"Free Palestine

[docmauser1]

... the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, ...

If our honorable beaten P F Tinmore says so, of course.

 

[docmauser1]

No they don't. Descendants of murderous squatters have to right to that which belongs to others. They declared war. They lost. By what right do squatters who initiated a war have the right to that which they never owned in the first place?

They aren't squatters.

But of course, they are.

 

[docmauser1]

I had no idea that all Palestinians are terrorists.

Nah. Not all of them, indeed. It's just all of them support terrorism and wait till it "succeeds" to rush in and take a jewish home over, of course.

 

[Challenger]

Well....maybe. Daher el-Omar ruled most of Palestine as an independant Emirate from 1730 to 1775. Daher was a native Palestinian. That should count.

Interesting...I did not know that

Me neither, until I found out about it researching something else.

So he ruled the NORTERN PART OF PALESTINE not all of it. And this does not mean that Palestine was a nation does it ?

Another fail

You said there was no evidence of a Palestinian state until 1988, look you said it here:

....there is no evidence of there ever being a Palestinian state until 1988

I provided you with some evidence for a Palestinian state before 1988, seems you are moving the goalposts again.

NO you didn't you provided the name of a person that ruled over a province in the north of Palestine, you did not prove the existence of a nation or state by that name.

 

[Challenger]

LINK showing that they own the land, either through international treaty or land deeds. A clue the Ottoman census put the numbers of arab muslims in Palestine to be very low, with the Christians outnumbering them in many places. The Jews owned most of Jerusalem, Hebron and other towns and cities.

Till the end of WWII most of the "local" arabs were serfs and most of those who "owned" land were foreign officials who had been given land by the Ottomans. The area was very poor and under/un-developed and little if any taxes were generated. Were were all these people who could afford to own land?
A tax province or sanjuk is not a state and the people within are not a nation. Sanjuks were little more than counties and what became the mandate were made up of at least half a dozen of these. Where was "palestine"? Even under the Romans there were three palæstina (name given by the romans) and mostly in what is now the gaza, sinai and jordan, not jerusalem or most of the roman towns in the fertile area.
The region was populated by people from throughout the mediterranean and middle east. To say there was a native people beside the jews is a misunderstanding. Yes, there are remnants of crusaders, armenians, persians, greeks, italians, french, english, etc. that has live there for hundreds of years but they were not a single people that were arab or palestinian. There were dozens of people and tribles like an amish quilt that existed as muslims or kafir in the area.
So where was this palestine? It was a region like saying the levant or fertile crescent.
So were was the state of palestine and who were the palestinian people, especially those who owned land?
Slaves, serfs, workers, share croppers, seasonal laborers, renters did not own the land or homes they occupied. Apart from some store owners in the urban areas, few locals owned land, even if their family have worked the land for generations.
Most did not want to serve in the military so the Ottoman gave land to those that served the government as officers, those from outside of those sanjuks. There was a tradition, before the Ottomans opened the area to jewish immigration, of land owned by jews/synagogues remained in those hands. It was passed down, sold to other jews or given to the synagogues to be rented or sold to other jews coming to the area. It never left jewish hands. Till the early 19th C jews could not buy non-jewish land, it could only be given by the empire or rented to them. Even being able to pray at the wall is a relatively modern privilage of the Ottomans, through there have been a few times off and on when it was permitted. The other land owners were the churches and wakf. The churches owned land they farmed to support themselves and the maintenance of the churches they were responsible for. The rest was for the most part state land.
The idea of a palestine or palestinian people is a modern creation, not historically based.
The muslims were arab, syrian, (later) jordanian, egyptian but not palestinian. They were known by tribe or were serfs in large part.

So where is the origin of this nation for the palestinians? Where are the lines for borders? Where is this history and government?

First, I never claimed there was a nation. There is a people. As I pointed out to Phoenall if national borders, government, currency etc were required for a people to be a people then a whole lot of groups would lose their identity.

Why are they more deserving of a state than the kurds, yazidi, armeneans, zoroastrians or dozens of other "people" with their own language, traditions, religions, culture, history, etc.?

Are Jews any more deserving of a state then those aforementioned people? The answer is no, yet they have one, they have self determination, freedom, security and rights.

At this point, the Palestinians are stateless, citizenless, subject to military law and a system that administers "justice" one way for them and one way for their Jewish counterparts.

You can argue for self determination for those other groups if you want and if that is what they want. Make a case for it. No one else has.

They already have self determination as it is not something that can be handed out. Do you have the self determination to post on this board daily, do the Palestinians have the self determination to engage in terrorism, violence, propaganda and a whole range of other activities. They are stateless because they wont take that other small step of self determination because they would be in debt to the rest of the world. They are not citizenless as they have over 6 million citizens around the world. They are subject to military law because they believe violence and terrorism is the right and only way to carry out the final solution. The system works that way because that is how it is written in the Geneva conventions, which the Israelis follow. As an example the customary punishment under Jordanian law for murder ( the laws that apply in the west bank under the Geneva conventions) is different to the punishment under Israeli law. So the Israelis apply the law of the land. If you cant understand the Geneva conventions then I advise you to refrain from posting on topics you are not educated enough to understand.

Beaten by logic and fats again so resort to immature actions

OMG! Beaten by FATS! Ugh! What a vivid imagination you do have.

 

[Challenger]

In what way were the Palestinians denied:

Belligerent occupation by the Zionist regime prevents them exercising the full unfettered sovereignty, of an independant state. Definition: a state or a governing body having the full right and power to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies.

Define Zionist in your own words

Already done, not my fault you are to lazy or stupid to find it.

 

[Challenger]

They do not have self-determination.

Definition: the process by which a country determines its own statehood and forms its own allegiances and government.

Few groups/people have that right in the region. Why only the palestinians should have that right. They were never a people before the mandate. Historical they did not exist.

They were just arabs and a state was created, Jordan.

"they were just arabs"...doesn't that just say it all?

The identity of a palestine or palestinians did not exist.
Most of the arab speaking world that did not identify with a particular tribe or group were just arabs. That was the only unifying thing they had.
It was hundreds of little people or arab. It is just the way things were. Nationalism and statehood are modern concepts. Islam was supposed to unify them till it became a dozen or so separate groups, and each considered the others heretics.
You seem to want to change the facts to suit your own perceptions of what a people or nation should be today.
You need to understand what it was in the 18th, 19th and 20th century, not what you want it to have been.

The identity of a palestine or palestinians did not exist.​

Indeed, they just dropped out of the sky in 1964 like a gift from G-d.

No they were invented by the Russians

...or maybe little green men from Mars?

 

[Challenger]

The identity of a palestine or palestinians did not exist.

Yes it did. Although by and large subsumed in the Pan-Arabism prevalent at the time, an Arab from Arabia could distinguish between an Arab from Mesopotamia from Syria, from Palestine. Much like in the U.K. we can distinguish between a Cornishman, a Geordie, a Cockney, etc. A Cornishman, a Geordie and a Cockney are all Englishmen, but they have their own fierce pride in their regional history and identity.

But they are still British. You do not have separate countries or "self determination" for each of those groups. Arabs had tribal labeling but they were arabs. Of the many tribes, they did not form separate nations.

I deliberately chose English regions, but "British" will do at a pinch to demonstrate the regional variations within one country. Historically we did have sperate kingdoms for many English regions and many do want regional autonomy, (a recent genetic survey has found that a Geordie is genetically different from a Cornishman, but thats a topic for another forum) not just te scots or the Welsh.

My point was that the same or something similar applies to Palestinians, Syrians, etc. While they were all Ottoman subjects, a Syrian could tell a Palestinian from a Bedouin by their appearance, cultural traits and dialect. Yet all of them were considered a homogenous group: "Arabs", by the Western colonial powers who drew arbitrary lines in the sand and created a country of "Syria", "Palestine", "Jordan", etc.

even Scotland voted against separation.

Palestinians were never a state or kingdom. It is simply a roman name given to three part of the gaza sinai. It was never an autonomous rule nor a people.
How is it similar? They were tribes, arabs, various other races but not palestinian by race, language, religion, culture or anything else. It is simply a foreign designation of name for the area, not an arab name. Till the mandate they never called themselves palestinians or call the land palestine. Even as a sanjak within the syria vilayet it was called jerusalem, beirut, damascus, zor, mount lebanon, safad, nablus. Not since the 16th century had there even been a gaza within syria.

Till the mandate they would never have called themselves palestinian or claimed to have been part of any place called palestine. It was not in their language.

So what? Palestine has been a geo-political entity since at least Herodotus, and it's inhabitants were Palestinians, regardless of what they called themselves or what others may called them. Kurds have never had a State or Kingdom, but no-one denies they are a "nation".

 

[Challenger]

I do not know why there is a focus on whether the people indigenous to the land were called Palestinians or not. I am from Canada and we displaced many aboriginals in this land. Whether or not the were from the Metis tribe, Iroquois etc. or whether they are called Indians or aboriginals does not matter. It seems like unlike Zionists, I feel very badly on how we treated the people indigenous to this land. I encourage aboriginals in Canada to have tax empetions, fist rights on government jobs, mining agreements regarding natural resources because WE TOOK IT ALL FROM THEM. For Zionists to deny they displaced people wether the are Arab, Palestinian, or whatever they want to be called is ignorant.
Please note THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ZIONISM AND JUDAISM. Jews lived in a much more peaceful time in the Middle East prior to Zionism.
ZIONISTS please listen to your brothers of the Neturei Karta and the True Torah Jews. They have the true insight into peace for the region.

Define Zionism in your own words

They never understand that Judaism is about Israel and the strive for living in the holy land to fulfill the covenant with God almighty, the Modern Zionism is about living in this land and unify the Jewish to a place for shelter.

Always thought Judaism was about the quest for personal redemption. If it was about living in the "Holy Land" why wasn't there a mass wave of immigration in the centuries following the collapse of the Christian Eastern Roman Empire? The subsequent Muslim rulers never enacted any law preventing Jewish immigration until the late 19th, early 20th centuries CE, after the invention of Zionism and because of protests by the local population.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Gaza was a mess long before Hamas came into power. And Israel built the wall to keep residents out long before Hamas was in power as well. Members of the Hamas govrenment were born and raised in Gaza right? Shouldn't they love Israel for all the marvelous things Israel did for them when they were growing up?

The wall is in the WB not gaza. Gaza is just a fence.

Palestinians in gaza were given work at Israeli pay on the farms and Israeli businesses in gaza before the withdrawal.
They were treated a "hell" of a lot better than they were when egypt controlled gaza.
Gazans were allowed into Israel for work, medical treatment, education and to visit the mount. The might have needed ID cards and passes to come and go but that should be expected since so many were calling for and carrying out acts of terrorism.
The power, sewage and other services were established by the Israelis. There was building, growth and development under Israel. An air port was built, a deep water harbor was in the works. Hotels and tourism were growing thanks to Israel.
All that ended with hamas, and Israel withdrawal from gaza.

So how marvelous is hamas? What have they done but bring war and destruction to gaza?

It's not a wall just a fence...

Well whatever. As an American I just hope Israel doesn't drag us into a religious war. If Israel wants to pretend Palestinians hate them for no reason, well, I hope they know they made the beds that they're sleeping in.

No 2 state solution anymore right? The most prominent Israeli warned that the evil arabs were voting and had to be stopped right? What a joke.

Arabs have hated them for 1500 yrs. It is not Israel, that is just a political excuse. Most palestinians would accept a negotiated settlement for peace. Hamas will not. Most would recognize Israel as a jewish state. Hamas will not.
Hamas will not even come to some peace with the PA and allow free elections or set an election day. They say they will allow a vote but not the right to campaign in gaza if not hamas. The want to control election within gaza. Hamas killed or kicked the PLO/PA out of gaza.
The more deprived the palestinians feel the more anger which empowers hamas. They are in control of the desperation in gaza. They are the cause.
WB prospers while hamas crushes gaza.
People should stop equating the conditions between Israelis and palestinians as Israel's responsibility. They are not Israel and it is not up to Israel to give them the rights of Israelis. They don't serve Israel or pay Israeli taxes. Israel does not have refugee camps. The camps were set up in the WB and G by arabs not Israelis.
Till Oslo there was a trickle of palestinians that applied for entry and citizenship in Israel, about two thousand a year, despite PLO and arab attempts to prevent this. Palestinians were allowed to use Israeli courts to reclaim land if there was some proof, or to be compensated when the land could not be returned.
Most arab state won't even allow palestinians to get jobs or live outside of the camps unless they have some special skill that would be of benefit.

Continue that line of thinking and nothing will change. Which is fine if you're okay with that. But I'd recommend at least electing someone whose foreign policy won't isolate Israel from the rest of the world. As it's isolated right now.

Though, unfortunately, that may involve doing something to better the lives of people in both Gaza and the West Bank.

Btw if everything is so terrible in Gaza but so great in the West Bank; why does the West Bank have the giant wall you mentioned earlier but Gaza merely has a giant fence?

For the same reason that yean has a fence and Saudi has a wall, to separate the two groups and to keep the people safe. Before the wall went up the arab muslims were systematically murdering Jewish children in Israel, after the wall went up the attacks stopped saving the lives of untold thousands of Israel children. Or would you prefer it if Israeli children were blown to pieces by arab muslim terrorists

I wonder what the body count of dead children is for Israeli's versus Palestinians.

 

[aris2chat]

The identity of a palestine or palestinians did not exist.

Yes it did. Although by and large subsumed in the Pan-Arabism prevalent at the time, an Arab from Arabia could distinguish between an Arab from Mesopotamia from Syria, from Palestine. Much like in the U.K. we can distinguish between a Cornishman, a Geordie, a Cockney, etc. A Cornishman, a Geordie and a Cockney are all Englishmen, but they have their own fierce pride in their regional history and identity.

But they are still British. You do not have separate countries or "self determination" for each of those groups. Arabs had tribal labeling but they were arabs. Of the many tribes, they did not form separate nations.

I deliberately chose English regions, but "British" will do at a pinch to demonstrate the regional variations within one country. Historically we did have sperate kingdoms for many English regions and many do want regional autonomy, (a recent genetic survey has found that a Geordie is genetically different from a Cornishman, but thats a topic for another forum) not just te scots or the Welsh.

My point was that the same or something similar applies to Palestinians, Syrians, etc. While they were all Ottoman subjects, a Syrian could tell a Palestinian from a Bedouin by their appearance, cultural traits and dialect. Yet all of them were considered a homogenous group: "Arabs", by the Western colonial powers who drew arbitrary lines in the sand and created a country of "Syria", "Palestine", "Jordan", etc.

even Scotland voted against separation.

Palestinians were never a state or kingdom. It is simply a roman name given to three part of the gaza sinai. It was never an autonomous rule nor a people.
How is it similar? They were tribes, arabs, various other races but not palestinian by race, language, religion, culture or anything else. It is simply a foreign designation of name for the area, not an arab name. Till the mandate they never called themselves palestinians or call the land palestine. Even as a sanjak within the syria vilayet it was called jerusalem, beirut, damascus, zor, mount lebanon, safad, nablus. Not since the 16th century had there even been a gaza within syria.

Till the mandate they would never have called themselves palestinian or claimed to have been part of any place called palestine. It was not in their language.

So what? Palestine has been a geo-political entity since at least Herodotus, and it's inhabitants were Palestinians, regardless of what they called themselves or what others may called them. Kurds have never had a State or Kingdom, but no-one denies they are a "nation".

Palaistinê, a greek term, to describe where the Philistines lived, people of Plešt. They likely called them selves caphtor. They would not have used a "foreign" name for identifying who they were.
That would be like american natives calling themselves indian. That was a term used by others not one they would have known or used.

 

[Phoenall]

Interesting...I did not know that

Me neither, until I found out about it researching something else.

So he ruled the NORTERN PART OF PALESTINE not all of it. And this does not mean that Palestine was a nation does it ?

Another fail

You said there was no evidence of a Palestinian state until 1988, look you said it here:

....there is no evidence of there ever being a Palestinian state until 1988

I provided you with some evidence for a Palestinian state before 1988, seems you are moving the goalposts again.

NO you didn't you provided the name of a person that ruled over a province in the north of Palestine, you did not prove the existence of a nation or state by that name.

That is something you do all the time whenever you are shown to be posting half truths and outright lies.

 

[Phoenall]

Till the end of WWII most of the "local" arabs were serfs and most of those who "owned" land were foreign officials who had been given land by the Ottomans. The area was very poor and under/un-developed and little if any taxes were generated. Were were all these people who could afford to own land?
A tax province or sanjuk is not a state and the people within are not a nation. Sanjuks were little more than counties and what became the mandate were made up of at least half a dozen of these. Where was "palestine"? Even under the Romans there were three palæstina (name given by the romans) and mostly in what is now the gaza, sinai and jordan, not jerusalem or most of the roman towns in the fertile area.
The region was populated by people from throughout the mediterranean and middle east. To say there was a native people beside the jews is a misunderstanding. Yes, there are remnants of crusaders, armenians, persians, greeks, italians, french, english, etc. that has live there for hundreds of years but they were not a single people that were arab or palestinian. There were dozens of people and tribles like an amish quilt that existed as muslims or kafir in the area.
So where was this palestine? It was a region like saying the levant or fertile crescent.
So were was the state of palestine and who were the palestinian people, especially those who owned land?
Slaves, serfs, workers, share croppers, seasonal laborers, renters did not own the land or homes they occupied. Apart from some store owners in the urban areas, few locals owned land, even if their family have worked the land for generations.
Most did not want to serve in the military so the Ottoman gave land to those that served the government as officers, those from outside of those sanjuks. There was a tradition, before the Ottomans opened the area to jewish immigration, of land owned by jews/synagogues remained in those hands. It was passed down, sold to other jews or given to the synagogues to be rented or sold to other jews coming to the area. It never left jewish hands. Till the early 19th C jews could not buy non-jewish land, it could only be given by the empire or rented to them. Even being able to pray at the wall is a relatively modern privilage of the Ottomans, through there have been a few times off and on when it was permitted. The other land owners were the churches and wakf. The churches owned land they farmed to support themselves and the maintenance of the churches they were responsible for. The rest was for the most part state land.
The idea of a palestine or palestinian people is a modern creation, not historically based.
The muslims were arab, syrian, (later) jordanian, egyptian but not palestinian. They were known by tribe or were serfs in large part.

So where is the origin of this nation for the palestinians? Where are the lines for borders? Where is this history and government?

First, I never claimed there was a nation. There is a people. As I pointed out to Phoenall if national borders, government, currency etc were required for a people to be a people then a whole lot of groups would lose their identity.

Why are they more deserving of a state than the kurds, yazidi, armeneans, zoroastrians or dozens of other "people" with their own language, traditions, religions, culture, history, etc.?

Are Jews any more deserving of a state then those aforementioned people? The answer is no, yet they have one, they have self determination, freedom, security and rights.

At this point, the Palestinians are stateless, citizenless, subject to military law and a system that administers "justice" one way for them and one way for their Jewish counterparts.

You can argue for self determination for those other groups if you want and if that is what they want. Make a case for it. No one else has.

They already have self determination as it is not something that can be handed out. Do you have the self determination to post on this board daily, do the Palestinians have the self determination to engage in terrorism, violence, propaganda and a whole range of other activities. They are stateless because they wont take that other small step of self determination because they would be in debt to the rest of the world. They are not citizenless as they have over 6 million citizens around the world. They are subject to military law because they believe violence and terrorism is the right and only way to carry out the final solution. The system works that way because that is how it is written in the Geneva conventions, which the Israelis follow. As an example the customary punishment under Jordanian law for murder ( the laws that apply in the west bank under the Geneva conventions) is different to the punishment under Israeli law. So the Israelis apply the law of the land. If you cant understand the Geneva conventions then I advise you to refrain from posting on topics you are not educated enough to understand.

Beaten by logic and fats again so resort to immature actions

OMG! Beaten by FATS! Ugh! What a vivid imagination you do have.

Should have read facts, sticky keyboard

 

[Phoenall]

In what way were the Palestinians denied:

Belligerent occupation by the Zionist regime prevents them exercising the full unfettered sovereignty, of an independant state. Definition: a state or a governing body having the full right and power to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies.

Define Zionist in your own words

Already done, not my fault you are to lazy or stupid to find it.

Followed the link you provided and ended up at a post by another person. Have not seen any other links so I will keep asking. Just as you do when I post a fact you don't like and ask for a link, have you noticed I use links from another source so you cant claim there is no back up links ?

 

[Phoenall]

Few groups/people have that right in the region. Why only the palestinians should have that right. They were never a people before the mandate. Historical they did not exist.

They were just arabs and a state was created, Jordan.

"they were just arabs"...doesn't that just say it all?

The identity of a palestine or palestinians did not exist.
Most of the arab speaking world that did not identify with a particular tribe or group were just arabs. That was the only unifying thing they had.
It was hundreds of little people or arab. It is just the way things were. Nationalism and statehood are modern concepts. Islam was supposed to unify them till it became a dozen or so separate groups, and each considered the others heretics.
You seem to want to change the facts to suit your own perceptions of what a people or nation should be today.
You need to understand what it was in the 18th, 19th and 20th century, not what you want it to have been.

The identity of a palestine or palestinians did not exist.​

Indeed, they just dropped out of the sky in 1964 like a gift from G-d.

No they were invented by the Russians

...or maybe little green men from Mars?

Nope by the Russians who told Arafat to legitimise his campaign by giving the terrorists a name linked to the land. They suggested Palestine, and Arafat being unable to say Palestine called it filastin

 

[Phoenall]

The identity of a palestine or palestinians did not exist.

Yes it did. Although by and large subsumed in the Pan-Arabism prevalent at the time, an Arab from Arabia could distinguish between an Arab from Mesopotamia from Syria, from Palestine. Much like in the U.K. we can distinguish between a Cornishman, a Geordie, a Cockney, etc. A Cornishman, a Geordie and a Cockney are all Englishmen, but they have their own fierce pride in their regional history and identity.

But they are still British. You do not have separate countries or "self determination" for each of those groups. Arabs had tribal labeling but they were arabs. Of the many tribes, they did not form separate nations.

I deliberately chose English regions, but "British" will do at a pinch to demonstrate the regional variations within one country. Historically we did have sperate kingdoms for many English regions and many do want regional autonomy, (a recent genetic survey has found that a Geordie is genetically different from a Cornishman, but thats a topic for another forum) not just te scots or the Welsh.

My point was that the same or something similar applies to Palestinians, Syrians, etc. While they were all Ottoman subjects, a Syrian could tell a Palestinian from a Bedouin by their appearance, cultural traits and dialect. Yet all of them were considered a homogenous group: "Arabs", by the Western colonial powers who drew arbitrary lines in the sand and created a country of "Syria", "Palestine", "Jordan", etc.

even Scotland voted against separation.

Palestinians were never a state or kingdom. It is simply a roman name given to three part of the gaza sinai. It was never an autonomous rule nor a people.
How is it similar? They were tribes, arabs, various other races but not palestinian by race, language, religion, culture or anything else. It is simply a foreign designation of name for the area, not an arab name. Till the mandate they never called themselves palestinians or call the land palestine. Even as a sanjak within the syria vilayet it was called jerusalem, beirut, damascus, zor, mount lebanon, safad, nablus. Not since the 16th century had there even been a gaza within syria.

Till the mandate they would never have called themselves palestinian or claimed to have been part of any place called palestine. It was not in their language.

So what? Palestine has been a geo-political entity since at least Herodotus, and it's inhabitants were Palestinians, regardless of what they called themselves or what others may called them. Kurds have never had a State or Kingdom, but no-one denies they are a "nation".

So when did the Syrians and Egyptians start calling themselves palestinians ?

 

[Phoenall]

I do not know why there is a focus on whether the people indigenous to the land were called Palestinians or not. I am from Canada and we displaced many aboriginals in this land. Whether or not the were from the Metis tribe, Iroquois etc. or whether they are called Indians or aboriginals does not matter. It seems like unlike Zionists, I feel very badly on how we treated the people indigenous to this land. I encourage aboriginals in Canada to have tax empetions, fist rights on government jobs, mining agreements regarding natural resources because WE TOOK IT ALL FROM THEM. For Zionists to deny they displaced people wether the are Arab, Palestinian, or whatever they want to be called is ignorant.
Please note THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ZIONISM AND JUDAISM. Jews lived in a much more peaceful time in the Middle East prior to Zionism.
ZIONISTS please listen to your brothers of the Neturei Karta and the True Torah Jews. They have the true insight into peace for the region.

Define Zionism in your own words

They never understand that Judaism is about Israel and the strive for living in the holy land to fulfill the covenant with God almighty, the Modern Zionism is about living in this land and unify the Jewish to a place for shelter.

Always thought Judaism was about the quest for personal redemption. If it was about living in the "Holy Land" why wasn't there a mass wave of immigration in the centuries following the collapse of the Christian Eastern Roman Empire? The subsequent Muslim rulers never enacted any law preventing Jewish immigration until the late 19th, early 20th centuries CE, after the invention of Zionism and because of protests by the local population.

LIAR asSaudi Arabia has always had laws against the Jews living there. The ottomans only allowed Jewish migration from the middle of the 1800's.

 

[Phoenall]

The wall is in the WB not gaza. Gaza is just a fence.

Palestinians in gaza were given work at Israeli pay on the farms and Israeli businesses in gaza before the withdrawal.
They were treated a "hell" of a lot better than they were when egypt controlled gaza.
Gazans were allowed into Israel for work, medical treatment, education and to visit the mount. The might have needed ID cards and passes to come and go but that should be expected since so many were calling for and carrying out acts of terrorism.
The power, sewage and other services were established by the Israelis. There was building, growth and development under Israel. An air port was built, a deep water harbor was in the works. Hotels and tourism were growing thanks to Israel.
All that ended with hamas, and Israel withdrawal from gaza.

So how marvelous is hamas? What have they done but bring war and destruction to gaza?

It's not a wall just a fence...

Well whatever. As an American I just hope Israel doesn't drag us into a religious war. If Israel wants to pretend Palestinians hate them for no reason, well, I hope they know they made the beds that they're sleeping in.

No 2 state solution anymore right? The most prominent Israeli warned that the evil arabs were voting and had to be stopped right? What a joke.

Arabs have hated them for 1500 yrs. It is not Israel, that is just a political excuse. Most palestinians would accept a negotiated settlement for peace. Hamas will not. Most would recognize Israel as a jewish state. Hamas will not.
Hamas will not even come to some peace with the PA and allow free elections or set an election day. They say they will allow a vote but not the right to campaign in gaza if not hamas. The want to control election within gaza. Hamas killed or kicked the PLO/PA out of gaza.
The more deprived the palestinians feel the more anger which empowers hamas. They are in control of the desperation in gaza. They are the cause.
WB prospers while hamas crushes gaza.
People should stop equating the conditions between Israelis and palestinians as Israel's responsibility. They are not Israel and it is not up to Israel to give them the rights of Israelis. They don't serve Israel or pay Israeli taxes. Israel does not have refugee camps. The camps were set up in the WB and G by arabs not Israelis.
Till Oslo there was a trickle of palestinians that applied for entry and citizenship in Israel, about two thousand a year, despite PLO and arab attempts to prevent this. Palestinians were allowed to use Israeli courts to reclaim land if there was some proof, or to be compensated when the land could not be returned.
Most arab state won't even allow palestinians to get jobs or live outside of the camps unless they have some special skill that would be of benefit.

Continue that line of thinking and nothing will change. Which is fine if you're okay with that. But I'd recommend at least electing someone whose foreign policy won't isolate Israel from the rest of the world. As it's isolated right now.

Though, unfortunately, that may involve doing something to better the lives of people in both Gaza and the West Bank.

Btw if everything is so terrible in Gaza but so great in the West Bank; why does the West Bank have the giant wall you mentioned earlier but Gaza merely has a giant fence?

For the same reason that yean has a fence and Saudi has a wall, to separate the two groups and to keep the people safe. Before the wall went up the arab muslims were systematically murdering Jewish children in Israel, after the wall went up the attacks stopped saving the lives of untold thousands of Israel children. Or would you prefer it if Israeli children were blown to pieces by arab muslim terrorists

I wonder what the body count of dead children is for Israeli's versus Palestinians.

Depends on how far back in time you want to go, after all team Palestine claim that the arab muslims have owned the land for over 2,000 years. ( they were only invented 1388 years ago ) But better to ask how many were killed in cold blood by terrorists carrying out the commands of their gods ?

 

[Coyote]

As has been pointed out to you innumerable times, there has never been a country called Palestine run by "Palestinians". You are uneducable and so keep repeating this stupid nonsense.

Yet they lived there. Why should they be forced to leave?

Because they don't let others live, of course.

Really now....there seem to be a whole lot of "others" alive.

 

[Challenger]

Yes it did. Although by and large subsumed in the Pan-Arabism prevalent at the time, an Arab from Arabia could distinguish between an Arab from Mesopotamia from Syria, from Palestine. Much like in the U.K. we can distinguish between a Cornishman, a Geordie, a Cockney, etc. A Cornishman, a Geordie and a Cockney are all Englishmen, but they have their own fierce pride in their regional history and identity.

But they are still British. You do not have separate countries or "self determination" for each of those groups. Arabs had tribal labeling but they were arabs. Of the many tribes, they did not form separate nations.

I deliberately chose English regions, but "British" will do at a pinch to demonstrate the regional variations within one country. Historically we did have sperate kingdoms for many English regions and many do want regional autonomy, (a recent genetic survey has found that a Geordie is genetically different from a Cornishman, but thats a topic for another forum) not just te scots or the Welsh.

My point was that the same or something similar applies to Palestinians, Syrians, etc. While they were all Ottoman subjects, a Syrian could tell a Palestinian from a Bedouin by their appearance, cultural traits and dialect. Yet all of them were considered a homogenous group: "Arabs", by the Western colonial powers who drew arbitrary lines in the sand and created a country of "Syria", "Palestine", "Jordan", etc.

even Scotland voted against separation.

Palestinians were never a state or kingdom. It is simply a roman name given to three part of the gaza sinai. It was never an autonomous rule nor a people.
How is it similar? They were tribes, arabs, various other races but not palestinian by race, language, religion, culture or anything else. It is simply a foreign designation of name for the area, not an arab name. Till the mandate they never called themselves palestinians or call the land palestine. Even as a sanjak within the syria vilayet it was called jerusalem, beirut, damascus, zor, mount lebanon, safad, nablus. Not since the 16th century had there even been a gaza within syria.

Till the mandate they would never have called themselves palestinian or claimed to have been part of any place called palestine. It was not in their language.

So what? Palestine has been a geo-political entity since at least Herodotus, and it's inhabitants were Palestinians, regardless of what they called themselves or what others may called them. Kurds have never had a State or Kingdom, but no-one denies they are a "nation".

Palaistinê, a greek term, to describe where the Philistines lived, people of Plešt. They likely called them selves caphtor. They would not have used a "foreign" name for identifying who they were.
That would be like american natives calling themselves indian. That was a term used by others not one they would have known or used.

So what? Palestine in one language or another has been called Palestine for at least a thousand years, be it a place where Philistines lived, or a Roman province, or a part of a wider Caliphate, or Ottoman subjects. It's just a label; the people who lived there throughout countless generations with their own language and customs, are still a "nation" like the Kurds. In the 19th and 20th centuries they decided to call themselves "Palestinians", much like the European foreigner colonists who decided to call themselves "Israelis", based purely on a semi-mythical Kingdom of Israel that may, or may not, have existed, but was written up in a so called "holy book" by a bunch of monotheist fanatics exiled in Babylonia.