By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Slimebeast said:
superchunk said:

yeah, slimebeasts post is simply a religious belief with no real foundation. In fact Muslims, including myself, would argue that the biblical story is somewhat fudged and the true first born of Abraham was Ishmael (i.e. father of Arabs). Muslims contest that the land was given to Abraham, not Isaac and therefore under the religious sense it is for both Jews and Arabs.

 

Correction, it wasn't a religious argument. It was an argument based on how nations usually come to be - historically by a people self-righteously just claiming a piece of land, or in the modern era by UN decisions.

Are you a muslim? I thought u was married to a Palestinian, not that u are muslim though.

 

I don't understand you point then. I know and understand the religious view, even if I disagree with it, but the UN decision did not give ALL of the land to the Jews. So, if we are going strictly by UN then Israel needs to backup and help create Palestine. But, that brings a whole other discussion.

My point of this thread was to see where others stood on the idea that if Palestinians essentially gave up and allowed Israel to take over the rest of the area and pushed for unification, if that would be better? I still say yes as living conditions should vastly improve, even compared to other Arab states and eventually arabs would be in control over Israel. Hell, eventually that will happen even without unification.

I just wish I could persuad Hamas and other warmongers to see that simple truth and simply fight the war of birth rates instead of death rates.