Talk:History of the Southern Levant

question?

So, the “Maccabean/Hasmonean Period 165–63 BCE” was the last time prior to the “modern period” that the jews had sovereignty. In other words, until 1947 when the british and UN got involved the last time the jews were sovereign was pre-roman period? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.124.99 (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why this name?

Better use 'the history of the Land of Israel', after all the term Syria Palaestina is in use only since mid 2nd century, while the term 'The Land of Israel' is much older. If one wants to avoid conflict the term 'holy land' can be used, or the Levant.

It could be called Canaan - which even the Hebrew Bible uses in various mentions. Additionally, archaeologists all agree that the Isrealites rise and dominance comes later in the history of the area and typically use the term Canaan to refer to the Bronze Age in that region.

True Canaan is much better, since this land has been changing hands on and off.

Palestine and the Arabic word Filastin originated from the Latin name Palaestina, which, was what the Roman Empire renamed Judea during there rule of the land in between 63 bce - 313 CE.

The name Palestine refers to a region of the eastern Mediterranean coast from the sea to the Jordan valley and from the southern Negev desert to the Galilee lake region in the north. The word itself derives from "Plesheth", a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as "Philistine". Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine's invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea. The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs.

The Philistines reached the southern coast of Israel in several waves. One group arrived in the pre-patriarchal period and settled south of Beersheba in Gerar where they came into conflict with Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Another group, coming from Crete after being repulsed from an attempted invasion of Egypt by Rameses III in 1194 BCE, seized the southern coastal area, where they founded five settlements (Gaza, Ascalon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gat). In the Persian and Greek periods, foreign settlers - chiefly from the "Mediterranean islands - overran the Philistine districts.

From the fifth century BC, following the historian Herodotus, Greeks called the eastern coast of the Mediterranean "the Philistine Syria" using the Greek language form of the name. In AD 135, after putting down the Bar Kochba revolt, the second major Jewish revolt against Rome, the Emperor Hadrian wanted to blot out the name of the Roman "Provincia Judaea" and so renamed it "Provincia Syria Palaestina", the Latin version of the Greek name and the first use of the name as an administrative unit. The name "Provincia Syria Palaestina" was later shortened to Palaestina, from which the modern, anglicized "Palestine" is derived.

This remained the situation until the end of the fourth century, when in the wake of a general imperial reorganization Palestine became three Palestines: First, Second, and Third. This configuration is believed to have persisted into the seventh century, the time of the Persian and Muslim conquests.

The Christian Crusaders employed the word Palestine to refer to the general region of the "three Palestines." After the fall of the crusader kingdom, Palestine was no longer an official designation. The name, however, continued to be used informally for the lands on both sides of the Jordan River. The Ottoman Turks, who were non-Arabs but religious Muslims, ruled the area for 400 years (1517-1917). Under Ottoman rule, the Palestine region was attached administratively to the province of Damascus and ruled from Istanbul. The name Palestine was revived after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and applied to the territory in this region that was placed under the British Mandate for Palestine.

This unauthored post needs some correcting. While it is true that the name Palestine comes from the earlier name translated into English as Philistine, the etymology of the name is uncertain. It would appear that it was originally an ethnonym used by the people themselves. It appears in Egyptian inscriptions at the time of Rameses III as PLST or PRST.

Secondly, there is no evidence other than the story of Abraham of Philistines settling around Gerar before the settling of the Pentapolis (Gaza, Ashkelon, Ekron, Ashdod, and Gath), and would appear to be not historical. (See John Van Seters "Abraham in Myth and Tradition"). This tope seems to have originated in the Iron Age II period at a time when Gerar became a major entrepot and camel trading centre for goods coming from South Arabia, Egypt, along the "Kings Highway and from the coast.

Thirdly, regarding the language of the Philistines, it was quickly abandoned and replaced with Canaanite. It is also very probable that Canaanite was their major language even at the time of settlement with the earlier Philisytine tongue being spoken by a small elite. As for the Philistines "seizing" the coast, this too is in error. After the attempted invasion of Egypt in qapproximately 1187 the coastal cities had been destroyed and were left in ruin for a period. Towards the end of his reign, Rameses III moved the Philistines out of Egypt, together with the Tjekker, Sherden and probably the Denyen, to rebuild the garrisons in Canaan. It was under Egyptian control that the Philistines were settled in the southern Levantine pentapolis. Tjekker were settled in Dor and Acre, Sherden in the Jezreel and along the Jordan valley, and Denyen, it would appear around Jappa. The period of residence in Egypt is shown by the various anthropomorphic coffins the Philistines made, and by the double pithoi burials of the Serden and others. This was the case until 1150 BCE and the withdrawal of the Egyptian Canaanite Empire. It was in this power vacuum that the Philistines attempted to expand their sphere of influence. First they seized Dor and Acre from the Tjekker, which became Philistine cities. Then they took Jaffa from the Danites who had up until then been a maritime people. As a result the Danites moved the Tel Laish (Dan). They then moved into the Jordan valley where Saul was defeated by them. Achish of Gath for a while managed to control the tribe of Judah by employing a Hebrew mercenary called David, who only managed to assert his independence when he shifted his capital from Hebron to the more defensible site of Jerusalem. which according to the Bible, he seized from the Jebusites.

Finally, regarding Arabic amongst the Philistine cities. Most of the Philistines by the third century CE had converted either to Judaism or Christianity, with Christianity being the fastest growing faith. But in the great Christological controversies of the fourth century, they finished up adopting Arian, and later Nestorian theologies, antithetical to the dominant Catholic or Orthodox position. As a result they were heavily persecuted by the Byzantine Emperors, and so with the arrival of the Arabs in the Sixth Century, welcomed them for their tolerance in religious matters and aided them in overthrowing the Greek Byzantines. A strong Palestinian Christian presence continued to the modern period. Arabs, however, remained a minority of the Palestinian population. After the Ommayyad period, increasing numbers of conquered peoples sought to enter the ruling class by adopting Islam and dropping their earlier Aramaic or Syriac tongues, becoming first bilingual in Arabic, and once Arabic had become the language of Education and Commerce, speaking Arabic exclusively, albeit with a Palestinian dialect which continues to the present day.

It is for the reason of this pro-Israeli anti-Palestinian bias that I have attached the POV tag here.

Hope this helps. John D. Croft 23:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What type of history?

They would say that this history writing is only marginally superior to the Biblical history, which has been scientifically disproven yet remain popular as a base for claims to Palestine.

Note that the section does not deal with each the sides' etiological claims, but rather with a historical perspective. Topic-wise, I have heard no serious scholars arguing so far there wasn't a Jewish state in Palestine for much of the 1st millennium B.C. Evidence (archaeological and in the records of other peoples) clearly indicates that there was such a state. If you care to present your argument, please present it fully.

As to the "And that's coming from you. Ha!" part, I think that if you feel that my argumentation is insufficient, you should probably better me by writing better argumentation. --Uri

Jewish/Hebrew warlords may have been dominant intermittently in some parts of Palestine. This is not a "state" in the modern sense - anymore than you would refer to the Ottoman empire, or other occupiers of the region as a "state".24.64.166.191 05:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Whilst there was two states Israel and Judea, during the 1st century BCE, there currently is no independent evidence of a united monarchy. In fact the claims that there was a united monarchy ruled over by David has all of the characteristics of Josianic propaganda, designed to assert Judean priority over the territory of the northern state of Israel. But there were also other states in Palestine at this time, including the Philistine city states and Edom. A treatment of the history of Palestine should treat all states of the area, not just be a repetition of the History of Ancient Isreal and Judea. John D. Croft (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the name of the land, the Isrealites did control the area for much of the 1st millenium B.C. But the question is so what? Other groups of people controlled the region prior to the Isrealites, and the Isrealites did not control the region for 2000 years since that time. Would anyone honestly hand ownership of France to the Visigoths? No, because it's been however many thousands of years since the Visigoths controlled Western Europe. (That and the fact the Visigoths don't really exist anymore.) The reason there's argument is because of religion. The point is that the Isrealite claim to the territory is based on scripture, and not on prior ownership.

The Israelite control was of the highlands and the Jordan Valley. There is no evidence that the Israelites ever controled the Philistine core, which remained under local control of the Seren until the Assyrian and Babylonian period, at which time they were ruled by provincial governors of these Empires (as was Israel and later Judea), and in Greek and Roman times later by their own magistracies, under Greek or Roman provincial governors and procurators. John D. Croft 23:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The history of the area is complex due to the many tribes and (later) nations that settled, conquered and ruled, traded there or moved through: Canaanites, Philistines, Samaritans, Nabataeans, Greeks, Romans, Muslims and Christians.

In pre-Biblical times, the area was known as the Land of Canaan and had been a collection of city-states, tributary to the Egyptian Pharoah, as attested to in the Tel-El Amarna tablets. The breakup of the Egyptian empire beginning about 1500 BC made possible the invasion of the Israelites. According to Jewish tradition, twelve tribes entered Canaan from Egypt and conquered it, led by Moses approximately 1240-1200 BC. Historical evidence from the Amarna tablets suggests that there were already 'apiru' (Hebrews) among the Canaanites in the time of Egyptian rule.

During the final years of the Late Bronze Age, the Philistines also invaded Canaan (1500 - 1200 BC). Other evidence suggests that around 1200 BC, semi-nomads from the desert fringes to the east, joined by elements from Anatolia, the Aegean, and the south, possibly including Egypt, began to settle in the hill country of Canaan. A large proportion - probably a majority of this population - were refugees from the Canaanite city states, destroyed by the Egyptians in one of their periodic invasions.

Question about Arabs

Is any of the following correct?

Approximately 720,000 Arabs, encouraged by their leaders to leave, fled from what is now Israel between April and December, 1948.(1) The Arab leaders promised them that they would soon be able to return following Israel's destruction. In some cases the Jews, including Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, urged the Arabs to remain, promising that they would not be harmed.(2) Those who remained became full and equal citizens of Israel, while those who chose to leave went to neighboring Arab states. Instead of welcoming their Arab brothers, and integrating them into the mainstream of their societies, the Arab states kept them in squalid refugee camps and used these Palestinians refugees as political pawns in their fight against Israel. [1] --Ed Poor

This is all true. Proof can be seen in the equal rights accorded to every Israeli citizen no matter what their religion or political affiliation. Israel was founded as a democracy, and as a democracy has a responsibility to uphold the ideals of democracy including the statement that "all men are created equal".

.....equal rights? hmmm...

You know little about democracy. Every democratic state has its own constitution and gives rights to people as they see fit. There are no universal democratic ideals. The US and French revolutions are about what the French called the Rights of Man, not the Ideals of Democracy. There is no causal link between democracy and the Rights of Man. Granted, democractic governments do tend to foster civil liberties, but that is not the only option. Nevertheless, the United States is the only country that explicity states that "all men are created equal", and this statement is actually not guaranteed by law since the statement only appears in the Declaration of Independence and not in the Bill of Rights.

quotes on the subject

The claims about Israel promising Palestinians citizenship are highly doubtful, even if there really were such promises, it is doubtfull Israel meant to fullfill them, the Arabs that stayed in Israel did not get their citizenship until 1967, 19 years after the war, while 200,000 arab residents of east Jerusalem are still not offered cetizenship, not to mention the 2.5 million residents of the west bank, which has been under Israeli control since 1967.

The fact is that Arabs in Israel have held Israeli citizenship since 1948, but they were under Israeli military administration till 1966, restricting movments and limiting some rights. However, also during those years, they still had voting rights and they held Israeli passports when traveilling, and enjoyed the same social, medical and education servieces as Jewish Israeli citizens did. gever_tov 00:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC) For more information see:

[2] [3] [4]

Let's be honest here, most claims based on passed history can only be relevant to a certain point. Philistins were gone long before Roman came and Palestine is not related to it, except for the name derivating from it, true Israel appears in all Jewish book such as the promised land, or the land of Canaan, but again what's important here, is what happened afer the second world war: Israel was created as a Jewish state, not any state, a Jewish state, so that never agian Jews will be without a country, so they will have the possibility to defend themselves if needed. Of course based on these principals, a Jewish state cannot take the risk to have more Muslims, or Christians than Jews, or the meaning of it will be lost. Also let's remember our history for a minute, the second world war was not the first time Jews were being exterminated... Balbylonians tried it, Romans took over them, Catholic Europe, England also and forever, the Jews have been first accepted, then after a period of prosperity, they usually were over taxed, then forced to conversion or killed, or thrown out, and that from the bible times onward. the history has been repeating itself over and over... that's why the creation of Israel was put in place.

To say Philistines were gone before the Roman period is in error. The area from Gaza to Acre was recognised by both Greek and Romans as to the Philistines, who gave this name to the region. The people who lived and worked in this part of the world recognised they had a Canaanite Philistine heritage, and remained in this part of the world in reduced numbers down to the modern period. John D. Croft 23:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Now for Palestinian, has there been an injustice, I think yes probably, but not from the Jews, from the British mainly, that promised this land to both Jews and Palestinian, Jews didn't attack the muslum, muslim did. They though with good reason that they could easily overcome the few Jewish people that were there, but that was a mistake. But Israel, and the Jews were never responsable for Palestinian faith, the Arab world made it harder for them, for as long as they thought they could get rid of Israel. Today a few of these countries, have realized this won't happened, and today I think, a lot of Palestinian are being used and misguided in their belief. But to get back to my point earlier, Israel ws created as a Jewish democratic state, and as such, the right of return doesn't make sens to them anymore, 50 years ago, it wasn't such a problem, but today it would be suicidal.

To say there has been no injustice for the Palestinians by the Jews reflects a pro-Israeli bias. During the various wars that have been fought over this "over-Promised" land, Palestinians have been the continual losers. In such a zero-sum game, a sustainable outcome is only possible if the losers have a chance to exit the game to play again and become eventual winners. And until a win-win solution is negotiated between Palestinians and Israelis, this will not occur. It is unjust that Jews who have been living outside Israel for thousands of years are allowed to come to Israel, whilst Palestinians who were living in this country until 1948 are excluded and confined to refugee camps outside their country. Solve this problem, abolish this injustice and the problem of Palestinians will disappear. John D. Croft 23:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ethnography

I'm not sure any of that ethnographic analysis in the second section really belongs in a "History of Palestine" article. It might be better placed in a page more closely related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like that one. In my opinion this article should stick to the political history per se as much as possible, meaning who invaded what when, territorial and monarchial stuff, and downplay the ethnic considerations. -- Branden

The history of the area is complex due to the many tribes and (later) nations that settled, conquered and ruled, traded there or moved through: Canaanites, Philistines, Samaritans, Nabataeans, Greeks, Romans, Muslims and Christians.

In pre-Biblical times, the area was known as the Land of Canaan and had been a collection of city-states, tributary to the Egyptian Pharoah, as attested to in the Tel-El Amarna tablets. The breakup of the Egyptian empire beginning about 1500 BC made possible the invasion of the Israelites. According to Jewish tradition, twelve tribes entered Canaan from Egypt and conquered it, led by Moses approximately 1240-1200 BC. Historical evidence from the Amarna tablets suggests that there were already 'apiru' (Hebrews) among the Canaanites in the time of Egyptian rule.

During the final years of the Late Bronze Age, the Philistines also invaded Canaan (1500 - 1200 BC). Other evidence suggests that around 1200 BC, semi-nomads from the desert fringes to the east, joined by elements from Anatolia, the Aegean, and the south, possibly including Egypt, began to settle in the hill country of Canaan. A large proportion - probably a majority of this population - were refugees from the Canaanite city states, destroyed by the Egyptians in one of their periodic invasions. [Francis]

Romans

The article says Romans restored (rather than introduced) the name Palestine after the Bar Kokhba revolt. Are there any reliable sources for this? -- Cema 14:34 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Everything I've seen indicates that the name Palestine was assigned only after the revolt as a punitive measure and/or to prevent further insurrection. Before that it was just called Israel or referred to by the individual areas, i.e., Judaea, Samaria, etc. Khanele 00:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

One of these "individual areas" was called Palestina. And had been called that for a long long time. John D. Croft 23:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole piece of land and parts extending in neighboring countries (nowadays) was called Canaan as its first name.

Meaning of Palestinian

The article implies the word Palestinian referred to Arabs in the first half of the XX century, whereas in fact the term Palestinian was at the time applied to anyone living in Palestine, Arab or Jew (or anyone else). I did not see any sources that would indicate this exclusive use before the creation of the state of Israel, after which the word Palestinian was reserved for non-Israeli citizens (almost all Arabs). I understand this is a charged topic; then the factual correctness is even more important, IMHO. Sources, anyone? -- Cema 14:34 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Zahir Muhsein

I propose to delete the passage attributed to "Zahir Muhsein" unless someone can supply evidence that the interview is genuine and not just an extreme view from an unimportant person. There are hundreds of mentions of "Zahir Muhsein" on the web but I can't find a single one that is not merely repeating this "quotation" (though with variations even in the name of the newspaper). It looks to me like "Zahir Muhsein" is unworthy of mention here. Of course the pan-Arab view of things was very common amongst Palestinian Arabs until the middle of the 20th century, but the implication that it is a significant viewpoint in the PLO needs better proof. - bdm

Ok, I found out more about "Zahir Muhsein" and deleted the quote even though it is probably genuine. The problem is that it is highly misleading. Zuhayr Muhsin was the Secretary General of the group Sa`iqa which consisted of mostly of Syrian Ba'athists and was established by the Syrian government in opposition to Fatah. His membership of the PLO was due to pressure from Syria even though his pan-Arab position (i.e. the Syrian position) put him at constant conflict with the mainstream Palestinian nationalists. At one point he even (allegedly) supported Syrian armed conflict against the PLO in Lebanon. In 1979 he was assassinated. So he was indeed a Palestinian with pan-Arab political views but he was not representative of Palestinians generally and certainly not of the PLO.

I don't know why the Meir quotation is there either. What point is being made? Btw, the reference is Sunday Times (London) 15 June 1969 -- bdm

Last thousand years

Over the last thousand years the population of Palestine has comprised various ethnic groups, including Syrian Arabs, Egyptian Arabs, Arab immigrants from the Arabian peninsula, Bedouins, Druze, Jews, Turks, and a smaller number of people from other areas.

This is a very problematic sentence that seems to be constructed simply to deny the existence of an indigenous population. Actually there is no better case for the phrase "Syrian Arab" than there is for "Palestinian Arab", and if we are talking about previous centuries we should remember that Palestine was regarded as a part of Syria for a very long time. So the sentence is not even meaningful. The point that should be made, but isn't, is that the population of Palestine has been predominantly Arab for a long time (prior to the Zionist influx) and a large part of the Arab population had long roots in Palestine. This was especially true of the agricultural class and less true of the middle class (who generally belonged to families with branches all over the middle east).

Another complaint is that the history section at the end is simply the history of Jews in Palestine. That is a worthy subject but it does not qualify as a "History of Palestine". The part between approximately 135 and 1948 should be rewritten in a more balanced fashion. -- bdm

How about Jordanie any thoughts about that? Wasn't that part of Palestine, isn't that why Palestinian tried a "coup d'etat" there?

The evidence indicates that the bulk of the population of pre-Israel Palestine was in fact indigenous people who had been living in the area since the beginning of the neolithic period. Whilst there were additions from outside the area, including Arabs and Turks, Greeks and Romans, Persians and Philistines, the vast bulk of the population shows clear genetic linkahes with the people of the land from time immemorial. John D. Croft 00:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Immigration of Jews

Let's look at OneVoice's addition: "Significant immigration to the area occurred before 1948, Jews from Europe and approximately 200,000 Arabs from the desert which comprised 12% of the Arab population.". The 200,000 claim is "per Morris", according to OneVoice, so we open "Israel's Border Wars" at page 29 to read:

Some Israeli officials, trying to explain the persistence of the infiltration phenomenon during the 1950s, linked it to the bedouin life-style and to the urbanization and pauperization that had drawn or pushed thousands of rural Arabs to Palestine's burgeoning towns during Ottoman and British Mandate rule. Perhaps as many as 200,000 Arabs had moved, between 1930 and 1945, from the desert to the prospering coastal areas of Palestine and Lebanon. (with citation of Israeli documents dated 1952 and 1954)

Last sentence of the paragraph was omitted by Zero0000. It reads Israel's relative prosperity continued to exert a magnetic power.

The line is footnoted as follows: 'The Situation along the Israel-Jordan Border and Proposals to Ameliorate It'. Y. Palmon, undated (emphasis added ), but with a covering note, B. Yakutieli to Rafael, 25 Feb, 1954, ISA PMO 5433/23. See also 'Arab Infiltration into Israel', ed. Z. Ne'eman, Israel Foreign Ministry Research Dept., 10 July[sic] 1952 ISA FM 2474/13 aleph. OneVoice 22:09, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Those of us who are familiar with OneVoice's style will not be surprised that yet again he is trying to deceive us. Whereas Morris said "perhaps as many as 200,000", OneVoice said "approximately 200,000". Much worse, Morris said "Palestine and Lebanon" but OneVoice dropped off Lebanon. Morris wrote "from the desert to the prospering coastal areas" but OneVoice wrote "to the area [that is, to Palestine]...from the desert" completely ignoring the fact that a large part of the desert was inside Palestine. Beyond these blatant distortions of the text, the paragraph in question is Morris's recounting of the opinions of "some Israeli officials". He doesn't say that he accepts this opinion! Of course Morris (as all historians of the subject) is well aware of the large body of scholarly literature that has established that most of the permanent Arab population movement into the coastal towns during the Mandate period came from the hilly semi-desert regions of what is now called the West Bank. As for the Ottoman period, the coastal towns did not grow particularly in relation to the inland areas at all (see Ruth Kark's study). There's no reason Morris should elaborate on this in his book because it is off-topic; he is just mentioning one Israeli opinion in passing before moving on to things he considers more important. --Zero 02:19, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000 you left out the last sentence of that paragraph...Israel's relative prosperity continued to exert a magnetic power. The phrase "Some Israeli officials," applies to that one sentence only, not the entire paragraph. Morris does not indicate that Lebanon exerted a magnetic power over these immigrates. Why move from one relatively poor area to another, unless it is a staging ground to move to a relatively prosperous area. We see the same behavior in the migration of Gaza refugees to the relatively prosperous West Bank. OneVoice 13:24, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"continued to exert" means after 1948. Obviously. --Zero 21:41, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"continued to exert" refers to the last date in the paragraph: 1945. OneVoice 21:55, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, can we stop this edit war. I have asked both Stevertigo and UncleEd to take a look. Please join us at the Oasis. OneVoice 23:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Page protected

Page protected because of edit war. -- Viajero 23:27, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Page editted, Benny Morris's statements deleted by Viajero. Page protected by Viajero OneVoice 23:31, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

He protected the version prior to the reversion cycle (except for a non-controversial edit). That is what most sysops do. --Zero 00:31, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Morris on Arab immigration

What's wrong with included Morris's claim?

One noted historian, Benny Morris, holds that 200,000 Arabs from the desert moved into the coastal areas of Palestine and Lebanon due the relatively prosperous conditions.

Okay, maybe we could change noted historian to "historian". But if that's what the guy really says, it's his POV and he's entitled to it. I say unprotect the article put it back in. --Uncle Ed 20:17, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ed, please pay attention! Morris did not make that claim at all. He wouldn't make such a stupid claim and the only source OneVoice has does not show him making it. --Zero 22:36, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, Zero0000 and I both would like to read the following paragraph taken verbatim from Morris's book and decide what it means:

Some Israeli officials, trying to explain the persistence of the infiltration phenomenon during the 1950s, linked it to the bedouin life-style and to the urbanization and pauperization that had drawn or pushed thousands of rural Arabs to Palestine's burgeoning towns during Ottoman and British Mandate rule. Perhaps as many as 200,000 Arabs had moved, between 1930 and 1945, from the desert to the prospering coastal areas of Palestine and Lebanon. Israel's relative prosperity continued to exert a magnetic power.

The very last line has a footnote attached. The footnote reads as follows:

'The Situation along the Israel-Jordan Border and Proposals to Ameliorate It'. Y. Palmon, undated (emphasis added ), but with a covering note, B. Yakutieli to Rafael, 25 Feb, 1954, ISA PMO 5433/23. See also 'Arab Infiltration into Israel', ed. Z. Ne'eman, Israel Foreign Ministry Research Dept., 10 July 1952 ISA FM 2474/13 aleph.

Zero0000, could you check my quoting please. Errors are always possible. I may have made an error. That has happened before in my life. OneVoice 22:49, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've already explained this. One more time, Morris is describing a theory that was expounded by a few Israeli officials in the 1950s. He introduces that theory in the first sentence and then expands on it in the rest of the paragraph. The last sentence means "According to this theory, the phenomenon of Palestinians entering Israel in the 1950s was similar to the phenomenon of Arabs moving to the coastal plain prior to 1945." The use of the word "Israel" in the last sentence is enough to prove that it is not intended as an explanation of the previous sentence since Israel did not exist before 1948. Rather, it is a repetition of the first sentence and serves to summarise the paragraph.
   The footnote applies to the whole paragraph and not only to the last sentence; the officials listed in the footnote are the officials mentioned in the first sentence of the paragraph. I'm sure this understanding of the paragraph would be shared by anyone with experience of academic historical writing as it is an entirely standard paragraph structure. It is not regarded as necessary to add "according to X" on every sentence.
   As for Morris's own opinion of this 1950s theory, he doesn't give it in this paragraph at all. He certainly does not state that he agrees with it, or that he agrees with any of the claims that had been brought in support of it. To infer his opinion you have to read more of the section. His next paragraph begins "But the majority of observers looked to more specific and recent causes." and from the fact that he then forgets the 1950s theory altogether and spends a large part of his book on the specific and recent causes we can infer that he found the 1950s theory unconvincing.
   Returning to the sentence about the 200,000, Morris does not clearly indicate whether he believes it or whether he is merely reporting the claim. However, even if he clearly supported it, what would it mean? No distinction is made between "Palestine" and "Lebanon" and no definition of "the desert" is given. Remember that lots of Palestine was desert. It is not possible from this to infer anything quantitative about movement of people from outside Palestine to inside Palestine, which is what OneVoice is trying to do. Actually there is a significant literature on this topic which I partly alluded to above. Nothing in this paragraph suggests that Morris disagrees with the scholarly consensus.
   I'm writing this for people like Ed who may wish to understand the issues. As far as OneVoice is concerned, the moment he deliberately distorted the text (as I documented above) he forfeited his right to be treated as one of this group.
   --Zero 04:18, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It sounds like I'm in some sort of group :-) Hooray! I like togetherness...

It also sounds like the opinion cited is not that of Morris but of some former Israeli officials. Should the text say this?

Morris reports that various Israeli officials asserted in the 1950s that 20,000 to 200,000 Arabs moved to Palestine to enjoy the prosperity the Jews brought to the region?

Or something like this...

In the 1950s, various Israeli officials subscribed to the theory that 20,000 to 200,000 Arabs had moved to Palestine to enjoy the prosperity the Jewish immigrants brought to the region. (footnote or link to Morris) --Uncle Ed 16:38, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'll trust you judgement Ed. OneVoice 19:41, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, but One + Zero = infinite loop

No, seriously, I think we should work on it a bit more in talk first. Why don't you two discuss it and come to agreement on the wording of the Morris reference? You don't need me for that... --Uncle Ed 20:57, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The mention by Morris is a minor historical footnote that does not belong at all in our article. There are far more detailed analyses of this question that are much more deserving of mention. --Zero 00:49, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Would you like to add the "far more detailed analyses of this question" ? or choosing not to then to add Morris's material? OneVoice 02:17, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, would you like to add the material to which you are referring as an alternative to Morris's information OneVoice 15:17, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but since this concerns 20th century Palestine maybe it go in British Mandate of Palestine. --Uncle Ed 21:19, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

template

I've made a little table for the history of Palestine, as I saw this in the pages to split area: History of Palestine

The articles don't exist yet, so the Template shouldn't be inserted yet, and the articles listed overlap with many articles that do exist. Perhaps you should look over the existing articles first. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a need to split it. If the information was arranged in chronological order and redundant/duplicate material removed, it would be half the size and much more understandable. 24.64.166.191 06:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

for nineteen centuries

Someone replaced this sentence and Jayjg restored it: For nineteen hundred years afterwards, the region was subject to successive waves of invaders, each of which left some mark on its people and landscape. I don't like either version. The reason I don't like this one is that it sounds too much like the standard Zionist summary "The Jews were there, then it was a wild place for 1900 years, then the Jews returned." For one thing, the region was subject to successive waves of invaders before AD78 as well and I'm not sure there were fewer of them before than there were after. Of course these 1900 years are expanded on later in the article, but the dismissive way they are treated in the introduction is not right. Probably the introduction should be rewritten to a smaller size, with details left until later. How about an itemised time-line with about 20 steps starting with the earliest known inhabitation and ending in 1948? --Zero 01:49, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What it was replaced with was even more POV. Your suggestion is good. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Palestine - a Roman word...

Every source I have ever seen indicates that "Palestine" was a term introduced by the Romans, and not in use before that. Prior to the Roman conquest, the land was Canaan, or Judea & Samaria, but not Palestine. I don't know what source you got this from, and if you're right, then I apologize, but it sounds like the sort of thing that might have been invented (twisted just slightly) so as to give the current Arabs, likely not directly ethnically/genetically related to the Philistines, a stronger claim to the land. LordAmeth 17:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You should mistrust your sources if they make such elementary errors. As the article states, the name was used by the Greeks at least as early as 500BC. An internet resource unlikely to be spreading Arab propaganda is the Jewish Encyclopedia. --Zero 23:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think you misunderstod. the term 'palestine' comes from the old nation who lived on the cost at the time of the firat Temple. the Greek term was used to donate the part where they used to live. Calling entire Judea wpalestine' was done by the romens after thr Bar-Kosba revolt.

You might be confused with forms of the word philistine which was in existence before the Romans came along. The word palestine is just a bastardisation of the word philistine, but the philistines were long gone by the time the Romans arrived.

That's actualy correct, Philistine civilization did not exist at that time and for a long time, it seems many people confuse Philistin for Palestinian somehow, even though the word derived from it in my opinion.

What was Philistine "civilisation"? Philistine civilisation as a separate "thing" never really existed. There was a Philistine element added to Canaanite civilisation at about 1200 BCE that survived down to Roman times. From the time of their first settlement of the pentapolis, the bulk of the settlers had been Canaanites. They have remained in the area to the present day. Philistine civilisation survives as much as "Israelite civilisation". To claim otherwise is a distortion of history, and shows a pro-Jewish bias. John D. Croft 00:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Palestine" was once considered to include lands on the east side of the Jordan River

There is no indication of who "considered" this. Perfect example of "weasel words". Any objection to deleting this? 24.64.166.191 07:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC) So I have deleted the sentence: "Nevertheless, the fact that "Palestine" was once considered to include lands on the east side of the Jordan River continues even today to have significance in political discourse." If someone can say who "considered" this (and when) and tell us what this "political discourse" is about I will be interested to read it.24.64.166.191 04:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Zionists did, and many still do, and it is often brought up in political discource, particularly when people argue that Israel currently occupies only 17.5% of the original mandate.[5] Jayjg ^(talk) 17:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps could this map be of some interest : it seems the Roman Syria Palæstina was including some (much) of the geographical Transjordan, and much of Lebanon (Middle East map). |frdm¦✉|01:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)|

Palestinians "have not been able to return"

They are perfectly able to return - many live within easy walking distance from their homes. I have changed this to "have not been allowed to return".24.64.166.191 04:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should add the fact that they are denied citizenship everywhere in the Arab world, even if their families originated there. The refugees are being used as political pawns, by Arab governments in negotiations with Israel and the US.

Palestinians are unable to return. Till this day the Israeli government denies the right of return to the millions of Palestinian refugees. None have been compensated for their losses either, even when they have official documents asserting their legal rights of ownership in modern day Israel. Arab governments can not keep on accepting Palestinian refugees for demographic reasons. And importantly, many Palestinians do not want to be relocated or become citizens of other countries, they want to go back to their homeland - Deena

Its not relevant that other arab nations deny palestinian refugees citizenship and its racist. I am racially irish but if i were a refugee, it is not encumbant upon ireland to give me citizenship because of my racial background. If Ireland refused me it would not mitigate the actions of those that made me a refugee.

Australia accepted many refugees from vietnam in the 1970s. A large proportion of those were accepted in australia as refugees from refugee camps in asian nations such as Thailand and Malaysia. Should it be mentioned in the Vietnam article that capitalist asian nations refused to give these capitalist asian refugees citizenship as some sort of justification of vietnamese communist oppression? (Although Vietnam doesnt prevent these people from returning.) Is the fact that the post WW2 eastern european Jewish refugees were often refused citizenship in the UK, relevent to whether they could return to their original homes? When they were granted citizenship of the USA and Israel did that make their inability to return to homes in europe acceptable? aussietiger 14:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's be honest here, most claims based on passed history can only be relevant to a certain point. Philistins have mostly disapeared, true Israel appers in all Jewish book such as the promised land, but again what's important here, is what happened afer the second world war: Israel was created as a Jewish state, not any atate, a Jewish state, so that never agian Jews will be without a country, so they will have the possibility to defend themselves if needed. Of course based on these principals, a Jewish state cannot take the risk to have more Muslims, or Christians than Jews, or the sens of it will be lost. Also let's remember our history for a minute, the second world war was not the first time Jews were being exterminated... Balbylonians tried it, in Europe, England included and forever, the Jews have been first accepted, then after a period of prosperity, they usually were over taxed, then forced to conversion or killed, or thrown out, and that from the bible times. the history has been repeating itself over and over... that's why the creation of Israel was put in place. Now for Palestinian, has there been an injustice, I think yes probably, but not from the Jews, from the British mainly, that promised this land to both Jews and Palestinian, Jews didn't attack the muslum, muslim did. They though with good reason that they could easily overcome the few Jewish people that were there, but that was a mistake. But Israel, and the Jews were never responsable for Palestinian faith, the Arab world made it harder for them, for as long as they thought they could get rid of Israel. Today a few of these countries, have realized this won't happened, and today I think, a lot of Palestinian are being used and misguided in their belief. But to get back to my point earlier, Israel ws created as a Jewish democratic state, and as such, the right of return doesn't make sens to them anymore, 50 years ago, it wasn't such a problem, but today it would be suicidal

Wow...Are you kidding me? The Muslims attacked the Israelis? Let's see. Palestine was pretty much, let's say, it's own terrirory, since it wasn't an actual country. Now, the Jews come and take part of Palestine after the British gave it to them. All of a sudden, the Jews are taking over more and more Palestinian land, and the Palestinians arent going to take it any more and begin to attack the Jews. Now, who started this, the Jews who took over the land or the Palestinians who are pretty much getting their homes bulldozed and their lands taken...Hmm... Don't give me bullshit about the Muslims attacking Jews when you cant even spell Muslim and refuse to capitalize it for...some reason (which is pretty obvious)... And what does the history of Jews have to do with this? Jesus Christ, this is a joke. RIGHT NOW the palestinians are basically getting exterminated when it really comes down to it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.98.50 (talk) 05:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC) 

Hello folks lets calm down a little here. Going through the various points in turn we find

1. "Philistines have mostly disappeared" - this is untrue. Philistines/Palestinians are still very much present. Genetically studies show Palestinians are descendents of the same people who have lived in this country since the Neolithic. Many Jews show genetically they are descended from the same people (although since the diaspora other elements have been added. Ethiopian Jews look Ethiopian, Chinese Jews look Chinese). To this substrate population have been added various other Arab and Turkish elements, but this is true of all ethnicities (eg French for example).
2. "Injstice, not from the Jews, from the British mainly". This also is untrue. British rule in Palestine was more pro-Palestinian than it was pro-Jewish. And Britain has not ruled in Palestine since the late 1940s. The injustice suffered by Palestinians living in Palestine since then was at the hands of Jordanians and Egyptians and Israelis up until 1967, and since 1967, at the hands of the Israeli government. Until the Israeli government realises that dealing with the "Palestinian problem" means dealing with and removing these injustices, so the Palestinian problem will continue - to the detriment of the whole world.
3. "the Arab world". This is a concept that did not exist before the creation of the Arab League, and the dream of a unified Arab state. It remains a dream. The reality is that there are independent states - Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan etc, ruled by Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese and Jordanians. To blame these people for the treatment of Palestinians is a justifiable complaint by the Palestinians, but it does not justify poor treatment of Palestinians by the Jews of Israel. Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese all wish to see Palestinians being allowed to return to Paelstine, their homeland. Until Israel alows this there will be problems.
4. "Who started this"? It was the British, who promised Palestine to the Arabs in the McMahon letters to Feisal, who promised it to the Jews in the Balfour Declaration, and who tried to keep it for themselves in the Skes Picot Agreement. That is who started this. To blame Jews or to blame Palestinians is to engage in eye-for-eye reprisals that will lead back to David and Goliath and get us nowhere. The question is "who can finish this" and the answer to that one is that only the Israelis and Palestinians can finish this. Unfortunately for various reasons the Oslo accords were not honoured and the problem continues. Until Israel realises that its security depends upon the Palestinians "winning", and until the Palestinians realise their security depends upon the Israeli's "winning", and a genuine win-win solution is negotiated, so this problem will continue.

Hope this helps. John D. Croft 00:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Unfortunately for various reasons the Oslo accords were not honoured and the problem continues." Well . . . this part is rather vital, don't you think. Why gloss over it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.142.198 (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Israelite absorption of remaining Canaanites

Joshua 9:27 and preceding verses: "And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation and for the altar of the LORD, even unto this day, "

1 Kings 9:20: "And all the people who were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, who were not of the children of Israel their children who were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy—upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bond service unto this day."

These are traditionally understood as the origins of the class of people amongst the Jews known as the Nethinim, the ones mentioned in Joshua being from the city of Gibeon who made a treaty with the Israelites also specifically called Givonim in Jewish law, and the second group being referred to as the Servants of Solomon. Like the Kohanim (priests) and Levites they had a distinct role in Judaism being in charge of maintaining the Temple. They still existed as a distinct group amongst the Jews in the Persian period but are not mentioned later. Kuratowski's Ghost 01:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia article referred to above dates back to between 1901 and 1906 and discusses Syrian military districts created by the Caliph Omar in 636 and the Ottoman Empire's administrative districts as "present" geopolitical divisions of Palestine. The ancient article cited discusses neither ethnic/political nor territorial divisions by the Greeks; rather it notes a common practice of "foreign people" (e.g., Greek writers such as Hederodotus and Pliny) to apply the names of coastal regions to interior areas as well. If Zero wishes to quote an article, he should do so in context, which would include the following: " Vespasian officially designated the country as "Palestine" on the coins which he struck after the suppression of the Jewish insurrection in 70 C.E., implying thereby the territory of the Jews. The name is used in this sense by Christian authors beginning with Jerome, as well as by the Jewish writers (), while the Arabic "Filasṭin" is more restricted in meaning, denoting only Judea and Samaria."

The facts stand that the ancient Philistines occupied a small coastal area of Canaan, from which the area Palestine received it's name. As the Philistines were an ethnically and culturally Greek (Mycenean) people, the attempt to link the geography of "Palestine" and the ethnic/national identity of 20th century "Palestinians" -- Jew or Muslim -- appears to be an objectively useless exercise.

Philistines were not ethnically and culturally Mycenaeans. They had a small Mycenaean admixtre to what was ethnically and culturally Canaanite. This is the group, who with equally small admixtures of Arab and Turkish elements are the Palestinians of today. This is objectively fact. John D. Croft 00:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

non-Jewish population

"The frequent conflict contributed to Jewish emigration, both as refugees, through deportation, and by reducing economic opportunities in the region. It also led to many deaths among the Jewish population - deaths in battles with the Romans and others, deaths due to massacres, and deaths due to the famine and disease that so often accompany armed conflict. However, the Jewish population in the north of Palestine remained large for several centuries." So who made up the remaining population? Were they immigrants from elsewhere or converts from Judaism? This article is totally ethnocentric - no mention of other peoples. Zionist. <------ The remainder were mostly Syrian/Aramean + Greek + Samaritan. Up until the point discussed in the article of which the person above complains, it had been about the Jews because the history of the Southern Levant had centered around them at least until them. They were along with the Samaritans, organic/indiginous people to the region and as such the article in that section leaves off explaining what happened to them. The writer above has clear antisemitic undertones in blambing everything on the 'Zionists'.

There is also a sizable Jewish contribution to the Palestinian population. After the Bar Kochba revolt, many Jews, in order not to lose their lands, converted to Cristianity. These people however, preferred Ebionite Christianity to Gentilic Catholic or Orthodox Christianity. They later adopted Arian and Nestorian positions. With the Arab conquest, many of them adopted Islam. Israeli Jews see Palestinians without realising that many Palestinians themselves are of Jewish descent. John D. Croft 00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Disproportion" of 1947 UN Partition Plan

The description of the Post-Mandate period states that the 1947 UN Partition Plan "divided the land disproportionately in favor of the Jewish population". What does that mean and what is one to make of it? Of tillable land of the wider region referred to as Palestine, only 10 percent was under cultivation by the mid-1800s, as Ottoman misgovernment had turned much of the territory into a wasteland. Of the area mandated to Britain by the League of Nations in 1921, 77% was transferred to Arab control (it became the Kingdom of Jordan eventually). Another 1% went to the French mandate of Syria in 1923. The remaining 22%, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, was then divided in 1947, 57% to Jews and 43% to Arabs. While out of context it may seem "disproportionate" to give the larger share to the smaller group, over 60% of the land mass assigned to the Jews consisted of the Negev desert, some of the Dead Sea and extensive swampland adjacent to Lake Tiberias; and Jerusalem, with its large Jewish population, was internationalized. The upshot of repeated granting of land to Arabs followed by "partition" was that the inhabited region of the new state of Israel comprised only some 6.7% of the land of mandated Palestine.

Assuming the accuracy of the above, describing the 1947 division as disproportionate is misleading in the overall perspective of the remainder of this article and seems to hint at some kind of unfairness underlying the disproportion. If the parenthetical phrase at issue here adds nothing other than snide insinuation to the article, let's strike it out as NPOV. Myron 03:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Article extremely POV

This article is so POV it gives me nausea. Just for example- the Israelites are described as "conquering, exterminating(!!!), and absorbing" neighboring people. I am not aware of anyone being "exterminated" by the israelites, who were by far the most humane of all the peoples in the area. Therefore I will be soon removing this offensive description. Just to show how POV this article is, the Philistines, who were by no means less brutal than the Israelis, are simply presented by name, with no reference to their many atrocities.
-Sangil 23:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually read Numbers or Deuteronomy? God commands the Israelites to massacre all the Canaanites, and not spare a single one. And then the Book of Joshua describes them as doing just that. I'm restoring the description. I can provide Biblical citations if needed. john k 05:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Deuteronomy - 020:017 - But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: PalestineRemembered 22:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The whole reason why the bible said this was that armies were setup with the soliders in the front. The women and the children were in the back, protected by the soliders. The tradition was that armies would fight each other front to front (solider against solider). The Amalaks attacked the defenseless women and children from the back. The Amalaks did not fight an ethical war. That was why the bible talks about destroying the Amalaks. They were viewed as unethical people.

This was in any case a particular point of view. We don't have the Amalak version of the events. We also don't even know if these were referring to contemporary events and it would seem to have been finally written centuries after the events described, for religious, theological and not historical purposes in mind. To claim that genocide was practiced is to confuse the evidence. In fact the people of Canaan, (even the Jews) were linguistically, ethnically, culturally and politically a Canaanite culture. John D. Croft 00:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also very POV the other(Zionist)way, look at the Israeli Period 1948 CE-Present section, it starts by saying "Jews restore their sovereignty over their ancient homeland", this provides no actual information, just showing a massive pro-israeli bias.

I concur to use the statement about sovereignty over "THEIR" is totally contrary to the previous historical statements about the orginal residents and later residents. The statement should be removed because it is a clear POV statement. Are the mexicans reclaiming their sovereignty over southern California or southern texas? shadeyoj

Syria Palaestina

The overall province that incorporated Judaea was Syria Palaestina, reintroducing an obscure name given to the region by the Greeks dating as far back as Herodotos (fl. 430BCE). The name, alluding to Biblical enemies of the Jews, was adopded to further mock the conquered nation.

Citation please for the latter claim? john k 05:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

conflicting facts on population data

Two parts of the article disagree with each other. I marked "citation needed" at each point, but I don't know where to find this data. Basically, both sections make claims about the portion of the population that was Jewish in 1920: one section says 11%, the other says 1%. History_of_Palestine#Ottoman_Period finishes with:

By 1920, the Jewish population of Palestine had reached 11% of the population.

While in the last paragraph of History_of_Palestine#The_British_Mandate_period it reads:

Between 1920 and 1945, Jews went from less than 1% to 31% [citation needed] of the rapidly expanding population. AdamRetchless 20:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to query the same thing - the sentence "By 1920, the Jewish population of Palestine had reached 11% of the population.[4]" doesn't match the reference. The figures given are 1922 and 11.14%. PalestineRemembered 22:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

In-Migration and Demographic Transformation: Palestine in 1882 had a small, native, and migrant religious Jewish community of roughly 24,000 among a Palestinian population of nearly 500,000. There were several waves of politically inspired immigration into the country. The first occurred between 1882 and 1903 and totaled about 25,000. The second, between 1904 and 1914, brought in around 35,000 immigrants, which resulted in a total Jewish population of 85,000. The third wave between 1919 and 1923 brought another 85,000 immigrants, mostly Polish and middle class. The December 1931 British census of the country showed that of the 1.04 million people, 84 percent were Arab and 16 percent were Jewish. While the increase in the Jewish population was due largely to in-migration, the Palestinian population increased naturally at 2.7 percent per year. Because of the rise of Nazism, 174,000 Jews migrated to Palestine between 1932 and 1936. Suddenly the Jewish population in Palestine rose to an estimated 28 percent of the total inhabitants. This radical change, occurring in a brief span of only five years, must certainly be recognized as an important cause of the Palestinian Arab rebellion of 1936 against British Mandate authorities. Both legal and illegal Jewish immigration (according to Mandate authorities) into Palestine increased during World War II and its aftermath. By the end of 1947, Palestine Mandate government estimates indicate that of a total population of 1.9 million, Jews made up only 31 percent. Thus, only a year before the state of Israel was unilaterally declared, the Jewish population constituted less than one-third the total inhabitants. Nevertheless, the Jewish minority in Palestine became a powerful community. http://www.palestinecenter.org/palestine/britishmandat.html

Removed reference to King David Hotel bombing

I shortened the opening sentence of History_of_Palestine#Post-Mandate, from

Soon after World War II, the British, after being attacked by extremist Zionist groups like the Irgun, King David Hotel bombing, decided to leave Palestine.

to

Soon after World War II, the British decided to leave Palestine.

The intervening phrase was inarticulate and redundant with the last sentence of the previous section. Perhaps it should be shortened to "the British left Palestine". AdamRetchless 20:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC) The bombing of the King David Hotel is a significant, if not dastardly historical event, and should be noted in any serious history. Saying the British "decided" to leave Palestine is definitely ambigous. They were there during the mandate, and they left when the mandate expired. They didn't simply "decide" to leave any more than they "decided' to leave Hong Kong in 1999. The lease expired and they were obligated to leave. Dave Fineberg

Palestine vs. Israel

I find something very disturbing... I know the Palestine argument is old but I still have a problem with this term. See, what I have come to notice is that from all the regions of the world; only this one seems to hold on to old histories, let me explain.

When you type France, you find information about the country France: geography, economy, and of course - history. When you enter the main article "History of France", you get this huge history span, back to the prehistoric times until the present modern times. Now I am sure that caveman didn't call this region France and that probably the name Gaul was used for a greater span of time, but somehow above the history overview box to the right you can see the flag of the French revolution under "History of France".

When you enter Iran, or more accurately the (State) Islamic Republic of Iran, and then dwell into its history article, once again the fact that the region was called "Persia" for many many years, is overlooked, and thus the history spans for, again, all history.

Prussia vs. Germany. Germany wins.

And these are only geographical regions I can think of, I'm sure every state in wikipedia has "History of (State)" and then this long box of history which spans from prehistory until modern time, except from... yep Israel .

Now the main arguments and the reason for this long "history of Palestine" instead of a long "history of Israel" article is that "changing" it from Palestine into Israel is a political and unhistorical move that has ulterior motives behind it to Judianise the region… well I have only one thing to tell you. You are too late since it was already changed from Palestine to Israel in 1948. --- Zalashkolina 19:00 December 2006 (UTC)

You have some good points here. In many ways this article is redundant to many existing articles like History of Israel. There seems to be this article too: History of the Levant. Amoruso 04:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Palestine is the common geographical name for the whole region of the former British Mandate, as well as the name of the hypothetical Arab polity that some believe should be created in all or part of it. The Levant is a broader term, also encompassing Syria and Lebanon. Israel is a name which refers either to an ancient kingdom that was destroyed in 722 BC, or to a polity created in 1948. Note, by comparison, History of Hungary, which only refers to the history of the region from the arrival of the Magyars; History of Poland, which only covers the time from the emergence of a Polish polity in the 10th century; History of England, which only has a very brief section about "England before the English;" History of El Salvador, which more or less begins with independence; History of the Central African Republic, whose main body begins with the establishment of a French colony there, and so forth. Many of the examples you give are entirely dubious - Germany and Iran aren't merely the names of modern polities, but long-standing geographical names (even if Iran wasn't generally used in English until recently). History of France has a whole of two tiny paragraphs about France before the arrival of the Franks. The treatment of Israel is not particularly different from that of any other state. john k 16:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hungary (like France) holds a full history overview box to the right with the flag of the country above it describing "ancient Hungary" with a title called "Hungary before the Magyars", just like "prehistoric France", "Celtic Gaul" and "roman Gaul" in the French history box+flag. Poland displays mainly history from 966, however has the same overview box with "until 966" title which leads to Prehistory of Poland (until 966) article. "England before the English" is exactly my point since it still emphasizes the fact of modern England and English [what about Israel before the Israelis, what? to political for you all of a sudden?]. Plus it holds, ones again, a history overview box titled "history of England" with, again, a flag of England above it, and, once again, holds a full history from prehistory until today. Central African Republic has all the rest of the history in the main page of the country and El Salvador has no ancient history at this point in wikipedia, but I'm sure that if it will be added, then we all know where it will be added to, either here: El Salvador or here: History of El Salvador.

If you would actually find a normal example (which I doubt) it's still going to be a minority to all other History of "Modern state" or Ancient history of "Modern State" articles.

I guess you don't understand my point. I am not trying to deny Palestine, it cannot be denied just like Persia or Gaul, I am just saying why can't Israel have the same history overview box with an Israeli flag above it with titles like:

History of Israel

• "Prehistoric Israel"
• "Ancient Israel"
• "Palestine"
• "Modern Israel"

Like evry other state has?

Why is this ok: "Iran after arrival of Islam" (History of Iran) (meaning saying modern Iran name when it's actualy Persia at the time), but this: "In 1516 the Ottoman Turks occupied Israel..." (History of Palestine) (meaning saying modern Israel name when it's actualy Palestine at the time) is not ok?

Especially when Israel was in the past (ancient Israel is really ancient Israel, unlike other ancient "state name") it exists today and it's not going anywhere anytime soon (that is until Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets nuclear weapons... :) ---Zalashkolina 6 December 17:32 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're up-in-arms. If Iran should be Persia, change it. Just like others change your Israel to Palestine. Another way to express this is "Palestine (now Israel)" to incorporate the idea that "Palestine" as a place no longer exists under that name. Maybe I'm missing your point here. Wjhonson 00:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to change Israel to Palestine, I want to do exactly the opposite, since all other countries have been already changed to their modern name (like Persia referred to as Iran, Palestine should be referred to as Israel = and that's by your rules...) and I am sorry if I come out too offensive... --- Zalashkolina 11:40 (UTC)

A bar like that would seem okay with me. Just so long as we don't call it "Israel" when it wasn't called that. john k 01:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so calling it Israel when it wasn't called that way is not okay with you? but this: "Cyrus II of Persia conquered the Babylonian Empire by 539 BCE and incorporated Palestine into the Persian Empire" (History of Palestine) is okay with you...? I just want to know the okay boundaries :) --- Zalashkolina 11:40 (UTC)

"Palestine" is generally considered to be a generic term for the southern part of the Levant for the whole period after "Canaan" becomes inappropriate. Certainly "Israel" isn't appropriate in 539 BC, and "Judaea" only refers to a small part of the region. john k 16:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Zalashkolina I have edited the area to which you were referring. I don't find it cites its sources for its peculiar interpretation of what occurred. The standard usage is that the Northern Kingdom was called Israel not Ephraim, and the area was called Judah and Israel, not Palestine. Wjhonson 18:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Palestine" is a concept that was introduced in 135 CE, and like it or not the southern Levant was referred to as Israel and/or Judah long before it and long after Canaan. Anyway, I still reject the fact that this article is the main history article for the region. -- Zalashkolina 9 December 15:40 (UTC)

That's nonsense. The term "Palestine" was used by Herodotus, and it was used by him in much the same sense as the modern sense (i.e., not just to refer to Philistia). john k 16:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. Show me one reference of Herodotus (or any other ancient source before 135 CE) to "Palestine". I have looked and looked and didn't find (I always find the same: "Palestine is a reference to ancient philistite introduced by Romans after bar-kohva revolt"). I have, however, found references to "Judah" during the Babylonian and Persian time for example:

"The discovery of some three hundred cuneiform tablets in a vaulted building near the Ishtar Gate in Babylon now makes possible an affirmative answer to this query... Jehoiachin (written Yaukin; an abreviated form of his name) is specifically described as "king of the land of Yahud." "Yahud" is a shortened for of Judah (Yehuda in Hebrew) which is well known in the period after the exile, when the small Jewish state stamped official jar handles and silver coins with the legend "Yehud"... One of the documents mentioning Yaukin is specifically dated 592 BC. At..."

http://www.theology.edu/lec23.htm --- Zalashkolina 9 December 2006 18:10 (UTC)

Herodotus 1.104-105:

Then the Medes fought with the Scythians, and having been worsted in the battle they lost their

power, and the Scythians obtained rule over all Asia. Thence they went on to invade Egypt; and when they were in Syria which is called Palestine, Psammetichos king of Egypt met them.

Herodotus 2.104:

The Phenicians and the Syrians[88] who dwell in Palestine confess themselves that they have learnt [of circumcision] from the Egyptians,

Herodotus 2.106:

The pillars which Sesostris of Egypt set up in the various countries are for the most part no longer to be seen extant; but in Syria Palestine I myself saw them existing with the inscription

upon them which I have mentioned and the emblem.

Herodotus 3.5:

Now by this way only is there a known entrance to Egypt: for from Phenicia to the borders of the city of Cadytis belongs to the Syrians[4] who are called of Palestine,

Herodotus 3.91:

From that division which begins with the city of

Posideion, founded by Amphilochos the son of Amphiaraos on the borders of the Kilikians and the Syrians, and extends as far as Egypt, not including the territory of the Arabians (for this was free from payment), the amount was three hundred and fifty talents; and in this division are the whole of Phenicia and Syria which is called Palestine and Cyprus: this is the fifth division.

Herodotus 4.39:

Now in the line stretching to Phenicia from the land of the Persians the land is broad

and the space abundant, but after Phenicia this peninsula goes by the shore of our Sea along Palestine, Syria, and Egypt, where it ends;

Herodotus 7.89:

Of the triremes the number proved to be one thousand two hundred and seven, and these were they who furnished them:--the Phenicians, together with the Syrians[82] who dwell in Palestine furnished three hundred; and they were equipped thus, that is to say, they had about their heads leathern caps made very nearly in the Hellenic fashion, and they wore corslets of linen, and had shields without rims and javelins. These Phenicians dwelt in ancient time, as they themselves report, upon the Erythraian Sea, and thence they passed over and dwell in the country along the sea coast of Syria; and this part of Syria and all as far as Egypt is called Palestine.

Josephus, Antiquities, 1.6.2.:

Now all the children of Mesraim, being eight in number, possessed the country from Gaza to Egypt, though it retained the name of one only, the Philistim; for the Greeks call part of that country

Palestine.

ibid 1.6.4:

Of the four sons of Aram, Uz founded Trachonitis and Damascus: this country lies between Palestine and Celesyria.

ibid. 1.12.1:

Abraham now removed to Gerar of Palestine, leading Sarah along with him,

ibid 7.10.3:

Now Herodotus of Halicarnassus mentions this expedition, having only mistaken the king's name; and [in saying that] he made war upon many other nations also, and brought Syria of Palestine into subjection, and took the men that were therein prisoners without fighting. Now it is manifest that he intended to declare that our nation was subdued by him; for he saith that he left behind him pillars in the land of those that delivered themselves up to him without fighting, and engraved upon them the secret parts of women. Now our king Rehoboam delivered up our city without fighting. He says withal (27) that the Ethiopians learned to circumcise their privy parts from the Egyptians, with this addition, that the Phoenicians and Syrians that live in Palestine confess that they learned it of the Egyptians. Yet it is evident that no other of the Syrians that live in Palestine, besides us alone, are circumcised. But as to such matters, let every one speak what is agreeable to his own opinion.

In this instance, where Josephus is describing Shishak's expedition, he seems to be clearly indicating that the Greeks used "Syria of Palestine" to mean the area including Judaea, and further, he states that the circumcised "Syrians of Palestine" referred to by Herodotus must be the Jews. So clearly Josephus is acknowledging that the term is being used by Herodotus to refer to not just Philistia. I think I'll stop there, having demonstrated my point. john k 19:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Herodotus was greek thus he named the area after the greek philistites, and his work has gone translatin changes through the years. Josephus was influenced by the romans and again his work has gone translation changes probebly again in the roman period after 135. The evidence I gave you was only one of actual archiological evidence.

Anyway that's not my point - Why are you deliberately and forcibly trying to find something that will contradict the truth? Why can't you accept that every state or history of state articles in wikipedia include most parts of the history in that state's modern Geographical region except from Israel? I mean that's all the point in history of – the history of what at this point is modern, and at this point most of the geographical area of "Palestine" is called Israel.

Today Israel is what describes this area and you can ask any child about it, Palestine is the name that he will learn only after growing up and then listening to the 6 o'clock news about "Palestinians under attack from Israel" or whatever. Just like Iran describes Persia today, France = Gaul and Germany = Prussia (and this is clearly shown in all the history pages of Iran, France and Germany), Israel describes Palestine Today. It's as simple as that. Today there is no Palestine (since even the so called Palestinian territories are under Israel's, rightful if I might add personally, control). Go and ask somebody from the street 2 questions: what is Palestine, and what is Israel. Do you really think that he will not struggle with the first question? (And even if for some reason he won't then I AM talking about the ORDINERY day to day man).

I DO NOT DENY PALESTINE, but the main history for this region should be "history of Israel" and not "history of Palestine". The same rules should apply for Israel, just like they apply to Iran, France etc, and for the very smart reason of addressing to every regular day to day person who hears about "Israel" in that troubled Middle East, and then wants to know about its region's history in wikipedia, there can learn about the palestine period as much as he likes. --Zalashkolina

16:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving the goalposts, I see. And, no, there are no "translation changes" coming after 135. Herodotus uses "Palaistina" in Greek. He is specifically referring to the whole area between Phoenicia and Egypt as "Palestine." Also, Israel is not the name for the whole region of the pre-1948 mandate. It is only the name of the areas within the Green Line. The only name which can be used for the whole pre-1948 mandate is "Palestine". To discuss the history of a region including Gaza and Nablus in History of Israel would be outrageous. And it makes no sense to use the artificial green line boundaries as the basis for historical articles referring to a period before they existed. john k 17:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

So it does not have to include Gaza or Shekhem, that's fine by me (although not that fine by history). Anyway I am not going to argue with you on ancient articles or archeology so I'm going to add some ancient history and the history overview box to history of Israel like every country has. -- Zalashkolina 14:52 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I’m new here and couldn’t help but agree with Zalashkolina. The first time the name Palestine was used was in 70 A.D. when the Romans committed genocide against the Jews, smashed the Temple and declared the land of Israel would be no more. From then on, the Romans promised, it would be known as Palestine. The name was derived from the Philistines, a Goliathian people conquered by the Jews centuries earlier. It was a way for the Romans to add insult to injury. They also tried to change the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, but that had even less staying power.

Palestine has never existed, before or since, as an autonomous entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I under the British Mandate for Palestine. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland. So what’s the problem here? The territory once called Palestine doesn’t exist in modern times but was only a geographic partition (area), and not a demographic one.

For example I give a name to a geographic unincorporated area within, lets say France, and called it XYZ. After a while a bunch of people set up some boxes and tree houses and refer to themselves as XYZians (a bunch of disgruntled French citizens and transients). But the XYZians are still governed by France. None-the-less XYZians are a demographic make-up within a geographic area. Now Spain conquers France and the new rulers decide to slice up France and call it the XYZ Territory. Meant to insult the conquered French... Haha!! The International communities are outraged sign a peace treaty with Spain for non-aggression that includes interim governance of the territories of XYZ. The Spanish Mandate for XYZ is established! Spain allows the disenfranchised French people to create a new French State. But now the XYZians are pissed that the French reconstituted and are moving back in droves… Soon neighboring disputes absorbs the remaining XYZ Territories and XYZ vanishes into never-never-land… With most of the territories going to Germany and Spain… But wait!! The disenfranchised XYZians are now pissed and want their tree-house homeland re-established. The XYZians are up in arms!! They call foul and say we want a separate State!! All the neighboring states and New France laugh… XYZians were an invention within a once pre-existing country called France, so go scratch… But wait again!! XYZians are making secret negotiations with Germany to sympathize with their cause because Germany hates the French and wants to help disrupt the new France and destroy them… The aid and terrorist attacks begin!! New France is fighting the insurgence of the German supplied XYZians they once hosted….. Sound familiar???

So…

There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs plain and simple. There is no real so-called History of Palestine in terms of demographics or in an ethnic sense. Only a disambiguation to distinguish an historical reference that is arguable…

I wish people would quit making attempts to re-write history!

By the way I am of Hungarian/Polish decent and could care less on taking sides. Bellagio 11:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of your statements are wrong, but mostly they are irrelevant. As it says right at the start of the article, this is the history of a geographical region. Not the history of a state, nor the history of a language group, nor the history of an ethnic group. A geographic region. That region is called "Palestine" by almost all historians, including almost all Israeli historians, unless they are specifically refering to history since 1948. We have no excuse not to do the same. --Zero^talk 13:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

My remarks are not made in an attempt to deny a Palestine History but only argue its relevance pre-dating 1917 as an attempt to credit some idea there was a historic demographic Palestine. As pointed out by a previous gentleman geographic Israel pre-dates a geographic Palestine history by thousands of years. Palestine should be within the context of an Israel geographic history as well as demographic that dates 1000’s of years before at the time of Moses and not Israel being within the context of a Palestine history which has no demographic history. Palestine is wrongly given the distinction of a history, with assumed demographics, that dates back 1000’s of years when it is in fact the land of Israel that has this distinction. I see no reference to the Land of Palestine in any stretch of the imagination, except re-written history, mentioned before the Hellenistic Period. And for that matter before 1917!. That is what I pointed out as attempts of disambiguation that result in re-writing history of Israel vs Palestine. And for the accuracy of what I have stated I will correct the fact that I condoned a distortion when referring to the region correctly called Palæstina by the Romans in 70AD. Palestine is more a slang then history and a disambiguation of a name, which has re-written historical facts to be politically correct and appease argument of an historic Palestine.

For Christ sakes… The entry for “The History of Palestine” dates back to the dinosaurs! This is an outrageous distortion and leaves Israel, with a history that dates back to 1948 and puts Israel into a context of a Paliestine history. Gimme a break! And further lends to the idea that Israel never existed in terms of demographics before 1948 within the entry "History of Israel". Of course you read the entire entry and it vaguely clarifies Israel demographics before the Modern State of Israel was achieved in 1948.

I say call Palestine what it is in terms a relevance to the relationship of Israel or Land of Israel… The history of Palestine should be correctly called “The Land of Palestine” which arguably dates back before 1917! Or give the entry “The History of Israel” the same licenses to date back to Moses and Abraham or even the Dinosaurs the same as “The History of Palestine” and put Palestine into the context of an Israel history.

That is what is being argued here….. Neutrality. A perceptual distortion.

So my solution is to remove the entry “The History of Palestine” and re-name it “The Land of Palestine”, because there is no “History of Palestine” that has a distinction of demographics that lend to any idea that a Palestine ever existed that was ruled by Palestinians! This is the outrageous distortion that should be made clear and to stop playing political correctness to the idea that a Palestinian demographics/state or people ever existed!

Mmm… I enter “Land of Israel” and… yup, there it is. But I enter “Land of Palestine” and… nope! Not there… So who is distorting who’s history??? Bellagio 22:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a note explaining my recent edit 28/12/06

I'm a new user, and so when I made a minor edit earlier today, forgot to tick the 'minor edit' box or explain the nature of the edit. So if anyone's interested, I just corrected the mis-spellings of 'archaeologist' and related words! Ab0u5061 14:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

There is currently a debate at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance about whether or not the Mongols captured Jerusalem in 1300. We would appreciate opinions from other editors who are familiar with the subject matter. --Elonka 16:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(followup) This dispute has continued and expanded, and a formal RfC has been filed. Disputed issues include (1) Was there a major alliance between the Crusaders and the Mongols? (2) How should the Wikipedia article be titled? "Franco-Mongol alliance"? Or "Crusader-Mongol relations" or something else? (3) Did the Mongols conquer Jerusalem in 1300? (4) How many and what types of primary source quotes are appropriate to use for this subject? (5) Were the Knights Templar major proponents of an alliance with the Mongols? (6) Was Jacques de Molay, Grand Master of the Knights Templar, present at a combined Christian-Mongol capture of Jerusalem in 1299/1300? Any opinions on these questions would be appreciated at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Request for comment. --Elonka 10:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)