Where are Afam's informative contributions? You sir are a hypocrite.

Historically, I understand that before the UN vote to reserve a strip of Palestine for a Jewish nation in 1945?----not sure the date, Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived in harmony in the area.

The main reason for most of the votes(Arab nations voted against, but they had no veto power) was to reverse Hitler's attempted annahilation of the Jews.

Other places suggested as potential, and possibly new Jewish nation were: 1. Costa Rica-South America 2. Senegal/Liberia-West Africa 3. Canada-North America  

It's understandable from an anthropological point of view, because the same pieces of land in question had served as craddle of Judism, Christianity, and then Islam.

The people living in the area were culturally, socially, and even genetically similar, but religiously dissimilar. This was before political attempts were made to populate the Jewish nation with Jews from all over the World. The Arab nations tried to forcefully remove the newly created Jewish nation--- leading to many wars.

Given the fluid nature of religious conversions and counter-conversions, it may be not surprising that the same people that practiced Judiasm, later converted to Christianity, then to Islam; back and fort.

The same God that gave the land to Jews, gave same land to Christians, and to Muslims.

We don't know who shall inherit the same land tomorrow.

davidylan:

Where are Afam's informative contributions? You sir are a hypocrite.

You have shown yourself to be a totally maladjusted debator.

You seem to always think about insulting your opponent before making points to disagree with him.

I remember you hauling insults at me earlier in this thread, just because I suggested that Afam's article had provoked some thought.

Thick skin? Far from from that. Instead, just make sure your skin and skull are not too thick that they impede flow of information and new ideas.

Teenage bravado, maybe, time will tell.

naijaking1:

Historically, I understand that before the UN vote to reserve a strip of Palestine for a Jewish nation in 1945?----not sure the date, Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived in harmony in the area.

You are talking bollocks. Which harmony? Is this your example of harmony?
- Nebi Musa riots of 1920
- Jaffa riots of 1921
To mention just a few.

naijaking1:

The main reason for most of the votes(Arab nations voted against, but they had no veto power) was to reverse Hitler's attempted annahilation of the Jews.

The Balfour declaration took place in 1922, Hitler was not even president of Germany then.

naijaking1:

Other places suggested as potential, and possibly new Jewish nation were: 1. Costa Rica-South America 2. Senegal/Liberia-West Africa 3. Canada-North America  

That was all a gimmick, the Isrealis have lived on that land for over 6000 yrs and not even the arabs can refute that. The only legitimate claims for "occupation" can only come from the canaanites. Go and resurrect them first.

naijaking1:

It's understandable from an anthropological point of view, because the same pieces of land in question had served as craddle of Judism, Christianity, and then Islam.

That is FALSE! The cradle of islam is in Saudi Arabia. The only islamic claim to Jerusalem (not even the entire land of Isreal) is from mythical stories of Mohammed having ascended up to heaven from the temple mount (the very sight of King Solomons temple).
However reading through the description of that myth indicates mohammed could NOT have undertaken the journey and does not appear to have ever set foot in Jerusalem. why?

Because the account in the hadith mentions specific details of the temple that mohammed claimed to have seen on his ascension . . . the problem is that the temple had long ceased to exist before mohammed was born having been destroyed in 70 AD. How could he have seen the doors of a temple that was not existing?

This is the riddle islam needs to solve before crying about any cradle.

naijaking1:

The people living in the area were culturally, socially, and even genetically similar, but religiously dissimilar. This was before political attempts were made to populate the Jewish nation with Jews from all over the World. The Arab nations tried to forcefully remove the newly created Jewish nation--- leading to many wars.

Forget about populating the jewish nation with jews from all over the world. The jews had always been there, infact the arab migration did not really start until the early 20th century. The nation of isreal could not have been "newly created", it had always existed for more than 3000 yrs. It was only given legitimacy in 1948 when the Jews decided to set up the land as their permanent nation.

naijaking1:

Given the fluid nature of religious conversions and counter-conversions, it may be not surprising that the same people that practiced Judiasm, later converted to Christianity, then to Islam; back and fort.

this is absurd.

naijaking1:

The same God that gave the land to Jews, gave same land to Christians, and to Muslims.

How is this possible? Are you just dreaming stuff up as you go?

naijaking1:

We don't know who shall inherit the same land tomorrow.

The jews are already there, unless you do as hamas, hezbollah and ahmedinejad have been threatening to do, the jews are going no where.

naijaking1:

You have shown yourself to be a totally maladjusted debator.

You seem to always think about insulting your opponent before making points to disagree with him.

I remember you hauling insults at me earlier in this thread, just because I suggested that Afam's article had provoked some thought.

Thick skin? Far from from that. Instead, just make sure your skin and skull are not too thick that they impede flow of information and new ideas.

Teenage bravado, maybe, time will tell.

water off a duck's back. You people have a phobia for the truth no thanks to the veil of islam covering your eyes.

naijaking1:

Historically, I understand that before the UN vote to reserve a strip of Palestine for a Jewish nation in 1945?----not sure the date, Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived in harmony in the area.

The main reason for most of the votes(Arab nations voted against, but they had no veto power) was to reverse Hitler's attempted annahilation of the Jews.

Other places suggested as potential, and possibly new Jewish nation were: 1. Costa Rica-South America 2. Senegal/Liberia-West Africa 3. Canada-North America 

It's understandable from an anthropological point of view, because the same pieces of land in question had served as craddle of Judism, Christianity, and then Islam.

The people living in the area were culturally, socially, and even genetically similar, but religiously dissimilar. This was before political attempts were made to populate the Jewish nation with Jews from all over the World. The Arab nations tried to forcefully remove the newly created Jewish nation--- leading to many wars.

Given the fluid nature of religious conversions and counter-conversions, it may be not surprising that the same people that practiced Judiasm, later converted to Christianity, then to Islam; back and fort.

The same God that gave the land to Jews, gave same land to Christians, and to Muslims.

We don't know who shall inherit the same land tomorrow.

Where did you get this from?? The Vote happened back in 1919 -1922. No body knew who Hitler was then talk less of making a decision cause of him. Not ALL jews were in Germany during the Nazi situation in germany. There were jews in the land of isreal even before all that and remained there among the palestinians. By the way, the Palestinians happen to be descended from the Philistines/greeks, not the canaanites and we know the philistines migrated to the land which was already occupied by the jews. I read your post and I must ask where you get your information from.  Yes these people have lived together for so many centuries but that does not mean there was no problem there during that time. Infact, I can list a number of situations down there before the last century alone. Another point  I have to share is this, jews live in Iran too, does not mean that all is well, it just means they live there.


I am not arguing for who owns the land based on what happened 2000 years ago or more,  For all I know, this problem started back in the early 1900's and like I stated before, the land was with Britain after General Allenby got it for britain and basically the decision was made to share it. I am still waiting to see if anyone will say that never happened. The League of Nations agreed to the decision but the arabs did not. If you consider that the land was in the charge of Britain anyway, makes me wonder why the rejection of the split by the arab league would matter but somehow to this day the fight goes on and on to take the land back from Isreal even though they got the land legally from the sharer. Now there have been wars since the split during which Isreal had been able to win some part of the palestinian share. The Palestinians went to war with Isreal in hopes of grabbing land from them but it so happened that Isreal won and grabbed land from their own share instead and basically it's ok for them to win back land but not ok when Isreal does same.  Anyways, I would rather we debate with information and ideas from actual events. We can debate this in civil and mature manner with person producing information that is actually RESEARCHABLE ( LOOK-UP-ABLE).

@Davidlyn

Note, I said I was not sure about the date UN vote. It's not as important as the fact that a political World body, not God created Israel out of a Palestinian land in the 1900s.

Israel could have been in West Africa, South America, and so on.

The Jebbi Musa and Jaffa riots were no different from the Aba market women's riot, or other riots of the 20th century. In general, we would all agree that those riots don't compare with the present situation in the middle east.

The problem? You're fixatated only on the religious aspect of this discussion, try looking at things more broadly-- religious, historical, geography, political, and even anthropology. Many religious bigots don't even know it.

naijaking1:

@Davidlyn

Note, I said I was not sure about the date UN vote. It's not as important as the fact that a political World body, not God created Israel out of a Palestinian land in the 1900s.

Israel could have been in West Africa, South America, and so on.

The Jebbi Musa and Jaffa riots were no different from the Aba market women's riot, or other riots of the 20th century. In general, we would all agree that those riots don't compare with the present situation in the middle east.

The problem? You're fixatated only on the religious aspect of this discussion, try looking at things more broadly-- religious, historical, geography, political, and even anthropology. Many religious bigots don't even know it.

Please read up on General Allenby  please @NaijaKing . I don't believe this debate is about religion. I believe it is about stating things as they really happened and trying to understand what really happened as opposed to how we wanted it to happen. If you read up on General Allenby and how he got the land and what he came away with, You may get a better understanding of what happened during that time in all this and to this day, I think it would be unwise to try to separate what is happening out there from religion.

I would have loved to give you books instead to read but since this is the net, I took time to find you some links to read up on.


NEW YORK TIMES ARCHIVES

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=940DE2DC113FE433A25750C2A9649C946996D6CF&oref=slogin


http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/jerusalem_allenby1.htm

http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/jerusalem.htm

@ Kobojunkie, i have to disagree with you on one score. The palestinians are not descendants of the philistines/greeks. The philistines as a race are no longer in existence as are the amorites, hittites, canaanites.
the name "palestine" is NOT an arab name but was the name given to Isreal after Emperor Hadrian crushed the last Jewish revolt i think in AD 70 (i may be off by a yr or 2). It is a greco-roman corruption of the name "plesheth" that appears several times in the bible.

Infact Isreal in 1948 contemplated naming their new country "palestine" before deciding on Isreal. If they had done so, what would the arabs be calling themselves today? You may also want to note this:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan." --PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw."

@kobojunkie

My earlier statement about the date applies.

You seem to repeatedly insist that the British owed that part of middle east at that time. I agree.

However, they also 'owed' more than 1/2 of African, Canada, Far East, India, Australia, etc.

They did not owe these lands, they colonized them. They gave away something they didn't own- Palestinian land. They could have used a part of naija as the new state of Israel for all I know, because they also colonized naija.

I like your statment about LOOk-UP-ABLE.

Thanks a lot, I will make time to read General Allenby.

naijaking1:

Israel could have been in West Africa, South America, and so on.

I doubt the Jews would have accepted such. Jerusalem is not a part of Africa.

naijaking1:

The problem? You're fixatated only on the religious aspect of this discussion, try looking at things more broadly-- religious, historical, geography, political, and even anthropology. Many religious bigots don't even know it.

The problem is that while you all pretend to be looking at things "broadly" essentially your loyalty is bound to your muslim fraternity with the palestinians. A good clue is in the amount of indefensible excuses you use to back up your arguments. As soon as they are torn apart you either disappear, look for alternative excuses or resort to personal insults.

davidylan:

@ Kobojunkie, i have to disagree with you on one score. The palestinians are not descendants of the philistines/greeks. The philistines as a race are no longer in existence as are the amorites, hittites, canaanites.
the name "palestine" is NOT an arab name but was the name given to Isreal after Emperor Hadrian crushed the last Jewish revolt i think in AD 70 (i may be off by a yr or 2). It is a greco-roman corruption of the name "plesheth" that appears several times in the bible.

Infact Isreal in 1948 contemplated naming their new country "palestine" before deciding on Isreal. If they had done so, what would the arabs be calling themselves today? You may also want to note this:

I am not sure of that but I will read up more on it. From the more I gathered from the books I have read on the region, yes the name was changed by hadrian out of hate for the jews but I am almost sure the palestianians a mix of the philipines and some greek and the others you mentioned but I will look into it again. Has been a while since I studied this but I will definitely look into it again at work tommorow. I work with a bunch of historians who go on and on about these things

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan." --PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw." 

Did the dude who made this statement get beheaded right after this HERESY ?? 

Check up kobojunkie, i am open to seeing if i am wrong on this issue but i am very sure the palestinians are arab and not greek.

naijaking1:

@kobojunkie

My earlier statement about the date applies.

You seem to repeatedly insist that the British owed that part of middle east at that time. I agree.

However, they also 'owed' more than 1/2 of African, Canada, Far East, India, Australia, etc.

They did not owe these lands, they colonized them. They gave away something they didn't own- Palestinian land. They could have used a part of naija as the new state of Israel for all I know, because they also colonized naija.

I like your statment about LOOk-UP-ABLE.

Thanks a lot, I will make time to read General Allenby.

I understand what it means to own a land and to colonize the land but if all throughout history, we know that land has been passed from people to people through the same "COLONIZATION" ,  why is it ok to say since the Hausa's colonized the Hausa land we have today, they own it but Britain colonizing palestine does not mean Britain owns it Do Land acquired basically through the same method and basically the conqueror/colonizer in both cases got to decide what comes next, but in one case, they get to own and the other they do not own?? Now I understand that Britain decided to bequeath it's right to the land when it shared it two ways but Explain the difference to me

@Davidlyn

My objectivity to issues ought to be measured by facts on the ground, not by pre-concieved religious, ethnic, or political bias.

I am pleased that you confuse my persona with that of a muslim.

In as much as I'm happy to note that you're wrong, I have no obligation put myself in a small religious box like you've done.

Once again: the issues, not the persons.

davidylan:

Check up kobojunkie, i am open to seeing if i am wrong on this issue but i am very sure the palestinians are arab and not greek.

Yu are both wrong. I swear they are of Mandingo descent

@kobojunkie

The example with Hausas colonizing and settling parts of naija is not a good one compared with Britain colonizing or owing half of the World early last century. The keyword= empire.

The British like all historical empires were bound to fail, because of many political, logistical, and military reasons. We had Egyptian, Roman, Greek empires, etc; the Portugese and British empires. They just extended their sphere of influence, they did not owe the land, they did not care for the land, they did not settle on the land, and they should not have given away the said land.

I understand what it means to win land after a battle, but the case was not similar.

naijaking1:

@kobojunkie

The example with Hausas colonizing and settling parts of naija is not a good one compared with Britain colonizing or owing half of the World early last century. The keyword= empire.

The British like all historical empires were bound to fail, because of many political, logistical, and military reasons. We had Egyptian, Roman, Greek empires, etc; the Portugese and British empires. They just extended their sphere of influence, they did not owe the land, they did not care for the land, they did not settle on the land, and they should not have given away the said land.

I understand what it means to win land after a battle, but the case was not similar.

Let me get this then, the hausa empire was of smaller scale than the british so it is not the same? I mean the hausas did not all move to north america and the people who used to live in that region continued to live there even with the hausas occupying. I really don't understand the diffference. The British empire today, we have Canada, Australia and part of europe still under their influence. Does caring for and settling in the land make for ownership then even though you have conquered said land and it is under your rule?? and if it is under your influence, what stops you from dividing it as you please?? I mean we are speaking of what has been happening for thousands of years on this same planet why does the rule change now?? For one example Emperor Hadrian, he did not consult the people settled in the land before he decided to rename it, he did what he did as emperor cause he had rule of the land. I am sorry I do not see a difference. It's sort of like what happens in America. The Government somehow has a right to take over land that belongs to the people if needed. IT may not be fair but apparently it is the way it works. That is how highways and stores are popping up left and right cause it is somehow allowed by the law of the land. Like I said, the occupier shared it as wanted and that is that for me.

naijaking1:

@Davidlyn

My objectivity to issues ought to be measured by facts on the ground, not by pre-concieved religious, ethnic, or political bias.
Once again: the issues, not the persons.

You people keep crying "issues" but i see no issues in your responses. You claim that your "objectivity" is measured by "facts on ground", what "facts"? I see nothing but silly conjectures, revisionist history and conspiracy theories that do not stand the test of time.
You talk about eschewing pre-concieved religious, ethnic or political bias but i see the very same things in your own posts.

Kobojunkie:

Did the dude who made this statement get beheaded right after this HERESY ??  

No he did not neither did the PLO bother to refute the statement because he merely spoke the truth that the whole arab world knows. The "palestinian cause" is nothing but a ruse, a wonderful tool to destroy the Jewish nation.

When the PLO was founded in 1964, the Isreali "occupation" did not include the westbank and gaza which were under Jordanian and Egyptian control, now everyone is crying about Isreal leaving the westbank as if that was what the PLO was fighting for in the first instance.

davidylan:

I doubt the Jews would have accepted such. Jerusalem is not a part of Africa.

I doubt that the Jews were in a position to reject a UN location for their state in those early days. Jerusalem is neither  in Africa, nor in any of those potential sites for Israel in 1945, because Jerusalem was not capital of Israel initially.

Don't forget that most of Jerusalem was captured from the Palestinians after those wars. Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. The UN never gave Jerusalem to Israelis.

As you try very hard to be more Jewish than the Israelis, just don't forget the facts, ok.

True,  the reasons given for the conflict in the region has seriously evolved over time ,  that I know for a fact. It is almost as if a new reason surfaces every other decade. It seems this decade, it is about Isreal torturing palestinians.   The same people who are crying foul against Isreal themselves mistreat the same palestinian people when they enter their own territory. I wait for the day these people will understand the very reason why most of the world does not really listen much to their whines and complaints or jump to take action at all.

naijaking1:

I doubt that the Jews were in a position to reject a UN location for their state in those early days. Jerusalem is neither in Africa, nor in any of those potential sites for Israel in 1945, because Jerusalem was not capital of Israel initially.

Don't forget that most of Jerusalem was captured from the Palestinians after those wars. Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. The UN never gave Jerusalem to Israelis.

As you try very hard to be more Jewish than the Israelis, just don't forget the facts, ok.

Neither did the UN give Jerusalem to the Palestinian side. They got it through various riots/wars. Jerusalem was supposed to remain in the hands of the UN but the Arab States went to war and captured it.

@ Naijaking . . . Jerusalem was not captured from any palestinians. . .

One bit of history lesson for u . . . palestinian was the name given to a Jew living in the land of Palestine before 1948. It was not until around the 1960s that palestinian became synonymous with the arab struggle to destroy Isreal.

The reason Tel Aviv is the capital and not Jerusalem is because the muslims belligerently lay claim to Jerusalem, a land that does not have any historical bearing to them beyond Mohammed's mythical ascension to "heaven". The British hoped to circumvent what would become a thorny issue by deciding to leave Jerusalem as an international zone not belonging to either the Jews or arabs. Isreal reluctantly agreed in return for peace, the arabs refused and invaded Isreal. Isreal won the war and took over western Jerusalem while Jordan annexed east jerusalem and the westbank which it eventually lost in 1967.

Talk to any jew today and they will tell you that jerusalem is their genuine capital. Stop trying to stand history on its head.

Kobojunkie:

The British empire today, we have Canada, Australia and part of europe still under their influence. Does caring for and settling in the land make for ownership then even though you have conquered said land and it is under your rule?? and if it is under your influence, what stops you from dividing it as you please?? I mean we are speaking of what has been happening for thousands of years on this same planet why does the rule change now?? For one example Emperor Hadrian, he did not consult the people settled in the land before he decided to rename it, he did what he did as emperor cause he had rule of the land. I am sorry I do not see a difference. It's sort of like what happens in America. The Government somehow has a right to take over land that belongs to the people if needed. IT may not be fair but apparently it is the way it works. That is how highways and stores are popping up left and right cause it is somehow allowed by the law of the land. Like I said, the occupier shared it as wanted and that is that for me.

Unlike Australia and Canada where direct descendant of Britain successfully settled, the middle east and Palestine in particular was not permanently settled by British people, these lands continued to have its indiginous people with their distinctive culture, politics and religion.

I do not know whether the British were right or wrong in giving parts of this land to the Jewish state at that time, but in retrospect, I wonder whether there was no better way.

@Davidylan

But the 'Palestinians' have more of a claim to these lands precisely because they lived there prior to the deluge of Jewish populations that 'invaded' the space.

That in itself I think provides a more valid claim for the land than Israel has.

ocho cinco:

@Davidylan

But the 'Palestinians' have more of a claim to these lands precisely because they lived there prior to the deluge of Jewish populations that 'invaded' the space.

That in itself I think provides a more valid claim for the land than Israel has.

That is actually what we have been discussing. There has NEVER been a time when the jews were ever NOT IN PALESTINE, Not all jews lived in Germany or in other countries. The Jews have always lived in Palestine from even before it became palestine and they never left the place. Yes, some migrated but the jews have always been in palestine. So It does not prove anything to say the palestines have always had it. The Jews were in the land before it was name palestine and even after the renaming, the jews have remained in that land.

davidylan:

@ Naijaking . . . Jerusalem was not captured from any palestinians. . .

One bit of history lesson for u . . . palestinian was the name given to a Jew living in the land of Palestine before 1948. It was not until around the 1960s that palestinian became synonymous with the arab struggle to destroy Isreal.

The reason Tel Aviv is the capital and not Jerusalem is because the muslims belligerently lay claim to Jerusalem, a land that does not have any historical bearing to them beyond Muhammad's mythical ascension to "heaven". The British hoped to circumvent what would become a thorny issue by deciding to leave Jerusalem as an international zone not belonging to either the Jews or arabs. Isreal reluctantly agreed in return for peace, the arabs refused and invaded Isreal. Isreal won the war and took over western Jerusalem while Jordan annexed east jerusalem and the westbank which it eventually lost in 1967.

Talk to any jew today and they will tell you that jerusalem is their genuine capital. Stop trying to stand history on its head.

I know that some Jews insist that the creation of Israel is not complete without Jerusalem as the Divine capital, I know. You see, it's not what the hardline Jews want that matters, it's what's best for everybody's long term interest that matters.

There is always problems with Jewish, Christian and Muslim hardliners.

Do you know why the UN kept complete control of Jerusalem away from them?

Yes, the Palestinian part of Jeruselam was captured after one of the wars, tha's a fact.

Jerusalem is a Divine city to Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and of late another Buhdist group------ I forget their name.

Does anyone in this forum have access to map of the middle east before the creation of Israel?

naijaking1:

Unlike Australia and Canada where direct descendant of Britain successfully settled, the middle east and Palestine in particular was not permanently settled by British people, these lands continued to have its indiginous people with their distinctive culture, politics and religion.

I do not know whether the British were right or wrong in giving parts of this land to the Jewish state at that time, but in retrospect, I wonder whether there was no better way.  

Here is the best way to judge. Use yourself for example. Say you and your neighbour both claim ownership to land that you believe belongs to you problem is you are both slaves to another man. A Stranger with power comes in, defeats your slave master and then  and claims this land and then this stranger decides to split the land between you and your neighbour, did the stranger do you wrong by allowing you have a piece of the land at least? if for centuries you have not been able to have any piece of that land??


@naijaking, I do not know what hardline jews or softline jews think. I only know what I know of the region and I am not going to get into religion on this at all cause I believe that would be a waste of time plus, I am not a jew, I am just a person who likes to read up on history and where we have been in the history of the world and I like to spend time debating topics that I can. Can we please STAY AWAY FROM RELIGION AND STICK TO PLAIN OLD HISTORY WHICH I BELIEVE IS SUFFICIENT IN THIS CASE. I do not care who owns Jerusalem and what it means to whom at this point .

ocho cinco:

@Davidylan

But the 'Palestinians' have more of a claim to these lands precisely because they lived there prior to the deluge of Jewish populations that 'invaded' the space.

That in itself I think provides a more valid claim for the land than Israel has.

Those who call themselves palestinians today did not start migrating enmasse into Isreal until the 20th century. Arafat was born in Egypt, yet he led the PLO crying about palestine for decades. Mahmood Abass is not palestinian, yet he is leader of Fatah.
The arabs have no claims to the land of Isreal beyond their visceral hate for the jews.

Again the erroneous use of the term "palestinian". Prior to 1948, the term refered to Isrealis.

ocho cinco:

@Davidylan

But the 'Palestinians' have more of a claim to these lands precisely because they lived there prior to the deluge of Jewish populations that 'invaded' the space.

That in itself I think provides a more valid claim for the land than Israel has.

Davidlyn said that those palestinians living in the area were really Jews. The problem is that most of them were deported, killed, or exiled to make way for 'fresh' Jewish people coming in under the auspices of the new state of Israel.

Talking about persons and personalities seems to be a very good way of diverting attention from the arguement.
Arafat and Abbas's place of birth don't really figure into our discussion at this level- diversion.

What an arguement!

and yet you cry about "facts on ground", "objectivity" e.t.c. when you get facts you either pretend you dont see them or label them a diversion.

naijaking1:

Davidlyn said that those palestinians living in the area were really Jews. The problem is that most of them were deported, killed, or exiled to make way for 'fresh' Jewish people coming in under the auspices of the new state of Israel.

I have only 2 things to say here:
1. Go and google, do an independent search. The term "palestinian" refered to Jews prior to 1948. Jews dropped the use of the term prior to 1948 when they chose to adopt the name "Isreal".
2. Do you have ANY proof at all that the Jews systematically killed and deported the arabs in Isreal?

- The mayor of Jerusalem is widely known to have collaborated with the Nazi's to destroy the Jews.

naijaking1:

Talking about persons and personalities seems to be a very good way of diverting attention from the arguement.
Arafat and Abbas's place of birth don't really figure into our discussion at this level- diversion.

What an arguement!

This is absurd. Would it be "diverting attention" if Yar Adua were suddenly discovered to be Chadian?

The mere fact that palestinian arab identity did not gain any momentum until 1967, led by an Egyptian punches several holes in palestinian claims to Isreali land. This is definitely a diversion for you because it severely weakens you argument. Continue swimming in the sea of denial.

@Kobojunkie

That Jews lived in the region I will concede. But I do know that there were a significant minority if at all they were present

What I think should be at contention here is the opportunism at the centre of the Zionist enterprise to secure a state and escape persecution in Europe.
That opportunism has cost a significant population of non Jews, their lives and fortunes.

@naijaking1
The funny thing is, it'll be difficult for you to escape the 'anti-israeli' tag, simply because you guys seem to exhibit a lot of bias towards the Israeli situation.
I mean, China has annexed Tibet for tens of years now, and i've NEVER seen any Nairalander talk about this before. Why the focus on the Israeli 'occupation'?

People here are a funny lot. They lambast george Bush for not listening to the UN and invading Iran. That same UN (a legitimate body) approved a small strip of land in the desert for Israel, and everyone rains fire and brimstone.