I will no longer call them Palestinians

[Reffo]

Pal

Here are some more quotes for you ...

http://ldolphin.org/palestinians.html

In 1937, the Arab leader Auni Bey Abdul Hadi told the Peel Commission: "There is no such country as Palestine. Palestine is a term the Zionists invented. Palestine is alien to us."

In 1946, Princeton's Arab professor of Middle East history, Philip Hitti, told the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry: "It's common knowledge, there is no such thing as Palestine in history."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, an executive member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), said in an interview to the Dutch newspaper Trouw: "The 'Palestinian people' does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel."

[Mediocrates]

Rockets are the final arguments of Arabs.

[Reffo]

Medio

On that one we disagree I say it is their first argument. They negotiate as an absolute last resort, when the violence proves to be worthless and they are no longer willing to pay the price of them firing rockets.

[Palestinian]

Pal

You proved me wrong? How did you do that? By repeating yourself and using many words, by obfuscating and asserting? Let's just re-visit some of the issues ...

Look at what I said then take a look at what you said in our last couple posts on page 10. You made up your own quotes for Abbas to say, you said many Arabs were immigrants to Palestine with no support, you said that Jordan is Palestine and tried intermangling 1921 with Resolution 181, then compared Israel's current land to all the Middle East and North Africa. Along with that, you say all my arguement is wrong, but you only like looking at tiny quotes of mine and trying to dispute them. I look at your whole arguement, see what I believe is wrong, and then try diputing it.
So, I don't have to repeat myself on those issues, I will just simiply say I disputed them. If you want to see how, easily look at page 10, and read it.

asked you what you meant by "alongside". Your response was "in two states". Well, then, I don't believe your statistic, it does not conform to anything I read on this. So, unless you give me a link to a reputable site that verifies your claim, I'll just assume you made this up. I don't believe that many Palestinians have indicated that they would accept living alongside a state for the Jewish people.

You also asked me what Jordan has to do with Palestine even though I explained to you that prior to 1921, Trans-Jordan was part of Palestine. Here is a source that confirms what I said:

Survey of Western Palestine the Maps

Okay, so that I don't have to be making stuff up like you had in your other posts here is the link:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/poll-mos...ution-1.274607
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...srael-1.297196

Top one is the one I was telling you about. Our arguement wasn't based off of polls, but just supporting my idea. Instead you decide to just ignore what I say and point that out. Suite yourself I guess.
Yes, it was part of it during the British Mandate. Before that, it was not. I simiply told you that Jordan wasn't given to the Palestinians. It was given to the Hashemites of Hejaz to rule. Why do you continue to throw around third party links at me? That link is a Bible website that has maps. Don't you have anything that can support your claims better? After all, all of Jordan to the sea was in the Bible. Now I'll continue with this...
The "Jordan option" is deeply rooted in the idea that the eastern part of Jordan is part of the historic land of Palestine. They believe that the Palestinian population be transferred to Jordan. The idea of this however, wasn't given much credence before 1977, when the Likud party came to power for the first time. The idea was promoted as an alternative to having Palestinian state in West Bank and Gaza Strip. The "Jordan option" disobeys the tacit understanding reached by the founders of Israel and King Abdullah I. Which is that Israel would accept the establishment of a Hashemite-run state in Jordan. Today Jordan is home to about 1.9 million Palestinian refugees I believe, more than 337,000 of whom live in the country's 10 official refugee camps. When people say Jordanians are of Palestinian origin they are just completely wrong. There are no precise statistics but it is true that at least half of Jordan's population of about 6.2 million people are of Palestinian origin. But that is a result of Israeli expansionism and a deliberate policy of emptying Palestinian lands of Palestinians. To add on that, if Jordan is truly the home of the Palestinian people, why did Israel have to demolish nearly 450 towns/cities/villages in Palestine? And, there was already a community with its own traditions, costumes, and dialect specific to east of the Jordan river before the establishment of Israel. Many of Jordan's cities have been there for so long, take Madaba for example. Along with that, the principle to evict a population, erase their villages, and bringing in settlers so as to change an area's demographics is immoral and illegal.
TransJordan was never part of the partition which took place in 1947! The Palestinians weren't GIVEN TransJordan.

You claim that the Arabs of Jordan are different Arabs than the Arabs of Palestine. Yet prior to 1948, the Arabs of Palestine considered themselves to be Arabs, not Palestinians. I can give you many quotes that confirm this. Of course, you are entitled to change your minds and claim yourselves now to be Palestinians. But if you do that, then just look at the population of Jordan today. It has a majority of people who describe themselves as Palestinians. Well then, you have 80% of historic Palestine. Why are you whining for more? The Jews represented 33% of the population in 1948, yet they were allocated 55% of 20%, that is about 13%. I would therefore say that the Jews have more reason to whine that they were dudded. Unless of course you feel that 13% for 33% of the population is fair?

The indeginous population were known as Palestinians. The name Palestine Mandate didn't come from nowhere. Usually Jews like to stress that during the British Mandate of Palestine, Jews were included as Palestinians. Therefore, like a nationality. Even during Ottoman rule did those people consider themselves Palestinians (since 1516). Its boundaries and its characterists, including its name in Arabic, Filastin, soon became known to the entire Islamic world, sa much for its fertility, beauty, and religious significance. I already talked about the population mostly being Palestinian in Jordan. Here I'll quote myself:

"Today Jordan is home to about 1.9 million Palestinian refugees I believe, more than 337,000 of whom live in the country's 10 official refugee camps. When people say Jordanians are of Palestinian origin they are just completely wrong. There are no precise statistics but it is true that at least half of Jordan's population of about 6.2 million people are of Palestinian origin. But that is a result of Israeli expansionism and a deliberate policy of emptying Palestinian lands of Palestinians. If Jordan is truly the home of the Palestinian people, then why did Israel have to demolish nearly 450 towns/cities/villages?"

Therefore, it has the majority of people who consider themselves as Palestinians, prior to 1948, 1967, etc. Again, I'm not whining. I'm simiply saying this: By 1947 the country had a 'mixed' population of Palestinians and Jews who both lived in Palestine. The indigenous Palestinians made up two-third majority, down from ninety percent at the start of the Mandate. Got it? One third were Jewish newcomers, i.e Zionist settlers and refugees from war in Europe, most of which had arrived in Palestine since the 1920's. As of the late nineteenth century, the indigenous Palestinians had been seeking the right of self-determination, at first within a pan-Arab identity, but then, soon after the first world war, through the Mandate system that promised to lead the new nation-states it had created in the Middle East to independence and towards a future based on principles of democracy. But Britains Mandate charter for Palestine also incorporated, the 1917 Balfour Decleration and, with it, Britain's promise to the Zionist movement to secure a homeland for the Jews in Palestine. Despite Britain's pro-Zionist policies, and the growing presence of the Jewish minority, Palestine was still very much an Arab country by the end of the Mandate. Almost all the cultivated land in Palestine was held by the indigenous population, while only 5.8% was in Jewish ownership in 1947, which makes the idea of 'mixed' misleading. It is shown to be the case that Palestinians sought for independence as a country. Palestine's fate fell into the hands of a Special Committee for Palestine, UNSCOP. None of whose members turned out to have any prior experience in solving conflicts or even knew much about Palestine's history. UNSCOP decided to sponsor partition as the guiding principle for a future solution. True, its members thought of a possibility of making all of Palestine a democratic state, whose future would then be decided by the majority vote of the population, but they eventually abandoned the idea. Instead, the UNSCOP recommended to the UN General Assembly to partition Palestine into two states. It further recommended that the City of Jerusalem would be established as corpus separatum under an international regime administrated by the UN. The report UNSCOP came up with in the end was for the establishment of 2 future states, that would be identical except in demographic balance. This became General Assembly Resolution 181 on 29 November 1947. The problem with this is that the action of the United Nations conflicted with the basic principles for which the organization was established. Which was to uphold the right of all peoples to self-determination. By denying the Palestinians who formed two-thirds majority of the country and to decide for themselves, it violated their own Charter. Along with what I had said earlier: On forty-two percent of the land, 818,000 Palestinians were to have a state that included 10,000 Jews, while the state for the Jews was to stretch over almost fifty-six percent of the land which 499,000 Jews (many of whom immigarted here in the past decade) were to share with 438,000 Palestinians.

[Palestinian]

Pal

This what Abbas said ...

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said Friday that under no circumstances would the PA sign an agreement with Israel which required the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state or a land swap http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...state-1.319329

Thanks for finding a real quote, and not making up words for Abbas to say! Then take a look at the article you pointed out. It explicitly mentions this:

The PA recognized Israel's existence in 1993, and now Israel needs to recognize the Palestinian state in line with the 1967 borders," Abbas said during a meeting in Ramallah with Knesset members from the left-wing party Hadash.

They recognized Israel's existence.

Furthermore, if you continue to read it says this:

Abbas clarified that the PA would exhibit flexibility regarding the nature of the negotiations

They are willing to negotiate.

And then if you quickly take the time to analyze this:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered Monday to halt settlement construction if the Palestinians were to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, but the Palestinian leadership was prompt to reject the proposal.

All Benjamin Netanyhu offered was to stop illegaly building settlements in West Bank. He shouldn't be doing that anyway...

"Just as the Palestinians expect us to recognize their state, we expect reciprocal treatment," said Netanyahu.

Excuse me Netanyahu, but they have during the Oslo Accords, which the agreement was mutual recognition.


Reffo, I'm tired of you linking me to so many places instead of using your own words. I type out these nice paragraphs for you, and all you do is quote tiny pieces and put a link. You still were lying, and this proves it. You made up quotes for Abbas to say, and gave me something completely different.

Pal

This is what Hamas said ...

http://m.upi.com/m/story/UPI-16371305131973/

GAZA CITY, Gaza, May 11 (UPI) -- A Hamas official says the militant group will never recognize Israel as it would deprive future Palestinian generations of the right to "liberate the land." Hamas said this in 2011. Now, do you want to eat your own words, Pal?

Nope not gonna eat my words. Because if you missed what I said, I said that Hamas agreed to recognize Israel in pre-1967 borders. And along with that a 10 year peace treaty, so that Israel can back out of territories, and to prove they have recognized Israel. Israel rejected the offer.
Also, Hamas HAS agreed to Israel's right to exist. It doesn't mean they have recognized them yet in the pre-1967 borders, since the pre-1967 borders hasn't happened. They agreed to nullify their Charter as well. And when the guy in the article says this:

Recognition of Israel could lead to Palestinian refugees losing their right of return, he said.
"What will be the fate of the 5 million Palestinians in the diaspora?" Zahar asked.

In other words, "Liberate the Land"

Pal

Here, read this and learn something about history ...

http://www.mythsandfacts.com/conflic...lestinians.pdf

I'll tell ya what, I'll read that later, ok?
You act as if what I say is SO WRONG. And that there is such an OBVIOUS ANSWER. If so, dispute my arguement. All, you've done is link me to more random website. I bet you just googled these, one at a time, and thats why you posted one after the other, after the other...

Pal

Here are some more quotes for you ...

http://ldolphin.org/palestinians.html

Umm... thanks? You linked me to a random html website that anybody could have written. Putting a few quotes doesn't prove anything. When Zahir Muhsein said this, he went against PLO policy. Abd al-Hadi was the first elected president of the Palestinian Istiqlal Independence Party. al-Hadi later said:

"the goal of the Jews was to take over the country and the goal of the Arabs was to fight against that takeover"

This means, Arabs lived in the land. And as he said it "take over the country". That means Palestine was the country. Even then finding a few quotes on some random website doesn't prove anything. We weren't even arguging about this before.
Hitti said this:

it was historically part of Syria

Palestine was known as a "greater-Syria" for a while, as was Lebanon, and Jordan. Palestine was still known for its religious significance, and was inhabited with its own people, and with its own history.

[Mediocrates]

In the final analysis none of this matters in the least. They were offered 75% of the Mandate and refused. Then they were offered 87.5% and refused that. Then they went to war, lost more than they refused and have refused everything ever since. They've offered anywhere from 95-100% of the totality of Judea and Samaria and refused. They control al Aqsa through the Waqf and insist there was never a Jewish temple there. They were given the totality of Gaza and burned it down. They demand Golan and that's not even Muslim. They demand and they demand and they demand and the surest way to get them to walk away is to literally agree to anything they want. Then they don't want it. Because they would rather tell the BBC that being better off than most of the Arabs elsewhere in the world is worse than having a single Jewish soul in spitting distance of them. They'd rather commit collective suicide while everyone pleads for them to finally accept what they've demanded and been offered in lieu of exterminating all the Jews they can find. That's way Hamas is right on this one point: negotiations are pointless. Yes they are.

[Madeline]

In the final analysis none of this matters in the least. They were offered 75% of the Mandate and refused. Then they were offered 87.5% and refused that. Then they went to war, lost more than they refused and have refused everything ever since. They've offered anywhere from 95-100% of the totality of Judea and Samaria and refused. They control al Aqsa through the Waqf and insist there was never a Jewish temple there. They were given the totality of Gaza and burned it down. They demand Golan and that's not even Muslim. They demand and they demand and they demand and the surest way to get them to walk away is to literally agree to anything they want. Then they don't want it. Because they would rather tell the BBC that being better off than most of the Arabs elsewhere in the world is worse than having a single Jewish soul in spitting distance of them. They'd rather commit collective suicide while everyone pleads for them to finally accept what they've demanded and been offered in lieu of exterminating all the Jews they can find. That's way Hamas is right on this one point: negotiations are pointless. Yes they are.

That about sums it up. Dare I say that its almost parasitic in manner? Demand, give nothing in return, can't exist on their own.
I apologize in advance.

[bararallu]

Denial is not only a river in Egypt, it's got a strong tributary in Fakestine to.

[Reffo]

Pal

I'll tell you what. I'll continue to respond to you when you learn to make your posts concise, to the point and avoid repetitions. As it is, only a small proportion of what you say has anything worth responding to and I must admit I am tired of searching for those tid bits amongst all that verbose garbage.

Do yourself a favour. Go to night school and get them to teach you how to communicate.

[Palestinian]

Pal

I'll tell you what. I'll continue to respond to you when you learn to make your posts concise, to the point and avoid repetitions.

Okay, you don't have to respond I don't mind. Although, we are arguing about certain topics. Of course it will sound a bit repetitive. I didn't repeat myself if you read, it is quite different and rebuts your arguement, if you had any. Its not like you ever responded to my whole arguement, just small bits.

As it is, only a small proportion of what you say has anything worth responding to and I must admit I am tired of searching for those tid bits amongst all that verbose garbage.

You act as if you know everything? Why do so much research...? If anything you must not be doing much research if your just giving me a link and quoting it. Nonetheless, the fact that you don't even try rebutting my whole arguement, but only pieces and phrases you feel like reubutting.

Do yourself a favour. Go to night school and get them to teach you how to communicate.

Your telling me I have to learn how to speak and argue to people in school, when you can't even respond with a paragraph. You just throw links at me. I'm actually quite young, so is this a way to insult me? Telling me to go to school?



Okay, whatever then, this arguement is done.

[bararallu]

You have the burden of proof Arab.

You are the invader, you are the colonist, and you are on our forum. You posit what you need to, not vice versa. Otherwise we'd visit your slave masters forum at Ummah.com and put our positions forward. As is you post verbal diarrhea and deny things ad hoc without any foundations.

You've already admitted that you are too lazy or ideologically unable to parse our links and/or grasp our arguments. I personally don't expect any better, like most Arabs- all bravado and contradictive nonsense . Egyptians also think that they somehow beat us in 1973.

[Kachah]

I must say that quoting yourself in the same post opens new horizons for internet forum debating - endless stream of consciousness poured on your opponents without even the effort of typing it. Well done, Pal.
See, toldya, "Palestinians" existed in 1947 and long, long before. In fact, I am surprised that the Palestinian archeologists so far have not found the bones of proto-Palestinians clearly showing how their occupation of the Holy Land pre-dates evil Zionist colonizers.
Anyway, the main point is - no negotiations are going to succeed when the sides are chasing goals so different: the Jews want peace and the Arabs (no freakin' "Palestinians", just Arabs) want to destroy Israel. It is absolutely meaningless who and why rejected which deal. Arafat-shmarafat, Abbas-Shmabas - totally irrelevant. The deal was rejected in 1947, nothing have changed cardinally. Nor should it have.

[Reffo]

Pal

I will respond to the more coherent bits of your post. Here is one ...

Pal

This what Abbas said ...

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said Friday that under no circumstances would the PA sign an agreement with Israel which required the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state or a land swap

They recognized Israel's existence

Recognising Israel's existence is not the same as recognising Israel as the nation state for the Jewish people. To them, Israel is a state of both Arabs and Jews While they want a Palestine that is ONLY Arab. To us, Israel can have both Jews and Arabs as long as the Jews remain a majority. That means no "return" of any kind by any Palestinian Arab. That's the bit that Abbas refuses, read what he says above again and try to comprehend what he is saying.

[Reffo]

Pal

This is what Hamas said ...

http://m.upi.com/m/story/UPI-16371305131973/

GAZA CITY, Gaza, May 11 (UPI) -- A Hamas official says the militant group will never recognize Israel as it would deprive future Palestinian generations of the right to "liberate the land." Hamas said this in 2011. Now, do you want to eat your own words, Pal?

Nope not gonna eat my words. Because if you missed what I said, I said that Hamas agreed to recognize Israel in pre-1967 borders. And along with that a 10 year peace treaty, so that Israel can back out of territories, and to prove they have recognized Israel. Israel rejected the offer

LOL read the item in bold. What does the word "NEVER" mean to you?

[Palestinian]

This will be my last post in this topic. I have already proven myself, in my own eyes. So, yeah, last post in this topic.
This will be my last post in this topic. I have already proven myself, in my own eyes. So, yeah, last post in this topic.

I wrote a reply to all of you here. Then I decided not to post it. I am tired of debating 3-5 people at the same time. I'm the only one arguing even. You guys pour hatred into your comments, and/or links, instead of just arguing. Nonetheless, NONE OF YOU HAVE REBUTTED ANY OF MY ARGUEMENTS....

Nonetheless, just 1-3 sentences that talk about small snippets of what I say. Then you just continue to throw more links down my throat.

Therefore, I'm done, good bye.