From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Subject: Re: Very Weak Zionist Claims Over Palestine
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 02:46:00 GMT

adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:
>In article <bdm.717416634@cs.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay) writes:
>>adam@sparkle.uucp (Adam Shostack) writes:

>>>Most rational historical accounts have Muslims overrunning the area
>>>in the 7th century, or so.  There is no evidence that there was any
>>>historical continuity or ethnic separation between the 7th century
>>>invaders and the local (non-Jewish) population, who you, without
>>>evidence claim, were arab.

>>What seems clear is that the locals adopted the culture and religion
>>of the invaders.  Unless the locals were all killed off, the argument
>>for continuous occupation stands.

>I'd say a large fraction of the locals and their decendants were killed
>off either by the initial Jihad, or durring the crusades.  Lets face

Why do you say that?

>it, there were safer places to live not far away.  The bloodlines
>probably are very thin to anyone going back to before the Israelite
>kingdoms.

Probably, but the bloodlines from modern Ashkenazim to ancient 
Israel might be thin too.  (I said "might"; I don't think it
makes any difference anyway.)

>On a related note, if the locals gave up thier cuture, I'm not sure
>how strong the claim to contiuous occupation is.  Is someone who is
>1/16th native american more entitled to live in Boston that I am?

You seem to be arguing against your own case.  Consider its
analogy:  native->Jew, Adam->Arab res of Palestine ca 1920.

>>>The Arabs, however, never really established a seperate statehood, or
>>>nationality in Israel; there is no evidence untill the 20th century of
>>>anyone getting attatched to the land.

>>I think the last part is silly.  How could they live there for 
>>centuries and not be attached to the land?  They didn't show
>>overt signs of it until the saw their position threatened; 
>>seems what I would expect.

>How do we know they lived there for centuries?  Most of the locals
>were fairly migratory; they came and went with droughts, with the
>economy, etc.  I've seen very little evidence that there was a pattern
>of staying in borders we now argue about, as opposed to going to
>Damascus, Beruit, Constantinople, and Cairo.

I think modern borders are a red herring.  Did native Americans
have a pattern of staying on one side of the current US-Canada
border?  Who cares?

>>Do you think the Australian
>>aborigines formed nationalist organisations during any of the
>>60,000+ years of occupation before white settlers arrived?
>>Maybe they weren't attached to the land either?

>I'll answer a similar question, because I'm not very familiar wwith
>the aborigines.  "Do you think the Native maericans formed nationalist
>organizations..."

>No, I don't.  I think they were very attatched to their land.  A great
>deal of land in America still bears their names (Illinios,
>Massachusetts, etc).  I don't think that the Illinois had any great
>attatchment to Oregon, nor did the natives of Massachusets have any
>great love for the lands of the Cherokee.  Similarly, I have seen
>little evidence that the Palestinians can trace their roots in what is
>now Israel for more than a few generations.

I think the onus is on those who claim they are recent arrivals.
I have seen many attempts at establishing this "fact", but none
come even close, in my opinion.  Furthermore Ottoman censuses
show a large (for the time) settled population in the area for
as far back as they did censuses.  Anyway, I think that "a few
generations" is all you need to establish your share of the
Amwerican claim to the US; why should the Palestinians need more?

>Adam

Brendan.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast