It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Also in the top there is acknowledgment that Palestine - was a name given by Romans!!!True. But they appeared in the area only in 200BC. When last Philistine city was destroyed and its population changed for more then century.
And the name was changed to Palestine by Romans only in the 1AD. It is also elegantly not noticed.
And the main thing - since author also does not think that the name alone is not enough for claims - there is no proof that it is the same population.
No where.
By the way - if you are correct and Palestinians now are really descendent's of ancient Philistine, why there was no unique national identity for more then 3 thousand years?
Originally posted by Founding
reply to post by pepsi78
I like how you use a quote with the words some and imply that it proves all your points.
Why don't you look around the link I posed some more. You will find that both jews and arabs share a genetic link with the ancient population of Israel.
People in the Arabic world have forgotten who they are. The people of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and even some "Palestinians," are not Arabs at all. Instead, they are descendents of very ancient peoples, with different cultural and ethnic origins.
Militant Arabs invaded these lands in the 7th century A.D. and forced "Arabic" culture on their ancestors. Mohammad’s new religion of Islam sought world dominion through coerced unity, crushing cultural diversity. But this doesn’t change the original history of the region and its inhabitants’ true, non-Arab ethnic identity.
psychological attack on jews
In 604 BCE, when Assyrian troops commanded by the Babylonian empire carried off significant numbers of the population into slavery, the distinctly Philistine character of the coastal cities dwindled away,[16][18] and the history of the Philistine people effectively ended.[
If it is true or not, there is no mention of anything linked to Philistine culture or identity after that. And it is a fact. There is Greece, but it is not the same Greeks. There is Italy - but it is not same people. And hundreds of similar examples. And yet Philistines - that actually ruled over 1/10th of area (grey area)
And (b) is even more absurd. Canaanites were there before Philistines or Israelis. They could not disappear. So they are real Palestinians?
Ow, wait - there were people before them. They are native population? Or people before them? Or those before them? We stop where it is politically convenient to stop, i think. Are all people who live now in England/Scotland/Wales actually Gaels/Picts? According to this logic native people all over the globe hide behind facade of its conquerors.
And as for only millions remain now from most important and largest groups nonsense - look at the map. Philistines controlled actually pretty small area. It was not most numerous group simply because it disappeared from the area (in the same conditions of constant warfare and turmoil) much earlier then its local rivals.
And unlike its rivals it disappeared from pages of history too.
Philistines were able (c. 1050) to occupy part of the Judaean hill country. They were finally defeated by the Israelite king David (10th century), and thereafter their history was that of individual cities rather than of a people. After the division of Judah and Israel (10th century), the Philistines regained their independence and often engaged in border battles with those kingdoms.
The Philistines long held a monopoly on smithing iron, a skill probably acquired in Anatolia. At sites occupied by the Philistines at an early period, a distinctive type of pottery, a variety of the 13th-century Mycenaean styles, has been found.
Just that they have nothing in common with ancient Philistines.
Exept name given to larger geographical area by Romans after Philistines were long gone and long before first attempt to self-determination by Arabs living in British colony of Palestine was made.
Philistines were able (c. 1050) to occupy part of the Judaean hill country. They were finally defeated by the Israelite king David (10th century), and thereafter their history was that of individual cities rather than of a people. After the division of Judah and Israel (10th century), the Philistines regained their independence and often engaged in border battles with those kingdoms.
The Philistines long held a monopoly on smithing iron, a skill probably acquired in Anatolia. At sites occupied by the Philistines at an early period, a distinctive type of pottery, a variety of the 13th-century Mycenaean styles, has been found.
Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
It is not hard to swollow that there were indeed Philistine people, with tradition,culture and all that is needed for self-definition.
They had nothing in common with current Palestinians exept similar name.
It is also not hard to swollow that there are now Palestinian people with tradition ,culture and all that is needed for self definition.
Just that they have nothing in common with ancient Philistines. Exept name given to larger geographical area by Romans after Philistines were long gone and long before first attempt to self-determination by Arabs living in British colony of Palestine was made.
But between disspaearence of the first and birth of a second nation there is 3 thousnd year gap without anything filling it! Nothing connects between two groups as far as nations are considered. 3000 years of silence.
During which those two totally different ethnic groops:
not only had nothing in common
but also did not exist.
American historian Bernard Lewis writes:
Palestinians, like most other Arabic-speakers today commonly called Arabs, are said to combine ancestries from those who have come to settle their respective regions throughout history and the pre-existing ancient inhabitants; a matter on which genetic evidence described below has begun to shed some light.[63]
"Clearly, in Palestine as elsewhere in the Middle East, the modern inhabitants include among their ancestors those who lived in the country in antiquity. Equally obviously, the demographic mix was greatly modified over the centuries by migration, deportation, immigration, and settlement. This was particularly true in Palestine..."[64]
Near Medina was a castle of Jews, against whom Muhammad was already incensed because of their disrespect or his theology. They had shown a disposition to side with the probable victor in this last struggle, and Muhammad now fell upon- them, slew all the men, nine hundred of them, and enslaved the women and children. Possibly many of their late allies were among the bidders for these slaves. Never again after this quaint failure did Mecca make an effective rally against Muhammad, and one by one its leading men came over to his side.
Thereafter his power extended, there were battles, treacheries, massacres; but on the whole he prevailed, until he was master of all Arabia; and when he was master of all Arabia in 632, at the age of sixty-two, he died.
Throughout the concluding eleven years of his life after the Hegira, there is little to distinguish the general conduct of Muhammad from that of any other welder of peoples into a monarchy. The chief difference is his use of a religion of his own creation as his cement. He was diplomatic, treacherous, ruthless, or compromising as the occasion required and as any other Arab king might have been in his place; and there was singularly little spirituality in his kingship. Nor was his domestic life power and freedom one of exceptional edification. Until the death of Kadija, when he was fifty, he seems to have been the honest husband of one wife; but then, as many men do in their declining years, he developed a disagreeably strong interest in women.
These are salient facts in these last eleven years of Muhammad's career. Because he, too, founded a great religion, there are those who write of this evidently lustful and rather shifty leader as though he were a man to put beside Jesus of Nazareth or Gautama or Mani. But it is surely manifest that he was a being of a commoner clay; he was vain egotistical, tyrannous, and a self-deceiver; and it would throw all our history out of proportion if, out of an insincere deference to the possible Moslem reader, we were to present him in any other light.