Yes, those bits are true, but the name British Mandate of Palestine was chosen because but that region was called Palestine during the Crusades, in other words, always was. Nevertheless, the letter P does not exist in Arabic, and the area is called Fallistine, or something, Arabs don't usually write syllables. There is a Biblical reference to Fillistines or Philistines, who were a people who occupied the southern coast of Palestine (Ahem, we are familiar with Giant warriors from Gath, now called Gatha in Arabic, or Gaza in English). The Philistines were there more than 3,000 years ago. This means that for all intents and purposes, the modern Palistinians are indigenous. They were, of course, enemies of the ancient Israelites, and were portrayed in the Bible as a crude and warlike race - even the Bible is prone to this sort of representation.

Also, the two state solution is ridiculous - it is a divide and conquer concept, promulgated by ancient hatreds - and the two nations will never agree upon borders or rights. How can they? One side is indigenous, and the other side claims biblical precedent - a disparity of values. For sure, is that neither side will concede ground to the other.

The Israel vs. Palestine idea, geographically, should be a one-state solution that is secular, so that all can co-exist without one side arming itself and resuming the killing. Haha, that means Palestinians should be represented in the new 'central' government, but some localities or municipalities will be Palestinian, and some will be Israeli, just as democracy is intended to work. The only thing to fight about then, is what to call the conglomeration, I guess. Which is now a fundamental issue, anyway.

[Side note: There are Jews, Christians and Muslims who are Palestinians, so being Palestinian is not a religious affilation - more like, it demonstrates an affinity to the land]

Yes, those bits are true, but the name British Mandate of Palestine was chosen because but that region was called Palestine during the Crusades, in other words, always was. Nevertheless, the letter P does not exist in Arabic, and the area is called Fallistine, or something, Arabs don't usually write syllables. There is a Biblical reference to Fillistines or Philistines, who were a people who occupied the southern coast of Palestine (Ahem, we are familiar with Giant warriors from Gath, now called Gatha in Arabic, or Gaza in English). The Philistines were there more than 3,000 years ago. This means that for all intents and purposes, the modern Palistinians are indigenous. They were, of course, enemies of the ancient Israelites, and were portrayed in the Bible as a crude and warlike race - even the Bible is prone to this sort of representation.

Also, the two state solution is ridiculous - it is a divide and conquer concept, promulgated by ancient hatreds - and the two nations will never agree upon borders or rights. How can they? One side is indigenous, and the other side claims biblical precedent - a disparity of values. For sure, is that neither side will concede ground to the other.

The Israel vs. Palestine idea, geographically, should be a one-state solution that is secular, so that all can co-exist without one side arming itself and resuming the killing. Haha, that means Palestinians should be represented in the new 'central' government, but some localities or municipalities will be Palestinian, and some will be Israeli, just as democracy is intended to work. The only thing to fight about then, is what to call the conglomeration, I guess. Which is now a fundamental issue, anyway.

[Side note: There are Jews, Christians and Muslims who are Palestinians, so it being Palestinian is not a religious affilation - more like, it demonstrates an affinity to the land]

Yes, those bits are true, but the name British Mandate of Palestine was chosen because but that region was called Palestine during the Crusades, in other words, always was. Nevertheless, the letter P does not exist in Arabic, and the area is called Fallistine, or something, Arabs don't usually write syllables. There is a Biblical reference to Fillistines or Philistines, who were a people who occupied the southern coast of Palestine (Ahem, we are familiar with Giant warriors from Gath, now called Gatha in Arabic, or Gaza in English). The Philistines were there more than 3,000 years ago. This means that for all intents and purposes, the modern Palistinians are indigenous. They were, of course, enemies of the ancient Israelites, and were portrayed in the Bible as a crude and warlike race - even the Bible is prone to this sort of representation.

Also, the two state solution is ridiculous - it is a divide and conquer concept, promulgated by ancient hatreds - and the two nations will never agree upon borders or rights. How can they? One side is indigenous, and the other side claims biblical precedent - a disparity of values. For sure, is that neither side will concede ground to the other.

The Israel vs. Palestine idea, geographically, should be a one-state solution that is secular, so that all can co-exist without one side arming itself and resuming the killing. Haha, that means Palestinians should be represented in the new 'central' government, but some localities or municipalities will be Palestinian, and some will be Israeli, just as democracy is intended to work. The only thing to fight about then, is what to call the conglomeration, I guess. Which is now a fundamental issue, anyway.

Yes, those bits are true, but the name British Mandate of Palestine was chosen because but that region was called Palestine during the Crusades.