Your entire premise is that the Palestinians are materially different to, for example, Jordanians, when in fact they are not only identical but see themselves as identical. Just asserting otherwise doesn't make it so.

BTW, I came across a note this morning about the Palestinian soccer team which played in various FIFA sanctioned competitions in the 1930s. Almost the whole team, and bear in mind the was the Palestinian soccer team, were Jewish. In those days, Palestinian meant someone living in Palestine. That was changed in the 1960s for political reasons, nothing to do with ethnicity.

You're now making a stronger claim, mhaze:

That Palestinians are materially identical to Jordanians and historically saw themselves as identical.

Two questions then:

1. Are you arguing that regional Arab subgroups cannot develop into distinct ethnic entities over time?
2. If Palestinians are "identical" to Jordanians, are Jordanians materially identical to Syrians and Lebanese as well? If so, why recognise Levantine Arabs as an ethnic entity at all?

On the 1930s football team - yes, "Palestinian" was used geographically under the British Mandate. That doesn't settle whether a distinct Arab Palestinian identity developed later. Many national identities evolve and consolidate in the 20th century. That fact alone doesn't make them fictitious.

So again, what is the rule?

Is it:

- genetic distinction?
- pre-modern self-identification?
- boundary maintenance over centuries?
- something else?

Define the threshold clearly and we can test it.

Well we finally got there..."That doesn't settle whether a distinct Arab Palestinian identity developed later. "

That's what I said. It developed in the 1960s not based on ethnicity but on political needs or perceived needs.

Its been a journey JD, one, I'm sure, you'll want to forget with alacrity given how badly its gone for you, but we got there.

See you in the next thread.

You've moved from "fictitious" to "developed later", mhaze.

The question was never whether identity developed - all identities develop.

The question is: at what point does a developing identity meet your criteria for an ethnic entity?

If formation in the 20th century disqualifies it, then many recognised ethnic groups would fail that same test.

So what is the threshold? Time depth? Genealogical separation? Boundary maintenance?

Without a defined rule, "developed in the 1960s" is just chronology, not an argument.

Trumpster,

If you and your offspring keep procreating for another 10,000 generations then you will have a chance at least, of becoming almost a human sub group. Think of the benefits, no more living in the primeval swamp, and surviving on grubs and bugs, it will be Macca's and KFC everyday,...... sorry maybe stay where you are, the grubs and bug look more appetising!

Did somebody say KFC?

I'll take either the bacon and cheese zinger with mayo, or a sweet chili twister, maybe a couple pieces original recipe, prefer the rib pieces thanks and I suppose some nuggets or popcorn chicken, may as well go a bit of that tasty coleslaw, and some potato n gravy, some chips and maybe throw in a few of those dinner rolls as well thank you kindly.