Palestinian does not have any rights

[P F Tinmore]

As I said before ,if Israel would not be under a security threat from the Palestinians , there would be no walls no checkpoints and everyone could go where ever they please.

You can't expect Israel to let Palestinians cross freely into Israeli territory when there is a real risk that one of them can blow himself in a bus station,coffee shop or a night club.
This is not some kind of paranoid scenario, all of those bombings did happen.

Palestinians can't have it both ways on the one hand saying "Death to Israel" , launching rockets , suicide bombing, and on the other hand saying "Evil Israel don't let us through".

Your picking up the story in the middle. You have to start at the beginning.

So you agree that it is unreasonable that Palestinians would be free to roam Israel without a search in the current situation.

So we are back at 'who was here first'?
well first of all it is not relevant to the here and now. Even if Arabs were here first, it doesn't matter to the here and now. You can't expect Israel to let potential bombs insides its territory because 'They were here first.'

And besides they weren't here first:
the United Kingdom of Israel was established in 1020 BC and split within a century to form the northern Kingdom of Israel, and the southern Kingdom of Judah.

This happen long before any Arab set foot on this land, and also about 1500 years before the Muslim Prophet Muhammad was born.

So are you saying that around 1020 BC there were no other people there but Jews?

 

[Wolverine1984]

Your picking up the story in the middle. You have to start at the beginning.

So you agree that it is unreasonable that Palestinians would be free to roam Israel without a search in the current situation.

So we are back at 'who was here first'?
well first of all it is not relevant to the here and now. Even if Arabs were here first, it doesn't matter to the here and now. You can't expect Israel to let potential bombs insides its territory because 'They were here first.'

And besides they weren't here first:
the United Kingdom of Israel was established in 1020 BC and split within a century to form the northern Kingdom of Israel, and the southern Kingdom of Judah.

This happen long before any Arab set foot on this land, and also about 1500 years before the Muslim Prophet Muhammad was born.

So are you saying that around 1020 BC there were no other people there but Jews?

That's irrelevant if there were other people in those lands.
I'm saying that around 1020BC there were defiantly no Arabs in those lands.
I'm saying that around 1020BC there was a Kingdom of Israel in those lands and Jerusalem was it's Capitol.

Based on this I'm saying that your argument "Arabs were here first" is void.
And as I said before even if they were here first, it would not help support your argument that Palestinians are not allowed to move freely in Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So you agree that it is unreasonable that Palestinians would be free to roam Israel without a search in the current situation.

So we are back at 'who was here first'?
well first of all it is not relevant to the here and now. Even if Arabs were here first, it doesn't matter to the here and now. You can't expect Israel to let potential bombs insides its territory because 'They were here first.'

And besides they weren't here first:
the United Kingdom of Israel was established in 1020 BC and split within a century to form the northern Kingdom of Israel, and the southern Kingdom of Judah.

This happen long before any Arab set foot on this land, and also about 1500 years before the Muslim Prophet Muhammad was born.

So are you saying that around 1020 BC there were no other people there but Jews?

That's irrelevant if there were other people in those lands.
I'm saying that around 1020BC there were defiantly no Arabs in those lands.
I'm saying that around 1020BC there was a Kingdom of Israel in those lands and Jerusalem was it's Capitol.

Based on this I'm saying that your argument "Arabs were here first" is void.
And as I said before even if they were here first, it would not help support your argument that Palestinians are not allowed to move freely in Israel.

I never stated that Arabs were there first.

 

[docmauser1]

I never stated that Arabs were there first.

Excellent! Now that we have no doubts about that, we may ask why do arabs go on dreaming about grabbing what isn't theirs?

 

[Wolverine1984]

So are you saying that around 1020 BC there were no other people there but Jews?

That's irrelevant if there were other people in those lands.
I'm saying that around 1020BC there were defiantly no Arabs in those lands.
I'm saying that around 1020BC there was a Kingdom of Israel in those lands and Jerusalem was it's Capitol.

Based on this I'm saying that your argument "Arabs were here first" is void.
And as I said before even if they were here first, it would not help support your argument that Palestinians are not allowed to move freely in Israel.

I never stated that Arabs were there first.

Very good, that settles it then.