Not at all, I will debate anything where an outcome can be achieved but in this case none of the protagonists here are going to change their mind therefore my purpose in this thread is not to debate VDKMS but rather to provide enough variation to the argument that anyone reading it will not just be presented with Israel=Good/Bad and Palestinians=Good/Bad but that there are far more aspects to this conflict than the last 70 years and with luck will look at points we all make and research it for themselves.
My personal problem with the Pro-Israeli side is that they seem to start and stop history where it suits them, they want Jewish to be a race on one hand and a religion on the other and use which ever one suits the argument at hand.
They seem determined to claim that a German/French/Russian/Australian Jew has some racial claim to a land they have no racial connection to by arguing that there were Jews in the region for 3000 years but apparently there was no one else in the region for just as long that has any claim for example the descendants of the current Arab/Palestinian population.
The Jewish claim to the region is simply a pick and choose your facts argument.
As far as peace goes, it seems to me that the Pro-Israeli lobby argues that Israeli desperately wants peace but those nasty Palestinians wont accept the loss of 90% of land they believe they own for the creation of an unmanageable collection of dirt patches that they will not be allowed to defend nor actually have any recognised borders just on the off chance Israel needs a new settlement in the future.
So yeah no debate really just the hope that those who can will go away and research the situation with an open mind.
You are trying to pretend you are neutral, yet you only attack jew/israel.
About who was there first is very simple. Just go to Jerusalem (the capital of Israel and the future capital of a Palestinian state). There you will find the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam, sacred to the Palestinians. Like someone said, they (the Palestinians) own the land. Yet, that mosque was build on someone else's land. It was build on top of a Jewish temple.
But wait a minute, now you think that I'm just picking a time in history that favors the Jews, which by your standards is not allowed. So I have to pick one that is in favor of the Palestinians. Problem is: who are Palestinians? The ones who call themselves now Palestinians use this name only for about a century. Like a fighter of the PLO once said:"I've always been a Syrian and now Arafat wants that we call ourselves Palestinians!" (BTW Arafat was a Egyptian, he immigrated like the Jews did). Problem was, they never had a country, no historical facts to back up a claim for a country. Someone else always ruled them. For hundreds of years it were the Turks who ruled them but they didn't "own the land" did they? And yet did the ancestors of the nowadays Palestinians revolt? Did they attacked the Turks because they annexed their land and occupied it? NO. When the Turks were driven away and "their land" was free again did they asked the British to get "their land" back? NO. When the international community divided "their land" into Jordan, Palestine and Israel did they also attacked Jordan? NO. Only Israel. Did they asked to get "their land" back? NO. They just wanted that the jews didn't get theirs.
And what do the Palestinians want now? Right, the land they refused.
You also accuse me of alternating race and religion as it suites me. No problem. Let's talk about people.
People living in that area were mostly ruled by foreign rulers. Refugees from a war came to that region and were allowed to settle their. After that war the region got another foreign ruler. The people coming from Europe and Russia were much more educated than the local population. Especially the Russian immigrants were masters in converting desert into fertile land. This attracted other immigrants from Arab countries to work for them. When the international community started to devide conquered land into new countries only the state of Israel was not allowed. The European and Russian immigrants had to be expelled or killed. Worse, even people who's ancesters lived their for thousands of years were also expelled or killed. And why were the Arab immigrants allowed to stay? Discrimination? Or was it religion after all? (oops I did it again)
The term "they owned the land" has no value whatsoever. Give me proof, fact, rule of law or international law about that phrase.
Here's a tip: you won't find it because it does not excist.
It is all very simple: they came legally, they got a country legally, they defend it legally.
