57 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

Using the US as an example why should Arab states take Palestinian refugees Voyage of the Damned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis

57 minutes ago, Geoff914 said:

Using the US as an example why should Arab states take Palestinian refugees Voyage of the Damned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis

I hope Captain Gustav Schröder is named among the Righteous. He refused to return nearly 1,000 Jews to Germany. Guess that means he stole the ship! Bust of Hitler should have been thrown overboard!

51 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

I hope Captain Gustav Schröder is named among the Righteous. He refused to return nearly 1,000 Jews to Germany. Guess that means he stole the ship! Bust of Hitler should have been thrown overboard!

Well done France taking 224, Belgium 214 and Netherands 181 but the 288 taken in by Britain were the lucky ones. Shame on the USA.

"As Captain Schröder negotiated and schemed to find passengers a haven, conditions on the ship declined. At one point he made plans to wreck the ship on the British coast to force the government to take in the passengers as refugees." He should have done that on the US coast but would the US have sent them back to Germany. But I see not all the ones given sanctuary in Continental Europe suffered.

"Of the 620 St. Louis passengers who returned to continental Europe, we determined that eighty-seven were able to emigrate before Germany invaded western Europe on May 10, 1940. Two hundred fifty-four passengers in Belgium, France, and the Netherlands after that date died during the Holocaust. Most of these people were murdered in the killing centers of Auschwitz and Sobibór; the rest died in internment camps, in hiding or attempting to evade the Nazis. Three hundred sixty-five of the 620 passengers who returned to continental Europe survived the war. Of the 288 passengers sent to Britain, the vast majority were alive at war's end.^["

On 4/8/2026 at 12:26 AM, unblocktheplanet said:

Deflection. No links. No context.

Why do you need a F-ing link for?

20 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

You need to open your eyes, and read about this Topic that you mention, while paying more attention to the reality of it, as spelled out by people such as my good friend Noam.

Still, logic will be completely inadequate in helping you to see the light.

This is a well-known characteristic of the human brain, and you should not be held accountable for your blindness about Israel and Palestine.

You will never see the light.

This is a given.

The OP is correct.

43 minutes ago, TedG said:

Why do you need a F-ing link for?

There is no reference to "homeland" I can find in any language being used as a political tool as it is in the examples I cited. If you know differently, show me.

Simple. It would then allow the Jewry to walk in and take all the land as they wish. They are already trying with their illegal occupation, or settling, as they call it, illegal under international law, and the host of war crimes and genocidal attacks and mass murder of 50,000 women and children in the last 2.5 years alone.

Help to resettle the Palestinians and the Jewry expands their land unopposed, then likely doesn't stop trying to. We all know that the Jewry have largely been despised throughout history everywhere they spread to, why just give them more land closer to your home. 🙂

On 4/8/2026 at 2:01 PM, GammaGlobulin said:

You need to open your eyes, and read about this Topic that you mention, while paying more attention to the reality of it, as spelled out by people such as my good friend Noam.

Still, logic will be completely inadequate in helping you to see the light.

This is a well-known characteristic of the human brain, and you should not be held accountable for your blindness about Israel and Palestine.

You will never see the light.

This is a given.

Is there a point that you're trying to make in the middle of all this word salad?

Again, people making up stories about Muslim countries not taking in Palestinians.

Countries hosting the largest Palestinian populations include:

Jordan: ~2.4 million to 3.2 million. Jordan hosts the largest population, with the vast majority holding full citizenship.

Syria: ~430,000 to 450,000. Historically hosting a large number, though many have been internally displaced or have fled since the Syrian civil war.

Lebanon: ~250,000 to 480,000. Palestinians in Lebanon face long-standing restrictions on socio-economic rights and heavily rely on the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

Saudi Arabia: ~280,000 to 300,000.

Chile!!!: ~500,000. This is the largest Palestinian community located outside of the Middle East.

United States: ~250,000+.

Egypt: ~270,000.

Qatar: ~100,000.

Germany: ~80,000 (with a large community of ~30,000–40,000 in Berlin).

Kuwait: ~80,000.

It's just nonsense to say Arabs don't want Palestinians.

Source UNRWA

Edited June 5Jun 5 by Purdey

On 4/8/2026 at 1:24 AM, fredge45 said:

Go back in history a bit. Palestine as a country was doing quite well until the 'western' countries decided to find a dumping ground for their horrible treatment of their Jewish populations. Looked like a fairly open space for those masses with dubious ancient religious connections. So load up the ships, hand them a bunch of weapons and, hopefully they'll kill each other off.

Very simplified but that's the bones of the mess.

There had never been an independent kingdom, nation, country or state called Palestine before the PLO declared the creation of the State of Palestine in 1988.

People had lived for millennia in the geographic area we today call Palestine and these people could be the (very, very) distant ancestors of some current Palestinians as well as ancestors of some Israeli Jews, but they didn't have a country.  You have to go back to Biblical times and the Iron Age to find centuries in which people who were actually born in historical Palestine ruled the region.  That would be the Kingdoms of  Israel  and Judah.

Nor was the region of historical Palestine "doing well" before Zionist immigration in the late 1800s. It had been one of the poorest and least developed corners of the Ottoman Empire. The British takeover of Palestine, coupled with Zionist agricultural projects, gave a tremendous economic boost to the area.

1 hour ago, Purdey said:

Again, people making up stories about Muslim countries not taking in Palestinians.

Countries hosting the largest Palestinian populations include:

Jordan: ~2.4 million to 3.2 million. Jordan hosts the largest population, with the vast majority holding full citizenship.

Syria: ~430,000 to 450,000. Historically hosting a large number, though many have been internally displaced or have fled since the Syrian civil war.

Lebanon: ~250,000 to 480,000. Palestinians in Lebanon face long-standing restrictions on socio-economic rights and heavily rely on the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

Saudi Arabia: ~280,000 to 300,000.

Chile!!!: ~500,000. This is the largest Palestinian community located outside of the Middle East.

United States: ~250,000+.

Egypt: ~270,000.

Qatar: ~100,000.

Germany: ~80,000 (with a large community of ~30,000–40,000 in Berlin).

Kuwait: ~80,000.

It's just nonsense to say Arabs don't want Palestinians.

Source UNRWA

We are talking bout the present time . Arab states did previously take in Palestineians refuges , but they cause war and violence and terrorism everywhere they go .

This is the Egyptian side on their border with Gaza . Wall built by Egypt

Why didn't the Egyptians allow the Palestinians to flee the "genocide" ?

On 4/7/2026 at 1:26 PM, unblocktheplanet said:

Deflection. No links. No context.

@unblocktheplanet You wrote in your OP:

On 4/7/2026 at 7:23 AM, unblocktheplanet said:

The term ‘homeland’ was first used by the Nazis, then by the South African apartheid governments, next by the Jews and finally by the US government. It is hard not to imagine Palestinians in Somaliland as the Beersheba of Abraham, a giant unfunded refugee camp, haunted by starvation and disease.

@TedG replied that "homeland" had been used in English long before the Nazis.

On 4/7/2026 at 9:47 AM, TedG said:

Earliest documented usage (17th century)

The Online Etymology Dictionary traces “homeland” to the 1660s, meaning:

“land of one’s birth or adopted home” 

That entry is based on citations from 17th-century English texts where the word appears in that exact sense (native country).

You can find plenty of links explaining the origin and early uses of homeland. The Oxford English Dictionary states: "The earliest known use of the noun homeland is in the early 1600s. OED's earliest evidence for homeland is from before 1627, in the writing of Alexander Craig, poet." https://www.oed.com/dictionary/homeland_n?tl=true

A lengthy explanation of the origin of homeland can be found here:

https://grokipedia.com/page/Homeland

The basic context is that homeland became an alternative for "fatherland" and "motherland," Both those words went back to Roman times.

1 hour ago, Evil Penevil said:

There had never been an independent kingdom, nation, country or state called Palestine before the PLO declared the creation of the State of Palestine in 1988.

People had lived for millennia in the geographic area we today call Palestine and these people could be the (very, very) distant ancestors of some current Palestinians as well as ancestors of some Israeli Jews, but they didn't have a country. 

Nation states did not operate as they do today.

"They didn't have a country", but modern day Palestinians are still indigenous to the land ancestrally. You can't just kick them out.

2 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

Nor was the region of historical Palestine "doing well" before Zionist immigration in the late 1800s. It had been one of the poorest and least developed corners of the Ottoman Empire. The British takeover of Palestine, coupled with Zionist agricultural projects, gave a tremendous economic boost to the area.

That is funny, the British come in for all sorts of <deleted>e for colonising the World, including what eventually became the USA but with with respect to Palestine it seems the British did a great job. I must admit the Middle East is not something to crow about.

4 hours ago, Purdey said:

Again, people making up stories about Muslim countries not taking in Palestinians.

Countries hosting the largest Palestinian populations include:

Jordan: ~2.4 million to 3.2 million. Jordan hosts the largest population, with the vast majority holding full citizenship.

Syria: ~430,000 to 450,000. Historically hosting a large number, though many have been internally displaced or have fled since the Syrian civil war.

Lebanon: ~250,000 to 480,000. Palestinians in Lebanon face long-standing restrictions on socio-economic rights and heavily rely on the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

Saudi Arabia: ~280,000 to 300,000.

Chile!!!: ~500,000. This is the largest Palestinian community located outside of the Middle East.

United States: ~250,000+.

Egypt: ~270,000.

Qatar: ~100,000.

Germany: ~80,000 (with a large community of ~30,000–40,000 in Berlin).

Kuwait: ~80,000.

It's just nonsense to say Arabs don't want Palestinians.

Source UNRWA

Not nonsense when almost all those Palestinians are stateless refugees. Those countries may have taken them in but affords them zero political rights such as a passport. Those UN refugee cards aren't accepted for int'l travel.

They are a people without a country.

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Nation states did not operate as they do today.

"They didn't have a country", but modern day Palestinians are still indigenous to the land ancestrally. You can't just kick them out.

This topic could get heated and confusing.

It is doubtful more than a tiny fraction of those termed Palestinians today are "indigenous to the land ancestrally." The Arabs of Palestine are and were generic Levantine Arabs. In terms of language, culture and religion, they were no different in any important sense from the Arabs of Syria. Lebanon, Iraq or Jordan.

Just like the Jews of Israel, most Palestinian Arabs are descendants of recent immigrants to Palestine. They could have come from a number of Arab countries.

2 hours ago, Geoff914 said:

That is funny, the British come in for all sorts of <deleted>e for colonising the World, including what eventually became the USA but with with respect to Palestine it seems the British did a great job. I must admit the Middle East is not something to crow about.

Great Britain didn't colonize Palestine; the British government was given temporary control over some of the territory of the former Ottoman Empire by the League of Nations. The purpose of the mandate was to provide government administration, services and security for Palestine in preparation for independence.

A strong argument can be made the British did do a good job in Palestine, considering the circumstances. The irresolvable conflict between Arabs and Jews made the situation impossible by the late 1940s, but that didn't negate the earlier success Britain had in holding the Palestinian Mandate together and developing it economically.

Edited June 5Jun 5 by Evil Penevil

8 hours ago, Purdey said:

Again, people making up stories about Muslim countries not taking in Palestinians.

Countries hosting the largest Palestinian populations include:

Jordan: ~2.4 million to 3.2 million. Jordan hosts the largest population, with the vast majority holding full citizenship.

Syria: ~430,000 to 450,000. Historically hosting a large number, though many have been internally displaced or have fled since the Syrian civil war.

Lebanon: ~250,000 to 480,000. Palestinians in Lebanon face long-standing restrictions on socio-economic rights and heavily rely on the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

Saudi Arabia: ~280,000 to 300,000.

Chile!!!: ~500,000. This is the largest Palestinian community located outside of the Middle East.

United States: ~250,000+.

Egypt: ~270,000.

Qatar: ~100,000.

Germany: ~80,000 (with a large community of ~30,000–40,000 in Berlin).

Kuwait: ~80,000.

It's just nonsense to say Arabs don't want Palestinians.

Source UNRWA

Then we have this article.

https://www.mideastjournal.org/post/here-s-why-arab-countries-won-t-take-refugees-from-gaza

59 minutes ago, Evil Penevil said:

This topic could get heated and confusing.

It is doubtful more than a tiny fraction of those termed Palestinians today are "indigenous to the land ancestrally." The Arabs of Palestine are and were generic Levantine Arabs. In terms of language, culture and religion, they were no different in any important sense from the Arabs of Syria. Lebanon, Iraq or Jordan.

Just like the Jews of Israel, most Palestinian Arabs are descendants of recent immigrants to Palestine. They could have come from a number of Arab countries.

Great Britain didn't colonize Palestine; the British government was given temporary control over some of the territory of the former Ottoman Empire by the League of Nations. The purpose of the mandate was to provide government administration, services and security for Palestine in preparation for independence.

A strong argument can be made the British did do a good job in Palestine, considering the circumstances. The irresolvable conflict between Arabs and Jews made the situation impossible by the late 1940s, but that didn't negate the earlier success Britain had in holding the Palestinian Mandate together and developing it economically.

The Brits were creating the independence of Palestine.

I'm not into DNA 'evidence' and all that. Every human is descended from apes (some more than others).

I think we could set an arbitrary date, saying that all Arabs living in Palestine before 1909 (the start of the violence) belong there with the 1948 borders.

Which means, of course, the colonists get back to their side of the yellow / green / whatever line they belong on.

You mention the Brits "developed Palestine economically". Do you mean they didn't do that for their own benefit as they did everywhere else touched by Empire? IOW, what was in it for them?

1 hour ago, Mr Awesome said:

Then we have this article.

https://www.mideastjournal.org/post/here-s-why-arab-countries-won-t-take-refugees-from-gaza

First of all, that is one UGLY vase!!!

I was pleased to read that many long-term Palestinian refugees in Jordan have been given citizenship. I'm not sure if that is so in other countries to which they fled.

US takes a deep interest in their plight. I vote for immediate citizenship just like the Boers.

1 hour ago, Evil Penevil said:

Great Britain didn't colonize Palestine; the British government was given temporary control over some of the territory of the former Ottoman Empire by the League of Nations. The purpose of the mandate was to provide government administration, services and security for Palestine in preparation for independence.

A strong argument can be made the British did do a good job in Palestine, considering the circumstances. The irresolvable conflict between Arabs and Jews made the situation impossible by the late 1940s, but that didn't negate the earlier success Britain had in holding the Palestinian Mandate together and developing it economically.

And I didn't say that they did. I only mention Britain's previous role in colonisation and the stick that Britain now gets because of that. That in comparison to Britain's involvement in Palestine which was hailed as some sort of success. The fact that it lead to a civil war with the original inhabitants becoming stateless is hardly a success story.

9 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

It is doubtful more than a tiny fraction of those termed Palestinians today are "indigenous to the land ancestrally."

I don't have time to look into it.

So I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

3 hours ago, save the frogs said:

I don't have time to look into it.

So I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

Ah, the old for now. (Hehe)