₦airaland Forum

ijebosb:
Well, thanks for telling me who you really are.
I'm sure next you'll call yourself a Christian.

Typical leftist

budaatum:
The people who objected are those who's houses and land that the Jews who came were going to steal from them as they've done.

Arabs living inside the proposed Jewish state were not ordered to surrender their houses to European Jews and leave.

UN plan explicitly provided that people would become citizens of the state in which they lived, with full civil and political rights. It also specifically prohibited expropriating Arab-owned land in the Jewish state except for public purposes and with compensation.

So the Jews and Christians who live in Israel since then, were their lands and houses stolen?

They gambled on preventing Jewish sovereignty altogether. Na their choice. But pretending they had no alternative except accepting the theft of their homes rewrites what the partition proposal actually contained.

ijebosb:
Post the picture.
Oh yeah, I deleted it, Nairaland deleted it and google wiped it from the internet. /s

You and your bestie Raumdeuter are grown, with supposed children, who spend hours of their lives lying and talking about homosexuality on an online forum.
No difference between you two.
Well he actually lives in the US, so doesn't have to pretend, and he doesn't have a baby momma and kids he doesn't live with.
Well that's what he claims.

You scrubbed it off. Why did you delete it?

budaatum:
Because the Europeans returning are not the Palestinians who have lived their for centuries.

Being born in Europe doesn't magically erase someone's ancestry.

You keep changing what qualifies as an ancestral connection depending on who we're talking about.

Jews did not suddenly become connected to that land because Britain invited European Jews there.

Jewish peoplehood originated there, Jewish communities continued to exist there, and diaspora Jews maintained ancestral connections to the Levant.

Even modern genetic evidence shows Levantine ancestry among several Jewish diaspora populations.

The bottom line is: The Jews wanted them to return, who are the Arabs to reject? They could have accepted their own half of the partition and expelled all the Jews from it while Jews returned to the other part of the partition that belongs to the Jews.

And now you are sounding anti immigration.

ijebosb:
More made up gay comments. As expected from someone still in the closet.
You and Raumdeuter are equals at lying.
Why is that all the conversative in this thread are practiced liars?
And why is it that what you chose to talk/lie about is homosexuality.

How's pretending to live in the US going?
Why don't you tell us again about your supposed first day in the US.

Republicans are a party of liars and crooks.
Even the wannabes are liars and crooks.

When you posted you and your boyfriend holding each other in a restaurant, nobody made you do that.

ijebosb:
Have you been keeping up what is going on in Israel?
The West Bank?
What about with Christians in Israel or what the Israeli soldiers have been doing to Christian churches in Lebanon.

What's happening to Christian churches in Lebanon. You know gay men are not allowed in the Westbank, so you will do well in israel 😀

budaatum:
The land belongs to those who live there.

And I was not referring to you. Sorry I did not make that clear.

You are changing your tune. If it belongs to those who live there. Why do you have issues with Jews from Europe returning? The Jews who live there want them to return, if the Arabs don't want them, they should have accepted their state and move to the state of the Arabs. They rejected their state the Jews accepted theirs.

budaatum:
Did the word "illegally" mean nothing to you in what you quoted or are you suggesting that buda supports what buda considers to be illegal?

Of course I saw the word “illegally.” It doesn't rescue your argument.

I'm not claiming you support something you consider illegal. I'm asking you to explain why you apply your Land Back principle differently here.

if your position is that the Jewish claim is specifically illegal, then demonstrate what makes the ancestral claim itself illegitimate.

Because you've already established that centuries of residence and becoming the majority do not, by themselves, extinguish an ancestral claim.

Don't try to hide behind one word

budaatum:
Ben, stop telling lies!

It was buda who planned it for them and funded the entire operation too after holding rallies "encouraging them to go far", is more like your 'truth'.

This is not a lie either. Everyone knows you were asking them to fight instead of to seek peace.

budaatum:
Empathy for or lack of for whom? But yes, I agree. What Israel is doing is no different to what was done to them in Europe, and it really amazes me that the world is so silent about it.

Hamas has blame too. They went way too far on October 7, but I can understand their frustration, considering the silence at Israel's atrocities. Still, too far. And the Palestinians are collateral damage, we should allow ourselves to be convinced it seems to me.

Hamas went too far?

Interesting. Since when did you come to this realization? You were encouraging them to go far.

budaatum:
This is not according to me, ben, and I don't know why you'd claim it is! And you making such claims just makes what else you say just pointless.

You are claiming that according to me, if my great great great grandparents bought land and handed it down and it got to me, some ancestor of those he bought it from can come and claim it from me when they become a majority.

Please know that according to buda that would be theft, and murder too if the ancestor kills to take that land off me.

You are trying to change the proposition it seems.
It is accordin to you,

budaatum:
If people had come from elsewhere to the area called Nigeria and occupied the land and have now become the majority race, all the indigenous tribes that are left in those areas would be yelling #landback, and we might be yelling it as forcefully if not more than Israel is illegally yelling it at Palestine.

Basically, I see it internationally. And it's similar to descendants of slaves asking for lifeback, or at least to be paid for the stolen labour of their ancestors.

lawani:
It is an issue of empathy for people blaming the Palestinians

You mean suicidal empathy?

budaatum:
Why should they if they can bear the consequences of not, since it meant losing their own homeland?

Would you who can't compromise with Muslims living next door compromise if Muslims move into your house and tell you to live in the shed?

Keep this in mind and the screenshots

budaatum:
Was going to wait until Scotland survived Germany but its looking like they won't.

If people had come from elsewhere to the area called Nigeria and occupied the land and have now become the majority race, all the indigenous tribes that are left in those areas would be yelling #landback, and we might be yelling it as forcefully if not more than Israel is illegally yelling it at Palestine.

Basically, I see it internationally. And it's similar to descendants of slaves asking for lifeback, or at least to be paid for the stolen labour of their ancestors.

your own previous posts destroy this argument.
When discussing ancestral land, you said:
“If it were my ancestors land, I would not be joining anyone, I would be leading!”

You also said that if outsiders occupied Nigeria, became the majority and left the indigenous tribes as minorities, those indigenous people would still be justified in shouting #LandBack.

According to you, becoming the majority and living somewhere for centuries does not erase the ancestral claim of the people who were there before.

Yet the moment we discuss Jews, you suddenly reverse the principle and your double standards shines like the sun and your argument becomes: “But Arabs had lived throughout Palestine for centuries, so how could Jews expect territory there?”

Which is it?

Jewish national history in that land did not begin with Britain. Jewish kingdoms and communities existed there, and Jewish presence long predates the seventh-century Arab-Muslim conquest.

The Muslim conquest of Palestine began in the 630s, while Jewish communities were already there under Byzantine rule.

You ca say Palestinians have historical connection to the land. Yes they do. But your “they lived there for centuries” argument cannot, by your own #LandBack! logic fly, or erase the older Jewish connection.

When the colonizer is European, you tell us centuries passing and becoming the majority don't extinguish indigenous claims.

When the conquest was Arab and the indigenous people are Jews, suddenly centuries of residence become your decisive argument.

Why does your Land Back principle change depending on who did the conquering?

budaatum:
I find it a wonder that people from a nation created by the British of that era would refuse to even consider why some who had had much longer and more significant British experience by then would have been as ign0rant as you are. It kind of makes me want to beg you to accommodate the Muslims whom you claim are trying to dominate your mind, but I know that would be pointless nor would you recognise the contradiction.

Only arrogant people like the 1937 British would expect Arabs who for centuries had lived all over Palestine along with Jews who lived there too to move to areas now partitioned for them to accommodate those who's aspiration are from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Well, they had every right to refuse the proposal. Nobody forced them to accept partition.

But refusing a compromise also has consequences. Arab leadership wasn't saying, “Give us fairer borders and we'll accept a Jewish state next door.”

They rejected the principle of partition and wanted Palestine under Arab rule instead, they wanted blood.

So yes, they were entitled to say no. But you cannot simultaneously say they had every right to reject compromise and then act as though the consequences of repeatedly choosing an all-or-nothing big-eyeness just fall out of the sky.

They believed they could prevent Jewish sovereignty altogether. They tried, they lost, and the territorial position available to the Arabs afterward was worse than what partition had offered them.
That is history, not British arrogance.

The same was the case for India and Pakistan, the Brits partitioned India and Pakistan ten years later, and millions of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs ended up moving across the new borders.

Around 15 million people were displaced in one of the largest migrations in modern ever.

So make we hear word about partitioning a mixed population was some uniquely outrageous concept invented for Jews in Palestine.

You can say the Peel population-transfer proposal was unfair but partition by definition sometimes leaves minorities on the wrong side of a new border, just like in India.

So was there any partition under which the Arab leadership was prepared to accept a sovereign Jewish state at all?

bayelsaowei:
I will hug the children that have been killed by the IDF. The little lovely children that have been blown by your loving blood suckers.

But you.. shame all day everyday escorts you.

You’re stuck with a sex offender and a pdf to times indefinite..

What sorry life..

You can hug them no problem. It is sad that hamas and their parents put them in this difficult situation.

But why are you finding it hard to be critical to Hamas without bringing the US into it? Which US kids dance in the street and spit on someone the US army captured? They are busy in schools or playing with Barbie dolls. Doing what children actually do.

I am not stuck with Hamas, you are. I will like to be stuck in it a sex offender and a pdf than be stuck with Hamas, since I am doing like you do, throw baseless accusations, I can also say you should keep worshipping your gods and blood tasty warlords Hamas.

It is very simple to just say that's nonsense hamas is doing without pivoting to US children hold guns

raumdeuter:
Platner was voted by Democratic voters like you despite knowing everything about his abuses, his Nazi tattoo and racist comments on minorities plus wishing US soldiers die in wars

Imagine their onesideness 😀

" you are bad for supporting a nazi" then they go ahead and support an actual nazi with a tattoo on his chest.

bayelsaowei:
I condemn the way I want to.

You can’t tell me how to condemn and what I want to condemn.

I have condemned..

If that’s not enough for you, you better go and hug Trump the pdf..

America does not have anything to do with it. The kids with guns in the US are not holding it up pledging the heads to the Mexican neighbours or Jewish people.

You are no condemning it if you cannot do it in isolation.

I'd gladly hug Trump as you hug hamas 😀

bayelsaowei:
I condemn it.. same way I condemn the availability and ease of access of guns amongst adolescents in the US that has led to countless gun violent deaths historically and currently.

Plus I condemn the genocidal acts executed by the IDF on countless kids, babies and innocent women..

You are not condemning anything if you tie it to the US which is comparing apples to stones.
This is your issue, it's hard for you to condemn and when you do, it is the US you are actually condemning.

raumdeuter:
Innocent children killed by Israel

Bayelsaowei still won't condemn the teachings given to these kids and the guns given to them.

Asking why do those kids need guns at that age

Coco said that antisemitism "like Elon Musk's salute" and claimed we pretend not to see it.

No, we saw it. We said it's not a Nazi salute because we pointed out other Democratic politicians doing the same gesture, and Buda and everyone else were making excuses for the Dems.

It's the same with the planter's Nazi tattoo.


A lot of dishonest and human projectors here.

bayelsaowei:
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

Who said she is my friend?

Your leftists friends fill with compassion

Bayelsaowei see your friends

Liberal pastor says Jesus was an abortionist and if He were alive today, He would be leading the charge in opening abortion clinics because they're sacred! 🤯

"Blessed are those who END PREGNANCIES, for they will be known for their loving kindness."

This blasphemy is nothing… pic.twitter.com/Y40Ul6dSBb

— Bridgett Fertig (@LightOnLiberty) August 16, 2026

LordReed:
Bro sexual incongruence is what leads to transgender. If it occurs in animals why is it a surprise humans experience it?

You need help.

LordReed:
You ain't ready.

Its okay to say you got no answer.

You just follow anything leftist put out there.

Budaatum
Bayelsaowei



https://english.alarabiya.net/features/2020/10/05/Full-transcript-Part-one-of-Prince-Bandar-bin-Sultan-s-interview-with-Al-Arabiya

AI summary and Comprehensive timeline

details from the Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) thread (posted August 26, 2025; main post ID 1960345052200218849), titled “The History of Palestinian Rejections of Statehood Offers – A Pattern of Maximalism Over Peace.”

The 25-part thread argues that Palestinian leaders repeatedly rejected opportunities for a state because acceptance would require recognizing Israel’s existence and committing to a two-state solution. It frames the pattern as prioritizing the goal of eliminating Israel over pragmatic statehood (“from the river to the sea”). Each segment is accompanied by an image/infographic. Engagement on the main post was high (thousands of likes/reposts and hundreds of thousands of views at the time of the original fetch).

Timeline of offers and responses as presented in the thread

1937 – British Peel Commission**: Proposed partitioning Mandatory Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. Jewish side accepted; Arab leaders rejected it outright, refusing any Jewish sovereignty. Thread presents this as the start of a rejectionist pattern to avoid recognizing a Jewish state.

1947 – UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181)**: Divided Palestine into independent Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem internationalized. Jews accepted; Palestinian Arabs and surrounding Arab states rejected it, leading to the 1948 war. Goal framed as preventing any Israel.

1948–1949 – Post-independence armistices**: Israel established; armistice agreements signed in 1949, but Arab states and Palestinians refused full peace treaties recognizing Israel. Jordan annexed the West Bank; Egypt controlled Gaza. No push for a Palestinian state at the time—focus remained on destroying Israel.

1967 – Six-Day War and aftermath**: Israel captured territories and indicated willingness to return most for peace (linked to UN Resolution 242). Arab leaders at the Khartoum summit issued the “three no’s”: no peace, no recognition, no negotiation with Israel. Palestinians aligned with this priority of elimination over statehood.

1978–1979 – Camp David Accords (Israel–Egypt)**: Included a framework for Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza toward self-governance and potential statehood. PLO under Yasser Arafat rejected it as a betrayal and refused any deal implying Israel’s permanence.

1982 – Reagan Plan**: Proposed Palestinian self-government in association with Jordan, building on Camp David. PLO rejected it, insisting on full independence without prior recognition of Israel.

1991–1993 – Madrid Conference and Oslo Accords**: Palestinians invited to negotiations; Oslo created interim self-rule for the Palestinian Authority. PLO accepted the process but delayed full recognition and amendments to its charter (which called for Israel’s destruction) until 1996 (described as half-hearted). Violence, including the Second Intifada, later derailed progress. Thread notes the pre-1996 PLO covenant explicitly rejected Israel’s existence.

2000 – Camp David Summit (Clinton parameters / Barak offer)**: Israeli PM Ehud Barak offered roughly 91% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, and East Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital. Arafat rejected it without a counteroffer; the Second Intifada followed. Key sticking point cited: no full “right of return” that would demographically overwhelm Israel.

2001 – Taba Talks**: Continued talks with further Israeli concessions (94–96% of the West Bank). Palestinians walked away, refusing compromises that would preserve Israel’s Jewish character.

2002 – Arab Peace Initiative**: Offered Arab normalization for Israeli withdrawal to 1967 lines. Palestinians gave conditional support, but leaders (including Arafat) continued resistance to recognizing Israel as a Jewish state and maintained incitement.

2005 – Israeli disengagement from Gaza**: Israel unilaterally withdrew all settlements and troops, creating a de facto opportunity for Palestinian state-building. In 2006 elections, Palestinians chose Hamas (whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction). Civil war with Fatah followed in 2007; Hamas turned Gaza into a base for attacks and rejected any recognition of Israel.

2008 – Olmert offer**: Israeli PM Ehud Olmert proposed to PA President Mahmoud Abbas approximately 93.7% of the West Bank (with land swaps to reach 100%), all of Gaza, safe passage between them, and shared arrangements in Jerusalem. Abbas never formally responded (effective rejection). Cited reason: refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

2013–2014 – Kerry-mediated talks**: Israel released prisoners; Palestinians applied to UN agencies (seen as violating the process), collapsing talks. Abbas refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, a key Israeli demand for ending residual claims.

2020 – Trump “Deal of the Century”**: Offered a Palestinian state on roughly 70% of the West Bank/Gaza area plus economic aid. PA rejected it immediately and boycotted talks, sticking to maximalist demands such as full 1967 borders without swaps.

Additional points on charters, recognition, and leadership (later segments of the thread)

PLO/Fatah positions**: 1964 Charter denied Israel’s legitimacy and called for armed struggle to liberate all of Palestine. Even after the 1988 recognition linked to UN 242 and Oslo, elements of rejection persisted (including a 2018 suspension reference). Fatah claims recognition via Oslo but leaders such as Abbas refuse to acknowledge Israel as a “Jewish state.” Palestinian Authority school maps often omit Israel. In 2014 Abbas stated Palestinians would “never” recognize Israel as Jewish, which the thread links to keeping open a demographic path via refugee descendants’ “right of return.”

Hamas positions**: Original 1988 Charter calls for jihad to destroy Israel and contains antisemitic tropes. 2017 policy document accepts 1967 borders temporarily as a stage but still rejects Israel’s long-term existence. Leaders repeatedly reject recognition or lasting peace; actions including the October 7, 2023 attack are framed as aimed at eradication rather than coexistence. Hamas–Fatah unity efforts fail in part because Hamas refuses Quartet (US, EU, UN, Russia) conditions of renouncing violence and recognizing Israel.

Overall conclusion of the thread
From 1937 to 2020 the post counts at least 10+ offers rejected. It acknowledges critics who say the offers were unfair but maintains that Palestinian leaders consistently prioritized maximalism over pragmatic statehood. The final segment states that the two-state solution remains elusive until Palestinians truly recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and abandon maximalist goals.

The thread is presented as curated historical narrative emphasizing rejectionism. It does not deeply engage counter-arguments that some offers lacked full sovereignty, contiguous viable territory, adequate Jerusalem arrangements, or satisfactory refugee solutions (perspectives found in other sources). The images in each post reinforce the textual points with maps, documents, or related visuals.

Bayelsaowei, see your children

Over the past day, Palestinian "journalists" in Gaza have been vociferously praising deceased 16-year-old terrorist Suhaib Abu Labad, after footage of him in combat began circulating online.

The use of child soldiers is a longstanding practice of Hamas and Islamic Jihad pic.twitter.com/K6FdiVuLyb

— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) August 15, 2026

basilico:
Trusting arguments. There is only one option for those who their genders. Either to be called a man or a woman.
He's clutching at the straws.

He should continue to. He is feeble minded as like the rest of them.

LordReed:
A caveman is not ready for this discussion. You can't even get past the idea that gender is a social construst

Just answer the question.

How many genders do we have?

LordReed:
At least you have discarded your lie.

Did you never learn about sets in school?

There was no lie. You implied, I called you out and It still stands.

Yes, I did sets in secondary school.
So what property puts both subsets into the set “woman” in the first place?

And you still haven't answered the transition question.

If woman has no necessary connection to female biology, what is a trans woman transitioning toward?

Why are female associated physical and social characteristics the focal point of transitioning?

raumdeuter:
And why does the transition involve taking medications to suppress biological hormones or chopping off body parts

These people are gullible.

So LordReed how many genders do we have, how do you identify the Gender of a female if it's just a social construct?

LordReed:
Look at my response to your answer and stop being a caveman with poor memory.

Your answer was contradictory and stupid. If woman is a social construct as your believe, why are you saying biological woman and transwoman 😂

Why is there trans if a woman is just a social construct? What is the transition for?

IjeBos:
This is mostly the same nonsensical drivel as in your previous post, only that you let ChatGPT write it.

You should really try to write your own posts.
I can write, so I can tell that ChatGPT wrote this.
You can barely write English so you can't even tell the rhetorical flourish that is in most of your ChatGPT posts that makes them immediately distinguishable.
It's the same style in most of your posts.
Put a couple of your posts in ChatGPT and ask it to explain it to you.

I assume you're embarrassed by your inability to form basic sentences that's why you're using ChatGPT.
But this is even more embarrassing.

When you cannot argue, you make noise about ChatGPT.

If Iran funded and trained Hamas, Houthis, and Hezbollah, as well as other proxies in Iraq and Syria, and the US goes after them, does it matter if Hamas has been decimated?

Again, it is basic common sense, something you lack so badly. Hamas is still there, the same Iran, left unchecked, will continue to support them.