listen.

i'm just as into phoenicianism, and coptism - and, berberism, too!

the historical record is pretty clear that the initial arab conquerors were so dark-skinned as to nearly be black, and that is something that you only really see today in the very south of the arabian peninsula. just on purely logical grounds, it's hard to take this idea that a couple of million arabs - if that - were able to depopulate and displace two thirds of the roman empire, and the entirety of the persian one in a couple of decades. nor does history uphold the idea that the arabs carried out the kind of rape and mass slaughter that the mongols did (and that explains why such a huge percentage of the historically persian areas are today majority turkic).

the arabs followed mallory's "elite dominance" model. they took over the government, and they certainly left some genetic evidence behind, but they did not replace the existing populations. they didn't even enforce their religion, at first. arabization was a slow, cultural process driven by carrots and sticks. so, the libyans are berbers, and the egyptians are copts and the lebanese are phonenicians and the syrians are just that, too - they've just all been colonized by arabs and lost their identities.

this is why decolonization also means dearabization.

to suggest something different for the palestinians would be inconsistent, to present a special case. and, the evidence is perhaps even stronger for jewish continuity than it is for, say, babylonian continuity, given that there was a stage of persian colonization in mesopotamia, as well.