Ans. to John Bastille - Palestinians are Not Ancestors of Phillistines -- Nor Are They The Original Inhabitants of Israel
Submitted by Sofa Sogood (United States), Dec 6, 2007 at 20:00
First -- Phillistines were an ancient enemy of the early Jews, but they were not native to the land. They had come from somewhere (it can be looked up approximately where) in the northern Mediterranean. After Jewish conquests, almost all the people remaining alive in the area between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River and much surrounding areas became Jews, or likely were driven out -- as Idol worship was prohibited in Jewish lands in those days. This lasted for about 1,000 plus years.
After the return from Babylon, the same was true in the revived nation. This remained so for several more hundred years.
After the Roman conquest and forced diaspora of Jews -- some polytheists from surrounding lands settled there, but then after Constantine, were converted to Christianity. The Muslim conquest brought many Arabs from other Arabian lands to settle in what is now Israel, and they also intermarried with the newly converted. Then the Crusaders drove them out and again converted whoever was left alive. Muslim re-conquest brought more Arabs from other lands. And on and on.
While it's possible that a few of the Palestinians are partially descended from original inhabitants of the land who were first polytheists, then Jews, then Christians, then Muslims, then Christians again and once more Muslims -- since most of the people at the time of the 70 A.D. Roman eviction were Jews who left before all these other invasions -- the numbers of those original inhabitants would have been very few, and they were overwhelmingly mixed, their genes diluted by intermarriage with the other much more populace Arabs from other Arab and possibly non-Arab Muslim lands.
Certainly only a very few might have been fractional descendants of Phillistines who later converted to Islam. The Phillistines who weren't killed off the the early wars, either escaped, or were absorbed into the general population by intermarriage and became Jews. Jews didn't intermarry except by conversion, and this intermarriage was not wide-spread.
And, by the way, some Jews never left during the Roman diaspora, and other Jews always returned to their former lands after the violence of various wars had settled down.
Also, its well documented that during the Ottoman times, the area was highly neglected, ignored and sparsely populated. The overwhelming majority of Palestinians migrated to the area from surrounding lands after the early 1900's.
A good part of that population entered the area after the Mufti of Jerusalem in, I believe, the 1920's, called on Muslim Arabs of all nations to come there to help populate the area with Muslims as a way to overwhelm the migration of early Zionists. (I'm not exactly sure of the year.)
It's a point of history being distorted to the ridiculous regarding descendants of Phillistines -- the only reason they are remembered is because they were mentioned in the Torah as the early enemies of the Jews, and the Romans re-named Judea, Palestina, to humiliate the Jews (i.e. probably -- Phillistine Goliath defeated by tiny David -- so the Roman Goliath defeated the tiny Jews).
And in any case, it's irrelevant to today's issues.
Anyone who is has decent motivations and who takes the time to study the history of current issues can see the absolute absurdity, mandacity and malevolence of today's anti-zionist positions.
After WWI and WWII there were populations transfers involving millions of people. Jews to then Palestine was one of those transfers. (Behind the reasons for this is a very long complex history which can easily be researched.) The result was that the British were obliged to honor their commitments to the Jews, but for many self-serving and also some racist reasons, they renegged, and actually assisted the Arabs in the war of 1947. Oil, access to India, Jew-hatred, arabophilia, etc. etc. It was assumed that the Jews would be wiped out -- (who would have thought they could possibly prevail?) but that didn't happen.
Actually, the words "population transfer" have now become signifiers of evil with regard to Palestinians, but that is exactly what happened to Indians, Cypriots, Turks, Germans, Poles, etc. -- and was considered reasonable -- and still is acceptable for all other nationalities regarding that period of time. But the fact is, although Jews debated the idea, they decided against it. Their one main purpose was self-determination -- that they would not remain governed and therefore usually gravely harmed -- as second-class citizens of other nations. When the "Jewish Homeland" in Palestine was first decided, it was to be in all of what is now Israel and Jordan. Jordan was a vast, empty place. There was so much room, it was decided no one would have to "move." Jews could govern Jews, Arabs could govern Arabs.
Then the dividing of Trans-Jordan and Israel. Then the partitions. Jews were allotted tiny parcels -- which they accepted. Arabs made War on them.
Arabs would allow no Jews to be on Arab lands who were not governed by Arabs. Arabs would not accept the European Jews' migration. Most historical records show that in 1947 most Palestinians fled of their own free will, were forced to flee by fellow Arabs on threat of being considered "collaborators," and some were "transferred" by the Jews. Then, in spite of the Arab villification of any idea of "transfer" regarding Arabs -- they evicted and forced Jews to flee almost every Arab nation (where they had lived for thousands of years) -- which just happens to be a very similar number to the total number of Palestinians who left the area -- whether by their own free will, coersion by other Arabs, or "transfer" -- during the l947 War. So, ultimately a "transfer" did occur with similar numbers on both sides. Also, a large population of Arab-Muslims who stayed, were not "transferred" by the Jews, were given Israeli citizenship with rights and representation in the Knesset. This was done because it was never the Jews intention to "transfer" them, but to live in peace with them. The Israelis believed this could be achieved over the long run, once those citizens grew to appreciate the benefits of the Israeli democracy -- economically, politically and ethically. (And this might well have happened without the interference of the Arab nations to the detriment of their "brothers.")
It seems to me, though I do not know all the facts, that after the 67 War, the Israelis were fully militarily capable of "transferring" the whole population of Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank to Jordan and Egypt. But they didn't.
From around 1967 until the l980's Arabs in the West Bank had a higher standard of living than Arabs in any Arab nations.
There are two reasons this issue has persisted, and Arab and Muslim nations have used and abused their own people, now called Palestinians:
1. No Jew or Christian shall ever have self-determination in any land -- especially in their neighborhood -- which was ever ruled by Muslims.
2. As a rallying point for their subjects to keep their minds occupied away from the injustices in their own countries.
The conflict, from the Muslim point of view, has nothing, nothing to do with how much land, settlements or Palestinian rights. It has only to do with destroying Israel no matter how long it takes.
My question is -- should they succeed in destroying Israel (objective #1) -- which is not impossible given recent events and currents -- and the Muslim world is filled to overflowing with triumphant glory and sense of power -- who will their leaders direct this energy toward (objective #2) instead of the Israelis?
Certainly, they will aim their well-funded and expertly honed (with Western help) propaganda machine against all Jews in the world, and there will be an astonishingly massive revival of rampant (and socially acceptable) anti-semitism which no doubt will engulf our American shores -- and then, secondly, especially once the West jumps on their bandwagon against the Jews, it will be aimed against the West in general.
If you have doubt that the U.S. would condone and even promote any form of racist anti-semitism, refer to Condoleeza, who represents the U.S. Government and the President -- the American Government right here inside the U.S. at Annapolis -- forcing Jews to enter the Conference through the Service Entrance because Arabs refused to enter through the same door -- those Jews including the Prime Minister of Israel and other prominent Israeli officials. Consider the acceptance by Condoleeza of those Arabs refusing to shake hands with Jews at the Conference because they are "unclean." Consider Condoleeza's acceptance at the Conference of those Arabs removing the translation earbuds from their ears as Olmert and other Jews addressed the Conference.
Condoleeza Rice, African-American, member of a race horrifically victimized by racism, Secretary of State of the United States of America, encouraging by accommodation -- vile, humiliating racism against Jews. And President George Bush, the Mainstream Media, TV Talk Shows -- say nothing.
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".
Reader comments (96) on this item
Comment on this item
Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes