The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs. The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Greco-Roman "Palastina"; which is derived from the Peleshet, (root Pelesh) which was a general term meaning "dividers", "penetrators" or "invaders". This referred to the Philistine's invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea.
To me, that sums up their origins and name:
which was a general term meaning "dividers", "penetrators" or "invaders"
That is what it looks like they have been doing in the most recent history also.
posted on May 22, 2002 09:47:21 PM new
Yes, the philistines were Aegeans and Mediterranean, not Arab. Palestine (Palastina) was the Roman name given to Judea (Judah) when they conquered it in the first century.
As you are so fond of saying, "What a Crock!" You want me to give you facts to support YOUR argument? Your little quiz is just another of your smart aleck tatics since you know that some of the questions that you ask are loaded and can be answered either supportive of your viewpoint or mine.
I'm not playing your game....Not because I don't have answers, but because you want answers slanted to your agenda which is that the Palestinians are a bunch of illiterate goathearders and therefore expendable. Anything not supportive of your viewpoint will be wrong. Your game is unscrupulous.
If you had information to impart to me or anyone else here, you failed. If your goal was to convince anyone here that the Palestinians are nothing but a bunch of expendable and illiterate goatherders who deserve no consideration, then you failed. KatyD, you are so tied up in delivering insults that you can't state your case effectively. THAT is your major problem. You are all about insults and nothing else.
posted on May 23, 2002 06:28:01 AM new
From some of the history being thrown around I can see that step three of eliminating a race is in full swing.
There are only 10 types of people in the world
Those who understand binary and those who don't
posted on May 23, 2002 08:08:22 AM new
It can't be linked, but the Washington Post has a Mid-east Primer on its home page which provides an easily read and geographically well-illustrated history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. If some of the forum readers would like a quick objective background, this one would work as well as any.
posted on May 23, 2002 08:14:42 AM new
What's nonsense, Ken? What is nonsense is that you post a link to some Palestinian Propaganda page as "argument" to buttress that the history of Palestine I outlined is untrue. What part of what I said is "nonsense"? The timeline you post is not different from anything I said, other than it doesn't expound upon the true ethnicity of the various rulers or "occupiers" of the region. In fact, it is downright misleading in calling the land "Palestine" anytime before the first century, when the name was coined by the Roman Emporor Hadrian. In fact, when the region was taken out of the Byzantine Empire by the Arab Muslims in the 7th century, the Arabs themselves named it Falastin, taken from the Roman name Palastina. Even then, the region was "occupied" by the Arab Muslims centered in Baghdad. So...still no separate "ethnic" peoples. By the way, this Muslim Arab rule was for less than 400 years until the Christian Crusaders who conquered the region for a short time, and once again it is "occupied". The Mameluks who "occupied" it next were ethnically mixed, and it was then the region became part of Syria. When the Ottoman Turks conquered the land, it was "occupied" by the Ottoman's based in Istanbul, until the British conquered the Ottomans. So. From the very long history of the area, factually it has been "occupied" but somebody or other from the very beginning. And under "Arab" occupation for only about 400 years, a comparatively short time, considering its antiquity. There has never been a Palestinian "ethnicity". There was never a separate "culture", a "civilization", some kind of "palestinian identity". Indeed, the region was nothing but an empty wasteland for almost all of it's modern existence until the Jews RE-settled the area.
Helen, I have politely invited you to show me where the historical facts I have presented are wrong. Throwing out perjoratives like ludicrous, ridiculous, and unscrupulous willy nilly indicates that, in fact, you have absolutely no historical knowledge of the region and cannot come up with any facts to rebut mine (because they are true) and must rely on anti-Israeli propaganda and Palestinian slogans. Truely, you will NEVER find ANY post of mine where I have suggested that ANY human beings are "expendable" regardless of whether they are "illiterate goatherders". Now. We've studied the "history". Shall we go on to "religious dogma"? Let's start with the Koran (Quran), specifically the verses of the Hadith (from which Sharia law is based upon) and the exhortations within which call for the complete extermination of Jews. Was it you who were using the terms "expendable" and "genocide"? Lol!
posted on May 23, 2002 08:52:15 AM new
KatyD -breinhold is right. Your presenting factual history is not what the popular opinion is here, so it is passed over and called nonsense.
No person is expendable. No group of people are. And that is not what she was trying to say in her posts. Just the general history of a people that believe they have every right to land that is not theirs.
And just an opinion It does not take 'guts' to blow oneself up in a crowd. Suicide should not be honored by any means.
It's good to see you again, donny, as well as to hear from you. Unfortunately, you are incorrect about the linking; I've searched for a biblical basis and their being none, concluded that a direct link to truth does not exist. Only pipelines, commercial or spiritual, and access to those is selective and prohibitively costly.
I'm only here briefly right now, but I'll look forward to seeing you later.
posted on May 23, 2002 11:08:37 AM new
"Its interesting that the writers and/or resources are mainly Palestinian educators, etc."
What's interesting is that you say this after linking it so that anyone can go there easily and see that that assertion is baloney, unless, of course, the "etc." is meant as a blanket covering for, among others, the United Nations and Israel's Central Bureau for Statistics.
posted on May 23, 2002 12:47:26 PM new
As usual. Duh.
As there is nothing in the history of the region which supports the premise that it is a Palestine "homeland" so too there is nothing which supports that it is a Jewish one, which is the point of the timeline I posted, simplistic as it may be. I chose it for it's simplicity for what should be obvious reasons.
Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity. A Jew is at home in whatever state he/she may be. The term 'state of Isreal" wasn't coined by any Roman, it was coined by some Brit during the first part of the last (20th) century. That being the case, which side has ascendency again?
The entire argument of who's got the original claim is nonsense, KatyD, because it simply does not matter today. But don't let me interfere too much in your egotistical bit of blowhardupmanship, I'll desist and allow that by your posting you are the bigger blowhard.
posted on May 23, 2002 01:27:05 PM new
So when he doesn't have facts to back himself up, he must refer to the old standby, "The Pocket Book of Insults". Lol!
posted on May 23, 2002 01:35:38 PM new
Actually that link has information that is factually incorrect, to wit
Palestinian Arabs culture and faith were shaped by the Arabs and Muslims who ruled the Palestine region with brief interruptions for more than a thousand years beginning in the 7th century A.D.
What in hell are "Palestinian Arabs?" Palestinians are not "Arabs". Ethnically, they are mix of semitic, arab, circassian, persian, and all the other people who have "occupied" that region over the years. "Muslims" are not necessarily "Arab". So there is no factual basis on lumping "palestinians" in with "Arabs". This is a term that only Islamic palestinians use in referring to themselves so Shelley's assertion as the main resources is probably correct. In fact, until fairly recent history (pre-Arafat) the term Palestinians was used by the British AND the United Nations to refer to ALL those people who inhabited the region INCLUDING Jews and Christians. Palestinians most certainly are NOT "Arab".
Muslims entered Jerusalem and in 637 built a mosque where the Jewish temple may have stood;
Interesting the use of the word may especially when used with the words "the Jewish temple. There is no "may" about it. The Dome of the Rock was built in the late 7th century by a conquering Caliph at the site, and there was no "mosque" there. The caliph's son was the one who built the Al Aksa mosque and he built it on top of an existing Christian Byzantine church. Remember, when Jerusalem was conquered in the 7th century, it was part of the Byzantine Empire. The passage in the Koran that refers to Mohammed's ascension into heaven does NOT refer to Jerusalem specifically. It mentions the "furthest" mosque. Jerusalem, as a holy site of Islam, has no basis in the Koran, and was invented purely as a by-product of competing ruling caliphs. How could Mohammed have ascended into heaven from the Al-Aksa mosque when it didn't exist until almost 100 years after his death??? This particular interpretation of Jerusalem as an Islamic holy site is a wholly modern invention, an example of the old adage that if you repeat something often enough, it will become "true". The mosque was neglected and for the most part ignored until Haj Amin al Husseini (remember him?) began restoration work as part of his anti-semitic activities to rally Muslims against Palestinian Jews.
There's more, if not "factual" inaccuracies to that Washington Post link, certainly "slant" on the historical facts, which lend credence to Shelley's questioning of the resources. But then the Washington Post isn't known for it's unbiased view of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, is it? Hmmm?
posted on May 23, 2002 01:49:57 PM new
Fine. Forget history. By Krs's reasoning, "possession is nine tenths of the law". That makes it official. "Palestine" belongs to Israel.
posted on May 23, 2002 02:06:10 PM new
More accurate to say "to the Zionist Movement" which is not the same thing. The zionists didn't care where they ended up apparently having considered Argentina, Uganda, Cyprus, and a couple of other places before the area known as palestine, but eventually came to seek ground in palestine becuse of the strategic interest of the area and the emotional and religious FEELING for the place amongst jews.
Personally I couldn't care less about any of the towelheads making claim to the miserable place. I do theink that Isreal has acted barbarically and is guilty of criminal genocide. The A-H Sharon was, after all, once charged for that very crime I believe, and now he's got the power to see his goals completed. It's political entirely, and all of the unverifiable historical mumbo jumbo that some idiot wants to spew forth doesn't change that at all.
posted on May 23, 2002 02:11:21 PM new
is there someone here who will argue with this, "A mother loves her Children" if there is not someone who will argue this then barring the lunatics, We have a common ground on one point to start from.
posted on May 23, 2002 02:20:39 PM new
Thank you, Katy. I had no idea that the Washington Post was a PLO sympathizer. They're everywhere today apparently. I had thought that the term Palestinian Arab was a widely used term today, even used by the UN. I think that you should notify the Washington
Post, the UN, and all the others who have been using that term erroneously. I'm no expert in this area, but I'm sure that if your source provides factual verification of that and other issues, they will be very grateful.
posted on May 23, 2002 02:37:11 PM newI'm no expert in this area, but I'm sure that if your source provides factual verification of that and other issues, they will be very grateful.
Obviously, you are no expert, Antiquary. I seem to remember that you were a teacher in another life. Perhaps you taught math; it surely wasn't history. Nevertheless you probably remember Josef Goebbels, Hitlers propaganda minister. He was a genius at using the media, whatever else is said about him. I believe that he is famous for a quote, I can't remember the exact phrase, to the effect of "if you repeat a lie often enough, most people will believe it is true." Evidently you are proof that Goebbels had it right.
)
