Originally Posted by sotrueblue I cant respect these clowns because they repeatedly try to force half baked lies and assertions on us that everyone can see are completely transparent self serving nonsense. Are you swallowing or spitting?

Historic Jewish legitimacy is based on archaeological evidence, early historical accounts, and DNA evidence that show Jewish origins and early presence in the region. Moreover, that Jewish presence was continual. The Jewish people are the earliest remaining inhabitants of the region.

Arab pogroms were carried out, not just against lawful Jewish immigrants to the region, but against the non-immigrant Jewish population e.g., in 1929 in such cities as Safed, home of Jewish population that had resided there since antiquity. Such violence was not an isolated occurrence. Well before partition was considered and adopted, Arabs were carrying out violence against Jews.

Even in areas outside of the British Mandate, such violence was taking place periodically. For example, on November 9, 1945, The New York Times reported, "Jewish children as well as adults have been murdered by Arab rioters in Tripolitania [Libya] and the Jewish death toll in the former Italian colony was increased to more than 100 when the pogrom which began on Sunday night in Tripoli, spread through the colony and continued into yesterday... Arabs attacked the Jewish quarter at Zanzur, looting and setting fire to houses and a synagogue and killing over thirty Jews, including a number of children... The riots were not simultaneous, as in the Egyptian cities..."

At the time UNSCOP took up the issue of concluding the British Mandate, ethnic violence was raging and intensifying in the Palestine region. If the problem merely lay with Jews, one would not have witnessed attacks on Jewish people throughout the Arab world and prior to UNSCOP's developing a partition plan. The partition plan was developed, in part, on account of the violence rather than the other way around.

Originally Posted by donsutherland1 Historic Jewish legitimacy is based on archaeological evidence, early historical accounts, and DNA evidence that show Jewish origins and early presence in the region. Moreover, that Jewish presence was continual. The Jewish people are the earliest remaining inhabitants of the region.

Arab pogroms were carried out, not just against lawful Jewish immigrants to the region, but against the non-immigrant Jewish population e.g., in 1929 in such cities as Safed, home of Jewish population that had resided there since antiquity. Such violence was not an isolated occurrence. Well before partition was considered and adopted, Arabs were carrying out violence against Jews. Even in areas outside of the British Mandate, such violence was taking place periodically. For example, on November 9, 1945, The New York Times reported, "Jewish children as well as adults have been murdered by Arab rioters in Tripolitania [Libya] and the Jewish death toll in the former Italian colony was increased to more than 100 when the pogrom which began on Sunday night in Tripoli, spread through the colony and continued into yesterday... Arabs attacked the Jewish quarter at Zanzur, looting and setting fire to houses and a synagogue and killing over thirty Jews, including a number of children... The riots were not simultaneous, as in the Egyptian cities..."

At the time UNSCOP took up the issue of concluding the British Mandate, ethnic violence was raging and intensifying in the Palestine region. If the problem merely lay with Jews, one would not have witnessed attacks on Jewish people throughout the Arab world and prior to UNSCOP's developing a partition plan. The partition plan was developed, in part, on account of the violence rather than the other way around.

Originally Posted by donsutherland1 Setting aside Mr.Giwer's propaganda, I'll simply cut to the proverbial chase of Mr. Giwer's solution towards which his distorted commentary is constructed: "Total land for total peace." In other words, Mr. Giwer argues that Israel must simply cease to exist for there to be peace. No nation can reasonably be expected to consent to its own demise as the price of peace.

YouTube - APPLAUSE

Originally Posted by John1234 I've been spitting for some time now. The lies we've been told opened my eyes. Once i discovered a few, i started to question everything I have ever heard. And i try to look for the truth by pretending I am outside of this world, then taking another look. But it always comes down to 1 thing over and over... THE HAMAS CHARTER If you want people like me to take up for Palestinians, then you need to convince Hamas to get rid of that stupid charter! I've tried to debate this on the side of Palestinians. And i lose every time as soon as that Charter is brought up. When they have a directive to eliminate all Jews from the face of the earth and do not even recognize Israel's right to exist... Seriously... what else is there to even talk about? If Hamas wants the world to see the wrong doings of Israel, I suggest they make some changes first. All it would take is for them to recognize Israel, disown the charter, and stop fighting back for a brief time. Then non biased people from all over the world would pressure Israel to stop. But until Hamas is ready to make those changes... nothing will ever change.

That is not correct.

Legitimacy involves the capacity to make a rightful claim. Historical legitimacy entails making a claim that is factually correct with respect to an area's history. The evidence of historical legitimacy for the Jewish people is indisputable.

If one adopted your far narrower definition, neither the Arabs nor the Jews would have historical legitimacy in the Palestine region, as neither are descendants of the Caananites and Philistines. Neither of those two ancient peoples exist today. However, the Jewish people have the longest-running connection to the region.

It is factually accurate. The Arabs wanted control over the entire region. They rejected any compromises. They refused to cooperate with UNSCOP.

However, as previously noted, the Arabs, alone, did not enjoy a superior claim to the region. Their claim was equal. Not surprisingly, both the Peel Commission and later UNSCOP reached the same conclusion about the two people's legitimate claims and both also decided in favor of partition given that both peoples' demands were irreconcilable.

Given the differences over British promises, it is important that the rights of the two peoples in the region be fully considered. Given their irreconcilable differences and the low-level ethnic conflict that was underway and intensifying, UNSCOP found that only a partition plan could accommodate both peoples' core needs.

Originally Posted by sotrueblue Actually Id agree as its impractical to ask Israelis to give everything back, some other form of compensation is required.

Originally Posted by sotrueblue I cant respect these clowns because they repeatedly try to force half baked lies and assertions on us that everyone can see are completely transparent self serving nonsense. To illustrate, lets take from this piece about Zionist propaganda; Most of these answers I agree with, though a few things are impractical. But the Palestinian haters, the propagandists and the outright dis-informationists of the Israeli right force all of these assertions down our throats on a regular basis. What do think? Are you swallowing or spitting?

Originally Posted by The Baron Seems to me that if the Palestinians want anyone to take them seriously the least they could do is stop killing so many innocent people, especially women and children. I know it's realy popular these days to hate the "jooooooooos!" but don't you find it just a bit hard to blame them when they're being blown up homicidal, psychotic maniacs? [/size][/font]