Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,153,556 members, 7,819,998 topics. Date: Tuesday, 07 May 2024 at 08:10 AM

This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path - Politics (3) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Politics / This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path (4801 Views)

Real Reason Obasanjo Didn't Choose Fellow Oduduwa Member, Bola Tinubu (pics) / Why Biden Didn't Choose Any Aide From The South East And The Three Northern Zone / IPOB Members Frustrated After They Didn't See President Buhari In Japan (photos) (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by Minjim: 11:10am On Mar 31
helinues:
Distorted history story

Why should Palestines settle for crumbs in their own land?

Prove it's their own land

1 Like

Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by helinues: 11:12am On Mar 31
Minjim:


Prove it's their own land

Johnjustice:

It's not their land.

Is Solomon from Palestine?
Is Jesus from Palestine?
Is David from Palestine?

Sebi God na Real estate agent wey dey distribute land anyhow hence promising Abraham some real estate lands specially kept for the Israelites
Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by Enceladus(m): 11:12am On Mar 31
Johnjustice:

This issue is not just geographical or cultural, it has religious and spiritual connotations, and it's deep.

Yeah, but the ICJ doesn't recognize religion or spirituality as a valid excuse for settler colonialism.

You can't just go back to a land you left 2000 years ago because you were promised by a God you can't even prove his existence.
Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by Johnjustice: 11:14am On Mar 31
Enceladus:


Yeah, but the ICJ doesn't recognize religion or spirituality as a valid excuse for settler colonialism.

You can't just go back to a land you left 2000 years ago because you were promised by a God you can't even prove his existence.
It is their land, Bible and history proves it, apart from the religious aspects of the struggle, they have a right to claim it. There is historical proof and records, land owned by Jews can be claimed by present day Jews.

1 Like

Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by helinues: 11:20am On Mar 31
Tallesty1:
But you want Biafra to take the 5 states carved out for them by Nigeria?

Pardon @ bolded
Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by Enceladus(m): 11:23am On Mar 31
Johnjustice:

It is their land, Bible and history proves it, apart from the religious aspects of the struggle, they have a right to claim it. There is historical proof and records, land owned by Jews can be claimed by present day Jews.

Oya oya let the white people come back to claim Africa shebi they all came from Africa. It's also their land. They lived here for a long time.

The Saxons too can go claim their land. Everyone that has migrated from a place should go back.

Let's see how it goes.
Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by Johnjustice: 11:30am On Mar 31
Enceladus:


Oya oya let the white people come back to claim Africa shebi they all came from Africa. It's also their land. They lived here for a long time.

The Saxons too can go claim their land. Everyone that has migrated from a place should go back.

Let's see how it goes.
That logic doesn't work in this context. To claim a land it must be a particular area, you must have relationship to the land, either ancestral descendents, culturally etc...it is vague and ambiguous to say because white man emanated from black man they own the land. We are the black, been here, still here.

1 Like

Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by ruggedtimi(m): 11:31am On Mar 31
omoharry:
As bias as ever. You cut out the part where the Israelite occupied that land till they were evicted by the Romans in 135 CE.. The region was once known as Judea until the Romans changed it and named it Palestine after they were evicted just to erase the Jewish presence . Pls stop telling distorted history to suit what you want
After the collapse of the united kingdom of israel by babylonians. it was actually herodotus in the hellinistic era that first called that region palestine, thats the present day gaza region. But officially it was known as Judea until the romans changed the name to Palestina in order to punish the Jews in jerusalem after several revolts by jews rebels.
Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by FiftyFifty(m): 11:42am On Mar 31
1Sharon:


Lying son of mohammed. Your got that from your father the Arabs, masters of lying through their teeth. You conveniently forgot the atrocities of Islam.


The bible is more violent than the quran?

Do you know that your central figure in Islam believes in race-based slavery? You never heard about the Muslim enslavement of black Africans?

You don't know that the conquest of your Arab masters spanned 3 continents? Why are north Africans, Mauritanians, sudanese and people of the Levant speaking Arabic?

You think they spontaneously decided to forget their indigenous tongue?

Did you know that people from Palestine are not even arab?? How is it that they're speaking Arabic?

Lol. Let me overlook your virtuperations and leave it to your doctors, you seriously need at least one, should in case you don't have any. I wish you quick recovery.

Yes, the Bible is more violent than the Qur'an, you don't need to read the books of Deuteronomy, Numbers, Joshua, Exodus, Judges, Samuel, or Leviticus to know this. Do you know that 14 books have to be removed from the Bible due to their violent nature? Oh, where am I even starting from? The problem with most of you Christian fanatics is that you don't seem to even know the Bible you overzealously defend. Same Bible that won the Guinness book of contradictions?

Slavery has existed from the beginning of time, you don't expect Muslims to just overlook it. But unlike Christianity, Islam discourages it, that is why buying and setting them (slaves) free is considered as an act of worship. And in Islam there's no difference between a slave and the one who is not, that's why they were treated with dignity unlike in Christianity. Again, slavery wasn't institutionalized by the Muslims, unlike what we saw in the Christian west, the transhipment of slaves in chains from one continent to another in the most inhumane manner was historically unprecedented. Sadly most of those innocent people were stolen from their lands. Just like someone referred to America as a stolen land, built by people stolen from their land.

They speak Arabic because they choose to. Why are countries like Eritrea, Somalia, Turkey, Iran, Azerbaijan, Indonesia, among others not speaking Arabic? The Muslims ruled the world for hundreds of years, from India in central Asia to Spain in southern Europe but to their glory, no persecution or forced conversion was recorded during their time, unlike what the Muslims such as the Moorish went through under the Christians in Spain where many were killed, some drowned in the Mediterranean and few managed to cross and settled in Morocco. You should know this if you're really who you want us believe you are. Do you know the millions of innocent people that lost their lives under the British empire, the French empire, and now the American empire? Have you ever heard about King Leopard of Belgium who exterminated many tribes in Africa? Go and read what the Britain did to the Kenyans alone, or what the French did to Algerians alone, or what the Belgium did to the Congolese alone, I can go on. When the Jews were persecuted by the Christian west, they ran to the Muslims east for cover. A religion with the history of crusades, that institutionalized slave trade, a brutal colonialism; that gave the world the likes of Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, and Bush should bury itself in shame. If you people have any.

The Palestinians, the Sudanese, or whoever doesn't need to be Arab to speak Arabic. I have said this before but your comprehension seems to be far below average. England was at a time not speaking English. Do you know that Hebrew almost went to extinction? Even in Nigeria, some people speak English an alien language originally not theirs, that's how the world has always been. So?

I tried to be as soft as I can in responding to your unwanted virtuperations due to Ramadan, I'd have treated you just like a swaggering incompetent brainless baboon that you obviously are.

3 Likes

Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by helinues: 11:45am On Mar 31
Johnjustice:

It is their land, Bible and history proves it, apart from the religious aspects of the struggle, they have a right to claim it. There is historical proof and records, land owned by Jews can be claimed by present day Jews.

Anybody can claim God told me this and that, Shekau used to claim same. They only heard cricket's chirping thinking it was God's voice
Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by FiftyFifty(m): 11:49am On Mar 31
Johnjustice:

Palestinian people migrated from the Arab peninsula to Middle East, less than 300 years ago, Solomon and Jesus story is more than 2000 years, different timelines.

You don't want to tell us where Abraham migrated to Jerusalem from even though it's there in your bible. You also don't want to tell us who did David conquer Jerusalem from? And who named the area Judea? Lol. Now that you chose to tell us that the Palestinians migrated there from the "Arab peninsula" despite the undisputable fact that the Palestinians weren't originally Arab, can you substantiate that? Any source?

4 Likes

Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by Enceladus(m): 11:53am On Mar 31
Johnjustice:

That logic doesn't work in this context. To claim a land it must be a particular area, you must have relationship to the land, either ancestral descendents, culturally etc...it is vague and ambiguous to say because white man emanated from black man they own the land. We are the black, been here, still here.

And you think the Anglo-Saxons don't have these requirements? The whites probably have the same connection with Africa just that it's a long lost history.

it is vague and ambiguous to say because white men emanated from black men they own the land. We are the black, been here, still here.

You guys are the one who usually argues that as long as you came from and lived there for a while, it's automatically your land forever. The white also came from here. Lived here for a while. By your logic, we have equal rights. Do you see how problematic that is when you look at it from your lens?
Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by FiftyFifty(m): 11:55am On Mar 31
Lawly:


Stop vomiting rubbish and deceiving your fellow religious terrorists.

The conflict between Israel and Palestine has a long and complex history with many escalations. Here are some key points from previous escalations:

1. 1947-1949: The Arab-Israeli War - This was a conflict that followed the United Nations' decision to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. It resulted in the establishment of the state of Israel.



2. 1967: Six-Day War - Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, resulting in the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and other territories.

3. 1987-1993: First Intifada - A Palestinian uprising against Israeli rule in the occupied territories.

4. 2000-2005: Second Intifada - Another Palestinian uprising marked by suicide bombings and Israeli military responses.

5. 2008-2009: Gaza War (Operation Cast Lead) - Israel's military operation in the Gaza Strip to stop rocket attacks from Palestinian militant groups.

6. 2014: Gaza War (Operation Protective Edge) - Another conflict in Gaza, resulting in significant casualties.

7. Periodic clashes and tensions over issues like settlements, security, and the status of Jerusalem.

The conflict between Israel and Palestine has a long and complex history with numerous ceasefires. Here are a few significant events:
Oslo Accords (1993): The Oslo Accords marked a significant step toward peace, leading to the creation of the Palestinian Authority and the division of the West Bank into Areas A, B, and C.

Second Intifada (2000-2005): A period of increased violence and conflict, resulting in significant casualties on both sides

.Gaza Disengagement Plan (2005): Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip, dismantling settlements and evacuating Israeli citizens.

Operation Cast Lead (2008-2009): Israel's military operation in Gaza led to a ceasefire brokered by Egypt.

Operation Pillar of Defense (2012): Another conflict in Gaza, resolved with a ceasefire brokered by Egypt and the U.S.

Operation Protective Edge (2014): A major conflict in Gaza, concluding with a ceasefire mediated by Egypt and the UN.

Gaza Protests (2018-2019): Ongoing protests at the Gaza border, resulting in periods of tension and ceasefire negotiations.

In all of these, the so called Palestinians refused a 2 state system and insisted on taking everything as contained in Hamas charter. They just don't want Israel to exist and they want only Islam to exist in the entire middle east.

Nobody need this unnecessary epistle. If you've anything meaningful say it. Otherwise stop typing trashy stuff.

1 Like

Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by UHLmoving: 12:06pm On Mar 31
helinues:
Distorted history story

Why should Palestines settle for crumbs in their own land?
from time immemorial, the land of Isreal is the homeland of the jew. The Palestine are the actual encroachers
Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by ruggedtimi(m): 12:16pm On Mar 31
FiftyFifty:


Can you pls answer these simple questions?

Who named the land Judea and Samaria?

Where did Abraham, whom the Jews claimed to have descended from migrated (to Jerusalem) from?

Who did King David conqur Jerusalem from?

If the land doesn't belong to the Palestinians, where did the Palestinians originally come from?

Thank you.
samaria was the capital of northern israel..And it was name by king Omri,king of northern israel. Read your bible bro

According to the bible, King David conquered Jerusalem from the jebus.
Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by FiftyFifty(m): 12:20pm On Mar 31
UHLmoving:
from time immemorial, the land of Isreal is the homeland of the jew. The Palestine are the actual encroachers

Time immemorial? But the biblical sources told us that Abraham the father of the Jews migrated there from Ur Mesopotamia in present day Iraq. That he travelled 800 km to the Iraqi border, another 800 crossing Syria, and another 700 in Egypt, before settling at Canaan, Palestine. How is that land belongs to the Jews from the time immemorial?

3 Likes

Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by Spy360(m): 12:38pm On Mar 31
helinues:
Distorted history story

Why should Palestines settle for crumbs in their own land?
Distorted history story.

The Roman protectorate of Palestine was ancient Israel and the inhabitants of the land were jews.

1 Like 1 Share

Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by Spy360(m): 12:40pm On Mar 31
FiftyFifty:


Time immemorial? But the biblical sources told us that Abraham the father of the Jews migrated there from Ur Mesopotamia in present day Iraq. That he travelled 800 km to the Iraqi border, another 800 crossing Syria, and another 700 in Egypt, before settling at Canaan, Palestine. How is that land belongs to the Jews from the time immemorial?
The last surviving people that occupied the land are the Jews. Unless you want to resurrect the Hivites and Jebusites.

1 Like 1 Share

Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by Spy360(m): 12:47pm On Mar 31
FiftyFifty:


You don't want to tell us where Abraham migrated to Jerusalem from even though it's there in your bible. You also don't want to tell us who did David conquer Jerusalem from? And who named the area Judea? Lol. Now that you chose to tell us that the Palestinians migrated there from the "Arab peninsula" despite the undisputable fact that the Palestinians weren't originally Arab, can you substantiate that? Any source?
Was there a State of Palestine before Israel as recent as 1948? No.

So who are the Palestines? Palestine is a name given by the Greeks to refer to Philistines. However the Romans adopted it and expanded it to include all of Judea and Samaria. Today, the Philistines no longer exist as a people. So who then are the Palestines? The are Arab immigrants from Egypt and Jordan who are being used by Iran to claim a nationality that doesn't belong to them just to keep lsrael constantly at war. Hence the reason why no other Arab country given a Bleep about them. Not even Egypt or Jordan.

Let's just pray that HAMAS surrenders to Israel as soon as possible if not more people will die.

1 Like 1 Share

Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by Whalis: 1:49pm On Mar 31
FiftyFifty:


Why are you sounding so aggressive?

The history of Palestine didn't start with Rabin, it started long before Abraham whom the Jews claimed to have descended from migrated from Ur and later Haran all in Mesopotamia (today's Iraq) and settled there. King David would later conquer Jerusalem. Conquer from who? You may ask- the Palestinians. Check your Bible. Today's Jews are migrants from Europe who settled there due to the persecution from the western Christian countries such as France, Germany, Russia, and others. We all know where the Jews migrated from but no one has told us where the Palestinians migrated from. Ask an Israeli the tomb of his immediate grandparents and he'll take you to Poland, Germany, or Russia. Ask a Palestinian the tomb of his 30th grandparents and he'll take you there in Palestine. And you're still saying that is not their land.
Your reason is unifocal and biased. Ask the surrounding countries Egypt, Jordan, Syria who their ancient neighbors were none of them would mention Palestine. They only came into existence in recent times. Palestinians are offspring of pilgrims who came to Israel and couldn't find their way to their home countries and hence left behind.

1 Like

Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by chiagozien(m): 1:52pm On Mar 31
talk2hb1:

Which Biafra?
Ask your fada
Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by Idaytesj29(m): 2:01pm On Mar 31
FiftyFifty:


Not true and I'll tell you why.

Palestinian people have been wrongly but deliberately accused of rejecting the two-state-solutiin (2SS). This is a lie. A pure, blatant lie repeatedly told to mislead the public. The devil in every deal is in the details...

The only Israeli PM who showed commitment to the 2SS was Yitzhak Rabin based on the 1993 Oslo Accord, and it was on that commitment that he got assassinated publicly by Yigal Amir, a jewish extremist in 1995.

The camp David Summit in the year 2000 came fairly close to creating a 2SS during Ehud Barak. It came crashing down when Barak warned the Americans that he could not accept giving the Palestinians more than a purely symbolic sovereignty over any part of East Jerusalem. In total, Israel demanded that Palestine's territory in East Jerusalem be reduced to eight sections including six small enclaves. Palestinians objected to the lack of sovereignty and to the right of Israel to keep Jewish neighbourhoods that it built over the Green Line in East Jerusalem.

The Israel also wanted to set up radar stations inside the Palestinian state, and be allowed to use its airspace. Israel also wanted the right to deploy troops on Palestinian territory in the event of an emergency, and the stationing of an international force in the Jordan Valley. Palestinian authorities would maintain control of border crossings under temporary Israeli observation. Israel would maintain a permanent security presence along the Palestinian-Jordanian border.

Israel also demanded that the Palestinian state be demilitarized with the exception of its paramilitary security forces, that it would not make alliances without Israeli approval or allow the introduction of foreign forces west of the Jordan River.

One of Israel's strongest demands was that Arafat declare the conflict over, and make no further demands. Israel also wanted water resources in the West Bank to be shared by both sides and remain under Israeli management. Israeli control of water resources in the new (almost) Palestinian state, along with de facto Israeli control over borders and the total demilitarisation of the Palestinian state basically guarantees that Palestine would be an Israeli state.

Robert Malley, part of the Clinton administration and present at the summit, wrote that Arafat was told that Israel would not only retain sovereignty over some Arab neighbourhoods of Jerusalem, but Haram Al Sharif too, and Arafat was also asked to accept a 9-to-1 ratio in land swaps.

Shlomo Ben-Ami, the then Israel's Minister of Foreign Relations who participated in the talks stated on Democracy now in 2006 that "Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well.

The Palestinians compromised quite a bit. They started by asking for a state based on pre 1967 borders. The Israelis rejected that, so they asked for borders based on 1967. The Israelis also rejected that, so they asked for complete control over the West Bank and Gaza. The Israelis rejected that. And the same Palestinians are unjustly accused by people of rejecting the 2SS. (As recent as last week, Netanyahu publicly and boldly reiterated the Israel stance that the Palestinians shouldn't have a state, after Biden called for a 2SS).

These and more are all documented by even the Israeli media such as the Haretz and by many Israeli authors such as Uri Avnery, Dan Cohen, and Ilan Pappe, among others.

God bless you. The Christian terrorists and mass murderers will till disagree with you. They have the right to call others terrorist, but wouldn't want to be names terrorist despite committing mass murders.

1 Like

Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by FiftyFifty(m): 3:18pm On Mar 31
Spy360:

Was there a State of Palestine before Israel as recent as 1948? No.

What a myopic way of looking at things. Was there a country called Nigeria before 1914? There was also no mention of state of Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Oman, Bahrain, UAE, and Qatar... So?

Hamas has so far shown the world that Israel can't win any battle with them one on one even with the assistance of the US, the UK, Germany, and other European countries. That 6 months after but still Israel is yet to defeat the Hamas is a defeat of its own.

3 Likes

Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by FiftyFifty(m): 3:24pm On Mar 31
Whalis:

Your reason is unifocal and biased. Ask the surrounding countries Egypt, Jordan, Syria who their ancient neighbors were none of them would mention Palestine. They only came into existence in recent times. Palestinians are offspring of pilgrims who came to Israel and couldn't find their way to their home countries and hence left behind.

Lol at your last sentence, you must be kidding. Was there a mention of countries like Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Oman, UAE, and Qatar, among others? Back home, was there a country called Nigeria before 1914?

3 Likes

Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by Whalis: 3:35pm On Mar 31
FiftyFifty:


Lol at your last sentence, you must be kidding. Was there a mention of countries like Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Oman, UAE, and Qatar, among others? Back home, was there a country called Nigeria before 1914?
In the ancient world every part of the world has a name. There was Persia present day Iran. There was Arabia present day Saudi and others. There was Assyria present day Syria. There was Jordan, there was Egypt and even Lebanon and Israel. These people inhabited these spots they are presently. Where were the Palestinians? These are migrants and occupier. The Quran perhaps you use recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's. The Bible does the same. Quran never mentioned anyone called Palestinians. The name was given by the British when they realized these people hadn't name.

1 Like 1 Share

Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by talk2hb1(m): 5:51pm On Mar 31
chiagozien:
Ask your fada
That's Typical!
Re: This Would Have Being Palestine Today If They Didn't Choose The Violent Path by delpee(f): 10:03pm On Apr 04
FiftyFifty:


Of all the issues I raised that is the only thing you are in contention with? Interesting. Well, compare the institutionalization of slavery in the Christian west and that of the Muslim east and tell us your discovery.

They're the same. The only difference probably being that the survivors in the West were subsequently freed and were absorbed into their societies. For some Arabs, blacks are still regarded as slaves.

(1) (2) (3) (Reply)

What Is Nairaland's Fixation On Tribe? / Cash Crunch Hit Buhari Campaign / Breaking!!! Dss Shuns High Court Order, Vow Never To Release Kanu

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 89
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.