Farouk may I suggest that when you use quotes to make points that you research them first. Salach HaDin was not refering to the Jews as the Conquers but to the Crusaders. The Jews of Yerushalim and their Muslim neighbours fought against the Crusaders. Additionally no one is asking you to leave Remember that was the same mistake your relatives and fellow Arabs made in 1948. And while I am at it pray tell why you deny me the same rights as you to this land since it is my home too?

This is holy Hashemite soil and does not belong to the blood thirsty Saud family. Saudi Arabia is the result of an illegal conquest aided and abetted by British imperialists who thirsted for oil. .The Saud family were their prostitiutes

Yakov I did not say that, it was a broad statement Salah Edin said to blanket all those viewed as invaders of this land, not sure how read that way. As for the point that the Jews then and the Christians living there did fight with Salah Edin against the invading armies that is accurate, and it is these people who have and will always live on this land. Now Yakov when you read my post do not prejudge what I am saying that there must be a cut-off point in our conflict, meaning that if Israelis will not accept to live by the 1967 border and want to continue to expand existing and build new settlements and confiscate land, water, lalalalalalalalala and we should be transferred to Jordan etctec, then yes by virtue of me concluding that Israel will do its best to reduce the chance of my existing and may be eliminating it then yes, why would I accept your right to exist too, we both know this is irrational. Now let us be rationale, no one can throw the Israelis to the sea and there will never be a day when Israelis wake up and find there are no Palestinians here anymore. If we agree to that, then the next step is to accept reality, does Israel have a right to exist I say yes, but does it matter what I say, not really, Israel already exists no matter what I say, or Hamas says or Obama says. Should a Palestinian state exist, well most of the world is saying yes and soon and it should sustainable and all the vanilla and icing that comes with it. It is funny that you exist but it is me that does not exist but I must recognize your right to exist. So to conclude, yes you have right to be here like any Palestinian or Israeli, to live in peace with neighbourly relation to go to the region anytime you choose to visit Beirut and Damascus and whatever you want. Let us solve this existential problem, Israel can exist as free Jewish state on 76% of the land only when Palestine can exist as free home for the Palestinians (Muslim, Christians, Jews) on 24% of the land as per the 1967 demarcation line. Start with that and things get better, and honestly I know if you and me sit down over coffee with the right intention we would agree on pretty much everything. So next you read my post, do it twice before you reply. Hope we become friends

You have got the numbers wrong. The Arabs of the British Palestine mandate (i.e. Palestinian Arabs) have received 78 % (Transjordan) + 11 & (most of Westbank and Gaza) = 89 %. Israel only constitutes some 11 % of the historic Palestine mandate. The percentages that you stated are completely erroneous.

Hey forget Jordan, if you want it then go it. So my numbers are accurate west of the river Jordan. I also like your choice of words "received" we did not receive anything we were here and stayed here, just the Britts came and left, like the Ottamns and all Empires before them. Also when say Arabs it sounds like an insult coming from you. Forget then look at now ok, so let me say this, it is not about a piece of land but about this piece of land, I call it home from East Jerusalem to Hebron and Jenin and Gaza and you call the rest your home. I think that is fair enough. I get my 24% and you get your 76%, everyone is happy, or we keep fighting and dying for the whole thing. There is no other way, other than this it is waste of time, life’s, money, energy, and your data.

1. I say Palestinian Arabs, in order to not confuse them with the Palestinian Jews, at the time of partition. So it's not an "insult". 2. It's not a question of who wants what. I commented on your erroneous percentages as to how much of the British Palestine mandate that was allocated to each group. Since the Arabs to the east of the river were per definition Palestinian Arabs, that's what I pointed out. 3. You say it's about this land. Well, as you may or may not be aware, the partition plan defined the borders of the proposed Jewish state around the land in which the Jews were a MAJORITY (excluding the Jewish-majority city of Jerusalem). This notwithstanding the fact that the still binding text of the Mandate defines all land to the west of the river, i.e. inckl. Judea & Samarik, as the Jewish national homeland. I don't stop you from calling whatever piece of land "your home", right or wrong. But I do insist that the partition plan be correctly presented, and that's why I contributed a correction to your erroneous percentages. I also agree that we must not look to history, but rather to the present. There was one situation pre-1967 and the Arab war on Israel, and there is another situation today.

Farouk said: "So my numbers are accurate west of the river Jordan" Eh, no they aren't. It's more like 55 % for Israel and 45 % for the Palestinian Arabs. And this is not all that rrelevant, as most Palestinian Arabs already got independance in Jordan in 1923, which constitutes 78 % of the historic British Palestine mandate. Anyway, this patition model does no longer exist, since the Arab states and the Palestinian Arabs rejected the partition plan in 1947 and started a war of annihilation. And true to your principle of not looking back to history, but rather to the present, the parties must work out a realistic solution based on the situation today, not that which COULD have existed had the Arabs accepted peace and a 2-state solution back then. History is never kind to people who start wars and loose.

"Then tell me why does the wall encircle cities like Qalqiliya" - Maybe because of Palestinian terror, ya think? "why are there gates closing small towns and villages"? - I thought gates were just the opposite. They open up to towns and villages.

I especially like the part on invaders arriving by sea. It's exactly how inbound Zionist Jews arrived. This is not a genocidal comment but a fact!

This intellectual conversation is not for bitter fascists who subscribe to "transfer" and genocide.

Arabs are as native to the Levant as Whites are to South Africa. They speak a language which is foreign to the Levant (Arabic), they follow a legal structure that is foreign to the Levant (Sharia), and largely follow a religion that is foreign to the Levant (Islam). Sum and total, Arabs only exist in this region because they came as colonists and stayed as occupiers. Nothing about them is "baladi". Oh, and spare me the whole, "the indigenous people of Palestine spoke Aramaic and Arabic is the descendant of Aramaic" argument. That's total BS. The indigenous people here spoke various Canaanite Semitic dialects, ONE OF WHICH WAS AND IS HEBREW. Hebrew is just Canaanite written with Aramaic script. The Arameans were just as much invaders and occupiers here as the Arabs currently are and, G-d willing, they will share the same fate.

So you forgot that 900 000 Jews were ethnically cleansed from the Arab countries, and welcomed in the Jewish homeland Israel, joining the indigenous Jews as well as the former exiles who had returned to the Jewish homeland there? There is no sea between most Arab countries (like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon) and Israel. As far as invaders go, and considering that illegal Arab immigration from Arab countries between the two wars (1918-1939) constituted almost 50 % of all immigration, I wouldn't be so cocky if I were you. Even though the Arab invaders came by land.

Are they coming to get their land back?

How will the European community endure the building of another defensive fence? Can they start calling it a 'wall" yet? When do they plan to start yelling and screaming that the Saudis are aggressive for trying to defend themselves? Pardon my sarcasm.

Saudi Arabia constructs a fence on its borders and no one makes a peep about it. Israel and the United States attempt the same (or just talk about it) and the world goes berserk. Hypocrisy, anyone?

Is this fence intended to keep people out - or keep them in?