Dear RAche....

no it would not surprise me in the slightest. (Standard military/political tactic, "divide and rule")

KARSH (and Morris)... Rache.. all you showed me there is that both of them can get a whacking from their opponents.. it's like an adjective competition... so.. doesn't this make you just a tad cynical about the value of information from EITHER side?

FH... u funny boy.. making 'colorful' distinctions about what is valid and what is not...about land? naughty man. Talk to some aboriginals about your views..I recommend a trip to Redfern.
Tell them that their land was 'up for grabs'..and I'll pay the ICU costs :)

HISTORY is important.

JEWS bought land.
JEWS migrated and bought land.
ARABS rejected a partition plan and attacked them...

HISTORY

Palestine has remained (from the destruction of Jerusalem until today) the neglected province of absent rulers and the runway of fluctuating populations.

Originally Statehood was the Kingdoms of Israel/Judah

Then a Roman province,
then Byzantine,
Then under Arab rule in 637 A.D. The Arabs ruled it as foreign conquerors for 400 years to lose it in 1071 to the Seljuk Turks (1071-1099).

Then...Christian Crusaders occupied it for nearly two centuries,

Then it was ruled by Tartars,

Then Mongols (1244-1260),

Then Mamelukes of Egypt (1260-1517), and

Then...Ottoman Turks, who held it until

FINALLY...

it was mandated by the Allies to Great Britain at the close of World War I.

In ALL of that..the ONLY group which did not 'conquer' the land was.... NONE..(including Jews) But they DID have a divine call "Goto a land I will show you" to Abraham...No one else had that.

So.... my brain says.. "if you believe the Ottomans or Seljuks or Romans or Arabs had legitimate authority (by virtue of conquest) you must ALSO agree that the JEWS of modern times have EQUAL legitimacy."

If you DON'T believe any of these were legitimate...you ALSO condemn the Arab Muslim invasion of Umar (637) on which Hamas claim is based.

Aaah.."Logic & Reason"...great inventions.

Whoops

I made a mistake in my recent post.

The line which reads

"The very fact that Israel has signed treaties and traded land in return for peace with Egypt and Jordan, as well as handing back the west Bank puts the lie to the expansionist Israel argument. "

should have said

"The very fact that Israel has signed treaties and traded land in return for peace with Egypt and Jordan, as well as handing back the the Gaza Strip puts the lie to the expansionist Israel argument. "

Paul L, For all it's alleged "flaws" the UN is the only forum we have to deal with international tension and humanitarian matters.

I suspect that you would subscribe to the sentiment of the US Ambassador to the UN (John Bolton) who said "There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States."

Now wouldn't that just solve everything?

Rache,

Don't suspect, Ask. Otherwise you look like a dill.

I'm not a huge supporter of America exercising its unilateralist power. America can't go it alone. In fact even the US knows it needs allies.

You admit the UN is flawed. Good. My point is, how can we lambast Israel based upon the numerous resolutions cooked up by its enemies. The UN is riven with such political machinations.

We need a new body, in which only truly democratic countries have voting rights. Do we really want the Sudanese, the Somali's, the Libyans, The Iranians or the Cubans deciding UN policy