918, or even the "first Aliyah". If you can find a authoritative source that elucidates that point, then I could see an argument for replacing it. - Mustafaa 23:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Once again, that's Zionist Immigration, and the PLO Charter describes this as Zionist Invasion. Therefore, a neutral description is that the Palestinian Authority accepts Arabs before 1947 and Jews before the Zionist Immigrations, albiet this second point is unclear.Jmw0000 01:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, that would not be an accurate description. The whole point is that "Zionist invasion" might refer to the literal Zionist invasion of 1948, the literal but not entirely Zionist British invasion of 1917, or the figurative "invasion" of the beginnings of Zionist immigration. We have no business assuming we know which of these is meant without a supporting statement from the PLO. - Mustafaa 19:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

"whose ancestors inhabited Palestine before 1918."

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

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

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

Article (12)

Palestinian nationality shall be regulated by law, without prejudice to the rights of those who legally acquired it prior to May 15 ,1948 , or the rights of the Palestinians residing in Palestine prior to that date, and were forced into exile or departed there from or denied return thereto. This right passes on from fathers or mothers to their progenitor. It neither disappears nor elapses unless voluntarily relinquished as provided by law.

No Palestinian shall be deprived of his nationality. The acquisition and renouncement of Palestinian nationality shall be regulated by law. The rights and duties of citizens with multiple nationalities shall be governed by law.

Article (13)

Palestinians who were forced out of Palestine, or departed there from as a result of the 1948 War, and were denied return thereto, shall have the right to return to the State of Palestine and bear its nationality. It is a permanent, inalienable, irrevocable right and shall not lapse by prescription.

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

NPOV

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

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

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

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

WikiPortal

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

Immigrants after 1918 not Palestinian?

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

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

Ancestry

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

The word "Arab" is first mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions, actually; I'm not sure why you think the Assyrians were "stretching the definition" in using it, nor what your evidence for their being ancestors of the Samaritans is. Incidentally, the Samaritans and Jews are, of course, among the ancestors of Palestinian Arabs; conversions to Islam were widespread. The Nabataeans are mentioned long after the Islamic conquest in Arabic texts; they were so widespread that their name eventually became a synonym with "peasant". I've never heard of an Edomite mass conversion to Judaism, but I'd be interested to read about it... - Mustafaa 18:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Both the Edomites and the Nabataeans, in fact, are good examples of the pre-Islamic Arabization of the southern fringe of the Fertile Crescent, which also led to the major pre-Islamic Arab kingdoms of the Ghassanids and Lakhmids in southern Iraq. This process is unquestionably relevant to the history of how Palestine got an majority-Arab population. - Mustafaa 18:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The mass Edomite conversion by the Hasmoneans is well known history and is recorded by Josephus. I have never heard of Nabateans later than the Islamic conquest, where are they mentioned? What evidence links them to modern Bedouin? (The appearance of Arabic like elements in inscriptions is insufficient.) I have always read that the Nabataeans assimilated into the general Byzantine Christian population before the Islamic period.

According to www.nabateans.org: "The Nabatean, who were tent dwellers for hundreds of years, began to build splendid houses at their transition to the life of farmers. By the third century C.E. the Nabateans lost their Aramaic language to Greek, and by the forth century the lost their pagan Semitic religion to Christianity." Kuratowski's Ghost 22:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This language claim, besides completely contradicting the Arabic sources (in which "Nabataean" eventually even became a general synonym for Aramaic-speaker, as noted in the Wikipedia article, from the 1911 Britannica), seems implausible on more general grounds. The language of the Fertile Crescent in pre-Islamic and early Islamic times was overwhelmingly Aramaic; I am aware of no significantly sized Greek-speaking regions there, in Jordan any more than in Palestine. - Mustafaa 00:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also early forms of the word "Arabian" denoted people of the Syrian desert who are not identical to the later Arab nation as we understand the word today which only emerged in Late Antiquity in the Arabian peninsula (a comparison usually given is that similarly the "Romanians" are not the same nation as the "Romans"). It is even questionable if the name of the ancient Arabians of the Syrian desert is identical in meaning to that of the later Arab nation or merely a coincidental similarity. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Yannai's forced conversions were indeed denounced by Rabbinal Judaism, but the reality is that the Edomites ended up assimilating into the Jewish people. Edomites are no longer mentioned as a separate group to the Jews after Herod the Great who being of Edomite ancestry was derogatarily still called an Edomite. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's not very convincing; if the Edomites are no longer mentioned, how does that indicate that they had all become Jews, rather than being assimilated to various different ethnicities? And a conversion of Arabized Edomites would be an excellent explanation of the Jewish Arabs mentioned below. - Mustafaa 23:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Is this based on an Assyrian inscription or merely an interpretation of what the Bible says? The Bible has in the book of Kings "2Ki 17:24 And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Avva, and from Hamath and Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria". These are all places in Mesopotamia. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then that would seem to imply that it's based on an Assyrian inscription. I didn't write Sargon II, so I don't know. The Arab mention I'm familiar with myself is of Gindibu, from Shalmaneser III's reign. - Mustafaa 23:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, yes: [3]. - Mustafaa 23:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Quite, but that more probably comes from the ethnic use, rather than being its source. What etymological justification is there for the idea that "Arabaya may simply mean desert region or steppe"? - Mustafaa 23:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fact that `aravah means that in Hebrew. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Religion? Nation?

The text reads

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

to be absolutely precise, we should change this to

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

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

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

Alternatively we can leave the italicised text out.

I wanted to check before jumping in.

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

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

Sea People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No reason to believe they were "nameless"; they just changed their name. It's scarcely unprecedented; look at the etymology of France. - Mustafaa 8 July 2005 20:21 (UTC)

I've heard of a few Palestinians claiming descent from the Philistines, but more claim descent from the Canaanites (even Arafat did at one point I think). The paragraph about to the possible origins of the people should be included in a shortened form . There should also be emphasis on the fact that it is a minority view that is almost impossible to confirm.Heraclius 8 July 2005 23:21 (UTC)

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

Word Palestinian similar to word American

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

Historical Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

demographic research

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

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

TheUnforgiven's recent cut

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

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

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

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

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

Link?

A number of people have been deleting this link:

• The Smoking Gun: Arab Immigration into Palestine, 1922-1931 by Fred M. Gottheil

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

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

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

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