The arabs you are talking about had acestors that were jewish who didn't get driven off though. They stayed behind on their land and just switched beliefs. I mentioned earlier that the jews shouldn't have been kickd out and he UN should have drafted a provision of some form of protection for them, if they wished to stick around more.

If you've never noticed.  History often tends to exagerate... and they were talking about roman loses... and the reason why they drove them out.

For someone who thinks all descisions should be made logically... your not looking at this very logically.

It's just that there were two people in the region when the British and UN made their decisions.

There were 650,000 Jews already living in Palestine in 1947 (and 1.2 million Arabs) - the year when the two-state solution was passed in the UN.
In 1935 there were 370,000 Jews in Palestine (<1 million Arabs) - long before the WW2!
In 1926 there were 150,000 Jews (750,000 Arabs at that time) - long before Hitler even came to power!
And as early as 1895 there were already 47,000 Jews in Palestine (500,000 Arabs) - which was before Herzl announced his world Zionism movement!

It adds up quite nicely. One grouop of people gets rolled over by a storongeer empire. Some leave some stay. The ones that leave start coming back and every so often they try to revolt and end up being rolled over by whichever empire is currently in charge. The original's who stay end up part of the new empire and end up mixign witht them. Eventually, the ones who were gone decide to come back yet once more and ask for the land that hasn't been theirs in millenia except this time England is around and does so, taking land from the group that stuck around and mixed to achieve that.

I don't see where along the way thew jews gained any claim of the land back, other than stating that immigration gives you right to the land you immigrated to it doesn't work.

A) The Palestinians didn't mix.

B) In that they never lost the claim. 

You can either look at this in two ways.  Historical claims or legal claims.

Historical claim wise, the Israelis have a stronger claim since they were driven out... why you think it would be otherwise, sorta defies logic.  You are suggesting that a group of people that fought, lost and were driven out, have less of a claim then collaborators.

Legal claims wise, the Israeli's are the only people with any claim... which is one of the reasons why the UN mandates are never the "bidning" mandates.   So by mandates they mean UN suggestions.

Palestine's problem is that it's never existed as a country, and wasn't a country at the time current international laws existed.

At the moment the only thing saving them is a vague reading of international law suggseting that Gaza and the West Bank shouldn't be annexed to Israel because the israeli's took it over during a war.

Which, it was originally meant to refer to county on country wars.  So like, the Golan heights.

If England or something found an Island tommorrow with natives on it and added it to their empire, nobody would bat an eye.

This is why Palestine is fighting so hard to get recognized as a nation... though what Israel has done hasn't been anywhere near drastic enough to provoke a Kosovo like response, since the Israeli attacks are never targetted at civilians, it's just that Hamas surrounds itself with civilians for propganda reasons.

Well, that and Israel has nukes anyway.

My money is on the Palestinians playing with fire and not making a deal to much, leading to 20-30 years from now Israel to start getting them to leave first via deals of money to sign away citizenship, and eventually just force the rest out.

Much like the Palestinians and other arab coutnries did to the Jews starting in 1948. (well minus the outright intentional murder)  Unlike most of the palestinians who left the jewish controlled lands of there free will because they thought they'd get it back by war.  Heck, if you credit all the land of the jews who were ironically forced into Israel by all the arab countries... all of the combined Israel and Palestine wouldn't be enough.  Ironically, it was the Arab League who caused israel to have a population higher then Palestine.

At that point the rest of the world will probably be too busy or won't care... and the middle eastern states held off by Israel's probable nukes.

And I think Obama's AIPAC speech basically proves the fact that he was just trying to craft words that would be seen as "All sides for everbody."

“Let me reaffirm what ‘1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps’ means,” Obama said, sounding exasperated. “By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. That’s what ‘mutually agreed-upon swaps’ means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation.” Obama went on to play down his remarks, saying “there was nothing particularly original in my proposal.”

no one seems to care what obama said.  they all want to hear what they want to hear(as demonstrated by the false and inflammatory title of this thread).  and the news repeats what will get them the most viewers or the most hits... they are also the most responsible for the idiots spouting nonsense(since its their innapropriate, incorrect reporting that helps lead people to accept their own version of reality over the actual facts).

I am not only suggesting that people who fought and lost and were subsequently driven out of their lands lost claim to it, I am outright stating it. It is foolish to say that people who were driven out of their lands by force retain claim to their lands, because geographically the world should look far different than it does now by that logic. The ones that were driven away had a simple choice, do I keep my culture and leave or collaborate and keep my land. If the jews had collaborated like the others had, then they would be living in what we call Palestine anyhow and would have done so for a while.

So what you are saying is that possession is ten tenths of the law, unless it's the Israelis who are in possession of something. Your arguments continue to be very arbitrary and sound to me more like a conclusion in search of evidence instead of vice versa. "It is okay for an empire to come in an conquer a land. It is not okay to trickle back in over the centuries and eventually conquer the land. I, vlad321, have spoken."

If you can't find the difference between an army marching in and conquering, and a bunch of immigrants begin to bitch and whine and recieving outside help claim land in the area they immigrated to, then I can see where you would get confused.