Dear Joe,

Palestine is willing to negotiate with Israel.
Always was willing, but not on Israel's terms
only. Therein lies the problem. Why is the world
told to believe that the Palestinians should
only accept peace on Israel's terms?

Anyway, we shall have to agree to disagree on this
issue. I have no wish to argue with you.

Who were the Philistines in relation to the Palestians.
The Philistines overran the land of the jews and made Jesus and his people
refugees in their own land.

So it raises the question about the real historical ownership of the land.
I dont set much store by who used to own the land, though.
Reality tells me that whoever can hold the land militarily, are the ones who
obviously control the land (country). This has always been the way of things
and still is in every country in the world.
Democracy and justice courts only exist in countries where the army is governed
by people who allow democracy.

Seeing as how the muslims who live in Australia, like to bring up the Aboriginals as the rightful owners of Australia,
maybe they should look into history as to the original owners in Palestine.

Hi Cherful,

'Palestinian' is more of a geographical description than a historical one: the Philistines were quite probably closely related to the ancient Hebrews (cf. Sternberg's 'Hebrews between Cultures'), who may have been the lower classes, peasants and slaves, in a single society with 'Philistines' (perhaps a name coined after the event) as a ruling, and/or urban class - i.e. perhaps the Philistines and Hebrews were part of one single society. There is mention of a 'Hebrew Revolt' in Genesis.

The region has been called 'Palestine' since at least Roman times, if not (see above) much earlier. Whoever has lived there would be 'Palestinian'. When the Arabs swept out of Arabia in the seventh century and conquered Mesopotamia and what was then a Christian 'Holy Land', Palestine, their usual demographic policy was to enslave the men and 'incorporate' the women. Most likely, the male DNA of current Palestinians is strongly Arab, while the female DNA is much more diverse, probably including similar DNA to that of Syrian, Lebanese and Jewish women.

So now, in 2017, most Palestinians would count themselves as Arab: Christians, Muslims and Druse, etc. But their ancestral links to ancient Palestinians, or Philistines, may be very tenuous, except through the DNA of Palestinian women.

So who were the original owners of 'Palestine' ?

As for Aboriginal people being the original owners of Australia, certainly they have legitimate claims as the hunting-gathering population of Australia for sixty-odd thousand years. But strangely, I suspect there is a backing away from that in some quarters, judging by recent attempts to portray Aboriginal people not as hunter-gatherers but as farmers, who presumably (if is this the rationale for this moronic claim) would have much stronger claims of land ownership.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Joe,

«The region has been called 'Palestine' since at least Roman times»

The region was so coined by the Romans in order to humiliate the Jews to the max.

The Philistines were a nation that lived to the West (mainly South-West) of Judea, along the Mediterranean coast. They are mentioned many times in the bible, even from Genesis, but especially in the books of Judges and Samuel. They had five cities, among them Gaza while the other four are today part of modern Israel: at some point in time they even controlled the area which is now Tel-Aviv. Israel and the Philistines were considered bitter enemies with many wars between them.

It is believed that the Philistines came from the islands of Crete or Cyprus and in any case they were not Arab.

Hi Yuyutsu,

This is probably going even further off the track but:

* when you suggest that "Israel and the Philistines were considered bitter enemies with many wars between them ...."

yes, indeed, that's the nature of tribal societies, even those with a common origin. The history of the 'Palestinian' coast-line from 2000 BC is complex and fascinating. But even in the bible, there are plenty of references to co-operation or collaboration between Philistines and Hebrews/Israelites: even David worked for them for a bit, even against his 'own' people; Samson of course was enthralled to them through his love of Delilah. A tribal group breaking into two or more bits, each of which stoutly believe that they have always been enemies of the other, is probably a common story for many anthropologists.

Anyway to get BTT, Netanyahu, the two-state solution, and settlements: of course, until the two pats can come together in a single, democratic and fully equal state, say in a couple of hundred years, a two-state solution is a necessary measure.

But building settlements is a provocation - perhaps it is being used to drive the PA and Hamas to the negotiating table, to recognise the right of Israel to exist and then agree to the two-state solution. Clearly, the PA and Hamas DON'T agree to a two-state solution if they don't/won't recognise one of the states' right to an existence. I don't think building more settlements will speed up the process.

Joe

Dear Joe,

Yes, the settlements are definitely an unhelpful provocation, but I think that their intention is more to do with internal Israeli politics then with Palestinians.

A recent article in Israel described Netanyahu as "the only responsible adult". He wants a two-state solution and understands that anything else would result in the loss of Jewish majority in Israel, a majority that is already about to be lost in the next elections for the council of Jerusalem, where an Arab mayor will starve the Western half of the city. However, there is little Netanyahu can do against his childish own party and coalition partners.

Now what could Netanyahu gain by getting the Arabs to "recognise" the existence of Israel? only a political advantage against his peers as the Arabs wouldn't mean what they say anyway.