Palestine vs Israel

Napisao Netzer, 14.01.2017 at 13:22

Jews were the indigenous people of that region you see ? The name was also chosen deliberately because it sounded similar to a name of a Biblical nation called Philistines who were the historical enemies of the Jewish people and who resided in that region when it was still called Canaan.

Didn't Jews arrive from Egyptian slavery and settled? And also Abraham was from modern South Iraq, so how that's indigenous to the land of Canaan?

Also, aren't Palestinians descendants of the Philistines as they live exactly on the same land, just like modern Egyptians are descendants from Ancient Egypt and Libyans/Algerians are descendants of Hanibal soldiers? If Arabs mixed with them, they still retain 50% original blood and ancestry, so that would make Palestinians 50% Arab, but 50% Philistines.

Napisao theFuehrer, 19.01.2017 at 13:34

It didn't bring nothing positive to you but to Israel it has. It's just a perspective thing. It's not as complex as you make it out to be. Quite simple actually. Israel faked WWII. Soon after they were givin the "promise land" which God has promised to his chosen people. However, they twisted up the Word of God and convinced lots of people that they actually are the chosen ones but really they are Eastern Europeans, so most people sympathized and felt bad for 'jews' since they were being 'executed' by the Germans. You need to remember the victor writes history. If you look at the other side you see Jews actually declared war on Germany and there's plenty of evidence of hoax holocaust. Up to you to research yourself. History books at your school is written by Jews so what you think they will write in them?

So many misinformations here...

1) Jews are not Chosen People because God chose them to survive or chose to lead or chose to oppress anyone. Bible/Tanakh clearly states that Chosen People are people God chose to give them laws so they can live by them and show the pagan world proper ways to live. Nothing more. If Jews discard those laws, God can easily replace them with other people, like Armenians, Greeks, Russians, Serbians or Copts. All these nations suffered greatly under foreign oppression and still retained identity, language, religion and tradition (laws).
When Jesus was born, he said all old laws are canceled and only one remains - love, so we don't have to circumcize ourselves anymore, or celebrate any day, but we can if we want, and all christian nations still celebrate some days, so these words of Jesus Christ is proof that not only Jews can be Chosen, but any other nation if they follow God's law(s). So saying 'they are not chosen but eastern europeans' doesn't make sense as you don't have to be jew or live in Jerusalem to be chosen.

2) Jews couldn't declare war on Germany as they didn't had a state in that time, Israel was created in 1948 while WW2 ended in 1945. So that's a lie

3) If some people deny holocaust, that mean they deny all deaths perpetrated by the Germans and their allies Italy and Croatia; 7 million Jews, 5 million Poles, 1 million Serbians and 26 million Soviets. You can't cherry pick facts and rumors as it suits you while ignoring related facts and rumors.

4) Also how can Jews be fake jews? Are Egyptians fake Egyptians because they are muslims and not polytheists like in Pharaoh times? Are Greeks and Italians fake because they don't believe in Mars and Zeus? Are Armenians fake because Turks and Persians raped them for 2000 years and they became brown? Are Bulgarians fake because they are mixed with Slavs and raped by the Turks so half of their population is brown?

Napisao Skanderbeg, 21.01.2017 at 09:22

Napisao Netzer, 14.01.2017 at 13:22

Jews were the indigenous people of that region you see ? The name was also chosen deliberately because it sounded similar to a name of a Biblical nation called Philistines who were the historical enemies of the Jewish people and who resided in that region when it was still called Canaan.

Also, aren't Palestinians descendants of the Philistines as they live exactly on the same land, just like modern Egyptians are descendants from Ancient Egypt and Libyans/Algerians are descendants of Hanibal soldiers? If Arabs mixed with them, they still retain 50% original blood and ancestry, so that would make Palestinians 50% Arab, but 50% Philistines.

The original people of the land the Canaanites intermarried with the Hebrews who came after and by the time the Assyrians conquered them, they were already assimilated. Since the Canaanites no longer exist, the next on the line are the Israelites.

The Philistines were certainly not Arabs, they came from the Mediterranean, "sea people" and invaded the lands. The Philistia as translated from greek was the coastal region and different from the greek Palestine.

The truth is not even Lebanon was trully arab, thats why the country is run more like a secular-democracy than a theocracy as the rest, its called "lebabon republic" and the population reject the term "arab state". If muslim arabs want to claim the land, they have to get in line cause Assyrians, Babylonians, Seleucids, Romans and Byzantines beat them to it. The land of Canaan and its surroundings were Arabized in the Islamic conquests, the land of Israel is mentioned tons of times in the bible, never in the Quran. Modern day Palestinians are just muslim arabs from around, they never claimed a state historically even if they conquered the area for more than a millenia and only adopted this "Palestinian identity" in modern history, after the six days war, when Israel beat them.

Napisao Khal.eesi, 20.01.2017 at 11:05

Why should she? Are you implying that every piece of land aquired through war and imperialism should be given back? If so, keep in mind colonialist European countries like Uk, Spain, France, Portugal etc gave back most of their colonies and land aquisitions. You know who didnt? Arabs and Turks, they still control almost all the Middle East, North Africa and Anatolia, all of those lands aquired by war.

Muslim empire started from Arabia and Turks started from nothing. But you mean to say that Uk has to give everything back but Arabs and Turks not? Why the double standard? Why racism against whites?

I'm not saying they need to give anything back or forward, just asking a simple question, jeesh btw, is UK a she?? :O interesting. Just saying if jewish people live inside UK borders, no conflict would have risen right? Happy ending for everyone!

Napisao Viruslegion, 20.01.2017 at 11:41

Maybe because that's where the jews have lived for thousands of years

In that case... give USA back to the natives and all you inmigrants get back to Europe, Africa or wherever your ascendants are from

Napisao Guest, 18.01.2017 at 19:01

Kind of funny how everyone loses their shit over China wanting to take Islands that have cultural heritage to them

Wtf are you talking about. The senkaku island was not historically chinese.

Napisao RaulPB, 22.01.2017 at 19:29

In that case... give USA back to the natives and all you inmigrants get back to Europe, Africa or wherever your ascendants are from

If Ducal Prussia is restored to Germany so I can go back to the land of my ancestors then I'm on board!

So much cancer here, time to make this into balkan flame war....

Napisao Oleg, 22.01.2017 at 22:11

So much cancer here, time to make this into balkan flame war....

Kosovo is Serbian

Napisao Viruslegion, 22.01.2017 at 22:23

Napisao Oleg, 22.01.2017 at 22:11

So much cancer here, time to make this into balkan flame war....

Kosovo is Serbian

Free Kurdistan... oh wait that's not balkan, nor European

Napisao Guest, 23.01.2017 at 00:03

Napisao Witch-Doctor, 22.01.2017 at 21:14

Napisao Guest, 18.01.2017 at 19:01

Kind of funny how everyone loses their shit over China wanting to take Islands that have cultural heritage to them

Wtf are you talking about. The senkaku island was not historically chinese.

So what about the other islands then..?

The entire south china sea dispute is over more than just island. It's the fact that the area that china is claiming infringes on the claims of many different countries.

You don't see countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, and Vietnam go and

1. Build ARTIFICIAL islands with military bases on it as stake holder to the area.
2. Aggressively patrol the area with their naval fleet.
3. Do stupid -beating their chests like an autistic ape- level shit like performing aggressive maneuvers with fighter planes near a US spy plane and then managing to crash into said spy plane.
3a. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident

Napisao Guest, 23.01.2017 at 01:09

Napisao Witch-Doctor, 23.01.2017 at 00:52

Napisao Guest, 23.01.2017 at 00:03

Napisao Witch-Doctor, 22.01.2017 at 21:14

Napisao Guest, 18.01.2017 at 19:01

Kind of funny how everyone loses their shit over China wanting to take Islands that have cultural heritage to them

You are forgetting some other islands

What's your point? I don't have to mention the other islands if I can prove that people are losing their shit not over islands but over territorial claims and other issues like aggressive patrols with the navy.

Napisao Skanderbeg, 21.01.2017 at 09:22

Napisao Netzer, 14.01.2017 at 13:22

Jews were the indigenous people of that region you see ? The name was also chosen deliberately because it sounded similar to a name of a Biblical nation called Philistines who were the historical enemies of the Jewish people and who resided in that region when it was still called Canaan.

Didn't Jews arrive from Egyptian slavery and settled? And also Abraham was from modern South Iraq, so how that's indigenous to the land of Canaan?

Also, aren't Palestinians descendants of the Philistines as they live exactly on the same land, just like modern Egyptians are descendants from Ancient Egypt and Libyans/Algerians are descendants of Hanibal soldiers? If Arabs mixed with them, they still retain 50% original blood and ancestry, so that would make Palestinians 50% Arab, but 50% Philistines.

Every nation immigrated from somewhere and settled the area that is now recognised as their native land. Look at Japan as an example. Jamon, Ainu and Okinawans people are the indigenous people of that land. Up until 400BC they were the majority, then Korean and Chinese started to migrate to Japan and create the Yayoi period which eventually assimilated the indigenous people and interbreed with them, and created the Yamato people, and there is no dispute that Yamato are the natives of this land. The Israelis came to Canaan 3500+ years ago, conquered it and owned it fairly. And since then had presence in this land with big community and at times small.
Before we migrated from Egypt we were in Israel otherwise why and how there would be Jews? the father of the religion Abraham settled on this land and his descendents created the 12 tribes which 2 of them became kingdoms (Judea and Samaria mostly known as West Bank), hundreds if not thousand years before the Egyptian slavery times.

Napisao [user_id]0[/user_id], 01.01.2010 at 10:10

"The Philistines were an aggressive, warmongering people who occupied a part of southwest Palestine between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. The name "Philistine" comes from the Hebrew word Philistia, and the Greek rendering of the name, palaistinei, gives us the modern name "Palestine." The Philistines are first recorded in Scripture in the Table of Nations, a list of the patriarchal founders of seventy nations descended from Noah (Genesis 10:14). It is thought that the Philistines originated in Caphtor, the Hebrew name for the island of Crete and the whole Aegean region (Amos 9:7; Jeremiah 47:4). For unknown reasons, they migrated from that region to the Mediterranean coast near Gaza. Because of their maritime history, the Philistines are often associated with the "Sea Peoples." The Bible records that the Philistines had contact with both Abraham and Isaac as early as 2000 B.C. (Genesis 21:32, 34; 26:1, 8).

Today, the word philistine is used as an epithet to refer to an unrefined, dull person. In truth, the Philistines of history were not unsophisticated or uncultured. They were an advanced seafaring people who, for several generations, were years ahead of Israel.

With the exception of Jeremiah chapter 47, there are very few prophetic references to the Philistines. In the end, the Philistines were assimilated into Canaanite culture. They eventually disappeared from the biblical record and from history altogether, leaving behind the name "Palestine" as a testimony of their existence.."

How they can be descendents of Philistines when Philistine's traces can't be tracked anymore?  most of the ancient Philistine people either went back to their original islands and some assimilate with the locals, who are surely not the ancestors of the current Arab Palestinians.

From British demographics report from the 1920 there was 650,000 Arabs on the British mandate of Palestine, this includes Jordan.
In the beginning of 19th century there was less than 100,000 Muslims in this land (including Jordan). After the Arab Egyptian invasion in 1831 their numbers started to multiply. And it continue to increase by 650% by the next 90 years because of migrations from the Arab world to Palestine/Israel in search for jobs and higher quality of life that the Jews brought. Now there are 12.2 million Arabs who identify as Palestinians, from which only 4%(600,000 people) are the descendents of those Muslims that lived here pre 1831.
I will provide ecentre more detailed information below. When you're done reading it please refer to my questions in the first page in this thread and answer them.
Cheers.

Napisao [user_id]0[/user_id], 01.01.2010 at 10:10

"The wars between Israel and its Arab neighbors were fought for many years on the battlefield between armies. In recent decades the arena of conflict has shifted from hand-to-hand combat to a war of narratives.

Everybody agrees that the current affluence of Israel, its modern infrastructure and economy were developed by the Jews. The Palestinian Arab narrative is that as the ancient, indigenous people of Palestine they feel dispossessed and they deserve to take over Israel's riches. Jewish claims to their heritage in the land of Israel are supported by abundant archaeological artifacts and historical records.

Meanwhile, there are no records to support the Palestinian narrative. In history, art and literature there is no trace at all of any Muslim people referred to by anybody as "Palestinians."

Records show that it was 19th and 20th century Jewish settlement and the resulting employment opportunities that drew successive waves of Arab immigrants to Palestine. "The Arab population shows a remarkable increase ….. partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the [Jewish] National Home.." (The Peel Commission Report - 1937)
"..in the Jewish settlement Rishon l'Tsion founded in 1882, by the year 1889, the forty Jewish families settled there, had attracted more than four hundred Arab families.... Many other Arab villages had sprouted in the same fashion." (Joan Peters - From Time Immemorial p. 252 - referenced further as: FTI)

British PM Winston Churchill said in 1939: ".. far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country [Palestine].."

Before the Six Day War in 1967, when Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt ruled in Gaza, there was never any suggestion on the part of the "Palestinians" that they wanted independence in their ancestral homeland. The reason was that the "Palestinian" nation hadn't been invented yet.

In fact, before the State of Israel was born, the term "Palestinians" was used by the Jews to refer to themselves and their organizations. "The Palestine Post", the Palestine Foundation Fund, Palestine Airways, and the Palestine Symphony Orchestra were all purely Jewish enterprises.

We first hear of Arabs referred to as "Palestinians" when Egypt's President Nasser, with help from the Russian KGB, established the "Palestine Liberation Organization" in 1964. It was only during the 1970s that the newly minted "Palestinians" began to promote their narrative through murder and assassination. The Arabs have justified their attacks as acts of the indigenous people struggling for national liberation.

Joan Peter's research has exposed the truth about Arab claims

Many individual authors have challenged the "Palestinian" narrative. Among these, one of the most ambitious was Joan Peters, who in 1984 published her thoroughly researched study of Arab immigration into Palestine, From Time Immemorial (FTI). Peters assembled many accounts of 19th century travelers' journeys through the Holy Land that paint the picture of a forsaken and almost uninhabited land.

Mark Twain's comments in 1867 are probably the best known: "….. A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds… a silent mournful expanse…. a desolation…. we never saw a human being on the whole route…. hardly a tree or shrub anywhere."

Peters documents how the current land of Israel with its millions of Arabs and Jews gradually emerged from its desolate 19th century beginnings. She analyzes the respective populations of Muslims, Christians and Jews based on data available from existing sources including Ottoman census figures, government documents, old publications, scientific research, etc.

Peters' work was received with accolades and praise in most quarters and with predictable outrage by the supporters of the "Palestinian" narrative The vehemence with which Peters was attacked was very telling. She had undermined the basis for the delegitimization of Israel. She had shown that the vast majority of "Palestinians" are not indigenous to Palestine but rather descendants of the Arab economic migrants who arrived in the late 19th and 20th centuries.

Peter's thorough analysis consists of 410 pages of text and 190 pages of documentary appendices. The general public could hardly be expected to wade through the 600-page tome full of data tables and quotes from hundreds of sources. Thus the book was unable to reverse the continuing fiction of the indigenous "Palestinian" people whose lands have been stolen by the Jews.


A simple new way to prove Peters' key conclusion

In the midst of various arguments, what has been overlooked is a simple and incontrovertible way to prove that the vast majority of "Palestinians" are the descendants of the relatively recent Arab immigrants.

Peters calculated that in 1882, just the non-nomadic, settled Muslims in Palestine numbered 141,000. Among them, those that resided in Palestine before the 1831 Egyptian invasion numbered 75 percent, or 105,700 (FTI page 197). By 2015, descendants of these 105,700 persons can trace their linage in Palestine for almost 200 years. Therefore, one might consider them to be the indigenous residents. The date 1831 is important, because this was the beginning of the war with Arab Egypt, during which many thousands of Arabs settled in Palestine and changed its demographics.

The number of 105,700 thousand settled Muslims is in general agreement with other important data. Walter Lowdermilk gives the total number of 200,000 people residing in Palestine in 1850 (page 76 - Palestine Land of Promise 1944). Lowdermilk's number includes Jews, Christians, travelling nomadic Bedouins and settled Muslims. It also includes Arabs that immigrated after the war of 1831. Arthur Ruppin estimates the total population in year 1882 as 300,000 Palestinian inhabitants, including nomadic and settled Muslims, Christians and Jews (The Jews in the Modern World, MacMillan - 1934 page 368).

If these 105,700 indigenous Muslims were to increase in numbers only through natural population growth, how many would they number today in 2015? This would represent the size of this population as if there were no Muslim immigration at all.

We can calculate the estimated 2015 native population, based on natural rates of population growth. I assume that the post-1882 Muslim population in Palestine -- apart from immigration — grew at approximately the same rate as the populations of neighboring Syria, Egypt and Lebanon for which rates we have reliable data. That rate of growth was 1.1% per annum. (FTI page 529 table in note 78) **

I used the compounded interest formula to do the math. Applying the 1.1% growth rate to the Muslim population resident in Palestine in 1882 yields a total number of 453,000 Muslim descendants in 2015 of these original 105,700 native people.

According to the 2015 World Almanac, the current "Palestinian" population, including Israeli Arabs, and Arab residents of Gaza, Golan, Judea and Samaria totals 10,523,715 people. 453,000 descendants of indigenous Muslim residents constitute only 4.3% of the current "Palestinian" population. Therefore the other 95.7% of present-day "Palestinians" are clearly those Arabs and their descendants who migrated to Israel between 1831 and 2015.



Despite the substantial documentation assembled by Peters, demonstrating massive Arab immigration into Palestine, anti-Israel propagandists continue to deny it. Based on what we know today, and the simple truths of basic math, the issue has become clear and unambiguous. All historic records indicate that only insignificant number of long-term settled Muslims were present in Palestine before 1882, when the large Jewish immigration began. Muslim Arab numbers increased dramatically as Jewish settlements developed infrastructure and provided work opportunities to Arabs from the neighboring countries.

Also worth noting is that the "indigenous" 4.3% comprised many non-Arab nationalities. All of them were swamped by the Arab immigrants and within a few generations largely lost their identity.

Given the complete absence of any historical record to the contrary, we can authoritatively say that the "Palestinian people" never existed until they were invented in the 1960s as a tool for continuing the Arab war against Israel.

The claim that "Palestinians" are the indigenous people of Israel and that most of the present Palestinian Arabs have lived in these lands since time immemorial is a total fraud. Albeit posthumously, Joan Peters has had the last word on the subject.

Daniel Grynglas San Jose, 24 April 2015

** NOTE: Peters rejects birth rates for Palestinian Muslims given by the British Mandatory Government which purposely inflated the Muslim rates to justify British inaction in face of the massive illegal Arab immigration. To disguise that illegal immigration, British claimed that Arabs in Palestine had unbelievably high birth rates.)"

source from:
http://m.jpost.com/Blogs/Why-World-Opinion-Matters/Are-Arabs-the-indigenous-people-of-Palestine-402785

Napisao Guest, 23.01.2017 at 01:20

Napisao Netzer, 21.01.2017 at 06:44

Napisao Guest, 20.01.2017 at 23:17

Napisao theFuehrer, 20.01.2017 at 14:23

It's shocking no one has mentions AshkeNAZI 'jews' are Eastern European. They are not descendants of Abraham like they love to claims. They are Gentiles.

i did state that they probably have no real relation to ancient israeli's.... their most famous president was from poland lol.

You even used another alt (iTzVisionz) to vote for Palestine. You're very invested in this thread for someone that lives faraway in New Zealand. Why you don't use this energy perhaps to help the poor people worldwide or perhaps only in New Zealand instead? you claim you're interested and obliged to help those in need, yet ignore the needy people that are close to you in your country. These poor people will appreciate it much more if you cared for them as much as you care for the fake Arab nationals called Palestinians, who would most likely kill you if they find out you're unfaithful Muslim, first chance they get for breaking various sharia laws.
But why would you do that? You're another Muslim who's following agenda driven by your religious affiliation, with big dose of propaganda and hatred to Jews and Israel, that use this phrase to divert others, since you know very well that the real reasons why you support those people aren't good to justify any support. Or I overestimated you and you just want to feel like you're part of a popular circle, or edgy to support them like Khal Tok said.
Cheers.

My country sends aid where it can, Sadly we're not allowed to send aid to those in palestine because Israel will probably bomb our navy ships in some strange accident. I'm not sure if you actually knew what you were saying but there is a problem with the poor and infrastructure in my country currently but there are talks to fix that. Also once again I am not a muslim and never was one, just because I defend innocent Palestinians doesnt make me a muslim, If Israel was really the victim here then I would be here defending them... would that make me jewish?... no. If anything I'm more Christian since I have previously been to church but in the end i realized religion is not for me. Also there is no propaganda to hate jews... if anything there is only propaganda made out to feel pitty for them since they had such a hard time during world war 2. The thing is I use to be right behind Israel because all the media talks about is how they're the most stable country in the middle east and how good they are and so on... but then i did research of my own and realized it's all bullshit and that Israel aren't happy with what USA and UK already gave them so like the stereotypical term used to describe them "greedy" are out to steal as much land as they can. Keep up with the false claims bro.

I'm not talking about your country's ability or inability to do something, I'm talking about your ability to do something. You say there are talks to fix that but certainly you weren't protesting to achieve that, you're more busy protesting and caring for what happens tens of thousands of miles away from where you live.
For your information, when you send a ship directly to an area that is under sea blockade, anywhere in the world, the country who is blocking won't let you pass without checking your ship first to clear it from weapons smuggling among other things. That includes forcibly taking over the ship militarily if you refuse to obey the blockade. Many organisations and countries that sent aid to Gaza without the intent to start provocations, stopped by the nearest port city in Israel to get their cargo checked to clear any suspicion before they proceed to Gaza. Besides Gaza don't need any aid since they receive all that they need from the Israeli government from the tax payers and at the expense of the jewish Israelis.
How you think they have electricity,  medicine, clean water, materials for infrastructure and so on? And the story behind the sea blockade on Gaza is pretty simple, Hamas, a terror organisation that was democratically elected by the citizens of Gaza, use the sea to receive weapons from Iran and other deadly ammunition to use against Israel. Any attempt to reach Gaza directly will be blocked and repelled, unless you first go to the nearby Israeli port city Ashdod, and have your cargo checked to clear any suspicion of weapon smuggling. After clearance you're allowed to proceed like many have. Another thing. Gaza people get free electricity from Israel, food, medicine and infrastructure materials but guess what? Hamas use those mainly for themselves and their war efforts against Israel. Those people can blame only themselves for electing those people to lead them.

I hate liars. You're a muslim. You have said this many times before, why you deny that now? You're Muslim when it's convenient? It isn't working like that. In sharia law if you convert or were born a Muslim you will die as a Muslim, you have no other choice, you're Muslim until your death or until Islam dissolves.
I don't believe what you say about supporting Israel, you know nothing. You have posted many times you want to kill yourself. Please do it already... but not in suicide attack. Tie a rope on your neck and jump from a cliff. Repeat it again if you manage to survive. It will be your favorite bungee style.


This is the last time I say it. Answer the questions I asked on the first page, until then your posts are meaningless. And I won't reply to them.
Cheers.

And Khal , there is Palestinian economy, its economy relies mostly on Israel. We pay for their leaders and fund their needs endlessly. They even owe Israel something around 5 billion dollars, but our government hide this fact and shortened it to 530 million dollars because Palestinian authority can't pay it, and it shortened it even more so they will actually pay perhaps 130 million dollars. I doubt they will pay though. Without Israel they will collapse in a matter of few days.

Napisao Netzer, 23.01.2017 at 04:52

Once again I'm sorry to tell you this but I'm not muslim, I don't live in a muslim state, I'm known by most of the community here for how often i binge drink alcohol and I've done more than enough to support my country, I've donated money to help in the Christchurch earthquake's previously and not long ago the country came together and donated money to purchase back land rights to a beach which a private investor had and was trying to sell to a foreign business man. I don't know why you keep responding to me when all you're doing is saying the same shit and I keep answering. You're lucky there is people like me and a country like mine cause you can bet when something wrongfully happens to Israel and you need support we will be right there.

Free palestine from war crime zionist

Hdrakon is a whore all what he need is attention so guys just ignore him then he will cry

Napisao Khal.eesi, 21.01.2017 at 08:08

i would just love it if any of you Palestinian supporters answer some simple questions, like why Palestinians always declined the peace offers and two state solution and how can you "seek recognition" and to "let you build a state" when you officially announce that you will fight for Israel destruction until the end of times.

I was a little surprised when i first heard this. However, after some reading over the week-end, it seems it was ambiguity in the way British worded the agreements granting statehood to a number of Arab nations about a hundred years ago that lead to present situation. (British like doing that.) As best as i can tell, Arab nations were under the impression that following the first world war, in exchange for assisting the British in defeating the Ottoman's, the region would be granted Arab independence. There was no mention of a non-Arab state in these documents, until the Balfour Declaration, where suddenly a Jewish state would be created in the midst of the Arab states. Naturally, the Arabs kept citing the earlier agreements, rejected the offer of statehood if it included a Jewish state. However, other Arab states that weren't immediately affected, accepted independence from the British. It gets even messier by the second world war, when the Allies (or the British at least) presumed any Palestinian state would simply be absorbed by other Arab nations, and so you get a situation where the Arabs are agreeing, because they have secondary agendas, the Palestinians are refusing, because they are holding on to earlier agreements which they view as accepted in good faith, and then you have Israel, who is just happy to finally have a state, naturally agreeing.

I know this is a rather crude simplification, but i think it captures the essence of why they reject the later offers of statehood... it's not so much Palestinians rejecting their own statehood.. they are holding on to the original agreements where they didn't have a Jewish state in their borders.

[As an aside, i was trying to keep the post short, but i totally agree with your example of the Kurds... i would support them having a state as well, and even in Canada, where the French want their own state, i support Quebec having their own identity if statehood will satisfy this need.]

Napisao Khal.eesi, 21.01.2017 at 08:08

i would just love it if any of you Palestinian supporters answer some simple questions, like why Palestinians always declined the peace offers and two state solution and how can you "seek recognition" and to "let you build a state" when you officially announce that you will fight for Israel destruction until the end of times.

Do you accept Cyprus two state solution? What about Serbia-Kosovo two state solution? Are Ukrainians willing to accept two state solution with Donbass? What about China-Taiwan two state solution? Why didn't United States propose two state solution to American natives? What about Turkey-Kurds two state solution? Would that work?

Napisao Guest, 23.01.2017 at 01:09

Napisao Oleg, 22.01.2017 at 22:11

So much cancer here, time to make this into balkan flame war....

It's even more retarded than one of them lol

Thats why we should turn this into balkan flame war, less cancer..

Napisao brianwl, 23.01.2017 at 14:36

I was a little surprised when i first heard this. However, after some reading over the week-end, it seems it was ambiguity in the way British worded the agreements granting statehood to a number of Arab nations about a hundred years ago that lead to present situation. (British like doing that.) As best as i can tell, Arab nations were under the impression that following the first world war, in exchange for assisting the British in defeating the Ottoman's, the region would be granted Arab independence. There was no mention of a non-Arab state in these documents, until the Balfour Declaration, where suddenly a Jewish state would be created in the midst of the Arab states. Naturally, the Arabs kept citing the earlier agreements, rejected the offer of statehood if it included a Jewish state. However, other Arab states that weren't immediately affected, accepted independence from the British. It gets even messier by the second world war, when the Allies (or the British at least) presumed any Palestinian state would simply be absorbed by other Arab nations, and so you get a situation where the Arabs are agreeing, because they have secondary agendas, the Palestinians are refusing, because they are holding on to earlier agreements which they view as accepted in good faith, and then you have Israel, who is just happy to finally have a state, naturally agreeing.

I know this is a rather crude simplification, but i think it captures the essence of why they reject the later offers of statehood... it's not so much Palestinians rejecting their own statehood.. they are holding on to the original agreements where they didn't have a Jewish state in their borders.

[As an aside, i was trying to keep the post short, but i totally agree with your example of the Kurds... i would support them having a state as well, and even in Canada, where the French want their own state, i support Quebec having their own identity if statehood will satisfy this need.]

you have to remember, before the british mandate and the zinoist movment the region was barely populated and certainly not developed, for sure they did'nt have any national identity, in fact most of the palestinains arrived to "palestine" after balfur-delcration. i really don't understand the logic behind your argument, but i will try.

so if i get i understand that correctly, you want to suppurt anti-western anti-life anti-logic anti-peace anti-anythingbutradicalislaminsummarise terrorist movments of people who started populating the region only after it was worth something thanks to the jews and the british, because they got the impression that land gonna be theirs? you realize that by that logic they can just keep doing whatever they want until the destrtuction of the other side? what's the point crying for them if it's obvious that they will never agree to anything else but gonicding the other side?

unregarded to brianwl, it's rather amazing that everytime some jerk pops up with idiot anti western claim (like in the last sadaam hussein thread) it's the same people to upvote it, some of them never manage to back their claims up the others never try.

Napisao Skanderbeg, 23.01.2017 at 17:52

Napisao Khal.eesi, 21.01.2017 at 08:08

i would just love it if any of you Palestinian supporters answer some simple questions, like why Palestinians always declined the peace offers and two state solution and how can you "seek recognition" and to "let you build a state" when you officially announce that you will fight for Israel destruction until the end of times.

Do you accept Cyprus two state solution? What about Serbia-Kosovo two state solution? Are Ukrainians willing to accept two state solution with Donbass? What about China-Taiwan two state solution? Why didn't United States propose two state solution to American natives? What about Turkey-Kurds two state solution? Would that work?

cyprus and kosovo really? what a troll you are.

1. cyprus is a member of european union, recognised by everyone in the planet, a state with a functional government, invaded by force, still occupied AGAINST international law and un charters and forced settling there is considered universally a war crime.

2. kosovo was part of another country, Serbia. The new "state" was created through warfare, again against international law and is not recognised by half the planet.

3. Israel was given this land by its rightfull owner, the British empire. No state was there before. Is recognised by Un and the rest of the planet except muslim countries. Never attacked another country.

Nice try, good game.

Napisao Khal.eesi, 24.01.2017 at 19:34

No state was there before.

Before english arrived, it was Turkish.

Napisao Khal.eesi, 24.01.2017 at 19:34

Never attacked another country.

Israel attacked Egypt in the 50's, took Sinai. Israeli invasion of Egypt, better known in the West as 'Suez Crisis', because you know, when West and allies attack then it's 'crisis', but when non-West fight then it's 'Russian invasion', 'Chinese threat', 'unstable Iran'.

Napisao Skanderbeg, 25.01.2017 at 09:57

Israel attacked Egypt in the 50's, took Sinai. Israeli invasion of Egypt, better known in the West as 'Suez Crisis', because you know, when West and allies attack then it's 'crisis', but when non-West fight then it's 'Russian invasion', 'Chinese threat', 'unstable Iran'.

during these years Egypt used the tunnel to paralyse the trade of Israel and since all our land neighbors are enemies it would mean death, you should remember that the egyptian also used sinai and gaza strip to kill 1200 Israeli citizens in seven years with snipers and by letting terror groups into its land, in addition Egypt refused to peace agreements but only to ceasefires, and massive weapons deal with czechoslovakia at the same year indicated their plans to attack soon or later.

France and Britian wanted to attack this region for their own reasons and it seemed to the israeli government at the time as the best option to solve the problem and get arrangement, and in test of time it worked for more than a decade until the arab world desided to try to destroy Israel once again.

Napisao Skanderbeg, 25.01.2017 at 09:57

Before english arrived, it was Turkish.

And before that it belonged various other backwards muslim caliphates, and before that the Christians, and before that more muslims, and then the Byzantines, and then the Romans, and then the Greeks, and who owned it before all of these people? The Jews, just like they do now

Napisao Rock Lee, 24.01.2017 at 04:42

Napisao brianwl, 23.01.2017 at 14:36

I was a little surprised when i first heard this. However, after some reading over the week-end, it seems it was ambiguity in the way British worded the agreements granting statehood to a number of Arab nations about a hundred years ago that lead to present situation. (British like doing that.) As best as i can tell, Arab nations were under the impression that following the first world war, in exchange for assisting the British in defeating the Ottoman's, the region would be granted Arab independence. There was no mention of a non-Arab state in these documents, until the Balfour Declaration, where suddenly a Jewish state would be created in the midst of the Arab states. Naturally, the Arabs kept citing the earlier agreements, rejected the offer of statehood if it included a Jewish state. However, other Arab states that weren't immediately affected, accepted independence from the British. It gets even messier by the second world war, when the Allies (or the British at least) presumed any Palestinian state would simply be absorbed by other Arab nations, and so you get a situation where the Arabs are agreeing, because they have secondary agendas, the Palestinians are refusing, because they are holding on to earlier agreements which they view as accepted in good faith, and then you have Israel, who is just happy to finally have a state, naturally agreeing.

I know this is a rather crude simplification, but i think it captures the essence of why they reject the later offers of statehood... it's not so much Palestinians rejecting their own statehood.. they are holding on to the original agreements where they didn't have a Jewish state in their borders.

[As an aside, i was trying to keep the post short, but i totally agree with your example of the Kurds... i would support them having a state as well, and even in Canada, where the French want their own state, i support Quebec having their own identity if statehood will satisfy this need.]

you have to remember, before the british mandate and the zinoist movment the region was barely populated and certainly not developed, for sure they did'nt have any national identity, in fact most of the palestinains arrived to "palestine" after balfur-delcration. i really don't understand the logic behind your argument, but i will try.

so if i get i understand that correctly, you want to suppurt anti-western anti-life anti-logic anti-peace anti-anythingbutradicalislaminsummarise terrorist movments of people who started populating the region only after it was worth something thanks to the jews and the british, because they got the impression that land gonna be theirs? you realize that by that logic they can just keep doing whatever they want until the destrtuction of the other side? what's the point crying for them if it's obvious that they will never agree to anything else but gonicding the other side?

unregarded to brianwl, it's rather amazing that everytime some jerk pops up with idiot anti western claim (like in the last sadaam hussein thread) it's the same people to upvote it, some of them never manage to back their claims up the others never try.

lol really ....people who stole their lands call for peace now?that land was populated by many population(based religions) after ottoman period 85% were muslims, 11% were christians and 4% Jews but after the persecutions in russia the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions and they started agricultural colonies and there starts the conflict they were taking alot of lands and their population had risen to 30%. As about other arabs who came to palestine that was after zionist was made.after brithish mandate jews started to buy more lands and steal some more and dislodge palestinians with force...how can they make peace?

Napisao klevis, 25.01.2017 at 14:45

lol really ....people who stole their lands call for peace now?that land was populated by many population(based religions) after ottoman period 85% were muslims, 11% were christians and 4% Jews but after the persecutions in russia the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions and they started agricultural colonies and there starts the conflict they were taking alot of lands and their population had risen to 30%. As about other arabs who came to palestine that was after zionist was made.after brithish mandate jews started to buy more lands and steal some more and dislodge palestinians with force...how can they make peace?

how can they make peace? basically say yes, they had quiet of opportunities and if they don't use it then crying over them is useless

now, the zionist movment could'nt "steal land", they were able to live only in private lands that they bought from foreign arab owners, since the collapsion of Judea and until the delcration of indepandance of Israel there was'snt any state there, it was just another land helf by diffrent empires.

you can claim that arabs were majority, but honestly if you look at larger scale it does'nt mean anything, even after the destruction of Judea and before the conquests of Islam there were Jewish cities that containted tens of thusands of jews, that's more than the muslim cities in palestina a millenium later, in fact, european explorers in the medivial and renisance times can tell you that even after a milenium of Islamic dominion in palestina they still could'nt refill jewish and hellenic cities built thousands of years before, that's redicilous, if they had any identity or self recognition as people and not just locals or arabs they should'v breeded and developed the region, i was told in the game several months ago that the hispanic people are combination of indians and spainards, in few hundreds of years they breeded into hundreds of millions, and muslim with way higher birth can't refill hellenic destruction in millenium? i tend to believe to the european descriptions of poor desolated land, or basically, we did'nt steal it from any people, the palestinian national identity is a result of the zionist development of the region.

regarding to the agricultural colonies (kibutzs) - i will to simplify things, it's quiet diffrent than you describe, the first zionists lived mainly in the cities, then the ottos forbidded them to, they expelled them from jaffa and gave their houses to arabs, so they started living in seperated villages where they needed food and equipment, which ofcourse created lot of opportunities of work and trade to lot of new immigrants from other arab countries who came here, eventually after big arab strike and assaults against the jews, the jews desided that they have to work their own lands alone and stop depending on them, which created many problems and made things and seperation way worse.

I will be missing for few weeks, so please be patient

Napisao klevis, 25.01.2017 at 14:45

Napisao Rock Lee, 24.01.2017 at 04:42

Napisao brianwl, 23.01.2017 at 14:36

I was a little surprised when i first heard this. However, after some reading over the week-end, it seems it was ambiguity in the way British worded the agreements granting statehood to a number of Arab nations about a hundred years ago that lead to present situation. (British like doing that.) As best as i can tell, Arab nations were under the impression that following the first world war, in exchange for assisting the British in defeating the Ottoman's, the region would be granted Arab independence. There was no mention of a non-Arab state in these documents, until the Balfour Declaration, where suddenly a Jewish state would be created in the midst of the Arab states. Naturally, the Arabs kept citing the earlier agreements, rejected the offer of statehood if it included a Jewish state. However, other Arab states that weren't immediately affected, accepted independence from the British. It gets even messier by the second world war, when the Allies (or the British at least) presumed any Palestinian state would simply be absorbed by other Arab nations, and so you get a situation where the Arabs are agreeing, because they have secondary agendas, the Palestinians are refusing, because they are holding on to earlier agreements which they view as accepted in good faith, and then you have Israel, who is just happy to finally have a state, naturally agreeing.

I know this is a rather crude simplification, but i think it captures the essence of why they reject the later offers of statehood... it's not so much Palestinians rejecting their own statehood.. they are holding on to the original agreements where they didn't have a Jewish state in their borders.

[As an aside, i was trying to keep the post short, but i totally agree with your example of the Kurds... i would support them having a state as well, and even in Canada, where the French want their own state, i support Quebec having their own identity if statehood will satisfy this need.]

you have to remember, before the british mandate and the zinoist movment the region was barely populated and certainly not developed, for sure they did'nt have any national identity, in fact most of the palestinains arrived to "palestine" after balfur-delcration. i really don't understand the logic behind your argument, but i will try.

so if i get i understand that correctly, you want to suppurt anti-western anti-life anti-logic anti-peace anti-anythingbutradicalislaminsummarise terrorist movments of people who started populating the region only after it was worth something thanks to the jews and the british, because they got the impression that land gonna be theirs? you realize that by that logic they can just keep doing whatever they want until the destrtuction of the other side? what's the point crying for them if it's obvious that they will never agree to anything else but gonicding the other side?

unregarded to brianwl, it's rather amazing that everytime some jerk pops up with idiot anti western claim (like in the last sadaam hussein thread) it's the same people to upvote it, some of them never manage to back their claims up the others never try.

lol really ....people who stole their lands call for peace now?that land was populated by many population(based religions) after ottoman period 85% were muslims, 11% were christians and 4% Jews but after the persecutions in russia the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions and they started agricultural colonies and there starts the conflict they were taking alot of lands and their population had risen to 30%. As about other arabs who came to palestine that was after zionist was made.after brithish mandate jews started to buy more lands and steal some more and dislodge palestinians with force...how can they make peace?

According to demographic stats by the ottomans and other sources the population of this region was lower than 100,000 at the start of the 19th century. Before the Egyptian invasion in 1831 there was close to 105,000 people inhabiting  this region. After the invasion many more Arabs came in. The Jews meanwhile bought legally lands from Arabs who owned those lands during ottoman times and started agricultural resolution in this godforsaken deserted region. The Jews preferred to pay for Arabs than to Jews because they worked for cheaper wage. This triggered hundreds of thousands Arabs to immigrate to Israel in search for a job to have better quality of life.
They continued to emigrate in mass, until 1920. When Britain did a demographic stats for 1920 there were 650,000 Muslims on the entire region of British Palestine and it includes Jordan before it was separated.

This misinformation that Jews stole those lands was originally promoted by a Bosnian Muslim cleric, to agitate the Arabs against the Jews. That Bosnian Muslim cleric came to Palestine to escape a death penalty that he received for participating in the Great Syrian Revolt during the 20s.
I forgot his name but his militant views and jihadist speeches encouraged the Arabs who lived in this area to go with violence. The grand mufti of Jerusalem at that time, Hajj Amin el Husseini, have said he was his role model. And he continued his legacy which lives to this day.

Fast forward to today, there's 12,000,000 to 14,000,000 Arabs (Muslims, Christians, etc) who call them themselves the natives of this land but in reality, from the 105,000 Arabs that lived prior to 1831 Egyptian invasion only 600,000 are their descendants. Approximately 3% to 4% of the people who call themselves Palestinians.

Napisao Netzer, 25.01.2017 at 15:39

Napisao klevis, 25.01.2017 at 14:45

Napisao Rock Lee, 24.01.2017 at 04:42

Napisao brianwl, 23.01.2017 at 14:36

I was a little surprised when i first heard this. However, after some reading over the week-end, it seems it was ambiguity in the way British worded the agreements granting statehood to a number of Arab nations about a hundred years ago that lead to present situation. (British like doing that.) As best as i can tell, Arab nations were under the impression that following the first world war, in exchange for assisting the British in defeating the Ottoman's, the region would be granted Arab independence. There was no mention of a non-Arab state in these documents, until the Balfour Declaration, where suddenly a Jewish state would be created in the midst of the Arab states. Naturally, the Arabs kept citing the earlier agreements, rejected the offer of statehood if it included a Jewish state. However, other Arab states that weren't immediately affected, accepted independence from the British. It gets even messier by the second world war, when the Allies (or the British at least) presumed any Palestinian state would simply be absorbed by other Arab nations, and so you get a situation where the Arabs are agreeing, because they have secondary agendas, the Palestinians are refusing, because they are holding on to earlier agreements which they view as accepted in good faith, and then you have Israel, who is just happy to finally have a state, naturally agreeing.

I know this is a rather crude simplification, but i think it captures the essence of why they reject the later offers of statehood... it's not so much Palestinians rejecting their own statehood.. they are holding on to the original agreements where they didn't have a Jewish state in their borders.

[As an aside, i was trying to keep the post short, but i totally agree with your example of the Kurds... i would support them having a state as well, and even in Canada, where the French want their own state, i support Quebec having their own identity if statehood will satisfy this need.]

you have to remember, before the british mandate and the zinoist movment the region was barely populated and certainly not developed, for sure they did'nt have any national identity, in fact most of the palestinains arrived to "palestine" after balfur-delcration. i really don't understand the logic behind your argument, but i will try.

so if i get i understand that correctly, you want to suppurt anti-western anti-life anti-logic anti-peace anti-anythingbutradicalislaminsummarise terrorist movments of people who started populating the region only after it was worth something thanks to the jews and the british, because they got the impression that land gonna be theirs? you realize that by that logic they can just keep doing whatever they want until the destrtuction of the other side? what's the point crying for them if it's obvious that they will never agree to anything else but gonicding the other side?

unregarded to brianwl, it's rather amazing that everytime some jerk pops up with idiot anti western claim (like in the last sadaam hussein thread) it's the same people to upvote it, some of them never manage to back their claims up the others never try.

lol really ....people who stole their lands call for peace now?that land was populated by many population(based religions) after ottoman period 85% were muslims, 11% were christians and 4% Jews but after the persecutions in russia the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions and they started agricultural colonies and there starts the conflict they were taking alot of lands and their population had risen to 30%. As about other arabs who came to palestine that was after zionist was made.after brithish mandate jews started to buy more lands and steal some more and dislodge palestinians with force...how can they make peace?

According to demographic stats by the ottomans and other sources the population of this region was lower than 100,000 at the start of the 19th century. Before the Egyptian invasion in 1831 there was close to 105,000 people inhabiting  this region. After the invasion many more Arabs came in. The Jews meanwhile bought legally lands from Arabs who owned those lands during ottoman times and started agricultural resolution in this godforsaken deserted region. The Jews preferred to pay for Arabs than to Jews because they worked for cheaper wage. This triggered hundreds of thousands Arabs to immigrate to Israel in search for a job to have better quality of life.
They continued to emigrate in mass, until 1920. When Britain did a demographic stats for 1920 there were 650,000 Muslims on the entire region of British Palestine and it includes Jordan before it was separated.

This misinformation that Jews stole those lands was originally promoted by a Bosnian Muslim cleric, to agitate the Arabs against the Jews. That Bosnian Muslim cleric came to Palestine to escape a death penalty that he received for participating in the Great Syrian Revolt during the 20s.
I forgot his name but his militant views and jihadist speeches encouraged the Arabs who lived in this area to go with violence. The grand mufti of Jerusalem at that time, Hajj Amin el Husseini, have said he was his role model. And he continued his legacy which lives to this day.

Fast forward to today, there's 12,000,000 to 14,000,000 Arabs (Muslims, Christians, etc) who call them themselves the natives of this land but in reality, from the 105,000 Arabs that lived prior to 1831 Egyptian invasion only 600,000 are their descendants. Approximately 3% to 4% of the people who call themselves Palestinians.

at some point i agree with u but you cant make a state if you go buy land in india ex or russia and after 100years claim it as new state and say' we want independence'