What would you call the people who were living there? They were the ancestors of today’s Palestinians, and they spoke Arabic, and had been speaking Arabic since not long after Muhammad. (Before that, they spoke Greek or Aramaic.)
And, yes, they are closely related to the Jews.
It shouldn’t, but it should add weight to their claim to be a non-“invented” ethnicity.
That sounds like a compromise-retreat from the “Palestinian Law of Return” position. You’d be screaming blue murder if they stuck to that line, wouldn’t you?
No, as I showed you above, most of “today’s Palestinians” are not descended from those who lived there 200 years ago. Also, the population 200 years ago was very sparse - maybe 100-150K or so, mostly in Jerusalem.
About double that. From wikipedia:
1850 was not 200 years ago.
Are you saying that you think the population doubled in 38 years?
Here’s what wikipedia says about 500 years ago:
As I showed you in post #61, they are.
No doubt. But neither group was moving to an uninhabited province.
I take it you have no cite for your claim that the “Palestinians” are mostly descended from people who have been living in that area forever while other Arabs are not?
I take it you are abandoning that claim now?
Post #61.
Why should I? John Mace’s cites back it up.
I’m not sure what you are asking. If the Palestinian Arabs were to credibly announce that a “Palestinian State” would be open to immigration and citizenship for all “Palestinians,” it would give me a lot of hope that a bona fide peace is possible.
I thought you wanted those refugees to stay out of Palestine.
I see nothing in that post which substantiates your claim. Can you quote the part of it which you feel does?
I thought you wanted those refugees to stay out of Palestine. And, you actually approve of an independent Palestinian state? You realize the Jews/Israelis would have to leave the WB, don’t you? Even if Israel annexes everything west of The Wall, that still leaves hundreds of thousands of Israelis on the east side of it.
Sure. They just call themselves “Egyptian”, “Moroccan”, “Lebanese”, “Iraqi” for giggles.
No, the core reasons are not religious. Even Sven explains best, as below:
I daresay most such names come from the Mandate-era immigrants Alessan referred to in post #60; but they, like the Jewish immigrants, were trivial in numbers compared to the population already there. The Palestinians are descendants of Jews. And Arabs. And Philistines. And Samaritans. And fucking Canaanites. Egyptians, Turks, Romans, Greeks, Crusaders, every nation or people that has ever settled in Palestine or conquered it or colonized it or passed through it to get somewhere else, that’s who the Palestinians are. But we Americans can hardly deny such a melting-pot people the rank of a “nation.”
Absolutely if it were set up for constructive purposes and not as a step towards destroying Israel.
i.e. if it were credibly announced that (1) “Palestine” would grant citizenship and residency to all Palestinian Arabs just like Israel welcomes all Jews; (2) any Jews who happen to be living in “Palestine” would be entitled to claim citizenship and residency; (3) “Palestine” would allow Jews reasonable access to holy places; and (4) “Palestine” would immediately seek peace and friendship with all neighboring states, including Israel, then I would support an independent “Palestine.”
One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn’t belong.