The earliest community, comprising several hundred villagers living for much of the year at this site, formed part of what is known as Natufian culture- (Gilmore-Lehne 1). And since Palestinians were originally settled along Jordanian riverside and Sumerian culture was first identified to have existed in 3,500 B.C., how could the argument of possession be refuted so narcissistically in presence of the facts (Cole 1)? A dilemma, which many believers see, is to whom Abraham entitled Palestine to. However, Palestinians first resided east of the Jordan River until political outbreak and war forced families to travel across the river into current Israel. These families either faced death or injury or took a chance and crossed the river; a more than reasonable justification. Palestinians have no rooted beliefs of hate towards Jews other than recent (approximately 125 years) oppression brought upon Zionist movements "merely self-defense. Long-gone, anger-harboring thoughts prominently plague the perpetuation of peace; even when the first "Palestine- was located in the Jordan River valley and indeed before any Zionist settlement. Yet the first Zionist settlement "Petach Tiqva "established under the guise of agricultural community, sprang up in 1878 (Alquds 1). Wholly, the scientific documentation of the settlement clarifies that any argument against fact shall be irrefutable. In addition, and more importantly, the conflict entails a sturdy base of religious faith along with modern political mudslinging (think cycle: same things happened with the East River Valley Palestinians). And proportionately, the debate conveys a "church-state- no-win situation that may appeal to some or be ignored by others. But that is like having two humungous elephants (church and politics) in a room that not one person includes in discussion. Now, can a political fate be inspired "helped along "by scientific data? Yes bundled together with a truly democratic setting and without the mindless violence.
