Ooh, ooh, I know! Is it “right after Israel’s neighbors gave up on trying to conquer it”?
It does go back earlier than that, although that is the exact point at which the surrounding Arab states stopped trying their hardest to stifle the bourgeoning Palestinian identity in the crib and instead started grooming it as a weapon to be wielded against Israel. Funny, that.
It emerged as a reaction to early Zionists in the Ottoman period. Edward Said was one of the Palestinian voices who argued that Palestine needs to come to be defined by something other than opposition to Zionism, which is very true.
They weren’t Boers until they moved at all. It’s a job description. But the people who set off from the Cape and the people who settled in the Boer republics were the same people. So no, they did not originate in Africa.
Only if you ignore all the genetics, I suppose. And what’s genetics got to do with origins\s
When they first started calling themselves Palestinians. So - 10th C. onwards.
Hey, that’s probably the same time the Ashkenazim got their start in the Rhineland…
A bunch of locals converted to Islam? Including, it seems, no small amount of Israelites. Oh, there was also the usual mixing, but by-and-large, the peninsular conquerors did not push out the locals. I mean, someone has to grow your dates and grain.
Where in any of that is the bit about pushing out the locals?
A lot earlier.
Did you think the Ashkenazim wound up in eastern Europe because they enjoyed the climate and hospitality?
Funny coincidence how the 600 years the rabbis of Babylon spent working on the Talmud just sort of stopped a couple of decades after the Muslims took over.
This is the same game that’s played with the “kill the Boers” BS - Boers are an ethnic group whose name etymologically derives from a profession.
Much like Palestinian, which is an ethnic group whose name derives from the Peleshet, a word that means “to raid” and once described an entirely different ethnic group.
Boers today are not Dutch people. They are a new and distinct group, which, yes, originated in Africa.
That’s some serious historical revisionism.
Oh, hey, I guess if Israel was to convert all the Palestinians either forcibly or by making them Dhimmi for a few centuries until they decided they were better off converting, you wouldn’t consider that colonization? Somebody tell Ben Gvir! He’d be all about a Jewish Caliphate.
Yeah - like the very late 1800s. Definitely not the tenth century 
The horseshoe is one thing, but whitewashing the CALIPHATES is a whole new low.
Like, it doesn’t seem like much of a bullet to bite to admit that the islamification of the Middle East was in fact due to the aggressive conquest of the Caliphates and their persecution of non-muslims and non-Arabs, but I guess it’s only bad if a white person does it.
Why did the land of Israel come to be called “Palestine”?
Because an invading force displaced the native population, hijacked their religion, and renamed it after their ancient (extinct) enemies in order to mock them.
Do you think they wound up there because of the Arab conquest?
What’s that got to do with the Ashkenazim? Who’s disputing the Arabs conquered the area?
Oh, please, tell me about my own area’s idioms
And also a name for a different, porcine, occupation…
Funny, we still call them Dutchmen…
Naah.
Take it up with the guy who kept insisting he was filastini
No, I’d call that conquest.
You think that racist pig would want any Palestinians muddying up his precious Zion? I’m pretty sure he’d sooner die.
Take that up with Al-Maqdisi
Who here has denied this? You’re arguing with some phantom.
Among other things.
So you acknowledge that the Arabs are colonizers.
And lots of Americans are still called “Irish” or “Italian” or “African” even though their great-grandparents never set foot in those places. What’s your point?
Yes, you’ve made your goodness for racial slurs pretty clear in the past.
Fair enough, I used incorrect terminology there. Afrikaners on the other hand are a distinct ethnic group that did indeed originate in Africa. Boers are just a subgroup of Afrikaners.
From your link:
Emphasis mine.
Are you going to tell me that Maqdiso (Jerusalemite) also refers to a distinct ethnic group? Yes, there was a region within Syria sometimes called Palestine, but that doesn’t make Levantine Arabs who come from there a distinct ethnic group, any more than New Englanders are.
The Jerusalemite? What about him?
You:
That’s a bit like describing the trans Atlantic slave trade as “a bunch of locals moved to America and found new jobs?”. What you did there is called “whitewashing”.
Talk about tossing stones while living in a glass house… Tell me more about Judaism and Israel 
Because that was also what it used to be called in Antiquity (Herodotus and Aristotle much?) and the Middle Ages, before the Ottomans?
Naah. The Ashkenazim mainly descend from Jews who were already in Europe by the conquests. Babale’s helpful Erfurt cite bears that out, too.
The Peninsula Arabs were, yes, was that in doubt?
Of course, if you’re going to insist on using the word Arab to refer to two different populations, I’m never going to agree that “Arabs” overall are.
And I’d say the first two are European in origin, while the latter are distinctly American.
Origins have meaning.
I’ll be sure to let my colleague who self-identifies as one know.
Naah. You can make that case for Afrikaans-speaking Coloureds, but not Afrikaners.
What does that signify, because I think this (same link) signifies much more:
Al-Maqdisi identified himself as “Palestinian” (filastini) when asked if he was “Egyptian” during his travels in Shiraz.[9][10][11][12] His writings also recount thirty-six different names he was given by those he encountered during his travels, the first two being Muqadassi (“Jerusalemite”) and Filastini (“Palestinian”).[13][14]
Are you going to tell me when someone says they’re an Angelino, they’re making a statement about their ethnicity?
If they insistently identify themselves as being from there it’s certainly the case that they’re marking that as “distinct from the wider Levantine Arab identity?”
Nothing like that. I was literally asked what happened when they were conquered. The conquest part was already part of the equation, in a way the slavery part is not in your poor analogy.
Nope.
I only talk about the bits that the data support. “Data over Dogma”, as they say. If you don’t like where the data leads, can’t really help you.
Gah, autocorrect typo… That should read “fondness”.
Wrong. The Romans specifically picked the name to mock the Jews and sever their connection to the land after the Bar Kochba rebellion by naming it after the people that their scriptures said had been their ancient enemies.
And colonization, I’m told, is bad, yes?
And the origin of the Jewish people is in Eretz Yisrael. They have an unbroken 2500-year tradition of being indigenous to the land and DNA backs up that tradition. We even have evidence that the priestly caste originated with a small group of families roughly around the time that the Torah says it ought to have.
I’ve known plenty of black people who’ll call themselves the N-word. That doesn’t mean I get to call them that.
And I have a strong suspicion that you wouldn’t be OK with a white South African calling you the K-word.
So Herodotus and Aristotle didn’t call the region (their version of) Palestine? And thge Roman punitive renaming wasn’t a callback to that name?
Yep
And the origins of the Ashkenazim are the Rhineland.
Was it the “We” that confused you? I meant “We” as in “South Africans”, not “We” as in “me and my mates”. I don’t call anyone Dutchman, any more than I personally call anyone a Boer.
Well, I’d also be hilariously confused by their word choice, as I’m not Black.
Oh, well, I guess since I have a friend who self identifies with the N word, that’s not a slur either? Come on, we both know that’s not an argument.
Yaaaah. Since you’re fond of quoting Wikipedia:
No, that’s another great example! People from LA County who call themselves Angelinos are describing their region of residence, not their ethnicity. Just like all Maqdiso.
Right, I agree. And that only started being the case in any widespread way as a reaction to Zionism and then moreso after the failure of Pan Arabism.
Conquest doesn’t necessitate forced conversion or apartheid, which you brushed under the rug.
Then the Arab colonization of Israel was also bad, yes?
Which they fled to as refugees after living in Eretz Yisrael was no longer tenable.
Do you believe that people of Palestinian ancestry living in the diaspora have ceased to be of Palestinian origin? Are the residents of Ain al-Hilweh Lebanese now?
I’m sure it isn’t to him. But you try calling him that and let us know…
you missed a bit…
And when that same Angelino says they’re “Korean, not Chinese”, that’s just describing their “region of origin”, I’m sure…
So, you agree al-Maqdisi was saying he was Palestinian.
Aah, I thought these goalposts weren’t tied down enough…
No doubt a lot was forced, and some wasn’t, just like in plenty of other conquests of the time. Not mentioning it is hardly “brushing it under the rug”. The salient point was that locals were converted to Islam and large-scale population replacement didn’t take place. Since the origin of the Palestinians was the issue. How they were converted isn’t relevant to that.
If they converted, as they clearly did, they wouldn’t be subject to dhimmitude, any way. So why would it come up?
Sure. All colonization is. What’s your point?
Erm, nope. This is just the Israeli myth that the Diaspora was exclusively of people fleeing conquest. The Roman Empire had a large population of Jews that had moved way before the Second Temple ever fell. Italy had a substantial Jewish population (tens of thousands) before A.D. 70.
Is there a substantial population that’s half Palestinian-half Chinese, that only speaks a dialect of Cantonese?