Changing territorial names doesn't alter DNA/genes
I do not understand your post. What do you mean Jordan existed on .... same areas that is now Palestine? That is not true.
Originally Posted by Gilos
Are you trying to say that if a "people" of similar origins exist in a region then there should not be different countries, one of which might be Palestine (modern context)? Go tell that to the people of Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and northern Argentina. Did the Latvian people cease to exist in 1215?
There is such a thing as history and political consequences. When the allies approved the carve-up of the Middle East after WW1, that created the new reality. Iraq never existed before but few argue today that the Iraqi people have no right to exist as an entity until some new political reality appears. No-one denies the existence of the Portuguese people as an entity. Nor the Namibians. The people of Alsace exist no matter whether the country is part of France or Germany. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous, and the same applies to the Palestinian people.
Your attempted argument that Palestine does not have a right to exist because there is no such historical thing as the Palestinian people, leaks logic from every pore.
What counts is that people have been living in what we now call Palestine since time immemorial. When Abram appeared on the scene, there were no Jews there. Zero, zip, nada. There were Canaanites and other tribes. As political realities changed, most, but not all, of these converted to Judaism. Modern studies suggest that the Jews originated as a religious sect amongst the people of Canaan, which progressively differentiated itself. When Jesus and the Romans got involved many of the same people converted to Christianity. And then when Mohammed created yet another new political reality most of these same people converted to Islam.
Do any of these political coincidences mean that a people with collectively similar genes lived in what we now know as Palestine for tens of thousands of years? If so, why should they not have their own territory within the confines of modern political realities?
Or, to repeat a previous question I posed to you, is your justification that Palestine in fact became almost empty at some stage, only to be filled by foreign immigrants over the past century? If so, I am happy to debate that myth, but don't continue to insult us by pretending that name changes can obliterate an indigenous people of more than 5 millennia and negate the right for there to be a country to accommodate them.
I deal in facts. If anyone finds 'facts' to be anti-Semetic; Jew hating, neo-Nazi; Islamo-fascist, etc, I disclaim any responsibility for their delusions