let's talk about this actually. i am not qualified to talk about modern geopolitics or the experience of being palestinian because i am a disapora jew with two degrees in theology. but having two master's degrees in theology means i know a lot about the history of the near middle east necessarily. some form of the name "palestine" originates as far back as 1150 BCE, appearing in Egyptian records as "P-r-s-t", Peleset. later it appears as Pəlīštīm, perhaps a form of "Philistia," a region that now corresponds to roughly the area of the modern Gaza Strip. (according to many rabbis, "philistine" was just a term referring to non-Israelites in the promised land- the contemporary pejorative usage is a largely christian invention). the word "Palestine" as we know it comes from Koine Greek, the language of the original gospels, and was used by Herodotus. finally, the Roman province that incorporated Judaea and other territories was named Syria Palestina after the Bar Kokhba revolt; but the name "Palestine" is used by Roman and Greek writers and poets to refer to this region in the centuries leading up to and after the death of Christ. so yes, that area was very much called Palestine. that land is Palestine. like all land there are many names you can use for it, but unlike most land it's name can be used to enfranchise or disenfranchise certain groups at will. but the point is that Jesus was very much considered a Palestinian- in contrast to a roman- by the authority which occupied his ancestral homeland at the time.
so for a moment here, let’s assume that "Palestinian isn’t a national or ethnic designation, but a ontological state of being. a term referring to a person who is born in a specific region, once occupied by the Romans, now occupied by Israel, the land that was once referred to as [name], who is denied full rights of citizenship within that land, whose movement is restricted, whose revolutions are viewed as terrorism (since, of course, the historic Jesus was one of a number of Messianic leaders who emerged during the 1st century, all of whom were violently suppressed by the Romans), and who is deprived certain essential dignities like a fair trial. Jesus was treated to crucifixion because he was not Roman- because he was from Syria Palestine. crucifixion was the most base and painful method of execution and it was reserved for non-Romans, for those denied basic rights and citizenship by the occupying authority. and we might say that Jesus was executed because he was Jewish, but this would be rather incorrect. the Romans didn't like Jews, but they also did not conceive of racial and ethnic divisions- of racism- the way contemporary civilization does. you were either Roman or you weren't. if you weren't, you were a thing. the historic Jesus, whatever you conceive him to be, was such a thing. he was a man cut down for speaking against the authority that oppressed and occupied his homeland, the homeland which is Palestine. when you strip back the mythology, the miracles, the perceptions of divinity, that is all he was. he was as ordinary as any Palestinian. or we might say, any Palestinian is as divinely important, as worthy of grace, freedom, and the right to live. to privilege an idea over the real, tangible human lives around you in favour of semantics is truly devastating. a true loss of humanity. I'll pray for you.
but i can't talk about what is or isn't a Palestinian. what i can do is look at your other comments where you imply the Jews are indigenous to Palestine (or, by your measure, Israel), and respond to that, because I am one: a Jew, that is. I'm very familiar with genocide and how the second step (we'll get to step one later) to every good genocide is the deprivation of rights and privileges, such as full citizenship and fair trial, to a group by an authority. (like I said I'll get to step one later.) the problem with implying that Jews are indigenous to Israel after two thousand years of diaspora is that you imply that they are not indigenous to the diaspora: to the regions of Europe and elsewhere where the Jews settled and were eventually rounded up and systematically killed because they were not viewed as full citizens, as real people, belonging to that region. and further, you ignore the movement of Jews in the decades and centuries before the destruction of the Second Temple and the expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem (and, funnily enough, how the first group to allow the Jews back into Jerusalem after this expulsion was the Islamic caliphate).
when you imply that the Jews are indigenous to the region now known as Israel, you inherently imply that Jews are not indigenous elsewhere. that they do not belong outside of Israel. that they can go back where they came from- which is, at it's core, essentially a mindset of ghettoization. you are already at step one if you think the indigeneity of the Jews is dependent on a geopolitical space from which all Jews come, to which all Jews can go. i would suggest you read a book other than the bible for more information, since the bible- like all 2000 year old books, and i say this with love as someone who has spent the better part of my life reading that book- should not be taken as a guide for 21st century geopolitical conflict.
anyway, vive la palestine.
prguitarman
origamiaround
romaincrisis
