The Ashkenazi are of
mixed European and Middle Eastern ancestry. They might be considered indigenous in parts of Europe where their families lived for thousands of years but they don't have the same heritage as the Palestinian Jews who are part of the indigenous population of Palestine.
The Palestinian Jews and Arabs also have mixed European and Middle Eastern ancestry.
The Israelis clearly satisfy Cobo's criteria.
As I said
back in October, not all Israelis are Jews and not all Jews are Israelis.
I meant the Jewish Israelis clearly satisfy Cobo's criteria.
Not all Jews and not all Israelis are primarily descended from the ancient Canaanites.
If you don't understand those two points,
Of course I understand those two points. Do you? I'm the one who said "Go for it, if they're quantitative and they show the Palestinian gene pool is
primarily derived from the ancient Canaanites.", remember? You're the one who said "Why would it be important that they show the Palestinian gene pool is
primarily derived from the ancient Canaanites?".
Coco's explanation of what he means by indigenous communities, peoples, and nations begins with indigenous communities having historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories. European Jews (Ashkenazi and Sephardic) did not, and do not, have that continuity. They have thousands of years of European heritage, European cultures, and most individuals have a significant amount of European ancestry. So even though they have a lot of Middle Eastern ancestry and a religion that originated in the area around Jerusalem, they aren't indigenous.
That's applying your own criteria for historical continuity, not Cobo's. His criteria are "one or more of the following factors: ... b. Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands c. Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.) ..." "One or more of" means since they satisfy two factors they qualify; it doesn't mean since they don't satisfy option "a." you get to rule them out.
So, no, the Israelis in general do not satisfy Cobb's criteria. Some Israelis are members of the indigenous Palestinian population, but most Israelis are immigrants, or the children and grandchildren of immigrants.
And? The Jewish and Muslim people you call "members of the indigenous Palestinian population" are the great*N grandchildren of immigrants. Does being the Nth-generation descendant of immigrants always rule you out of indigeneity, or only whenever N has whatever value it needs to have to let a partisan make some asymmetrical argument for his ingroup being more native than his outgroup?
... Her point appears to be quite the contrary: that the Israelis never threw the Arabs out of Palestine, because the people supposedly thrown out are still in Palestine. The Jews and the Arabs were all Palestinians, all living together in Palestine, and since they weren't getting along, it was partitioned:
The Palestinians were getting along just fine. You can look into the history of Palestine yourself. Don't expect it to be a very exciting read. Apart from the usual problems with bandits and bad weather, not much happened there. And don't expect to read about a frigid standoff between Jews, Muslims, and Christians. The neighbors got along and interfaith marriages were commonplace.
The recently arrived Jewish Zionists were the ones not getting along,
You're anachronistically redefining the recently arrived Jewish Zionists as non-Palestinians, even though your usage isn't what "Palestinian" meant at the time. As Golda Meir points out, she was legally Palestinian with a Palestinian passport and everything. The recently arrived Jewish Zionist Palestinians were getting along just fine
among themselves, same as the native Palestinians you label "The Palestinians". The two communities sharing the region didn't get along
with each other. You're simply taking a symmetrical situation and claiming the immigrants were the problem even though terrorist attacks by natives against immigrants date from that period.
mostly because of the economic and social upheaval of the end of the Ottoman Empire and imposing of British rule, and because they made their intention to take over the region by force very apparent.
The original plan was to bring the two cultures together peacefully. Taking over by force was a reaction to not getting along. For every narrative you can come up with blaming the Zionists, the Zionists have one blaming the Arabs.
The UN Partition Plan (and BTW the UN had no authority to divide Palestine) was devised by European nations that wanted to control and exploit it for their own benefit
The UN didn't divide Palestine -- the Security Council never enacted the General Assembly's advisory opinion. The Zionists divided it. They had no authority to, but then the Arabs had no authority to stop them, and the Turks were long past exercising any authority they once had. There was a legal power vacuum. In the absence of legal authority for anything, where do you propose authority should be sought? Democracy? Israel had a Jewish majority, just as Pakistan and Kosovo had Muslim majorities. If Pakistan and Kosovo can secede from India and Serbia, why can't Israel secede from Palestine?
which is why it gave more than 1/2 of the land to less than 1/3 of the population, most of whom were recently arrived Europeans.
By "more than 1/2" you're referring to the 12% of Palestine that was Jewish majority so the UN assigned it to Israel -- you're simply ignoring Trans-Jordan.
The people who lived in the coastal area did not get their own State. The proposal was for them to be evicted and relocated to 'their' State under the rule of a king they did not want, who had been appointed by the European powers with exactly zero input from them.
No, the proposal was for them to stay where they were and remain part of the Israeli-Arab minority, or leave if they weren't up for that. The proposal was for them to get a choice the Hindus driven out of Pakistan never got. The evictions were due to the war, not the partition. (And if they didn't like the Hashemites they could have seceded from Jordan too. Which, ultimately, they did, hence the present situation.)
She was denying the existence of the indigenous population of Palestine
That is not a reasonable interpretation. "There was no such thing in this area as Jews, and Arabs, and Palestinians, There were Jews and Arabs." is explicitly
asserting the existence of the indigenous population; what she's denying is that "Palestinians" is a more appropriate term for the non-Jews than "Arabs".
She was promulgating a Euro-centric Zionist view about 'Arabs'. Zionists labelled the Palestinians 'Arabs' so they could say that the 'Arabs' should go live in their own country and leave the Jewish State to the Jews, and nevermind the fact that the Palestinians
were living in their own country, the place that had been called Palestine for more than two thousand years.
You're promulgating a Euro-centric anti-Zionist view about 'Palestinians'. Anti-Zionists labeled only the people who lived in the coastal area 'Palestinians' so they could say they didn't have their own country outside the Jewish State, and never mind the fact that their own country, the place that had been called Palestine for more than two thousand years, included Trans-Jordan. The cultural distinction between Jordanians and those now called Palestinians is a modern development, the result of coastal area Palestinians having a different collective experience post-1948 from non-coastal area Palestinians.
Also, calling them 'Arabs' makes it easy to criticize them for what 'Arabs' thousands of miles away have done, which I presume is the reason why some posters here have tried to use the actions of Algerians and Moroccans to attack the character of Palestinians. Peak racism.
Oh for the love of god, leave me out of your squabble with LP. It's not as though there weren't plenty of terrorist attacks against Jews by people who lived in the coastal area.
Zuheir Mohsen, a PLO bigwig, said the following to a Dutch newspaper:
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism."
Was he denying the existence of the indigenous population of Palestine? Was he hand waving away the "came and threw them out and took their country from them" part? Was he claiming Palestinian people did not exist, with no "a"? Golda Meir appears to have simply been agreeing with the PLO's real views instead of with a narrative the PLO peddled for propaganda purposes.
If that translation is accurate, then he was denying the existence of a distinct Palestinian people while at the same time affirming one exists.
Where the heck does he affirm one exists? He's calling the claim that one exists a tactical lie.
I don't know exactly what he was getting at, but it appears he was employing Muslim Brotherhood talking points, as in 'we're all brothers in Islam so let's all work together to defeat Zionism' or some such.
No, he was a Ba'athist, an Assad ally, totally opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood. Maybe this helps: "The Palestinian state would have the right to act on behalf of all Palestinians in the Arab world and elsewhere. Once we have acquired all our rights in all of Palestine, we must not delay for a moment the reunification of Jordan and Palestine." This was the sort of attitude that led to King Hussein kicking the PLO out of Jordan.
Yeah, I'd put him in the same category as Meir, denying the existence of an indigenous population in Palestine and/or refusing to call them Palestinians in order justify a political stance.
Neither of them are "denying the existence of an indigenous population in Palestine"; what they're denying is a specific narrative about who those indigenous people were.
So can you show that Palestinians and Jordanians were objectively two "peoples" and not "a people", or can't you? Sociology and anthropology rarely rise to the level of sciences. What falsifiable prediction can be derived from labeling Scottish persons "a people"?
What falsifiable prediction? I suppose a prediction of the prevalence of a particular genetic condition among persons of Scottish ancestry would be falsifiable, but a prediction about liking fried food and bagpipe music wouldn't. As you note, anthropology and sociology don't utilize the same scientific method as biology, physics, etc.
Exactly. There's no truth-maker to claims about which people are "a people". Using "people" in the singular is political agitation, not factual description. You can no more show Golda Meir's description of the situation was wrong than she could show it was right. Indigeneity cannot be applied to the Palestine/Israel conflict in any objective way. All rights in land are squatters' rights. The Middle East problem needs to be resolved based on the current situation, not based on whose ancestors did what to whom.
