Im for palestine. I think the people have been without a homeland for a long long time and when people expected the Oslo accords to create a Palestinian state, in fact this has gone backwards with Israel occupying and gobbling up even more of the West bank and East Jerusalem. They are not even willing to momentarily freeze building while they discuss the issue in depth (the freeze that was instigated by Obama only covered the West Bank, not East Jerusalem). I am all for the Palestinians to go to the UN to try to exert more pressure on Israel. While US will veto the statehood application, hopefully this will give the Israelis a good kick up the backside to really get serious about talks.

Especially, considering that if there is no Palestine,then Israel will have to be a unified bi-ethnic Jewish and Arab state which im sure no Israeli wants.

So in otherwords... if the US wanted to kick out all of the illegal aliens in the United States, and for that matter all the hispanic people who have migrated their in the last couple decades.... you're all for that then?

Also, no... only 23% of Jews who live in israel came from Europe.  70% were born in Israel.

The percentage of Palestinians who were born within Jewish lands... much less.

Aside from which, if your going to argue historical hertiage as right... to claim that historical heritage has a "generic starting point" is just.... silly.

I mean, what makes a newer historical claim more valid then an older one.  (Though note actually, the Jews now have both the Newest and Oldest claims now.)

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/08/world/meast/israel-graves-vandalized/?hpt=wo_c2

"The Israeli government was not making any effort to stop these racist attacks against Palestinians," Sarsour said. "Rather, it provides extremists protection."

Kinda fits in to my mentions above regarding the terrorist faction simply labelled "settlers".

Certainly, the whole situation says a lot about the inherent problems with mass immigration and multiculturalism, although that's not the lesson anyone ever seems to draw from it. But I can't say I understand your logic. Firstly, I'm not sure why itreally matters, but history shows that the Jews have undeniably been there far longer than anyone else since they were never completely eradicated to begin with, even if they were a minority for much of the time. Leaving that aside, are you saying that when the Arabs rioted against their Jewish neighbors and tried to give them the bum rush, it was totally cool because the Jews only owned 60% of their land anyway? That seems like a rather peculiar justification, the kind you usually get when someone is clutching at straws for a flimsy moral reason when they've actually chosen sides out of a more tribalistic loyalty to one particular side. I somehow don't think you'd be so sympathetic to the Swedes or the French if they decided they've had their fill of their uppity Muslim immigrants and moved to reclaim Malmö or the banlieues by force, after all.

If you never see this news you can't be looking that hard, it was all over the place.   I remember thinking "Price tag, that just is going to reinforce stereotypes." 

Now what you never hear about are rockets being shot into Israel... because it occurs more often then Wensdays do.

of course, Saying that it provides the extremists protection is false.

the Jewish government doesn't go after them but it doesn't protect extremist settlers.

Though it does protect some settlers, within the land expected to go to them in the negotiations.

Those that are building and those that are particularly violent are conflated together for political reasons.

Typically when there is an ethnic cleansing, there is less of that particular ethnicity afterwards. Sort of like what happened to the Jews or the Armenians. Since there are more Palestinian Arabs than ever before and Israel has over 1 million Arab citizens, this has to be the most cackhanded ethnic cleansing in the history of the world.

the balfour declaration is complete its a god damn letter which doesnt signify anything. 

when i comes to the state of palestine you must understand that their are many ethnic groups in the region which incudes lebanon/palestine/isreal, so when their borders where made when they were under mandates, such borders were grouped becauseof ethnic groups. so you can classify palestinians as a group and say that they have been kicked out of their homes.

again when it comes to this matter i dont care, both sides have fucked up my country, and i blame the west.

If back in the 1940s you asked 100 jews if they would rather live in the Warsaw Ghetto or Nazi Germany, they'd probably still choose Nazi Germany. But what does that prove?

Right now, it's definitely more desireable to live in Israel, so it's no wonder many palestinians would currently prefer to live there. We know from the Wikileaks Cablegate that Israel is intentionally trying to make the lifes of the palestinians a nightmare by always trying to keep Palestine on the brink of a humanitarian crisis, but no further.

Anyway, back to topic: the original poll is silly, because the original question is way too generic to give a sensible answer. If what's meant is whether I support the Palestinians trying be a member at UN, UNESCO etc. by themselves, or if I think they should continue with direct negotiations with Israel: The palestinians are of course doing the right thing.

Thing is: Peace might have been possible back in the days of Yitzhak Rabin, but there is absolutely no point in negotiating with the current israeli government. Netanjahu's Likud party is voted for mainly by ultra-right wing settlers and religious extremists. The party's charta even officially states the aim of preventing a palestinian state. There is just no meaning in negotiating with a person who would commit political suicide by giving the palestinians even a small finger. If you remember that, then it's easy to see why even high-class diplomats from israel's biggest friends are saying that Netanjahu is an "armor-plated bullshitter" who cannot be trusted at all and who only claims to be interested in a fair two-state solution.

If Netanjahu & Co. were actually interested in these negotiations at all, they would agree to immediately halt the building of settlements. But that's never gonna happen, because he wants negotiations that go on forever, while at the same time, the religious extremists that vote for him can continue to steal more and more palestinian land. (Which, by the way, is considered a war crime by UN laws - and THAT is the main reason Netanjahu does not want Palestine to be a member of the UN. Being a UN member means being able to press charges against war crimes in the Hague.)

By the way, I can only recommend reading th english section of the great leftist israeli newspaper ha'aretz (http://www.haaretz.com). When it comes to israeli and middle east policy, they are much more honest, open and direct than any other newspaper I've read so far.

you do know that jews control the majority of the us media?

Except I was talking about a fully liberated Palestine.