The Palestinians cutting the hand that feed them, again!

That is myself where I find the entire argument lame to say the least. If we are calling historic home land than I guess 99.9% of those in the US better pack up and leave. Especially in those within the US to use that as a debate topic is hilarious at best.

 

The Palestinains claim the temple mount and wailing wall. Yassir Arafat claimed the Jewish Temple Mount as the third holiest site for Islam - including all of Jerusalem.

The Palestinian Hamas movement hailed the deadly attack on a Jewish religious school in Jerusalem as "heroic"

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23334259-23109,00.html

I believe that Hamas also claims all of Jerusalem.

 

Hamas that was elected by 70% of the Palestinians claims destruction of Israel. he wants all Israel.

 

And that's why bogart didn't answered my question but guys like him will always mention that argument if you talk with them about Israel and Israel only. Lame.

Again, who said that they should withdraw from Jerusalem? Sources?
What about second question? No answer on that?

 

What's your position on Israeli rights to Jerusalem?

 

They already almost reached agreement but than Bush came to power and the thing failed.
I support their ideas about Jerusalem which on they agreed at Taba summit

As I can see they agreed to share Jerusalem and I support that and I would even support that Israelis keep whole Jerusalem if they agreed on that with Palestinians, so I will ask you again: who said that Israelis should leave Jerusalem?
Also, can you please answer my question about historic homeland? Thank you.

 

That's right man i m so tired of this palestinian israeli posts.

 

actually, there is no such thing "Palestinians".
the Palestinians are Syrians and Egyptians. before Zionism, in the 2 banks of "Jordan River", there was nothing.

 

then whose right of return is israel objecting to.
you better start learning to live with other people.

 

and chicken grease.

 

what do you mean by "there was nothing"?

 

wilderness.

 

this is even less clear, do you mean, there was no people on both river banks?

 

on the beginning of the 19 century, there were 250K people on both banks.

 

I do not know from which source you got this, but even if it was as you said, do you call 250,000 people "nothing"?

 

from 250K Arabs in 1800 (there were not just Arabs but doesn't matter), to 11 million in 2008 (6 million in Jordan, 5 million in Israel, including Gaza and Judea and Samaria) does it looks to you like natural increase?! no, it's emigration.

 

Same as Jewish emigration...
How about Americans? Do they exists or they are "nothing" too? DO you know anything about their history?

 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaa! if they are emigrants and we are emigrants too, so why we "stole" the land?!?!?! why they don't stole the land?!

 

because the other emigrants (if there was any) was allowed, your emigrants, were illegal.

in other more simple words, USA allow immigrants, why do not you go to USA for example, and take a state, and say this is our land since other emigrants are allowed?

 

1. some of our emigrants were legals.
2. yeah, yours was legal, sure. you know, there were no border at this time. a man from Syria or Egypt didn't need any certificate for emigrating.
3. this is our homeland, so it's "emigration", it's returning.