origins of Modern Israel

[jbg]

Admit defeat Rue. Israel is built on stolen land.

The real point is that the land wasn't being used for anything by anybody. Even our laws (in New York at least) award "adverse possession" of land to someone using the land for ten (10) years without a lawsuit by the prior "owner". There are very strong reasons for ensuring that property is used, just not milled around on.

[myata]

Without question, there were many twists in this story and it would be over-simplification to put the blame on any one side. Just as to paint it rosy good. There was original population whose interests deserved to be provided for in the turmoil. There was large mass of people escaping the horrors of the conflict in Europe. And there were cold blooded ideologues who exploited this situation to their advantage.

It's pretty clear that a resolution which would have lead to any kind of a negotiated resolution with all parties from the start would have provided a more secure and stable present for the region, even if it would have taken longer to achieve. It is also clear that this opportunity is gone. All history of the conflict shows that force will not lead to a solution, not to a lasting one in any case. The way out could be to admit (and accept responsibility for) the wrongs of the past, and to renegotiate a resolution which would have a chance to be accepted by both sides. The idea of such resolution has been floated many times - return to 1967 borders, peace treaty and international guarantee of safety. We can only hope that eventually courage will build on both sides to follow this route.

[Figleaf]

Under international law a state can be reognized one of two ways; de facto or de jure.

You are profoundly confused on this matter. "De facto" is by definition not a legal status.

Obviously Figleaf found what I was saying too confusing so I can explain it in EASY TO UNDERSTAND words.

The difficulty is not your vocabulary, it's the insubstantiality of your argument.

De facto recognition is when something exists because of facts, de jure, is when it is recognized legally.

???

That's what I've been saying, and you've been saying something else.

Whay Higgly and Figleaf are either ignorant of or just do not want to adsmit is that on November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a Resolution for the establishment of an independent Jewish State in Palestine,...

Here we go again. I'm perfectly aware of that, and I've already commented on it on this very thread.

There are two things to bear in mind: (1) UN General Assembly resolution don't have the force of law, (2) the Arab states sought to challenge in the Int'l court the authority of the UN to create states against the wishes of a regions inhabitants but the case didn't proceed. Such authority was certainly open to question, and using it was without precedent.

What then happened was on May 14, 1948 at 11.59 p.m., when the British Mandate in Palestine ended, pursuant to this declaration, Israel legally declared itself a strate ...

No. Resolution 181 specified that the Mandate would end on August 1. You've quoted it, why not be honest about its contents?

Israel's unilateral declaration effectively ended the Mandate in fact, but not by legal means.

When Israel declared itself a sovereign state, it did NOT steal or take ANY land by theft or crime ...

The General Assembly, without the Security Council did not have legal authority to establish any state. Resolution 181 alone has no legal significance. Israel's unilateral self-creation, then had no foundation in law.

Article 80 stated the United Nations forbid any actions taken to try "to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples (emphasis added) or the terms of existing international instruments" at the time of the UN's creation."

Indeed. And this rule would have been a key part of the Arab case against Resolution 181.

So under international law, this Article guaranteed that the original British Mandate granted by the League of Nations, including its committments to a homeland for the Jewish people, ...

Noooo. It should have protected the Palestinian people against the 'alteration' represented by the establishment of Israel.

Israel's 1949 border came about from a war. Under international law, it can and it did create de facto borders ...

That's nonsense. You don't create de facto anything under law. It's a contradiction in terms.

... Arabs who left Israel were not returning, ...

(1)They were prevented from returning by Israel. (2) Absence doesn't create grounds for confiscation anyway.

I ... challenge Higgly and Figleaf instead of playing the fools to take one ounce of historic information I have indicated and prove it is wrong.

I've done that already for the things you've gotten wrong.

[Figleaf]

Under international law a state can be reognized one of two ways; de facto or de jure.

You are profoundly confused on this matter. "De facto" is by definition not a legal status.

Obviously Figleaf found what I was saying too confusing so I can explain it in EASY TO UNDERSTAND words.

The difficulty is not your vocabulary, it's the insubstantiality of your argument.

De facto recognition is when something exists because of facts, de jure, is when it is recognized legally.

???

That's what I've been saying, and you've been saying something else.

Whay Higgly and Figleaf are either ignorant of or just do not want to adsmit is that on November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a Resolution for the establishment of an independent Jewish State in Palestine,...

Here we go again. I'm perfectly aware of that, and I've already commented on it on this very thread.

There are two things to bear in mind: (1) UN General Assembly resolution don't have the force of law, (2) the Arab states sought to challenge in the Int'l court the authority of the UN to create states against the wishes of a regions inhabitants but the case didn't proceed. Such authority was certainly open to question, and using it was without precedent.

What then happened was on May 14, 1948 at 11.59 p.m., when the British Mandate in Palestine ended, pursuant to this declaration, Israel legally declared itself a strate ...

No. Resolution 181 specified that the Mandate would end on August 1. You've quoted it, why not be honest about its contents?

Israel's unilateral declaration effectively ended the Mandate in fact, but not by legal means.

When Israel declared itself a sovereign state, it did NOT steal or take ANY land by theft or crime ...

The General Assembly, without the Security Council did not have legal authority to establish any state. Resolution 181 alone has no legal significance. Israel's unilateral self-creation, then had no foundation in law.

Article 80 stated the United Nations forbid any actions taken to try "to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples (emphasis added) or the terms of existing international instruments" at the time of the UN's creation."

Indeed. And this rule would have been a key part of the Arab case against Resolution 181.

So under international law, this Article guaranteed that the original British Mandate granted by the League of Nations, including its committments to a homeland for the Jewish people, ...

Noooo. It should have protected the Palestinian people against the 'alteration' represented by the establishment of Israel.

Israel's 1949 border came about from a war. Under international law, it can and it did create de facto borders ...

That's nonsense. You don't create de facto anything under law. It's a contradiction in terms.

... Arabs who left Israel were not returning, ...

(1)They were prevented from returning by Israel. (2) Absence doesn't create grounds for confiscation anyway.

I ... challenge Higgly and Figleaf instead of playing the fools to take one ounce of historic information I have indicated and prove it is wrong.

I've done that already for the things you've gotten wrong.

[Michael Hardner]

Very interesting thread. Can those on this thread who have the most knowledge (and presumably the most entrenched beliefs) also recommend a way through it ?

I'd be interested to read that too.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Hardner,

recommend a way through it ?

Though I haven't really participated in this thread, I can say the the only answer seems to be to have an 'independent region' with a set of laws that are both acceptable and secular. Niether side can (or would attempt to) accomplish this alone. The soup of 'laws de jour' [sic] for this region would have to be a model for the rest of the world, mind you. Likely enforced by them, also.

[Rue]

Without question, there were many twists in this story and it would be over-simplification to put the blame on any one side. Just as to paint it rosy good. There was original population whose interests deserved to be provided for in the turmoil. There was large mass of people escaping the horrors of the conflict in Europe. And there were cold blooded ideologues who exploited this situation to their advantage.

It's pretty clear that a resolution which would have lead to any kind of a negotiated resolution with all parties from the start would have provided a more secure and stable present for the region, even if it would have taken longer to achieve. It is also clear that this opportunity is gone. All history of the conflict shows that force will not lead to a solution, not to a lasting one in any case. The way out could be to admit (and accept responsibility for) the wrongs of the past, and to renegotiate a resolution which would have a chance to be accepted by both sides. The idea of such resolution has been floated many times - return to 1967 borders, peace treaty and international guarantee of safety. We can only hope that eventually courage will build on both sides to follow this route.

Absolutely.

[Higgly]

There you go again Higgly. I actually take the time to try explain something to you and you completely ignore it and then make a comment without any legal basis, i.e., that Israel stole land.

As explained Israel bought land legally. Then as a result of the Arab League invading Israel to wipe it out, the Arab League decision to try force a one sided unilateral extermination of Jews, back-fired.

The reason Israel ended up as it is today, ironically is precisely because the Arab League's decision to unilaterally invade, back-fired on it. You can try ignore historyand engage in b.s. Higgly but you have been called on it. The next time you try use a corupted inaccurate registry to suggest a legal basis for ownership smarten up and read about what it is you are passing off as a legal precedent.

As for your comment that the British re-wrote land deeds based on Turkish registry, they did a lot of illegal things Higgly that are not recognized by international or domestic law. If you care to read how the British corupted the registry and used it to protect and consolidate power for its puppets read and educate yourself.

The point Higgly which seems to fly over that head of yours is that the registry you claimed was the legal basis to prove Israel stole land, does not and can not and when this was clearly explained to you, you as usual play the fool.

Rue, I note the name calling at the end of your post and I have reported it. This is in violation of the zero tolerance protocol now in effect.

The fact is, Rue, there are many Palestinian refugees who held valid titles to their land and homes at the time they were driven out by Jewish forces in 1948. Those titles were written both by the Turks and by the British - in a number of cases by both. The British accepted Ottoman titles as valid in re-registering land in land transfers, as well as in cases where people came to them to have the land re-registered. Many Palestinian Arabs came from families who had worked the land for generations. It was specifically to invalidate these titles that Israel passed the abandonment laws of 1950 - note that this was about half the 3 year period you state the Ottomans were supposed to have used. The fact that Israel felt the need to pass these laws is in itself proof that Palestinian Arabs who had been driven from their land held valid titles that were an obstacle to Israel's plans and that Israel felt a need to use some form of bureaucratic hocus-pocus to deal with ther issue. This, by the way, is illegal under international law.

Even those Palestinian Arabs who did not leave their homes and land were in danger of having their land taken from them by Israel's bureacratic thuggery. Many had their land taken by force to make way for settlements built to house Jewish immigrants. Many under the pretext that the land was needed for 'security' reasons, only to see the land used to build settlements. Often, such as in the Shelta land case, unscrupulous Israeli land developers simply re-registered the land in their own names in spite of the fact that Palestinian Arabs holding legal title were living on the land.

While there was some buying of land by Zionists, this never totalled more than 10% of all the land in the Palestinian mandate.

Finally Rue, you are right when you say that I do not read all of your posts. This is because in general I find that....

1. they tend to be excessively long-winded
   
2. they tend to repeat the same point over and over - often more than once within the same post
   
3. they are filled with contradictions
   
4. they wander all over the place and rarely stick to the topic at hand
   

I am looking forward to a moderator response to your violation of the zero tolerance protocol.

[Higgly]

Very interesting thread. Can those on this thread who have the most knowledge (and presumably the most entrenched beliefs) also recommend a way through it ?

I'd be interested to read that too.

1. a return to the 1967 borders with Israel giving up its illegal land settlements. These settlements to be left intact to house Palestinains as compensation for their years of suffering and hardship
   
2. guarantees of non-violence from both sides
   
3. a solution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees
   
4. Israel to lift its embargoes of Palestinian trade and commerce
   
5. recognition by all Palestinians of the state of Israel
   
6. A fair and enforceable agreement for the sharing of local resources - especially, but not limited to, water
   
7. the deal to be brokered by someone other than the Americans who are too ham-strung by forces within their own political system to be of any use and have so far been completely useless.
   

I believe that if the Palestinians are offered a fair and decent deal, they will busy themselves with the task of building their own state. The closest we have come to that so far is Oslo, which had to be worked out without the Americans. That was ultimately scuppered by the Israelis, specifically Benjamin Netenyahu (the same guy who came up with the idea of invading Iraq), setting the stage for the 2nd intifada.

Israel needs to recognize that it is not going to have peace as long as the Palestinian issue remains unresolved and that the resolution of this issue is key to taking the wind out of the sails of Islamic terrorism.

[jbg]

Without question, there were many twists in this story and it would be over-simplification to put the blame on any one side. Just as to paint it rosy good. There was original population whose interests deserved to be provided for in the turmoil. There was large mass of people escaping the horrors of the conflict in Europe. And there were cold blooded ideologues who exploited this situation to their advantage.

It's pretty clear that a resolution which would have lead to any kind of a negotiated resolution with all parties from the start would have provided a more secure and stable present for the region, even if it would have taken longer to achieve. It is also clear that this opportunity is gone. All history of the conflict shows that force will not lead to a solution, not to a lasting one in any case. The way out could be to admit (and accept responsibility for) the wrongs of the past, and to renegotiate a resolution which would have a chance to be accepted by both sides. The idea of such resolution has been floated many times - return to 1967 borders, peace treaty and international guarantee of safety. We can only hope that eventually courage will build on both sides to follow this route.

Is there literally any basis to believe that the Arabs would live by the 1967 borders permanently, and live in peace? Haven't people called the resulting mini-states "postage-stamp Bantustans" on this Board?

And what about Jerusalem, which will never be given back?

[myata]

And what about Jerusalem, which will never be given back?

We can only hope that with time people on both sides will come to inderstanding that their lives mean more than any sacred symbols. Till then, I don't have much hope for the lasting peace in the region.

[jbg]

And what about Jerusalem, which will never be given back?

We can only hope that with time people on both sides will come to inderstanding that their lives mean more than any sacred symbols. Till then, I don't have much hope for the lasting peace in the region.

And surrendering Jerusalem is going to lead to peace, how?

[Black Dog]

Is there literally any basis to believe that the Arabs would live by the 1967 borders permanently, and live in peace? Haven't people called the resulting mini-states "postage-stamp Bantustans" on this Board?

So what's your solution? Lemme guess: make the whole region "arabrein".

[jbg]

Is there literally any basis to believe that the Arabs would live by the 1967 borders permanently, and live in peace? Haven't people called the resulting mini-states "postage-stamp Bantustans" on this Board?

So what's your solution? Lemme guess: make the whole region "arabrein".

That's a horrific comparison. Jews were never dangerous to Germany. Rendering Germany "Judenrein" was an atrocity. If the Arabs had gone to work constructively, a solution could have been arranged. As it was, they chose to fight. Even to this day, there are no plans for the economic development of "Palestine".

[Black Dog]

That's a horrific comparison.

I think it's quite apt, given your racist history on this board of recycling gross anti-Semetic imagery and stereotypes (for example, comparing Arabs to "feral beasts", suggesting they are a fifth column in western society etc.).

Jews were never dangerous to Germany.

If they were, would the Nazis thus be justified?

Rendering Germany "Judenrein" was an atrocity.

And ethinically cleanising the area around Israel of its stateless Arabs would not be an atrocity? That's what your implying here.

If the Arabs had gone to work constructively, a solution could have been arranged. As it was, they chose to fight.

And if the roles were reversed, what people would do otherwise? In any case, what's done is done: what's you vision for peace?

Even to this day, there are no plans for the economic development of "Palestine".

Not surprising given the lack of basic civil society and the restrictive measures placed on the territories by Israel which have all but destroyed the economy there.

[Rue]

There you go again Higgly. I actually take the time to try explain something to you and you completely ignore it and then make a comment without any legal basis, i.e., that Israel stole land.

As explained Israel bought land legally. Then as a result of the Arab League invading Israel to wipe it out, the Arab League decision to try force a one sided unilateral extermination of Jews, back-fired.

The reason Israel ended up as it is today, ironically is precisely because the Arab League's decision to unilaterally invade, back-fired on it. You can try ignore historyand engage in b.s. Higgly but you have been called on it. The next time you try use a corupted inaccurate registry to suggest a legal basis for ownership smarten up and read about what it is you are passing off as a legal precedent.

As for your comment that the British re-wrote land deeds based on Turkish registry, they did a lot of illegal things Higgly that are not recognized by international or domestic law. If you care to read how the British corupted the registry and used it to protect and consolidate power for its puppets read and educate yourself.

The point Higgly which seems to fly over that head of yours is that the registry you claimed was the legal basis to prove Israel stole land, does not and can not and when this was clearly explained to you, you as usual play the fool.

Rue, I note the name calling at the end of your post and I have reported it. This is in violation of the zero tolerance protocol now in effect.

The fact is, Rue, there are many Palestinian refugees who held valid titles to their land and homes at the time they were driven out by Jewish forces in 1948. Those titles were written both by the Turks and by the British - in a number of cases by both. The British accepted Ottoman titles as valid in re-registering land in land transfers, as well as in cases where people came to them to have the land re-registered. Many Palestinian Arabs came from families who had worked the land for generations. It was specifically to invalidate these titles that Israel passed the abandonment laws of 1950 - note that this was about half the 3 year period you state the Ottomans were supposed to have used. The fact that Israel felt the need to pass these laws is in itself proof that Palestinian Arabs who had been driven from their land held valid titles that were an obstacle to Israel's plans and that Israel felt a need to use some form of bureaucratic hocus-pocus to deal with ther issue. This, by the way, is illegal under international law.

Even those Palestinian Arabs who did not leave their homes and land were in danger of having their land taken from them by Israel's bureacratic thuggery. Many had their land taken by force to make way for settlements built to house Jewish immigrants. Many under the pretext that the land was needed for 'security' reasons, only to see the land used to build settlements. Often, such as in the Shelta land case, unscrupulous Israeli land developers simply re-registered the land in their own names in spite of the fact that Palestinian Arabs holding legal title were living on the land.

While there was some buying of land by Zionists, this never totalled more than 10% of all the land in the Palestinian mandate.

Finally Rue, you are right when you say that I do not read all of your posts. This is because in general I find that....

1. they tend to be excessively long-winded
   
2. they tend to repeat the same point over and over - often more than once within the same post
   
3. they are filled with contradictions
   
4. they wander all over the place and rarely stick to the topic at hand
   

I am looking forward to a moderator response to your violation of the zero tolerance protocol.

You again have repeated things that are fabricated or simply not true. The Israeli government, nor any Israelis ever took land forcefully from Palestinian Arabs prior to the war. That is a fact and for you to suggest

Israelis physically forced land from Palestinians is nonsense.

You also have completely ignored the points I made as to the registry and have repeated a myth that Jews forcefully took property away from Palestinians. They did not. They in fact purchased it and the resulting displacement of Palestinians came about from a war instigated by the Arab League. If you want to try ignore history and keep repeating the same misrepresentations go ahead.

[Higgly]

Here it is, Rue. From the Israeli archives...

Palestinians own 40% of West Bank settlements; 80% of Ma'ale Adumim

[myata]

I made as to the registry and have repeated a myth that Jews forcefully took property away from Palestinians. They did not. They in fact purchased it and the resulting displacement of Palestinians came about from a war instigated by the Arab League. If you want to try ignore history and keep repeating the same misrepresentations go ahead.

Rue, I beg to differ on that. Purchasing land in private does not change its nationality. If there were to be a "fair" allocation of land to the original Jewish population in the area, this territory could only be increased through a treaty between the state of Israel and the other state (which could but did not have to involve any purchise). Other than that, the land would remain in the Arab (would be) state no matter who is the owner.

Unilateral proclamation of Israel and subsequent mass expulsion of Arab population cast huge shadow over the legitimacy of Israel's claim to its land.

Anyways, the time cannot be turned back. There's now more or less "natural" delineation of borders and that is 1967 state. I'd think that formal recognition that unilateral creation of Israel contributed to the problem plus possibly, an apology and compensation to those who lost their land in the incident, plus settlement on the 1967 border (or mutually agreed modification thereof), plus international guarantees of security would make a fair place to start.

[Figleaf]

And what about Jerusalem, which will never be given back?

We can only hope that with time people on both sides will come to inderstanding that their lives mean more than any sacred symbols. Till then, I don't have much hope for the lasting peace in the region.

And surrendering Jerusalem is going to lead to peace, how?

I believe that in the context of an otherwise just settlement the question of Jerusalem could be finessed as follows:

-City declared a world heritage trust;

-Any state of the world allowed to have Jerusalem as a 'Ceremonial Capital City' (meaning no substantial government operations or infrastructure should be put there);

-Israel granted the trusteeship of the area for 50 years, renewable.

[myata]

Fair and just solution must be all of it - fair and just or it won't have much chance of being accepted. I don't see why any one side should have the control of Jerusalem if the original settlement saw it divided between the parties. Anyone should be allowed to have the "ceremonial" thing but the administrative control of the city should be divided along the 1967 lines or mutually agreed modification. I just don't see how anything less than that would have any chance with the Palestinian side.

[Army Guy]

Higgly:

a return to the 1967 borders with Israel giving up its illegal land settlements. These settlements to be left intact to house Palestinains as compensation for their years of suffering and hardship

-guarantees of non-violence from both sides

-a solution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees

-Israel to lift its embargoes of Palestinian trade and commerce

-recognition by all Palestinians of the state of Israel

-A fair and enforceable agreement for the sharing of local resources - especially, but not limited to, water

the deal to be brokered by someone other than the Americans who are too ham-strung by forces within their own political system to be of any use and have so far been completely useless.

It's funny because on the last line you mention a Fair and Enforceable agreement, yet what in your solution is fair to both parties, who've given the palestinians everything on a silver plate and place the blame firmly at the feet of the Israelis...If i may what is your experiance on this issue ? do you have first hand knowledge of the area, or are you re quoting some professor who's under wear has been in a ball for the last 20 years.

If you do know anything about the area and it's problems then it should reflect in your solution, or atleast a solution that would even be looked at by both sides.

[Black Dog]

It's funny because on the last line you mention a Fair and Enforceable agreement, yet what in your solution is fair to both parties, who've given the palestinians everything on a silver plate and place the blame firmly at the feet of the Israelis...If i may what is your experiance on this issue ? do you have first hand knowledge of the area, or are you re quoting some professor who's under wear has been in a ball for the last 20 years.

Israel gets security, the Palestinians get a state who's viability depends on respecting Israel's securiy concerns. That's what's at stake in any agreement. What part of Higgly's proposal is blaming Israel?

[Higgly]

It's funny because on the last line you mention a Fair and Enforceable agreement, yet what in your solution is fair to both parties, who've given the palestinians everything on a silver plate and place the blame firmly at the feet of the Israelis...If i may what is your experiance on this issue ? do you have first hand knowledge of the area, or are you re quoting some professor who's under wear has been in a ball for the last 20 years.

If you do know anything about the area and it's problems then it should reflect in your solution, or atleast a solution that would even be looked at by both sides.

You might want to take a look at my previous posts on the subject. I think you'll find I know quite a bit.

As for your assertion that the Palestinians would be handed everything on a silver plate, my suggestion is that you...

• look at a map of the Palestinian Mandate in 1919 and compare that to the 1967 borders I am suggesting
  
• compare the Palestinian death toll to the Israeli death toll
  
• consider the living conditions the Palestinians have endured for the past 60 or so years - not only in terms of things like housing and commerce but infant mortality rate, life expectancy, and morbidity from disease.
  

That's some silver plate. There are those who would argue that Israel is the one who has had everything handed to them on a silver plate - largely compliments of the US of A.

If Israel is refusing to look at solutions other than those which result in even greater loss of land by the Palestinians (for example the joke that Clinton and Barak played on Arafat) it is because the US backs them 100%, no questions asked.

One thing I left off my solution was the question of Jerusalem, which I believe should be made an international city. I would not trust either side to administer it.

The Palestinian Arabs have been reduced from a population of simple shepherds and farmers to a class of medieval serfs, with no property rights, no citizenship rights, no right to assembly or movement, in short no human rights at all, and all as a direct result of the creation of the state of Israel.

And yes, I have been to the region. The details of that are none of your business, but I will say that up to that point, I was a full supporter of Israel. I guess you could say I had a conversion on the road to Damascus. Or at least, at Damascus Gate.

[Army Guy]

Higgly:

You might want to take a look at my previous posts on the subject. I think you'll find I know quite a bit.

That was not my question,

If i may what is your experiance on this issue ? do you have first hand knowledge of the area, or are you re quoting some professor who's underwear has been in a ball for the last 20 years

The details of that are none of your business,

Correct me if i'm wrong but you where the one that wieghed in on the topic, you are the one that is debating Rues info he's posted, I think it would add important info and credibility to your arguement would it not ? As history has been rewritten and twisted on this subject millions of times , I'd like to know where and how you are basing your opinons.

As for your assertion that the Palestinians would be handed everything on a silver plate, my suggestion is that you...

look at a map of the Palestinian Mandate in 1919 and compare that to the 1967 borders I am suggesting

Again perhaps i'm missing something here but how is a 1919 map of the league of nations mandate going to prove your piont. This is what i see, I see the land that was supose to be the state of Israel in it's entirety, a jewish homeland. And then the small chunk that was finally given out, and still there is no agreement by the Arab side.

My Webpage

And when you compare it to the terroritory that was actually decided by the UN in 1947. there is a massive difference between the 2. infact these borders were rejected by all parties.

Nov 1947 map.

My Webpage

Which 1967 map are we to use the prior to the war or the one after.

Before the war. which is basically how things look like today..

My Webpage

Or after the war.

My Webpage

compare the Palestinian death toll to the Israeli death toll

What does the death toll have to do with the situation. would it change anything if it was equal ?

consider the living conditions the Palestinians have endured for the past 60 or so years - not only in terms of things like housing and commerce but infant mortality rate, life expectancy, and morbidity from disease.

Again should this be taken into account at the peace table and why? And is this strictly Israel's fault.

That's some silver plate. There are those who would argue that Israel is the one who has had everything handed to them on a silver plate - largely compliments of the US of A.

That is some silver plate when you go back to the very beginning and start looking at all the concessions that israel has had made on thier behalf, by either the British, the league of nations, and the UN all trying to find a solution to a problem in which most if not all the world did not care about or had had at the time a racist view on.

And lets be be real here for a moment US interests in the area were very minimal in the 40's, 50's and did not really start supporting Israel with limited miltary equipment until the 60's and 70's.

My Webpage

you also forget to mention of the support that some of the middle east countries were getting from mother Russia. but you also forget to mention that US also sponsors most of the middle east with US dollars and other support.

The Palestinian Arabs have been reduced from a population of simple shepherds and farmers to a class of medieval serfs, with no property rights, no citizenship rights, no right to assembly or movement, in short no human rights at all, and all as a direct result of the creation of the state of Israel.

To which state did these palestians belong to. which citizenship did they hold, to what government were they to answer to. to what nation do they proclaim to belong to. Why i ask that is with out it how do they hold property rights,citenship rights, or have any rights other than those afforded by the UN to all persons.

And yes, I have been to the region. The details of that are none of your business, but I will say that up to that point, I was a full supporter of Israel. I guess you could say I had a conversion on the road to Damascus. Or at least, at Damascus Gate.

I've spent 2 tours in the area as a peacekeeper, one in El gorah with the MFO and another in Syria with the UN i am by no means an expert but i have seen some of the problems that this conflict has created and i have a problem with laying it at the feet of one nation. but see this as a middle east problem that involves all the nations involved. And will take all those nations to solve this.

[Black Dog]

And when you compare it to the terroritory that was actually decided by the UN in 1947. there is a massive difference between the 2. infact these borders were rejected by all parties.

Not true. The 1847 partition plan was accepted by most mainstream Zionist groups, including the Jewish Agency, which was the Jewish state-in-waiting. Only a small minority of Jewish organizations (including the terrorist Irgun and Stern Gang) rejected the UN plan.

At any rate, any solution would most definitely involve a return to Israel's approximate pre-1967 borders.