The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?

[Shusha]

There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.

This is both right and wrong. (Mostly wrong).

I agree that there is no historic precedence for an indigenous peoples reconstituting their sovereignty in the form of a State anywhere in the world. This does not, however, suggest that such a reconstitution is not just or moral or desirable or nor that it is prohibited.

However, there are numerous examples of self-determination and sovereignty established due the dissolution of Empires or other national entities with multiple ethnic or cultural groups. The most obvious examples are Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan. But also applies to places like Catalonia. The basic assumption of right with respect to reconstituting a national homeland for the Catalan people in the form of what is now called a State is two-fold: 1. On the strength of their cultural distinction as a people. 2. On the basis of their historic national identity.

The problem with this chain of argument from you is that it: 1. assumes that historic precedence is somehow REQUIRED for the formation of a nation. It is not. And 3. denies the reality of Jewish history.

And, of course, there is no historic precedence for an Arab Palestinian state either.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.

This is both right and wrong. (Mostly wrong).

I agree that there is no historic precedence for an indigenous peoples reconstituting their sovereignty in the form of a State anywhere in the world. This does not, however, suggest that such a reconstitution is not just or moral or desirable or nor that it is prohibited.

However, there are numerous examples of self-determination and sovereignty established due the dissolution of Empires or other national entities with multiple ethnic or cultural groups. The most obvious examples are Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan. But also applies to places like Catalonia. The basic assumption of right with respect to reconstituting a national homeland for the Catalan people in the form of what is now called a State is two-fold: 1. On the strength of their cultural distinction as a people. 2. On the basis of their historic national identity.

The problem with this chain of argument from you is that it: 1. assumes that historic precedence is somehow REQUIRED for the formation of a nation. It is not. And 3. denies the reality of Jewish history.

And, of course, there is no historic precedence for an Arab Palestinian state either.

The original Palestinian state included Muslims, Christians, and Jews. The 1970 PLO proposed solution was a state that included all Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

 

[Shusha]

The original Palestinian state included Muslims, Christians, and Jews. The 1970 PLO proposed solution was a state that included all Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

One of the actual Palestinian States INCLUDES Muslims, Christians and Jews. The other actual Palestinian State does not.

So which, would you say, is demonstrably a more effective example of cultural inclusiveness?

 

[abi]

You talking about a region that had a bunch of Jews and zero Muslims?

There was no Islam at that point in history. That conversion was centuries later and most had already converted to Christianity prior to that. So yes, there were a bunch of Jews in Palestine.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You talking about a region that had a bunch of Jews and zero Muslims?

There was no Islam at that point in history. That conversion was centuries later and most had already converted to Christianity prior to that. So yes, there were a bunch of Jews in Palestine.

So yes, there were a bunch of Jews in Palestine.

Excellent!

 

[JoelT1]

There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.

This is both right and wrong. (Mostly wrong).

I agree that there is no historic precedence for an indigenous peoples reconstituting their sovereignty in the form of a State anywhere in the world. This does not, however, suggest that such a reconstitution is not just or moral or desirable or nor that it is prohibited.

However, there are numerous examples of self-determination and sovereignty established due the dissolution of Empires or other national entities with multiple ethnic or cultural groups. The most obvious examples are Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan. But also applies to places like Catalonia. The basic assumption of right with respect to reconstituting a national homeland for the Catalan people in the form of what is now called a State is two-fold: 1. On the strength of their cultural distinction as a people. 2. On the basis of their historic national identity.

The problem with this chain of argument from you is that it: 1. assumes that historic precedence is somehow REQUIRED for the formation of a nation. It is not. And 3. denies the reality of Jewish history.

And, of course, there is no historic precedence for an Arab Palestinian state either.

The original Palestinian state included Muslims, Christians, and Jews. The 1970 PLO proposed solution was a state that included all Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

The original “palestine” was merely a Roman name imposed on Jews about 2000 years ago, and about 500 years before Muslims existed. Jews’ land was named Israel. Jesus is King of Israel in the Bible.

 

[JoelT1]

There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.

This is both right and wrong. (Mostly wrong).

I agree that there is no historic precedence for an indigenous peoples reconstituting their sovereignty in the form of a State anywhere in the world. This does not, however, suggest that such a reconstitution is not just or moral or desirable or nor that it is prohibited.

However, there are numerous examples of self-determination and sovereignty established due the dissolution of Empires or other national entities with multiple ethnic or cultural groups. The most obvious examples are Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan. But also applies to places like Catalonia. The basic assumption of right with respect to reconstituting a national homeland for the Catalan people in the form of what is now called a State is two-fold: 1. On the strength of their cultural distinction as a people. 2. On the basis of their historic national identity.

The problem with this chain of argument from you is that it: 1. assumes that historic precedence is somehow REQUIRED for the formation of a nation. It is not. And 3. denies the reality of Jewish history.

And, of course, there is no historic precedence for an Arab Palestinian state either.

The original Palestinian state included Muslims, Christians, and Jews. The 1970 PLO proposed solution was a state that included all Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

Muslims’ Koran refers to the land inhabited by Children of Israel. No mention of palestine, it didn’t exist

 

[JoelT1]

This eminent scholar of Roman history does not refer to “palestine” as it was an illegitimate foreign Roman name for indigenous Jews’ land

 

[JoelT1]

Jesus King of the Jews, King of Israel in the Bible

There is NO bible verse that states Jesus King of the Jews.
The truth is Jesus was killed by the Romans on orders by local Rabbis because Jesus was preaching Old Testament verses that painted a bad light of the Jewish people and their relationship with the Lord.

There was no land, state called Israel at that time in history. Israel was a person & not a place (period)

Some people grasp at straws that are empty of substance & lie to themselves and once they hear their own lies they believe them as well.

Clearly Trump must be Israeli at heart because he mirrors this same falsehood.
-

The "King of the Jews" is a Christian belief, not a Jewish one.

What was the "Province of Judea" if there was no Jewish land, homeland, or whatever one wishes to call it?

The person Israel (Jacob) is one thing.
The Kingdom of Israel, where Kings David, Solomon and all the other Jewish ones reigned was a concrete place, with a capital, Jerusalem, which continued to be the capital of the Jewish kingdom until the Jews rioted and the Romans destroyed and later kept the Jews from entering it.


Your desire that the Jewish people and all of Israel, poof, disappeared into thin air after the Romans, is.......what exactly.

Modern day Christian, Atheist, I am so desperate for Salvation or Peace?

Pick one, pick all, but the Jewish People have become sovereign over PART of their ancient homeland IN SPITE of the endless hatred towards Jews which has been spread, at first by the Christians, and later on by the Muslims.

The Jewish people have always been present on their homeland.

NOW, they have sovereignty over part of it.

Justice at last.

The Jewish people have always been present on their homeland.

So have a lot of other people. They were not the first people there nor were they ever the only people there.

There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.

Ancient Israel was a Jewish “state” Jews are the indigenous People of Israel dating back 3000+ years How many other countries are 3000+ years old? Ever hear of archaeology? The Mesha Stele | Louvre Museum | Paris

Palestine originated as a name imposed on Jews by the Roman Empire, about 2000 years ago. Jews have a really long history in Israel

Ever hear of a Jewish rabbi named Jesus? He’s called King of Israel in the Bible Israeli Archeologists Discover "Jesus' Synagogue"

 

[jamesduncan]

3. denies the reality of Jewish history.

I agree, the truth is the Jews never had a "state" or "country" in the past. It was only out of remorse for the mass killing of Jews during WW2 that wrongly created the State of Israel.
The past is the past and nothing can change it but making excuses for creating this abomination is wrong as well.
Just look at what they have done since the creation of Israel~~

12 yr old boy SHOT DEAD in front of your eyes
Updated 9.48 p.m., 3rd Oct 2000
http://www.themodernreligion.com/jihad/sniper.html

The sad story of the never ending killing of Palestinian children by the Israeli Defense Force all in the name of self-defense.
Murdering little girls is an Israeli sport it seems
Gaza girl said killed
By Amos Harel and Nir Hasson, Haaretz Correspondents, and Haaretz Service
Thu., October 28, 2004
IDF troops shot and killed an 8-year-old Palestinian girl who was on her way to school in a Gaza Strip refugee camp
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/494672.html

UN officials: Girl hit by IDF gunfire in UN school in Gaza
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent and AP
Tue., October 12, 2004 Tishrei 27, 5765
An 11-year-old Palestinian girl was shot in the stomach and critically wounded by Israel Defense Forces gunfire IDF troops fired two shots, one of the shots hit a fifth-grade student at the school. Last month, a 10-year-old girl was killed by IDF gunfire while sitting at her desk at the same school.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/487788.html

United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) 7 September 2004 At 07:45 10-year old Raghda Adnan Al-Assar was struck in the head by Israeli fire while sitting at her desk in UNRWA's Elementary Girl's School On June 1 this year two ten-year old children in UNRWA's Al-Umariye Elementary Boys' School in Rafah were hit by a bullet from a Israeli tank
In March 2003
12-year old Hoda Darwish was hit in the head by a bullet fired Two 10 year-old schoolchildren were shot in the al-Omaria school run by UNRWA in Rafah, when an Israeli tank fired into their classroom.

Bullets fired from the tank flew through the classroom window, hitting Mahmoud Hamad in the neck and Hisham al Habil in the head. The boys had not even been sitting by the windows but in the middle of the room.
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/index.html

Photos of a 12 year old palestinian boy being shot by Israeli soldiers and the ambulance driver who tried to save him also being shot and killed.
http://www.palestine-net.com/misc/durra/

Three-year-old Rawan Abu Zeid, who took bullets in the neck and ead while buying candy with her friends.
5 June 2004
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2785.shtml

An eight-year-old Palestinian girl shot dead by Israeli troops in the central Gaza Strip was killed while showing off her new school uniform to friends

http://tinyurl.com/99kh8zk

Boy of 17, shot by Israeli soldiers, left bleeding overnight to die
September 8, 2003
The bullet ridden corpse of Mohammad Abdullah Abu al-Husni, was found yesterday morning near the town of Jabaliya, where he lived in Gaza.
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/updates/left_to_die.htm

Haneen, who was eight years old, had been shot twice in the head by an Israeli soldier as she walked down the street in Khan Yunis refugee camp with her mother.
28 July 2003
She was coming down the street and ran to me and hugged me, crying,

'Mother, mother'. Two bullets hit her in the head, one straight after the other.
She was still in my arms and she died."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1007051,00.html

This boy was in his own house and an IDF soldier barges into the house and shoots him dead Mohammed a 7-year-old boy fell dead, still clutching his piece of bread.
Tuesday December 23, 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1112055,00.html

Israel Baby is born then dies
September 11, 2003
Birth and death at the checkpoint
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/338937.html

Three shot in the back by Israeli snipers, one a 15-year-old boy
Siege off Nablus
January, 2004
15 year old boy who was shot while standing in front of his house. The sniper bulet hit Amjad in the back. He died on his way to the hospital. The second is Amer Kathym Arafat who was also shot in the back by a sniper bullet. The third is Rouhi Hazem Shouman, 25, who was also shot in the back by a sniper.
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/appeals/lift_the_siege.htm

Three-year-old Rawan Abu Zeid, who took bullets in the neck and head while buying candy with her friends.
5 June 2004
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2785.shtml

15 year old boy & Amer Kathym & Rouhi Hazem Shouman all shot in the back by a sniper.
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/appeals/lift_the_siege.htm

An eight-year-old Palestinian girl shot dead by Israeli troops in the central Gaza Strip was killed while showing off her new school uniform to friends
http://tinyurl.com/99kh8zk

IDF shoots 13-year-old girl in the back with 20 bullets and then the IDF commander goes over to the girl and shoots her again to make sure she was dead
Tue., October 05, 2004
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/485274.html
“I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport."

http://www.israel-state-terrorism.org/children.html

http://tinyurl.com/8rmn2g3

 

[jamesduncan]

Ever hear of a Jewish rabbi named Jesus? He’s called King of Israel in the Bible Israeli Archeologists Discover "Jesus' Synagogue"

I don't believe Jesus would spit on Christians but there are Rabbi's who do.

Rabbi David Rosen is a talented and respected rabbi, originally from the UK.
Since in some circles it seems to be more encouraged to spit on Christian clergymen than build bridges (this week's events in the Old City), Rabbi Rosen is unpopular with Eskin and his ilk.
Rabbi David Rosen

It has been Jerusalem's dirty little secret for decades: Orthodox yeshiva students and other Jewish residents vandalizing churches and spitting on Christian clergyman as they walk along the narrow, ancient stone streets of the Old City.
http://tinyurl.com/v7dbq

Christians say ultra-Orthodox Jewish students spit at them or at the ground when they pass. There have also been acts of vandalism against statues of the Virgin Mary.
Ultra-orthodox Jews 'must stop religious abuse'

You cannot find one incident where Muslims spit on Christians but you can find countless incidents where Orthodox Jews spit on Christians. Has the American press ever covered the above-?

Just google "spiting on Christians" & then come back and tell me what you found.

-

 

[JoelT1]

Rabbi Jesus King of Israel in the Bible. No mention of palestine It didn’t exist

 

[Sixties Fan]

Ever hear of a Jewish rabbi named Jesus? He’s called King of Israel in the Bible Israeli Archeologists Discover "Jesus' Synagogue"

I don't believe Jesus would spit on Christians but there are Rabbi's who do.

Rabbi David Rosen is a talented and respected rabbi, originally from the UK.
Since in some circles it seems to be more encouraged to spit on Christian clergymen than build bridges (this week's events in the Old City), Rabbi Rosen is unpopular with Eskin and his ilk.
Rabbi David Rosen

It has been Jerusalem's dirty little secret for decades: Orthodox yeshiva students and other Jewish residents vandalizing churches and spitting on Christian clergyman as they walk along the narrow, ancient stone streets of the Old City.
http://tinyurl.com/v7dbq

Christians say ultra-Orthodox Jewish students spit at them or at the ground when they pass. There have also been acts of vandalism against statues of the Virgin Mary.
Ultra-orthodox Jews 'must stop religious abuse'

You cannot find one incident where Muslims spit on Christians but you can find countless incidents where Orthodox Jews spit on Christians. Has the American press ever covered the above-?

Just google "spiting on Christians" & then come back and tell me what you found.

-

Most of this posting is in the wrong thread.
Discuss Jews not being indigenous of Ancient Canaan and show evidence of it.

As far as Muslim treatment of Christians on the land, one can look at the 1300 years before WWI, or one can look at more recent history where Christians are being made to leave in droves and are going to Israel. Why would they choose Israel is the Jews there are as bad as you keep trying to make them?
Muslims have done much more than just spit at Christians, just ask the Copt Christians about it.

Until 1993, under Israeli government, Bethlehem was 85% Arab Christians. After the PA took over it is now 15%.
(Go ahead, blame it on Israel )

The "spitting on Christians" are Israeli extremists, and not the majority of Israeli Jews.

Which is nothing compared to what Christians did to Jews for 1700 years of Christian history in Europe and even when they invaded the land of Israel during the Crusades.

You are a Denialist. It is a sick ideology which does nothing but obliterate the truth where any Jew or Jewish History is concerned.
For Christian Denialists like yourself, Jews have no right to exist.
They must convert or die, in order to bring the second coming, or some such thing.

Hitting, hurting, killing Jews is nothing but a sport to a denialist.

Who are the Indigenous People to the Land of Israel?

The Jews, who have a recorded history on the land, thanks to all the invaders they had to deal with and who never denied they existed.
On the contrary, even Muslims in the Quran acknowledge that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jews. No mention of any Arab Palestinians, or a country called Palestine.

Deal with it

 

[JoelT1]

Jesus, Joseph and Mary, all Jews, traveled in the land of Israel, in the Bible. No mention of palestine It didn’t exist.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.

This is both right and wrong. (Mostly wrong).

I agree that there is no historic precedence for an indigenous peoples reconstituting their sovereignty in the form of a State anywhere in the world. This does not, however, suggest that such a reconstitution is not just or moral or desirable or nor that it is prohibited.

However, there are numerous examples of self-determination and sovereignty established due the dissolution of Empires or other national entities with multiple ethnic or cultural groups. The most obvious examples are Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan. But also applies to places like Catalonia. The basic assumption of right with respect to reconstituting a national homeland for the Catalan people in the form of what is now called a State is two-fold: 1. On the strength of their cultural distinction as a people. 2. On the basis of their historic national identity.

The problem with this chain of argument from you is that it: 1. assumes that historic precedence is somehow REQUIRED for the formation of a nation. It is not. And 3. denies the reality of Jewish history.

And, of course, there is no historic precedence for an Arab Palestinian state either.

Your problem is that you have the racist view that "one people" should have sovereignty. Palestine had been a mult-racial, multi-religious, multi-ethnic place for centuries. To say that one group is superior and run the show for their own benefit is the root of the problem.

 

[Sixties Fan]

There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.

This is both right and wrong. (Mostly wrong).

I agree that there is no historic precedence for an indigenous peoples reconstituting their sovereignty in the form of a State anywhere in the world. This does not, however, suggest that such a reconstitution is not just or moral or desirable or nor that it is prohibited.

However, there are numerous examples of self-determination and sovereignty established due the dissolution of Empires or other national entities with multiple ethnic or cultural groups. The most obvious examples are Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan. But also applies to places like Catalonia. The basic assumption of right with respect to reconstituting a national homeland for the Catalan people in the form of what is now called a State is two-fold: 1. On the strength of their cultural distinction as a people. 2. On the basis of their historic national identity.

The problem with this chain of argument from you is that it: 1. assumes that historic precedence is somehow REQUIRED for the formation of a nation. It is not. And 3. denies the reality of Jewish history.

And, of course, there is no historic precedence for an Arab Palestinian state either.

Your problem is that you have the racist view that "one people" should have sovereignty. Palestine had been a mult-racial, multi-religious, multi-ethnic place for centuries. To say that one group is superior and run the show for their own benefit is the root of the problem.

Pity you do not apply the same to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Only ONE people have sovereignty over those lands. Muslims.
Arabs. With no non Muslims allowed residence in them.

HYPOCRYTE!!!!

The Jewish Nation has every right to have Sovereignty over their own ancient land, with all the freedoms which go to all non Jews as it happens in every DEMOCRATIC country.

HYPOCRYTE !!!!

 

[Shusha]

Your problem is that you have the racist view that "one people" should have sovereignty. Palestine had been a mult-racial, multi-religious, multi-ethnic place for centuries. To say that one group is superior and run the show for their own benefit is the root of the problem.

I hold a view that all peoples who wish it should have sovereignty, self-determination and independence. It's NORMAL. It is the basis for our world's system of government. There are currently nearly 200 countries in the world and nearly all of them are based on the sovereignty of a specific peoples. And more people - like the Catalans - are working toward it. Surely, you are not suggesting they are ALL racist and believe themselves superior. Surely you are not suggesting they ALL be dismantled.

You just keep confirming that the root of the problem is antisemitism. It's a fundamental belief that it's fine for the Catalans or the Tibetans or the Jordanians to have a nation but not for the Jews.

And "Palestine" IS multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-ethnic in all of the places under Jewish sovereignty. ONLY in the places of Jewish sovereignty. In the places under Arab sovereignty there is only one ethnicity and for the most part one religion. So your comments should actually be directed to the PA, Hamas and Jordan.

If you want to address racist views why don't you start with the simple act of demanding ALL people have access to holy places?

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.

This is both right and wrong. (Mostly wrong).

I agree that there is no historic precedence for an indigenous peoples reconstituting their sovereignty in the form of a State anywhere in the world. This does not, however, suggest that such a reconstitution is not just or moral or desirable or nor that it is prohibited.

However, there are numerous examples of self-determination and sovereignty established due the dissolution of Empires or other national entities with multiple ethnic or cultural groups. The most obvious examples are Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan. But also applies to places like Catalonia. The basic assumption of right with respect to reconstituting a national homeland for the Catalan people in the form of what is now called a State is two-fold: 1. On the strength of their cultural distinction as a people. 2. On the basis of their historic national identity.

The problem with this chain of argument from you is that it: 1. assumes that historic precedence is somehow REQUIRED for the formation of a nation. It is not. And 3. denies the reality of Jewish history.

And, of course, there is no historic precedence for an Arab Palestinian state either.

Your problem is that you have the racist view that "one people" should have sovereignty. Palestine had been a mult-racial, multi-religious, multi-ethnic place for centuries. To say that one group is superior and run the show for their own benefit is the root of the problem.

Pity you do not apply the same to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Only ONE people have sovereignty over those lands. Muslims.
Arabs. With no non Muslims allowed residence in them.

HYPOCRYTE!!!!

The Jewish Nation has every right to have Sovereignty over their own ancient land, with all the freedoms which go to all non Jews as it happens in every DEMOCRATIC country.

HYPOCRYTE !!!!

Israel has land?

Do you have any proof of that?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Your problem is that you have the racist view that "one people" should have sovereignty. Palestine had been a mult-racial, multi-religious, multi-ethnic place for centuries. To say that one group is superior and run the show for their own benefit is the root of the problem.

I hold a view that all peoples who wish it should have sovereignty, self-determination and independence. It's NORMAL. It is the basis for our world's system of government. There are currently nearly 200 countries in the world and nearly all of them are based on the sovereignty of a specific peoples. And more people - like the Catalans - are working toward it. Surely, you are not suggesting they are ALL racist and believe themselves superior. Surely you are not suggesting they ALL be dismantled.

You just keep confirming that the root of the problem is antisemitism. It's a fundamental belief that it's fine for the Catalans or the Tibetans or the Jordanians to have a nation but not for the Jews.

And "Palestine" IS multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-ethnic in all of the places under Jewish sovereignty. ONLY in the places of Jewish sovereignty. In the places under Arab sovereignty there is only one ethnicity and for the most part one religion. So your comments should actually be directed to the PA, Hamas and Jordan.

If you want to address racist views why don't you start with the simple act of demanding ALL people have access to holy places?

I hold a view that all peoples who wish it should have sovereignty, self-determination and independence. It's NORMAL. It is the basis for our world's system of government.

Except for the Palestinians. They got the boot.

 

[Shusha]

There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.

This is both right and wrong. (Mostly wrong).

I agree that there is no historic precedence for an indigenous peoples reconstituting their sovereignty in the form of a State anywhere in the world. This does not, however, suggest that such a reconstitution is not just or moral or desirable or nor that it is prohibited.

However, there are numerous examples of self-determination and sovereignty established due the dissolution of Empires or other national entities with multiple ethnic or cultural groups. The most obvious examples are Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan. But also applies to places like Catalonia. The basic assumption of right with respect to reconstituting a national homeland for the Catalan people in the form of what is now called a State is two-fold: 1. On the strength of their cultural distinction as a people. 2. On the basis of their historic national identity.

The problem with this chain of argument from you is that it: 1. assumes that historic precedence is somehow REQUIRED for the formation of a nation. It is not. And 3. denies the reality of Jewish history.

And, of course, there is no historic precedence for an Arab Palestinian state either.

Your problem is that you have the racist view that "one people" should have sovereignty. Palestine had been a mult-racial, multi-religious, multi-ethnic place for centuries. To say that one group is superior and run the show for their own benefit is the root of the problem.

Pity you do not apply the same to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Only ONE people have sovereignty over those lands. Muslims.
Arabs. With no non Muslims allowed residence in them.

HYPOCRYTE!!!!

The Jewish Nation has every right to have Sovereignty over their own ancient land, with all the freedoms which go to all non Jews as it happens in every DEMOCRATIC country.

HYPOCRYTE !!!!

Israel has land?

Do you have any proof of that?

Prove Jordan has land. Or France.