Israel operates with impunity??

[Nioya]

"Palestinian identity predates the state of [I]srael" is a nonsequiter from "Numerous arab states have claimed territory all over the territory of palestine [sic] from 1800 to 2000". There was never any Palestinian culture or ethnicity prior to Hajj amin al Husseini.

The point is the territory has been claimed by numerous other states. You can't pretend no one ever claimed that territory before the all palestine government.

Projection

I don't what that means but maybe we can debate that as well.

And? Demographics have changed continuously since the dawn of time.

Palestinian/Arab presence in the cities predates Israel's claims to them, to any jewish settlements, and to zionism itself. They have the legitimate claim to the territory.

Nope, there's no "Apartheid" and never has been, Israel has numerous Arabs in it's government, stop insulting people who actually went through Apartheid.

All right. I'll try citing mainstream sources.

http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=754

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28850510

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_c ... #Criticism

https://972mag.com/richard-gere-segrega ... th/126057/

And this is ignoring the killing of civillians, using children as human shield, white phosphorus, and so on.

So it had no legitimacy, in other words.

I never tried to say it did. It wasn't really a real government to begin with. I think the palestinian people have a right to the territory. That's what I am defending.

Arabs arrived with the Rashidun Caliphate in the 600s, Jewish people first arrived in Israel around 1000 BC. Arabs lived almost exclusively in the Arabian peninsula until the rise of Islam caused them to dominate the rest of the middle east and North Africa.

Well that's basically true. Though they did exist as a rather primitive culture before the rise of Islam. So they did exist before that in their pennisula.

And they gave up their rights when they tried to slaughter the Jewish population of British Palestine. Judea and Samaria was lost from Arab control due to Arab aggression, first in 1948 and again in 1967.

What slaughter are you referring to exactly?

Vague conspiracy theories.

No. They don't have an independent state with which to claim territory. Israel has denied them that. It's been voted against numerous times in the UN.

[Nioya]

Says common sense. No other ethnic group bases their claim to occupying territory displacing the indigenous population based on their antiquity. That's silly. This would never be allowed for any other government. This is equivalent to saying americans have the right to invade and take over France because Americans of colonial, German, and Irish ancestry all have distant gaulic ancestry. Or justifying Congolese genocide because all Europeans all originate from Africa.

So, in other words, it's an arbitrary number you made up.

Arbitrary? Jews haven't lived there for one hundred, two hundred, five hundred, seven hundred, one thousand, twelve hundred, fifteen hundred years. Pick a number. Anyone of those would delegitimize their claim. Neither you nor the international community wouldn't accept any other people's claim to occupy territory because of some claim of ancestry there going back 100 years, or even 1500 years for that matter. By what principle do you still maintain they have a right to live there after being away for so long? How can you say there?

And you didn't address my analogy. Would you support americans invading and occupy France because they have distant ancestry there? Would you even take that kind of argument seriously? What about Belgian colonizing of the Congo?

[G-Tech Corporation]

Canaanites were definitely not Arabs. The concept of a Pre-Islamic Arab were the tribal nomads. The Assyrian term most certainly can be used to link the concept too as they not only used the word "Sarabi" to denote the tribal nomads, but they called their land, "mâtu arbâi/aribâi." That said any attempt to portray Canaan as Arabian is fallacious. Though they were both ancient "Semites" there was no 1 single "Semitic" culture group the Arabs could have claimed the be the forefathers of.

Your conclusion is correct: Canaan was not Arabic. The premise, though, flawed. The Assyrians used the term to refer to any number of nomadic people groups to the south and west of their civilization that did not make permanent dwellings, not merely to what we would in the modern day conceive of as the Arabian Peninsula or the Arab people. A better analogy for the term would be the Greek usage of "barbarian", delineating civilized and uncivilized peoples. Barbarians were not a distinct culture- neither were the Sarabi, especially as the many peoples that inhabited the Arabian Peninsula at the time actually spoke different languages and did not share the fundamental tenets of what anthropology would call an ethnic group.

But that's really all nitpicking. Even if we concede the point that some mottled form of Arabic people-group did exist prior to the Hebrew state, it certainly did not exist in Palestine/Canaan/Israel, and so cannot be said to have a claim preceding that of the Hebrew people themselves. Ipso facto any arguments from prior claim must treat the Israeli people (or Canaanites, if you want to champion the cause of a vanished people) as the owners of the land that is modern Israel in antiquity.

[G-Tech Corporation]

So, in other words, it's an arbitrary number you made up.

Arbitrary? Jews haven't lived there for one hundred, two hundred, five hundred, seven hundred, one thousand, twelve hundred, fifteen hundred years. Pick a number. Anyone of those would delegitimize their claim. Neither you nor the international community wouldn't accept any other people's claim to occupy territory because of some claim of ancestry there going back 100 years, or even 1500 years for that matter. By what principle do you still maintain they have a right to live there after being away for so long? How can you say there?

And you didn't address my analogy. Would you support americans invading and occupy France because they have distant ancestry there? Would you even take that kind of argument seriously? What about Belgian colonizing of the Congo?

Hogwash. There have certainly been ethnic Hebrews, and indeed religious Jews, living in Canaan since the time of their first migration there. 1900, 1800, 1500, 500 AD, yep, still Hebrews. The only way that could delegitimize their claim would be if you worked from the principle of formal ownership, but that would be pointless itself, as a "Palestinian" state has never owned the region of Canaan in all of recorded history.

Not addressing an analogy based on an absurd argument is perfectly legitimate, but I will humor you. Did Americans of French descent have their own complete nation-state in what is now France prior to the current French nation-state? Was there a legitimate Huguenot state which can lay prior claim to the lands of France? Hardly. Did the Beligans have their own kingdom in the Congo, which they were dispossessed of in antiquity by the Congolese invaders, thrown from their ancestral homelands? Nope. Please try again later.

[Nioya]

Hogwash. There have certainly been ethnic Hebrews, and indeed religious Jews, living in Canaan since the time of their first migration there. 1900, 1800, 1500, 500 AD, yep, still Hebrews. The only way that could delegitimize their claim would be if you worked from the principle of formal ownership, but that would be pointless itself, as a "Palestinian" state has never owned the region of Canaan in all of recorded history.

Certainly? What is your source for that exactly?

But let's assume that claim for now. You're making an error here. I'm not against jews living peacefully in the land of palestine along other people, especially any jews who have resided there for generations going back to the since the exile or the exodus or the ottoman conquest of Palestine. What I do object to is the idea that scores of European, African, and Middle Eastern Jews can set up their own judeocentric state, occupy the land of Palestine, and try to displace the native population, and I certainly don't support all the travesties committed by the state of Israel. So we're not having a conversation about jews living there, but about zionism.

Not addressing an analogy based on an absurd argument is perfectly legitimate, but I will humor you. Did Americans of French descent have their own complete nation-state in what is now France prior to the current French nation-state?

Yes. The equivalent at the time. They had ancient gaulic kingdoms.

Hardly. Did the Beligans have their own kingdom in the Congo, which they were dispossessed of in antiquity by the Congolese invaders, thrown from their ancestral homelands? Nope. Please try again later.

So if there was a belgian state in antiquity and the belgians were kicked out as a people, you would support their right to occupy the territory?

[Uelvan]

Canaanites were definitely not Arabs. The concept of a Pre-Islamic Arab were the tribal nomads. The Assyrian term most certainly can be used to link the concept too as they not only used the word "Sarabi" to denote the tribal nomads, but they called their land, "mâtu arbâi/aribâi." That said any attempt to portray Canaan as Arabian is fallacious. Though they were both ancient "Semites" there was no 1 single "Semitic" culture group the Arabs could have claimed the be the forefathers of.

Your conclusion is correct: Canaan was not Arabic. The premise, though, flawed. The Assyrians used the term to refer to any number of nomadic people groups to the south and west of their civilization that did not make permanent dwellings, not merely to what we would in the modern day conceive of as the Arabian Peninsula or the Arab people. A better analogy for the term would be the Greek usage of "barbarian", delineating civilized and uncivilized peoples. Barbarians were not a distinct culture- neither were the Sarabi, especially as the many peoples that inhabited the Arabian Peninsula at the time actually spoke different languages and did not share the fundamental tenets of what anthropology would call an ethnic group.

This is not true. To elaborate, their word for barbarian shares a root with the Greek word Barbaros as it was: B'arb'Royoa.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Certainly? What is your source for that exactly?

Educate yourself with a quick wiki-walk.

But let's assume that claim for now. You're making an error here. I'm not against jews living peacefully in the land of palestine along other people, especially any jews who have resided there for generations going back to the since the exile or the exodus or the ottoman conquest of Palestine. What I do object to is the idea that scores of European, African, and Middle Eastern Jews can set up their own judeocentric state, occupy the land of Palestine, and try to displace the native population, and I certainly don't support all the travesties committed by the state of Israel. So we're not having a conversation about jews living there, but about zionism.

We could be, except for your argument that the Arabs of Palestine are somehow "native" to the land in question. As I have noted before multiple times, the idea of Palestinian Arabs having primacy in terms of historical possession (being "natives") is patently false. You presented a lack of Hebrews in Palestine at any point since the dissolution of Judea and Samaria as a delegitimizing argument against current Israeli sovereignty.

Jews haven't lived there for one hundred, two hundred, five hundred, seven hundred, one thousand, twelve hundred, fifteen hundred years. Pick a number. Anyone of those would delegitimize their claim.

Jews most certainly have lived in the region in any of the time periods you mention. Ergo, they maintain a legitimate claim of continued primacy of possession.

Yes. The equivalent at the time. They had ancient gaulic kingdoms.

I assure you, given the last great feudal domains of France were absorbed prior to any colonization of the Americas, there are no Americans of French descent that could seek ancestral rights over France. The concept is ridiculous.

So if there was a belgian state in antiquity and the belgians were kicked out as a people, you would support their right to occupy the territory?

Not necessarily- such a determination is far more complex than simple primacy of possession. But I would certainly agree that they had that argument in their favor, in the same way I would argue the Etruscans had a claim to many Roman possessions in 300 BCE via primacy.

This is not true.

What an eloquent counterargument.

The term Sarabi was applied to Gindibu and his forces in ~850 BCE, forces which included tribes from what is today southern Iraq and Jordan. I'm quite comfortable asserting that the Assyrian term didn't apply to any specific ethnic identity or land area based on that understanding.

Not to mention the argument itself is rather moot, as the Israeli kingdoms are certainly referenced historically prior to that usage.

Edit: Urk, quote nesting.

[Uelvan]

What an eloquent counterargument.

The term Sarabi was applied to Gindibu and his forces in ~850 BCE, forces which included tribes from what is today southern Iraq and Jordan. I'm quite comfortable asserting that the Assyrian term didn't apply to any specific ethnic identity or land area based on that understanding.

Not to mention the argument itself is rather moot, as the Israeli kingdoms are certainly referenced historically prior to that usage.

Edit: Urk, quote nesting.

You have asserted that anthropologists would not look at the ancient Arabians as one ethnic group, but your claims "The term Sarabi was applied to Gindibu and his forces in ~850 BCE, forces which included tribes from what is today southern Iraq and Jordan. I'm quite comfortable asserting that the Assyrian term didn't apply to any specific ethnic identity or land area based on that understanding, " does not substantiate this is true. Nor does it detract from the fact that there was an Aramaic word for barbarian.

[G-Tech Corporation]

You have asserted that anthropologists would not look at the ancient Arabians as one ethnic group, but your claims "The term Sarabi was applied to Gindibu and his forces in ~850 BCE, forces which included tribes from what is today southern Iraq and Jordan. I'm quite comfortable asserting that the Assyrian term didn't apply to any specific ethnic identity or land area based on that understanding, " does not substantiate this is true. Nor does it detract from the fact that there was an Aramaic word for barbarian.

It most certainly does. Either the Assyrian word referred to a particular people group, in which case it can be taken as the first reference to the Arabs as a distinct ethnolinguistic subset, or it is a more general term, in which case it cannot be interpreted in such a manner. I provided positive proof for the later case, noting that the term Sarabi was not applied in a particular manner, but rather more generally. I also did not state that it could be directly correlated with the word "barbarian"- we know what the word Sarabi roughly translates to, after all - but rather noted that the Assyrians likely used it as a generic delineation much like the Greeks used the term barbarian, again refuting any interpretation of the word as a reference to a distinct Arab ethnic group.

I will reiterate again that this discussion is semantic, as the usage of the term for Gindibu's forces itself post-dates Hebrew settlement in Canaan. The Arabs did not exist as a distinct ethnic group prior to Israeli settlement of Canaan- thus they cannot possibly claim primacy of possession.

[Uelvan]

You have asserted that anthropologists would not look at the ancient Arabians as one ethnic group, but your claims "The term Sarabi was applied to Gindibu and his forces in ~850 BCE, forces which included tribes from what is today southern Iraq and Jordan. I'm quite comfortable asserting that the Assyrian term didn't apply to any specific ethnic identity or land area based on that understanding, " does not substantiate this is true. Nor does it detract from the fact that there was an Aramaic word for barbarian.

It most certainly does. Either the Assyrian word referred to a particular people group, in which case it can be taken as the first reference to the Arabs as a distinct ethnolinguistic subset, or it is a more general term, in which case it cannot be interpreted in such a manner. I provided positive proof for the later case, noting that the term Sarabi was not applied in a particular manner, but rather more generally. I also did not state that it could be directly correlated with the word "barbarian"- we know what the word Sarabi roughly translates to, after all - but rather noted that the Assyrians likely used it as a generic delineation much like the Greeks used the term barbarian, again refuting any interpretation of the word as a reference to a distinct Arab ethnic group.

I will reiterate again that this discussion is semantic, as the usage of the term for Gindibu's forces itself post-dates Hebrew settlement in Canaan. The Arabs did not exist as a distinct ethnic group prior to Israeli settlement of Canaan- thus they cannot possibly claim primacy of possession.

Why would the Arabs be any different from any other group they named though? They differencianted all kinds of foreign people. They called the Medes/Mannaeans Gu-ti-um, similarly they used the Akkadian to differenciate the Hittites, whom they called the Ha-at-ti. They differentiated the Sarabi/Aribi from the Gimirri who are better known as the Cimmerians, another nomadic people. Or another nomadic people from the same region as the Gimirri, the Askuzai, who are generally believed to be Scythians. The connotation of Arab meaning barbarian, as you are projecting, was not a concept as you present it. Nor would mainstream anthropology support the conclusion that Bronze Age Arabs were not a single ethnic group.

[Nioya]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel]Educate yourself with a quick wiki-walk.

They are native, they are indigenous, they have their own identity as palestinian. Israel is the product of a colonial venture, and it occupies palestinian territory.

The fact that there were tiny pockets of jews living there throughout the middle ages doesn't justify zionism. I don't care, OK? It's wrong and you know it.

Listen, jews could have been living in palestine since time out of mind, from the dispersion to the day ben gurion picked up a pen on an unfortunate day in 1949, but it doesn't matter. The jews who lived there had a right to stay there peacefully. But, a bunch of evil racist violent jews invented an ideology called "Zionism", and tens of thousands of jews moved there, made settlements, refused to have any relations with the arabs, and committed acts of violence against the local population. then the british empire who had been committing genocide against all sorts of foreign peoples for decades, decided to annex and carve out a little territory in palestine as a place for the jews to live. And you know those jews who had been living from antiquity did? They either assimilated to the community full of jewish migrants who hadn't lived there for thousands of years or left. Or they died. They lost their right to live there when they joined the community full of migrants who were not from there, at all, and had only tenuous relations to people who lived there from antiquity. They joined a community of racist colonial foreigners and invaders, who to this day perpetuate a racist apartheid state and ethnic cleansing of people, all in the name of conquest.

Then the jews did nothing but oppress and kill the local arabs and plot for conquest of the whole territory(which nullified any possible right for any jew to live in palestine for centuries), as exemplified by Ben Gurion:

Ben-Gurion said he wanted to "concentrate the masses of our people in this country [Palestine] and its environs." When he proposed accepting the Peel proposals in 1937, which included a Jewish state in part of Palestine, Ben-Gurion told the twentieth Zionist Congress, "The Jewish state now being offered to us is not the Zionist objective. [...] But it can serve as a decisive stage along the path to greater Zionist implementation. It will consolidate in Palestine, within the shortest possible time, the real Jewish force, which will lead us to our historic goal". In a discussion in the Jewish Agency he said that he wanted a Jewish-Arab agreement "on the assumption that after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine."

[G-Tech Corporation]

It most certainly does. Either the Assyrian word referred to a particular people group, in which case it can be taken as the first reference to the Arabs as a distinct ethnolinguistic subset, or it is a more general term, in which case it cannot be interpreted in such a manner. I provided positive proof for the later case, noting that the term Sarabi was not applied in a particular manner, but rather more generally. I also did not state that it could be directly correlated with the word "barbarian"- we know what the word Sarabi roughly translates to, after all - but rather noted that the Assyrians likely used it as a generic delineation much like the Greeks used the term barbarian, again refuting any interpretation of the word as a reference to a distinct Arab ethnic group.

I will reiterate again that this discussion is semantic, as the usage of the term for Gindibu's forces itself post-dates Hebrew settlement in Canaan. The Arabs did not exist as a distinct ethnic group prior to Israeli settlement of Canaan- thus they cannot possibly claim primacy of possession.

Why would the Arabs be any different from any other group they named though? They differencianted all kinds of foreign people. They called the Medes/Mannaeans Gu-ti-um, similarly they used the Akkadian to differenciate the Hittites, whom they called the Ha-at-ti. They differentiated the Sarabi/Aribi from the Gimirri who are better known as the Cimmerians, another nomadic people. Or another nomadic people from the same region as the Gimirri, the Askuzai, who are generally believed to be Scythians. The connotation of Arab meaning barbarian, as you are projecting, was not a concept as you present it. Nor would mainstream anthropology support the conclusion that Bronze Age Arabs were not a single ethnic group.

Because the term utilized was applied broadly to multiple people groups that we know historically were not ethnic Arabs. To treat the term Sarabi as a statement referring only to a particular ethnic is patently false- similarly, drawing from your own example, taking the term Scythian to refer to a unified ethnolinguistic group is vast oversimplification, as what western historians termed Scythia we now know to have contained markedly discrete cultures and language groups.

As for mainstream anthropology, I'm going to need a citation on that. The sources I've seen point to homogenization to any appreciable degree occurring centuries after the Hebrew migration.

[Neo Balka]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel]Educate yourself with a quick wiki-walk.

They are native, they are indigenous, they have their own identity as palestinian."

But they are Arabic.

[G-Tech Corporation]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel]Educate yourself with a quick wiki-walk.

They are native, they are indigenous, they have their own identity as palestinian. Israel is the product of a colonial venture, and it occupies palestinian territory.

The fact that there were tiny pockets of jews living there throughout the middle ages doesn't justify zionism. I don't care, OK? It's wrong and you know it.

Listen, jews could have been living in palestine since time out of mind, from the dispersion to the day ben gurion picked up a pen on an unfortunate day in 1949, but it doesn't matter. The jews who lived there had a right to stay there peacefully. But, a bunch of evil racist violent jews invented an ideology called "Zionism", and tens of thousands of jews moved there, made settlements, refused to have any relations with the arabs, and committed acts of violence against the local population. then the british empire who had been committing genocide against all sorts of foreign peoples for decades, decided to annex and carve out a little territory in palestine as a place for the jews to live. And you know those jews who had been living from antiquity did? They either assimilated to the community full of jewish migrants who hadn't lived there for thousands of years or left. Or they died. They lost their right to live there when they joined the community full of migrants who were not from there, at all, and had only tenuous relations to people who lived there from antiquity. They joined a community of racist colonial foreigners and invaders, who to this day perpetuate a racist apartheid state and ethnic cleansing of people, all in the name of conquest.

Then the jews did nothing but oppress and kill the local arabs and plot for conquest of the whole territory(which nullified any possible right for any jew to live in palestine for centuries), as exemplified by Ben Gurion:

Ben-Gurion said he wanted to "concentrate the masses of our people in this country [Palestine] and its environs." When he proposed accepting the Peel proposals in 1937, which included a Jewish state in part of Palestine, Ben-Gurion told the twentieth Zionist Congress, "The Jewish state now being offered to us is not the Zionist objective. [...] But it can serve as a decisive stage along the path to greater Zionist implementation. It will consolidate in Palestine, within the shortest possible time, the real Jewish force, which will lead us to our historic goal". In a discussion in the Jewish Agency he said that he wanted a Jewish-Arab agreement "on the assumption that after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine."

A shame, I thought we were having a discussion based on facts, not declarative statements and "you know it".

I've presented entirely valid arguments establishing why the Hebrews are considerably more native and indigenous to Canaan than any Palestinian Arabs, arguments you have yet to refute. Falling back on "but the Juiz are ebul!" is hardly likely to convince anyone of the cogency of your standpoint.

[Nioya]

The state of israel wasn't founded by jews who lived in palestine since antiquity. But rather, it was founded by migrant jews, and the former group assimilated into them. So they don't count, and they were in such small numbers anyway. The establishment of an ethnocentric state and the great violence carried out against the native arabs makes the situation much more complicated, and any right to reside in that land for those jews is nullified by it.

[Neo Balka]

The state of israel wasn't founded by jews who lived in palestine since antiquity. But rather, it was founded by migrant jews, and the former group assimilated into them. So they don't count, and they were in such small numbers anyway. The establishment of an ethnocentric state and the great violence carried out against the native arabs makes the situation much more complicated, and any right to reside in that land for those jews is nullified by it.

Where did the migrant jews come from?

North AMerica?

Europe?

The horn of Africa?

[G-Tech Corporation]

The state of israel wasn't founded by jews who lived in palestine since antiquity. But rather, it was founded by migrant jews, and the former group assimilated into them. So they don't count, and they were in such small numbers anyway. The establishment of an ethnocentric state and the great violence carried out against the native arabs makes the situation much more complicated, and any right to reside in that land for those jews is nullified by it.

Those are nice opinions you have there.

[Uelvan]

Because the term utilized was applied broadly to multiple people groups that we know historically were not ethnic Arabs. To treat the term Sarabi as a statement referring only to a particular ethnic is patently false- similarly, drawing from your own example, taking the term Scythian to refer to a unified ethnolinguistic group is vast oversimplification, as what western historians termed Scythia we now know to have contained markedly discrete cultures and language groups.

As for mainstream anthropology, I'm going to need a citation on that. The sources I've seen point to homogenization to any appreciable degree occurring centuries after the Hebrew migration.

You are asserting all of this. Scythians referred to a specific group of nomads. Not all nomads in general. This is made evident by the differentiation between the Alans, Cimmerians, or Sarmatians for example. This is a false equilence of the Greco term Barbarian, which was always used more broadly than words uses for tribes of specific groups/cultures. You can find plenty about the Scythians and other Indo-Iranian Nomads in the region here:
https://archive.org/stream/189942876InS ... y_djvu.txt


If you are only interested in an anthropologist's look on ancient Arabia, this is a source I would recommend:
https://books.google.com/books?id=C-TQp ... &q&f=false

[Slovenya]

I've presented entirely valid arguments establishing why the Hebrews are considerably more native and indigenous to Canaan than any Palestinian Arabs, arguments you have yet to refute. Falling back on "but the Juiz are ebul!" is hardly likely to convince anyone of the cogency of your standpoint.

I think the problem here is that you are associating Hebrews with the Colonialists that came from Europe. The Palestinians are decendants of the people that have lived in that land (call it whatever you want, Canaan, Judea, Palestine) for thousands of years. They were the same people that were Pagans, who converted to Judaism, who converted to Christianity, and some who eventually converted to Islam. Most Jews in the world are Ashkenazi, which are not middle-eastern.

[Slovenya]

The state of israel wasn't founded by jews who lived in palestine since antiquity. But rather, it was founded by migrant jews, and the former group assimilated into them. So they don't count, and they were in such small numbers anyway. The establishment of an ethnocentric state and the great violence carried out against the native arabs makes the situation much more complicated, and any right to reside in that land for those jews is nullified by it.

Those are nice opinions you have there.

There is countless evidence to support what he is saying. It is not an opinion, but a fact. Jews are taught fabricated history, and some even go as far as to say the Palestinians don't exist and that the land was empty prior to their arrival.

[San Marlindo]

I've presented entirely valid arguments establishing why the Hebrews are considerably more native and indigenous to Canaan than any Palestinian Arabs, arguments you have yet to refute. Falling back on "but the Juiz are ebul!" is hardly likely to convince anyone of the cogency of your standpoint.

I think the problem here is that you are associating Hebrews with the Colonialists that came from Europe. The Palestinians are decendants of the people that have lived in that land (call it whatever you want, Canaan, Judea, Palestine) for thousands of years. They were the same people that were Pagans, who converted to Judaism, who converted to Christianity, and some who eventually converted to Islam. Most Jews in the world are Ashkenazi, which are not middle-eastern.

For some reason every time I see your signature, avatar, and username Farewell of Slavianka plays in my head.

Anyway, on topic - are you a proponent of the specific theory that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Khazars?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazar_hy ... i_ancestry

[UCE Watchdog of the Puppets]

I've presented entirely valid arguments establishing why the Hebrews are considerably more native and indigenous to Canaan than any Palestinian Arabs, arguments you have yet to refute. Falling back on "but the Juiz are ebul!" is hardly likely to convince anyone of the cogency of your standpoint.

I think the problem here is that you are associating Hebrews with the Colonialists that came from Europe. The Palestinians are decendants of the people that have lived in that land (call it whatever you want, Canaan, Judea, Palestine) for thousands of years. They were the same people that were Pagans, who converted to Judaism, who converted to Christianity, and some who eventually converted to Islam. Most Jews in the world are Ashkenazi, which are not middle-eastern.

They're descended from Middle Easterners forced out by Hadrian, Titus and about a million pogroms.

[Sanctissima]

I've presented entirely valid arguments establishing why the Hebrews are considerably more native and indigenous to Canaan than any Palestinian Arabs, arguments you have yet to refute. Falling back on "but the Juiz are ebul!" is hardly likely to convince anyone of the cogency of your standpoint.

I think the problem here is that you are associating Hebrews with the Colonialists that came from Europe. The Palestinians are decendants of the people that have lived in that land (call it whatever you want, Canaan, Judea, Palestine) for thousands of years. They were the same people that were Pagans, who converted to Judaism, who converted to Christianity, and some who eventually converted to Islam. Most Jews in the world are Ashkenazi, which are not middle-eastern.

That's not entirely true.

Ashkenazis are descendants of Jews who left their homeland. They're still Semitic, which is indeed Middle-Eastern.

[Slovenya]

For some reason every time I see your signature, avatar, and username Farewell of Slavianka plays in my head.

Anyway, on topic - are you a proponent of the specific theory that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Khazars?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazar_hy ... i_ancestry

lol, I'm anti-communist XD
and yes I believe most "white" Jews are from that region

They're descended from Middle Easterners forced out by Hadrian, Titus and about a million pogroms.

so how come they don't look Middle-Eastern? So I can claim Jewishness and move to Israel then. I'll probably have more right than the Palestinians, sad.

[Neo Balka]

For some reason every time I see your signature, avatar, and username Farewell of Slavianka plays in my head.

Anyway, on topic - are you a proponent of the specific theory that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Khazars?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazar_hy ... i_ancestry

lol, I'm anti-communist XD
and yes I believe most "white" Jews are from that region

They're descended from Middle Easterners forced out by Hadrian, Titus and about a million pogroms.

so how come they don't look Middle-Eastern? So I can claim Jewishness and move to Israel then. I'll probably have more right than the Palestinians, sad.

Might want to ask the Russians that.