A little history for those wanting to 'restore Palestine'.

domer76 said:
Just after WWI, the Muslims comprised 80% of the population in Palestine, regardless of what you wish to call it. Then, the massive emigration of the Jews began. By the time the war broke out, Muslims were still, by far, the majority population. When they lost the war, that’s when the “legal” seizure of their land and property forced them to be refugees in their own homeland.
Click to expand...

This is from Quora.

https://www.quora.com/How-often-hav...hare=a8e728cf&srid=ptTZY&target_type=question

The Palestinians have actually had numerous opportunities to create an independent state, but have repeatedly rejected the offers:


  • In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state.
  • In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of a unitary Arab state.
  • In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan.
  • The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence.
  • The Oslo agreements of the 1990s laid out a path for Palestinian independence, but the process was derailed by terrorism.
  • In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank.
  • In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from almost the entire West Bank and partition Jerusalem on a demographic basis.
  • In addition 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians. On the contrary whilst Jordan was in control Arafat said there was no longer a claim as it was no longer part of Palestine. Once it was back in Israeli hands it miraculously became disputed land again! This is one of many reasons Jews and Israelis are cynical.
The Palestinians have spurned each of these opportunities. A variety of reasons have been given for why the Palestinians have in Abba Eban’s words, “never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” Historian Benny Morris has suggested that the Palestinians have religious, historical, and practical reasons for opposing an agreement with Israel. He says that “Arafat and his generation cannot give up the vision of the greater land of Israel for the Arabs. [This is true because] this is a holy land, Dar al-Islam [the world of Islam]. It was once in the hands of the Muslims, and it is inconceivable [to them] that infidels like us [the Israelis] would receive it.”

The Palestinians also believe that time is on their side. “They feel that demographics will defeat the Jews in one hundred or two hundred years, just like the Crusaders.” The Palestinians, Morris says, also hope the Arabs will acquire nuclear weapons in the future that will allow them to defeat Israel.

In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 3 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel said it would give up territory in the Negev that would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third.

Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have “religious sovereignty” over the Temple Mount.

According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference. The proposal also addressed the Palestinian refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion fund that would be collected from international donors to compensate them.

“In his last conversation with President Clinton, Arafat told the President that he was “a great man.” Clinton responded, “The hell I am. I’m a colossal failure, and you made me one.”

Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan Valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict with Israel was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. “For him to end the conflict is to end himself,” said Ross.

The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations—that Israel offered generous concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the war that began in September 2000—was acknowledged for more than a year. To counter the perception that Arafat was the obstacle to peace, the Palestinians and their supporters then began to suggest a variety of excuses for why Arafat failed to say “yes” to a proposal that would have established a Palestinian state. The truth is that if the Palestinians were dissatisfied with any part of the Israeli proposal, all they had to do was offer a counterproposal. They never did.

Anyone that is against Israel should satisfy themselves as why this may have been?
I believe, when it comes to the Palestinians, as David Crosby has it: "They Want It All"
 
Last edited:
serendipity said:
Aren't you ever embarrassed by your ignorance?
Click to expand...

I have been proven correct how many times on this site shit bag?



I told your dumb assed Bush fucks that Bush was lying us to war in Iraq


I warned of the economic mess of 2008


I was correct about Bush’s use of white phosphorous in Fallughia


The republicans used to accept those facts


It’s why you idiots picked the con man trump over Jeb Bush


Now you fuck lips don’t accept those facts anymore
 
evince said:
I have been proven correct how many times on this site shit bag?
Click to expand...

Zero. Nada. Zip point shit. You are singularly one of the dumbest, least informed, most drug addled, morons on this site. Your typical post is a hysterical lie peppered with profanity.
 
serendipity said:
This is from Quora.

https://www.quora.com/How-often-hav...hare=a8e728cf&srid=ptTZY&target_type=question

The Palestinians have actually had numerous opportunities to create an independent state, but have repeatedly rejected the offers:


  • In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state.
  • In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of a unitary Arab state.
  • In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan.
  • The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence.
  • The Oslo agreements of the 1990s laid out a path for Palestinian independence, but the process was derailed by terrorism.
  • In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank.
  • In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from almost the entire West Bank and partition Jerusalem on a demographic basis.
  • In addition 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians. On the contrary whilst Jordan was in control Arafat said there was no longer a claim as it was no longer part of Palestine. Once it was back in Israeli hands it miraculously became disputed land again! This is one of many reasons Jews and Israelis are cynical.
The Palestinians have spurned each of these opportunities. A variety of reasons have been given for why the Palestinians have in Abba Eban’s words, “never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” Historian Benny Morris has suggested that the Palestinians have religious, historical, and practical reasons for opposing an agreement with Israel. He says that “Arafat and his generation cannot give up the vision of the greater land of Israel for the Arabs. [This is true because] this is a holy land, Dar al-Islam [the world of Islam]. It was once in the hands of the Muslims, and it is inconceivable [to them] that infidels like us [the Israelis] would receive it.”

The Palestinians also believe that time is on their side. “They feel that demographics will defeat the Jews in one hundred or two hundred years, just like the Crusaders.” The Palestinians, Morris says, also hope the Arabs will acquire nuclear weapons in the future that will allow them to defeat Israel.

In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 3 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel said it would give up territory in the Negev that would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third.

Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have “religious sovereignty” over the Temple Mount.

According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference. The proposal also addressed the Palestinian refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion fund that would be collected from international donors to compensate them.

“In his last conversation with President Clinton, Arafat told the President that he was “a great man.” Clinton responded, “The hell I am. I’m a colossal failure, and you made me one.”

Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan Valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict with Israel was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. “For him to end the conflict is to end himself,” said Ross.

The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations—that Israel offered generous concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the war that began in September 2000—was acknowledged for more than a year. To counter the perception that Arafat was the obstacle to peace, the Palestinians and their supporters then began to suggest a variety of excuses for why Arafat failed to say “yes” to a proposal that would have established a Palestinian state. The truth is that if the Palestinians were dissatisfied with any part of the Israeli proposal, all they had to do was offer a counterproposal. They never did.

Anyone that is against Israel should satisfy themselves as why this may have been?
I believe, when it comes to the Palestinians, as David Crosby has it: "They Want It All"
Click to expand...

Diversionary bullshit.

As I pointed out with my previous facts, there are many reasons the Palestinians have rejected those proposals. One of which, probably the main reason, is that the land was stolen from them in the first place.

“Here. We took your land, your property, your possessions and now we feel a little bad about it. How about we give you this small bit of shit land to make up for it?”

Sounds a little bit like moving our natives onto the reservations, doesn’t it?
 
BartenderElite said:
Ad homs, or insults?
Click to expand...

Insults. Ad hominem attacks their argument or statements. Insults attack the person. So, I answered her question without ad hominem, then proceeded to insult the fuck out of her.

ad-hominem-examples.png


Ad hominem would have been something like: You're a fucking moron and never right, so it's zero times! That is ad hominem. And, yes, unlike Into the Night, I will explain my use of things like calling out a logical fallacy.
 
domer76 said:
Diversionary bullshit.

As I pointed out with my previous facts, there are many reasons the Palestinians have rejected those proposals. One of which, probably the main reason, is that the land was stolen from them in the first place.

“Here. We took your land, your property, your possessions and now we feel a little bad about it. How about we give you this small bit of shit land to make up for it?”

Sounds a little bit like moving our natives onto the reservations, doesn’t it?
Click to expand...

Jordan is the Palestinian state which prior to 1967 Arafat and his cronies had absolutely no interest in. Eventually during Black September in 1970 the Hashemites stood up to the PLO, killed around 25,000 and booted the rest out. Sadly they didn't finish the job and wipe out Arafat as well.
 
Last edited:
serendipity said:
Jordan is the Palestinian state which prior to 1967 Arafat and his cronies had absolutely no interest in. Eventually during Black September in 1970 the Hashemites stood up to the PLO, killed around 25,000 and booted the rest out. Sadly they didn't finish the job and wipe out Arafat as well.
Click to expand...

Jordan wasn’t the land area we are talking about being stolen, is it?
 
serendipity said:
Douglas Murray speaks the truth, Arabs loath the Palestinians and only ever care when Jews are involved. Was there a peep from Arabs about Assad killing hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Syria, not bloody likely.

https://youtube.com/shorts/dTWoUo-vXrg?si=d7zGQytPluBt2qf8
Click to expand...

Yep, other Arab countries are complicit in this. It doesn’t change the fact that the Jews were allowed to come in, steal land and property and dispossess the Palestinisns, does it?
 
domer76 said:
Before WWI was over, the Brits promised the Palestinians there own homeland. That never occurred. There were millions of Palestinians living there with few Jews.

Then, in the late 1940s, when the State of Israel was established, they allowed the Israelis to confiscate (steal) lands and property from the resident Palestinians. The 1948 conflict made them refugees from there own land..
Click to expand...

The Brits and French secretly carved up the Ottoman Empire for their own gain. IIRC, it was the last major land grab of colonialism. The US went back to its isolationist ways...until forced out, again, by WWI Part Deux.

I'd like to see some evidence about the Israelis stealing anything. From what I've read, all the Arab nations were aligned against Israel, and they told the Palestinians to leave and get out of the way from the coming invasion the day after Israel declared independence. As the link below notes, Israel gained territory by conquest from attacking Arabs, including the Palestinians. It's silly to whine about losing land after starting a war. Consider what happened to Germany after WWII. The Russians took the eastern half and held on to it until the USSR began to crumble. The US gained territory through wars also. Why are the Jews being held to a different standard?

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/state-of-israel-proclaimed
On May 14, 1948, in Tel Aviv, Jewish Agency Chairman David Ben-Gurion proclaims the State of Israel, establishing the first Jewish state in 2,000 years. Ben-Gurion became Israel’s first premier.

In the distance, the rumble of guns could be heard from fighting that broke out between Jews and Arabs immediately following the British army withdrawal earlier that day. Egypt launched an air assault against Israel that evening. Despite a blackout in Tel Aviv—and the expected Arab invasion—Jews celebrated the birth of their new nation, especially after word was received that the United States had recognized the Jewish state. At midnight, the State of Israel officially came into being upon termination of the British mandate in Palestine....

...Beginning in 1929, Arabs and Jews openly fought in Palestine, and Britain attempted to limit Jewish immigration as a means of appeasing the Arabs. As a result of the Holocaust in Europe, many Jews illegally entered Palestine during World War II. Jewish groups employed terrorism against British forces in Palestine, which they thought had betrayed the Zionist cause. At the end of World War II, in 1945, the United States took up the Zionist cause. Britain, unable to find a practical solution, referred the problem to the United Nations, which in November 1947 voted to partition Palestine.

The Jews were to possess more than half of Palestine, although they made up less than half of Palestine’s population. The Palestinian Arabs, aided by volunteers from other countries, fought the Zionist forces, but by May 14, 1948, the Jews had secured full control of their U.N.-allocated share of Palestine and also some Arab territory. On May 14, Britain withdrew with the expiration of its mandate, and the State of Israel was proclaimed. The next day, forces from Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq invaded.

The Israelis, though less well equipped, managed to fight off the Arabs and then seize key territory, such as Galilee, the Palestinian coast, and a strip of territory connecting the coastal region to the western section of Jerusalem. In 1949, U.N.-brokered cease-fires left the State of Israel in permanent control of this conquered territory. The departure of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs from Israel during the war left the country with a substantial Jewish majority.
Click to expand...
 
domer76 said:
Yep, other Arab countries are complicit in this. It doesn’t change the fact that the Jews were allowed to come in, steal land and property and dispossess the Palestinisns, does it?
Click to expand...

Most of the land was bought and paid for, why can't you be honest for once?
 
Doc Dutch said:
The Brits and French secretly carved up the Ottoman Empire for their own gain. IIRC, it was the last major land grab of colonialism. The US went back to its isolationist ways...until forced out, again, by WWI Part Deux.

I'd like to see some evidence about the Israelis stealing anything. From what I've read, all the Arab nations were aligned against Israel, and they told the Palestinians to leave and get out of the way from the coming invasion the day after Israel declared independence. As the link below notes, Israel gained territory by conquest from attacking Arabs, including the Palestinians. It's silly to whine about losing land after starting a war. Consider what happened to Germany after WWII. The Russians took the eastern half and held on to it until the USSR began to crumble. The US gained territory through wars also. Why are the Jews being held to a different standard?

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/state-of-israel-proclaimed
Click to expand...

The key phrase from above: “The Jews were to possess more than half of Palestine, although they made up less than half of Palestine’s population.”

The bottom line, is that it was not the British land to give, they made promises they didn’t keep and the Jews made laws that legalized their theft of land. No two ways about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top