The Right of Return

dddooo · Jun 17, 2007

Quote from 2cents:

For the record the arabs had nothing to do with WWI nor WWII, nor with anti-semitism in Europe
The Arab/Muslim Nazi Connection

therefore had precious little reason to sympathise with a plan forced upon them by the main culprits (Old Powers and colonists),
Isn't that ironic how quickly your purported support for international laws and UN resolutions disappears when it's about the resolution that partitioned Palestine and created Israel, how quickly you come up with excuses and apologies for countries that violated these laws and resolutions. Double standard anyone?

please let us know more about the fate of the jewish refugees... i say this without irony...
This emigration began in the aftermath of the 1948 Arab / Israeli War and was caused by two converging processes. Firstly, the governments and populations in Arab countries discrimination against their Jewish citizens escalated significantly. Harassment, persecution and the confiscation of property followed. Secondly, a Zionist drive of Jewish immigration from Arab lands to Israel began...several Arab countries began to take a severe attitude against Jews who operated Zionist activities within countries and to encourage their emigration to Israel. Arab riots against Jews appeared to spread throughout the Arab world, and there were intensified riots in Yemen and Syria in particular. In Libya, Jews were deprived citizenship, and in Iraq, their property was seized. As a result, a large number of Jews were forced to emigrate and they were not allowed to take all their property...By 1951, about 30 percent of the population in Israel was accounted for by Jews from Arab countries and about 850,000 Jews emigrated from Arab countries between 1948 and 1952. During this time 586,269 Jews came to Israel from Arab countries, and 3,136,436 people live in Israel today including their offspring, which account for about 41 per cent of the total population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands

i don't think its smart to say that refugees have no one but themselves to blame...
An overwhelming majority of arabs fled Israel on their own after being encouraged and assured by arab leaders that they would return with a victory within a couple of weeks.

why didn't you start with this then instead of throwing bullets left right & center???
You named the thread "The right of return", you did not name it "Compensation...". These are two totally different things.

my suggestion is that sufficient compensation should be enough for most palestinians to waive their right of return and accept that the outcome is "fair enough".
Where did you get the idea that palestinian leaders are willing to discuss the possibility of compensation and give up the right of return? Unfortunately it's wishful thinking. As far as Israel is concerned the only thing that's off the table is the actual right of return. Israel would indeed be interested in paying off the refugees and putting this whole matter to rest but the Palestinians don't seem to be quite ready just yet. Of course you don't need to take my word for it as compensation for the refugees was explicitly included in Barak/Clinton peace proposal in 2000:

"All other people currently classified as Palestinian refugees would be settled in their present place of inhabitance, the Palestinian state, or third-party countries. An international fund would be set up, to which Israel would contribute along with other countries, that would register claims for compensation of property and make payments within the limits of its resources."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit#Refugees_and_the_right_of_return
You know how well the proposal was received by Arafat who walked away without a counter-offer.

2cents · Jun 17, 2007

Quote from dddooo:

For the record the arabs had nothing to do with WWI nor WWII, nor with anti-semitism in Europe
The Arab/Muslim Nazi Connection

2cents- dude, that would be worse than bad by itself if it were representative but what does this new nazi conspiracy theory have do with what i am saying??? every corner of a sentence you need to transform into a battleground for your grievances regardless of the topic??? does paranoia come to mind?

therefore had precious little reason to sympathise with a plan forced upon them by the main culprits (Old Powers and colonists),
Isn't that ironic how quickly your purported support for international laws and UN resolutions disappears when it's about the resolution that partitioned Palestine and created Israel, how quickly you come up with excuses and apologies for countries that violated these laws and resolutions. Double standard anyone?

2cents- i fully support international laws and UN resolutions, and the ICC etc. UNGA Resolutions are non-binding, but i don't expect you the lawless "good guy" who has no problem with financing massacres of arabs cause "they started first, boohoohoooo" would know that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_UN_resolutions_concerning_Israel

please let us know more about the fate of the jewish refugees... i say this without irony...
This emigration began in the aftermath of the 1948 Arab / Israeli War and was caused by two converging processes. Firstly, the governments and populations in Arab countries discrimination against their Jewish citizens escalated significantly. Harassment, persecution and the confiscation of property followed. Secondly, a Zionist drive of Jewish immigration from Arab lands to Israel began...several Arab countries began to take a severe attitude against Jews who operated Zionist activities within countries and to encourage their emigration to Israel. Arab riots against Jews appeared to spread throughout the Arab world, and there were intensified riots in Yemen and Syria in particular. In Libya, Jews were deprived citizenship, and in Iraq, their property was seized. As a result, a large number of Jews were forced to emigrate and they were not allowed to take all their property...By 1951, about 30 percent of the population in Israel was accounted for by Jews from Arab countries and about 850,000 Jews emigrated from Arab countries between 1948 and 1952. During this time 586,269 Jews came to Israel from Arab countries, and 3,136,436 people live in Israel today including their offspring, which account for about 41 per cent of the total population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands

2cents- ok, that's pretty bad too, no question, and deserves to be heard as well... except for the zionist activists acting from arab countries, these people were helpless victims of the whole process

i don't think its smart to say that refugees have no one but themselves to blame...
An overwhelming majority of arabs fled Israel on their own after being encouraged and assured by arab leaders that they would return with a victory within a couple of weeks.

2cents- come on, whats this bollocks please...

why didn't you start with this then instead of throwing bullets left right & center???
You named the thread "The right of return", you did not name it "Compensation...". These are two totally different things.

2cents- thats cause its their right and only they - the refugees - can waive it...

my suggestion is that sufficient compensation should be enough for most palestinians to waive their right of return and accept that the outcome is "fair enough".
Where did you get the idea that palestinian leaders are willing to discuss the possibility of compensation and give up the right of return? Unfortunately it's wishful thinking. As far as Israel is concerned the only thing that's off the table is the actual right of return. Israel would indeed be interested to pay off the refugees and put this whole matter to rest but the Palestinians don't seem to be quite ready just yet. Of course you don't need to take my word for it as compensation for the refugees was explicitly included in Barak/Clinton peace proposal in 2000:

"All other people currently classified as Palestinian refugees would be settled in their present place of inhabitance, the Palestinian state, or third-party countries. An international fund would be set up, to which Israel would contribute along with other countries, that would register claims for compensation of property and make payments within the limits of its resources."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit#Refugees_and_the_right_of_return
You know how well the proposal was received by Arafat who walked away without a counter-offer.

2cents- come on, even arafat recognized that israeli demographic concerns needed to be accounted for... what could have arafat said if a majority of palestinian refugees had been willing to waive their right against adequate compensation?

the difficulty here is one of negotiation dynamics and jockeying for position of strength etc... these guys are not going to make the fatal first step of waiving a right BEFORE adequate compensation is determined, fully contributed by all parties to the agreement, and put under escrow with a reliable international body until all parties discharge their respective obligations under the agreement... otherwise we know what happens...

and even then, some people may still want to choose to return, and where that falls within the right criteria from a demographic standpoint, it would be just to allow them to return and recover their properties, or be compensated for them if recovery's impossible... but Israel needs to determine these critera AHEAD of any agreement, even if thats not a comfortable thing to do, post-apartheid...

dddooo · Jun 18, 2007

Quote from 2cents:

i fully support international laws and UN resolutions, and the ICC etc.
Your assurance rings hollow given that in your previous post you justified, found understandable and blamed on the west illegal actions of the arab world when they ignored the Partition resolution and broke all international laws by invading Israel in 1948.

ok, that's pretty bad too, no question, and deserves to be heard as well
It's pretty bad indeed but somehow I have no doubt that it will not be heard from you and in all your future posts you'll be talking about palestinian refugees and Israeli aggression without mentioning jewish refugees and arab aggression.

what could have arafat said if a majority of palestinian refugees had been willing to waive their right against adequate compensation?
That's exactly what I was saying, the Palestinians are NOT willing to waive their right of return and accept financial compensation, your attempts to blame it on Israel are absurd and intellectually dishonest given that Israel actually did propose compensation.

the difficulty here is one of negotiation dynamics and jockeying for position of strength etc...
Oh yeah, walking out without a counter-offer and starting an intifada the way Arafat did was a negotiating technique. Another nice one! LOL

and even then, some people may still want to choose to return, and where that falls within the right criteria from a demographic standpoint, it would be just to allow them to return and recover their properties, or be compensated for them if recovery's impossible...
It's a very convoluted way to say that you still want the right of return without saying it. I was trying to explain to you that it's a non-starter, that no one in Israel is naive or suicidal enough to ever agree to this, that Israel did offer to resettle a small number of refugees and compensate others, that that proposal was rejected by Palestinians, that any insistence on the right of return will only delay the creation of a Palestinian state. Too bad my explanations fell on deaf ears.

2cents · Jun 18, 2007

Quote from dddooo:

i fully support international laws and UN resolutions, and the ICC etc.
Your assurance rings hollow given that in your previous post you justified, found understandable and blamed on the west illegal actions of the arab world when they ignored the Partition resolution and broke all international laws by invading Israel in 1948.

2cents- rings hollow to you cause you practice selective quoting and reading. my full response in previous post above, not going to rewrite... i know the way to deal with brickheads if you have any doubt

you are still to specify which international laws were broken by the arabs...

ok, that's pretty bad too, no question, and deserves to be heard as well
It's pretty bad indeed but somehow I have no doubt that it will not be heard from you and in all your future posts you'll be talking about palestinian refugees and Israeli aggression without mentioning jewish refugees and arab aggression.

2cents- have no doubt then... wtf do i care... your just another closet whiner...

what could have arafat said if a majority of palestinian refugees had been willing to waive their right against adequate compensation?
That's exactly what I was saying, the Palestinians are NOT willing to waive their right of return and accept financial compensation, your attempts to blame it on Israel are absurd and intellectually dishonest given that Israel actually did propose compensation.

2cents- bollocks... saying "we'll compensate you if you waive your rights" may work in a bazaar but its typically a disingenuous offer. am not blaming it on israel you friggin' paranoid maniac, am blaming it on the international community, the US and the EU in particular, who doesn't have the balls to walk in forcibly and gauge whats fair and make a proper offer, capice???

the difficulty here is one of negotiation dynamics and jockeying for position of strength etc...
Oh yeah, walking out without a counter-offer and starting an intifada the way Arafat did was a negotiating technique. Another nice one! LOL

2cents- a counter-offer to WHAT??? "waive your rights and we'll pay sthg"??? very funny thank u... now enjoy the bombs, and come back when you have a proper offer to make

and even then, some people may still want to choose to return, and where that falls within the right criteria from a demographic standpoint, it would be just to allow them to return and recover their properties, or be compensated for them if recovery's impossible...
It's a very convoluted way to say that you still want the right of return without saying it. I was trying to explain to you that it's a non-starter, that no one in Israel is naive or suicidal enough to ever agree to this, that Israel did offer to resettle a small number of refugees and compensate others, that that proposal was rejected by Palestinians, that any insistence on the right of return will only delay the creation of a Palestinian state. Too bad my explanations fell on deaf ears.

2cents- its not, there was no genuine attempt. its not in the hands of israel alone, and not really for israel to propose, rather than accept the terms and %contribution etc set by the international community. at the end of the day, the zionists WILL NOT be rewarded for their crimes. nor should the islamist radicals, but its entirely the US and Israel's fault if they are taking over in the Middle-East... the more you continue in this direction, the harder it will be to get rid of them...

anyway... i wasn't expecting you to understand therefore i won't complain that this is falling on deaf ears...

2cents · Jun 18, 2007

thanks for Camp David link though...

"Refugees and the right of return
Due to the first Arab-Israeli war, a significant number of Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homes inside what is now Israel. These refugees, numbering over four million today (but 700,000 at the time), comprise about half the Palestinian people. Since that time, the Palestinians have called for full implementation of the right of return, meaning that each refugee would be granted the option of returning to his or her home, with property restored, or accept compensation instead.

Israelis asserted that allowing a right of return to Israel proper, rather than to the newly created Palestinian state, would mean an influx of Palestinians that would fundamentally alter the demographics of Israel, jeopardizing Israel's Jewish character and its existence as a whole. The Israelis also argued that a larger number of Jewish refugees had been pushed out of Arab countries since 1948, and were not compensated, and that most of them ended up in Israel.

At Camp David, the Palestinians maintained their traditional position that the right of return be implemented. To address Israel's demographic concerns, they promised that the right of return be implemented via a mechanism agreed upon by both sides, which would channel the majority of refugees against the option of returning to Israel.[5] According to U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, some of the Palestinian negotiators were willing to discuss privately a limit on the number of refugees who would be allowed to return to Israel.[6]

The Israeli negotiators denied that Israel was responsible for the refugee problem. In the Israeli proposal, a limited number of refugees would be allowed to return to Israel on the basis of humanitarian considerations or family reunification. All other people currently classified as Palestinian refugees would be settled in their present place of inhabitance, the Palestinian state, or third-party countries. An international fund would be set up, to which Israel would contribute along with other countries, that would register claims for compensation of property and make payments within the limits of its resources.[7]

...continued"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

unfinished business mesays...

am off for now, any other opinions welcome... cheers

sandaq · Jun 18, 2007

I wonder what would have happened if 150 million indians refuges (remember, Indians lived on america and owned the land way before the first settlers came to america and slaughtered them), were to request the right to return.

actually, why be drastic, I shouldn't compare percentage, it's known that the muslims make much more children then Indians. Let's say 50 million, 5 million... Lets say it's only for reunion of illegal aliens, not something that would change the demographic and society structure of the country.

Were are all those righteous, anti-semetic idiots that would publicly say the US should accept those people?

2cents · Jun 18, 2007

Quote from sandaq:

I wonder what would have happened if 150 million indians refuges (remember, Indians lived on america and owned the land way before the first settlers came to america and slaughtered them), were to request the right to return.

actually, why be drastic, I shouldn't compare percentage, it's known that the muslims make much more children then Indians. Let's say 50 million, 5 million... Lets say it's only for reunion of illegal aliens, not something that would change the demographic and society structure of the country.

Were are all those righteous, anti-semetic idiots that would publicly say the US should accept those people?

yeah, strangely enough that's exactly what King Abdullah told the american people in his 1947 address... wonder what those righteous anti-arab "semetic" idiots were thinking at the time hey sandaq...

but lets not be drastic. its known you guys don't all have brains... you just run around like blue-arsed flies calling everybody else "anti-semetic" when not crying for mommy...

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1491752#post1491752

Quote from 2cents:

this is the last section, always worth a re-read imo

"Nov 1947, King Adbullah, The American Magazine
http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/kabd_eng.html

...

We are sometimes told that since the Jews came to Palestine, the Arab standard of living has improved. This is a most complicated question. But let us even assume, for the argument, that it is true. We would rather be a bit poorer, and masters of our own home. Is this unnatural?

The sorry story of the so-called "Balfour Declaration," which started Zionist immigration into Palestine, is too complicated to repeat here in detail. It is grounded in broken promises to the ArabsÃÃromises made in cold print which admit no denying.

We utterly deny its validity. We utterly deny the right of Great Britain to give away Arab land for a "national home" for an entirely foreign people.

Even the League of Nations sanction does not alter this. At the time, not a single Arab state was a member of the League. We were not allowed to say a word in our own defense.

I must point out, again in friendly frankness, that America was nearly as responsible as Britain for this Balfour Declaration. President Wilson approved it before it was issued, and the American Congress adopted it word for word in a joint resolution on 30th June, 1922.

In the 1920s, Arabs were annoyed and insulted by Zionist immigration, but not alarmed by it. It was steady, but fairly small, as even the Zionist founders thought it would remain. Indeed for some years, more Jews left Palestine than entered itÃÃn 1927 almost twice as many.

But two new factors, entirely unforeseen by Britain or the League or America or the most fervent Zionist, arose in the early thirties to raise the immigration to undreamed heights. One was the World Depression; the second the rise of Hitler.

In 1932, the year before Hitler came to power, only 9,500 Jews came to Palestine. We did not welcome them, but we were not afraid that, at that rate, our solid Arab majority would ever be in danger.

But the next yearÃÃhe year of HitlerÃÃt jumped to 30,000! In 1934 it was 42,000! In 1935 it reached 61,000!

It was no longer the orderly arrival of idealist Zionists. Rather, all Europe was pouring its frightened Jews upon us. Then, at last, we, too, became frightened. We knew that unless this enormous influx stopped, we were, as Arabs, doomed in our Palestine homeland. And we have not changed our minds.

I have the impression that many Americans believe the trouble in Palestine is very remote from them, that America had little to do with it, and that your only interest now is that of a humane bystander.

I believe that you do not realise how directly you are, as a nation, responsible in general for the whole Zionist move and specifically for the present terrorism. I call this to your attention because I am certain that if you realise your responsibility you will act fairly to admit it and assume it.

Quite aside from official American support for the "National Home" of the Balfour Declaration, the Zionist settlements in Palestine would have been almost impossible, on anything like the current scale, without American money. This was contributed by American Jewry in an idealistic effort to help their fellows.

The motive was worthy: the result were disastrous. The contributions were by private individuals, but they were almost entirely Americans, and, as a nation, only America can answer for it.

The present catastrophe may be laid almost entirely at your door. Your government, almost alone in the world, is insisting on the immediate admission of 100,000 more Jews into PalestineÃÃo be followed by countless additional ones. This will have the most frightful consequences in bloody chaos beyond anything ever hinted at in Palestine before.

It is your press and political leadership, almost alone in the world, who press this demand. It is almost entirely American money which hires or buys the "refugee ships" that steam illegally toward Palestine: American money which pays their crews. The illegal immigration from Europe is arranged by the Jewish Agency, supported almost entirely by American funds. It is American dollars which support the terrorists, which buy the bullets and pistols that kill British soldiersÃÃour alliesÃÃnd Arab citizensÃÃour friends.

We in the Arab world were stunned to hear that you permit open advertisements in newspapers asking for money to finance these terrorists, to arm them openly and deliberately for murder. We could not believe this could really happen in the modern world. Now we must believe it: we have seen the advertisements with our own eyes.

I point out these things because nothing less than complete frankness will be of use. The crisis is too stark for mere polite vagueness which means nothing.

I have the most complete confidence in the fair-mindedness and generosity of the American public. We Arabs ask no favours. We ask only that you know the full truth, not half of it. We ask only that when you judge the Palestine question, you put yourselves in our place.

What would your answer be if some outside agency told you that you must accept in America many millions of utter strangers in your midstÃÃnough to dominate your countryÃÃerely because they insisted on going to America, and because their forefathers had once lived there some 2,000 years ago?

Our answer is the same.

And what would be your action if, in spite of your refusal, this outside agency began forcing them on you?

Ours will be the same."

at least now you know the answer to your question sandaq, no need to ask mommy...

2cents · Jun 18, 2007

and for people who can't click on links for fear an "anti-semetic" BOOOH! puppet may pop up, here goes:

Quote from 2cents:

Summary

This fascinating essay, written by King Husseinâs grandfather King Abdullah, appeared in the United States six months before the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. In the article, King Abdullah disputes the mistaken view that Arab opposition to Zionism (and later the state of Israel) is because of longstanding religious or ethnic hatred. He notes that Jews and Muslims enjoyed a long history of peaceful coexistence in the Middle East, and that Jews have historically suffered far more at the hands of Christian Europe. Pointing to the tragedy of the holocaust that Jews suffered during World War II, the monarch asks why America and Europe are refusing to accept more than a token handful of Jewish immigrants and refugees. It is unfair, he argues, to make Palestine, which is innocent of anti-Semitism, pay for the crimes of Europe. King Abdullah also asks how Jews can claim a historic right to Palestine, when Arabs have been the overwhelming majority there for nearly 1300 uninterrupted years? The essay ends on an ominous note, warning of dire consequences if a peaceful solution cannot be found to protect the rights of the indigenous Arabs of Palestine.

"As the Arabs see the Jews"
His Majesty King Abdullah,
The American Magazine
November, 1947

I am especially delighted to address an American audience, for the tragic problem of Palestine will never be solved without American understanding, American sympathy, American support.

So many billions of words have been written about Palestineâperhaps more than on any other subject in historyâthat I hesitate to add to them. Yet I am compelled to do so, for I am reluctantly convinced that the world in general, and America in particular, knows almost nothing of the true case for the Arabs.

We Arabs follow, perhaps far more than you think, the press of America. We are frankly disturbed to find that for every word printed on the Arab side, a thousand are printed on the Zionist side.

There are many reasons for this. You have many millions of Jewish citizens interested in this question. They are highly vocal and wise in the ways of publicity. There are few Arab citizens in America, and we are as yet unskilled in the technique of modern propaganda.

The results have been alarming for us. In your press we see a horrible caricature and are told it is our true portrait. In all justice, we cannot let this pass by default.

Our case is quite simple: For nearly 2,000 years Palestine has been almost 100 per cent Arab. It is still preponderantly Arab today, in spite of enormous Jewish immigration. But if this immigration continues we shall soon be outnumberedâa minority in our home.

Palestine is a small and very poor country, about the size of your state of Vermont. Its Arab population is only about 1,200,000. Already we have had forced on us, against our will, some 600,000 Zionist Jews. We are threatened with many hundreds of thousands more.

Our position is so simple and natural that we are amazed it should even be questioned. It is exactly the same position you in America take in regard to the unhappy European Jews. You are sorry for them, but you do not want them in your country.

We do not want them in ours, either. Not because they are Jews, but because they are foreigners. We would not want hundreds of thousands of foreigners in our country, be they Englishmen or Norwegians or Brazilians or whatever.

Think for a moment: In the last 25 years we have had one third of our entire population forced upon us. In America that would be the equivalent of 45,000,000 complete strangers admitted to your country, over your violent protest, since 1921. How would you have reacted to that?

Because of our perfectly natural dislike of being overwhelmed in our own homeland, we are called blind nationalists and heartless anti-Semites. This charge would be ludicrous were it not so dangerous.

No people on earth have been less "anti-Semitic" than the Arabs. The persecution of the Jews has been confined almost entirely to the Christian nations of the West. Jews, themselves, will admit that never since the Great Dispersion did Jews develop so freely and reach such importance as in Spain when it was an Arab possession. With very minor exceptions, Jews have lived for many centuries in the Middle East, in complete peace and friendliness with their Arab neighbours.

Damascus, Baghdad, Beirut and other Arab centres have always contained large and prosperous Jewish colonies. Until the Zionist invasion of Palestine began, these Jews received the most generous treatmentâfar, far better than in Christian Europe. Now, unhappily, for the first time in history, these Jews are beginning to feel the effects of Arab resistance to the Zionist assault. Most of them are as anxious as Arabs to stop it. Most of these Jews who have found happy homes among us resent, as we do, the coming of these strangers.

I was puzzled for a long time about the odd belief which apparently persists in America that Palestine has somehow "always been a Jewish land." Recently an American I talked to cleared up this mystery. He pointed out that the only things most Americans know about Palestine are what they read in the Bible. It was a Jewish land in those days, they reason, and they assume it has always remained so.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is absurd to reach so far back into the mists of history to argue about who should have Palestine today, and I apologise for it. Yet the Jews do this, and I must reply to their "historic claim." I wonder if the world has ever seen a stranger sight than a group of people seriously pretending to claim a land because their ancestors lived there some 2,000 years ago!

If you suggest that I am biased, I invite you to read any sound history of the period and verify the facts.

Such fragmentary records as we have indicate that the Jews were wandering nomads from Iraq who moved to southern Turkey, came south to Palestine, stayed there a short time, and then passed to Egypt, where they remained about 400 years. About 1300 BC (according to your calendar) they left Egypt and gradually conquered mostâbut not allâof the inhabitants of Palestine.

It is significant that the Philistinesânot the Jewsâgave their name to the country: "Palestine" is merely the Greek form of "Philistia."

Only once, during the empire of David and Solomon, did the Jews ever control nearlyâbut not allâthe land which is today Palestine. This empire lasted only 70 years, ending in 926 BC. Only 250 years later the Kingdom of Judah had shrunk to a small province around Jerusalem, barely a quarter of modern Palestine.

In 63 BC the Jews were conquered by Roman Pompey, and never again had even the vestige of independence. The Roman Emperor Hadrian finally wiped them out about 135 AD. He utterly destroyed Jerusalem, rebuilt under another name, and for hundreds of years no Jew was permitted to enter it. A handful of Jews remained in Palestine but the vast majority were killed or scattered to other countries, in the Diaspora, or the Great Dispersion. From that time Palestine ceased to be a Jewish country, in any conceivable sense.

This was 1,815 years ago, and yet the Jews solemnly pretend they still own Palestine! If such fantasy were allowed, how the map of the world would dance about!

Italians might claim England, which the Romans held so long. England might claim France, "homeland" of the conquering Normans. And the French Normans might claim Norway, where their ancestors originated. And incidentally, we Arabs might claim Spain, which we held for 700 years.

Many Mexicans might claim Spain, "homeland" of their forefathers. They might even claim Texas, which was Mexican until 100 years ago. And suppose the American Indians claimed the "homeland" of which they were the sole, native, and ancient occupants until only some 450 years ago!

I am not being facetious. All these claims are just as validâor just as fantasticâas the Jewish "historic connection" with Palestine. Most are more valid.

... continued http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/kabd_eng.html

sandaq · Jun 19, 2007

Old news, which doesn't reflect the curent status of the land.

Everyone with a bit of intelligence, good english, and the desire to read history books, can scribble proof of either us or them right or wrong. You can bring as many long an tidious artiles as you want. The fact remains that accepting 4 millions refuges into Israel will alter it's fabric of sociaty and not even the Arab-Israeli citicens want that.

I'm sorry that the the arab nations have attacked us at 1948, I'm sorry that the arab that lived here chose to leave because they were afraid of war and though we were to loose, I'm sorry that they found them selves on the border in a refuges camps for 40 year, not thinking about doing something with there lives. That's all the fault of me and my people, but hey... we'er stronger, we've propspect, screw them.

2cents · Jun 19, 2007

Quote from sandaq:

The fact remains that accepting 4 millions refuges into Israel will alter it's fabric of sociaty and not even the Arab-Israeli citicens want that.

and which friggin' idiot other than you is suggesting that, brickhead???