The same Arabs who won't accept the annexation of E. Jerusalem to make Israel's holiest city complete are the ones who voted that Morocco can illegally annex Western Sahara. It's all about Arab racism and supremacy.

Probably not as most Arabs who claim themselves as "palestinians" today were part of the illegal immigration during the 1930s, and they didn't buy land, they squatted on it. Squatting on land doesn't make you the rightful owner, whether you squat with others like yourself or build a small neighborhood. The court in Israel, which rarely backs settlers, awarded the sites to Jewish families because they had the documents to prove it. It's obvious the Arabs have no basis of argument here because their only premise is that other Arabs live in the neighborhood. That's not a legal argument. Try it in Canada and see.

If you want to play that game, Faisal, we can always take back - I mean really take back - the Temple Mount.

William, according to the Land ownership document of Palestine, which ca be referenced by going under "British mandate of Palestine" in Wikipedia: Acre: 87% Arab owned, 3% Jewish, 10% neither owned Beersheeba- 15% Arab owned, 1% Jewish, 84% neither Haifa- 45% Arab owned, 35% Jewish owned, 20% neither Hebron- 96% Arab, 1% Jewish, 3% neither Jerusalem- 84% Arab owned, 2% Jewish, 15% neither there is a big list with many more cities, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine#Land_ownership Btw- Sarah, fleeing a battleground is only natural during war and I really dont think you have the right to say why the average Palestinian fled. I think it's fair to say that not all Palestinians fled for political purposes. Jane, go ahead take the temple mount, it doesn't have any significance to me , as an atheist

The "settlements" issue is of course an attempt to divert attention from the core issue of the Arab Israeli conflict: The total, consistent and persistent refusal of the Arabs, Palestinian and otherwise, to accept Israel's legitimacy, it right to be, to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people. None of the other issues are at the core either, e.g. "borders and territory", "natural resources", "refugees" or even "Jerusalem". These issues were not there in 1947, yet the Arabs then rejected the UN resolution, 181, to establish a "Jewish state" and an "Arab state" in the Land, and they initiated the 1947-1949 war aimed at the annihilation of the tiny Jewish state just proclaimed. These issues were not there in 1967 when Israel was not in control of the now disputed territories. Indeed, the disputed territories were Jew-free, having been "cleansed" of their Jewish residents, including eastern Jerusalem, by the Arab rulers. Yet, no independent Palestinian Arab state was established there between the years 1948 and 1967 and instead, the Arabs initiated a war on that year aimed to accomplish what they couldn't in 1948: eliminate the Jewish state of Israel. To begin to overcome the core predicament the Arab leadership, Palestinian and otherwise, should state clearly, in Arabic, and say they accept Israel's RIGHT to be, to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people and back up their newly found conviction with a few simple deeds that would demonstrate their change of heart. This will bring with it a sea-change of attitude among Jews, within and without Israel, whose nation-state Israel is, ready to take additional risks towards an accommodation of peaceful coexistence between Arab and Jew, between Jewish Israel and its Arab neighbors. Will the Arabs do so, or will they rather attempt to divert attention from the core issue of the conflict...??

Jerusalem was occupied by the Jordanians from 1948 till 1963.It has returned after fiece battles to the rightfull owners. Jerusalem will exert its will on any inch in Jerusalem and no Egyptian spokesman can say anything to anybody to stop Jews for living in Jerusalem

many of Israel mosques were built by the Turks like the one in Beersheva, during the famous battel on beer sheva the turk used the mosque for sniffering the anzac troopes, the germans were the allies back than and all the technology was german as well, I saw some pictures, many of the arabs r not local they came with the bedouins who were nomads, the famous Dar EL Omar so call pali was a bedouin leader durin the ottoman mandat, they never gave dids to any land when the british conquer Israel once again(second time the first was in 1125) they gave deed to jews by than most of the land was allready bought with deed by jews, go look for Hankin contribution you will find it shocking how many land was bought, BTW tell Aviv area and other jewish places were already existed, TV is 100 years old but it's new there r other villages that r much older.

EGYPT'S COPTIC CHRISTIANS ARE HATED AND TREATED WORSE THAN SECOND CLASS CITIZENS BY THE MAJORITY MUSLIM EGYPTIANS. THE EGYPTIANS PRACTICE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST IT'S OWN CITIZENS, BECAUSE THEY ARE CHRISTIANS. THESE EGYPTIANS ARE RACISTS AND THEN THEY ACCUSE ISRAEL ?? COME ON NOW, THAT IS A HECK OF A LOT OF NERVE BY THE EGYPTIANS !!

I HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH SOME GERMANS WHO HAVE RELATIVES LIVING " A VERY COMFORTABLE LIFE " IN SWITZERLAND. I LEARNED OF THE KINDS OF RACIST VIEWS THEY HAVE, AND HOW THEY BEHAVE.............THEY ARE ARROGANT RACISTS, THEY ARE VERY ANTI-JEWISH ....... IN A " NEUTRAL " KIND OF WAY. THE SWISS HAVE COMMITTED RACIST CRIMES AGAINST JEWS, BEFORE WW2, DURING THE WAR, AND AFTER W.W.2. THE SWISS PRETENCE OF NEUTRALITY IS ARROGANT IN ITSELF. THE ONLY NEUTRAL THING ABOUT THE SWISS IS THAT THEY EAGERLY WILL TAKE AND STEAL ANYBODY'S MONEY REGARDLESS OF RACE OR RELIGION. THE SWISS HAVE REALLY A LICENCE TO MAKE MONEY OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S WARS AND MISERIES. THEY " STAY OUT " OF WARS, BUT LIKE HYENAS THEY COME IN AFTERWARDS FOR THE " KILLING " THAT THEY MAKE IN TERMS OF MONEY AND PROPERTY OF VICTIMS. #12..THE SWISS SO CALLED " NEUTRAL " PERSON STATES THAT ZIONISM IS ......... " to the colonialist ideology of western powers, but also to that other ideology proclaiming the superiority of one nation and it’s right to extend it’s territory at the expense of others (Blut- und Boden-Ideologie)? "............... WOW , THIS DEFINITION SOUNDS EXACTLY LIKE A DEFINITION OF THE........ " NEUTRAL " SWISS.