Mayor: Israeli forces confiscate land near Hebron

[Gardener]

The Palestinians are descended from the Canaanites, when the land was called Canaan.Hadrian renamed the entire area philistine in 135AD after the philistines, the name stuck. But the Palestinians are the descendents of the Canaanites.

View attachment 67112054

Yet they have no connection to Canaanites culture, whatsoever, since they do not speak the Canaanite language, worship Ball, or anything else.

Jewish people, on the other hand, speak the native language of the land from 3000 years ago, are from the culture of the land from 3000 years ago and who have an established presence on he land dating back 3000 years.

 

[Gardener]

View attachment 67112054

If these Jews are of European origin as you claim, why does your map show JERUSALEM listed under its Hebrew name, eh?

 

[CJ 2.0]

The Palestinians are descended from the Canaanites, when the land was called Canaan.Hadrian renamed the entire area philistine in 135AD after the philistines, the name stuck. But the Palestinians are the descendents of the Canaanites.

I think it would be helpful to see some support for that proposition.

As far as I know, the Palestinians are an amalgam peoples, not dissimilar to others in areas that were the frequent site of conquest and repopulation (e.g., Lebanon).

The Palestinians I suspect would have components of all of the peoples who had lived in the area, as those population groups not entirely slaughtered or expelled would have been incorporated into the dominant population group. Thus, I believe palestinaisn would include a wide variety of middle eastern and European groups among their ancestors (e.g., Jews, Armenians, "crusaders" etc.).

To be clear, these groups would not have had to have voluntarily agreed to join the dominant culture. Add in some widespread rape by conquorers (which has been quite common for all of recorded history), and you have "genetic material" introduced into the population even without settlment by the conquoring groups or incorporation of those settlments into the domiannt group.

However, the Palestinians are quiote clearly also a supplant, not a continuation of the original. While the Palestinians certainly have ancestors from the Canaanite, Israelite, Armenian, Ottoman and other groups, the Palestinians themselves are an arabic group, primarily descendant from the Arab conquorers of Palestine from the Romans/Byzantine in the 700s, as well as subsequent migrations such as those from Egypt in the 19th century and the influx of Arab migrants following Jewish settlemtn in the early 20th century.

You can say the Palestinians are descendants of the Caananites all you like. But if that is true, it is equally true that the Palestinians are descendants of Jews and Crusaders.

Is that something you would want to embrace?

Edit: And I think Gardener is exactly on point as well - the Palestinians have no cultural connection with any peoples except Arabic peoples. This cultural connection is as important, or mroe improtant, in assessing origins of population groups. This has, for example, been used to great effect in demonstrating the claims of Etheopian and Indian populations of their descent from ancient Israelites - by looking at cultural markers and practices, it becomes clear that, in spite of assimilation and "inter-breeding" with local populations (which, for the record, is obviously totally fine), the core of the group is of Israelite heritage.

By contrast, a group with "Jewish blood" but with no such markers would not really have been of Jewish origin, and would more liekly have originated from a different population "inter-breeding" with Jews.

 

[24107]

Yet they have no connection to Canaanites culture, whatsoever, since they do not speak the Canaanite language, worship Ball, or anything else.

Results of a DNA study by geneticist Ariella Oppenheim appears to match historical accounts that Arab Israelis and Palestinians,[15][16] together as the one same population, represent modern "descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palesti...estral_origins

If these Jews are of European origin as you claim, why does your map show JERUSALEM listed under its Hebrew name, eh?

Ur-Shalem (Jerusalem) is a Canaanite word
meaning, the house of Salem, the chieftain of the clan of Jebusites

 

[digsbe]

The land was called "Palestine" by the Roman Empire, who deliberately called it that in order to arrogantly give a slap to the Jews who had the majority of the land. They chose to name the area "Palestine" after the Philistines because they hated the Jewish people. The land of Canaan was a divided land that was ruled by kings of little kingdoms (usually as small as a few cities). Israel went in and conquered the land, but the Philistines still existed (they failed to conquer them). Regardless, calling the land "Palestine" was a dishonest and arrogant attack by the Romans in order to display their hatred for the Jewish people by identifying the land with a minority people group that occupied a minority of the land.

 

[Shayah]

The Palestinians are descended from the Canaanites, when the land was called Canaan.

This is pure conjecture. The Canaanite civilization disappeared from history via conquest, dispersion, intermarriage, etc. The only definite thing one can say about the current Palestinian people - genetically speaking - is that they are a mix of distinct Semitic genetic groups (Syrian, Egyptian, Hashemite, etc.)

 

[CJ 2.0]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palesti...estral_origins


Ur-Shalem (Jerusalem) is a Canaanite word
meaning, the house of Salem, the chieftain of the clan of Jebusites

Sorry, 1948, your wikipedia link isn't working.

As for genetic relationships, again, I at least would not be remotely surprised to see all different sorts of gentic markers in the Palestinian population. However, I would also expect that the dominant marker would be middle eastern Arab, given the imperial expansion and settlment of the area by Arab empires following Islam's founding and the waves of Arab settlemtn in the area following that. But of course, all of those conquored peoples that were incorproated into that Arabic society would be spotted in the genetic markers.

Is that consistent with the citation you provided?

 

[CJ 2.0]

They did it for political reasons, but I think it is too strong to say they did it because they "hated Jews". The Romans were among the most tolerant of people when it came to religious practices, at least until Christianity was viewed as a threat and then when Chirstianity took over.

They didn't "hate" the Dacians, but that didn't stop the Romans from exterminating them either.

What the Romans hated were challenges to their political control. And no population group in the Roman empire had been such a consistant thorn in their side as the Judean population. This was simply an effort to permanently address this issue (which worked, incidentally)

 

[donsutherland1]

The Palestinians are descended from the Canaanites...

That is not correct. For example, Sociology Professor Baruch Kimmerling wrote:

When an independent Palestinian educational system is built, along with a more or less consensual national culture and civil religion, they will supply legitimacy to the socio-political order by the inevitable creation of a coherent Palestinian historiography. But such historiography cannot be constructed merely on an ahistorical mythological linkage with the Canaanites on the one hand and the present-day martyrs of the 'armed struggle' on the other. From 'antiquity' to the 'present' the 'story of creation of the Palestinian people' resembles a lego set, constructed and reconstructed from a diverse amount of components and colours. From this point of view, the Palestinian 'case study' is an excellent case for testing some theories of nationalism in its embryonic forms.

Source: Baruch Kimmerling, "The Formation of Palestinian Collective Identities: The Ottoman and Mandatory Periods," Middle Eastern Studies, April 2000.

 

[Shayah]

What the Romans hated were challenges to their political control. And no population group in the Roman empire had been such a consistant thorn in their side as the Judean population. This was simply an effort to permanently address this issue (which worked, incidentally)

The disenfranchisement tactic endured for millennia, but not permanently.

 

[24107]

I think it would be helpful to see some support for that proposition.

As far as I know, the Palestinians are an amalgam peoples, not dissimilar to others in areas that were the frequent site of conquest and repopulation (e.g., Lebanon).

The Palestinians I suspect would have components of all of the peoples who had lived in the area, as those population groups not entirely slaughtered or expelled would have been incorporated into the dominant population group. Thus, I believe palestinaisn would include a wide variety of middle eastern and European groups among their ancestors (e.g., Jews, Armenians, "crusaders" etc.).

To be clear, these groups would not have had to have voluntarily agreed to join the dominant culture. Add in some widespread rape by conquorers (which has been quite common for all of recorded history), and you have "genetic material" introduced into the population even without settlment by the conquoring groups or incorporation of those settlments into the domiannt group.

However, the Palestinians are quiote clearly also a supplant, not a continuation of the original. While the Palestinians certainly have ancestors from the Canaanite, Israelite, Armenian, Ottoman and other groups, the Palestinians themselves are an arabic group, primarily descendant from the Arab conquorers of Palestine from the Romans/Byzantine in the 700s, as well as subsequent migrations such as those from Egypt in the 19th century and the influx of Arab migrants following Jewish settlemtn in the early 20th century.

You can say the Palestinians are descendants of the Caananites all you like. But if that is true, it is equally true that the Palestinians are descendants of Jews and Crusaders.

Is that something you would want to embrace?

Edit: And I think Gardener is exactly on point as well - the Palestinians have no cultural connection with any peoples except Arabic peoples. This cultural connection is as important, or mroe improtant, in assessing origins of population groups. This has, for example, been used to great effect in demonstrating the claims of Etheopian and Indian populations of their descent from ancient Israelites - by looking at cultural markers and practices, it becomes clear that, in spite of assimilation and "inter-breeding" with local populations (which, for the record, is obviously totally fine), the core of the group is of Israelite heritage.

By contrast, a group with "Jewish blood" but with no such markers would not really have been of Jewish origin, and would more liekly have originated from a different population "inter-breeding" with Jews.

Genetic studies have been done to prove the Palestinians have been living their since prehistoric times, in my above post.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Genetic studies have been done to prove the Palestinians have been living their since prehistoric times, in my above post.

But like I said, my familiarity with those studies (which is not overly-high, and I am not by any means educated in this field) would lead me to believe that, sure, you can point to some historical connection to that group of people, but that the connection to other groups, particularly peoples originating in the Arabian peninsuala, is far stronger. QAnd given the similarity between Palestinians and Jews and Jewish origins in the area, I suspect an equally strong (or even stronger) case would exist for Jews descending from the Caananites.

The issue here is the mythology the Palestinians wish to create around their self-identity, and choosing to raise one branch of ancestry above the others for no real reason except the political.

There is a reason, after all, that the Palestinians do not wish to build their identity around the claim that the Palestinians descended from the Crusaders, even though that statement is as equally true as the claim that the Palestinians are descendants of the Caananites.

However, i also understand that groups of Palestinians, particularly around Nablus, are primarily descendant from the Samaritans, who I understand, in turn, are largely descendant from the Israelites. This can be traced back through cultural makers like names and customs in addition to the gentic connections, which builds a much stronger claim of linkage, IMO, than pure genetics alone.

Because, face it, genetics is bunk as a claim to anything. It is great for understanding history and origins and population migrations and everything else. But all "groups" of peoples is somewhat artificial and meaningless. The meaning, if any, comes from cultural affiliates, not blood.

That a person in one culture is born of transient rapists through many generations (say a father, grandfather, great grandfather etc.) does not remove that individual from the cultural population group in which he or she was born. Neither does it really make that person a member of the population group of the father, grandfather etc. Genetics-wise, it does. But as a distinct group of peoples (which IMO is based on cultural practice in addition to genetics and historical linakges), it does not.

And I do not see (though am open to evidence) any linkages between Palestinian culture and the cultures of ancient peoples to whom it is asserted direct linkage.

Without such linkages, I don't see how a claim for direct descention of the cultural/political group could possibly succeed.

 

[CJ 2.0]

The disenfranchisement tactic endured for millennia, but not permanently.

yuo are right, of course. I meant p[ermanently from the perspective that the Jews didn't give any more trouble to the Romans, though it is an open question how much influence this had on the spread of Christianity (which started as a Jewish cult), with the forced incorporation of Jewish and Christian population groups into the wider Roman population. of course, jews were widespread in the Roman empire even before the expulsion, so it is unclear whether the expulsion would have been a definitive driver in this regard.

 

[donsutherland1]

Genetic studies have been done to prove the Palestinians have been living their since prehistoric times, in my above post.

That's entirely a different proposition from asserting that today's Palestinians are the descendants of the Canaanites. With respect to contemporary Palestinians, here's the current scientific understanding:

...Y chromosomes in Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin represent, to a large extent, early lineages derived from the Neolithic inhabitants of the area and additional lineages from more-recent population movements. The early lineages are part of the common chromosome pool shared with Jews (Nebel et al. 2000)... The peripheral position of the modal haplotypes, with few links in the network..., suggests that the Arab-specific chromosomes are a result of recent gene flow. Historical records describe tribal migrations from Arabia to the southern Levant in the Byzantine period, migrations that reached their climax with the Muslim conquest 633-640 A.D...

Source: Almut Nebel, Dvora Filon, Bernd Brinkmann, Partha P. Majumder, Marina Faerman, and Ariella Oppenheim, "The Y Chomosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East," American Journal of Human Genetics, 2001.

In sum, modern-day Palestinians have both early lineages and recent ones. Those recent lineages are Arab-specific. IMO, the reality that Palestinians share historic legitimacy in the region is better expressed when one focuses on the facts, not artificial linkages (e.g., to the Canaanites) that have not been substantiated through science/archaeology/history.

 

[24107]

This is pure conjecture. The Canaanite civilization disappeared from history via conquest, dispersion, intermarriage, etc. The only definite thing one can say about the current Palestinian people - genetically speaking - is that they are a mix of distinct Semitic genetic groups (Syrian, Egyptian, Hashemite, etc.)

recent genetic evidence appears to match historical accounts that Arab Israelis and Palestinians,[15][16] together as the one same population, represent modern "descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times

Palestinian people: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article

Recent genetic evidence has demonstrated that Palestinians as an ethnic group represent modern "descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times

Palestinian people - Religion-wiki

 

[jallman]

i have a simplistic question.....how far back in history do we go to determine "ownership" of lands?

How about as far back as public records indicate ownership? I am sure the farmers on that land have zero interest in who claims they own the land as far as the nation goes. But I find it highly immoral of Israel to lift people off the land that is their livelihood, drive them out, and move others from halfway around the world under their fabricated "right of return" doctrine to live there just because they want it.

 

[Apocalypse]

How about as far back as public records indicate ownership? I am sure the farmers on that land have zero interest in who claims they own the land as far as the nation goes. But I find it highly immoral of Israel to lift people off the land that is their livelihood, drive them out, and move others from halfway around the world under their fabricated "right of return" doctrine to live there just because they want it.

That's a nice description of the events of the 48' war called by the Palestinians and the surrounding Arab nations on the state of Israel with the aim of annihilating the fledgling Jewish state.

 

[24107]

Genetic studies, as you see have been done and proven that the Palestinians are descendants of that area since prehistoric times,I provided the source interpret those words as they have been written and don't try to twist the wording to fit your bias.If you deny this genetic studies you have choosen to deny facts because they don't fit your views.

 

[jallman]

That's a nice description of the events of the 48' war called by the Palestinians and the surrounding Arab nations on the state of Israel with the aim of annihilating the fledgling Jewish state.

Well when the war of '48 becomes relevant to these people being lifted off the land they have lived on their whole lives just to appease Israeli land lust, then you will have a point. :shrug:

 

[Shayah]

yuo are right, of course. I meant p[ermanently from the perspective that the Jews didn't give any more trouble to the Romans, though it is an open question how much influence this had on the spread of Christianity (which started as a Jewish cult), with the forced incorporation of Jewish and Christian population groups into the wider Roman population. of course, jews were widespread in the Roman empire even before the expulsion, so it is unclear whether the expulsion would have been a definitive driver in this regard.

Indeed. At one time Alexandria, Egypt had more Jews than any other city in the Roman Empire.

 

[Apocalypse]

Well when the war of '48 becomes relevant to these people being lifted off the land they have lived on their whole lives just to appease Israeli land lust, then you will have a point. :shrug:

And by "land lust" you're probably referring to the forming of an expansionist policy.
I believe however that would fit more the situation when a state forms an aggressive move and takes another state's land.
Israel's conquering of the land during the '48 war was being carried through a defensive position, launching a counter-attack.
In such cases territories are mostly being conquered for strategic reasons, to have the upper hand in the war and eventually win it, and not out of what you describe as a 'land lust'.

 

[Shayah]

Well when the war of '48 becomes relevant to these people being lifted off the land they have lived on their whole lives just to appease Israeli land lust, then you will have a point. :shrug:

Perhaps you're making a broad generalization here. Most Israelis, and probably most Israelis on this board, take the position that all external WB settlement expansion should cease until a permanent accord is reached between Israel and Palestine. At least, that is my personal position on the settlements.

 

[jallman]

And by "land lust" you're probably referring to the forming of an expansionist policy.
I believe however that would fit more the situation when a state forms an aggressive move and takes another state's land.
Israel's conquering of the land during the '48 war was being carried through a defensive position, launching a counter-attack.
In such cases territories are mostly being conquered for strategic reasons, to have the upper hand in the war and eventually win it, and not out of what you describe as a 'land lust'.

When you take farmers and lift them up off their land during the growing season, it has the look of being Israeli greed for their land and nothing more. And usually, if it walks like a duck...

 

[Apocalypse]

Perhaps you're making a broad generalization here. Most Israelis, and probably most Israelis on this board, take the position that all external WB settlement expansion should cease until a permanent accord is reached between Israel and Palestine. At least, that is my personal position on the settlements.

I don't know even one person on these boards who supports an external WB settlements' expansion.
It doesn't even happen, settlements do not expand out of their boundaries anymore, and they are only growing internally. ("Natural growth")

 

[Apocalypse]

When you take farmers and lift them up off their land during the growing season, it has the look of being Israeli greed for their land and nothing more. And usually, if it walks like a duck...

Once more, Israel's conquering of the land during the '48 war was being carried through a defensive position, launching a counter-attack.
In such cases territories are mostly being conquered for strategic reasons, to have the upper hand in the war and eventually win it, and not out of what you describe as a 'land lust'.