Boy, isn't that jumping to conclusions right off the bat. But I will be honest, Israel has received immeasurable amount of help from the west, starting with that one US partitioning, or whatever it was called. Really, there would not be nearly as many problems had people just kept their traps shut and not partitioned Palestine to begin with, and then give material support to Israel. The truth is, without other nation's butting in there probably wouldn't be an Israel in the location it is right now. I don't want to personally attack you, but it is really hard not to given your strong bias on the issue. You also ignore what I jsut said, in that Israel shouldn't have existed in the first palce to begin with, or at least not in the location it's presently at.

oh thats interesting...maybe you shouldnt have perhaps then?

how the hell can i ignore something you said when you were typing it?

well maybe you should get your time machine out and tell the jews not to settle there. perhaps tell them to just return to egypt and build some more pyramids.

i love how the rational and unbiased people in this thread are those that advocate positions that would cause a democratic country to cease to exist replaced with one more corrupt arab regime.  people that would decry an individual with a knife wound for shooting the person who stabbed him.  next up someone to defend some palestinians who break into a home and stab 5 month babies in the chest.  well the jews shouldnt be there anyways so its ok. 

and wtf is so ungodly irrational and biased that israel unilaterally set a fair land swap and withdraw into its own borders?  the fact that i dont think israel should be destroyed and the jews thrown into the sea?  well excuuuse me all of you.

Because you were defending yourself with the words "i have no attachment, therefore I am unbiased" and I decided to show you that no attachment does not mean lack of bias.

As for the jews, maybe the US should have just cut off one of its states and given it over to them. Or have Britain split some of its land for them. In the end what was done to the palestenians was not justified by the west, and this whole problem would not be existing right now. As it stands, the initial UN partitioning should never have taken place and Palestine deserves its lands back, no matter if Israel has defended its land before (using heavy resource support from the west by the way) they shouldn't have been there in the first place. Really the problem here lies in the west, minus Germany since it had no hand in this shit, and so far they have done pisspoor job handling the situation. 

There was never a US partitioning...

I'm going to take a stab and guess you mean the way the UN divided things...(mostly a UK concern) which caused the arabs to say "No" and then invade Israel along with a bunch of allies... lose and sign an arminstice which is now considered the 1967 boredrs.

Which neither the Palestinians or Israelis really agree on because well... arminstices aren't actually legal agreements of borders.  Those happen in ceasefires.

So Palestine still thinks things should go by the UN resolution that they rejected(Outside Hamas anyway which is even more extreme) while Israel believes that the borders are still undefined as such a thing can only be negotiated during the ceasefire, and no official borders have ever been drawn up and agreed on.

I don't know how one couldn't logically agree with the Israelis on this point.

Emotionally you could make arguements, but by the letter of the law... by not agreeing to the partitioning, there are no defined borders.

Had the west NOT intervened.  Those areas would still be under Ottoman control.  Since they only came under control by accepting western help by revolting agaisnt the Ottomans... in promise that they would be free of the Ottomans.  Worked out for basically everywhere but Palestine because the british promised it to both.

Hence the need for a split.

I TOTALLY meant the UN, I guess it was too early in the morning/late at night and typed an S instead of an N, or a freudian slip. Sorry. In my following post I did refer it correctly to the UN.

As for who it originally belongs to, whoever had the land before the Ottomans, should get it back afterwards. Maybe I am wrong, but I remember that with the exception of a few cities and areas here and there, the area was predominantly muslim, not jewish. Which is where the British really fucked things up. As I mentioned a bit later, the biggest idiots in this whole conflict is the west.

I do agree it's all Englands fault... not really anything England can do now though.  Originally they were going to give the Jews Somalia.

"Whoever had it before the ottomans" though is a poor arguement... mostly because... it wasn't the Palestinians.

The Mameluks owned it... and they don't really exist anymore.  Ethnically they were Turks.  So basically... we'd be giving it to Turkey?

The majority of Palestinians today are not Turks... I'm not sure any country led by Turks would want it...

So who owned it before the Turks that we should give it too?

Europeon nations...  They ironically are the last owners of Palestine that still actually exist today.

Who decided to give some of it to the Jews and some to the Palestinians... which the Palestinians disagreed with.

In fact, France I think actually tried to gain control of palestine under some old claim they had.

It's been a loooooong time and many many empires since Palestine has been ruled remotely locally.

I believe the last time it had actually been locally ruled not by an outside empire was by the Jews... before Islam even existed... before the Romans took them out.

Actually think it went  Jews- Romans(Italians) - Byzantines(Turkey) - Ummayad (Saudia Arabia) -  Abbasid (Iraq) - Fatmid Tunisia - Crusader States (Europe) - Mameluks (Egypt/Turkey) - Ottomans (Turkey) - Egypt(Turks that were rebelling from Egypt led by an Albanian) - Ottomans (Turkey) - England - Israel.

"Last owned locally" would be Israel.

Before it would be either Egypt or Europe depending how you looked at it.  Neither of which actually related to the Palestinians race wise.

Also, you'd have to conquer Jordan and give Jordan over to Europe or Egypt... since Jordan is a part of Palestine.  It and Palestine were split in half though when England made it's decleration to give land to the jews.

Jordan was essentially "Where jews were not supposed to go."

Really though, the last local rulers were the Jews... with other groups moving in during the many many empires that came after while Jews were forced out or converted.

To get to "locally owned by the Palestinians by the way you have to go

Hasmonean (Jews), Macedonians (Greece or Macedonia, it's complicated),  Judea (Jews), Persians (Iran), Israelite Kingdoms (most of modern palestine) (Jews) & Phoenicians (Jordan) (Palestinians maybe) & Philistines(other parts) (???),   Possibly Palestine, because the guys that lived in some areas aren't like what the bible says.

Going off Wikipedia off this for now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#History

So yeah... a far ways back, for maybes.

Now "The Palestinians should of had a country because they were there and the West was breaking up the Ottoman Empire is a good arguement."

Though completely contrary to your "who was there before the Ottomans" arguement... and partly that arguement why I think the british decided to put jewish people there.  There only national home had been located there and had been taken away by one empire after another... and well they were forcibly removed from Palestine.  The jews didn't leave, they were driven out of the territory and spread all across the roman empire.

And well, the West was meddling by breaking apart the Ottoman empire as it was.

Though also if you make that arguement... that same arguement can be made for Israel, at this point.

The current rulers are the last known local rulers who were forcibly removed by outside empires.

The only reason it may seem unjust is because it's been like 2000 years since that happened.  Though considering the mass explusions that kept happening basically everywhere the jews went, the massive anti-semitism and such, you can see why they are a bit skittish and would want a national homeland... and perferably the national homeland they were all run out of.

When you consider the entire history of it... I find it hard to believe that its logical to consider the Jewish presence ins Israel/Palestine as an affront.

It's just, only was impractical because of the time past... but was already done.

It would be like if the US was conquered by like... China, freed by Europe... and they put all the relevent native american tribes back to where they "belong" based on where they were.

Problematic, yes.

Is there a reason for doing so?  Also yes.

It's a simple matter that the Palestinians desire a free state, therefore they should get one. It's not about historical claims which we cannot enforce unless we resort to barbarism (like Mr. Bubbles happy fun "They're lucky they didn't blow up the dome of the rock" claim), it's about the Palestinians getting what they as a people want. The harder question is who defines "people," mostly in right-of-return matters

The problem being Israel has a very welcoming immigration policy for Jews, so similar rights should be given to Palestinians expelled before, and land enough given that would allow the Palestinians to return. Nominally the territories should at least be homogenous too, which is why i would support moving the settlers away from their various pockets and into one tract of land more fairly distributed (for their numbers, the settlers own disproportionately too much land), as i can't foresee any scenario that wouldn't involve Israel's apartheid-esque controls over the West Bank in the name of "keeping the settlers safe."

certainly not as barbaric as trying to usurp another groups religion and then building on their holy sites.