# The no more states solution



## Shusha

A third possibility for a solution to the conflict would be a "no more states" solution -- where the "occupied" territory is divided between the existing states of Israel, Jordan and Egypt.  

One advantage to this might be the dispersing of the more extreme elements into a wider and more accepting population, hopefully reducing the conflict.  It seems to me that many, many Arab Palestinians would be content with living in Jordan as part of the Jordanian peoples.  (As with every solution, Gaza remains much more of a problem.)  Another advantage might be international support for maintaining good relations between the three nations.  And none of the countries will have to take on the entire population.  

On the other hand, dispersal of extremist elements might turn countries like Jordan the other direction and create a larger war between Israel and Jordan.  

And while many Palestinians, possibly even the majority, consider themselves to be no different than Syrians and Jordanians, this solution does prevent Palestinian self-determination.  

Thoughts?


----------



## Onyx

That wouldn't be a no state solution. A no state solution would be anarchy, where both Israeli and Palestinians coexisted in a stateless society.


----------



## teddyearp

Here's my thoughts. It will not work.

Although Israel is constantly demonized for their 'blockade' of the Gaza strip, no one seems to mention nor demonize Egypt for their blockade of the portion of the Gaza strip that borders their country.

Egypt doesn't want anything to do with them.

At one time, 'Palestinians' living in the west bank were part of Jordan and even given Jordanian citizenship and passports.  However, after the six day war and Arafat's creation of a new Palestinian peoples, they actually tried to take over the whole of Jordan from the Hashemite kingdom.  Remember Black September?


> The civil war determined if Jordan would be ruled by the Palestine Liberation Organisation or the Hashemite monarchy.[6] The war resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, the vast majority Palestinian.[3] Armed conflict ended with the expulsion of the PLO leadership


Link:Black September - Wikipedia

Jordan no longer wants anything to do with them.

And Jordan isn't demonized here for that either.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Shusha said:


> A third possibility for a solution to the conflict would be a "no more states" solution -- where the "occupied" territory is divided between the existing states of Israel, Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> One advantage to this might be the dispersing of the more extreme elements into a wider and more accepting population, hopefully reducing the conflict.  It seems to me that many, many Arab Palestinians would be content with living in Jordan as part of the Jordanian peoples.  (As with every solution, Gaza remains much more of a problem.)  Another advantage might be international support for maintaining good relations between the three nations.  And none of the countries will have to take on the entire population.
> 
> On the other hand, dispersal of extremist elements might turn countries like Jordan the other direction and create a larger war between Israel and Jordan.
> 
> And while many Palestinians, possibly even the majority, consider themselves to be no different than Syrians and Jordanians, this solution does prevent Palestinian self-determination.
> 
> Thoughts?



Jordan and Egypt don't want Palestinian trouble makers.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

I think Gaza returning to Egypt and the west bank to Jordan is certainingly better than a two state solution.

Since the so-called "Palestinians" are a completely made up people, however, why not a three state solution?   Gaza could be one state, the west bank another, and Israel the third.  That way, when Gazan terrorists lob rockets into Israel, it would be considered an act of war, and Israel would only need to contend with them on that front. If the west bank needed defining as to territorial boundaries, that would be a separate issue.  I see no reason for a bifurcated state as it leads to logistical difficulties, and the clans involved are different.


----------



## MJB12741

teddyearp said:


> Here's my thoughts. It will not work.
> 
> Although Israel is constantly demonized for their 'blockade' of the Gaza strip, no one seems to mention nor demonize Egypt for their blockade of the portion of the Gaza strip that borders their country.
> 
> Egypt doesn't want anything to do with them.
> 
> At one time, 'Palestinians' living in the west bank were part of Jordan and even given Jordanian citizenship and passports.  However, after the six day war and Arafat's creation of a new Palestinian peoples, they actually tried to take over the whole of Jordan from the Hashemite kingdom.  Remember Black September?
> 
> 
> 
> The civil war determined if Jordan would be ruled by the Palestine Liberation Organisation or the Hashemite monarchy.[6] The war resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, the vast majority Palestinian.[3] Armed conflict ended with the expulsion of the PLO leadership
> 
> 
> 
> Link:Black September - Wikipedia
> 
> Jordan no longer wants anything to do with them.
> 
> And Jordan isn't demonized here for that either.
Click to expand...


Over & over again I have said basically the same thing.  Israel must stop their damn Zionist agenda of placating Palestinian demands only to be rewarded with more hatred & rocket missiles & start treating the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers do in Arab countries where there is no Palestinian or Pali supporter hatred, complaints or condemnation.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## Shusha

teddyearp said:


> Here's my thoughts. It will not work.
> 
> Although Israel is constantly demonized for their 'blockade' of the Gaza strip, no one seems to mention nor demonize Egypt for their blockade of the portion of the Gaza strip that borders their country.
> 
> Egypt doesn't want anything to do with them.
> 
> At one time, 'Palestinians' living in the west bank were part of Jordan and even given Jordanian citizenship and passports.  However, after the six day war and Arafat's creation of a new Palestinian peoples, they actually tried to take over the whole of Jordan from the Hashemite kingdom.  Remember Black September?
> 
> 
> 
> The civil war determined if Jordan would be ruled by the Palestine Liberation Organisation or the Hashemite monarchy.[6] The war resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, the vast majority Palestinian.[3] Armed conflict ended with the expulsion of the PLO leadership
> 
> 
> 
> Link:Black September - Wikipedia
> 
> Jordan no longer wants anything to do with them.
> 
> And Jordan isn't demonized here for that either.
Click to expand...



Sure.  I don't disagree.  BUT Jordan is not the same as the Jordan of 1967.  Jordan has had a chance to grow and develop.  And it might be possible to create a semi-autonomous state of Palestine with Jordanian federal jurisdiction that would both support Palestinian independence while providing some guidance and a measure of limitation.  

In addition, Israel will continue to ally itself with Jordan -- so it will be the big guys Jordan and Israel who monitor and control any bad behavior on the part of the Palestinians.  That is a huge shift from 1967.

And I wholeheartedly agree no one wants anything to do with Gaza.  Most understandably.


----------



## Shusha

Dogmaphobe said:


> I think Gaza returning to Egypt and the west bank to Jordan is certainingly better than a two state solution.
> 
> Since the so-called "Palestinians" are a completely made up people, however, why not a three state solution?   Gaza could be one state, the west bank another, and Israel the third.  That way, when Gazan terrorists lob rockets into Israel, it would be considered an act of war, and Israel would only need to contend with them on that front. If the west bank needed defining as to territorial boundaries, that would be a separate issue.  I see no reason for a bifurcated state as it leads to logistical difficulties, and the clans involved are different.



Please weigh in on the "two state solution" thread that Lipush started.  I'd love your input there.  Both the pro-Israels and the pro-Palestine members seem to agree that is the best solution.  We've even banged out a reasonable plan for territory and borders, and a few other things.  Its the anti-Israel crowd that won't buy that chocolate.


----------



## MJB12741

Shusha said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my thoughts. It will not work.
> 
> Although Israel is constantly demonized for their 'blockade' of the Gaza strip, no one seems to mention nor demonize Egypt for their blockade of the portion of the Gaza strip that borders their country.
> 
> Egypt doesn't want anything to do with them.
> 
> At one time, 'Palestinians' living in the west bank were part of Jordan and even given Jordanian citizenship and passports.  However, after the six day war and Arafat's creation of a new Palestinian peoples, they actually tried to take over the whole of Jordan from the Hashemite kingdom.  Remember Black September?
> 
> 
> 
> The civil war determined if Jordan would be ruled by the Palestine Liberation Organisation or the Hashemite monarchy.[6] The war resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, the vast majority Palestinian.[3] Armed conflict ended with the expulsion of the PLO leadership
> 
> 
> 
> Link:Black September - Wikipedia
> 
> Jordan no longer wants anything to do with them.
> 
> And Jordan isn't demonized here for that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  I don't disagree.  BUT Jordan is not the same as the Jordan of 1967.  Jordan has had a chance to grow and develop.  And it might be possible to create a semi-autonomous state of Palestine with Jordanian federal jurisdiction that would both support Palestinian independence while providing some guidance and a measure of limitation.
> 
> In addition, Israel will continue to ally itself with Jordan -- so it will be the big guys Jordan and Israel who monitor and control any bad behavior on the part of the Palestinians.  That is a huge shift from 1967.
> 
> And I wholeheartedly agree no one wants anything to do with Gaza.  Most understandably.
Click to expand...


Not a chance.  Jordan wants nothing whatsoever to do with Palestinians.  How relieved was Jordan to dump them on Israel to deal with after the 67 war.


----------



## teddyearp

MJB12741 said:


> Not a chance.  Jordan wants nothing whatsoever to do with Palestinians.  How relieved was Jordan to dump them on Israel to deal with after the 67 war.


Not meaning to split hairs, but Jordan didn't actually relinquish (in their mind if nothing else) the West Bank until 1988.

I just wish that Israel could get the control of the Temple Mount out of the hands of the Waqf without creating imagined problems.  Because any 'problems' that would portend would be 'imagined'.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ethnically cleanse the Palestinians: send them to Madagascar.


----------



## montelatici

teddyearp said:


> Here's my thoughts. It will not work.
> 
> Although Israel is constantly demonized for their 'blockade' of the Gaza strip, no one seems to mention nor demonize Egypt for their blockade of the portion of the Gaza strip that borders their country.
> 
> Egypt doesn't want anything to do with them.
> 
> At one time, 'Palestinians' living in the west bank were part of Jordan and even given Jordanian citizenship and passports.  However, after the six day war and Arafat's creation of a new Palestinian peoples, they actually tried to take over the whole of Jordan from the Hashemite kingdom.  Remember Black September?
> 
> 
> 
> The civil war determined if Jordan would be ruled by the Palestine Liberation Organisation or the Hashemite monarchy.[6] The war resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, the vast majority Palestinian.[3] Armed conflict ended with the expulsion of the PLO leadership
> 
> 
> 
> Link:Black September - Wikipedia
> 
> Jordan no longer wants anything to do with them.
> 
> And Jordan isn't demonized here for that either.
Click to expand...


The reason Egypt isn't demonized is because the U.S. forces Egypt to maintain the blockade on behalf of Israel, or lose its U.S. aid.  You weren't aware of that?  Before the military coup that put the military back in charge, the only democratically elected leader of Egypt in history, Morsi, opened the border and the U.S. stopped aid to Egypt. The military, was obviously upset and overthrew the democratically elected president, with the help of the U.S. and Israel, of course.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my thoughts. It will not work.
> 
> Although Israel is constantly demonized for their 'blockade' of the Gaza strip, no one seems to mention nor demonize Egypt for their blockade of the portion of the Gaza strip that borders their country.
> 
> Egypt doesn't want anything to do with them.
> 
> At one time, 'Palestinians' living in the west bank were part of Jordan and even given Jordanian citizenship and passports.  However, after the six day war and Arafat's creation of a new Palestinian peoples, they actually tried to take over the whole of Jordan from the Hashemite kingdom.  Remember Black September?
> 
> 
> 
> The civil war determined if Jordan would be ruled by the Palestine Liberation Organisation or the Hashemite monarchy.[6] The war resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, the vast majority Palestinian.[3] Armed conflict ended with the expulsion of the PLO leadership
> 
> 
> 
> Link:Black September - Wikipedia
> 
> Jordan no longer wants anything to do with them.
> 
> And Jordan isn't demonized here for that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  I don't disagree.  BUT Jordan is not the same as the Jordan of 1967.  Jordan has had a chance to grow and develop.  And it might be possible to create a semi-autonomous state of Palestine with Jordanian federal jurisdiction that would both support Palestinian independence while providing some guidance and a measure of limitation.
> 
> In addition, Israel will continue to ally itself with Jordan -- so it will be the big guys Jordan and Israel who monitor and control any bad behavior on the part of the Palestinians.  That is a huge shift from 1967.
> 
> And I wholeheartedly agree no one wants anything to do with Gaza.  Most understandably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a chance.  Jordan wants nothing whatsoever to do with Palestinians.  How relieved was Jordan to dump them on Israel to deal with after the 67 war.
Click to expand...


Jordan was a state created for its native people, the Hashemite Bedouins.  Of course they want to keep their own culture, they are the native people after all.   The Palestinians have to work to get their native land back from the invading Zionists  under some sort of power sharing scheme with them, not try to subvert native people elsewhere.


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> The reason Egypt isn't demonized is because the U.S. forces Egypt to maintain the blockade on behalf of Israel, or lose its U.S. aid.  You weren't aware of that?  Before the military coup that put the military back in charge, the only democratically elected leader of Egypt in history, Morsi, opened the border and the U.S. stopped aid to Egypt. The military, was obviously upset and overthrew the democratically elected president, with the help of the U.S. and Israel, of course.


Interesting.  Do have any credible source(s) that can substantiate your claim(s) that you would share with the board?


----------



## P F Tinmore

teddyearp said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason Egypt isn't demonized is because the U.S. forces Egypt to maintain the blockade on behalf of Israel, or lose its U.S. aid.  You weren't aware of that?  Before the military coup that put the military back in charge, the only democratically elected leader of Egypt in history, Morsi, opened the border and the U.S. stopped aid to Egypt. The military, was obviously upset and overthrew the democratically elected president, with the help of the U.S. and Israel, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Do have any credible source(s) that can substantiate your claim(s) that you would share with the board?
Click to expand...

It was part of the 1979 peace agreement. I thought everyone knew that.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my thoughts. It will not work.
> 
> Although Israel is constantly demonized for their 'blockade' of the Gaza strip, no one seems to mention nor demonize Egypt for their blockade of the portion of the Gaza strip that borders their country.
> 
> Egypt doesn't want anything to do with them.
> 
> At one time, 'Palestinians' living in the west bank were part of Jordan and even given Jordanian citizenship and passports.  However, after the six day war and Arafat's creation of a new Palestinian peoples, they actually tried to take over the whole of Jordan from the Hashemite kingdom.  Remember Black September?
> 
> 
> 
> The civil war determined if Jordan would be ruled by the Palestine Liberation Organisation or the Hashemite monarchy.[6] The war resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, the vast majority Palestinian.[3] Armed conflict ended with the expulsion of the PLO leadership
> 
> 
> 
> Link:Black September - Wikipedia
> 
> Jordan no longer wants anything to do with them.
> 
> And Jordan isn't demonized here for that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason Egypt isn't demonized is because the U.S. forces Egypt to maintain the blockade on behalf of Israel, or lose its U.S. aid.  You weren't aware of that?  Before the military coup that put the military back in charge, the only democratically elected leader of Egypt in history, Morsi, opened the border and the U.S. stopped aid to Egypt. The military, was obviously upset and overthrew the democratically elected president, with the help of the U.S. and Israel, of course.
Click to expand...


Why is it that the extreme Jew haters are relegated to goofy conspiracy theories to buttress their irrational fantasies?


----------



## yiostheoy

Shusha said:


> A third possibility for a solution to the conflict would be a "no more states" solution -- where the "occupied" territory is divided between the existing states of Israel, Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> One advantage to this might be the dispersing of the more extreme elements into a wider and more accepting population, hopefully reducing the conflict.  It seems to me that many, many Arab Palestinians would be content with living in Jordan as part of the Jordanian peoples.  (As with every solution, Gaza remains much more of a problem.)  Another advantage might be international support for maintaining good relations between the three nations.  And none of the countries will have to take on the entire population.
> 
> On the other hand, dispersal of extremist elements might turn countries like Jordan the other direction and create a larger war between Israel and Jordan.
> 
> And while many Palestinians, possibly even the majority, consider themselves to be no different than Syrians and Jordanians, this solution does prevent Palestinian self-determination.
> 
> Thoughts?


Israel occupies this land.

This land belongs to Israel.

End of B/S.


----------



## montelatici

teddyearp said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason Egypt isn't demonized is because the U.S. forces Egypt to maintain the blockade on behalf of Israel, or lose its U.S. aid.  You weren't aware of that?  Before the military coup that put the military back in charge, the only democratically elected leader of Egypt in history, Morsi, opened the border and the U.S. stopped aid to Egypt. The military, was obviously upset and overthrew the democratically elected president, with the help of the U.S. and Israel, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Do have any credible source(s) that can substantiate your claim(s) that you would share with the board?
Click to expand...


This is common knowledge.  

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pcaab954.pdf


----------



## Humanity

Shusha said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my thoughts. It will not work.
> 
> Although Israel is constantly demonized for their 'blockade' of the Gaza strip, no one seems to mention nor demonize Egypt for their blockade of the portion of the Gaza strip that borders their country.
> 
> Egypt doesn't want anything to do with them.
> 
> At one time, 'Palestinians' living in the west bank were part of Jordan and even given Jordanian citizenship and passports.  However, after the six day war and Arafat's creation of a new Palestinian peoples, they actually tried to take over the whole of Jordan from the Hashemite kingdom.  Remember Black September?
> 
> 
> 
> The civil war determined if Jordan would be ruled by the Palestine Liberation Organisation or the Hashemite monarchy.[6] The war resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, the vast majority Palestinian.[3] Armed conflict ended with the expulsion of the PLO leadership
> 
> 
> 
> Link:Black September - Wikipedia
> 
> Jordan no longer wants anything to do with them.
> 
> And Jordan isn't demonized here for that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  I don't disagree.  BUT Jordan is not the same as the Jordan of 1967.  Jordan has had a chance to grow and develop.  And it might be possible to create a semi-autonomous state of Palestine with Jordanian federal jurisdiction that would both support Palestinian independence while providing some guidance and a measure of limitation.
> 
> In addition, Israel will continue to ally itself with Jordan -- so it will be the big guys Jordan and Israel who monitor and control any bad behavior on the part of the Palestinians.  That is a huge shift from 1967.
> 
> And I wholeheartedly agree no one wants anything to do with Gaza.  Most understandably.
Click to expand...


I had not thought of this as a possible solution...

I quite like the idea though with reservations...

Creating a semi autonomous region is ok but could be a 'short term' solution as there may be a call in the future for an 'independence'...

If the semi autonomous state were within Jordan then it would be Jordan who would do the 'monitoring' ... Sure, I would expect Israel to keep an eye on things but Israel could not 'monitor' within Jordan...


----------



## Sixties Fan

Shusha said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my thoughts. It will not work.
> 
> Although Israel is constantly demonized for their 'blockade' of the Gaza strip, no one seems to mention nor demonize Egypt for their blockade of the portion of the Gaza strip that borders their country.
> 
> Egypt doesn't want anything to do with them.
> 
> At one time, 'Palestinians' living in the west bank were part of Jordan and even given Jordanian citizenship and passports.  However, after the six day war and Arafat's creation of a new Palestinian peoples, they actually tried to take over the whole of Jordan from the Hashemite kingdom.  Remember Black September?
> 
> 
> 
> The civil war determined if Jordan would be ruled by the Palestine Liberation Organisation or the Hashemite monarchy.[6] The war resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, the vast majority Palestinian.[3] Armed conflict ended with the expulsion of the PLO leadership
> 
> 
> 
> Link:Black September - Wikipedia
> 
> Jordan no longer wants anything to do with them.
> 
> And Jordan isn't demonized here for that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  I don't disagree.  BUT Jordan is not the same as the Jordan of 1967.  Jordan has had a chance to grow and develop.  And it might be possible to create a semi-autonomous state of Palestine with Jordanian federal jurisdiction that would both support Palestinian independence while providing some guidance and a measure of limitation.
> 
> In addition, Israel will continue to ally itself with Jordan -- so it will be the big guys Jordan and Israel who monitor and control any bad behavior on the part of the Palestinians.  That is a huge shift from 1967.
> 
> And I wholeheartedly agree no one wants anything to do with Gaza.  Most understandably.
Click to expand...



Is anyone taking into consideration that both Egypt and Jordan took Gaza and Judea/Samaria (West Bank) in order to either annex them (Jordan) or simply dump unwanted Arabs into the area (Gaza)?

Egypt during the Peace Treaty would not take Gaza back from Israel mainly to stick Israel with the conditions which grew out of it, which turned Gaza as a weapon against Israel.  Even with Israel totally withdrawing from Gaza in 2005, the reason Gaza exists continues to be clear.

Egypt has refused recently creating a Palestinian State in the Sinai Peninsula as a continuation of Gaza, considering the size of the land.  I think the idea was mainly getting all Muslims from Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem, who wanted their own Muslim State to create it in that area.
Those who wanted to live under Israel's sovereignty and would not be a threat to the country would remain in Israel, Judea and Samaria.  And there are many Muslim Arabs who do want to stay 
with Israel, rather than a Palestine State.

Here are the problems:

Islam and its teachings
Hamas and the PLO/PA/Fatah charters which call for the destruction of Israel
Endless donations from Qatar, EU, Iran etc in order to help the two main organizations attempt to fulfill their charters.

Solutions:
One needs to put an end to any and all money going to Hamas/Gaza and the PA which only perpetuates the conflict.

The only way Egypt and Jordan agreed to a Peace Treaty with Israel is because their economy suffered from so many attacks on Israel and nearly brought both new countries down.
-------

Neither Hamas nor the PA see anything to lose, as the leaders and their families and friends live a luxurious life paid by the Arab countries and some Western countries as well.

Hizbollah is also a problem as it is weaponized by Iran.

So, Hamas, the PA/PLO, Hizbollah, Iran, and other players in the conflict are basically the ones keeping the conflict going and the possibility of Palestine State null and void.

Arafat did not sign the Oslo Accords in order to prepare the Arabs for Peace with Israel.

Arafat did what Mohammad did.  He signed treaties and then when least expected he attacked Israel, as he did from 2000 on.

In looking for a solution, one must know what Islam stands for from Mohammad to Husseini, to Arafat, to Abbas, Mashall, the Ayatollah and other leaders who do follow Islamic teachings to the letter.

One State Solution which the Arabs/Muslims will agree on, allowing Israel to continue to exit.


How can the world help to arrive to it?


----------



## montelatici

Only the UK and Pakistan recognized the occupation of Palestine (WB) by Jordan. A Palestinian (former Palestinian soldier who had defended Palestine against the Zionists) assassinated Jordan's king in response to the annexation.  The Palestinians disliked Jordanian occupation as much as Israeli occupation.

Egypt never annexed Palestine (Gaza).


----------



## yiostheoy

montelatici said:


> Only the UK and Pakistan recognized the occupation of Palestine (WB) by Jordan. A Palestinian (former Palestinian soldier who had defended Palestine against the Zionists) assassinated Jordan's king in response to the annexation.  The Palestinians disliked Jordanian occupation as much as Israeli occupation.
> 
> Egypt never annexed Palestine (Gaza).


Ah murder ... yes ... the game of kings.

It is easy to give the order.

It is easy to pull the trigger.

It is easy to die.

It is hard to be the wife and kids of the dead man.


----------



## montelatici

Sixties Fan said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my thoughts. It will not work.
> 
> Although Israel is constantly demonized for their 'blockade' of the Gaza strip, no one seems to mention nor demonize Egypt for their blockade of the portion of the Gaza strip that borders their country.
> 
> Egypt doesn't want anything to do with them.
> 
> At one time, 'Palestinians' living in the west bank were part of Jordan and even given Jordanian citizenship and passports.  However, after the six day war and Arafat's creation of a new Palestinian peoples, they actually tried to take over the whole of Jordan from the Hashemite kingdom.  Remember Black September?
> 
> 
> 
> The civil war determined if Jordan would be ruled by the Palestine Liberation Organisation or the Hashemite monarchy.[6] The war resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, the vast majority Palestinian.[3] Armed conflict ended with the expulsion of the PLO leadership
> 
> 
> 
> Link:Black September - Wikipedia
> 
> Jordan no longer wants anything to do with them.
> 
> And Jordan isn't demonized here for that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  I don't disagree.  BUT Jordan is not the same as the Jordan of 1967.  Jordan has had a chance to grow and develop.  And it might be possible to create a semi-autonomous state of Palestine with Jordanian federal jurisdiction that would both support Palestinian independence while providing some guidance and a measure of limitation.
> 
> In addition, Israel will continue to ally itself with Jordan -- so it will be the big guys Jordan and Israel who monitor and control any bad behavior on the part of the Palestinians.  That is a huge shift from 1967.
> 
> And I wholeheartedly agree no one wants anything to do with Gaza.  Most understandably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone taking into consideration that both Egypt and Jordan took Gaza and Judea/Samaria (West Bank) in order to either annex them (Jordan) or simply dump unwanted Arabs into the area (Gaza)?
> 
> Egypt during the Peace Treaty would not take Gaza back from Israel mainly to stick Israel with the conditions which grew out of it, which turned Gaza as a weapon against Israel.  Even with Israel totally withdrawing from Gaza in 2005, the reason Gaza exists continues to be clear.
> 
> Egypt has refused recently creating a Palestinian State in the Sinai Peninsula as a continuation of Gaza, considering the size of the land.  I think the idea was mainly getting all Muslims from Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem, who wanted their own Muslim State to create it in that area.
> Those who wanted to live under Israel's sovereignty and would not be a threat to the country would remain in Israel, Judea and Samaria.  And there are many Muslim Arabs who do want to stay
> with Israel, rather than a Palestine State.
> 
> Here are the problems:
> 
> Islam and its teachings
> Hamas and the PLO/PA/Fatah charters which call for the destruction of Israel
> Endless donations from Qatar, EU, Iran etc in order to help the two main organizations attempt to fulfill their charters.
> 
> Solutions:
> One needs to put an end to any and all money going to Hamas/Gaza and the PA which only perpetuates the conflict.
> 
> The only way Egypt and Jordan agreed to a Peace Treaty with Israel is because their economy suffered from so many attacks on Israel and nearly brought both new countries down.
> -------
> 
> Neither Hamas nor the PA see anything to lose, as the leaders and their families and friends live a luxurious life paid by the Arab countries and some Western countries as well.
> 
> Hizbollah is also a problem as it is weaponized by Iran.
> 
> So, Hamas, the PA/PLO, Hizbollah, Iran, and other players in the conflict are basically the ones keeping the conflict going and the possibility of Palestine State null and void.
> 
> Arafat did not sign the Oslo Accords in order to prepare the Arabs for Peace with Israel.
> 
> Arafat did what Mohammad did.  He signed treaties and then when least expected he attacked Israel, as he did from 2000 on.
> 
> In looking for a solution, one must know what Islam stands for from Mohammad to Husseini, to Arafat, to Abbas, Mashall, the Ayatollah and other leaders who do follow Islamic teachings to the letter.
> 
> One State Solution which the Arabs/Muslims will agree on, allowing Israel to continue to exit.
> 
> 
> How can the world help to arrive to it?
Click to expand...


Israel has perpetuated the conflict by continuing its occupation of the West Bank. Gaza and East Jerusalem without ever giving any indication that it would withdraw and allow the creation of a truly sovereign Palestinian state.  In fact, in all of its offers it has demanded the permanent control of borders, air space and territorial see and the basing of occupation troops in Palestine forever.  With the transfer of its population to the occupied territories it has made the establishment of a Palestinian state impossible, so now either Israel continues to be an Apartheid state, or it gives the vote to all the people it controls and becomes a secular, democratic state.


----------



## yiostheoy

montelatici said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my thoughts. It will not work.
> 
> Although Israel is constantly demonized for their 'blockade' of the Gaza strip, no one seems to mention nor demonize Egypt for their blockade of the portion of the Gaza strip that borders their country.
> 
> Egypt doesn't want anything to do with them.
> 
> At one time, 'Palestinians' living in the west bank were part of Jordan and even given Jordanian citizenship and passports.  However, after the six day war and Arafat's creation of a new Palestinian peoples, they actually tried to take over the whole of Jordan from the Hashemite kingdom.  Remember Black September?
> 
> 
> 
> The civil war determined if Jordan would be ruled by the Palestine Liberation Organisation or the Hashemite monarchy.[6] The war resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, the vast majority Palestinian.[3] Armed conflict ended with the expulsion of the PLO leadership
> 
> 
> 
> Link:Black September - Wikipedia
> 
> Jordan no longer wants anything to do with them.
> 
> And Jordan isn't demonized here for that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  I don't disagree.  BUT Jordan is not the same as the Jordan of 1967.  Jordan has had a chance to grow and develop.  And it might be possible to create a semi-autonomous state of Palestine with Jordanian federal jurisdiction that would both support Palestinian independence while providing some guidance and a measure of limitation.
> 
> In addition, Israel will continue to ally itself with Jordan -- so it will be the big guys Jordan and Israel who monitor and control any bad behavior on the part of the Palestinians.  That is a huge shift from 1967.
> 
> And I wholeheartedly agree no one wants anything to do with Gaza.  Most understandably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone taking into consideration that both Egypt and Jordan took Gaza and Judea/Samaria (West Bank) in order to either annex them (Jordan) or simply dump unwanted Arabs into the area (Gaza)?
> 
> Egypt during the Peace Treaty would not take Gaza back from Israel mainly to stick Israel with the conditions which grew out of it, which turned Gaza as a weapon against Israel.  Even with Israel totally withdrawing from Gaza in 2005, the reason Gaza exists continues to be clear.
> 
> Egypt has refused recently creating a Palestinian State in the Sinai Peninsula as a continuation of Gaza, considering the size of the land.  I think the idea was mainly getting all Muslims from Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem, who wanted their own Muslim State to create it in that area.
> Those who wanted to live under Israel's sovereignty and would not be a threat to the country would remain in Israel, Judea and Samaria.  And there are many Muslim Arabs who do want to stay
> with Israel, rather than a Palestine State.
> 
> Here are the problems:
> 
> Islam and its teachings
> Hamas and the PLO/PA/Fatah charters which call for the destruction of Israel
> Endless donations from Qatar, EU, Iran etc in order to help the two main organizations attempt to fulfill their charters.
> 
> Solutions:
> One needs to put an end to any and all money going to Hamas/Gaza and the PA which only perpetuates the conflict.
> 
> The only way Egypt and Jordan agreed to a Peace Treaty with Israel is because their economy suffered from so many attacks on Israel and nearly brought both new countries down.
> -------
> 
> Neither Hamas nor the PA see anything to lose, as the leaders and their families and friends live a luxurious life paid by the Arab countries and some Western countries as well.
> 
> Hizbollah is also a problem as it is weaponized by Iran.
> 
> So, Hamas, the PA/PLO, Hizbollah, Iran, and other players in the conflict are basically the ones keeping the conflict going and the possibility of Palestine State null and void.
> 
> Arafat did not sign the Oslo Accords in order to prepare the Arabs for Peace with Israel.
> 
> Arafat did what Mohammad did.  He signed treaties and then when least expected he attacked Israel, as he did from 2000 on.
> 
> In looking for a solution, one must know what Islam stands for from Mohammad to Husseini, to Arafat, to Abbas, Mashall, the Ayatollah and other leaders who do follow Islamic teachings to the letter.
> 
> One State Solution which the Arabs/Muslims will agree on, allowing Israel to continue to exit.
> 
> 
> How can the world help to arrive to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel has perpetuated the conflict by continuing its occupation of the West Bank. Gaza and East Jerusalem without ever giving any indication that it would withdraw and allow the creation of a truly sovereign Palestinian state.  In fact, in all of its offers it has demanded the permanent control of borders, air space and territorial see and the basing of occupation troops in Palestine forever.  With the transfer of its population to the occupied territories it has made the establishment of a Palestinian state impossible, so now either Israel continues to be an Apartheid state, or it gives the vote to all the people it controls and becomes a secular, democratic state.
Click to expand...

Spam bot.

Ignore list.

Eat sh!t and die, Spam Bot.


----------



## montelatici

yiostheoy said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my thoughts. It will not work.
> 
> Although Israel is constantly demonized for their 'blockade' of the Gaza strip, no one seems to mention nor demonize Egypt for their blockade of the portion of the Gaza strip that borders their country.
> 
> Egypt doesn't want anything to do with them.
> 
> At one time, 'Palestinians' living in the west bank were part of Jordan and even given Jordanian citizenship and passports.  However, after the six day war and Arafat's creation of a new Palestinian peoples, they actually tried to take over the whole of Jordan from the Hashemite kingdom.  Remember Black September?
> 
> 
> 
> The civil war determined if Jordan would be ruled by the Palestine Liberation Organisation or the Hashemite monarchy.[6] The war resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, the vast majority Palestinian.[3] Armed conflict ended with the expulsion of the PLO leadership
> 
> 
> 
> Link:Black September - Wikipedia
> 
> Jordan no longer wants anything to do with them.
> 
> And Jordan isn't demonized here for that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  I don't disagree.  BUT Jordan is not the same as the Jordan of 1967.  Jordan has had a chance to grow and develop.  And it might be possible to create a semi-autonomous state of Palestine with Jordanian federal jurisdiction that would both support Palestinian independence while providing some guidance and a measure of limitation.
> 
> In addition, Israel will continue to ally itself with Jordan -- so it will be the big guys Jordan and Israel who monitor and control any bad behavior on the part of the Palestinians.  That is a huge shift from 1967.
> 
> And I wholeheartedly agree no one wants anything to do with Gaza.  Most understandably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone taking into consideration that both Egypt and Jordan took Gaza and Judea/Samaria (West Bank) in order to either annex them (Jordan) or simply dump unwanted Arabs into the area (Gaza)?
> 
> Egypt during the Peace Treaty would not take Gaza back from Israel mainly to stick Israel with the conditions which grew out of it, which turned Gaza as a weapon against Israel.  Even with Israel totally withdrawing from Gaza in 2005, the reason Gaza exists continues to be clear.
> 
> Egypt has refused recently creating a Palestinian State in the Sinai Peninsula as a continuation of Gaza, considering the size of the land.  I think the idea was mainly getting all Muslims from Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem, who wanted their own Muslim State to create it in that area.
> Those who wanted to live under Israel's sovereignty and would not be a threat to the country would remain in Israel, Judea and Samaria.  And there are many Muslim Arabs who do want to stay
> with Israel, rather than a Palestine State.
> 
> Here are the problems:
> 
> Islam and its teachings
> Hamas and the PLO/PA/Fatah charters which call for the destruction of Israel
> Endless donations from Qatar, EU, Iran etc in order to help the two main organizations attempt to fulfill their charters.
> 
> Solutions:
> One needs to put an end to any and all money going to Hamas/Gaza and the PA which only perpetuates the conflict.
> 
> The only way Egypt and Jordan agreed to a Peace Treaty with Israel is because their economy suffered from so many attacks on Israel and nearly brought both new countries down.
> -------
> 
> Neither Hamas nor the PA see anything to lose, as the leaders and their families and friends live a luxurious life paid by the Arab countries and some Western countries as well.
> 
> Hizbollah is also a problem as it is weaponized by Iran.
> 
> So, Hamas, the PA/PLO, Hizbollah, Iran, and other players in the conflict are basically the ones keeping the conflict going and the possibility of Palestine State null and void.
> 
> Arafat did not sign the Oslo Accords in order to prepare the Arabs for Peace with Israel.
> 
> Arafat did what Mohammad did.  He signed treaties and then when least expected he attacked Israel, as he did from 2000 on.
> 
> In looking for a solution, one must know what Islam stands for from Mohammad to Husseini, to Arafat, to Abbas, Mashall, the Ayatollah and other leaders who do follow Islamic teachings to the letter.
> 
> One State Solution which the Arabs/Muslims will agree on, allowing Israel to continue to exit.
> 
> 
> How can the world help to arrive to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel has perpetuated the conflict by continuing its occupation of the West Bank. Gaza and East Jerusalem without ever giving any indication that it would withdraw and allow the creation of a truly sovereign Palestinian state.  In fact, in all of its offers it has demanded the permanent control of borders, air space and territorial see and the basing of occupation troops in Palestine forever.  With the transfer of its population to the occupied territories it has made the establishment of a Palestinian state impossible, so now either Israel continues to be an Apartheid state, or it gives the vote to all the people it controls and becomes a secular, democratic state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spam bot.
> 
> Ignore list.
> 
> Eat sh!t and die, Spam Bot.
Click to expand...


Is that another death threat?


----------



## Shusha

Humanity said:


> I had not thought of this as a possible solution...
> 
> I quite like the idea though with reservations...
> 
> Creating a semi autonomous region is ok but could be a 'short term' solution as there may be a call in the future for an 'independence'...
> 
> If the semi autonomous state were within Jordan then it would be Jordan who would do the 'monitoring' ... Sure, I would expect Israel to keep an eye on things but Israel could not 'monitor' within Jordan...



My hunch is since many Palestinians feel there is no difference between them and their Syrian and Jordanian brothers and sisters, one of two things will happen -- either Jordan eventually absorbs them all and the West Bank becomes permanently part of Jordan or the Palestinians actually get their shit together and achieve a peaceful independence or semi-independence.

It seems to me -- and I think you agree -- that the Palestinians have fewer grievances against Jordan than against Israel and it shifts the psychological battle off the Arab Muslim vs Jew-the-eternal-enemy paradigm.  It also makes this sort of an internal Arab/Muslim alliance issue which puts a different spin on things.  I suspect the strongly aligned Arab/Muslim world is heading for a deep split between the extremists and the more moderate.  

The risk taken, of course, is that the Jordanians have to be secure enough that the Palestinians wouldn't try to pull another coup d'etat -- either violently or politically.  The risk is that when the split happens the Palestinians will fall to the side of the extremists.  BUT I think that is much less likely to happen if we can take them off the us-against-the-Jews line.  

Israel and the international community would have to strongly support Jordan.   The problem is I'm not sure what we could do to sweeten the pot for Jordan.  She doesn't have enough incentives, yet, to got this route.


----------



## Humanity

Shusha said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had not thought of this as a possible solution...
> 
> I quite like the idea though with reservations...
> 
> Creating a semi autonomous region is ok but could be a 'short term' solution as there may be a call in the future for an 'independence'...
> 
> If the semi autonomous state were within Jordan then it would be Jordan who would do the 'monitoring' ... Sure, I would expect Israel to keep an eye on things but Israel could not 'monitor' within Jordan...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My hunch is since many Palestinians feel there is no difference between them and their Syrian and Jordanian brothers and sisters, one of two things will happen -- either Jordan eventually absorbs them all and the West Bank becomes permanently part of Jordan or the Palestinians actually get their shit together and achieve a peaceful independence or semi-independence.
> 
> It seems to me -- and I think you agree -- that the Palestinians have fewer grievances against Jordan than against Israel and it shifts the psychological battle off the Arab Muslim vs Jew-the-eternal-enemy paradigm.  It also makes this sort of an internal Arab/Muslim alliance issue which puts a different spin on things.  I suspect the strongly aligned Arab/Muslim world is heading for a deep split between the extremists and the more moderate.
> 
> The risk taken, of course, is that the Jordanians have to be secure enough that the Palestinians wouldn't try to pull another coup d'etat -- either violently or politically.  The risk is that when the split happens the Palestinians will fall to the side of the extremists.  BUT I think that is much less likely to happen if we can take them off the us-against-the-Jews line.
> 
> Israel and the international community would have to strongly support Jordan.   The problem is I'm not sure what we could do to sweeten the pot for Jordan.  She doesn't have enough incentives, yet, to got this route.
Click to expand...


Yes,, I can see how this could work... I am not sure that either Palestinians or Israelis, perhaps more so Israel, would ever consider a solution...

However, what, exactly, are you proposing as the West Bank? Back to 1949 Armistice Line? To include East Jerusalem?


----------



## Shusha

Humanity said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had not thought of this as a possible solution...
> 
> I quite like the idea though with reservations...
> 
> Creating a semi autonomous region is ok but could be a 'short term' solution as there may be a call in the future for an 'independence'...
> 
> If the semi autonomous state were within Jordan then it would be Jordan who would do the 'monitoring' ... Sure, I would expect Israel to keep an eye on things but Israel could not 'monitor' within Jordan...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My hunch is since many Palestinians feel there is no difference between them and their Syrian and Jordanian brothers and sisters, one of two things will happen -- either Jordan eventually absorbs them all and the West Bank becomes permanently part of Jordan or the Palestinians actually get their shit together and achieve a peaceful independence or semi-independence.
> 
> It seems to me -- and I think you agree -- that the Palestinians have fewer grievances against Jordan than against Israel and it shifts the psychological battle off the Arab Muslim vs Jew-the-eternal-enemy paradigm.  It also makes this sort of an internal Arab/Muslim alliance issue which puts a different spin on things.  I suspect the strongly aligned Arab/Muslim world is heading for a deep split between the extremists and the more moderate.
> 
> The risk taken, of course, is that the Jordanians have to be secure enough that the Palestinians wouldn't try to pull another coup d'etat -- either violently or politically.  The risk is that when the split happens the Palestinians will fall to the side of the extremists.  BUT I think that is much less likely to happen if we can take them off the us-against-the-Jews line.
> 
> Israel and the international community would have to strongly support Jordan.   The problem is I'm not sure what we could do to sweeten the pot for Jordan.  She doesn't have enough incentives, yet, to got this route.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes,, I can see how this could work... I am not sure that either Palestinians or Israelis, perhaps more so Israel, would ever consider a solution...
> 
> However, what, exactly, are you proposing as the West Bank? Back to 1949 Armistice Line? To include East Jerusalem?
Click to expand...


More or less what I would have been proposing in the two state solution.  Land swaps for major Jewish built up areas. 

Jerusalem, of course, will be the sticky point.  Always has been.  I just can't see letting the Old City go for the Jewish people.  I just can't.  I think it is imperative that Israel retain sovereignty over the Old City and the Holy Place.  What I would like to see in an ideal situation would be for Jerusalem to be divided more-or-less on lines of ethnicity as much as possible, with an access corridor of some sort to provide Palestinian/Jordanian guarantee of access and worship at Haram al-Sharif.  But I honestly don't know if that is geographically possible.  I assume it is, if people have the will to do it.  I mean, they do the whole divided Holy Place in Hebron now, why not in Jerusalem too.


----------



## teddyearp

P F Tinmore said:


> It was part of the 1979 peace agreement. I thought everyone knew that.


Interesting.  I have now researched the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace agreement and can find nothing of the sort.  Maybe you can help with a credible source/link?

Furthermore, now that you mention that agreement, I will add what I did find:


> Because Egypt insisted that Jewish civilians leave the Sinai, more than 7,000 Israelis were uprooted from their homes and businesses, which they had spent years building in the desert. This was a physically and emotionally wrenching experience, particularly for the residents of Yamit, *who had to be forcibly removed by soldiers from their homes.*


Just like Gaza.


> By turning over the Sinai to Egypt, Israel may have given up its only chance to become energy-independent. The Alma oil field in the southern Sinai, discovered and developed by Israel, was transferred to Egypt in November 1979. When Israel gave up this field, it had become the country's largest single source of energy, supplying half the country's energy needs. Israel, which estimated the value of untapped reserves in the Alma field at $100 billion, had projected that continued development there would make the country self-sufficient in energy by 1990.


Oh but wait, there's more:


> In 1988, the Jewish State relinquished Taba — a resort built by Israel in what had been a barren desert area near Eilat — to Egypt. Taba's status had not been resolved by the Camp David Accords. When an international arbitration panel ruled in Cairo's favor on September 29, 1988, Israel turned the town over to Egypt.



So, unless you can link something substantial to prove your claim, I hope this is the end of the deflection to the Egypt-Israel peace agreement.

Oops, almost forgot *my substantiation*: Israel & Egypt Make Peace


----------



## teddyearp

montelatici said:


> This is common knowledge.
> 
> http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pcaab954.pdf


That's funny.  I read this document and find nothing whatsoever that backs your claim.

Nice try. Try again.


----------



## teddyearp

Shusha said:


> More or less what I would have been proposing in the two state solution.  Land swaps for major Jewish built up areas.
> 
> Jerusalem, of course, will be the sticky point.  Always has been.  I just can't see letting the Old City go for the Jewish people.  I just can't.  I think it is imperative that Israel retain sovereignty over the Old City and the Holy Place.  What I would like to see in an ideal situation would be for Jerusalem to be divided more-or-less on lines of ethnicity as much as possible, with an access corridor of some sort to provide Palestinian/Jordanian guarantee of access and worship at Haram al-Sharif.  But I honestly don't know if that is geographically possible.  I assume it is, if people have the will to do it.  I mean, they do the whole divided Holy Place in Hebron now, why not in Jerusalem too.


In a certain way, the 'New City' of Jerusalem is sort of already divided north of the Old City walls.  They call it the 'seam line'.  Not sure how defined it is south of the Old City walls. But you for sure know when you've crossed it as you walk outside the Old City on the north side. I think the Old City should be as it is, and as I believe I mentioned in the two state solution thread (this one is almost going the same way now), I wish that the Temple Mount would become more open to all. As it is now, Non-Muslims can only enter via one way during very restricted hours. Leaving the Temple Mount for a non-muslim is much easier.


----------



## teddyearp

JakeStarkey said:


> Ethnically cleanse the Palestinians: send them to Madagascar.


In all honesty, this is about as productive as "Driving all the Jews into the Sea".


----------



## JakeStarkey

teddyearp said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ethnically cleanse the Palestinians: send them to Madagascar.
> 
> 
> 
> In all honesty, this is about as productive as "Driving all the Jews into the Sea".
Click to expand...

Not at all.


----------



## P F Tinmore

teddyearp said:


> Interesting. I have now researched the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace agreement and can find nothing of the sort. Maybe you can help with a credible source/link?


Well I couldn't find a source saying: "The US bribes Egypt to do what Israel wants." However it is mentioned how the aid to Egypt is important to Israel.

The United States has provided significant military and economic assistance to Egypt since the late 1970s. Successive U.S. Administrations have routinely justified aid to Egypt as an investment in regional stability, built primarily on long-running cooperation with the Egyptian military and on sustaining the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33003.pdf​
Of course Palestinian sources have been less subtle in the US/Israel/Egypt trio relationship particularly when it comes to the siege on Gaza.

When there was a discussion in the US about cutting aid to Egypt after the Sisi coup, Netanyahu said.

Asked about American aid to Egypt, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said he would speak only “in general terms,” but made it clear that any withdrawal of aid was a concern.

“Our interest is basically having the peace with Egypt continue,” Mr. Netanyahu said in a radio interview last week. “That peace was premised on American aid to Egypt, and I think that for us is the most important consideration, and I’m sure that’s taken under advisement in Washington.”

Israel Expresses Dismay at Cutback of U.S. Aid to Egypt​
What do the facts on the ground tell you?


----------



## Eloy

Dreaming-up the elimination of a future Palestinian state by sacrificing less desirable areas of Sumeria and Judah to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt would not go down well with Zionists and internationally would be seen for what it is; a cynical final and total eradication of indigenous Palestinian people's right to self determination.


----------



## teddyearp

P F Tinmore said:


> *Well I couldn't find a source saying: "The US bribes Egypt to do what Israel wants."*<snip>
> 
> What do the facts on the ground tell you?


I think you have answered my question and yours quite well already. Nice work proving yours and monti's 'theory' incorrect for all to see.

Light as a feather . . . .


----------



## montelatici

teddyearp said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well I couldn't find a source saying: "The US bribes Egypt to do what Israel wants."*<snip>
> 
> What do the facts on the ground tell you?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have answered my question and yours quite well already. Nice work proving yours and monti's 'theory' incorrect for all to see.
> 
> Light as a feather . . . .
Click to expand...


Teddy cracks me up.  He reminds me of Spicer. LOL

"The FY2008 Withholding of U.S. Military Aid. During consideration of the House version of the FY2008 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations bill (H.R. 2764), lawmakers inserted new language that proposed to withhold $200 million in Foreign Military Financing assistance (FMF) to Egypt until the Secretary of State certifies that Egypt has taken concrete steps toward improving its human rights record, strengthening judicial independence,* and curbing Palestinian smuggling along the Gaza border. "
*
http://www.mit.edu/afs.new/sipb/contrib/wikileaks-crs/wikileaks-crs-reports/RL33003.pdf


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well I couldn't find a source saying: "The US bribes Egypt to do what Israel wants."*<snip>
> 
> What do the facts on the ground tell you?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have answered my question and yours quite well already. Nice work proving yours and monti's 'theory' incorrect for all to see.
> 
> Light as a feather . . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Teddy cracks me up.  He reminds me of Spicer. LOL
> 
> "The FY2008 Withholding of U.S. Military Aid. During consideration of the House version of the FY2008 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations bill (H.R. 2764), lawmakers inserted new language that proposed to withhold $200 million in Foreign Military Financing assistance (FMF) to Egypt until the Secretary of State certifies that Egypt has taken concrete steps toward improving its human rights record, strengthening judicial independence,* and curbing Palestinian smuggling along the Gaza border. "
> *
> http://www.mit.edu/afs.new/sipb/contrib/wikileaks-crs/wikileaks-crs-reports/RL33003.pdf
Click to expand...

Indeed, sucking up to Israel has always been part of the peace deal.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well I couldn't find a source saying: "The US bribes Egypt to do what Israel wants."*<snip>
> 
> What do the facts on the ground tell you?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have answered my question and yours quite well already. Nice work proving yours and monti's 'theory' incorrect for all to see.
> 
> Light as a feather . . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Teddy cracks me up.  He reminds me of Spicer. LOL
> 
> "The FY2008 Withholding of U.S. Military Aid. During consideration of the House version of the FY2008 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations bill (H.R. 2764), lawmakers inserted new language that proposed to withhold $200 million in Foreign Military Financing assistance (FMF) to Egypt until the Secretary of State certifies that Egypt has taken concrete steps toward improving its human rights record, strengthening judicial independence,* and curbing Palestinian smuggling along the Gaza border. "
> *
> http://www.mit.edu/afs.new/sipb/contrib/wikileaks-crs/wikileaks-crs-reports/RL33003.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, sucking up to Israel has always been part of the peace deal.
Click to expand...


Indeed, you're just incensed that Islamic terrorists are not given the credibility you wish for them.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well I couldn't find a source saying: "The US bribes Egypt to do what Israel wants."*<snip>
> 
> What do the facts on the ground tell you?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have answered my question and yours quite well already. Nice work proving yours and monti's 'theory' incorrect for all to see.
> 
> Light as a feather . . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Teddy cracks me up.  He reminds me of Spicer. LOL
> 
> "The FY2008 Withholding of U.S. Military Aid. During consideration of the House version of the FY2008 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations bill (H.R. 2764), lawmakers inserted new language that proposed to withhold $200 million in Foreign Military Financing assistance (FMF) to Egypt until the Secretary of State certifies that Egypt has taken concrete steps toward improving its human rights record, strengthening judicial independence,* and curbing Palestinian smuggling along the Gaza border. "
> *
> http://www.mit.edu/afs.new/sipb/contrib/wikileaks-crs/wikileaks-crs-reports/RL33003.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, sucking up to Israel has always been part of the peace deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, you're just incensed that Islamic terrorists are not given the credibility you wish for them.
Click to expand...

Oooooo, you played the terrorist card.

I'm impressed.

*Not! *


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well I couldn't find a source saying: "The US bribes Egypt to do what Israel wants."*<snip>
> 
> What do the facts on the ground tell you?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have answered my question and yours quite well already. Nice work proving yours and monti's 'theory' incorrect for all to see.
> 
> Light as a feather . . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Teddy cracks me up.  He reminds me of Spicer. LOL
> 
> "The FY2008 Withholding of U.S. Military Aid. During consideration of the House version of the FY2008 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations bill (H.R. 2764), lawmakers inserted new language that proposed to withhold $200 million in Foreign Military Financing assistance (FMF) to Egypt until the Secretary of State certifies that Egypt has taken concrete steps toward improving its human rights record, strengthening judicial independence,* and curbing Palestinian smuggling along the Gaza border. "
> *
> http://www.mit.edu/afs.new/sipb/contrib/wikileaks-crs/wikileaks-crs-reports/RL33003.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, sucking up to Israel has always been part of the peace deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, you're just incensed that Islamic terrorists are not given the credibility you wish for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooooo, you played the terrorist card.
> 
> I'm impressed.
> 
> *Not! *
Click to expand...

You were impressed enough to frantically cut and paste cartoons.


----------



## Rigby5

Shusha said:


> A third possibility for a solution to the conflict would be a "no more states" solution -- where the "occupied" territory is divided between the existing states of Israel, Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> One advantage to this might be the dispersing of the more extreme elements into a wider and more accepting population, hopefully reducing the conflict.  It seems to me that many, many Arab Palestinians would be content with living in Jordan as part of the Jordanian peoples.  (As with every solution, Gaza remains much more of a problem.)  Another advantage might be international support for maintaining good relations between the three nations.  And none of the countries will have to take on the entire population.
> 
> On the other hand, dispersal of extremist elements might turn countries like Jordan the other direction and create a larger war between Israel and Jordan.
> 
> And while many Palestinians, possibly even the majority, consider themselves to be no different than Syrians and Jordanians, this solution does prevent Palestinian self-determination.
> 
> Thoughts?



No good.
The problem is the Zionists who are stealing homes from Arabs inside of Israel.
So Israel is the problem.
The land has to be given back to the legal owners, the Arabs.
Statehood is not that relevant except that is can't be corrupt.
The UN could run Palestine and it would be better than being run by Zionist fanatics who clearly abuse Arabs.


----------



## Rigby5

yiostheoy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> A third possibility for a solution to the conflict would be a "no more states" solution -- where the "occupied" territory is divided between the existing states of Israel, Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> One advantage to this might be the dispersing of the more extreme elements into a wider and more accepting population, hopefully reducing the conflict.  It seems to me that many, many Arab Palestinians would be content with living in Jordan as part of the Jordanian peoples.  (As with every solution, Gaza remains much more of a problem.)  Another advantage might be international support for maintaining good relations between the three nations.  And none of the countries will have to take on the entire population.
> 
> On the other hand, dispersal of extremist elements might turn countries like Jordan the other direction and create a larger war between Israel and Jordan.
> 
> And while many Palestinians, possibly even the majority, consider themselves to be no different than Syrians and Jordanians, this solution does prevent Palestinian self-determination.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> Israel occupies this land.
> 
> This land belongs to Israel.
> 
> End of B/S.
Click to expand...


Wrong.
Jews are a minority of about 6 million immigrants or descendants of immigrants, compared to 12 million indigenous Arabs.  
Nothing belongs to Israel because Israel has no historic rights to anything in the Mideast.
Even the original invasion around 1000 BC was illegal.
And Jews were less than 5% of the population of Palestine for almost 2000 years, since they left in 160 AD.


----------



## Rigby5

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well I couldn't find a source saying: "The US bribes Egypt to do what Israel wants."*<snip>
> 
> What do the facts on the ground tell you?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have answered my question and yours quite well already. Nice work proving yours and monti's 'theory' incorrect for all to see.
> 
> Light as a feather . . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Teddy cracks me up.  He reminds me of Spicer. LOL
> 
> "The FY2008 Withholding of U.S. Military Aid. During consideration of the House version of the FY2008 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations bill (H.R. 2764), lawmakers inserted new language that proposed to withhold $200 million in Foreign Military Financing assistance (FMF) to Egypt until the Secretary of State certifies that Egypt has taken concrete steps toward improving its human rights record, strengthening judicial independence,* and curbing Palestinian smuggling along the Gaza border. "*
> 
> http://www.mit.edu/afs.new/sipb/contrib/wikileaks-crs/wikileaks-crs-reports/RL33003.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, sucking up to Israel has always been part of the peace deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, you're just incensed that Islamic terrorists are not given the credibility you wish for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooooo, you played the terrorist card.
> 
> I'm impressed.
> 
> *Not! *
Click to expand...


The origins of terrorism come from the Zionist fanatics like the Stern and Irgun gang who blew up the King David hotel, kidnapped, mutilated, and killed British soldiers in the Sargeant's Affair, assassinated the UN moderator, Volker Bernadotte, etc.


----------



## Rigby5

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my thoughts. It will not work.
> 
> Although Israel is constantly demonized for their 'blockade' of the Gaza strip, no one seems to mention nor demonize Egypt for their blockade of the portion of the Gaza strip that borders their country.
> 
> Egypt doesn't want anything to do with them.
> 
> At one time, 'Palestinians' living in the west bank were part of Jordan and even given Jordanian citizenship and passports.  However, after the six day war and Arafat's creation of a new Palestinian peoples, they actually tried to take over the whole of Jordan from the Hashemite kingdom.  Remember Black September?
> 
> 
> 
> The civil war determined if Jordan would be ruled by the Palestine Liberation Organisation or the Hashemite monarchy.[6] The war resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, the vast majority Palestinian.[3] Armed conflict ended with the expulsion of the PLO leadership
> 
> 
> 
> Link:Black September - Wikipedia
> 
> Jordan no longer wants anything to do with them.
> 
> And Jordan isn't demonized here for that either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason Egypt isn't demonized is because the U.S. forces Egypt to maintain the blockade on behalf of Israel, or lose its U.S. aid.  You weren't aware of that?  Before the military coup that put the military back in charge, the only democratically elected leader of Egypt in history, Morsi, opened the border and the U.S. stopped aid to Egypt. The military, was obviously upset and overthrew the democratically elected president, with the help of the U.S. and Israel, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that the extreme Jew haters are relegated to goofy conspiracy theories to buttress their irrational fantasies?
Click to expand...


It is not a "goofy conspiracy theory".
Clearly Morsi was elected and sympathetic to the Palestinians, and the US got him illegally removed from power by bribing the Egyptian military.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> compared to 12 million indigenous Arabs.



Arabs indigenous to anywhere other than Arabia?

LOL!


----------



## Rigby5

teddyearp said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a chance.  Jordan wants nothing whatsoever to do with Palestinians.  How relieved was Jordan to dump them on Israel to deal with after the 67 war.
> 
> 
> 
> Not meaning to split hairs, but Jordan didn't actually relinquish (in their mind if nothing else) the West Bank until 1988.
> 
> I just wish that Israel could get the control of the Temple Mount out of the hands of the Waqf without creating imagined problems.  Because any 'problems' that would portend would be 'imagined'.
Click to expand...


The Temple  Mount has no significance to Jews.
No one has any idea where either temple of Solomon ever was.
The Temple Mount most likely was a temple of Baal by the Canaanites, since it uses stone much larger than the Hebrew were known to use.
It is not like the Hebrew had any significant presence by the time of the Romans, as even King Herod was just a Roman who converted so he could rule.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> compared to 12 million indigenous Arabs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs indigenous to anywhere other than Arabia?
> 
> LOL!
Click to expand...


That is VERY ignorant, as not only did the Arabs in Arabia come via Palestine, from Africa, but Hebrew were Arabs.


----------



## rylah

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> compared to 12 million indigenous Arabs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs indigenous to anywhere other than Arabia?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is VERY ignorant, as not only did the Arabs in Arabia come via Palestine, from Africa, but Hebrew were Arabs.
Click to expand...


Except that Hebrews already had a thriving civilization for a thousand years,
when Arabs were still illiterate and buriying their daughters alive in the deserts of Arabia.


----------



## Rigby5

rylah said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> compared to 12 million indigenous Arabs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs indigenous to anywhere other than Arabia?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is VERY ignorant, as not only did the Arabs in Arabia come via Palestine, from Africa, but Hebrew were Arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that Hebrews already had a thriving civilization for a thousand years,
> when Arabs were still illiterate and buriying their daughters alive in the deserts of Arabia.
Click to expand...


That is nonsense.
Arabs go back over 10,000 years in Palestine, like the Canaanites in Jericho.
There is no history of Hebrew at all until they invaded Palestine around 1000 BC.

Arabs like the Amorites were literate over a thousand years before the Hebrew created a written script for Hebrew around 100 BC.  Why do you think the Dead Sea Scrolls are mostly in Aramaic?

Again, the Arabian Peninsula is NOT where Arabs came from.  The came from Africa, and slowly migrated to Arabia, via Palestine.

And the whole point of Mohammad reforming Judaism to Islam was to increase the rights of women.


----------



## rylah

Rigby5 said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> compared to 12 million indigenous Arabs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs indigenous to anywhere other than Arabia?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is VERY ignorant, as not only did the Arabs in Arabia come via Palestine, from Africa, but Hebrew were Arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that Hebrews already had a thriving civilization for a thousand years,
> when Arabs were still illiterate and buriying their daughters alive in the deserts of Arabia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is nonsense.
> Arabs go back over 10,000 years in Palestine, like the Canaanites in Jericho.
> There is no history of Hebrew at all until they invaded Palestine around 1000 BC.
> 
> Arabs like the Amorites were literate over a thousand years before the Hebrew created a written script for Hebrew around 100 BC.  Why do you think the Dead Sea Scrolls are mostly in Aramaic?
> 
> Again, the Arabian Peninsula is NOT where Arabs came from.  The came from Africa, and slowly migrated to Arabia, via Palestine.
> 
> And the whole point of Mohammad reforming Judaism to Islam was to increase the rights of women.
Click to expand...



Yeah, but why only 10,000?

For millions of years, Palestinozaur Rex was freely roaming the mountains of Narnia,
until Jews arrived from Venus and made him a cornivor,* everyone knows that*.

*




*


----------



## Rigby5

rylah said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> compared to 12 million indigenous Arabs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs indigenous to anywhere other than Arabia?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is VERY ignorant, as not only did the Arabs in Arabia come via Palestine, from Africa, but Hebrew were Arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that Hebrews already had a thriving civilization for a thousand years,
> when Arabs were still illiterate and buriying their daughters alive in the deserts of Arabia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is nonsense.
> Arabs go back over 10,000 years in Palestine, like the Canaanites in Jericho.
> There is no history of Hebrew at all until they invaded Palestine around 1000 BC.
> 
> Arabs like the Amorites were literate over a thousand years before the Hebrew created a written script for Hebrew around 100 BC.  Why do you think the Dead Sea Scrolls are mostly in Aramaic?
> 
> Again, the Arabian Peninsula is NOT where Arabs came from.  The came from Africa, and slowly migrated to Arabia, via Palestine.
> 
> And the whole point of Mohammad reforming Judaism to Islam was to increase the rights of women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but why only 10,000?
> 
> For millions of years, Palestinozaur Rex was freely roaming the mountains of Narnia,
> until Jews arrived from Venus and made him a cornivor,* everyone knows that*.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
Click to expand...



{...
First city
...
6500 BCE
Jericho is the first major walled city, with a population of about 2,500.
...}








						The Ancient City
					

In the study of the ancient world a City is generally defined as a large populated urban center of commerce and administration with a system of laws and, usually, regulated means of sanitation. This...




					www.ancient.eu
				



.

Not only wwre the Canaanites the first in Palestine, but they built the first city ever, anywhere.
The Hebrew left not a trace of building, history, or writing until after about 1000 BC when they invaded the Land of Canaan.
In fact, most Hebrew spoke and wrote in the Arab Aramaic until around 100 BC.


----------



## rylah

Rigby5 said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> compared to 12 million indigenous Arabs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs indigenous to anywhere other than Arabia?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is VERY ignorant, as not only did the Arabs in Arabia come via Palestine, from Africa, but Hebrew were Arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that Hebrews already had a thriving civilization for a thousand years,
> when Arabs were still illiterate and buriying their daughters alive in the deserts of Arabia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is nonsense.
> Arabs go back over 10,000 years in Palestine, like the Canaanites in Jericho.
> There is no history of Hebrew at all until they invaded Palestine around 1000 BC.
> 
> Arabs like the Amorites were literate over a thousand years before the Hebrew created a written script for Hebrew around 100 BC.  Why do you think the Dead Sea Scrolls are mostly in Aramaic?
> 
> Again, the Arabian Peninsula is NOT where Arabs came from.  The came from Africa, and slowly migrated to Arabia, via Palestine.
> 
> And the whole point of Mohammad reforming Judaism to Islam was to increase the rights of women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but why only 10,000?
> 
> For millions of years, Palestinozaur Rex was freely roaming the mountains of Narnia,
> until Jews arrived from Venus and made him a cornivor,* everyone knows that*.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> {...
> First city
> ...
> 6500 BCE
> Jericho is the first major walled city, with a population of about 2,500.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ancient City
> 
> 
> In the study of the ancient world a City is generally defined as a large populated urban center of commerce and administration with a system of laws and, usually, regulated means of sanitation. This...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ancient.eu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Not only wwre the Canaanites the first in Palestine, but they built the first city ever, anywhere.
> The Hebrew left not a trace of building, history, or writing until after about 1000 BC when they invaded the Land of Canaan.
> In fact, most Hebrew spoke and wrote in the Arab Aramaic until around 100 BC.
Click to expand...


And as a proof you bring up Jericho,
a city with a Hebrew name?

Priceless.


----------



## Rigby5

rylah said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> compared to 12 million indigenous Arabs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs indigenous to anywhere other than Arabia?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is VERY ignorant, as not only did the Arabs in Arabia come via Palestine, from Africa, but Hebrew were Arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that Hebrews already had a thriving civilization for a thousand years,
> when Arabs were still illiterate and buriying their daughters alive in the deserts of Arabia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is nonsense.
> Arabs go back over 10,000 years in Palestine, like the Canaanites in Jericho.
> There is no history of Hebrew at all until they invaded Palestine around 1000 BC.
> 
> Arabs like the Amorites were literate over a thousand years before the Hebrew created a written script for Hebrew around 100 BC.  Why do you think the Dead Sea Scrolls are mostly in Aramaic?
> 
> Again, the Arabian Peninsula is NOT where Arabs came from.  The came from Africa, and slowly migrated to Arabia, via Palestine.
> 
> And the whole point of Mohammad reforming Judaism to Islam was to increase the rights of women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but why only 10,000?
> 
> For millions of years, Palestinozaur Rex was freely roaming the mountains of Narnia,
> until Jews arrived from Venus and made him a cornivor,* everyone knows that*.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> {...
> First city
> ...
> 6500 BCE
> Jericho is the first major walled city, with a population of about 2,500.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ancient City
> 
> 
> In the study of the ancient world a City is generally defined as a large populated urban center of commerce and administration with a system of laws and, usually, regulated means of sanitation. This...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ancient.eu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Not only wwre the Canaanites the first in Palestine, but they built the first city ever, anywhere.
> The Hebrew left not a trace of building, history, or writing until after about 1000 BC when they invaded the Land of Canaan.
> In fact, most Hebrew spoke and wrote in the Arab Aramaic until around 100 BC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as a proof you bring up Jericho,
> a city with a Hebrew name?
> 
> Priceless.
Click to expand...


That is ignorant.
Jericho is NOT a Hebrew name.
Nor is Jerusalem.
They predate the Hebrew invasion by thousands of years.
Jews got their name from Jerusalem, not the other way around.
And both names came originally from the ancient Canaanite word for the river Jordan and its fertile valleys.
{...  Etymology. Jericho's name in Hebrew, Yeriẖo, is generally thought to derive from the Canaanite word reaẖ ("fragrant") ...}
Everything Hebrew is likely of Canaanite or some other Arab source.
Hebrew is just a derivative of the original Arab language.


----------



## rylah

Rigby5 said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> compared to 12 million indigenous Arabs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs indigenous to anywhere other than Arabia?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is VERY ignorant, as not only did the Arabs in Arabia come via Palestine, from Africa, but Hebrew were Arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that Hebrews already had a thriving civilization for a thousand years,
> when Arabs were still illiterate and buriying their daughters alive in the deserts of Arabia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is nonsense.
> Arabs go back over 10,000 years in Palestine, like the Canaanites in Jericho.
> There is no history of Hebrew at all until they invaded Palestine around 1000 BC.
> 
> Arabs like the Amorites were literate over a thousand years before the Hebrew created a written script for Hebrew around 100 BC.  Why do you think the Dead Sea Scrolls are mostly in Aramaic?
> 
> Again, the Arabian Peninsula is NOT where Arabs came from.  The came from Africa, and slowly migrated to Arabia, via Palestine.
> 
> And the whole point of Mohammad reforming Judaism to Islam was to increase the rights of women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but why only 10,000?
> 
> For millions of years, Palestinozaur Rex was freely roaming the mountains of Narnia,
> until Jews arrived from Venus and made him a cornivor,* everyone knows that*.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> {...
> First city
> ...
> 6500 BCE
> Jericho is the first major walled city, with a population of about 2,500.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ancient City
> 
> 
> In the study of the ancient world a City is generally defined as a large populated urban center of commerce and administration with a system of laws and, usually, regulated means of sanitation. This...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ancient.eu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Not only wwre the Canaanites the first in Palestine, but they built the first city ever, anywhere.
> The Hebrew left not a trace of building, history, or writing until after about 1000 BC when they invaded the Land of Canaan.
> In fact, most Hebrew spoke and wrote in the Arab Aramaic until around 100 BC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as a proof you bring up Jericho,
> a city with a Hebrew name?
> 
> Priceless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is ignorant.
> Jericho is NOT a Hebrew name.
> Nor is Jerusalem.
> They predate the Hebrew invasion by thousands of years.
> Jews got their name from Jerusalem, not the other way around.
> And both names came originally from the ancient Canaanite word for the river Jordan and its fertile valleys.
> {...  Etymology. Jericho's name in Hebrew, Yeriẖo, is generally thought to derive from the Canaanite word reaẖ ("fragrant") ...}
> Everything Hebrew is likely of Canaanite or some other Arab source.
> Hebrew is just a derivative of the original Arab language.
Click to expand...


Potato patatoe...
We can argue who adopted who's language,
Canaanites, Hebrews, or that they're one and the same.

But we can surely say their language was NOT of an "Arab source"
because Arabs themseves were still illiterate for another 1000 years...


----------



## Rigby5

rylah said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> compared to 12 million indigenous Arabs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs indigenous to anywhere other than Arabia?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is VERY ignorant, as not only did the Arabs in Arabia come via Palestine, from Africa, but Hebrew were Arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that Hebrews already had a thriving civilization for a thousand years,
> when Arabs were still illiterate and buriying their daughters alive in the deserts of Arabia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is nonsense.
> Arabs go back over 10,000 years in Palestine, like the Canaanites in Jericho.
> There is no history of Hebrew at all until they invaded Palestine around 1000 BC.
> 
> Arabs like the Amorites were literate over a thousand years before the Hebrew created a written script for Hebrew around 100 BC.  Why do you think the Dead Sea Scrolls are mostly in Aramaic?
> 
> Again, the Arabian Peninsula is NOT where Arabs came from.  The came from Africa, and slowly migrated to Arabia, via Palestine.
> 
> And the whole point of Mohammad reforming Judaism to Islam was to increase the rights of women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but why only 10,000?
> 
> For millions of years, Palestinozaur Rex was freely roaming the mountains of Narnia,
> until Jews arrived from Venus and made him a cornivor,* everyone knows that*.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> {...
> First city
> ...
> 6500 BCE
> Jericho is the first major walled city, with a population of about 2,500.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ancient City
> 
> 
> In the study of the ancient world a City is generally defined as a large populated urban center of commerce and administration with a system of laws and, usually, regulated means of sanitation. This...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ancient.eu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Not only wwre the Canaanites the first in Palestine, but they built the first city ever, anywhere.
> The Hebrew left not a trace of building, history, or writing until after about 1000 BC when they invaded the Land of Canaan.
> In fact, most Hebrew spoke and wrote in the Arab Aramaic until around 100 BC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as a proof you bring up Jericho,
> a city with a Hebrew name?
> 
> Priceless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is ignorant.
> Jericho is NOT a Hebrew name.
> Nor is Jerusalem.
> They predate the Hebrew invasion by thousands of years.
> Jews got their name from Jerusalem, not the other way around.
> And both names came originally from the ancient Canaanite word for the river Jordan and its fertile valleys.
> {...  Etymology. Jericho's name in Hebrew, Yeriẖo, is generally thought to derive from the Canaanite word reaẖ ("fragrant") ...}
> Everything Hebrew is likely of Canaanite or some other Arab source.
> Hebrew is just a derivative of the original Arab language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Potato patatoe...
> We can argue who adopted who's language,
> Canaanites, Hebrews, or that they're one and the same.
> 
> But we can surely say their language was NOT of an "Arab source"
> because Arabs themselves were still illiterate for another 1000 years...
Click to expand...


No we can not at all argue who adopted who's language.
We have hard evidence of advanced Canaanite civilization, architecture, language, etc., over 5000 years before we begin to see a trace of Hebrew existence.

And no, Arab script predates Hebrew script by over 1000 years at least.
{...
was written in a script derived from the Phoenician alphabet. *Aramaic* is thought to have first appeared among the Aramaeans about the late 11th century bce. By the 8th century bce it had become accepted by the Assyrians as a second language. 
...}

I think you are still incorrectly calling the Arabian Peninsula as the origin of Arabs, and it is not.
Arabs originated in the Land of Canaan.
There is not a single anthropologists who believes otherwise.
Why else would they define the word "Semitic" are to belonging to an Arab language group.
It does not mean Jewish as all.
Jews and Hebrew are only Semitic because they also are of Arab origins.

Think about it.
We now all know Africa is the source of all humans.
And which would come first, walking through the Land of Canaan, or building ships to cross over to the Arabian Peninsula?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> I think you are still incorrectly calling the Arabian Peninsula as the origin of Arabs, and it is not.
> Arabs originated in the Land of Canaan.



Neat!!

When are the Arabs leaving Arabia?

Who did they steal it from?


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are still incorrectly calling the Arabian Peninsula as the origin of Arabs, and it is not.
> Arabs originated in the Land of Canaan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neat!!
> 
> When are the Arabs leaving Arabia?
> 
> Who did they steal it from?
Click to expand...


The main occupation of the original Arabs of the Land of Canaan, was herding animals.
Which tends to be nomadic.
And that explains why they would expand into the Arabian Peninsula.
And there is no evidence of anyone being there before them.
So they did not steal it from anyone or have any reason to leave.
You will still find nomadic Bedouins from Morocco to Afghanistan, and they tend to get along with everyone because they tend to not try to take permanent possession of land.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> And there is no evidence of anyone being there before them.



Link?


----------



## rylah

Rigby5 said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> compared to 12 million indigenous Arabs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs indigenous to anywhere other than Arabia?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is VERY ignorant, as not only did the Arabs in Arabia come via Palestine, from Africa, but Hebrew were Arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that Hebrews already had a thriving civilization for a thousand years,
> when Arabs were still illiterate and buriying their daughters alive in the deserts of Arabia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is nonsense.
> Arabs go back over 10,000 years in Palestine, like the Canaanites in Jericho.
> There is no history of Hebrew at all until they invaded Palestine around 1000 BC.
> 
> Arabs like the Amorites were literate over a thousand years before the Hebrew created a written script for Hebrew around 100 BC.  Why do you think the Dead Sea Scrolls are mostly in Aramaic?
> 
> Again, the Arabian Peninsula is NOT where Arabs came from.  The came from Africa, and slowly migrated to Arabia, via Palestine.
> 
> And the whole point of Mohammad reforming Judaism to Islam was to increase the rights of women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but why only 10,000?
> 
> For millions of years, Palestinozaur Rex was freely roaming the mountains of Narnia,
> until Jews arrived from Venus and made him a cornivor,* everyone knows that*.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> {...
> First city
> ...
> 6500 BCE
> Jericho is the first major walled city, with a population of about 2,500.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ancient City
> 
> 
> In the study of the ancient world a City is generally defined as a large populated urban center of commerce and administration with a system of laws and, usually, regulated means of sanitation. This...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ancient.eu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Not only wwre the Canaanites the first in Palestine, but they built the first city ever, anywhere.
> The Hebrew left not a trace of building, history, or writing until after about 1000 BC when they invaded the Land of Canaan.
> In fact, most Hebrew spoke and wrote in the Arab Aramaic until around 100 BC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as a proof you bring up Jericho,
> a city with a Hebrew name?
> 
> Priceless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is ignorant.
> Jericho is NOT a Hebrew name.
> Nor is Jerusalem.
> They predate the Hebrew invasion by thousands of years.
> Jews got their name from Jerusalem, not the other way around.
> And both names came originally from the ancient Canaanite word for the river Jordan and its fertile valleys.
> {...  Etymology. Jericho's name in Hebrew, Yeriẖo, is generally thought to derive from the Canaanite word reaẖ ("fragrant") ...}
> Everything Hebrew is likely of Canaanite or some other Arab source.
> Hebrew is just a derivative of the original Arab language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Potato patatoe...
> We can argue who adopted who's language,
> Canaanites, Hebrews, or that they're one and the same.
> 
> But we can surely say their language was NOT of an "Arab source"
> because Arabs themselves were still illiterate for another 1000 years...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No we can not at all argue who adopted who's language.
> We have hard evidence of advanced Canaanite civilization, architecture, language, etc., over 5000 years before we begin to see a trace of Hebrew existence.
> 
> And no, Arab script predates Hebrew script by over 1000 years at least.
> {...
> was written in a script derived from the Phoenician alphabet. *Aramaic* is thought to have first appeared among the Aramaeans about the late 11th century bce. By the 8th century bce it had become accepted by the Assyrians as a second language.
> ...}
> 
> I think you are still incorrectly calling the Arabian Peninsula as the origin of Arabs, and it is not.
> Arabs originated in the Land of Canaan.
> There is not a single anthropologists who believes otherwise.
> Why else would they define the word "Semitic" are to belonging to an Arab language group.
> It does not mean Jewish as all.
> Jews and Hebrew are only Semitic because they also are of Arab origins.
> 
> Think about it.
> We now all know Africa is the source of all humans.
> And which would come first, walking through the Land of Canaan, or building ships to cross over to the Arabian Peninsula?
Click to expand...


I see, so based on the theory that humanity originated in Africa,
at some magic point when crossing into Canaan, Africans yet not Arabs turned into Canaanites yet not Arabs, and only when these migrating African-Canaanites yet not Arabs, arrived in the Arabian desert did these African - Canaanite - yet not Arabs become Arabs, turning everyone backwards into Arabs as well?

Yeah, Africans are Arabs, all humanity is Arab,
including Alexander Macedonian who was also a Muslim...

And Palestinians, they're of course Arabs, that is "African-Canaanite" Arabs (ver.2.0),
but of all people on the planet they can't pronounce "Palestine"...



whoa...

Q. So to sum up - 

that of all people, Arabs can't pronounce 'P'-alestine,
is the proof they're original Palestinians?


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no evidence of anyone being there before them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


{...
*Key Points*

Nomadic Bedouin tribes dominated the Arabian Peninsula before the rise of Islam.
Family groups called clans formed larger tribal units, which reinforced family cooperation in the difficult living conditions on the Arabian peninsula and protected its members against other tribes.
The Bedouin tribes were nomadic pastoralists who relied on their herds of goats, sheep, and camels for meat, milk, cheese, blood, fur/wool, and other sustenance.
The pre-Islamic Bedouins also hunted, served as bodyguards, escorted caravans, worked as mercenaries, and traded or raided to gain animals, women, gold, fabric, and other luxury items.
Arab tribes begin to appear in the south Syrian deserts and southern Jordan around 200 CE, but spread from the central Arabian Peninsula after the rise of Islam in the 630s CE.
*Key Terms*

*Nabatean*: an ancient Semitic people who inhabited northern Arabia and Southern Levant, ca. 37–100 CE.
*Bedouin*: a predominantly desert-dwelling Arabian ethnic group traditionally divided into tribes or clans.
...}





						Pre-Islamic Arabia | Boundless World History
					






					courses.lumenlearning.com
				




You will also notice from the Land of Canaan, that originally being nomadic, Arabs do not harm or prevent others from moving in, as the Canaanites allowed the Urites, Amorites, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Philistines, Nabateans, etc., to peacefully settle into the Land of Canaan.


----------



## Rigby5

rylah said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> compared to 12 million indigenous Arabs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arabs indigenous to anywhere other than Arabia?
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is VERY ignorant, as not only did the Arabs in Arabia come via Palestine, from Africa, but Hebrew were Arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that Hebrews already had a thriving civilization for a thousand years,
> when Arabs were still illiterate and buriying their daughters alive in the deserts of Arabia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is nonsense.
> Arabs go back over 10,000 years in Palestine, like the Canaanites in Jericho.
> There is no history of Hebrew at all until they invaded Palestine around 1000 BC.
> 
> Arabs like the Amorites were literate over a thousand years before the Hebrew created a written script for Hebrew around 100 BC.  Why do you think the Dead Sea Scrolls are mostly in Aramaic?
> 
> Again, the Arabian Peninsula is NOT where Arabs came from.  The came from Africa, and slowly migrated to Arabia, via Palestine.
> 
> And the whole point of Mohammad reforming Judaism to Islam was to increase the rights of women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but why only 10,000?
> 
> For millions of years, Palestinozaur Rex was freely roaming the mountains of Narnia,
> until Jews arrived from Venus and made him a cornivor,* everyone knows that*.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> {...
> First city
> ...
> 6500 BCE
> Jericho is the first major walled city, with a population of about 2,500.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ancient City
> 
> 
> In the study of the ancient world a City is generally defined as a large populated urban center of commerce and administration with a system of laws and, usually, regulated means of sanitation. This...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ancient.eu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Not only wwre the Canaanites the first in Palestine, but they built the first city ever, anywhere.
> The Hebrew left not a trace of building, history, or writing until after about 1000 BC when they invaded the Land of Canaan.
> In fact, most Hebrew spoke and wrote in the Arab Aramaic until around 100 BC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as a proof you bring up Jericho,
> a city with a Hebrew name?
> 
> Priceless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is ignorant.
> Jericho is NOT a Hebrew name.
> Nor is Jerusalem.
> They predate the Hebrew invasion by thousands of years.
> Jews got their name from Jerusalem, not the other way around.
> And both names came originally from the ancient Canaanite word for the river Jordan and its fertile valleys.
> {...  Etymology. Jericho's name in Hebrew, Yeriẖo, is generally thought to derive from the Canaanite word reaẖ ("fragrant") ...}
> Everything Hebrew is likely of Canaanite or some other Arab source.
> Hebrew is just a derivative of the original Arab language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Potato patatoe...
> We can argue who adopted who's language,
> Canaanites, Hebrews, or that they're one and the same.
> 
> But we can surely say their language was NOT of an "Arab source"
> because Arabs themselves were still illiterate for another 1000 years...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No we can not at all argue who adopted who's language.
> We have hard evidence of advanced Canaanite civilization, architecture, language, etc., over 5000 years before we begin to see a trace of Hebrew existence.
> 
> And no, Arab script predates Hebrew script by over 1000 years at least.
> {...
> was written in a script derived from the Phoenician alphabet. *Aramaic* is thought to have first appeared among the Aramaeans about the late 11th century bce. By the 8th century bce it had become accepted by the Assyrians as a second language.
> ...}
> 
> I think you are still incorrectly calling the Arabian Peninsula as the origin of Arabs, and it is not.
> Arabs originated in the Land of Canaan.
> There is not a single anthropologists who believes otherwise.
> Why else would they define the word "Semitic" are to belonging to an Arab language group.
> It does not mean Jewish as all.
> Jews and Hebrew are only Semitic because they also are of Arab origins.
> 
> Think about it.
> We now all know Africa is the source of all humans.
> And which would come first, walking through the Land of Canaan, or building ships to cross over to the Arabian Peninsula?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, so based on the theory that humanity originated in Africa,
> at some magic point when crossing into Canaan, Africans yet not Arabs turned into Canaanites yet not Arabs, and only when these migrating African-Canaanites yet not Arabs, arrived in the Arabian desert did these African - Canaanite - yet not Arabs become Arabs, turning everyone backwards into Arabs as well?
> 
> Yeah, Africans are Arabs, all humanity is Arab,
> including Alexander Macedonian who was also a Muslim...
> 
> And Palestinians, they're of course Arabs, that is "African-Canaanite" Arabs (ver.2.0),
> but of all people on the planet they can't pronounce "Palestine"...
> 
> 
> 
> whoa...
> 
> Q. So to sum up -
> 
> that of all people, Arabs can't pronounce 'P'-alestine,
> is the proof they're original Palestinians?
Click to expand...


Wrong.
Arabs clearly originated in the Land of Canaan.
It can be traced through language and culture.
We can also trace the Arabian Peninsula as later being used as pasture for nomadic herding Arabs.
The fact Land of Canaan was over run and later dominated by other non-Arab groups, does not alter the fact the Land of Canaan is where the language and culture we call Arab, originated.

Anyone claiming the Arabian Peninsula was the origin of Arab culture has to obviously be wrong because the language and culture clear appeared thousands of years earlier and in more advanced stages than ever happened later on the Arabian Peninsula.

The fact Victorian archeologists did not know this and called them Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula, is irrelevant.  We do know now that they orginated from the Land of Canaan.


----------



## Rigby5

The word Palestine is properly pronounced with a soft 'F" instead of a hard 'P'.

{...
Indeed, there is no hard *P* sound in *Arabic*, but there is a softer F, and Palestinians *pronounce* the name of their would-be state as “Falastin” (fah-leh-STEEN) — as do most Hebrew-speaking Israelis. 
...}

Just look at the word Phoenician.
Falistine is nearly identical in phoenetics.

And if your attempt was to claim Hebrew influence in the name Palestine, you can't, because Hebrew also has no hard P, and instead also used the soft F, because Hebrew is of Arab origins.


----------



## rylah

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no evidence of anyone being there before them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> {...
> *Key Points*
> 
> Nomadic Bedouin tribes dominated the Arabian Peninsula before the rise of Islam.
> Family groups called clans formed larger tribal units, which reinforced family cooperation in the difficult living conditions on the Arabian peninsula and protected its members against other tribes.
> The Bedouin tribes were nomadic pastoralists who relied on their herds of goats, sheep, and camels for meat, milk, cheese, blood, fur/wool, and other sustenance.
> The pre-Islamic Bedouins also hunted, served as bodyguards, escorted caravans, worked as mercenaries, and traded or raided to gain animals, women, gold, fabric, and other luxury items.
> Arab tribes begin to appear in the south Syrian deserts and southern Jordan around 200 CE, but spread from the central Arabian Peninsula after the rise of Islam in the 630s CE.
> *Key Terms*
> 
> *Nabatean*: an ancient Semitic people who inhabited northern Arabia and Southern Levant, ca. 37–100 CE.
> *Bedouin*: a predominantly desert-dwelling Arabian ethnic group traditionally divided into tribes or clans.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-Islamic Arabia | Boundless World History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> courses.lumenlearning.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will also notice from the Land of Canaan, that originally being nomadic, Arabs do not harm or prevent others from moving in, as the Canaanites allowed the Urites, Amorites, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Philistines, Nabateans, etc., to peacefully settle into the Land of Canaan.
Click to expand...


Burst your bubble, 
Arabic is not even mentioned, it's a foreign language.

*Canaanite languages*, group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including Hebrew, Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic. They were spoken in ancient times in Palestine, on the coast of Syria, and in scattered colonies elsewhere around the Mediterranean. An early form of Canaanite is attested in the Tell el-Amarna letters (_c._ 1400 BC). Moabite, which is very close to Hebrew, is known chiefly from one inscription dating from the 8th century BC. The only living Canaanite language is Hebrew, which was revived as a spoken language in the 19th and 20th centuries.








						Canaanite languages
					

Canaanite languages,   group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including Hebrew, Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic. They were spoken in ancient times in Palestine, on the coast of Syria, and in scattered colonies elsewhere around the Mediterranean. An early form of Canaanite is...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## rylah

Rigby5 said:


> The word Palestine is properly pronounced with a soft 'F" instead of a hard 'P'.
> 
> {...
> Indeed, there is no hard *P* sound in *Arabic*, but there is a softer F, and Palestinians *pronounce* the name of their would-be state as “Falastin” (fah-leh-STEEN) — as do most Hebrew-speaking Israelis.
> ...}
> 
> Just look at the word Phoenician.
> Falistine is nearly identical in phoenetics.
> 
> And if your attempt was to claim Hebrew influence in the name Palestine, you can't, because Hebrew also has no hard P, and instead also used the soft F, because Hebrew is of Arab origins.



Nope,

Hebrew deffinately has a hard 'P' sound, as much as any of the Canaanite dialects.
Arabs can't pronounce_ 'P-alestine'_ because they speak a foreign language.

That's it.


----------



## Rigby5

rylah said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no evidence of anyone being there before them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> {...
> *Key Points*
> 
> Nomadic Bedouin tribes dominated the Arabian Peninsula before the rise of Islam.
> Family groups called clans formed larger tribal units, which reinforced family cooperation in the difficult living conditions on the Arabian peninsula and protected its members against other tribes.
> The Bedouin tribes were nomadic pastoralists who relied on their herds of goats, sheep, and camels for meat, milk, cheese, blood, fur/wool, and other sustenance.
> The pre-Islamic Bedouins also hunted, served as bodyguards, escorted caravans, worked as mercenaries, and traded or raided to gain animals, women, gold, fabric, and other luxury items.
> Arab tribes begin to appear in the south Syrian deserts and southern Jordan around 200 CE, but spread from the central Arabian Peninsula after the rise of Islam in the 630s CE.
> *Key Terms*
> 
> *Nabatean*: an ancient Semitic people who inhabited northern Arabia and Southern Levant, ca. 37–100 CE.
> *Bedouin*: a predominantly desert-dwelling Arabian ethnic group traditionally divided into tribes or clans.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-Islamic Arabia | Boundless World History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> courses.lumenlearning.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will also notice from the Land of Canaan, that originally being nomadic, Arabs do not harm or prevent others from moving in, as the Canaanites allowed the Urites, Amorites, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Philistines, Nabateans, etc., to peacefully settle into the Land of Canaan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Burst your bubble,
> Arabic is not even mentioned, it's a foreign language.
> 
> *Canaanite languages*, group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including Hebrew, Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic. They were spoken in ancient times in Palestine, on the coast of Syria, and in scattered colonies elsewhere around the Mediterranean. An early form of Canaanite is attested in the Tell el-Amarna letters (_c._ 1400 BC). Moabite, which is very close to Hebrew, is known chiefly from one inscription dating from the 8th century BC. The only living Canaanite language is Hebrew, which was revived as a spoken language in the 19th and 20th centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canaanite languages
> 
> 
> Canaanite languages,   group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including Hebrew, Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic. They were spoken in ancient times in Palestine, on the coast of Syria, and in scattered colonies elsewhere around the Mediterranean. An early form of Canaanite is...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
Click to expand...


Wrong.
I never once mentioned Arabic, which obviously is a more modern Arab language that did come from the Arabian Peninsula, and did become adopted by most of the Mideast.
Semitic mean Arab language group, NOT Arabic, which is only one modern example of the Arab language group.


----------



## Rigby5

rylah said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word Palestine is properly pronounced with a soft 'F" instead of a hard 'P'.
> 
> {...
> Indeed, there is no hard *P* sound in *Arabic*, but there is a softer F, and Palestinians *pronounce* the name of their would-be state as “Falastin” (fah-leh-STEEN) — as do most Hebrew-speaking Israelis.
> ...}
> 
> Just look at the word Phoenician.
> Falistine is nearly identical in phoenetics.
> 
> And if your attempt was to claim Hebrew influence in the name Palestine, you can't, because Hebrew also has no hard P, and instead also used the soft F, because Hebrew is of Arab origins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,
> 
> Hebrew deffinately has a hard 'P' sound, as much as any of the Canaanite dialects.
> Arabs can't pronounce_ 'P-alestine'_ because they speak a foreign language.
> 
> That's it.
Click to expand...


It would not at all matter if modern Arabs were speaking a foreign language.
They are, since Arabic is not native.
But the people and culture are, so it is irrelevent.

And no, ancient Hebrew would not have pronounced Palestine with a hard P either.
They prounced it with a soft F instead, just like Arabs do.
{...

*Philistia* (Hebrew: פלשת‎, _Pleshet_) was a confederation of cities in the Southwest Levant. Its appearance follows the invasion of Egypt by the foreign sea People, of which Philistines or Peleset are part, and their alleged relocation to the southern abandoned coast of Canaan by Ramesses III following his victory over them. Philistia northern boundary was the Yarkon River with the Mediterranean Sea on the west, the Kingdom of Judah to the east and the Wadi El-Arish to the south.[1][2] Philistia consisted of the Five Lords of the Philistines, described in the Book of Joshua (Joshua 13:3) and the Books of Samuel (1 Samuel 6:17), comprising Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza, in the south-western Levant.[3]

The Five Lords of the Philistines are described in the Hebrew Bible as being in constant struggle and interaction with the neighbouring Israelites, Canaanites and Egyptians, being gradually absorbed into the Canaanite culture.[4]

The Philistines were no longer mentioned following the conquest of the Levant by the Neo-Assyrian Empire (911–605 BC). Genetic and archeological evidence suggest that the Philistines immigrated from Southern Europe to Canaan, and mixed with the native Canaanites during the first couple of centuries.[5]

...}








						Philistia - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## rylah

Rigby5 said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no evidence of anyone being there before them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> {...
> *Key Points*
> 
> Nomadic Bedouin tribes dominated the Arabian Peninsula before the rise of Islam.
> Family groups called clans formed larger tribal units, which reinforced family cooperation in the difficult living conditions on the Arabian peninsula and protected its members against other tribes.
> The Bedouin tribes were nomadic pastoralists who relied on their herds of goats, sheep, and camels for meat, milk, cheese, blood, fur/wool, and other sustenance.
> The pre-Islamic Bedouins also hunted, served as bodyguards, escorted caravans, worked as mercenaries, and traded or raided to gain animals, women, gold, fabric, and other luxury items.
> Arab tribes begin to appear in the south Syrian deserts and southern Jordan around 200 CE, but spread from the central Arabian Peninsula after the rise of Islam in the 630s CE.
> *Key Terms*
> 
> *Nabatean*: an ancient Semitic people who inhabited northern Arabia and Southern Levant, ca. 37–100 CE.
> *Bedouin*: a predominantly desert-dwelling Arabian ethnic group traditionally divided into tribes or clans.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-Islamic Arabia | Boundless World History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> courses.lumenlearning.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will also notice from the Land of Canaan, that originally being nomadic, Arabs do not harm or prevent others from moving in, as the Canaanites allowed the Urites, Amorites, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Philistines, Nabateans, etc., to peacefully settle into the Land of Canaan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Burst your bubble,
> Arabic is not even mentioned, it's a foreign language.
> 
> *Canaanite languages*, group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including Hebrew, Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic. They were spoken in ancient times in Palestine, on the coast of Syria, and in scattered colonies elsewhere around the Mediterranean. An early form of Canaanite is attested in the Tell el-Amarna letters (_c._ 1400 BC). Moabite, which is very close to Hebrew, is known chiefly from one inscription dating from the 8th century BC. The only living Canaanite language is Hebrew, which was revived as a spoken language in the 19th and 20th centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canaanite languages
> 
> 
> Canaanite languages,   group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including Hebrew, Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic. They were spoken in ancient times in Palestine, on the coast of Syria, and in scattered colonies elsewhere around the Mediterranean. An early form of Canaanite is...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> I never once mentioned Arabic, which obviously is a more modern Arab language that did come from the Arabian Peninsula, and did become adopted by most of the Mideast.
> Semitic mean Arab language group, NOT Arabic, which is only one modern example of the Arab language group.
Click to expand...


So basically you call just anything in the Middle East - "ARAB".

Including the dinosaurs, all were Arabs.

I get it, you're wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no evidence of anyone being there before them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> {...
> *Key Points*
> 
> Nomadic Bedouin tribes dominated the Arabian Peninsula before the rise of Islam.
> Family groups called clans formed larger tribal units, which reinforced family cooperation in the difficult living conditions on the Arabian peninsula and protected its members against other tribes.
> The Bedouin tribes were nomadic pastoralists who relied on their herds of goats, sheep, and camels for meat, milk, cheese, blood, fur/wool, and other sustenance.
> The pre-Islamic Bedouins also hunted, served as bodyguards, escorted caravans, worked as mercenaries, and traded or raided to gain animals, women, gold, fabric, and other luxury items.
> Arab tribes begin to appear in the south Syrian deserts and southern Jordan around 200 CE, but spread from the central Arabian Peninsula after the rise of Islam in the 630s CE.
> *Key Terms*
> 
> *Nabatean*: an ancient Semitic people who inhabited northern Arabia and Southern Levant, ca. 37–100 CE.
> *Bedouin*: a predominantly desert-dwelling Arabian ethnic group traditionally divided into tribes or clans.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-Islamic Arabia | Boundless World History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> courses.lumenlearning.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will also notice from the Land of Canaan, that originally being nomadic, Arabs do not harm or prevent others from moving in, as the Canaanites allowed the Urites, Amorites, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Philistines, Nabateans, etc., to peacefully settle into the Land of Canaan.
Click to expand...


No link proving your claim that no one was there before?


----------



## Rigby5

rylah said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no evidence of anyone being there before them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> {...
> *Key Points*
> 
> Nomadic Bedouin tribes dominated the Arabian Peninsula before the rise of Islam.
> Family groups called clans formed larger tribal units, which reinforced family cooperation in the difficult living conditions on the Arabian peninsula and protected its members against other tribes.
> The Bedouin tribes were nomadic pastoralists who relied on their herds of goats, sheep, and camels for meat, milk, cheese, blood, fur/wool, and other sustenance.
> The pre-Islamic Bedouins also hunted, served as bodyguards, escorted caravans, worked as mercenaries, and traded or raided to gain animals, women, gold, fabric, and other luxury items.
> Arab tribes begin to appear in the south Syrian deserts and southern Jordan around 200 CE, but spread from the central Arabian Peninsula after the rise of Islam in the 630s CE.
> *Key Terms*
> 
> *Nabatean*: an ancient Semitic people who inhabited northern Arabia and Southern Levant, ca. 37–100 CE.
> *Bedouin*: a predominantly desert-dwelling Arabian ethnic group traditionally divided into tribes or clans.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-Islamic Arabia | Boundless World History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> courses.lumenlearning.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will also notice from the Land of Canaan, that originally being nomadic, Arabs do not harm or prevent others from moving in, as the Canaanites allowed the Urites, Amorites, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Philistines, Nabateans, etc., to peacefully settle into the Land of Canaan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Burst your bubble,
> Arabic is not even mentioned, it's a foreign language.
> 
> *Canaanite languages*, group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including Hebrew, Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic. They were spoken in ancient times in Palestine, on the coast of Syria, and in scattered colonies elsewhere around the Mediterranean. An early form of Canaanite is attested in the Tell el-Amarna letters (_c._ 1400 BC). Moabite, which is very close to Hebrew, is known chiefly from one inscription dating from the 8th century BC. The only living Canaanite language is Hebrew, which was revived as a spoken language in the 19th and 20th centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canaanite languages
> 
> 
> Canaanite languages,   group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including Hebrew, Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic. They were spoken in ancient times in Palestine, on the coast of Syria, and in scattered colonies elsewhere around the Mediterranean. An early form of Canaanite is...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> I never once mentioned Arabic, which obviously is a more modern Arab language that did come from the Arabian Peninsula, and did become adopted by most of the Mideast.
> Semitic mean Arab language group, NOT Arabic, which is only one modern example of the Arab language group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you call just anything in the Middle East - "ARAB".
> 
> Including the dinosaurs, all were Arabs.
> 
> I get it, you're wrong.
Click to expand...


No, you are totally wrong.
For example, clearly Persians are not at all Arab, neither are the Kushites and Copts of the Egyptian ruling class.  The People of the Sea, like the Hyksos, Phoenicians, Philistines, etc., likely were not Arab, but blended and adopted Arab language use.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no evidence of anyone being there before them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> {...
> *Key Points*
> 
> Nomadic Bedouin tribes dominated the Arabian Peninsula before the rise of Islam.
> Family groups called clans formed larger tribal units, which reinforced family cooperation in the difficult living conditions on the Arabian peninsula and protected its members against other tribes.
> The Bedouin tribes were nomadic pastoralists who relied on their herds of goats, sheep, and camels for meat, milk, cheese, blood, fur/wool, and other sustenance.
> The pre-Islamic Bedouins also hunted, served as bodyguards, escorted caravans, worked as mercenaries, and traded or raided to gain animals, women, gold, fabric, and other luxury items.
> Arab tribes begin to appear in the south Syrian deserts and southern Jordan around 200 CE, but spread from the central Arabian Peninsula after the rise of Islam in the 630s CE.
> *Key Terms*
> 
> *Nabatean*: an ancient Semitic people who inhabited northern Arabia and Southern Levant, ca. 37–100 CE.
> *Bedouin*: a predominantly desert-dwelling Arabian ethnic group traditionally divided into tribes or clans.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-Islamic Arabia | Boundless World History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> courses.lumenlearning.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will also notice from the Land of Canaan, that originally being nomadic, Arabs do not harm or prevent others from moving in, as the Canaanites allowed the Urites, Amorites, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Philistines, Nabateans, etc., to peacefully settle into the Land of Canaan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No link proving your claim that no one was there before?
Click to expand...


Yes I gave you a link saying the Arab Canaanites were the first.
That means there was no one before them.
And we can tell because the Canaanites don't have a xenophobic history of attacking strangers, but instead blending with them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Yes I gave you a link saying the Arab Canaanites were the first.



You'll have to cut and paste the portion that said no one else was there before the "Arab" Canaanites.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no evidence of anyone being there before them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> {...
> *Key Points*
> 
> Nomadic Bedouin tribes dominated the Arabian Peninsula before the rise of Islam.
> Family groups called clans formed larger tribal units, which reinforced family cooperation in the difficult living conditions on the Arabian peninsula and protected its members against other tribes.
> The Bedouin tribes were nomadic pastoralists who relied on their herds of goats, sheep, and camels for meat, milk, cheese, blood, fur/wool, and other sustenance.
> The pre-Islamic Bedouins also hunted, served as bodyguards, escorted caravans, worked as mercenaries, and traded or raided to gain animals, women, gold, fabric, and other luxury items.
> Arab tribes begin to appear in the south Syrian deserts and southern Jordan around 200 CE, but spread from the central Arabian Peninsula after the rise of Islam in the 630s CE.
> *Key Terms*
> 
> *Nabatean*: an ancient Semitic people who inhabited northern Arabia and Southern Levant, ca. 37–100 CE.
> *Bedouin*: a predominantly desert-dwelling Arabian ethnic group traditionally divided into tribes or clans.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-Islamic Arabia | Boundless World History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> courses.lumenlearning.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will also notice from the Land of Canaan, that originally being nomadic, Arabs do not harm or prevent others from moving in, as the Canaanites allowed the Urites, Amorites, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Philistines, Nabateans, etc., to peacefully settle into the Land of Canaan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No link proving your claim that no one was there before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I gave you a link saying the Arab Canaanites were the first.
> That means there was no one before them.
> And we can tell because the Canaanites don't have a xenophobic history of attacking strangers, but instead blending with them.
Click to expand...


This part was funny......

*Arab tribes begin to appear in the south Syrian deserts and southern Jordan around 200 CE,  *

They went from Israel to Arabia, skipping Syria and Jordan.....but then came back around 200 CE?

DURR.


----------



## Rigby5

rylah said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word Palestine is properly pronounced with a soft 'F" instead of a hard 'P'.
> 
> {...
> Indeed, there is no hard *P* sound in *Arabic*, but there is a softer F, and Palestinians *pronounce* the name of their would-be state as “Falastin” (fah-leh-STEEN) — as do most Hebrew-speaking Israelis.
> ...}
> 
> Just look at the word Phoenician.
> Falistine is nearly identical in phoenetics.
> 
> And if your attempt was to claim Hebrew influence in the name Palestine, you can't, because Hebrew also has no hard P, and instead also used the soft F, because Hebrew is of Arab origins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,
> 
> Hebrew deffinately has a hard 'P' sound, as much as any of the Canaanite dialects.
> Arabs can't pronounce_ 'P-alestine'_ because they speak a foreign language.
> 
> That's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would not at all matter if modern Arabs were speaking a foreign language.
> They are, since Arabic is not native.
> But the people and culture are, so it is irrelevent.
> 
> And no, ancient Hebrew would not have pronounced Palestine with a hard P either.
> They prounced it with a soft F instead, just like Arabs do.
> {...
> 
> *Philistia* (Hebrew: פלשת‎, _Pleshet_) was a confederation of cities in the Southwest Levant. Its appearance follows the invasion of Egypt by the foreign sea People, of which Philistines or Peleset are part, and their alleged relocation to the southern abandoned coast of Canaan by Ramesses III following his victory over them. Philistia northern boundary was the Yarkon River with the Mediterranean Sea on the west, the Kingdom of Judah to the east and the Wadi El-Arish to the south.[1][2] Philistia consisted of the Five Lords of the Philistines, described in the Book of Joshua (Joshua 13:3) and the Books of Samuel (1 Samuel 6:17), comprising Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza, in the south-western Levant.[3]
> 
> The Five Lords of the Philistines are described in the Hebrew Bible as being in constant struggle and interaction with the neighbouring Israelites, Canaanites and Egyptians, being gradually absorbed into the Canaanite culture.[4]
> 
> The Philistines were no longer mentioned following the conquest of the Levant by the Neo-Assyrian Empire (911–605 BC). Genetic and archeological evidence suggest that the Philistines immigrated from Southern Europe to Canaan, and mixed with the native Canaanites during the first couple of centuries.[5]
> 
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philistia - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah,
> I get it,
> so it's reading comprehension...
> 
> Let's check out one idiot as a case study,
> who starts with:
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And no, *ancient* *Hebrew would not have pronounced Palestine with a hard P either*.
> They prounced it with a soft F instead, just like Arabs do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in the same breath posts this as a proof:
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (*Hebrew*: פלשת‎, _*P*leshet_)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then acts like he's not a lunatic.
> 
> Don't you think that guy is an idiot?  Tell him Rigby...
> 
> Anyway, even Rigby knows Arabs can't pronounce 'P-alestine'.
Click to expand...


Wrong,  _*P*leshet _is pronounced with a soft F, not hard P.
The word Palestine is not supposed to be pronounced with a hard P.
That is the anglicized version.
Any Israeli who pronounces it with a hard P is exposing his European origins.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I gave you a link saying the Arab Canaanites were the first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to cut and paste the portion that said no one else was there before the "Arab" Canaanites.
Click to expand...


If Jericho was the first city in the world, that means there was not other city there first.
If there were others there first, then what happened to them?
Because the Canaanites have no history of invading or harming other cultures.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no evidence of anyone being there before them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> {...
> *Key Points*
> 
> Nomadic Bedouin tribes dominated the Arabian Peninsula before the rise of Islam.
> Family groups called clans formed larger tribal units, which reinforced family cooperation in the difficult living conditions on the Arabian peninsula and protected its members against other tribes.
> The Bedouin tribes were nomadic pastoralists who relied on their herds of goats, sheep, and camels for meat, milk, cheese, blood, fur/wool, and other sustenance.
> The pre-Islamic Bedouins also hunted, served as bodyguards, escorted caravans, worked as mercenaries, and traded or raided to gain animals, women, gold, fabric, and other luxury items.
> Arab tribes begin to appear in the south Syrian deserts and southern Jordan around 200 CE, but spread from the central Arabian Peninsula after the rise of Islam in the 630s CE.
> *Key Terms*
> 
> *Nabatean*: an ancient Semitic people who inhabited northern Arabia and Southern Levant, ca. 37–100 CE.
> *Bedouin*: a predominantly desert-dwelling Arabian ethnic group traditionally divided into tribes or clans.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-Islamic Arabia | Boundless World History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> courses.lumenlearning.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will also notice from the Land of Canaan, that originally being nomadic, Arabs do not harm or prevent others from moving in, as the Canaanites allowed the Urites, Amorites, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Philistines, Nabateans, etc., to peacefully settle into the Land of Canaan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No link proving your claim that no one was there before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I gave you a link saying the Arab Canaanites were the first.
> That means there was no one before them.
> And we can tell because the Canaanites don't have a xenophobic history of attacking strangers, but instead blending with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This part was funny......
> 
> *Arab tribes begin to appear in the south Syrian deserts and southern Jordan around 200 CE,  *
> 
> They went from Israel to Arabia, skipping Syria and Jordan.....but then came back around 200 CE?
> 
> DURR.
Click to expand...


Wrong.
They did not skip Syria and Jordan, on the way to the Arabian Peninsula.
But clearly the author is differentiating between those early migrations to the Arabian Peninsula and those migrating back, much later.
That makes sense because those living on the Arabian Peninsula would have been influences by water trade from Africa, India, etc., and grown different from the Land of Canaan origins.


----------



## rylah

Rigby5 said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no evidence of anyone being there before them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> {...
> *Key Points*
> 
> Nomadic Bedouin tribes dominated the Arabian Peninsula before the rise of Islam.
> Family groups called clans formed larger tribal units, which reinforced family cooperation in the difficult living conditions on the Arabian peninsula and protected its members against other tribes.
> The Bedouin tribes were nomadic pastoralists who relied on their herds of goats, sheep, and camels for meat, milk, cheese, blood, fur/wool, and other sustenance.
> The pre-Islamic Bedouins also hunted, served as bodyguards, escorted caravans, worked as mercenaries, and traded or raided to gain animals, women, gold, fabric, and other luxury items.
> Arab tribes begin to appear in the south Syrian deserts and southern Jordan around 200 CE, but spread from the central Arabian Peninsula after the rise of Islam in the 630s CE.
> *Key Terms*
> 
> *Nabatean*: an ancient Semitic people who inhabited northern Arabia and Southern Levant, ca. 37–100 CE.
> *Bedouin*: a predominantly desert-dwelling Arabian ethnic group traditionally divided into tribes or clans.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-Islamic Arabia | Boundless World History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> courses.lumenlearning.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will also notice from the Land of Canaan, that originally being nomadic, Arabs do not harm or prevent others from moving in, as the Canaanites allowed the Urites, Amorites, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Philistines, Nabateans, etc., to peacefully settle into the Land of Canaan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Burst your bubble,
> Arabic is not even mentioned, it's a foreign language.
> 
> *Canaanite languages*, group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including Hebrew, Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic. They were spoken in ancient times in Palestine, on the coast of Syria, and in scattered colonies elsewhere around the Mediterranean. An early form of Canaanite is attested in the Tell el-Amarna letters (_c._ 1400 BC). Moabite, which is very close to Hebrew, is known chiefly from one inscription dating from the 8th century BC. The only living Canaanite language is Hebrew, which was revived as a spoken language in the 19th and 20th centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canaanite languages
> 
> 
> Canaanite languages,   group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including Hebrew, Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic. They were spoken in ancient times in Palestine, on the coast of Syria, and in scattered colonies elsewhere around the Mediterranean. An early form of Canaanite is...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> I never once mentioned Arabic, which obviously is a more modern Arab language that did come from the Arabian Peninsula, and did become adopted by most of the Mideast.
> Semitic mean Arab language group, NOT Arabic, which is only one modern example of the Arab language group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you call just anything in the Middle East - "ARAB".
> 
> Including the dinosaurs, all were Arabs.
> 
> I get it, you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are totally wrong.
> For example, clearly Persians are not at all Arab, neither are the Kushites and Copts of the Egyptian ruling class.  The People of the Sea, like the Hyksos, Phoenicians, Philistines, etc., likely were not Arab, but blended and adopted Arab language use.
Click to expand...


Funny, you say I'm wrong,
but concede to everything I've said so long.
Therefore you've just proven yourself Arabs are foreign to Levant.

Therefore no more states solution,
and no more new or old franchises of Arabia.

Each family of nations to their land and civilization


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I gave you a link saying the Arab Canaanites were the first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to cut and paste the portion that said no one else was there before the "Arab" Canaanites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Jericho was the first city in the world, that means there was not other city there first.
> If there were others there first, then what happened to them?
> Because the Canaanites have no history of invading or harming other cultures.
Click to expand...


*If Jericho was the first city in the world, *

Who said that? Is Jericho in Arabia now?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no evidence of anyone being there before them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> {...
> *Key Points*
> 
> Nomadic Bedouin tribes dominated the Arabian Peninsula before the rise of Islam.
> Family groups called clans formed larger tribal units, which reinforced family cooperation in the difficult living conditions on the Arabian peninsula and protected its members against other tribes.
> The Bedouin tribes were nomadic pastoralists who relied on their herds of goats, sheep, and camels for meat, milk, cheese, blood, fur/wool, and other sustenance.
> The pre-Islamic Bedouins also hunted, served as bodyguards, escorted caravans, worked as mercenaries, and traded or raided to gain animals, women, gold, fabric, and other luxury items.
> Arab tribes begin to appear in the south Syrian deserts and southern Jordan around 200 CE, but spread from the central Arabian Peninsula after the rise of Islam in the 630s CE.
> *Key Terms*
> 
> *Nabatean*: an ancient Semitic people who inhabited northern Arabia and Southern Levant, ca. 37–100 CE.
> *Bedouin*: a predominantly desert-dwelling Arabian ethnic group traditionally divided into tribes or clans.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-Islamic Arabia | Boundless World History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> courses.lumenlearning.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will also notice from the Land of Canaan, that originally being nomadic, Arabs do not harm or prevent others from moving in, as the Canaanites allowed the Urites, Amorites, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Philistines, Nabateans, etc., to peacefully settle into the Land of Canaan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No link proving your claim that no one was there before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I gave you a link saying the Arab Canaanites were the first.
> That means there was no one before them.
> And we can tell because the Canaanites don't have a xenophobic history of attacking strangers, but instead blending with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This part was funny......
> 
> *Arab tribes begin to appear in the south Syrian deserts and southern Jordan around 200 CE,  *
> 
> They went from Israel to Arabia, skipping Syria and Jordan.....but then came back around 200 CE?
> 
> DURR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> They did not skip Syria and Jordan, on the way to the Arabian Peninsula.
> But clearly the author is differentiating between those early migrations to the Arabian Peninsula and those migrating back, much later.
> That makes sense because those living on the Arabian Peninsula would have been influences by water trade from Africa, India, etc., and grown different from the Land of Canaan origins.
Click to expand...


*Wrong.
They did not skip Syria and Jordan, on the way to the Arabian Peninsula. *

You posted a bad source? Why?


----------



## rylah

Rigby5 said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word Palestine is properly pronounced with a soft 'F" instead of a hard 'P'.
> 
> {...
> Indeed, there is no hard *P* sound in *Arabic*, but there is a softer F, and Palestinians *pronounce* the name of their would-be state as “Falastin” (fah-leh-STEEN) — as do most Hebrew-speaking Israelis.
> ...}
> 
> Just look at the word Phoenician.
> Falistine is nearly identical in phoenetics.
> 
> And if your attempt was to claim Hebrew influence in the name Palestine, you can't, because Hebrew also has no hard P, and instead also used the soft F, because Hebrew is of Arab origins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,
> 
> Hebrew deffinately has a hard 'P' sound, as much as any of the Canaanite dialects.
> Arabs can't pronounce_ 'P-alestine'_ because they speak a foreign language.
> 
> That's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would not at all matter if modern Arabs were speaking a foreign language.
> They are, since Arabic is not native.
> But the people and culture are, so it is irrelevent.
> 
> And no, ancient Hebrew would not have pronounced Palestine with a hard P either.
> They prounced it with a soft F instead, just like Arabs do.
> {...
> 
> *Philistia* (Hebrew: פלשת‎, _Pleshet_) was a confederation of cities in the Southwest Levant. Its appearance follows the invasion of Egypt by the foreign sea People, of which Philistines or Peleset are part, and their alleged relocation to the southern abandoned coast of Canaan by Ramesses III following his victory over them. Philistia northern boundary was the Yarkon River with the Mediterranean Sea on the west, the Kingdom of Judah to the east and the Wadi El-Arish to the south.[1][2] Philistia consisted of the Five Lords of the Philistines, described in the Book of Joshua (Joshua 13:3) and the Books of Samuel (1 Samuel 6:17), comprising Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza, in the south-western Levant.[3]
> 
> The Five Lords of the Philistines are described in the Hebrew Bible as being in constant struggle and interaction with the neighbouring Israelites, Canaanites and Egyptians, being gradually absorbed into the Canaanite culture.[4]
> 
> The Philistines were no longer mentioned following the conquest of the Levant by the Neo-Assyrian Empire (911–605 BC). Genetic and archeological evidence suggest that the Philistines immigrated from Southern Europe to Canaan, and mixed with the native Canaanites during the first couple of centuries.[5]
> 
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philistia - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah,
> I get it,
> so it's reading comprehension...
> 
> Let's check out one idiot as a case study,
> who starts with:
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And no, *ancient* *Hebrew would not have pronounced Palestine with a hard P either*.
> They prounced it with a soft F instead, just like Arabs do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in the same breath posts this as a proof:
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (*Hebrew*: פלשת‎, _*P*leshet_)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then acts like he's not a lunatic.
> 
> Don't you think that guy is an idiot?  Tell him Rigby...
> 
> Anyway, even Rigby knows Arabs can't pronounce 'P-alestine'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong,  _*P*leshet _is pronounced with a soft F, not hard P.
> The word Palestine is not supposed to be pronounced with a hard P.
> That is the anglicized version.
> Any Israeli who pronounces it with a hard P is exposing his European origins.
Click to expand...


Well, if only some high power could create a world were all Hebrew words, like 'P-alestine',
originated from Arabic, so that Arabs could pronounce them...
and erase all the verses from Torah where it says *'P*-leshet'.

If only you could force everyone to pretend with you from now on,
that when it says 'Pontiac' on the car, the correct way is to pronounce it just like Arabs can't...


Yeah what a shame,
if only Arabs could pronounce a 'P',
you'd need so much less work and excuses for that lunacy.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I gave you a link saying the Arab Canaanites were the first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to cut and paste the portion that said no one else was there before the "Arab" Canaanites.
Click to expand...


You have read and infer what has been implied.
If for example, you read the sky iis blue, you then have to infer it is not green.
I would never be able to find an exact quote saying the sky is not green.


----------



## Rigby5

rylah said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no evidence of anyone being there before them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> {...
> *Key Points*
> 
> Nomadic Bedouin tribes dominated the Arabian Peninsula before the rise of Islam.
> Family groups called clans formed larger tribal units, which reinforced family cooperation in the difficult living conditions on the Arabian peninsula and protected its members against other tribes.
> The Bedouin tribes were nomadic pastoralists who relied on their herds of goats, sheep, and camels for meat, milk, cheese, blood, fur/wool, and other sustenance.
> The pre-Islamic Bedouins also hunted, served as bodyguards, escorted caravans, worked as mercenaries, and traded or raided to gain animals, women, gold, fabric, and other luxury items.
> Arab tribes begin to appear in the south Syrian deserts and southern Jordan around 200 CE, but spread from the central Arabian Peninsula after the rise of Islam in the 630s CE.
> *Key Terms*
> 
> *Nabatean*: an ancient Semitic people who inhabited northern Arabia and Southern Levant, ca. 37–100 CE.
> *Bedouin*: a predominantly desert-dwelling Arabian ethnic group traditionally divided into tribes or clans.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-Islamic Arabia | Boundless World History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> courses.lumenlearning.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will also notice from the Land of Canaan, that originally being nomadic, Arabs do not harm or prevent others from moving in, as the Canaanites allowed the Urites, Amorites, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Philistines, Nabateans, etc., to peacefully settle into the Land of Canaan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Burst your bubble,
> Arabic is not even mentioned, it's a foreign language.
> 
> *Canaanite languages*, group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including Hebrew, Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic. They were spoken in ancient times in Palestine, on the coast of Syria, and in scattered colonies elsewhere around the Mediterranean. An early form of Canaanite is attested in the Tell el-Amarna letters (_c._ 1400 BC). Moabite, which is very close to Hebrew, is known chiefly from one inscription dating from the 8th century BC. The only living Canaanite language is Hebrew, which was revived as a spoken language in the 19th and 20th centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canaanite languages
> 
> 
> Canaanite languages,   group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including Hebrew, Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic. They were spoken in ancient times in Palestine, on the coast of Syria, and in scattered colonies elsewhere around the Mediterranean. An early form of Canaanite is...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> I never once mentioned Arabic, which obviously is a more modern Arab language that did come from the Arabian Peninsula, and did become adopted by most of the Mideast.
> Semitic mean Arab language group, NOT Arabic, which is only one modern example of the Arab language group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you call just anything in the Middle East - "ARAB".
> 
> Including the dinosaurs, all were Arabs.
> 
> I get it, you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are totally wrong.
> For example, clearly Persians are not at all Arab, neither are the Kushites and Copts of the Egyptian ruling class.  The People of the Sea, like the Hyksos, Phoenicians, Philistines, etc., likely were not Arab, but blended and adopted Arab language use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, you say I'm wrong,
> but concede to everything I've said so long.
> Therefore you've just proven yourself Arabs are foreign to Levant.
> 
> Therefore no more states solution,
> and no more new or old franchises of Arabia.
> 
> Each family of nations to their land and civilization
Click to expand...


Wrong.
Arabs are NOT at all from Arabia, and we just named them badly,
And Israel has no ancestral or purchased land at all.
It is a bunch of illegal immigrant squatters who never paid for anything.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I gave you a link saying the Arab Canaanites were the first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to cut and paste the portion that said no one else was there before the "Arab" Canaanites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Jericho was the first city in the world, that means there was not other city there first.
> If there were others there first, then what happened to them?
> Because the Canaanites have no history of invading or harming other cultures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If Jericho was the first city in the world, *
> 
> Who said that? Is Jericho in Arabia now?
Click to expand...


Jericho prceded Arabia.
But there is no question the Canaanites were Arabs.
Just that Arabs did not at all come from Arabia, as you seem to mistakenly believe.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no evidence of anyone being there before them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> {...
> *Key Points*
> 
> Nomadic Bedouin tribes dominated the Arabian Peninsula before the rise of Islam.
> Family groups called clans formed larger tribal units, which reinforced family cooperation in the difficult living conditions on the Arabian peninsula and protected its members against other tribes.
> The Bedouin tribes were nomadic pastoralists who relied on their herds of goats, sheep, and camels for meat, milk, cheese, blood, fur/wool, and other sustenance.
> The pre-Islamic Bedouins also hunted, served as bodyguards, escorted caravans, worked as mercenaries, and traded or raided to gain animals, women, gold, fabric, and other luxury items.
> Arab tribes begin to appear in the south Syrian deserts and southern Jordan around 200 CE, but spread from the central Arabian Peninsula after the rise of Islam in the 630s CE.
> *Key Terms*
> 
> *Nabatean*: an ancient Semitic people who inhabited northern Arabia and Southern Levant, ca. 37–100 CE.
> *Bedouin*: a predominantly desert-dwelling Arabian ethnic group traditionally divided into tribes or clans.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-Islamic Arabia | Boundless World History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> courses.lumenlearning.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will also notice from the Land of Canaan, that originally being nomadic, Arabs do not harm or prevent others from moving in, as the Canaanites allowed the Urites, Amorites, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Philistines, Nabateans, etc., to peacefully settle into the Land of Canaan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No link proving your claim that no one was there before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I gave you a link saying the Arab Canaanites were the first.
> That means there was no one before them.
> And we can tell because the Canaanites don't have a xenophobic history of attacking strangers, but instead blending with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This part was funny......
> 
> *Arab tribes begin to appear in the south Syrian deserts and southern Jordan around 200 CE,  *
> 
> They went from Israel to Arabia, skipping Syria and Jordan.....but then came back around 200 CE?
> 
> DURR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> They did not skip Syria and Jordan, on the way to the Arabian Peninsula.
> But clearly the author is differentiating between those early migrations to the Arabian Peninsula and those migrating back, much later.
> That makes sense because those living on the Arabian Peninsula would have been influences by water trade from Africa, India, etc., and grown different from the Land of Canaan origins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Wrong.
> They did not skip Syria and Jordan, on the way to the Arabian Peninsula. *
> 
> You posted a bad source? Why?
Click to expand...



No, you misinterpreted.
It said that Arabs from Arabia started moving back into Syria and Jordan.
It said nothing about the fact Arabs not from Arabia had also always lived in Syria and Jordan.


----------



## Rigby5

rylah said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word Palestine is properly pronounced with a soft 'F" instead of a hard 'P'.
> 
> {...
> Indeed, there is no hard *P* sound in *Arabic*, but there is a softer F, and Palestinians *pronounce* the name of their would-be state as “Falastin” (fah-leh-STEEN) — as do most Hebrew-speaking Israelis.
> ...}
> 
> Just look at the word Phoenician.
> Falistine is nearly identical in phoenetics.
> 
> And if your attempt was to claim Hebrew influence in the name Palestine, you can't, because Hebrew also has no hard P, and instead also used the soft F, because Hebrew is of Arab origins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,
> 
> Hebrew deffinately has a hard 'P' sound, as much as any of the Canaanite dialects.
> Arabs can't pronounce_ 'P-alestine'_ because they speak a foreign language.
> 
> That's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would not at all matter if modern Arabs were speaking a foreign language.
> They are, since Arabic is not native.
> But the people and culture are, so it is irrelevent.
> 
> And no, ancient Hebrew would not have pronounced Palestine with a hard P either.
> They prounced it with a soft F instead, just like Arabs do.
> {...
> 
> *Philistia* (Hebrew: פלשת‎, _Pleshet_) was a confederation of cities in the Southwest Levant. Its appearance follows the invasion of Egypt by the foreign sea People, of which Philistines or Peleset are part, and their alleged relocation to the southern abandoned coast of Canaan by Ramesses III following his victory over them. Philistia northern boundary was the Yarkon River with the Mediterranean Sea on the west, the Kingdom of Judah to the east and the Wadi El-Arish to the south.[1][2] Philistia consisted of the Five Lords of the Philistines, described in the Book of Joshua (Joshua 13:3) and the Books of Samuel (1 Samuel 6:17), comprising Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza, in the south-western Levant.[3]
> 
> The Five Lords of the Philistines are described in the Hebrew Bible as being in constant struggle and interaction with the neighbouring Israelites, Canaanites and Egyptians, being gradually absorbed into the Canaanite culture.[4]
> 
> The Philistines were no longer mentioned following the conquest of the Levant by the Neo-Assyrian Empire (911–605 BC). Genetic and archeological evidence suggest that the Philistines immigrated from Southern Europe to Canaan, and mixed with the native Canaanites during the first couple of centuries.[5]
> 
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philistia - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah,
> I get it,
> so it's reading comprehension...
> 
> Let's check out one idiot as a case study,
> who starts with:
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And no, *ancient* *Hebrew would not have pronounced Palestine with a hard P either*.
> They prounced it with a soft F instead, just like Arabs do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in the same breath posts this as a proof:
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (*Hebrew*: פלשת‎, _*P*leshet_)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then acts like he's not a lunatic.
> 
> Don't you think that guy is an idiot?  Tell him Rigby...
> 
> Anyway, even Rigby knows Arabs can't pronounce 'P-alestine'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong,  _*P*leshet _is pronounced with a soft F, not hard P.
> The word Palestine is not supposed to be pronounced with a hard P.
> That is the anglicized version.
> Any Israeli who pronounces it with a hard P is exposing his European origins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if only some high power could create a world were all Hebrew words, like 'P-alestine',
> originated from Arabic, so that Arabs could pronounce them...
> and erase all the verses from Torah where it says *'P*-leshet'.
> 
> If only you could force everyone to pretend with you from now on,
> that when it says 'Pontiac' on the car, the correct way is to pronounce it just like Arabs can't...
> 
> 
> Yeah what a shame,
> if only Arabs could pronounce a 'P',
> you'd need so much less work and excuses for that lunacy.
Click to expand...


That is just a stupid lie.
I already quoted where is said Hebrew also has no hard P, and it is pronounced as a soft F instead, in Hebrew.


----------



## rylah

Rigby5 said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no evidence of anyone being there before them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> {...
> *Key Points*
> 
> Nomadic Bedouin tribes dominated the Arabian Peninsula before the rise of Islam.
> Family groups called clans formed larger tribal units, which reinforced family cooperation in the difficult living conditions on the Arabian peninsula and protected its members against other tribes.
> The Bedouin tribes were nomadic pastoralists who relied on their herds of goats, sheep, and camels for meat, milk, cheese, blood, fur/wool, and other sustenance.
> The pre-Islamic Bedouins also hunted, served as bodyguards, escorted caravans, worked as mercenaries, and traded or raided to gain animals, women, gold, fabric, and other luxury items.
> Arab tribes begin to appear in the south Syrian deserts and southern Jordan around 200 CE, but spread from the central Arabian Peninsula after the rise of Islam in the 630s CE.
> *Key Terms*
> 
> *Nabatean*: an ancient Semitic people who inhabited northern Arabia and Southern Levant, ca. 37–100 CE.
> *Bedouin*: a predominantly desert-dwelling Arabian ethnic group traditionally divided into tribes or clans.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-Islamic Arabia | Boundless World History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> courses.lumenlearning.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will also notice from the Land of Canaan, that originally being nomadic, Arabs do not harm or prevent others from moving in, as the Canaanites allowed the Urites, Amorites, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Philistines, Nabateans, etc., to peacefully settle into the Land of Canaan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Burst your bubble,
> Arabic is not even mentioned, it's a foreign language.
> 
> *Canaanite languages*, group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including Hebrew, Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic. They were spoken in ancient times in Palestine, on the coast of Syria, and in scattered colonies elsewhere around the Mediterranean. An early form of Canaanite is attested in the Tell el-Amarna letters (_c._ 1400 BC). Moabite, which is very close to Hebrew, is known chiefly from one inscription dating from the 8th century BC. The only living Canaanite language is Hebrew, which was revived as a spoken language in the 19th and 20th centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canaanite languages
> 
> 
> Canaanite languages,   group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including Hebrew, Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic. They were spoken in ancient times in Palestine, on the coast of Syria, and in scattered colonies elsewhere around the Mediterranean. An early form of Canaanite is...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> I never once mentioned Arabic, which obviously is a more modern Arab language that did come from the Arabian Peninsula, and did become adopted by most of the Mideast.
> Semitic mean Arab language group, NOT Arabic, which is only one modern example of the Arab language group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically you call just anything in the Middle East - "ARAB".
> 
> Including the dinosaurs, all were Arabs.
> 
> I get it, you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are totally wrong.
> For example, clearly Persians are not at all Arab, neither are the Kushites and Copts of the Egyptian ruling class.  The People of the Sea, like the Hyksos, Phoenicians, Philistines, etc., likely were not Arab, but blended and adopted Arab language use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, you say I'm wrong,
> but concede to everything I've said so long.
> Therefore you've just proven yourself Arabs are foreign to Levant.
> 
> Therefore no more states solution,
> and no more new or old franchises of Arabia.
> 
> Each family of nations to their land and civilization
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> Arabs are NOT at all from Arabia, and we just named them badly,
> And Israel has no ancestral or purchased land at all.
> It is a bunch of illegal immigrant squatters who never paid for anything.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I already got it, Arabs are from Africa, earth is flat,
and Mona Lisa was a famous Palestinian juggler

And when did the voices start appearing?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I gave you a link saying the Arab Canaanites were the first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to cut and paste the portion that said no one else was there before the "Arab" Canaanites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have read and infer what has been implied.
> If for example, you read the sky iis blue, you then have to infer it is not green.
> I would never be able to find an exact quote saying the sky is not green.
Click to expand...


You claimed that no one was in Arabia before the "Arab" Canaanites showed up.

Do you have any backup for that claim or not?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Jericho prceded Arabia.



First city in the world? 

Prove it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no evidence of anyone being there before them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> {...
> *Key Points*
> 
> Nomadic Bedouin tribes dominated the Arabian Peninsula before the rise of Islam.
> Family groups called clans formed larger tribal units, which reinforced family cooperation in the difficult living conditions on the Arabian peninsula and protected its members against other tribes.
> The Bedouin tribes were nomadic pastoralists who relied on their herds of goats, sheep, and camels for meat, milk, cheese, blood, fur/wool, and other sustenance.
> The pre-Islamic Bedouins also hunted, served as bodyguards, escorted caravans, worked as mercenaries, and traded or raided to gain animals, women, gold, fabric, and other luxury items.
> Arab tribes begin to appear in the south Syrian deserts and southern Jordan around 200 CE, but spread from the central Arabian Peninsula after the rise of Islam in the 630s CE.
> *Key Terms*
> 
> *Nabatean*: an ancient Semitic people who inhabited northern Arabia and Southern Levant, ca. 37–100 CE.
> *Bedouin*: a predominantly desert-dwelling Arabian ethnic group traditionally divided into tribes or clans.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-Islamic Arabia | Boundless World History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> courses.lumenlearning.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will also notice from the Land of Canaan, that originally being nomadic, Arabs do not harm or prevent others from moving in, as the Canaanites allowed the Urites, Amorites, Chaldeans, Phoenicians, Philistines, Nabateans, etc., to peacefully settle into the Land of Canaan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No link proving your claim that no one was there before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I gave you a link saying the Arab Canaanites were the first.
> That means there was no one before them.
> And we can tell because the Canaanites don't have a xenophobic history of attacking strangers, but instead blending with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This part was funny......
> 
> *Arab tribes begin to appear in the south Syrian deserts and southern Jordan around 200 CE,  *
> 
> They went from Israel to Arabia, skipping Syria and Jordan.....but then came back around 200 CE?
> 
> DURR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> They did not skip Syria and Jordan, on the way to the Arabian Peninsula.
> But clearly the author is differentiating between those early migrations to the Arabian Peninsula and those migrating back, much later.
> That makes sense because those living on the Arabian Peninsula would have been influences by water trade from Africa, India, etc., and grown different from the Land of Canaan origins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Wrong.
> They did not skip Syria and Jordan, on the way to the Arabian Peninsula. *
> 
> You posted a bad source? Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you misinterpreted.
> It said that Arabs from Arabia started moving back into Syria and Jordan.
> It said nothing about the fact Arabs not from Arabia had also always lived in Syria and Jordan.
Click to expand...


*It said that Arabs from Arabia started moving back into Syria and Jordan. *

Arabs from Israel weren't already in Syria and Jordan in the 1000 plus years since they also went to Arabia? Why not?

Only Arabs from Arabia count? Your confusing theories are getting more complex.

*It said nothing about the fact Arabs not from Arabia had also always lived in Syria and Jordan.*

It didn't say they always did. Why not? Why mention it at all if they were already there?

Are you making stuff up again?


----------



## rylah

Rigby5 said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word Palestine is properly pronounced with a soft 'F" instead of a hard 'P'.
> 
> {...
> Indeed, there is no hard *P* sound in *Arabic*, but there is a softer F, and Palestinians *pronounce* the name of their would-be state as “Falastin” (fah-leh-STEEN) — as do most Hebrew-speaking Israelis.
> ...}
> 
> Just look at the word Phoenician.
> Falistine is nearly identical in phoenetics.
> 
> And if your attempt was to claim Hebrew influence in the name Palestine, you can't, because Hebrew also has no hard P, and instead also used the soft F, because Hebrew is of Arab origins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,
> 
> Hebrew deffinately has a hard 'P' sound, as much as any of the Canaanite dialects.
> Arabs can't pronounce_ 'P-alestine'_ because they speak a foreign language.
> 
> That's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would not at all matter if modern Arabs were speaking a foreign language.
> They are, since Arabic is not native.
> But the people and culture are, so it is irrelevent.
> 
> And no, ancient Hebrew would not have pronounced Palestine with a hard P either.
> They prounced it with a soft F instead, just like Arabs do.
> {...
> 
> *Philistia* (Hebrew: פלשת‎, _Pleshet_) was a confederation of cities in the Southwest Levant. Its appearance follows the invasion of Egypt by the foreign sea People, of which Philistines or Peleset are part, and their alleged relocation to the southern abandoned coast of Canaan by Ramesses III following his victory over them. Philistia northern boundary was the Yarkon River with the Mediterranean Sea on the west, the Kingdom of Judah to the east and the Wadi El-Arish to the south.[1][2] Philistia consisted of the Five Lords of the Philistines, described in the Book of Joshua (Joshua 13:3) and the Books of Samuel (1 Samuel 6:17), comprising Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza, in the south-western Levant.[3]
> 
> The Five Lords of the Philistines are described in the Hebrew Bible as being in constant struggle and interaction with the neighbouring Israelites, Canaanites and Egyptians, being gradually absorbed into the Canaanite culture.[4]
> 
> The Philistines were no longer mentioned following the conquest of the Levant by the Neo-Assyrian Empire (911–605 BC). Genetic and archeological evidence suggest that the Philistines immigrated from Southern Europe to Canaan, and mixed with the native Canaanites during the first couple of centuries.[5]
> 
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philistia - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah,
> I get it,
> so it's reading comprehension...
> 
> Let's check out one idiot as a case study,
> who starts with:
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And no, *ancient* *Hebrew would not have pronounced Palestine with a hard P either*.
> They prounced it with a soft F instead, just like Arabs do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in the same breath posts this as a proof:
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (*Hebrew*: פלשת‎, _*P*leshet_)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then acts like he's not a lunatic.
> 
> Don't you think that guy is an idiot?  Tell him Rigby...
> 
> Anyway, even Rigby knows Arabs can't pronounce 'P-alestine'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong,  _*P*leshet _is pronounced with a soft F, not hard P.
> The word Palestine is not supposed to be pronounced with a hard P.
> That is the anglicized version.
> Any Israeli who pronounces it with a hard P is exposing his European origins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if only some high power could create a world were all Hebrew words, like 'P-alestine',
> originated from Arabic, so that Arabs could pronounce them...
> and erase all the verses from Torah where it says *'P*-leshet'.
> 
> If only you could force everyone to pretend with you from now on,
> that when it says 'Pontiac' on the car, the correct way is to pronounce it just like Arabs can't...
> 
> 
> Yeah what a shame,
> if only Arabs could pronounce a 'P',
> you'd need so much less work and excuses for that lunacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is just a stupid lie.
> I already quoted where is said Hebrew also has no hard P, and it is pronounced as a soft F instead, in Hebrew.
Click to expand...


Have you?

Oh dear...I think just can't stop lying just about anything.


----------



## teddyearp

You sir, have not a clue, you need a bit of education.  Or you lie on purpose.  Either way:


Rigby5 said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a chance.  Jordan wants nothing whatsoever to do with Palestinians.  How relieved was Jordan to dump them on Israel to deal with after the 67 war.
> 
> 
> 
> Not meaning to split hairs, but Jordan didn't actually relinquish (in their mind if nothing else) the West Bank until 1988.
> 
> I just wish that Israel could get the control of the Temple Mount out of the hands of the Waqf without creating imagined problems.  Because any 'problems' that would portend would be 'imagined'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Temple  Mount has no significance to Jews.
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right?  Then why have they been praying at that wall for all this time?


Rigby5 said:


> No one has any idea where either temple of Solomon ever was.


There was only one 'Temple of Solomon', the other was called 'Herod's Temple' as he contributed the most to it's building.


Rigby5 said:


> The Temple Mount most likely was a temple of Baal by the Canaanites, since it uses stone much larger than the Hebrew were known to use.


That's because the majority of the work done on the second temple was done using Roman methods.


Rigby5 said:


> It is not like the Hebrew had any significant presence by the time of the Romans, as even King Herod was just a Roman who converted so he could rule.


No significant presence???  They sure staged an awful lot of revolts against the Ptolemy's and then Roman's if they didn't really have any presence there.  King Herod was a Jew.  His grandfather Herod Antipas converted.  Amtipas was made general over all of Idumea under Ptolemenic rule.  Antipas' son became a puppet of the winners when he realized that the Romans and not the Greeks were going to be the real power so aligning himself with them.  Herod the Great inherited rule over Judea from his family line.

You're welcome.


----------

