Talk:Palestinians/Archive 14

Etymology section corrections
Herodotus actually mention Arabs inside Palestina. There is no evidence that Syria Palestina refers to ethnonym but only as a guess from one book. Herodotus clearly mentions Syria Palestina and Syrians of Palestina.

Since Palestinian People difinition include only the residents of Palestine before the demographic changes made by the occupying power Britain, no need to mention Palestinian jews again in the Etymology section to disturb the difinition section.

Obviously Palestina was a geographic and administrative entity since Herodotus that was used by Philo (40 AD) Josephus (100 AD) and Pliny the elder (80 AD) even before Romans decided to call the area administratively Palestina in 140 AD.03:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Herodotus also employs the term as an ethnonym, as when he speaks of the 'Syrians of Palestine' or 'Palestinian-Syrians',[13] an ethnically amorphous group he distinguishes from the Phoenicians refering to the Aramaeic Samaritans led by Sanbalat and appointed by the Persian kings and the Arabs in Jerusalem refered to also by Ezra"
 * At no point does Herodotus employ the term 'palestinian' as an ethnonym. In fact he never employs the term 'palestinian' in the original text, but he uses phrases such as "Palestine of Syria" and "the Syrians of Palestine", clearly in a geographic manner. So I think the above statement about an ethnonym is biased. And it contains spelling mistakes. Miskin (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Faris odeh03a.jpg
The image File:Faris odeh03a.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --17:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone is editing this page to include irrelevant references to Jewish refugees
It's irrelevant, leave it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.17.178 (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A high possibility of a factual error
In the "DNA and genetic studies" section I think there is mistake.

It says "In genetic genealogy studies, Palestinians and Negev Bedouins have the highest rates of Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) among all populations tested (62.5%)."

The reference goes to a PDF document by "Genelex Laboratory", which quotes a research by Semino et al (Frequency distribution of Haplogroup J and main subgroups. Semino et al, 2004 Am. J Hum. Genet 74:1023-1034). The quote probably contains a mistake. I couldn't find the origin yet, but my claim for a mistake can be infered from this sources (and other):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B8JDD-4RDPX2D-R&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4e659fd564a60a48b087f57df4fa29b4

and also:

http://dienekes.50webs.com/blog/archives/000385.html

You see, only the bedouins have 62.5% rate of Haplogroup J1, while as the palestinians have a considerably lower rate. I assume that in the "Genelex Laboratory" document they wrote by mistake the same percentage to the bedouins and palestinians (62.5).

It is also quite logical, since the J1 refers to a Fertile crescent origin, but shows a greater relation to a southern part of it; And the bedouins of Israel and the Palestinian authority are more related to the southern part of the Fertile crescent than the palestinians.

Consequential of the above, the conclusions made afterwards in the section are not fully supported. Also, it is possible that the rate of the J1 in the palestinian population grew since they may have mixed blood with bedouins, and since the bedouins have a very high rate of J1.

User123789 (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ the result is repeated in the "Genelex Laboratory" article, and the source that information was built is ( Semino et al (2004) Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J:Inferences on the Neolithization of Europe and Later Migratory Events in the Mediterranean Area) http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf

which says j1 among the Palestinian Arab is 38.4% among Bedouins 62.5%

Haplogroup2010 (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)haplogroup2010

I think DNA clues surpass Ancestry section: the ancestry section contain opinionsfrom rougue palestinian authors (off shoot communists etc) and also anti palestinian zionists like Louis. Since DNA clues finds Palestinians have the most homogenous ancestry (DNA) then the talk about mixed ancestry claim in the ancestry section makes no sense.

Every body is ignoring the elephant in the room (the Arabs represented by J1 haplogroup) I recommend change the ancestry section to reflect that the Palestinians have the most homogenous ancestry in the world (compared to any given country or peoples like England or Slavic people or serbs etc) which is obviously the Arabs J1. Slavic people are 40 to 50% R1a1 while England is 20 R1b1 etc etc. The palestinians should be given the credit of the (elephant in the room) thatevery body is trying to ignore that is thatthey are the most homogenous ancestry in the world along with the bedoins of Negev ie Palestinian bedoins!!).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbarosa123 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Science Direct article you cited is an ad hoc retrospective analysis of several unrelated independent studies. The authors of the ad hoc study were not claiming those percentages represent the frequency of Haplogroup J in the general population. They were merely recording the frequency distribution in the aggregate population of the men in their hand-picked studies. Nonetheless, the Bedouins and Palestinian Arabs did rank 1st and 2nd with frequencies of 65.6 and 55.2 percent respectively. Unfortunately those studies did not examine comparably sized cohorts.


 * The foonotes to Table 2 explain that the data is an aggregation from at least 10 separate studies that analyzed Y chromosomes. Only 32 Bedouins (in all) were ever tested. Of those, 65.6 percent were from Haplogroup J. The sample size for Palestinian Arabs was several times larger. It consisted of 143 individuals. Of those 55.2 percent were from Haplogroup J.


 * The study demonstrates that many of these subjects had a common male ancestor. It does not demonstrate that studies of different or larger cohorts would yield the same percentages. harlan (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So, it is quite reasonable to say that the gentic studies are inadequate for concluding any decisive conclusions? I havn't noticed the number of test-subjects before, and now I realize that it is quite small (but bear in mind that I'm not a genetics expert, of course).

Anyhow, the Ancestry section, I think, is quite important. That is because of the problems regarding the concluding numbers of the genetics studies; and becasue, it is simply to say, that even if the gentics studies were more conclusive and extensive in their results, they are still are not so conclusive in their meaning. For example, it is possible that palestinians and bedouins have mixed in the past one hundred years, and therefore we get that rate of J1 in palestinians. And, from most of the data in the Ancestry section, it is quite clear that there was a great migration of people from various arab and non-arab territories into palestine around the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century (by the way - dozenens of languages were spoken).

But regarding only the J1 numbers, it Should be fixed I think to another number, if no one could verify the 62.5% that is now written. And it should be stated that the genetics study was not extensive. It should be decided from whice research we would take the new number - the one stating 50%+ or the one stating 30%+.

By the way, the high percentage of J1 at 143 palestinians (the test subjects) could be explained in another way. It is known that marrige in the family (between First-Cousins) were (and still are?) quite common in the fertile crescent area (in many types of populations). Therefore, if taking test subjects from one specific zone in the Palestinian Authority, we could actually get people who their close ancestors married each other.

User123789 (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You are still ignoring that Palestinians are the most homogenous ancestry because of the high level of Arab J1 haplogroup, higher than any country or race claiming any given other haplogroup.

you are still refusing to compare with others and still refusing to see the Elephant in the room) the extra ordinary high level of one haplotype cluster of J1 among the palestinians.

the early section of palestinian ancestry contradict the DNA clues section, by claiming Mixed?? ancestry of Palestinians. this is not true because Palestinians are most homogenous nation on earth06:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't tell very much about a person's ancestors simply by looking at their DNA. The Y Chromosome is passed along unchanged from father to son, but it is only one of the 23 pairs a person inherits. A person could have numerous non-haplotype J male ancestors and still inherit that particular characteristic from his father (see below). The other popular test analyzes a small fragment of maternal DNA that is stored outside the cell nucleus in the mitochondria (MtDNA) of a woman's offspring.


 * There are slight mutations in the Y chromosome and MtDNA that occur at a predictable rate, and geneticists use the cumulative number of these mutations to estimate how many generations have elapsed since the test subjects shared a common ancestor. I gather that these individuals (Arabs and Jews alike) shared a common male ancestor sometime in the current era.


 * It may not have occurred to either of you, but you can only infer a small amount of information about two individuals in each of the preceding generations of your family tree using these methods. Those individuals are your mother's mother & etc., and your father's father & etc. The total number of ancestors in each generation doubles as you go back. Starting with your parents, your grandparents, and etc. you have 2-4-8-16-32-64-128-256 & etc. In the last example, all of those 256 people contributed to your DNA, but geneticists analyzing your Y chromosome or MtDNA are only looking at the contributions of two members of that 256-person group. As you have noted those numbers are maximums that might be reduced by factors like marriages between cousins within the same group. Nonetheless, that group could include a number of non-haplotype J male members, but it would go undetected unless it happened to be your father's father, and etc.harlan (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC).

the other chromosomes are called autosomal and they are also tested (autosomal testing). it shows correlation with j1 presence. the autosomal testing now test chips of up to 40000 SNP in each individual studied. results are paralel to j1 percentage identifying middle eastern or semitic autosomal ancestry. the last testing is maternal mt dna testing found in both males and females but comes only from mothers (females). the Middle East is also unique in special mt dna haplogroups specific to middle east such as L3. al three kinds of dna testing shows similarities among arabic countries. and uniqueness against other peoples and nations. you can find these results at Anthropology blog by Dienekes (summary blog of genetic genealogical studies). I will provide the refs soon.

My point is that this page about Palestinians is written by anti Palestinians (people who stole their land and or people who hate them because of ancient hatered like the crusade wars where the palestinians inflected heavy losses on frensh german and english armies and kings. This authrs of this page are even unable to hide their hatred of palestinians and covering all the truth about them.! see Dienekes blog page: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/02/huge-paper-on-human-genetic.html. in studying 650 thousand SNPs in every tested person of the study of world populations you ca see the uniqueness of Middle Eastern populations:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/R79MXyHURCI/AAAAAAAAAFg/8MeKImXcV34/s1600-h/structurescience.jpg

See also this comment from ellen levy coffman: According to y chromosome studies Palestinians have been found not to closely match Jews, but rather populations of the Southern Levant (I suggest you closely look at published data on haplogroup J1). Jews, on the other hand, have been found to closely match a number of populations - Middle Eastern, European and Central Asian. The Middle Eastern matches are particularly close to the Turks, Armenians, Kurds and other peoples of the northern Levant. In fact, they are particularly close to those in the Mediterranean in general, including Greece, the Balkans and Italy.=== http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/genealogy-dna/2005-08/1124115942

showing that palestinians closely match other arabs (J1 haplogroups)rather than jews (israeli or world jewry)06:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

commenting on ((So, it is quite reasonable to say that the gentic studies are inadequate for concluding any decisive conclusions?)) how did you come up with this super conclusion? by the way y chromosome genetic genealogical studies are all over the place tracing ancestry of nations like britain or peoples like melugeun ( the turks in North carolina before Columbus!) these studies are very informing, but suddenly you prefer Simon says or Bernard Lwis says!? so if you are tested (AB) blood type in medical lab but you prefer Bernard Lowis suggesting a different blood type for you?

commenting on ((For example, it is possible that palestinians and bedouins have mixed in the past one hundred years, and therefore we get that rate of J1 in palestinians. And, from most of the data in the Ancestry section, it is quite clear that there was a great migration of people from various arab and non-arab territories into palestine around the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century (by the way - dozenens of languages were spoken).)) what is nonsense (what dosen of languages and what immigrations in the 19 th centry? and how cme immigrations from different direction brings in same haplogroup and even same haplotype of recent ancestry? even the europpean expansion that started 500 years ago could not change genetic patterns of aboriginal populations according to dienekes.10:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The refe (83) is same as 85 and 86 it is (Nebel 2001)study as ref 82 is (Nebel 2000). the current version makes mistake by saying:

(While the Arabs were found to be related to Arabian Peninsula.[85]The study proposes that

...the Y chromosomes in Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin represent, to a large extent, early lineages derived from the Neolithic inhabitants of the area and additional lineages from more-recent population movements. The early lineages are part of the common chromosome pool shared with Jews. According to our working model, the more-recent migrations were mostly from the Arabian Peninsula, as is seen in the Arab-specific Eu 10 chromosomes that include the modal haplotypes observed in Palestinians and Bedouin... The study demonstrates that the Y chromosome pool of Jews is an integral part of the genetic landscape of the region and, in particular, that Jews exhibit a high degree of genetic affinity to populations living in the north of the Fertile Crescent.[86])

the study clearly says (the Y chromosomes in Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin represent, to a large extent, early lineages derived from the Neolithic inhabitants of the area ) !! so the comment (While the Arabs were found to be related to Arabian Peninsula) will be removed. also rematriculated DNA clues section to make 3 ref in one (nebel et al 2001 study04:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The DNA evidence doesn't lend very much support to either the Zionist or Pan-Arab points of view. In fact, the notion of a racial difference is regularly reinvented along familiar lines under the guise of various population studies. Circular reasoning based upon subjective versions of history and suppositions about human migration patterns is an inevitable part of these imaginary exercises, and the results are always suspect.


 * I notice that Ariella Oppenheim's study data has been deleted. She was a co-author of the Nebel and Hammer studies. She compared 143 Israeli and Palestinian Arabs with 119 Ashkenazi and Mizrahi/Sephardic Israeli Jews and concluded that 70 percent of the Jewish men and 50 percent of the Arab men in her study had inherited their Y chromosomes from the same paternal ancestors. The article now (incorrectly) claims that according to Nebel (2001) the highest frequency observed for the J1 haplotype is 62.5% (of subtype Eu 10) in various Muslim Arab populations. In fact, that report stated that the Eu 10 chromosome frequencies were only 29% for the Palestinians and 37.5% for the Bedouins. That means this so-called 'Arab' marker is missing in two out of three Palestinian and Bedouin males. In any event, the report mentioned a substantially higher frequency of combined haplotype J distribution that had been observed in the team's earlier study:
 * "Our recent study of high-resolution microsatellite haplotypes demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Jews (70%) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82%) belonged to the same chromosome pool (Nebel et al. 2000)."


 * The study cited on the Dienekes blog involved only 938 people worldwide. It utilized software to compare 642,690 autosomal SNPs sites on their genomes against the standard Human Genome Diversity Cell Line Panel. That is a database which represents only 1064 people from 51 so-called 'populations' - including sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, the Middle East, South/Central Asia, East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas. Unfortunately, no breakdown of the Jewish and Arab components of those 'populations' is available. The results of the software comparison were used to 'infer' or 'estimate' the ethnicity or genotype of the 938 test subjects. Some of the 51 ethnic categories in the study ended up with fewer than 10 members.


 * The study actually did conclude that Palestinians have a mixed ancestry:
 * "In many populations, ancestry is derived predominantly from one of the inferred components, whereas in others, especially those in the Middle East and South/Central Asia, there are multiple sources of ancestry. For example, Palestinians, Druze, and Bedouins have contributions from the Middle East, Europe, and South/Central Asia."


 * The report did not conclude that the Palestinians, Druze, Mozabites, and Bedouins are genetically 'homogeneous', since those are portrayed as distinct ethnic population groups:
 * "In Fig. 2B, the four populations from the Middle East are distinguished; the Bedouins can be divided into two subgroups, one of which is similar to the Palestinians."

harlan (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I should have specified earlier that by my comment "It is quite reasonable to say that the genetic studies are inadequate for concluding any decisive conclusions?" I meant to question the genetics research especially in regard to the palestinian population. Though, as written by the user Harlen, the whole area of the genetic research is not without flaws, but rather contains flaws. Anyhow, I base my comment on:
 * 1) There were only 143 Palestinian test subjects, which is not a large number.
 * 2) we don't know from were did the test subjects were taken from - were they taken only from the southern part of the Palestinian authority and Israel (which is close to the area that is called "Negev", of which the bedouin test subjects were taken - "Bedouin from the Negev")? or also from the northen part of the Palestinian authority or northen Israel (less populated by bedouins, and of course evidently doesn't have at all "Bedouins from the negev")? you see, if they were taken only\mostly from southern parts, then it could explain the resembleness in J1 rates between palestinians and Bedouins from the Negev (caused by assimilation of populations).
 * 3) As stated earlier by the user Harlen - the J1 research can't tell too much:
 * "... you can only infer a small amount of information about two individuals in each of the preceding generations of your family tree using these methods. Those individuals are your mother's mother & etc., and your father's father & etc. The total number of ancestors in each generation doubles as you go back. Starting with your parents, your grandparents, and etc. you have 2-4-8-16-32-64-128-256 & etc."
 * Specifically, I reckon that in regard of tracing the ancestry of the palestinians, we even have more trouble. That is because of sources stating that there were great migrations of arabs into Palestina* (even if you don't take them for granted - one has to deal with these sources). If the migrating arabs and non-arabs to palestina have successfully blended with the local arab and some of the Bedouin poplution - the J1 genetics test couldn't detect that, since it's enough that only one ancestor from thousands of ancestors have had J1.


 * comment about the last paragraph: Just for knowledge: in 1815 there were in Palestina 190 thousand muslim Arabs (the number includes tens of thousands of Bedouins). these numbers are taken from the 1815 census. There were about 60,000 of Jews and Christens at that point. In the 1930's or 1920's there were about 800-900 thousand of muslim Arabs in Palestina (500 thousand jaws around 1940). It's hard figuring out that all the Arab population growth was from natural growth (the growth in the Jewish population was largely from imigration and was documented). It's very likely that there was Arab migration even if you don't want to take the sources telling about migration as truthfull - the question is migration at what rate. I suggest that growing from 190 thousand in (1815) to about 1 milion (in 1948) cannot be explained in natural growth (more than 500% growth in 130 years; in medical and health conditions of the arab world in the 19th and beginning of the 20th century it is very doubtful).

I want to stress that I'm not talking about a spontaneous change in the genetics of the migrating population, I'm talking about an assimilation of populations. And it doesn't even take a too succefull of an assimilation to give us a high rate of J1 in a previously low rate migrating population (Palestinians) - If the local population have had a high rate of J1 (Bedouins). Let's say that half a million of arabs imigrators came or were brought to Palestina in the 19th and 20th century. In 200 years (since the so-called big imigrations started and until the research) we have 8 and more generations. If in every generation only 1 out of 16 migrating families (or the decendents of a migrating family) would have had matrimonial contacts with a local family (which have a high possibility for having J1) - we will end up with half (8 out of each 16 families in total) of the current population having the same J1 rate as the local population (this is due to the fact that it only take 1 ancestor who have had J1 out of thousands of ancestors, in oreder that the test subject would have it).

Therefore, from the 3 reasons above, and from the other opinions here about the accuracy and the meaning of genetics tests - I think that it is doubtful to reach decisive conclusions about the ancestry of the Palestinians from the genetics research only (for my opinion - these flaws in genetics research, as I stated, apply more to the palestinians than others).

In either case, the rate number 62.5% referring the J1 rate in palestinians should be corrected to a lower number that we would agree upon - the number stated is doubtful as we look on other studies. User123789 (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe you may have missed my point again. One of the Nebel studies showed that 70-82% of Jewish and Palestinian Muslims share the same recent ancestors, and that two out of three Palestinians and Bedouins don't have the Arab specific Eu 10 marker. Moreover, Palestinians and Bedouins have genetic contributions from the Middle East, Europe, and South/Central Asia. Studies that 'infer' or 'estimate' the ethnicity or genotype of test subjects are very likely to categorize Jews as Palestinian, since the discernable differences are mostly cultural, not genetic. A Palestinian or Bedouin would still be considered Arab, even if one of his ancestors was not. I don't believe that would necessarily hold true in the setting of an orthodox Jewish community if it involved a potential for mamzerim (particularly among the supposed HaCohens and Levites). That means the undetectable lineages of those 2-4-8-16-32-64-128-256 & etc. ancestors is more of a metaphysical concern to the Jewish community than the Palestinian community.


 * Arthur Balfour wrote a memo for the incoming Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, in 1919 relating the fact that there were 700,000 Arab inhabitants of Palestine. There were only two censuses conducted during the mandate era - once in 1922 and again in 1931. The British arrived at the figures they reported in 1947 by calculating the population on the basis of natural increase. They attempted to 'fine tune' their estimates by having the RAF conduct aerial surveys to count the number of Bedouin houses and tents, but even then the results were an extrapolation based upon a 'standard-size' Bedouin household. harlan (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Commenting on (I notice that Ariella Oppenheim's study data has been deleted) No it was not. It is same Nebel et al 2001. Nebel et al 2000 said 70% of haplogroups in Palestinians and in Jews are same, but that is a misleading statement since same statement apply for Palestinians and British ( R1 in England 70% and in Palestinians 3%, while J in England is 2% while in Palestinians 90% (80% J1 of the Arabs and 10% of the greek-anatolyans-kurds etc).

Many scientists protested on the Nebel 2000 study so he corrected himself by stating in the second study that Jews resemble more Turks Kurds Armenians (North Fertile Cresent) rather Arabs (Southern Fertile cresent)

In his Nebel 2002 study he found that all Arabs have CAL22-22 STR so he considered it of the Arab expansion 7th century, However later he discovered the same STR found in all the J1 Cohanim (the sure descendents of Aaron, http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Y-DNA_J/default.aspx?section=results so he can not say cohanim older than the arabs because both are in the CMH cluster and both have the Arab STR CAL22-22!!!this is shown in his lab webpage Family tree dna J1Haplogroup Project (click on Results and see the genetic mak showing Cohanim and Arabs (all Arabs!!) next to each other in the J1 haplogroup. also notice that Cohanim modal haplotype and Galilee Arab Modal Haplotype and Negev Bedoin Modal Haplotype and Palestinian Modal Haplotype are all only one step mutation rate from each other! but since that study in 2000 if you go to Ysearch.com you will find jews are found in all these modal haplotypes and Arabs and bedoin and Palestinians are found extensively in J1- Cohan Modal Haplotype itself!! for example if you type the 6 STRs in Ysearch you get first name Nasrallah from Lebanon and another guy from Aleppo. they persist even in 12 STrs CMH! (Obviously the Negev Bedoin are Nabataeans children of Nebiothah (Nebet in Arabic) first son of ishmael whose sister married ESaw brother of Jacob, and he married from Esaw clan and lived next to them (Medianites then Nabataeans like Herod the Great),these bedin represented by Negev Bedoin Haplotype of Nebet himself (or even Esaw), the CMH represent Aaron son of Jacob, while Palestinan and Galilee and Aarbic haplotype represent  the other sons of Ishmael son of Abraham father of all parties.  Herototus mentioned in his Histories that Nabataeans are sons of Ishmael, this is from a greek foreigner visiting the AREA. Could  he possibly be lied to? this suggest that  Arabs created a conspircy to connect themselves to Abraham or the Israelites even in times when nobody wanted any connection with such people! (becoming slaves inBabylon!)

obviously what Arabs claim as their ancestry in their Sagas and Traditions is being proved by the DNA studies.

So there are great differences between the two ( Contemporary Arabs and Contemporary Jews) especially to remember that J1 is high in Cohanim but is very low in Jewish population (10% in Sephardim, 13% in shkenazim, and only 8% in Mizrahi!. Majority of Jews are in the R1 haplogroup 50% of East Europe and Q of central Asia and Russia and Sweden!!. same things apply for Jewish females most of them from K and K1 (very specific to Central Asia Sweden and Polish Roma (K1) which is the latgest of Ashkenazim! as for Autosomal testing Jews resemble most Italy then Russia (total chromosomes autosomal with no similarity to middle east at all even to the kurds!!) check ancestry by dna website or DNAtribes.com to check the Ashkenazim Autosomal genetic prophile  which is closest to Italy (R1a1 and J2) and then Russia! (R1a1 and Q), and then rest of Europpeans countries (no middle east peoples at all or at the bottom?)this means russians and italians are closer to Abraham lineage than the Arabs??? 08:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC) I think there are problems with the who thing on "genetics" in this article. The statements are misleading, and some of the studies themselves are flawed. It was said best earlier: "70% of haplogroups in Palestinians and in Jews are same, but that is a misleading statement since same statement apply for Palestinians and British." Also, "Recent genetic evidence has demonstrated that Palestinians as an ethnic group represent modern "descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times" WHAT DOES THIS ACTUALLY MEAN? Also, what about the Jordanians, Syrians, Egyptians? Are you gonna tell me, from that article it links to, that Palestinian Arabs are closer to Jews than Jordanians, Syrians, Egyptians, Saudi Arabians, etc.? That study is seriously flawed as there are obvious "peace/coexistence we're all the same" motives for such a thing. Also, it leaves out who is more "pre-historic," which would obviously be the Jews. The fact is Palestinian Arabs are Arabs, and this article leaves out the Muhammedan conquest and how his Arabs settled in the region of Palestine.

" "Recent genetic evidence has demonstrated that Palestinians as an ethnic group represent modern "descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times" WHAT DOES THIS ACTUALLY MEAN? Also, what about the Jordanians, Syrians, Egyptians? Are you gonna tell me, from that article it links to, that Palestinian Arabs are closer to Jews than Jordanians, Syrians, Egyptians, Saudi Arabians, etc.? That study is seriously flawed as there are obvious "peace/coexistence we're all the same" motives for such a thing. Also, it leaves out who is more "pre-historic," which would obviously be the Jews. The fact is Palestinian Arabs are Arabs, and this article leaves out the Muhammedan conquest and how his Arabs settled in the region of Palestine."

how come?? j1 among the Palestinian is 38% and thats from the Bedouin expansion not Arab in the 7th century and j1 is semitic haplogroup from the region and the main haplogroup in the region, I think this is ideological not scientific article !! grow up

the Levant people

j1 Jordanian (Amman)41% Palestinian 38.4% Syrian 30% Iraqis 30.4%

j2 Jordanian (Amman)15% Palestinian 16.8% Syrian 22% Iraqis 29.4%

E Jordanian (Amman) estimated 20% Palestinian estimated 20% Syrian estimated 13% Iraqis estimated 13%

r1b

Jordanian (Amman) estimated 7% Palestinian estimated 8.4% Syrian estimated 11% Iraqis estimated 11.4%

the south levant have higher amount of j1 because the Bedouin is living in the southern Levant for century's b.c but the northern levant and iraq is closest to anatolia were j2 is frequency, which make all these populations the Natural extension of the indigenous population of the region

Haplogroup2010 (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)haplogroup2010

Why the fact that this land was renamed and called Palestina province by the Romans is not being told?
Israel was conquered by the Romans, renamed in 135 C.E. by the Romans and called "Palestina" Palestine. The Romans renamed also the capital of Israel, Jerusalem - which was called Aelia Capitolina from that moment. You can find information about it in Wikipedia and another sources. For some reason - this information is being deleted. It falsificates the truth about the origins of the name and the history of this land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koganam (talk • contribs) 12:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

________ because Herodotus the famous historian called the eastern coast of the Mediterranean "the Philistine Syria" using the Greek language form of the name Canaanite civilization were known to be cover what today called (israel)back to 5th century b.c and before the Romans exist !!! and because king Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria advanced towrd small city-states of syro-palestine at (745-727 b.c)


 * Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt By Kathryn A. Bard, Steven Blake Shubert P.150

Haplogroup2010 (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC) haplogroup2010


 * The land has been called many names. The fact is that it was the Romans who changed it last and it is from that Roman name that today's "Palestinians" call themselves. If the land had remained called Judea they would no doubt call themselves Judean Arabs! Chesdovi (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Jordan not a "newly created state"
If we are to accept that, then any state created after 1946 should be referred to as a newly created state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.17.178 (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a common misconception. Jordan was formed by the union between some of the local districts of Arab Palestine and Transjordan in 1949 - after the bulk of the Palestinian refugees had arrived. The union was dissolved a few decades later. The Arab League, including Jordan, "affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people". King Ḥussein dissolved the Jordanian parliament, renounced Jordanian claims to the West Bank, and allowed the PLO to assume responsibility as the Provisional Government of Palestine.


 * During the mandate, Transjordan had been recognized as an independent government, but not an independent state. During its last session the (defunct) League of Nations recognized the independence of Transjordan. However, the representatives of the Jewish Agency and the US Congress requested that the Executive branch leave the international status of the "Transjordan area" undetermined until the whole question of Palestine was resolved by the United Nations.


 * The US government was concerned by the UNSCOP report which said the Arab state could not be economically viable. Much of the former customs and tax revenues of Palestine were generated at ports or from Arab farm lands that were included in the boundaries of the proposed Jewish state. The General Assembly plan of partition called for an economic union between the two states and the redistribution of 50 percent of the customs revenues collected by the Jewish state.


 * After the mandate was terminated, the Palestinians were free to determine their own political status and form or dissolve political unions - among themselves - or with other states. The Arab High Committee (AHC) informed the Security Council that it was just a coalition of local national councils that was represented in the Arab League. The AHC advised that it had requested the assistance of the other Arab states, and that Palestine had not been invaded. see THE DECLARATION OF THE ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE FOR PALESTINE, May 24, 1948. The Security Council representatives for Belgium, France, Great Britain, and the US had already met privately to discuss the "Arab invasion" before it happened. They agreed that the Jewish militias were the aggressors and that the Arab states were simply coming to the aid of their beleaguered brethren.


 * Some of the local councils adopted resolutions asking for union with Transjordan. In December of 1948 the Secretary of State authorized the US Consul in Amman to advise King Abdullah and the officials of Transjordan that the US accepted the principles contained in the Palestinian resolutions of the Jericho Conference, and that the US viewed incorporation with Transjordan as the logical disposition of the bulk of Arab Palestine. The US government extended de jure recognition to the Government of Transjordan and the Government of Israel on the very same day, January 31, 1949.


 * The classified 1950 US State Department Country Report on Jordan said that King Abdullah had taken successive steps to incorporate the area of Central Palestine into Jordan and described the Jordanian Parliament resolution concerning the union of Central Palestine with Jordan. The report said the US and UK had approved the action, and the the US advised the British and French Foreign Ministers that "it represented a logical development of the situation which took place as a result of a free expression of the will of the people." Egypt continued to supervise as a trustee the independent government in Gaza on behalf of the Arab League. see for example "Palestine and International Law", ed. Sanford R. Siverburg, McFarland and Company, 2002, ISBN: 0786411910, page 11.


 * President Truman told King Abdullah of Transjordan "I desire to recall to Your Majesty that the policy of the United States Government as regards a final territorial settlement in Palestine and as stated in the General Assembly on Nov 30, 1948 by Dr. Philip Jessup, the American representative, is that Israel is entitled to the territory allotted to her by the General Assembly Resolution of November 29, 1947, but that if Israel desires additions, i.e., territory allotted to, the Arabs by the November 29 Resolution, it should offer territorial compensation. harlan (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

related to Jordanians
Given that what became Transjordan was in the Mandate before 1922 when Britain gave it to Abdullah, is a non-Hashemite Arab who lived in Jordan also a "Palestinian?" What is the difference between a non-Hashemite Arab in Jordan and a "Palestinian?" Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you ask so nicely...The name "Transjordan", "Trans-Jordan", or "Transjordania", dates to at least the middle of the 19th century. You can find examples in Google Books.  The western fringe (basically, the part in the Jordan valley) was also regarded by many as part of Palestine but never administratively by any government.  There was never a specific name for the people living there beyond "Arabs of Transjordan" or similar.  Almost nobody called them Palestinians.  The entire mandate was called the "Mandate of Palestine" because it had to be called something, and that had no significance regarding the name used for the people living in Transjordan.  Zerotalk 09:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that Venezuelans, Colombians, Ecuadorians, Panamanians, Peruvians, and Bolivians were all part of the nation of Gran Colombia you might also be wondering why they all developed into separate nationalities. A nation comes about by a belief that its members belong together, and when they decide to take political action together.


 * If you are suggesting the old "Jordan is Palestine" idea, then you must recall that Israel was overwhelmed with the logistics and expense involved in disengaging 6,000 of its own reluctant settlers from Gaza. The final agreement will require Israel to provide a just settlement for the the existing refugees. Israel doesn't have the wherewithal to relocate millions of Palestinians to Jordan.


 * I noted in a post above that the modern state of Jordan was a union between Central Palestine and Transjordan. It was formed after the bulk of the Palestinian refugees had been driven into exile. The present population is comprised of about 70 percent Palestinians.


 * The two populations were comprised of a mixture of basically the same ethnic groups, and to some extent they constituted a loose confederation of families. The same thing could be said for the communities adjacent to the borders of Lebanon and Syria. The Jordanians came to the aid of their beleaguered brethren during the 1948 war, but they had not experienced the same acts of persecution or destruction that had been brought to bear against the Palestinians. They had experienced "divide and conquer"-style attacks on their political and social institutions, culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of their group. Those tactics were intended to destroy their existence as a group, so it is hardly surprising that factions developed.


 * The Jordanians suffered less persecution. Although the British did supply the Hashemites with military and financial support during the mandate to suppress indigenous uprisings. The US took on a similar role of propping-up the regime financially and with arms deals. Many of the Palestinians never shared the same aspirations as the Jordanians. The two groups had a violent falling-out, dissolved their political union, and went their separate ways. harlan (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No I seriously wanna know, what was a non-Hashemite Arab east of the river called before 1922? What is the difference between that an a Palestinian Arab in any serious sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.3.163 (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Before the creation of nation-states in the Middle East, people often held multiple identities. The most dominant identities were those based on family, clan, or village affiliations. So someone from Nablus would be far more likely to identify as Nabulsi or from such-and-such a family, than he would be inclined to identify as Filastini. Someone from Al Husn would be more likely to identify as Husni from the clan of such-and-such, than he would be to identify as Transjordanian.  T i a m u t talk 07:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If what you are asking is along the lines of "What is the origin of Palestinians?" vis-a-vis "What is the origin of the Jordanians?", and "Are they the same people?", then, you must define what you mean by "a people". If it is their genetic relationship you are enquiring about, then their identity past or present, is irrelevant. Ultimately, it is one of two things; either they are same genetic population who identify as two separate people (perhaps they identified as one in the past, or had no "peoplehood" identity at all, and rather identified by clan and village) or they are two genetic populations who identify as two separate people (again, perhaps they identified as one in the past, or had no "peoplehood" identity at all, and rather identified by clans and village).

In regards to genetics, yes, the Palestinians are "related" to Jordanians, as they are related to the Lebanese, or to Syrians. But the Palestinians are not the same genetic population as any of them. Each descend from their own pre-existing inhabitants. The Palestinians descend from Hebrews mixed with others, the Lebanese from Phoenicians mixed with others, the Jordanians from Moabites, Edomites, Ammonites, mixed with others. They are all culturally and linguistically "Arabs" now, and Muslim for the most part, but this is irrelevant. People all the way from Morocco through to Egypt, up to Iraq, are "Arabs" (as a sole identity or otherwise) and largely Muslim. They all, however, descend from different peoples.

It is the Palestinians and the world's Jews who are the same genetic population (with admixture from conquering and host populations respectively), but with two separate peoplehood identities.

Also, "Palestine" was the name of the land west of the Jordan river, and "Transjordan" was the name of the land east of the Jordan river. When administered as one territorial unit, the territorial unit was given the name "Mandate of Palestine", because, as one user has already mentioned above, "it had to be called something". and so, it was named in honour of the the land west of the Jordan. The two regions, however, remained separate entities whose inhabitants identified with those within their land (and even then, only after clan and village), not with those in the other. Al-Andalus (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

who is deleting my threads
about the j1 haplogroup


 * Please sign your posts. I don't know, who is deleting your posts, but you should check the tables in the studies again. The study actually says that of the 143 Palestinian Arabs tested, 79 individuals were Type J Haplogroup. The table says that is 55.2 percent. There is also a footnote which says that membership in the J1 subgroup (J-M267) was merely assumed (not actually determined by full resolution testing). The figure for the much smaller group of Bedouins tested, 32 individuals, was 65.6 percent. According to the study the figure for Ashkenazim and Sephardim was much lower, 37.8 percent and 40.5 percent respectively. Other studies say that 37 percent of non-Cohanim Ashkenazim or Sephardim males are Type J haplogroup. See for example "Hg J" in the table extracted from the Behar study here:


 * It would be best to stick to presentation of information from verifiable published sources and refrain from trying to supply your own WP:OR interpretations about which group is more ancient. After all, you are discussing studies which claim that roughly 40-60 percent of the Jewish and Arab subjects share common ancestors. harlan (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

there is now way that J among Jewish reached 40% based on the fst tests the Jewish both (Ashkenazim and Sephardim ) are closer to the Italians and Greeks and even some other European country's more than to any arab population. and in the Jewish dna project R haplogroups is up at least to 37% and E haplogroups 20% and T, G , Q reach 15% among all Jewish populations

even they have J haplogroup they share the haplotypes and chromosomes with Anatolian Caucasian J "the three Jewish communities(ashkenazi,sephardic,Jewish kurds) had many additional haplotypes in common with muslim kurds . they shared more haplotypes and chromosomes with muslim kurds than with either palestinians or bedouin. " nebel et al 2001

Haplogroup2010 (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)haplogroup2010


 * When you compare self-selecting groups, like the Jewish Cohanim, the frequency of the J haplotype reaches 80 percent according to the Behar study. The Semino group performed an after the fact ad hoc analysis of small studies conducted by others. None of the genetic tests performed on the tiny cohorts in those studies determined that anyone was a member of the J1 haplotype subgroups. Semino et. al simply assumed that non-M172 results were M267 (J1). Further testing of larger cohorts might very well demonstrate no real or significant association with J1 exists. If you are going to discuss the origin and diffusion of chromosomes, terms like 'Anatolian Caucasian' imply a priori knowledge and conclusions that simply beg the question. harlan (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

____________ first of all behar study (2003) comes before semino et all (2004) and its not just "self-selecting groups" its about the whole Jewish communities (Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Kurdish Jews) all together are close to the people of the Fertile Crescent

nebel et al

look at ((Table 4)) Genetic Variance within and between Population Groups


 * a Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Kurdish Jews.
 * b Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese, and Bedouin.
 * c Muslim Kurds, Armenians, and Turks.
 * d Russians, Byelorussians, and Poles.

and (Table 2 ) Analysis of Genetic Differentiation: Pairwise FST Values between Populations

Proportions of Haplotypes (ht) and Chromosomes (ch) Shared by Po Pairs
 * (Table 3 )

Ashkenazi Jews with Muslim kurds ht .263 ch .345

Ashkenazi with Palestinian Arabs ht .198 ch .225

Sephardic Jews with Muslim kurds ht .208 ch .289

Sephardic Jews Palestinian Arabs ht .142 ch .198

sources : http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1274378&blobtype=pdf

closest populations to Ashkenazi between some other populations are:

Fst (lower numbers, closer relationship)


 * 1. Italian 0.0040
 * 2. Greek 0.0042
 * 3. Spanish 0.056
 * 4. Tuscan 0.066
 * 5. East European: 0.068
 * 6. German 0.072
 * 7. Druze 0.0088
 * 8. Palestinian 0.0093
 * 9. Adygei 0.0107
 * 10. Irish 0.0109

sources : http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2730349&rendertype=table&id=t1-09_94_tian Published online 2009 August 24. doi: 10.2119/molmed.2009.00094.

its all against the Alleged "Cohanim haplotype" and Its strange that the determine of the "Cohanim haplotype" Came from a Jew !!


 * How on earth can you allow this above post to stand? Editors; please put your Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues aside for a moment. This is a user whose sole reason for existing (see all of the edits) is to create a false impression based on misinformation. Editing out the editor's plea that this is becoming Jewpedia but then allowing the remaining rant is disheartening. All that is missing is use of the Khazar theory attached to it: first, establish falsely the supposed link between modern Jewry and Turkic peoples and, voilà, Jews aren't even connected to the Middle East...hence, well, you all know the POV-pushing...  Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The tradition that there was a scattering of Jewish people from their national homeland in the Middle East, i.e. the Diaspora, is in some respects an example of POV-pushing. See for example:
 * The Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel: A Demonstration of Irenic Scholarship, by Israel Jacob Yuval, Common Knowledge - Volume 12, Issue 1, Winter 2006, pp. 16-33, Duke University Press; and
 * The Invention of the Jewish People, by Shlomo Sand, Verso, 2009.


 * In any event, many contemporary Poskim refuse to accept DNA testing as evidence of paternity, Mamzeirut, and etc. Contrary to popular belief, it can't be used to ascertain the religious affiliation, or nationality of a person's ancestors. harlan (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually these above studies are not POV since they are TWO studies by two different jewish scholars both authenticated by references) that the ashkenazim being khazar is not a myth (even the etymology of Ashkenazi is from Khazar ultimately from Skuthy--skythians as in the britanica encyclopedia 1910). In Family Tree DNA website headed by three jews Behar Nebel and --- have a page for jews from the Ashina royal family (the royal family of the Khazar!!: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/AshinaRoyalDynasty/default.aspx?section=results

at the bottom of that page: "

The most important study on the origins of Ahskenazi men has been conducted by Behar et al.(Hum Genet (2004) 114 : 354–365  http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Behar_contrasting.pdf   .According to this study some of the major Y-DNA haplogroups of the Ashkenazi male line are the following:

• R-P25: 10.0%, Eurasian in origin

• R-M17: 7.5%, Eurasian in origin

• R-M173: 1.4%, Eurasian in origin

• Q-P36: 5.2%, Altaic-Siberian in origin

• G-M201: 7.7%, Caspian-Caucasus in origin

• G-P15: 2.0%, Caspian-Caucasus in origin

These haplogroups are non existent in Middle Eastern or Near Eastern populations. Haplogroup Q is shared by Siberians, Altaians and Native Americans whereas haplogroup R is predominant in Krgyz and other Turkic groups in Central Asia as well as being present in European populations. Haplogroup G is dominant in the Caucasus. These three lineages are mostly absent in Sephardic Jews. Q, R and G haplogroups together constitute a total of 33.8% of all the Ashkenazi Y-DNA haplogroups. Haplogroup Q, which constitutes more than 5% of the Ashkenazim, is thought to have come from the royal Ashina family of the Turkic Khazars who also were the founders of the Gokturk Empire as well as the Ottoman Empire. Although it is not possible to claim all the R haplogroups descended from Khazars it is safe to say that all the Q haplogroups of Ashkenazim descended from Khazars and likely a majority of the haplogroup G also descended from Khazars"Marioel (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As for jewish women it turned out that 98% are descendents of haplotypes in haplogroups found only locally in other parts of the world (mainly central asia like K haplogroup (40% of ashkenazim): University College London study, 2002 Judy Siegel-Itzkovich. "Dad was out and about, while Mom stayed home." Jerusalem Post (June 16, 2002): 9. Excerpts: "Data on the Y chromosome indicates that the males originated in the Middle East, while the mothers' mitochondrial DNA seems to indicate a local Diaspora origin in the female community founders.... [Karl Skorecki described the study as] 'very exciting' [and] 'very important'...." Nicholas Wade. "In DNA, New Clues to Jewish Roots." The New York Times (May 14, 2002): F1 (col. 1). Excerpts:

"The emerging genetic picture is based largely on two studies, one published two years ago and the other this month, that together show that the men and women who founded the Jewish communities had surprisingly different genetic histories.... A new study now shows that the women in nine Jewish communities from Georgia, the former Soviet republic, to Morocco have vastly different genetic histories from the men.... The women's identities, however, are a mystery, because, unlike the case with the men, their genetic signatures are not related to one another or to those of present-day Middle Eastern populations.... The new study, by Dr. David Goldstein, Dr. Mark Thomas and Dr. Neil Bradman of University College in London and other colleagues, hence it is indeed that contemporary jews are NOT returnees to Palestine since their ancestors (DNA haplogroups) could bot possibly been in Palestine in 1500 BC (all semites at that time of J1 haplogroup which is very high in Arabs and very low in contemporary jews!) Marioel (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

another study comments: The authors of this study assert that their data allegedly lends support to the idea that European women formed the basis of the founding mothers of the Ashkenazi community. This theory was first put forth in Thomas's study of Ashkenazi mtDNA founding mothers. It is a position that Behar has tried over and over again to discredit, all (in my opinion) to no avail http://newsarch.rootsweb.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2009-01/1232819930 accordingly jewish women are not descendents of women lived in the middle east 3000 years ago before the age of immigrations, and according to the so called "Jewish Tradition" their descendents (children or grandchildren are not returnees according to the Israeli semetic Law of Return 1949 which gave immigration visas to Palestine to the contemporary Israelis12:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marioel (talk • contribs)

The Palestinian People was dreamt up by the Soviet disinformation masters.
The first use of "The Palestinian People" to refer solely to local Arabs in what is now Israel was made in 1964 in the Preamble of the PLO Charter that was drafted in Moscow in 1964 as part of a Soviet disinformation program. The first 428 members of the Palestinian Council were selected by the KGB. This was revealed by General Ion Pacepa, the highest Soviet block defector during the Cold War. See: Red Horizons: The True Story of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescus' Crimes, Lifestyle, and Corruption by Ion Mihai Pacepa. After Israel conquered Judea, Samaria and Gaza in 1967, the claim was extended to those areas as well. In the Oslo Accord, Arafat agreed to relinquish the claim of "the Palestinian People" to Israel proper, and to the annihilation of the Jews and to armed struggle for those purposes by amendment of the Charter. That has been promised but never carried out. In fact, the Council recently reaffirmed that claim to the use of armed struggle.

According to General Pacepa, In March 1978,. . . I secretly brought Arafat to Bucharest to involve him in a long-planned Soviet/Romanian disinformation plot. Its goal was to get the United States to establish diplomatic relations with him, by having him pretend to transform the terrorist PLO into a government-in-exile that was willing to renounce terrorism. Soviet president Leonid Brezhnev believed that newly elected US President Jimmy Carter would swallow the bait." He did.  http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007?08/how-the-kgb-cre.html.

Since "The Palestinian People" was invented in Moscow by the Soviets, it can hardly be referred to as an "endonymic" as that term has been used here although it is clear that the Arabs have now adopted that term as their own. The Palestinian Liberation Organization or PLO was one of a few liberation organizations created by the Soviets in the mid 60s or 70s, including those for Bolivia (also 1964), Columbia (1965), and Armenia (1975). The latter liberation organization, "The Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia" carried out bombings of US airline Offices in Europe. The Soviets also created "The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine" that bombed Israelis. The PLO has been the most successful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.239.121 (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You failed to mention the published references to "Arab Palestine" and the entitlement of its people to national independence from 1948 onwards. Various viewpoints have been advanced regarding the creation of the state of Israel. The United States was informed by Eliyahu Epstein (Elath) that the new state had been established within the boundaries outlined in the General Assembly resolution. Some authorities hold that its recognition depends upon the authorization of the UN General Assembly to partition the mandate of Palestine, others hold that it was created by an act of secession one day prior to the termination of the mandate. In any case, it did not conquer all of the territory of western Palestine after the British administration was withdrawn.


 * The law of nations recognizes the right of peoples to establish their own governments and to form and dissolve their own political unions under those circumstances, i.e. self-determination of peoples. At the time, the areas beyond Israel's effective control were considered to be a sepatate country which was described as "Arab Palestine". For example, the Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 22 Jan-Mar 1950 described the Clapp Mission to the Middle East countries of Lebanon, Jordan, Arab Palestine, and Syria. It was an "Economic Survey Mission of the Middle East", headed by the chairman of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority. The mission recommended that the US enter into economic relations with both Jordan and Arab Palestine. It recommended four projects, involving the Wadi Zerqa basin in Jordan, the Wadi Qilt watershed and stream bed in Arab Palestine, the Litani River in Lebanon, and the Ghab Swamps in Syria.


 * The second Palestine Arab Conference was held at Jericho on December 1, 1948. It passed four resolutions which specifically mentioned the people of Palestine. By that time the people of Israel had declared their independence. The conference declared their intention of safeguarding their freedom and independence by forming a union between Palestine and the Kingdom of Transjordan. The resolution of unity between the two banks of the Jordan that was adopted on April 24, 1950 specifically stated that the union was in no way connected with the final settlement of Palestine's just case within the limits of national hopes, Arab cooperation and international justice. The Egyptian trusteeship in Gaza provided similar safeguards and guarantees of national independence. US Secretary of State Acheson subsequently stated at his April 26, 1950 press conference that the recent elections in Jordan had ratified the incorporation of "Arab Palestine" into the Hashemite Kingdom. He described it as a union of "peoples" mutually desirous of a new relationship. In 1985, King Hussein reached an agreement with the PLO about a future confederation between a Palestinian state and Jordan. In 1988, he ceded all Jordanian claims to the Israeli-occupied West Bank to the PLO. harlan (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * ..and 96.255.239.121 please read about the discretionary sanctions before you make any more edits.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is unsourced and looks like a WP:Synth claim. The editor implies here and in the edit summaries for the Ion_Mihai_Pacepa article that this was revealed in a Front Page Magazine interview ??? or somewhere in the book Red Horizons. Those sources say that the "PLO was dreamt up by the KGB", not the "Palestinian people". Neither source appears to say anything about the first use of the term "Palestinian people". There has been no discussion of this particular theory by any mainstream sources. harlan (talk) 08:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * in the Palestinian brigade organized to fight alongside the Allies in WWII. The Palestinians considered themselves citizens of "Greater Syria".


 * Some one keeps removing my edits based on facts stated by Major General Ion Pacepa, the highest ranking Soviet bloc defector during the Cold War. These facts have been stated by General Pacepa in his biography, published as "Red Horizons".  Some of the material in Red Horizons, according to Pacepa was directly incorporated into indictments of deposed Romanian Dictator Ceausescu and his wife Elena who were thereafter executed.  James Woolsey, former CIA Director has been reported as stating that Pacepa is personally credible.  Pacepa's factual statements in Red Horizons were amplified in an interview by Front Page Magazine which can be found on the internet His statements tend to show that the phrase "Palestinian People" was invented by the Soviet Union for purposes of disinformation.  It first appeared in the 1964 PLO Charter that Pacepa states was drafted in Moscow and approved by the first 422 members of the Palestinian National Council hand picked by the Soviet KGB.  The 1968 Charter amends this to include Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza as well as those in Israel as Palestinian People.  This was at a time when the Soviet Union was developing or helping to develop liberation organizations in Bolivia (1964), Columbia (1965) the Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia that bombed US airline offices in Europe, and "The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine" that bombed Jewish Israelis. (`'70s)


 * The purpose of the disinformation program was to disguise the PLO's religious jihad or holy war against the Jews as a quest for political self determination. Brezhnev carried the program one step further by persuading Arafat to pretend to renounce violence and to engage in peace negotiations.  According to Brezhnev this would result in the West showering him with money and glory.  It did.  Ceausescu, according to Pacepa, told Arafat he would have to pretend over and over again.  As can be seen, the program continues until today.


 * Whoever is removing my edit is apparently unwilling to have the reader compare this view which would result in the conclusion that the peace process is a charade with their edits showing a different arising of an alleged "Palestinan National Awakening". My edit shows only the statements of General Pacepa and the logical conclusion of these facts if General Pacepa is deemed credible.  The other edit removes this discussion from the marketplace of ideas.  Pacepa's narrative is further supported by statements of Havez Assad and Golda Meir that "there is no Palestinian People".  Zahir Muhsein, a member of the PLO Executive Committee took this one step further by stating there was no "Palestinian People", in effect that it was a political ploy, and that there was no quest for political self determination since if the Arabs were victorious in eliminating the Jews, sovereignty would be transferred to Jordan.   There is, therefore, facts establishing a prima facie case for the  credibility of General Pacepa's facts. The burden of persuasion should now shift to those removing the edit to establish why Pacepa's statements are not trustworthy or why the above states conclusions should not flow from them.  Wallace Edward Brand ````


 * Don't bother ranting about deletions of unsourced material. If you want to share the information with the readers, then provide them with proper citations to the pages in the book where the alleged "facts" about the origins of the Palestinian people appear. General Pacepa isn't generally recognized as an expert in the field of Middle Eastern history, and his alleged views on the origins of the Palestinian people appear to be out of the mainstream, i.e. a "fringe theory". His theory certainly has not been discussed by the mainstream journals or press. harlan (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If we were discussing Pacepa's opinion about history, I would have to show Pacepa's qualifications as an expert. I have not suggested his OPINION should be relied on. He is relied on for FACTS, on conversations he heard of Brezhnev, Ceausescu, and Arafat, and matters he was personally involved in such as the drafting of the PLO Charter in Moscow and the selection of the first 422 members of the Palestinian National Council by the KGB. A fact witness testifying on his personal knowledge of what he has seen or heard is never given a voire dire examination. Examination of witnesses as to their qualifications is limited to witnesses providing opinion testimony. This could be evidence in a court of law without any examination as to Pacepa's qualifications as a historian. I will see if I can find my copy of "Red Horizons" and if I can, I will cite the pages relating to these conversations -- but in any event they are repeated in the materials cited in the URL for the Front Page article in which he is quoted as stating:. "In 1964 the first PLO Council, consisting of 422 Palestinian representatives handpicked by the KGB, approved the Palestinian National Charter—a document that had been drafted in Moscow." http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=13975 They are further collected at the following URL http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/08/how-the-kgb-cre.html  The 1964 and 1968 PLO Charters are easily available from the internet and it is easy to determine that the Arabs claim only the land of Israel in the 1964 claim, but in 1968, after the 6 day war, add Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Arafat reneged on his promise in the Oslo accord to delete these claims and to delete the goal of annihilation of the Jews. After a long delay he stated as his excuse that it takes a 2/3rds vote of the governing body and there had been no meeting of the full council as of that time. Just a few weeks ago there was a meeting of that Council but it took no action on amending its charter and in fact reaffirmed its dedication to the use of force and violence in pursuit of its aims. Its renunciation of that use of force and violence had been a major consideration for the Israeli agreement to engage in Oslo peace negotiations -- further confirming the peace negotiations as a charade. The problem with your references to use of "Palestinian" in 1948 is that it was never used as a description solely of local Arabs inside the Green Line, or of those as supplemented by Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The Arabs changed the name of Judea and Samaria because wouldn't it look silly for them to claim the Jews were illegally in Judea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.239.121 (talk • contribs)
 * There are documents from the 1920s referring to "Palestinians" as being the residents of Palestine including the indigenous Jews but not the Zionist immigrants. So you don't know the origin of the concept. The 1964 Palestine National Charter, Article 2, reads "Palestine, with its boundaries at the time of the British Mandate, is a indivisible territorial unit." So you are totally wrong about Judaea, Samaria and Gaza too. I recommend you give up trying to edit the article until you do something to correct your very limited and erroneous knowledge of the subject.   Zerotalk 05:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ..and I'm just going to repost a previous reply. You might want to read the Encyclopædia Britannica article on Palestine instead. It's quite informative. You can find it via the references in this article. The citation is right next to the sentence in the lead that says 'The first widespread use of "Palestinian" as an endonym to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the local Arabic-speaking population of Palestine began prior to the outbreak of World War I'. Happy reading.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't question your statement of what Article 2 says, but look at the whole charter in the light of the situation in 1964 and 1968. In 1922 England gave 78% of Palestine to the Hashemite tribe of Arabs calling themselves "Jordanians", not "Palestinians". The Jordanians occupied all the land claimed in Article 2 to be the land of the Palestine people East of the Jordan River. Do you see anything in the PLO Charter exhorting the Palestinian People to rise up against the Jordanians? And between 1948 and 1967 the Jordanians had acquired the West Bank and Arabs calling themselves "Egyptians" had acquired the Gaza Strip. Again, where in the 1964 Charter do you see anything about freeing the Palestinian people on the West Bank of Jordan from the domination of Jordan and the so called Palestinian People in Gaza from the domination of Egypt? It isn't there. In fact you will find in Article 24:  The original PLO Charter, elaborated in 1964, states in article 24 the following exclusion: “This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.”[16] If in the 1964 Charter they were only going to free the Arabs dominated by Israel, they were obviously talking only about the Arabs inside the Green Line. In the 1968 charter, they must have meant to add the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza because the exclusion in Article 24 was removed. In 1988, Arafat said the Covenant no longer applied to Israel proper, only to the West Bank and Gaza and would amend it to say so -- but never did. It is true that in 1970 they finally did rise up against Jordan, after Israel had thrown their armed thugs out, but they have never attacked Egypt. And in September, 1970 Jordan threw them out.

The Encyclopedia Britannica has never defined a "Palestinian people" as living in an area bounded by the Green Line, nor in that area when Judea, Samaria and Gaza are added in. Sure the use of the term "Palestinian" has been used before. But never before 1964 has the term "Palestinian People" been used as a descriptive which corresponds solely to those people in an area under the control of a Jewish state. No "Palestinian People" ever claimed sovereignty over Palestine. There is no distinctive Palestinian language, never any Palestinian currency before 1964 and may not after either,  It seems clear that the Palestinian people, which according to you just coincidentally corresponds to an area under Israeli control, and whose very existence was drafted in Moscow have no legitimacy whatsoever.

The opponents of my draft continue to change their reasons supporting their arguments against including my draft with Pacepa's facts. I have not complained of their continuing to use their theories so long as it is supplemented by mine. Lets throw all these ideas into the marketplace of ideas and let those be picked up by Wikipedia readers who think they are reasonable. It is not the only time historians have provided two versions because of differing views and let the reader sort it out. Their theories are all supported by second hand opinions of historians. Mine is supported by first hand hard facts. Pacepa is still alive. Ask him. Ask Zahir Muhsein. Read Josephine Tey's novel "Daughter of Time" about the ongoing dispute about who killed the Princes whose bodies were found buried below the stairs in the Tower of London. It has been recommended reading for some time, recommended by history departments of many colleges and universities throughout the US. The Daughter of Time (1951) brought the controversy surrounding Richard III and the Princes in the Tower to a wide public audience and is perhaps the most popular defense of Richard. This mystery novel addresses the issue of historical truth. http://www.r3.org/fiction/mysteries/tey_butler.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.239.121 (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Pacepa didn't write about the Palestinian people, he wrote about the PLO. Your edit is still unsourced WP:Synth nonsense. harlan (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

UTC, Pacepa wrote about how the PLO Charter came into being. Do you reject his factual statements on how it came into being? The document, the PLO charter defines the "Palestinian People" in a way that had never been done before. The 1964 Charter excluded Jordan, Judea, Samaria, and Gaza from the territorial claim of the Palestinian People. "Article 24. This Organization [the PLO] does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area" .Is it just by coincidence that the 1968 Charter removed the exclusion from Article 24 and thereby claimed Judea, Samaria and Gaza as their home after the Israelis recaptured them from Jordan and Egypt but not before? So we have an alterable "Palestinian People", claiming a quest for self determination only when Jews are running what they claim is their country. Sounds to me more like jihad, what Sheik Abdullah Azzam called an individual obligation on Muslims to retake any land from infidels that formerly had been in the Dar al Islam,  disguised as a Palestinian National Awakening. You must give credit to the Soviet disinformation masters. They are good at what they do. Zahir Muhsein, a member of the PLO Executive Committee admitted it was just a political ploy in his interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw in 1977. Political self determination my eye. He said that just as soon as the Arabs prevailed they would turn their sovereignty over to the Jordanians. There is more fact evidence that you simply ignore. You ignore the statement of Hafez Assad that there is no "Palestinian People". Why did he say that? Because everyone prior to 1964 claimed to be citizens of Greater Syria.

My sources for the Wikipedia entry are clearly listed above.. Your arguments are unsourced and weird. You suggest someone stating facts from personal knowledge must first be qualified as a historian. That would get you an F in a class in evidence at any law school in the United States or the UK. WEB

Dear 96.255.239.121, you don't have a clue. Your weird ahistorical ideas are not acceptable for the article. Zerotalk 13:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear UTC. No one is so blind as he who won't see. I have presented facts based on personal knowledge of Ion Pacepa and Zahir Muhsein that would be admissible in any court of law as evidence. You seem to prefer second hand evidence, an opinion from a history book that is not directly relevant since you refer to the term "Palestinian" without expanding on how it was to be used. My source, the preamble of the PLO Charter, didn't use the term "Palestinian", it used the phrase "Palestinian People" which is the heading of this entry, not "Palestinian". They used it three times. Despite the claim of Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, what I tell you three times is not necessar true. To make sure Jews were excluded, the specific reference in the Charter is to "Palestinian Arab People". You should either give up or change the heading of the entry to show that it is not intended to indicate the meaning of "Palestinian People". If you have a source predating 1964 using the term "Palestinian People" to apply only to the Arabs in Israel or in Israel controlled territories, you have a burden to show it now. WEB


 * Baruch Kimmerling's The Palestinian People: A History begins with the 1834 Palestinian Arab revolt against Egyptian rule. Kimmerling is an expert in this field. Zuheir Mohsein is not, neither is Pacepa.  T i a m u t talk 08:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * hmmmm, um, err, welll...hmmm. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Kimmerling is a sociologist, not a historian. He has had no training nor credentials as a historian and his paperback shows it. He was employed as a Professor of Sociology.

Fortunately, Steve Plaut reviewed Kimmerling's book. Here is what he had to say: "Kimmerling, a sociologist at the Hebrew University, has long been identified as one of the leading figures in the "post-Zionist" movement, perhaps better called the anti-Zionist movement—a small group of tenured far Leftists, including Ilan Pappé, Avi Shlaim, Oren Yiftachel, Uri Bar-Joseph, and—until recently—Benny Morris. His coauthor, Migdal, is a political scientist at the University of Washington. The book is a slightly amended version of a study first published in 1993.[1] [Warning!  This book is based solely on the OPINION of the author who has no experience or training as a  historian.  His statements of opinion would not be admissible in any court.  On the other hand, Zahir Muhsein was a member of the PLO Executive Committee and personally involved in its decisions.  His statement is not of opinion but of fact based on personal knowledge of the motives of the PLO.  The same is true of Pacepa. His statements are not based on his opinion. He was Ceausescu's chief intelligence officer and directly involved in the matters on which he spoke. He is also stating personal knowledge and not an opinion. His statement would be admissible as evidence in any court.]] WEB96.255.239.121 (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * removed copyvio. see http://www.meforum.org/1608/the-palestinian-people  Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So much for Kimmerling.WEB96.255.239.121 (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"I do not wish to rely exclusively on the KGB in setting up this disinformation. There were other Marxist helpers: "Lessons of the Socialist Liberation Movements The PLO looked to the examples of other liberation movements in its endeavor to find allies, expertise, and arms, particularly within the socialist world. The experience of China, Cuba, and Vietnam were of special importance. They drew inspiration from the Algerian revolutionary experience and received expert advice in presenting their case.10 Until they had consulted with the Algerians, the main Palestinian propaganda theme was "throwing the Jews into the sea." Under Algerian guidance, they introduced different terminology and themes. Further, although the French army had won the war against Algeria, "the Algerian victory over France was to a considerable extent achieved as a result of public opinion in France itself and in major NATO countries turning against the French in Algeria - in response to a remarkably skillful propaganda campaign carried out by the FLN."11 This was an example of the effective use of propaganda as a tool of political warfare (which resembled the Vietnamese model, described below). After the Six-Day War, Muhammad Yazid, who had been minister of information in two Algerian wartime governments (1958-1962), imparted the following principles to Palestinian propagandists:

Wipe out the argument that Israel is a small state whose existence is threatened by the Arab states, or the reduction of the Palestinian problem to a question of refugees; instead, present the Palestinian struggle as a struggle for liberation like the others. Wipe out the impression...that in the struggle between the Palestinians and the Zionists, the Zionist is the underdog. Now it is the Arab who is oppressed and victimized in his existence because he is not only facing the Zionists but also world imperialism.12


 * copyvio remove  Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"TEN YEARS SINCE OSLO: THE PLO'S "PEOPLE'S WAR STRATEGY AND ISRAEL'S INADEQUATE RESPONSE" Dr. Joel S. Fishman WEB96.255.239.121 (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=582&PID=2225&IID=947

WEB 96.255.239.121 (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)96.255.239.121 (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The bottom of the JCPA page says "Copyright © 2009 JCPA. All Rights Reserved". The bottom of this page says "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License". That makes it a copyright violation. Please remove the material.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland --It looks like technicalities is your specialty in pursuing your worthless argument. It is not a copyright violation if I obtain its availability under the "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License" or directly from JCPA. I undertake to do so. WEB96.255.239.121 (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay then, good luck with that...in the meantime remove the copyright violation.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I will do so within a reasonable time after awaiting a reply from JCPA. I have already written to obtain a license to use the material. In my request to JCPA, I offered to remove the copied, and cited material, properly attributed to JCPA, promptly if permission were to be refused. You have no rights in the use of the article. Your rights are dependent on those who own the copyright, i.e. JCPA WEB96.255.239.121 (talk) 07:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC). When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply. In my legal opinion, and I graduated from the Harvard Law School and practiced law for 45 years, the fair use doctrine does apply. But to avoid any further dispute I have requested permission. The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License expressly permits fair use. See for yourself: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ WEB96.255.239.121 (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or you could simply read WP:NFC, comply with 'Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited' and remove the material in the meantime. Posting extensive amounts copyrighted material on talk pages, refusing requests to remove it while using a static IP address is not a good idea especially given that the only thing required is the URL to the JCPA article. Or I could remove it for you. That would then give you the option to keep putting it back and me the option to request that your IP is blocked for repeated copyright violations. It's really up to you how you want to play it.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If the only thing required is the URL to the JCPA article as you have claimed, then I am in compliance. I attributed the article to http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=582&PID=2225&IID=947 as you can see if you look at what I wrote. You can also check it by plugging it into your browser. You have an interesting way of opposing material that you do not want to become public. You first say that it is not sourced. But if or when it is sourced, then you claim it is illegal copyrighted material. Are you playing a game or are you trying to get to the truth of the questionable concept of "the Palestinian People".WEB96.255.239.121 (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC) I have examined WP:NFC. This WP:NF page in a nutshell: Non-free or copyrighted content can only be used in specific cases and only in as few cases as possible. Non-free media may be used in articles only if: 1. Its usage would be considered fair use in United States copyright law, My legal opinion is that it does. 2. It's used for a purpose that can't be fulfilled by free material (text or images, existing or to be created), I know of no free material that would fulfill its needed use. 3. The usage of the non-free media complies with the above and the rest of the Non-free content criteria, [I don't see any other criteria it fails to meet) and 4. It has a valid rationale indicating why its usage would be considered fair use within Wikipedia policy and US law. That rationale is that it complements the arguments made based on the Pacepa sources and therefore tends to confirm them. Moreover, to remove any dispute, even though I don't need a license, I have asked for one.  If anyone is being unreasonable in this matter it is you who wants to erase my work and is unwilling to wait two or three days before the copyright owner is heard from despite the fact that WP:NF has been complied with..    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.239.121 (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Sean, if you know of alternative free material that would fulfill the need I have shown above, I have no pride of authorship. Please let us know and I will substitute it, in accordance with standard No. 2 of the WP:NF rule. By the way, Sean, are you getting paid for your work on this Wikipedia entry? I am not and this is starting to take a lot of more of my time than I orginally anticipated in meeting all your frivolous objections. WEB96.255.239.121 (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)WEB96.255.239.121 (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have asked you to read WP:NFC, comply with the unambiguous statement 'Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited' and remove the extensive quotation of copyrighted text from this talk page. This isn't a negotiation and your opinion is irrelevant. Asking editors to comply with mandatory policy is not a 'frivolous objection'. Either you remove it or I remove it. If you remove it, it looks like you are willing to abide by the policies of Wikipedia. If I have to remove it, it looks like you are unwilling to abide by the policies of Wikipedia. The first option would seem to be better. Either way the material must be removed and this is the last time I'm going to ask you. Regarding whether I'm getting paid to work on this Wikipedia entry, no, but thanks for your interest in my life. Regarding 'You have an interesting way of opposing material that you do not want to become public.' Setting aside the problem that comments like that are a violation of the discretionary sanctions, the material is already public. That's JCPA's job as indicated by the P in their name. As to what I want, I want you to comply with policy and remove copyrighted material. It's very simple. If it makes you happy to believe that I am trying to suppress 'the truth' that's fine, please carry on but the copyrighted material still has to be removed. If you would like to include information derived from the JCPA source or short quotes in the Palestinian people article you can argue your case for inclusion just like anyone else with people here who care. That doesn't include me. What you can't do is repeatedly post extensive quantities of copyrighted material.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems obvious that you are not familiar with the fair use doctrine. I have posted the article from which the material is taken, its author, the URL, I am qualified by training as a lawyer, I have 45 years of experience as a lawyer, I have advised clients on copyright law, and in my legal opinion the use of the material does not violate copyright law. What is the basis for your view that it does? Fish or cut bait. What are your expert qualifications to give an opinion that my use violates copyright law.

You don't seem to understand that the weight of an opinion depends on the qualifications and training of the person providing it. Your's and others lack of understanding of that essential point permeates this discussion. Baruch Kimmerling has been relied on as a historian, but his efforts on history labeled as "Palestinian People" show how ill qualified he is in that field. He is professionally qualified only as a sociologist. As Steven Plaut pointed out in reviewing his book: "Arabic-speaking people have lived in an area known as Palestine since the early days of Islam, and there were Arab tribes around even earlier. Yes, in the 1800s, some Arabic-speakers in Palestine participated here and there in rebellions and turf battles. For example, local sheikhs and effendis backed the local pasha when he revolted against the suzerainty of his Egyptian overlord Muhammad Ali in 1834. For the authors, this constitutes evidence of emerging Palestinian nationhood. But why did these Arabic-speakers refuse to join the "Arab Revolt" in World War I, instead remaining loyal to the Ottoman Empire? (To this day, Turks remember the Palestinians as the empire's most loyal Arab subjects.) " On the other hand, you and others also misunderstand that fact witnesses need not be qualified as experts. Your misunderstanding of this point also leads you and others to question the qualifications of Major General Ion Pacepa, the highest ranking Soviet bloc defector during the Cold War, and the qualifications of Zahir Muhsein, a Member of the Executive Board of the PLO to state facts on matters they were personally involved in -- they saw and heard, and later wrote about. May I suggest you look into this question further before you attempt to renew your unwarranted criticisms.


 * WEB, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Palestinian people article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. You were asked to supply a third-party verifiable published source (WP:RS) which supports the proposition that "The Palestinian people were invented by Soviet disinformation masters". That was not an invitation for you to introduce more specious reasoning intended to rationalize or mislead the editors into a joining your off-topic discussion of the PLO. Ion Mihai Pacepa was born on 28 October 1928. Vladimir Jabotinsky wrote The Iron Wall: We and the Arabs in 1923. He acknowledged that there were already two nations in Palestine and referred to the Arabs of Palestine as Palestinians. He said that an iron wall of bayonets was needed in order to carry out the Zionist plan of colonization against the wishes of the native inhabitants. He said that the Arabs wanted a Federation, but noted that even if the nationalists in Baghdad, Mecca and Damascus could be persuaded to view Palestine as an insignificant borderland, Palestine would still remain for the Palestinians not a borderland, but their birthplace, the center and basis of their own national existence. In closing he said that the only path to peace was the iron wall and the establishment of "a government without any kind of Arab influence, that is to say one against which the Arabs will fight."


 * None of the authorities that you adduced as supporting evidence provided an actual example of an individual making statements of fact about the origins of the Palestinian people on the basis of their own personal knowledge. The authors that you cited were discussing later developments in connection with the PLO. The text that you added to the article was removed because it violated the non-negotiable policies outlined in WP:NOR, WP:Synth, and WP:NOTOPINION. The burden of proof remains with you, since the proposition at the head of this subsection isn't supported at all by the text of the JCPA article.


 * In 1948 the UN Mediators proposed a political union between the Arab portions of the former mandate of Palestine. The United States told the Foreign Ministers of Great Britain and France, after the fact, that it had proposed and approved of the union. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume V, Page 1096 Between 1949 and 1951 the government of Israel and King Abdullah held negotiations over a two kilometer-wide strip of land between the Hebron Hills and the Mediterranean at Gaza or Ashkelon. See page 262 of Righteous victims: a history of the Zionist-Arab conflict, 1881-1999, By Benny Morris.


 * After the Six Day War, the State Department promised to use United States Government influence to secure Jordan the right of access to a Mediterranean port in exchange for territorial concessions. see Foreign Relations, 1964-1968, Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, Document 506. The United States supported the return of the West Bank to Jordan and opposed the creation of an independent Palestinian State. See for example The Reagan Plan.


 * Alain Pellet explained that the question of the sovereignty of the PLO is one thing, and that the sovereignty of the Palestinian people is another. He also said that "Israel's thesis of denying the sovereign rights of the Palestinian people is untenable: whatever may have been the vicissitudes of history, this people exists." See: International Law and the Administration of Occupied Territories: Two Decades of Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Edited by Emma Playfair, page 180. Zahir Muhsein's remarks in the 1977 Trouw interview were in line with (then) existing US policies and the legal status quo created by the 1950 Unification Act of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. That act had been proposed by the Palestinian Arab Conference at Jericho that I mentioned above. Self-determination of peoples includes the right to freely determine their own political status and freely pursue their own economic, social and cultural development. See the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) That means the members of the PLC can form political unions with other Arab communities. It also means the have the right to dissolve unions, like the one with Jordan, and to proclaim their own independence.


 * The Plaut book review did not say that Kimmerling's book was based solely on opinion. His CV says that he has an earned degree in political science, that he has held teaching and research positions in International Relations, and that the topic of his doctoral dissertation was factors involved in nation building. The rules of evidence in most courts allow sociologists to testify on any matter that will help jurors understand the evidence or determine a fact at issue. harlan (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)