Philip Tang and Earth wise

It would appear that the people given the Mandate to partition the area of so called Palestine had very right to do so, and out of it came a number of nation states.

http://www.answers.com/topic/israel-and-the-united-nations

It is rank hypocrisy to deny the existence of one of these, and not any of the others.

Philip Tang,

I think you have not correctly understood the historical process by which Israel came into being.

After the victory of WW1 the lands which had previously been Turkish or German ruled in the middle east came under Allied control. The League of Nations entrusted the mandate of Palestine to Britain with the express direction of creating a Jewish state. At that stage the mandate covered Palestine as we know it, plus Syria and Iraq.

“On September 30, 1947, Britain decided to terminate the British mandate of Palestine, later setting the withdrawal date of May 15, 1948. Subsequently, a majority of the UNITED NATIONS Special Committee on Palestine recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration, and on November 29, 1947 the UN General Assembly voted 33 to 13 in favor of the 1947 UN Partition Plan.”

No-one doubts that the Palestinians want statehood. The problem is that mostly they want a single state solution which, in the best of all possible outcomes, would mean the end of the Jewish state. You only have to glance through the Hamas charter to see that this is their goal.

Two states is the only realistic solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Those who disagree with this proposal are merely prolonging the already bloody conflict.

The theocratic state of Israel came to an end in about 600 BC (BCE) when the Babylonians captured Jerusalem and dispersed the Jews to various part of the empire. Israel ceased to be a nation both in history and according to the Jewish Scriptures (Deuteronomy 28:15, 64).

Fast forward to 1948, Britain as a colonial power then gave to the Zionists land stolen from the Palestinians by the Ottomans. (There would be no objection if Britain were to give part of the UK to the Zionists to form Israel). Almost 60 years of occupation still does not make it legitimate.

However, it is unrealistic to deny Israel the right to exist and the proposed two-state solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is workable and equitable only if Israel withdraw to its pre-1967 armistice lines.

The real situation today is that the Zionists are forcing the Palestinians out of their homeland by adopting hostile actions which deny them their rights even to make a living. The Palestinians are left with no choice but to support the (Islamists) Hamas. The Zionist and the US take the opportunity to label them as terrorists and the cycle goes on until the Palestinians are decimated

Philip.... you are confusing the Babylonians with the Assyrian treatment of the northern kingdom of Israel (rather than Judah).

The Assyrian policy was dispersement, the Babylonian only applied to Judah and did not involve dispersement, but kept the Jews in a ghetto, from which they returned to Jerusalem with Nehemiah and Ezra, and rebuilt the walls and temple.. to the annoyance of Sanballat and Tobiah and their mob(proto-palestinians).

If you read the book of Nehemiah and Ezra, you will find the tactics of Sanballat and Tobiah to be very educational and shed light on the same strategies of the Palestinians today.

Regarding the Jewish return in 48, the Settlers see this as fulfillment of Ezekiel 37 and if you want to know how they see the future, then just read on to the end of the book.....it does include a temple..... and that can only mean one thing in this world.... starts with A...ends with N

When histories are so intertwined, and different peoples have populated a given area, it's pretty much impossible to unravel the 'rights and wrongs' of it all. People just change the 'historical starting point' in order to justify their position. You chose 1948, but the Jews will choose AD70 when the Romans exiled them and destroyed the temple. Who is right ? well...that is the question isn't it...and that also explains the fighting.

From a purely human point of view, the Jews are 'forging' their own historical starting point right now.. why is that less valid than us being in Australia as a result of such a decision by the British ?

Jewish Scripture recorded (2 Kings 17:6-18) Israel being carried away leaving only Judah.

Theologically, both faiths, mainline Judaism and Christianity are agreed that the 1948 founding of the state of Israel is not supported in their Scriptures.

For Christianity, all the promises made to the Jews regarding the land were fulfilled (Joshua 21:43-45). The promise of the land in perpetuity is conditioned upon their faithfulness. Since they were not faithful, they lost it (Deut 28:63-64; Jos 23:13,15; 1 King 9:7; 2King 17:23; Jer 12:10-12). All promises made to Israel are fulfilled in the Church (Heb. 11:13-16). The rise of Christian Zionism and their militant support for the present state of Israel is a recent phenomenon based upon the erroneous teaching of pre-millenial dispensationalism.

http://valiantfortruth.tripod.com/whoownstheland.html

For Judaism, many orthodox Rabbis believe that the ingathering of the Jews to the Land has to be based upon a religious revival and turning back to God. The present state of Israel, founded by the Zionists is considered by the orthodox Jews as secular, ungodly and committing injustice against the Palestinians.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RjnvQHWyLE&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QfgvDXsDds&mode=related&search=

It is pointless for any sane person to quote subjective Biblical or Quranic history in order to make an EXCLUSIVE claim for their side to what is known as Palestine/Israel. This conflict is not a case of Right against Wrong, but Right against Right.
When the ancient Hebrews entered the "promised land", they proceeded to slaughter countless numbers of already existing inhabitants who refused to accept the legitimacy of the Hebrews' claim to the land. The Hebrews said they had permission from God to take the land. The American colonists said it was "Manifest Destiny" that they seize the riches of the New World. The Arabs were not native to Palestine until the Muslim invasions of the 7th Century AD. They claimed their conquest was the will of Allah. Isn't there a pattern here?
At what point does an ancestral claim to the land become illegitimate, if at all, when a given people have not been the majority in that land for centuries? Would it be legitimate for me to go back to Ireland NOW -- with gun in hand -- and demand that my ancestors' land be given back to me because it was stolen 350 years ago? I have been alive long enough to know that when enough people --possessed by enough concentrated fervor -- believe in something strongly enough, they will move hell and high water to set in motion the work necessary to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Irgun, Stern Gang and Palmach were guilty of atrocities. The Arabs were guilty of atrocities. The tragedies of history become entrenched over time. We cannot go back in time to undo them. They create new realities, sometimes evolving into a more just system, sometimes not. However, trying to overthrow those new realities, after a long passage of time, can simply create new injustices for the innocents on both sides living today. Unless ALL the JEWS and ALL the Arabs can PUBLICLY acknowledge the moral legitimacy of the others' pain, and their shared historical claim, there will never be compromise. And without mutual compromise, no peace.