Originally Posted by benaakatz
monty you are completely ignoring the jew's right and claim to the land. they have the right to live in their homeland just as much as any other nation does.
plus the country was pretty empty and there was no palestinian state. jews had every right to move there. many arabs moved once the jews came bkz the jews made it a much better place economically and improved the living conditions dramatically.
so please don't tell me the jews aka israelis don't have a historical claim to the land, the one land they call their home, just like the russians call russia home, the japanese call japan their home, the indians call india their home, etc...
two states seems like th best solution, since both people have claims to the land...so my q still stands, the jews/israelis accepted their half...why hasnt a palestinian state been established yet? and why not between 48 and 67? no jews were there...just palestinians, so there was no settler problem.
Here is the really funny thing Japanese, Indians and Russians call these places home because they have a continuous link to the territory, the Israelis don't, I am prepared to bet that close to 90% of Israeli's can not claim a link to the middle east further back than 1-3 generations.
As for why Palestinians do not have a state yet well it is very simple (in fact I honestly think people have to be incredibly thick not to grasp this) it is because they do not believe that they should have to give up 90% of the territory they believe is theirs to a bunch of militant European refugees.
It doesn't matter whether you accept their claim or not you still have to understand the problem as they see it before you can find a working solution for it.
Incidentally the current offer from Israel on this matter amounts to little more than a carbon copy of the treaty of Fort Laramie, here you can have the crappiest bit of dirt we can find as a homeland until we discover something of value on it and then we will take that as well.