Doesn't the residents of Jordan call themselves Palestinians, I took it that Jordan does not want them back because of their love for Hamas. so they are lost soles of their own making.

mhaze,

You're still trying to collapse three different things into one: DNA, race, and peoplehood. That confusion wasn't mine, it was Bezza's, and I explicitly rejected it.

Yes, Palestinians are Arabs and Semites. So what? Shared ethnicity has never prevented the emergence of distinct peoples. Austrians and Germans, Irish and Britons, Ukrainians and Russians all share ancestry. That doesn't reduce them to administrative labels.

Your Queensland analogy fails because Queenslanders are not governed as a separate population under military law, denied civil rights, or recognised in international law as a people entitled to self-determination. Palestinians are. That's not sentiment, it's legal and political reality.

Race is a dead end here. Modern peoples are not defined by biological distinctness, and they never have been in any coherent framework. DNA studies of the Levant show continuity and overlap across Jews, Palestinians, Syrians and others. That undermines Bezza's blood-sorting fantasy just as much as it undermines your implication that Palestinians are interchangeable with neighbouring populations.

You started by saying Palestinians were fictitious. You now concede they exist but try to trivialise them as merely a political label. That retreat doesn't rescue the argument. It just changes its shape.

If you want to deny Palestinian peoplehood, you need to explain why the standards applied everywhere else in the world suddenly don't apply here.

Oh, I know, mhaze!

Let's check with our little right-arbiter of debates to see if I have indeed hijacked this one...

Question:
Is mhaze correct when he suggests that John Daysh is hijacking the debate?

Grok:
No, mhaze is not correct in suggesting that John Daysh is hijacking the debate.
...

John Daysh responds directly to mhaze's points:

• Challenges the "fictitious" claim by noting that all modern national identities (including Israeli, Italian, German, Australian) are relatively recent constructs.

• Argues Palestinians are a real ethnonational group with continuous presence, shared culture/language/history under Ottoman/British/Israeli rule.

• Dismisses the Mohsen quote as instrumental rhetoric common in nationalist movements (similar to early Zionist debates), not proof of inauthenticity.

• Points out that political rights/self-determination apply to peoples/nations, not biological races, and that mhaze's shift to "race" is a red herring/evasion.

• Insists genetic overlap (which aligns with Bezza's original DNA premise) supports continuity in the Levant rather than disproving Palestinian distinctness.

John's replies stay tightly focused on mhaze's specific claims (fictitious identity, invented race, Mohsen quote, DNA implications) and the original thread's DNA/ethnic-origin angle. He does not introduce unrelated topics; he engages the core dispute head-on, using standard arguments from history, nationalism studies, and population genetics (shared Levantine ancestry between Palestinians and Jews is well-documented in studies, showing deep continuity rather than sharp divides).

mhaze accuses John of "hijacking" and "realigning the discussion" (e.g., shifting from race to nation/peoplehood), but this appears to be mhaze's own frustration at John's effective rebuttals. mhaze himself pivots (from "fictitious" to "not distinct" to "just Arabs"), while John consistently addresses the evolving claims without derailing into off-topic rants (unlike some other posters who veer into Australian politics, police, Trump, etc.).

In short: John is participating in and sharpening the central debate, not hijacking it. mhaze's accusation seems more like a defensive rhetorical move when cornered on the weakness of denying a modern people's existence by invoking outdated racial categories or selective leader quotes.

http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk_ca1d73ba-5719-45af-9ae4-44b6b9bf537e
http://drive.google.com/file/d/172l2Yfj_-1R0bB48b__BvrPkGZq02QjH

Shall I run ALL our debates through Grok to see if I at least hijack others?

"He always does." - mhaze

We can always tell when JD has realised he's talked himself into a hole.... he runs off to the algorithm and asks it to sooth his wounded pride.

I started off saying "The Palestinian people are fictitious." The people, not the politic entity. The difference seems to elude you.

BTW, the Irish and Britons are ethnically different - one is Celtic the other Anglo-Saxon.

But saying the Britons are an ethnic group excludes all those who are now Britons who aren't of Anglo-Saxon descent. Ditto the Austrians who are from Syria and Afghanistan. These people are Britons (and Austrian) by nature of the political entity they live in, not because they magically become Anglo-Saxon of Teutonic upon arrival in the place.

The same with the Palestinians. They aren't an ethnic group but claim to be. The claim is fictitious and made-up for political purpose to fool the easily fooled. They be pleased to know that at least in one instance (no names mind you) they were successful.

The Palestinians are a political entity created from whole-cloth for political purposes and once that purpose passes they be reabsorbed back into the wider Arab diaspora.

Can we really now, mhaze?

//We can always tell when JD has realised he's talked himself into a hole.... he runs off to the algorithm and asks it to sooth his wounded pride.//

Yeah, I don't think anyone's buying that.

Back to the actual issue at hand. You've now made your rule explicit: a people only exists if it is ethnically distinct from its neighbours. That rule is false, and it's not how peoplehood has ever been defined in history, law, or political theory.

Palestinians do not claim to be a biological race. They are an ethnonational group: a population with continuous residence, shared culture, language, historical experience, and collective treatment under law. That is exactly how modern peoples form.

Your own examples expose the flaw. Britons are not ethnically Anglo-Saxon, Austrians are not ethnically Teutonic, Israelis are not ethnically uniform Jews. None of that renders those peoples "fictitious". Overlapping ancestry has never invalidated peoplehood.

Saying Palestinians will "reabsorb into the Arab diaspora" is prediction, not argument. Ukrainians were once told the same about Russia. That claim didn't age well.

If you reject Palestinian peoplehood, you need a universal rule that doesn't also dissolve most of the world's nations. You don't have one.

Trumpster,

Are you Aryan? That's all that matters. If they had DNA testing back in the 1930's you would have had no problem joining the Schutzstaffel.

Forced DNA testing is all the rage today from the extreme right, test to see if he's a Jew, test to see if he's an Arab, test to see if he's Aboriginal. Can't test to see if the white fellas are Australian, they are a mix of 57 different varieties, they'd fail the test.