Two wall protesters KILLED

" am not sure what there is to do, but am passing it on anyways. what a
nightmare."

Intifada sucks!!! It's caused nothing but death and destruction. The Security fence is the direct result of Suicide bombers.

So why does this site allow racist propaganda to be published here?

that's just too bad that they were shot...why did I not see any
palestianians protest for peace...only hate war terror!
maybe if they did that they would not get shot, and gain
the support of the israeli public...who for many years demonstrated for a peaceful agreement!! I was one of them...
now i couldn't care less to what happens to the palis....they started this war.

Let me start by explaining the term 'Palestiniansm', which, as far as I can tell, has never existed - I probably coined it:

* Zionism ('Zion' + ism) is the Jewish national liberaton movement. The vast majority of the many streams and currents in Zionism aren't racist, despite what "anti-racist" (nessie) would have the sheeple believe.

* 'Palestinianism' (Palestine + ism) is the national liberation movement of the "Palestinian" Arabs.

There are very few Palestinians (if at all) who would allow for a Palestinian state to be created in or within the disputed territories that wouldn't discriminate against Jews, Samaritans, Christians, gays, women and other minorities. Virtually all the currents and streams of Palestinianism sport racist approaches toward the aforementioned groups.

The US backed Israeli death squads are the real terrorists. The heroic palestinian fighters that give up their lives for their land are the envy of all palestinians. Why is it that the Israeli government feel that the only way it can solve its problems is to commit genocide on the wonderful palestinian race. Does it feel threatened by the palestinian birth rate, or does it feel threatened that its practices will backlash and the inevetible will occur? Palestine is for Palestinians, and the jews whom have been persecuted through out time will again be put in their rightful place in history. The people of Beit Duqqu and all the activists that support them must not give up. We are watching and supporting you from the corners of the earth. Continue with your struggle against the Zionistic machine. Your struggle does not go un noticed. The people of Israel know that the land they stand on is not theirs, and soon will fall out from underneath them. The palestinian people in Palestine as well as in the rest of the world are all united for a Peaceful palestine. The only terrorists are the US backed Israeli massacre squads whom will have to deal with their actions, if not here on earth, then after they leave and are confronted by god, and then sent to the fiery pits of hell where they shall burn for all eternity. The struggle against evil shall continue, by those who are in support of good, and especially by those Palestinians who defend their lands. More supporters are coming, be brave and be patient, thawra thawra hutunussr.

Palestinian resistance proves fruitful with Israel retreating from Gaza.

" wonderful palestinian race."

You have GOT to be kidding.

What "palestinian" race. There's no such thing as a "palestinian" to begin with. Just a convienient term for the unevolved savages in Isreal intent on murder and hate..

Isn't it true that Palestinians never had either a state, nor any distinct culture or language of their own? (Typical zionist propaganda question)

For the moment, let's assume that the Palestinian people should not have a country of their own because they have never had a state, then why should the peoples of Salvador, Guatemala, Congo, Algeria, ... etc. have the right of self determination?

It should be noted that none of these countries had a state prior to gaining independence, nor a distinct language or culture that set them apart from their neighboring states. In other words, even if it's true that the Palestinian people had neither a state, nor a distinct culture or language:

Is that a good reason to confiscate their homes, farms, and businesses?
Is that a good reason to block their return to their homes?
Is that a good reason to nullify their citizenship in the country in which they were born?
According to historical facts, Zionism, as an ideology, evolved in response to the rise of Europe's nationalism and anti-Semitism in the late 19th century, especially in Tsarist Russia (Pale States), France during the Dreyfus affair, and Germany after WW I.

Similarly, Palestinian nationalism evolved in response to the presence of Zionism in Palestine, and most importantly because of the British intention to turn Palestine into a "Jewish National Home," see the Balfour Declaration for further details. These central facts were well articulated by David Ben-Gurion (Israel's 1st Prime Minister) and Moshe Sharett (Israel's 1st Foreign Minister) on many occasions. For example:

A few months before the peace conference convened at Versailles in early 1919, Ben-Gurion expressed his opinion of future Jewish and Arab relations:
"Everybody sees the problem in the relations between the Jews and the [Palestinian] Arabs. But not everybody sees that there's no solution to it. There is no solution! . . . The conflict between the interests of the Jews and the interests of the [Palestinian] Arabs in Palestine cannot be resolved by sophisms. I don't know any Arabs who would agree to Palestine being ours---even if we learn Arabic . . .and I have no need to learn Arabic. On the other hand, I don't see why 'Mustafa' should learn Hebrew. . . . There's a national question here. We want the country to be ours. The Arabs want the country to be theirs." (One Palestine Complete, p. 116)


On May 27, 1931, Ben-Gurion recognized that the "Arab question" is a

"tragic question of fate" that arose only as a consequence of Zionism, and so was a "question of Zionist fulfillment in the light of Arab reality." In other words, this was a Zionist rather than an Arab question, posed to Zionists who were perplexed about how they could fulfill their aspirations in a land already inhabited by a Palestinian Arab majority. (Shabtai Teveth, p. xii, Preface)


As the number of Jews in Palestine (Yishuv) doubled between 1931-1935, the Palestinian people became threatened with being dispossessed and for Jews becoming their masters. The Palestinian political movement was becoming more vocal and organized, which surprised Ben-Gurion. In his opinion, the demonstrations represented a "turning point" important enough to warrant Zionist concern. As he told Mapai comrades:

". . . they [referring to Palestinians] showed new power and remarkable discipline. Many of them were killed . . . this time not murderers and rioters, but political demonstrators. Despite the tremendous unrest, the order not to harm Jews was obeyed. This shows exceptional political discipline. There is no doubt that these events will leave a profound imprint on the [Palestinian] Arab movement. This time we have seen a political movement which must evoke the respect of the world. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 126)


But Ben-Gurion set limits. The Palestinian people were incapable by themselves of developing Palestine, and they had no right to stand in the way of the Jews. He argued in 1918, that Jews' rights sprang not only from the past, but also from the future. In 1924 he declared:

"We do not recognize the right of the [Palestinian] Arabs to rule the country, since Palestine is still undeveloped and awaits its builders." In 1928 he pronounced that "the [Palestinian] Arabs have no right to close the country to us [Jews]. What right do they have to the Negev desert, which is uninhabited?"; and in 1930, "The [Palestinian] Arabs have no right to the Jordan river, and no right to prevent the construction of a power plant [by a Jewish concern]. They have a right only to that which they have created and to their homes." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 38)

In other words, the Palestinian people are entitled to no political rights whatsoever, and if they have any rights to begin with, these rights are confined to their places of residence. Ironically, this statement was written when the Palestinian people constituted 85% of Palestine's population, and owned and operated over 97% of its lands!


In February 1937, Ben-Gurion was on the brink of a far reaching conclusion, that the Arabs of Palestine were a separate people, distinct from other Arabs and deserving of self-determination. He stated:

"The right which the Arabs in Palestine have is one due to the inhabitants of any country . . . because they live here, and not because they are Arabs . . . The Arab inhabitants of Palestine should enjoy all the rights of citizens and all political rights, not only as individuals, but as a national community, just like the Jews." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 170)



In 1936 (soon after the outbreak of the First Palestinian Intifada), Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary:

"The Arabs fear of our power is intensifying, [Arabs] see exactly the opposite of what we see. It doesn't matter whether or not their view is correct.... They see [Jewish] immigration on a giant scale .... they see the Jews fortify themselves economically .. They see the best lands passing into our hands. They see England identify with Zionism. ..... [Arabs are] fighting dispossession ... The fear is not of losing the land, but of losing homeland of the Arab people, which others want to turn it into the homeland of the Jewish people. There is a fundamental conflict. We and they want the same thing: We both want Palestine ..... By our very presence and progress here, [we] have matured the [Arab] movement." (Righteous Victims, p.136)

In 1938, Ben-Gurion also stated against the backdrop of the First Palestinian Intifada:

"When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves ---- that is ONLY half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves. . . . But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves." (Righteous Victims, p. 652)

In 1936, Moshe Sharett spoke in a similar vein:

"Fear is the main factor in [Palestinian] Arab politics. . . . There is no Arab who is not harmed by Jews' entry into Palestine." (Righteous Victims, p.136)

So if the causes of Zionism had not risen, meaning European anti-Semitism, then Palestinian nationalism might not have evolved into what it is today. It's worth noting that the Palestinian people, prior to WW I, always identified themselves as being part of "The Great Syria" (Suriyya al-Kubra), however, that drastically changed when Britain intended to turn Palestine into a "Jewish National Home", see the Balfour Declaration for more details.

This declaration, which was made to the Zionist Movement in 1917, signaled the future dispossession and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people because it did not address their political rights. On the other hand, the declaration recognized the political rights of the "Jewish people" around the world, despite the fact that the Jews in Palestine were under 8% of the total population as of 1914 (Righteous Victims, p. 83). In that respect, Lord Balfour, who was the British Foreign Secretary and a self-professed Christian Zionist, stated in 1919:

"Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-old traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder importance than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 [Palestinian] Arabs who now inhabit the ancient land." (Righteous Victims, p. 75)

In response to this declaration, the Palestinian people started to collectively oppose the British Mandate, Jewish immigration, and land sales to the Zionist movement.

Rather than dealing directly with the issues, sadly many Israelis and Zionists have chosen to ignore the existence of the Palestinians as a people. It should be emphasized that the hawk of all Israeli hawks, Ariel Sharon, has accepted the existence of a Palestinian state, in principle, in a portion of historic Palestine. Whether Israelis and Zionists like it or not, Palestine now exists as a postal code, international calling code, internet domain name, ...etc. in the heart of "Eretz Yisrael". The 8.5 million Palestinians are not going away, and the sooner Israelis and Zionists understand this simple message, the faster they shall start dealing with core issues of the conflict in a pragmatic way.

Finally, applying such logic is very dangerous since it would eliminate half United Nations' members overnight. It is simply not just to suppress the political, economic, and civil rights of the Palestinian people by claiming that they never previously had a state, distinct language, and distinct culture. Ironically, the Zionist movement has been encouraging Jews from all corners of the world to emigrate to "Eretz Yisrael", so that there is no real common denominator between all of these immigrants such as a common language, culture, country of origin, or even a unified interpretation of "who is a Jew".

"Isn't it true that Palestinians never had either a state, nor any distinct culture or language of their own?"

"palestinians" are generic arabs. Before the establishment of Israel, Trans-Jordan considered them trans Jordanioans, Syrians considered them Syrians and Egypt , as egyptians.
A "palestinian" up until 1948, was A JEW IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
If there are such distinct creatures as "palestinians" 90% of them STILL LIVE IN JORDAN! (currently OCCUPIED by the Hashemites)

Isn't it true that Palestinians never had either a state, nor any distinct culture or language of their own? (Typical zionist propaganda question)

For the moment, let's assume that the Palestinian people should not have a country of their own because they have never had a state, then why should the peoples of Salvador, Guatemala, Congo, Algeria, ... etc. have the right of self determination?

It should be noted that none of these countries had a state prior to gaining independence, nor a distinct language or culture that set them apart from their neighboring states. In other words, even if it's true that the Palestinian people had neither a state, nor a distinct culture or language:

Is that a good reason to confiscate their homes, farms, and businesses?
Is that a good reason to block their return to their homes?
Is that a good reason to nullify their citizenship in the country in which they were born?
According to historical facts, Zionism, as an ideology, evolved in response to the rise of Europe's nationalism and anti-Semitism in the late 19th century, especially in Tsarist Russia (Pale States), France during the Dreyfus affair, and Germany after WW I.

Similarly, Palestinian nationalism evolved in response to the presence of Zionism in Palestine, and most importantly because of the British intention to turn Palestine into a "Jewish National Home," see the Balfour Declaration for further details. These central facts were well articulated by David Ben-Gurion (Israel's 1st Prime Minister) and Moshe Sharett (Israel's 1st Foreign Minister) on many occasions. For example:

A few months before the peace conference convened at Versailles in early 1919, Ben-Gurion expressed his opinion of future Jewish and Arab relations:
"Everybody sees the problem in the relations between the Jews and the [Palestinian] Arabs. But not everybody sees that there's no solution to it. There is no solution! . . . The conflict between the interests of the Jews and the interests of the [Palestinian] Arabs in Palestine cannot be resolved by sophisms. I don't know any Arabs who would agree to Palestine being ours---even if we learn Arabic . . .and I have no need to learn Arabic. On the other hand, I don't see why 'Mustafa' should learn Hebrew. . . . There's a national question here. We want the country to be ours. The Arabs want the country to be theirs." (One Palestine Complete, p. 116)


On May 27, 1931, Ben-Gurion recognized that the "Arab question" is a

"tragic question of fate" that arose only as a consequence of Zionism, and so was a "question of Zionist fulfillment in the light of Arab reality." In other words, this was a Zionist rather than an Arab question, posed to Zionists who were perplexed about how they could fulfill their aspirations in a land already inhabited by a Palestinian Arab majority. (Shabtai Teveth, p. xii, Preface)


As the number of Jews in Palestine (Yishuv) doubled between 1931-1935, the Palestinian people became threatened with being dispossessed and for Jews becoming their masters. The Palestinian political movement was becoming more vocal and organized, which surprised Ben-Gurion. In his opinion, the demonstrations represented a "turning point" important enough to warrant Zionist concern. As he told Mapai comrades:

". . . they [referring to Palestinians] showed new power and remarkable discipline. Many of them were killed . . . this time not murderers and rioters, but political demonstrators. Despite the tremendous unrest, the order not to harm Jews was obeyed. This shows exceptional political discipline. There is no doubt that these events will leave a profound imprint on the [Palestinian] Arab movement. This time we have seen a political movement which must evoke the respect of the world. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 126)


But Ben-Gurion set limits. The Palestinian people were incapable by themselves of developing Palestine, and they had no right to stand in the way of the Jews. He argued in 1918, that Jews' rights sprang not only from the past, but also from the future. In 1924 he declared:

"We do not recognize the right of the [Palestinian] Arabs to rule the country, since Palestine is still undeveloped and awaits its builders." In 1928 he pronounced that "the [Palestinian] Arabs have no right to close the country to us [Jews]. What right do they have to the Negev desert, which is uninhabited?"; and in 1930, "The [Palestinian] Arabs have no right to the Jordan river, and no right to prevent the construction of a power plant [by a Jewish concern]. They have a right only to that which they have created and to their homes." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 38)

In other words, the Palestinian people are entitled to no political rights whatsoever, and if they have any rights to begin with, these rights are confined to their places of residence. Ironically, this statement was written when the Palestinian people constituted 85% of Palestine's population, and owned and operated over 97% of its lands!


In February 1937, Ben-Gurion was on the brink of a far reaching conclusion, that the Arabs of Palestine were a separate people, distinct from other Arabs and deserving of self-determination. He stated:

"The right which the Arabs in Palestine have is one due to the inhabitants of any country . . . because they live here, and not because they are Arabs . . . The Arab inhabitants of Palestine should enjoy all the rights of citizens and all political rights, not only as individuals, but as a national community, just like the Jews." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 170)



In 1936 (soon after the outbreak of the First Palestinian Intifada), Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary:

"The Arabs fear of our power is intensifying, [Arabs] see exactly the opposite of what we see. It doesn't matter whether or not their view is correct.... They see [Jewish] immigration on a giant scale .... they see the Jews fortify themselves economically .. They see the best lands passing into our hands. They see England identify with Zionism. ..... [Arabs are] fighting dispossession ... The fear is not of losing the land, but of losing homeland of the Arab people, which others want to turn it into the homeland of the Jewish people. There is a fundamental conflict. We and they want the same thing: We both want Palestine ..... By our very presence and progress here, [we] have matured the [Arab] movement." (Righteous Victims, p.136)

In 1938, Ben-Gurion also stated against the backdrop of the First Palestinian Intifada:

"When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves ---- that is ONLY half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves. . . . But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves." (Righteous Victims, p. 652)

In 1936, Moshe Sharett spoke in a similar vein:

"Fear is the main factor in [Palestinian] Arab politics. . . . There is no Arab who is not harmed by Jews' entry into Palestine." (Righteous Victims, p.136)

So if the causes of Zionism had not risen, meaning European anti-Semitism, then Palestinian nationalism might not have evolved into what it is today. It's worth noting that the Palestinian people, prior to WW I, always identified themselves as being part of "The Great Syria" (Suriyya al-Kubra), however, that drastically changed when Britain intended to turn Palestine into a "Jewish National Home", see the Balfour Declaration for more details.

This declaration, which was made to the Zionist Movement in 1917, signaled the future dispossession and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people because it did not address their political rights. On the other hand, the declaration recognized the political rights of the "Jewish people" around the world, despite the fact that the Jews in Palestine were under 8% of the total population as of 1914 (Righteous Victims, p. 83). In that respect, Lord Balfour, who was the British Foreign Secretary and a self-professed Christian Zionist, stated in 1919:

"Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-old traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder importance than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 [Palestinian] Arabs who now inhabit the ancient land." (Righteous Victims, p. 75)

In response to this declaration, the Palestinian people started to collectively oppose the British Mandate, Jewish immigration, and land sales to the Zionist movement.

Rather than dealing directly with the issues, sadly many Israelis and Zionists have chosen to ignore the existence of the Palestinians as a people. It should be emphasized that the hawk of all Israeli hawks, Ariel Sharon, has accepted the existence of a Palestinian state, in principle, in a portion of historic Palestine. Whether Israelis and Zionists like it or not, Palestine now exists as a postal code, international calling code, internet domain name, ...etc. in the heart of "Eretz Yisrael". The 8.5 million Palestinians are not going away, and the sooner Israelis and Zionists understand this simple message, the faster they shall start dealing with core issues of the conflict in a pragmatic way.

Finally, applying such logic is very dangerous since it would eliminate half United Nations' members overnight. It is simply not just to suppress the political, economic, and civil rights of the Palestinian people by claiming that they never previously had a state, distinct language, and distinct culture. Ironically, the Zionist movement has been encouraging Jews from all corners of the world to emigrate to "Eretz Yisrael", so that there is no real common denominator between all of these immigrants such as a common language, culture, country of origin, or even a unified interpretation of "who is a Jew".

"Palestinians never had either a state?"

A "palestinian" is an Arab who moved to the OCCUPIED Judea and Samaria (OCCUPED by JORDAN) from one of the OTHER 20 ARAB NATIONS to get a job in Israel.

From the early stages of Zionism to the present, Zionists have propagated the myth that Palestinians did not settle Palestine until it was later developed by the Israelis. To facilitate such disinformation, the Zionists adopted the following slogan to entice European Jewry to emigrate to Palestine:

"A land with no people is for a people with no land".

Had the Zionist leadership admitted the existence of an indigenous people, then they would have been obliged to explain how they intended to displace them. To disprove this baseless myth, let's quote Ben-Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister) who stated as early as 1918 that "Palestine is not an empty country". According to Shabtai Teveth (one of Ben-Gurion's official biographers), Ben-Gurion stated in an article published in 1918 that:

"Palestine is not an empty country . . . on no account must we injure the rights of the inhabitants."

Ben-Gurion often returned to this point, emphasizing that Palestinian Arabs had "the full right" to an independent economic, cultural, and communal life, but not political. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 37-38)

To destroy this baseless myth, click here to view a page that was scanned from a book which was conceived and edited by Ben-Gurion himself, stating that Jews made up 12% of the total Palestinian population as of 1914. It's not only that the majority of the Jews in Palestine were not Zionists (by Ben-Gurion's own admission), but they were also not even citizens of the country since many had recently fled anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia.

As the Ottoman census records show Palestine was widely inhabited in the late 19th and early 20th century, especially in the rural areas where agriculture was the main profession. According to Justine McCarthy (p. 26), an authority on the Ottoman Turks, Palestine's population in the early 19th century was 350,000, and in 1914 Palestine had a population of 657,000 Muslim Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews (including many European Jews from the first and second Aliyah).

So the Jewish population in Palestine as of 1914 were under 8% of the total population, which was much smaller than the Palestinian Christian Arab population. It should be noted that our source, Justine McCarthy was quoted by many Israeli Jewish scholars like Benny Morris and Tom Segev. In that regard, it's worth quoting one of the most ardent Zionists, Israel Zangwill, who stated as early as 1905, that Palestine was twice as thickly populated as the United States. He stated:

"Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ..... [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us." (Righteous Victims, p. 140 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7-10)

In other words, Palestinians were recognized by the Zionist leadership as "humans" who populated Palestine, however, that was not good enough of a reason to "grant" them the same political rights as Jews, who mostly lived outside of Palestine. Consequently, this ideology was the prelude to the wholesale DISPOSSESSION and ETHNIC CLEANSING of the Palestinian people during the 1948 war.

Soon after the first Zionist Congress in Basel (Switzerland) in 1897, a Zionist delegation was sent to Palestine for a fact finding mission, and to explore the viability of settling Palestine with persecuted European Jews. The delegation replied back from Palestine with a cable that stated:

"The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man." (Iron Wall, p. 3)

Despite that many Zionists were aware of this happy marriage as early as 1897, they have deliberately chosen to terminate this relationship since they think that Jewish rights are more important than Palestinian rights. The forcible divorce of Palestine from its indigenous people was eloquently articulated by Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the founder of the Israeli political Right, in 1926 who explained that:

" ... the tragedy lies in the fact the there is a collision here between two truths .... but our justice is greater. The Arab is culturally backward, but his instinctive patriotism is just as pure and noble as our own; it cannot be bought, it can only be curbed ... force majeure." (Righteous Victims, p. 108)

The questions which beg to be asked are these:

Do two wrongs make a right?
Is it just to solve an injustice by perpetrating another injustice?
If at one point, Palestinian injustice becomes greater than Jewish injustice, does that justify perpetrating war crimes to solve their injustice?
What makes many Zionists dangerous over time is that they start believing their own propaganda. For example, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's Prime Minister between 1996-1998, proposed lately that Israel should never relinquish control over the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip since he claims that the local population are the descendents of non-indigenous Palestinians. He also alleged that these people came to look for employment that was generated by the influx of new European Jewish capital. Yehoshua Porat, a Hebrew University professor, refuted the late Prime Minister in an article published in Ha'aretz Daily, click here to read his rebuttal. It's worth noting that Professor Porat worked for the campaign to elect Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, so it might not be a good idea to call him Netanyahu hater.

It's really amusing that while nearly all Israelis and Zionists believe that Hawaii, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Tahiti, and Iraq were all populated by indigenous people prior to WW I, however, they find it extremely difficult to imagine that the "Promised Land" (one of the most strategic areas in the world) had any indigenous people whatsoever. It's as if the "Promised Land" had been waiting for over 2,000 years for Israelis and Zionists to settle it and make it bloom, click here to read our response to this argument.

Finally, it's not only that Palestine enjoyed a strategic commercial location (being the land bridge between Asia and Africa), its lands were also fertile and planted with all sorts of trees a long time before the Zionists came to its shorelines. So to claim that Palestine had no people until the Zionists came to settle it, is an absurd claim. Sadly, many Israelis and Zionists hate the idea of an indigenous Palestinian people to the point that they've created a fictitious world based on illusion. In that respect, the Palestinian people have a simple message: Over 8.5 million Palestinians are not going away. The sooner the Israelis and Zionists understand this simple message, the faster they will wake up from their delusional coma

"palestinian" is a fabrication, developed when the Arabs lost the fifth of their aggfressive wars of anihilation against Israel. Proir to 1967 there were Jews and Arabs living in the region. After the Miraculous Six Day War, Judea and Samaria were liberated (along with Jerusalem and Gaza) The OCCUPATION of Judea and Samria was finally ended after TWENTY BRUTAL years.

Both historical and genetic studies suggest that most Palestinians have most of their background in populations that lived in the Israel/Palestine region before the Arab invasion and that the Arab invasion was mainly a change in rulership that resulted ina language change and change in religion (not a change in population). Several genetic studies show that Palestinians are more closely related to Jews than to Saudi Arabs.
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian#The_ancestry_of_the_Palestinians

The ancestry of the Palestinians

For the most part, the Arabization of the Palestinians began in Umayyad times. Increasing conversions to Islam among the local population, together with the immigration of Arabs from Arabia and inland Syria, led to the replacement of Aramaic by Arabic as the area's lingua franca. Among the cultural survivals from pre-Arab times are the significant Palestinian Christian community (and smaller Jewish and Samaritan ones) as well as Aramaic loanwords in the local dialect. Palestinians, like most other Arabic speakers, thus combine pre-Arab and Arab ancestry; the precise mixture is a matter of debate, on which genetic evidence (see below) has begun to shed some light, apparently confirming Ibn Khaldun's widely accepted argument that most Arabic speakers descend mainly from Arabized non-Arabs.

The Palestinian Bedouin, however, are much more securely known to be Arab by ancestry as well as by culture; their distinctively conservative dialects and pronunciation of qaaf as gaaf group them with other Bedouin across the Arab world and confirm their separate history. Arabic onomastic elements began to appear in Edomite inscriptions starting in the 6th century BC, and are nearly universal in the inscriptions of the Nabataeans, who arrived there in the 4th-3rd centuries BC[4]. It has thus been suggested that the present day Bedouins of the region may have their origins as early as this period. A few Bedouin are found as far north as Galilee; however, these seem to be much later arrivals, rather than descendants of the Arabs that Sargon II settled in Samaria in 720 BC.

As genetic techniques have advanced, it has become possible to look directly into the question of the ancestry of the Palestinians. In recent years, many genetic surveys have suggested that Jews and Palestinians (and in some cases other Levantines) are genetically closer to each other than either is to the Arabs of Arabia or to Europeans [5] [6] [7] [8]. (this collection contains more links to genetic studies of Jewish and middle eastern populations.) These studies look at the prevalence of specific inherited genetic differences (polymorphism) among populations, which then allow the relatedness of these populations to be determined, and their ancestry to be traced back (see population genetics). These differences can be the cause of genetic disease or be completely neutral (see Single nucleotide polymorphism) ; they can be inherited maternally (mitochondrial DNA), paternally (Y chromosome), or as a mixture from both parents ; the results obtained may vary from polymorphism to polymorphism. One study [9]on congenital deafness identified an allele only found in Palestinian and Ashkenazi communities, suggesting a common origin ; an investigation [10] of a Y-chromosome polymorphism found Lebanese, Palestinian, and Sephardic populations to be particularly closely related ; a third study [11], looking at Human leukocyte antigen differences among a broad range of populations, found Palestinians to be particularly closely related to Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Jews, as well as Middle-Eastern and Mediterranean populations. (The latter study by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena has been the subject of intense controversy, it was retracted by the journal and removed from its website, leading to further controversy; the main accusations made were that the authors used their scientific findings to justify making one-sided political proclamations in the paper; that the retraction followed lobbyist pressure because the results contradicted certain political beliefs; some suggested that the broad scientific interpretation was based on too narrow data [12], whereas others support the scientific content as valid - for more information on the controversy : [13], [14], [15], [16].) If this close relatedness is true, it would confirm both Jews' and Palestinians' historical claims, suggesting a common Northwest Semitic ancestry. However, the results are complex, much work remains to be carried out, and partial results can be interpreted to suit diverse political agendas.

One point in which the two populations appear to contrast is in the proportion of sub-Saharan African genes which have entered their gene pools. One study found that Middle Eastern Arabs (specifically Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians, Iraqis, and Bedouin), unlike other Middle Eastern populations (specifically Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Azeris, Georgians, and Near Eastern Jews), had what appears to be a substantial gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa (amounting to 10-15% of lineages) within the past three millennia, possibly due to the slave trade[17].

"For the most part, the Arabization of the Palestinians began in Umayyad times."

Hey, Moroccans are "palestinians" too! They're also the prodict of invasion, OCCUPATION and colonization...as well as Arabization!
Any ARB that oves to the neighborhood is called a "palestinian" It's a modern construct. A bogus separate people designed for propaganda purposes.
While Arafat was an Egyptian, Sharon is a REAL palestinian....go figure

>>Hey, Moroccans are "palestinians" too"

Moroccans are mixture of populations including many that lived in the area that is now Morocco before the Arabs invaded. The same is true of the Palestinians. The Moroccans and Palestinians on the other hand have little common ancestry.

In terms of Arafat, he claims to have been born in Palestine but was probably really born in Egypt. His familly, on the other hand, was Palestinian. The culture of Egypt and that of Palestine are not some generic Arab culture and the differences go back to preMuslim cultures (The ancient Egyptians afterall were not a Semitic people whereas Palestinians, Arabs and Jews are).

"The Moroccans and Palestinians on the other hand have little common ancestry.'

That's the truth! But, once a Moroccan moves to the "West Bank" for a job in Israe he magically becomes a "palestinian"

Historical and genetic studies show that most Palestinians were probably Jews (and other preIslamic groups) in what is now Israel/Palestine who were converted to Islam. Of course that doesnt mean that everyone living in Palestinian areas and calling themselves Palestinians are 100% from sucha background. When small numbers of immigrants move into a country they often take on the culture and identity of the local culture to fit in. I dont see how thats a bad thing or takes away from Palestinian claims to their land.

If you carefully surf through Wikipedia, you will find a lot of Zionist fingerprints. Pro-Israel Jews spend a lot of time intimidating and cajolling to ensure that Zionist revisionists' racialized rhetoric is interspersed throughout.

MORAL OF STORY:

DON'T BE FOOLED. THE FIRST RULE IN READING HISTORY: MAKE SURE YOU KNOW WHO'S WRITING IT, OR SHOULD I SAY 'RE-WRITING IT.'

FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU GO TO "PALESTINE FACTS.ORG" AND SPEND A FEW MINUTES EXPLORING, DIGGING DEEP DOWN, YOU'LL FIND THAT IT'S MAINTAINED BY:

"THE JEWISH INTERNET ASSOCIATION. NET"

BINGO!!!


SAME IS TRUE OF THE "MIDDLE EAST WEB":

IT WILL TAKE YOU ABOUT 2 HOURS OF EXPLORING TO FIND OUT WHO SPONSORS AND MAINTAINS IT:

IF YOU ARE LUCKY ENOUGH TO FIND IT THE ANSWER IS:

"BEN GURION UNIVERSITY."

BE VERY CAREFUL, ALWAYS BE WATCHFUL FOR LIARS.

"When small numbers of immigrants move into a country they often take on the culture and identity of the local culture to fit in. I dont see how thats a bad thing or takes away from Palestinian claims to their land."

But...when a small group of moslems move in, historically, they do not take on the local culture religion etc, they FORCE their religion and culture on the natives...
Ever wonder why there are moslems in Pakistan and Morocco? Ever wonder why Moroccans speak arabic?
The "palestinians" claim OTHER people's land.

"they FORCE their religion and culture on the natives"

During the original Arab invasions the local populations were discouraged from converting to Islam since for the first few caliphs it was seen as a mainly Arab religion (and nonMuslims had to pay higher taxes). In fact conversions took hundreds of years in most areas that were rulled under the caliphs. Unlike the sprad of Chistianity conversion at the point of a sword was very uncommon. In India conversions where mainly due to Suffi mystics and among lower caste members seeking government jobs under the Moghuls. The only cases of forced conversion I can think of would be the initial spread of Islam near Mecca and the forced conversion of Sunnis to Shia Islam under the Safavids. Perhaps you coudl also include the Ottoman Janissaries as forced converts but thats a little diffrent since they were kidnapped as kids and trained to be elite military units so the motive wasnt one of conversion.

> The Israeli army has just killed two peaceful anti-wall
> demonstrators in Bidu, near Jerusalem.
>
> The two are:
> Mohmmed Sabel Rayan from Beit Duqqu village
> Zakariya Eyad from Beit Iksa village
>
> They were shot today during a demonstration. The
> demonstration is continuing. All the people, including
> women, children, internationals and Israeli activists are
> down on the land demonstrating against the Wall.

. . . . . . more of the Prof's (Frank's, Peaceful Activist's . . . ) racist nonsense, like that 30 or 50 Muslim countries absurdity that he posts here every few days, where he is so blinded by his bigotry that he compresses different peoples, cultures and ethnicities into the thing that he hates: Arabs

the names change, but the voice remains the same

[Islam Uber Alles
by Forced conversions Thursday, Jul. 28, 2005 at 9:39 AM

"When small numbers of immigrants move into a country they often take on the culture and identity of the local culture to fit in. I dont see how thats a bad thing or takes away from Palestinian claims to their land."

But...when a small group of moslems move in, historically, they do not take on the local culture religion etc, they FORCE their religion and culture on the natives...
Ever wonder why there are moslems in Pakistan and Morocco? Ever wonder why Moroccans speak arabic?
The "palestinians" claim OTHER people's land.]


--Richard

Who are the Palestinians and who are the Israelis? What is their history and how did conversions to Christianity, Islam and Judaism occur over the past few thousand years? Was the spread of Islam more more less brutal than the spread of Christianity to N Europe and European colonies?

All interesting questions but none really relate to peopel today.
The mongolian destruction of Baghdad was one of the more brutal events in world history and I thik everyone would condemn what happened. Hulagu Khan who filled the streets of Baghdad with blood was a Budhist. That is ineteresting but does it really matter? One can point to the violent spread of Budhism to try to justify Chinese occupation of Tibet or try to justify the way Mongolia was oppressed during the Cold War as revenge against the Mongolian treatment of the RUssians hundreds of years ago but to do so would be racist. Palestinians, Israelis and others in the region are only responsible for their own actions and not those of ancestors hundres of years ago. Blaming a people for the actions of their ancestors (often through constructed histories not based on facts) is responsible for most of the worst genocides in the past centuries. The Nazis drew off such myths, as the the Serbs and as do both sides in the current Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That doesnt mean discussion of history should be taboo, but it doesnt place guilt on people today. Its intersting to ask about the conversion of Palestinians to Islam or the change in language among Palestinians from Aramaic to Arabic just as its interesting to look at the brutal conversion of Iceland to Christianity or the forced conversion of Safavid Iran to Shia Islam. But the ancestors of those who did horrible things dont bear guilt for the actions of their ancestors and to imply otherwise is almost by definition racism.

Many Israelis and Zionists claim that there has to be an exception granted to the "Jewish people" based on the Biblical and historical Jewish background in Palestine (click here to learn more). However, Zionists disapprove the conduct of other countries when they exercise similar policies to empower a specific ethnic or religious group solely based on racial, religious, and historical backgrounds, especially when Jews are put at a disadvantage.

The core issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are the collective dispossession and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people over the past five decades. It should be emphasized that the conflict would have been at the same level of intensity, even if both warring parties had been Muslims, Christians, or even Jewish