Israel's response to the U.N.

[OriZ 3,157]

Especially countries that have been historically very helpful to the Jews. In case history has forgotten, Denmark smuggled Jews to safety under the nose of the Nazis and 99% of Jews who had resided in Denmark survived the Holocaust. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_the_Danish_Jews

Denmark has been active in trying to secure rights for Palestinians and there are quite a few who live here and I would say that they are one of the most Jew friendly countries in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark%E2%80%93Palestine_relations

You'd be hard pressed to find someone who hold prejudices against Jews here, but those who hold prejudices against Muslims are more common, yet still they defend the Palestinians' rights to their land, justice for their people, and self governance.

To equate Israel with Judaism is a complete and utter mistake. Since the Jewish Diaspora up until 1947 there has been no sizeable Jewish presence in "Israel". Modern Judaism is, if anything, a Europeanized religion and most Jews are of European ancestry. In my opinion, the Jews much more belong in Europe then they do in the modern Middle East. To hate that a select group of Israelis has decided to pursue immoral and unjust actions against the Palestinians is not a statement against Jews, it is a statement against Israeli hardliners who refuse to respect the human rights of another group of people. What makes it even more atrocious is that not long ago, there was a government that refused to respect the human rights of the Jews, moved them off of their land and out of their homes, and thought of their resistance as terrorism as well.

The term anti-Semitism is a little misleading as technically the Palestinians are also a Semitic people. I'd almost argue that most Jews are no longer Semitic, but that is a different conversation.

If you are talking about a two state solution that's one thing. If you are saying Israel should not exist in the middle east at all then you are dead wrong about the Israeli hardliners. Nearly every Israeli and every Jew in the world believes Israel should exist. And there has always been Jewish presence in Palestine, surely it wasn't over 50% most of the time, but usually between 10-40% up until 1947. Israel has long been the Jewish homeland and there's no denying that. That's not to say the Palestinians need to leave, each side has its own rights on the land. Judaism is not a Europeanized religion, as there are many Jews in Israel that were born here(for instance my family), and there are many middle eastern Jews from other countries all around the middle east - I'm talking in the millions. Also, I completely disagree that Jews belong in Europe as we've already seen how well that's worked out in the past. Jews need their own country so that they can defend themselves so that such occurances don't re-occur. The only way to guarantee that is to have your own state.

On a personal note, while I certainly have no problem with living in the US with my wife being she's American, I would never ever want to live in Europe, no offense. That's just not my kinda place. The only two places in the world where I feel at home and comfortable are Israel and the US.

[N-o-l-a 7,168]

If you are talking about a two state solution that's one thing. If you are saying Israel should not exist in the middle east at all then you are dead wrong about the Israeli hardliners. Nearly every Israeli and every Jew in the world believes Israel should exist. And there has always been Jewish presence in Palestine, surely it wasn't over 50% most of the time, but usually between 10-40% up until 1947. Israel has long been the Jewish homeland and there's no denying that. That's not to say the Palestinians need to leave, each side has its own rights on the land. Judaism is not a Europeanized religion, as there are many Jews in Israel that were born here(for instance my family), and there are many middle eastern Jews from other countries all around the middle east - I'm talking in the millions. Also, I completely disagree that Jews belong in Europe as we've already seen how well that's worked out in the past. Jews need their own country so that they can defend themselves so that such occurances don't re-occur. The only way to guarantee that is to have your own state.

On a personal note, while I certainly have no problem with living in the US with my wife being she's American, I would never ever want to live in Europe, no offense. That's just not my kinda place. The only two places in the world where I feel at home and comfortable are Israel and the US.

My minor happens to be Judaic Studies and I do have a fair bit of experience growing up in a Jewish community in New York.

Besides the evolution of Rabbinic Judaism, most of modern Judaism evolved during its time in Europe. Compare for example going to a Reform Jewish service with going to a Protestant Christian one and try and tell me that they are wildly different (they are not as Judaism began to make itself more Christianized during the Protestant Reformation and through the Enlightenment).

The Judaism of today is an incredible far cry from the Temple centric Judaism of the past, when there was a Jewish state (or two).

My point was that most Ashkenazi "Jews" of the world are no longer ethnically Semitic, they are largely ethnically European due to hundreds and thousands of years of intermarriage. Anti-Semitism is really a misnomer and should really apply to all Semitic people.

A two state solution is obviously best, but it is also wise to remember even in the 18th century about 62.5% of the Jewish population lived in the Poland alone. Israel has not had a sizeable Jewish population since the destruction of the second Temple by the Romans.

Whether or not you feel comfortable in Europe is besides the point, Israelis do not have a right to push another group of people off of their land. Just for the record, Jews have long been able to defend themselves just fine in America without the need to encroach on the rights of the Palestinians. The Dutch readily welcomed the Jews into New York since its founding and they have been welcome ever since. That is almost 400 years of safety and peaceful residence.

[OriZ 3,157]

Whether or not you feel comfortable in Europe is besides the point, Israelis do not have a right to push another group of people off of their land. Just for the record, Jews have long been able to defend themselves just fine in America without the need to encroach on the rights of the Palestinians. The Dutch readily welcomed the Jews into New York since its founding and they have been welcome ever since. That is almost 400 years of safety and peaceful residence.

You are right and I never said they do, which is why I support a two state solution. However, the legitimacy of the state of Israel should never be in question, whether or not Jews were able to defend themselves fine in America isn't the issue, they were fine in Germany for the longest time too....things can change, and the only way to guarantee that they won't, is to govern yourself(including the Palestinians)...and anyone who thinks otherwise has not learned from history.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

My minor happens to be Judaic Studies and I do have a fair bit of experience growing up in a Jewish community in New York.

Besides the evolution of Rabbinic Judaism, most of modern Judaism evolved during its time in Europe. Compare for example going to a Reform Jewish service with going to a Protestant Christian one and try and tell me that they are wildly different (they are not as Judaism began to make itself more Christianized during the Protestant Reformation and through the Enlightenment).

The Judaism of today is an incredible far cry from the Temple centric Judaism of the past, when there was a Jewish state (or two).

My point was that most Ashkenazi "Jews" of the world are no longer ethnically Semitic, they are largely ethnically European due to hundreds and thousands of years of intermarriage. Anti-Semitism is really a misnomer and should really apply to all Semitic people.

A two state solution is obviously best, but it is also wise to remember even in the 18th century about 62.5% of the Jewish population lived in the Poland alone. Israel has not had a sizeable Jewish population since the destruction of the second Temple by the Romans.

Whether or not you feel comfortable in Europe is besides the point, Israelis do not have a right to push another group of people off of their land. Just for the record, Jews have long been able to defend themselves just fine in America without the need to encroach on the rights of the Palestinians. The Dutch readily welcomed the Jews into New York since its founding and they have been welcome ever since. That is almost 400 years of safety and peaceful residence.

America is one country out of all the countries in the entire world. 400 years out of the long history of the Jews is small chapter in a long book in regards to Jewish history. The Jews have been hosed in just about every country they have lived in and hosed big time. They want their ancestral home with a Jewish government. Read up on the history of the Jews and the Pogroms and expulsions they have endured world wide..from Europe, to the Middle East, to Africa. It's been a nightmare for them. The biggest weight on the Jews now is the Orthodox Jews. They are like a anchor tied to heels of the rest of the Jewish population. They contribute zero yet they start the most ####### in Israel with other Jews and Arabs alike.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Bad_Daddy

[mawilson 2,133]

The Dutch readily welcomed the Jews into New York since its founding and they have been welcome ever since.

Can any Jewish person come to America and become a US citizen? Not really.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

You have said the Palestinians have modified their offers and the Israelis have not...but now you admit that Olmert was serious about things, and I mean even his first offer has come a long way from the offers before him, and before, and before, so there was definitely negotiations going on, give and take, which is how it should be. And even the latest map, like I said is not a done deal.

Go read what I wrote again. I said that Olmert went further than Netanyahu (which is actually no great compliment) and that both he and Abbas were still talking when Olmert was drummed out of office. This does not translate into “Olmert was serious about offering a viable Palestinian state.” Ask yourself why Olmert’s team did not even allow Abbas to keep the map of what Israel was actually proposing in order to share it in discussions with his negotiating team, forcing him to sketch it out on a napkin for them.

The Palestine Papers already blew the lid off what happened. Abbas offered Israel unprecedented concessions - for the first time, accepting that Israel keep all the main settlement blocs except Har Homa (including Maaleh Adumim.) Tzipi Livni (at that time Olmert’s Foreign Minister) turned it down immediately, saying “it does not meet our demands.” Israel offered no concessions in return.

Olmert in fact did offer shared control over the holy sites, with the Arab neighborhoods being the Palestinian capital. I thought those two links were appropriate being they talk about the bias on the guardian, which is where you posted your links from, and they also happened to have a map. Doesn't mean I always agree with everything they write but in some cases I do.

You complain that the Guardian is “biased,” yet you continue to link to resources like CAMERA, MEMRI, and David Horowitz. Your sources are organizations which exist for no other reason than to defend Israel against all criticism and demonize its enemies, and which openly support Zionism and Israeli government agendas. The Guardian, on the other hand, is an independent British newspaper which is not focused on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, nor is it run by Israelis or Palestinians, nor is it a “Jewish” or “Muslim” paper. Certainly it is often critical of Israeli government actions, but it has also been critical of Arab regimes. Criticism does not equal "bias."

Again, the Olmert plan never offered control of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, nor even to joint Israeli-Palestinian control of East Jerusalem. Witnesses say Livni became visibly angry over the Palestinian proposal to put East Jerusalem under Palestinian sovereignty, and made it clear that discussions about the borders of Jerusalem were not even part of the negotiations.

The Palestinians proposed that they have sovereignty over Haram al Sharif, with Israel keeping sovereignty of the Wailing Wall. The Olmert team refused that. As the summary document states, Olmert’s offer specifically stated that negotiations over sovereignty over the “Holy Basin” were to be “delayed” until an unspecified later date, and even insists that no agreement could be forced on that issue.

The percentages given for land to be swapped are also misleading; the US and Israel have always insisted that East Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and “no-man’s land,” and the Dead Sea are not part of what they consider the total area of the Palestinian West Bank, so they calculate the percentages from what’s left after those areas have already been deducted.

Yes, the Olmert offer went somewhat further than others, but it still left Israel in control of large swaths of the West Bank, separated Palestinian areas from each other with Israeli-controlled bypass roads and vaguely defined “security areas,“ and denied Palestinians direct access to international borders. Israel never proposed giving up control of the highway from Jerusalem to Jericho. Look at the map - this splits the West Bank in half.

The Olmert plan ensured that Israel settlements would remain territorially connected to each other through bypass roads and other buffer areas, but it left Palestinian “islands” separated from each other. Again, look at the map - Palestinians would not even be connected to their own capital without having to cross Israeli-controlled areas, which could be closed by Israel at any time.

In exchange for valuable real estate in the West Bank, the Olmert plan offered desert areas and land near the Gaza Strip that was being used by Israel to dump toxic waste - shown here on this map (which does not indicate the "security areas" in the Jordan Valley which Israel would keep under Olmert's plan, consisting of the entire Jordanian border and the Dead Sea area. This map also shows settlements in red that would supposedly be evacuated; however no agreement was ever made to evacuate Kiryat Arba and the Hebron settlements, and several other key areas.)

The Summary Document encapsulates just about everything I am saying, and you can pore through the rest of the archive to find the other nuggets:

http://transparency.aljazeera.net/en/projects/thepalestinepapers/20121821046718794.html

* Sovereignty over the “Holy Basin” (the Dome of the Rock/Temple mount) would be delayed to a later stage, with no ability to force an agreement

* Refugees - Israel would not acknowledge responsibility for the refugees, and would accept a maximum of 5000 Palestinian refugees to return on “humanitarian” grounds.

The document mentions that Israel “contribute” to the compensation of refugees, but there was no specific amaunt specified.

* Land percentage calculations do not include East Jerusalem, or the major settlement blocs around it

* Travel on the proposed connecting tunnel between Gaza and the West Bank, and through Israeli-controlled settlement blocs, security zones and bypass roads would be subject to Israeli closure at any time

And yes, they did come very close to an agreement...which is why I believe the next center-left government has a chance to reach an agreement, but only after another 4 years of Netanyahu.

Right now it seems like the right wing+religious bloc is going to win 69 mandates(57.5%), and the center-left+arab bloc will have 51(42.5%), so it's close but no cigar.

Even Olmert’s plan was apparently too much for certain rightwing American Jews with lots of money to throw around to manipulate Israeli politics and policies (Sheldon Adelson, anyone ?) So they invested in getting rid of him, which paved the way for none other than Netanyahu to move into position (who also happens to be Sheldon Adelson’s preference.)

It should be clear to all non-biased observers: The Palestinians are not going to accept anything less than a viable state, and no Israeli government is going to offer them anything close to that. If you've seen one Israeli Prime Minister's peace plan, you've seen them all - the differences between Sharon or Netanyahu and Olmert or Rabin is only cosmetic.

And that takes us to the single state solution… the question is: will it be a democratic state with equal rights for all, or will it be an Apartheid state with an ethnic minority ruling over an ethnic majority who are denied those rights ? Or does Israel plan to do another round of mass ethnic cleansing ?

Edited December 5, 2012 by wife_of_mahmoud

[Karee 4,190]

Go read what I wrote again. I said that Olmert went further than Netanyahu (which is actually no great compliment) and that both he and Abbas were still talking when Olmert was drummed out of office. This does not translate into “Olmert was serious about offering a viable Palestinian state.” Ask yourself why Olmert’s team did not even allow Abbas to keep the map of what Israel was actually proposing in order to share it in discussions with his negotiating team, forcing him to sketch it out on a napkin for them.

The Palestine Papers already blew the lid off what happened. Abbas offered Israel unprecedented concessions - for the first time, accepting that Israel keep all the main settlement blocs except Har Homa (including Maaleh Adumim.) Tzipi Livni (at that time Olmert’s Foreign Minister) turned it down immediately, saying “it does not meet our demands.” Israel offered no concessions in return.

You complain that the Guardian is “biased,” yet you continue to link to resources like CAMERA, MEMRI, and David Horowitz. Your sources are organizations which exist for no other reason than to defend Israel against all criticism and demonize its enemies, and which openly support Zionism and Israeli government agendas. The Guardian, on the other hand, is an independent British newspaper which is not focused on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, nor is it run by Israelis or Palestinians, nor is it a “Jewish” or “Muslim” paper. Certainly it is often critical of Israeli government actions, but it has also been critical of Arab regimes. Criticism does not equal "bias."

Again, the Olmert plan never offered control of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, nor even to joint Israeli-Palestinian control of East Jerusalem. Witnesses say Livni became visibly angry over the Palestinian proposal to put East Jerusalem under Palestinian sovereignty, and made it clear that discussions about the borders of Jerusalem were not even part of the negotiations.

The Palestinians proposed that they have sovereignty over Haram al Sharif, with Israel keeping sovereignty of the Wailing Wall. The Olmert team refused that. As the summary document states, Olmert’s offer specifically stated that negotiations over sovereignty over the “Holy Basin” were to be “delayed” until an unspecified later date, and even insists that no agreement could be forced on that issue.

The percentages given for land to be swapped are also misleading; the US and Israel have always insisted that East Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and “no-man’s land,” and the Dead Sea are not part of what they consider the total area of the Palestinian West Bank, so they calculate the percentages from what’s left after those areas have already been deducted.

Yes, the Olmert offer went somewhat further than others, but it still left Israel in control of large swaths of the West Bank, separated Palestinian areas from each other with Israeli-controlled bypass roads and vaguely defined “security areas,“ and denied Palestinians direct access to international borders. Israel never proposed giving up control of the highway from Jerusalem to Jericho. Look at the map - this splits the West Bank in half.

The Olmert plan ensured that Israel settlements would remain territorially connected to each other through bypass roads and other buffer areas, but it left Palestinian “islands” separated from each other. Again, look at the map - Palestinians would not even be connected to their own capital without having to cross Israeli-controlled areas, which could be closed by Israel at any time.

In exchange for valuable real estate in the West Bank, the Olmert plan offered desert areas and land near the Gaza Strip that was being used by Israel to dump toxic waste - shown here on this map (which does not indicate the "security areas" in the Jordan Valley which Israel would keep under Olmert's plan, consisting of the entire Jordanian border and the Dead Sea area. This map also shows settlements in red that would supposedly be evacuated; however no agreement was ever made to evacuate Kiryat Arba and the Hebron settlements, and several other key areas.)

The Summary Document encapsulates just about everything I am saying, and you can pore through the rest of the archive to find the other nuggets:

http://transparency....1046718794.html

* Sovereignty over the “Holy Basin” (the Dome of the Rock/Temple mount) would be delayed to a later stage, with no ability to force an agreement

* Refugees - Israel would not acknowledge responsibility for the refugees, and would accept a maximum of 5000 Palestinian refugees to return on “humanitarian” grounds.

The document mentions that Israel “contribute” to the compensation of refugees, but there was no specific amaunt specified.

* Land percentage calculations do not include East Jerusalem, or the major settlement blocs around it

* Travel on the proposed connecting tunnel between Gaza and the West Bank, and through Israeli-controlled settlement blocs, security zones and bypass roads would be subject to Israeli closure at any time

Even Olmert’s plan was apparently too much for certain rightwing American Jews with lots of money to throw around to manipulate Israeli politics and policies (Sheldon Adelson, anyone ?) So they invested in getting rid of him, which paved the way for none other than Netanyahu to move into position (who also happens to be Sheldon Adelson’s preference.)

It should be clear to all non-biased observers: The Palestinians are not going to accept anything less than a viable state, and no Israeli government is going to offer them anything close to that. If you've seen one Israeli Prime Minister's peace plan, you've seen them all - the differences between Sharon or Netanyahu and Olmert or Rabin is only cosmetic.

And that takes us to the single state solution… the question is: will it be a democratic state with equal rights for all, or will it be an Apartheid state with an ethnic minority ruling over an ethnic majority who are denied those rights ? Or does Israel plan to do another round of mass ethnic cleansing ?

I don't see how anyone can look at that bottom map and not see the whole Israeli position as a land grab. The areas in red definitely point that out. I understand they were willing to give them up for the peace process. I just wonder why they were there in the first place?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

If you are talking about a two state solution that's one thing. If you are saying Israel should not exist in the middle east at all then you are dead wrong about the Israeli hardliners. Nearly every Israeli and every Jew in the world believes Israel should exist. And there has always been Jewish presence in Palestine, surely it wasn't over 50% most of the time, but usually between 10-40% up until 1947. Israel has long been the Jewish homeland and there's no denying that. That's not to say the Palestinians need to leave, each side has its own rights on the land. Judaism is not a Europeanized religion, as there are many Jews in Israel that were born here(for instance my family), and there are many middle eastern Jews from other countries all around the middle east - I'm talking in the millions. Also, I completely disagree that Jews belong in Europe as we've already seen how well that's worked out in the past. Jews need their own country so that they can defend themselves so that such occurances don't re-occur. The only way to guarantee that is to have your own state.

On a personal note, while I certainly have no problem with living in the US with my wife being she's American, I would never ever want to live in Europe, no offense. That's just not my kinda place. The only two places in the world where I feel at home and comfortable are Israel and the US.

There were Jewish communities that remained in Palestine after the Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem. Most of the population gradually converted to Christianity over the next several centuries, but small Jewish communities did remain. After the rise of Islam, most of the population in turn became Muslim, but again, there were some small Jewish communities that remained, as well as significant Christian communities. After the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem, Jews were allowed to return to the city and several Jewish communities were re-established over the next thousand years.

But during all this time, Jews were a minority in the land - never more than 30%, and usually less than 10%. For several hundred years before the invention of Zionism, most Jews of the world chose not to emigrate to Palestine, and it had only a tiny minority Jewish population. For instance in 1877, only 3% of the population was Jewish. In 1912, only 5% was Jewish. Things began to change in the 1920s as Jewish immigration from Europe skyrocketed; but even in 1946, practically on the eve of partition, Jews made up only 31% of the population of Palestine - the rest was almost all Arab, and predominantly Muslim. (Most of the Sephardim - Jews from Arab lands or "Arab Jews" - came later, after the 1948 war. They were subjected to vicious racism and oppression by the Ashkenazi Jews, and there is still a nasty legacy of that racism lingering in Israel.)

And even today, after decades of massacres, expulsions, ethnic cleansing and other means of oppression and dispossession - as well as the importation of millions of foreign Jews and potential Jews or relatives of Jews - the demographics still do not add up to a Jewish majority. Right now, there are 5.9 million Jews and 6.1 million non-Jews living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. That balance continues to shift further toward a non-Jewish majority: which is what it was, before the Zionist project began.

Anyway, all of that ignores the fact that the land was never exclusively Jewish in the past; there were always a number of peoples living in the area concurrently, at any given time in history.

The Jewish people are not a homogenous unit; they are racially diverse due to centuries of migration, intermingling with other populations, and conversion. Many do not even have ancestors linked to the Middle East. And some Jews with Middle Eastern heritage are not genetically linked to Palestinian Jews, either. They come from a variety of cultures and socio-economic levels. As Zionist leaders have admitted, the task in Israel was to turn these very different people into a cohesive national unit. This was done in no small part by keeping Israel in a constant state of war with its neighbors - nothing unites people like having an enemy to fight against.

Finally and most importantly, "the Jews need their own country" is no justification for stealing someone else's land and turning them into refugees.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

.

I don't see how anyone can look at that bottom map and not see the whole Israeli position as a land grab. The areas in red definitely point that out. I understand they were willing to give them up for the peace process. I just wonder why they were there in the first place?

They were put there with the intention to prevent a viable Palestinian state.

Edited December 5, 2012 by wife_of_mahmoud

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

One thing you can't see from these maps is the topography - there are physical and strategic reasons why Israel's settlements are positioned where they are. You can't see the deserts, the mountains, or the underground aquifers on these maps. Sometimes a settlement is positioned to control resources, sometimes it is to deliberately divide Palestinian areas and prevent contiguity.

By the way, some of the settlements marked are founded by renegades who are not part of the Israeli government's official plan. These are the ones that the government is willing to remove because they don't advance Israel's strategic goals, but they will try to re-deploy those settlers in other settlements that they deem to be more critical.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Can any Jewish person come to America and become a US citizen? Not really.

More Jews already live in the US than live in Israel.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

If you've seen one Israeli Prime Minister's peace plan, you've seen them all - the differences between Sharon or Netanyahu and Olmert or Rabin is only cosmetic.

Wash, rinse, repeat....

1995 Netanyahu Plan

2000 Barak's Generous Offer

2003 Sharon Plan

The Israeli government has already mapped out how it will cut off the Jordan Valley as well as even further Palestinian territory with The Wall (note the "fingers" that will include so many of the illegal settlements):

[OriZ 3,157]

Here is a link from the huffington post...doesn't get much further left than that:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/20/ehud-olmert-former-israel-pm-jerusalem-partitioned_n_1531020.html

Even Olmert's last offer doesn't mean it would have been the final offer, and that's my point. He went further than Netanyahu, and who's to say he wouldn't have gone even further? Who's to say the Palestinians at the same time wouldn't go further until both sides reach an agreement, like we said and they said they came very close. Abbas himself said that. So I think he was very serious and if they had a few more months(or if they have more time once Netanyahu's not in power) then they could reach an agreement.

You don't have to belong to a certain side to be biased and vice versa...I do think the Guardian is biased(although not as biased as the "independent").

My Grandmother was born in Haifa in 1923, and generations before her lived in the area so the land is as much hers as it is anyone else`s. I meant that in the 20th century(even before the establishment of Israel) there were usually more than 10% Jews. What`s even more important is the percent of Jews in JERUSALEM which was a majority, as Jerusalem is the single most important and holy city for the Jews, whereas for Muslims it is only 3rd in importance. Jews pray facing Jerusalem whereas the Muslims pray with their backs to it. http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000636

You are saying basically that Zionist leaders have kept Israel in a state of war intentionally. Even if that were true after 1967(which I'm not saying it is)...how does that settle with the other 20 years when all Israel wanted was to be left alone in its newborn state and kept getting attacked by many Arab countries?

And if you say the Jews needing their own country is no justification for stealing someone else's land, then where do you suggest that country should be? Cause otherwise you're saying it shouldn't be, which, like I said, its legitimacy should never be in doubt(even Abbas says that - whether he actually means it or not).

More Jews already live in the US than live in Israel.

True, but their point was that it's not like any Jew can just pack their bags and move to the states. You need a reason...like a spouse for instance. Just like anyone else.

Also, as for the wall - it was not meant to prevent a Palestinian state. It was merely meant to protect Israel after the enormous amount of terrorist attacks it suffered between 2000-2003. Which is why it was built then, and not 30 years prior. Obviously in the case of an agreement, it will be taken down...But for now, it's doing its job which is to prevent buses and restaurants from blowing up.

[N-o-l-a 7,168]

America is one country out of all the countries in the entire world. 400 years out of the long history of the Jews is small chapter in a long book in regards to Jewish history. The Jews have been hosed in just about every country they have lived in and hosed big time. They want their ancestral home with a Jewish government. Read up on the history of the Jews and the Pogroms and expulsions they have endured world wide..from Europe, to the Middle East, to Africa. It's been a nightmare for them. The biggest weight on the Jews now is the Orthodox Jews. They are like a anchor tied to heels of the rest of the Jewish population. They contribute zero yet they start the most ####### in Israel with other Jews and Arabs alike.

I have taken several courses in Jewish history and am quite comfortable in it.

Can any Jewish person come to America and become a US citizen? Not really.

They can come the same as anyone else can. It isn't all that hard to immigrate to America, half of my family has done it in the last 25 years.

My Grandmother was born in Haifa in 1923, and generations before her lived in the area so the land is as much hers as it is anyone else`s. I meant that in the 20th century(even before the establishment of Israel) there were usually more than 10% Jews. What`s even more important is the percent of Jews in JERUSALEM which was a majority, as Jerusalem is the single most important and holy city for the Jews, whereas for Muslims it is only 3rd in importance. Jews pray facing Jerusalem whereas the Muslims pray with their backs to it. http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000636

You are saying basically that Zionist leaders have kept Israel in a state of war intentionally. Even if that were true after 1967(which I'm not saying it is)...how does that settle with the other 20 years when all Israel wanted was to be left alone in its newborn state and kept getting attacked by many Arab countries?

And if you say the Jews needing their own country is no justification for stealing someone else's land, then where do you suggest that country should be? Cause otherwise you're saying it shouldn't be, which, like I said, its legitimacy should never be in doubt(even Abbas says that - whether he actually means it or not).

The question is the means to which they are acquiring the land. If they came in and purchased it legally, then sure that is fine. If they want to live in the current Palestinian areas, they should purchase the land and live under Palestinian rule. They can't keep pushing their country's boundaries out further. It isn't really appropriate and you know it.

Don't think I am jumping on your case too much about this, my own daughter is eligible under the Law of Return to reside there, but the thought of such makes me practically fall out of my chair laughing. The first person in her family to even step foot in Israel in maybe 1500+ years only did so in the 1980s. There are quite a few modern Israelis who are in a similar position, so let's not pretend that these people were all there for generations. What has been done is done and now it is best to let it be, but the continued expansion is just plain ridiculous.

Let's also stop pretending that they aren't actively discriminating against Palestinians. If I married an Israeli, I would qualify for citizenship, however a Palestinian who did the same would not. Actually, not just Palestinians, but a variety of different Arab peoples.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Here is a link from the huffington post...doesn't get much further left than that:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/20/ehud-olmert-former-israel-pm-jerusalem-partitioned_n_1531020.html

Even Olmert's last offer doesn't mean it would have been the final offer, and that's my point. He went further than Netanyahu, and who's to say he wouldn't have gone even further? Who's to say the Palestinians at the same time wouldn't go further until both sides reach an agreement, like we said and they said they came very close. Abbas himself said that. So I think he was very serious and if they had a few more months(or if they have more time once Netanyahu's not in power) then they could reach an agreement.

There's a lot here I would like to comment on so I am breaking it up into bite-sized pieces.

Of course there is no real way to know what would have been Olmert’s next offer - he wasn’t given the chance. But it wasn't because of Palestinian recalcitrance, as you first tried to spin it, but rather (at least according to Olmert himself) because right-wing Jewish extremists didn’t want a 2-state solution, and thumped him out of office to prevent it. You should be asking what will these people do to the next Israeli Prime Minister who attempts to make any move toward a viable Palestinian state in Palestine - maybe he will end up like Rabin as well.

But before, during and after Olmert, Israel's illegal settlement expansion has continued at an ever-increasing pace, as the Israeli government continues to try to change the “facts on the ground” and make the settlements impossible to give up. This has been the plan for decades:

"We'll make a pastrami sandwich out of them... "We'll insert a strip of Jewish settlements in between the Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlements right across the West Bank, so that in twenty-five years' time, neither the United Nations nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart."

-Ariel Sharon,

1973

You don't have to belong to a certain side to be biased and vice versa...I do think the Guardian is biased(although not as biased as the "independent").

You're entitled to your opinion, but calling the Guardian biased while posting from extremely pro-Israel propaganda sites is not helping your argument.

My Grandmother was born in Haifa in 1923, and generations before her lived in the area so the land is as much hers as it is anyone else`s.

Amazing. So you say Haifa belongs to your grandmother as much as anyone because she was born there. Do you extend the same privilege to all the Palestinians who were born there, and who were driven out and are still refused the right to return to their homes?

Happening to be born in a particular land does not turn that land into the sovereign territory of your ethnic group, nor does purchasing private property in a particular land change which country has sovereignty over that land. There are plenty of Palestinians born in Haifa - at least as many Palestinians born there over the last century as Jews - according to your logic, that makes Haifa (and Jaffa, Nazareth, etc.) theirs, too.

I meant that in the 20th century(even before the establishment of Israel) there were usually more than 10% Jews.

As I said before, according to the Ottoman and British records, Jews did not make up more than 10% of the total population living in Palestine during the centuries immediately prior to the Zionist project - not until after the 1920’s did they start to rise above that percentage.

Yes, Jerusalem by itself is a different equation; and yes it did have a much higher concentration of Jewish population than the rest of the area. But even as late as 1876, Jews were still not the majority. That year, they made up about 48% of the population of Jerusalem - the rest were Palestinian Arab (both Muslim and Christian.) So it was a mixed city for many centuries, before the Zionist project began. What about all those Palestinian people who were born there - don't they have the same rights of owning the place like you say your grandmother has ?

What`s even more important is the percent of Jews in JERUSALEM which was a majority, as Jerusalem is the single most important and holy city for the Jews, whereas for Muslims it is only 3rd in importance. Jews pray facing Jerusalem whereas the Muslims pray with their backs to it. http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000636

OMG No. In fact, Muslims pray toward Mecca; it has nothing to do with turning their backs toward Jerusalem. So if you were in Ramallah, or Jenin, or Damascus (or other points north) you would be pretty much be facing Jerusalem as you prayed toward Mecca. If you were in Hebron or Bethlehem (or other points south,) obviously, you would be facing away from Jerusalem as you faced Mecca. Please seek out reputable information !!!

And the claims of "but we love it more" is not only subjective, but more importantly not a legal justification for theft.