Autokrator15 wrote:I'm not a bigot. And they want a nation state, they claim the land for their nation, which is unexistant. The Arabs were different tribes that sold the land to the jews for ridiciously high prices btw and there were plans BY the allies AND the Arabs to unite the Middle-East and create a Pan-Arabic nation and allow the Jews to come home and give them ALL of Israel-Palestine. Did you know that? It was a promised to both by the British in return for revolting against the Ottomans! Secondly after the Palestinian Arabs (Arabs of different tribes living in the province called Palestine, lets make it clear NO ethnicity) threw a hissy fit the region for the Palestinians was to be Jordan whilest the Jews would get ''Palestine''. Moving on, I have argued that they dont deserve it for other causes aswel. One, their anti-semite stance and their lying about the wish for peace. And how can we grant them their own state? They worked together with terrorists of Hamas who ARE NOT liberation fighters, they specificly said that they DONT want a Palestinian state but a pan-Arabic Islamic state. Then on the defense of Israel, the strip of land that is to be for the Jewish State of Israel is too small to defend, if the Arabs dont concent and specificly agree to demilitarisation then this peace will never happen. Lets hear you about this instead of only nitpicking one of my arguments.Secondly putting the Jews there is not the biggest mistake we made, the Arabs have enough land.
Okay, there's several arguments you're making here, so I'll try to answer them one by one:
1. "their nation, which is unexistant", "The Arabs were different tribes ", "Arabs of different tribes living in the province called Palestine, lets make it clear NO ethnicity", "the Arabs have enough land"
This used to be a fairly common Zionist argument, but I haven't seen it used much lately. What you seem to be suggesting is that Arabs comprise a single nation/ethnicity, stretching from Mauritania to Iraq, and that there is no distinct Palestinian nation/ethnicity, while only a small portion of that vast land, the territory between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, belongs to the Jewish people. The so-called "Palestinians" then, like all other Arabs, have plenty of other land to settle in.
There's several flaws in this argument. Firstly, it ignores the vast cultural and even religious differences that exist between the numerous peoples that are collectively known as Arabs, not to mention the linguistic differences in spite of their shared official language (Modern Standard Arabic). Palestinian Arabs are not Lebanese, Syrians, or Jordanians any more than they are Iraqis or Egyptians. There's an anecdote that says that Zionists are the only Pan-Arabists still standing. Secondly, while nationalism as currently understood is a fairly recent idea (born in 19th century Europe) and Palestinian nationalism and a distinct Palestinian identity are even newer, the exact same thing could be said of Jewish nationalism, aka Zionism. Just because a certain identity is recent doesn't make it less valid. Thirdly, I don't see why it matters in the first place whether Palestinians are a separate nation/ethnicity or not - it's not really necessary to have a nation to have a state, or vice versa.
2. "there were plans BY the allies AND the Arabs to unite the Middle-East and create a Pan-Arabic nation and allow the Jews to come home and give them ALL of Israel-Palestine", "It was a promised to both by the British in return for revolting against the Ottomans"
There's some truth in this argument, but it is not fully accurate. Firstly, Emir Faisal, the guy who agreed with both the Arab Revolt and the creation of an Arab state in Greater Syria, and agreed to the ideas of the Zionists at the time, was not from Palestine or anywhere else in ash-Sham, and was never elected or otherwise recognized as any kind of leader of the Palestinian Arabs, so he didn't have the power to make decisions on the latter's behalf. Secondly, his approval for the plan of encouraging Jewish immigration into the Holy Land was conditional upon the eventual creation of a united Arab Kingdom, which never came to be. Thirdly, the Allies made a number of conflicting promises, many of which they did not keep (see the Sykes–Picot Agreement). Lastly, how is this relevant to Palestinian statehood anyway?
3. "the Palestinian Arabs [...] threw a hissy fit the region for the Palestinians was to be Jordan whilest the Jews would get ''Palestine''"
I assume you are referring either to the United Nations Partition Plan or to the three state solution, because I don't know of any internationally agreed solution that would place all of Palestine under Jewish control. The former was a fairly reasonable starting point, but it never came to be. If you're saying that its rejection by the Arabs was a mistake, I agree, and for that matter the Resolution was used by the PLO as the legal basis for Palestinian statehood. If you're referring to the latter, that would simply go against the wishes of both the local population (West Bankers and Gazans aren't keen on joining Jordan & Egypt, and the two states aren't keen on granting them their own citizenship).
4. "their anti-semite stance and their lying about the wish for peace", "they worked together with terrorists of Hamas"
Broad sweeping statements like these are why people accuse you of bigotry. In any case, if the degree of tolerance exhibited by a people is taken as a pre-condition for statehood, half of the world's states would be abolished. And the fact that Hamas enjoys a degree of popularity among Palestinians is equally irrelevant; many other peoples have had a history of supporting/voting for extremist or violent movements, and that should not mean that their states should be abolished.
There are several legitimate arguments one can make against Palestinian statehood, but the rather silly one that Palestinians don't exist is not one of them.
Just out of curiosity, since you've made your opposition to the two-state solution clear, what other solution would you see to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?