I'm a little confused. They could of had one in 1947 with the partition but they rejected it. They could of had one in 2000, but arafat rejected it. And reportedly, abbas rejected olmert's offer which was basically all of the west bank (with some territorial swaps), half of jerusalem, and even letting some palestinians settle back in israel.

And what about between 48 and 67? The Egyptians controlled the gaza strip and the Jordanians controlled the West bank. Why didn't they establish for the palestinians a state then? why was there no cry for a palestinian state then?

just imagine if the kurds were offered a state....they'd take it in a heartbeat and be overjoyed that the international community finally gave a damn about them

Imagine if I moved into you house and moved you and your family to the bathroom and then 40 years later I offered to let you use part of the backyard would you accept that and be happy?

70 years ago they had the whole area and then through British weakness a bunch of displaced Europeans moved in against their will and pretty much evicted them why do you think they wont accept 10% of the land they once owned with a smile?

Seriously this isn't rocket science you have two people who cant and wont live together peaceably laying claim to the same piece of dirt and until you can find a fix that BOTH parties (not just one) can live with you will always have the problem.

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.

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.

So,... because my ancestors were forced out of England, by being reduced to slave labour, I have a "Right" to go back and just push out the present occupants and take over like I'd never left?

Palestine is no more the "homeland" of European Jews than England is mine. It may have been their "Ancestral Homeland" but that counts for nothing that would give me several options, none of which would be supported by any country in the world.

P.S. You didn't answer Monty's question.

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.

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.

Actually, your comment shows that the popaganda machine works fairly well:

As so many others (and started and invented by my unholy German ancestors some 70 yrs ago) you falling in the trap and simply mix up two different things treating them as if they were the same:

Religion and Nation are two completely distinct concepts, and making us believe they were the same.... well, take a look at WWII and the Holocaust when Hitler and his acolytes propaganda machine sold to a whole people that a "Jew" by definition was not a "German":

"Jews" have a historical claim to a homeland... Ok, What about the Christians (Christiania, where is tha land?) or the Muslims (Islamia, where is that nation?) or the Hindus (Hinduania, anone?).

Japanese have their homeland allright, Japan, and it does not matter a bit whether they are Hindu, Christian, Muslim or whatever else they are down there.

Here in Spain we have all religions, and they are Spanish !, and I have yet to find the propaganda group claiming all Christians should live in one "Christian" state... Everybody would laugh at them....

Don´t compare apples to phones, and do not fall in the propaganda trap.

Rattler

The question then would be: what do the Israelis do now?

This is just a hurried note, I can see that you guys still have no idea of the rights of Israel's claim to their homeland.


Much, much greater than that of any European arrivals and their descendants in Australia or New Zealand. What if your indiginous peoples told you to clear off - what would you do? What if they took to terrorism? Don't bother answering.
Your presence is no-time - the Jews created their homeland thousands of years ago, and were repeatedly driven out by conquest, but always held their claim and retained a presence and made returns. Israel was much larger and Jerusalem was its capital. The ruthless Romans drove them out by holocaust, and destroyed their temple, and continued holocaust whenever they returned. Before that the Greeks had done the similarly. The Muslims, spreading their power by the sword took the land later, and eventually the Turkish empire grabbed it. But at no time was it ever deniable that Israel was the Jewish homeland. The toast was always "Next year in Jerusalem." Their homeland was last taken by Muslim conquest and hence the most holy Jewish places are built over, topped by mosques etc. The Dome of the Rock for example. The 1st temple (approx 1000BC) and 2nd temple 500-300 BC , the centre of Israel's power in Jerusalem, topped by mosques. The Jews, through all, never left Israel.

If any American, Australian or Kiwi , except those indigenous, can show me a better claim than that to their homeland, well let's see it. It just ain't so.

So seems that the target is that Palestinian people will be reduced to the Gaza strip, and then and there will be the only place to found their state?

Del Boy's got a point too.

I know it's not the case but what IF the indigenous people of Australia and New Zealand demanded that the "Whites" "go back to where they came from"? I've heard the argument that the Maoris are so mixed now it hardly matters but what if it wasn't the case? What if these indigenous people started blowing things up in downtown Sydney and launched rockets into the suburbs from their reservations?
What would you do?
There are now generations of Israelis who know no other country for a home other than Israel just as there are Australians and New Zealanders who know no other country other than their own. Granted, the number of generations that have lived in that land are different but you can see the similarities as well.