I'm away of those they are all non relevant. As has been stated. Palestine was never a state. Therefore the Geneva convention does not apply to them as the Geneva convention only applies to soverign states.

So if the British want to give the land back to the Ottomans... that would be great except they don't exist. By UN degree.

Also if they gave it away. So no. The international laws don't apply. If you want to take it up with the british sure.

The Law wouldn't apply anyway. As the British took control of Palestine in 1920. While that article I believe was agreed on in 1949... and ratified later. Making those lands not part of the discussion.

Even by the letter of the law, those annexed during the war by Israel arn't illegal as Palestine wasn't a state and they took that land from other countries anyway.

Aside from which, a majority of those who left Israel land left due to there own free will. How then does one decide from those majority that left of there own free will, and the minority that was forced out?

As for the UN resolutions, read the ones about israel carefully and once again note they are non-binding. Aka not law just a opinion held by the majority of the UN.

Also even if it did apply to the brittish there is nothing in the Geneva convention about preventing the transfer of population when it comes to immigration. All it covers is not deporting or transfering parts of it's OWN population. Most of the jews transfering were in fact not British. Therefore perfectly legal.

The laws against it? Racist law that cost many jews there lives in the holocaust.

Also what claim to the Jews have? The EXACT same claim the Palestinians have. As they were removed by a foriegn power and replaced. Before the Geneva laws were set in place.

You do know the only reason Palestine is called Paletine is because the Romans changed it after a Jewish revolt to punish them? After which revolt the romans expelled the jews from their homeland and dispersed them across the countryside?

To me it's something like stealing a kids lunch, then when someone gives it back to them, arresting the kid who received his lunch back as a theif.

Should money change hands? Sure. Though that's about all that should happen aside from removal from some areas. Even then they have no obligation to do so until the violence stops as it can all be seen as protectionary movements.

Of course, who the negotiations are with is confusing. Since you apparently support the PA. Which itself while preferable to the west is acting against the Palestine constitution by it's removal of Hamas the democratically elected government party from the government. (Even if they are terrorists.)

What SHOULD happen is that Hamas should be elected out of office and then a resolution should be passed to turn in the leaders of Hamas and other extremist groups.

Though i'm not sure you could even even call Hamas an extremist group when they are being elected into office.

Being elected into office would sure make it seem like the majority of people greatly support Hamas and support what the do.  I think that line of thinking is going to have to change. 

Is that all your really asking for? American level ammends? Cause you know, those arn't to great. They also took a long time, a lot of negotiations and during those negotiations the Native Americans didn't attack the US during those negotiations.

Also while achknowledged as "There own states" they really arn't and have little to no power outside of their own communities. They also have horrible living conditions and one group of native americans have withdrawn themselves from the treaty and i believe named themselves there own country.

Even those ammends arn't perfect. Things like this take a LOT of time. And no violence. Those who was reperations had to stop resisting first.

The settler program is horrible but it's also not going to stop until they aren't given a reason to. Even those reasons may not be enough as the Settler program is widely argued as defensive mesaures against hostile nations. However once the violence stops i'm sure the US would stop the Israeli settler program. (Assuming the democrats win, the only republican i can see who would stop it is Mccain, well and Ron Paul but he's really more of a libretarian pretending to be a republican from what i can tell.  Then again even Bush wanted to stop them.  He just didn't have the guts to.)

Even then some of these settlements will likely have to be allowed to stay in Israeli lands for purposes of defensive warfare... atleast in the short term. (Which in the world of city states is a decade or so atleast.)

Basically what i'm saying is.

To receive reperations. The people who is to receive them must first admit defeat in the first place.

They must submit. They can not in any way fight against those who wronged them. Otherwise any reperations will instead be attributed to the violence and invite more violence. Instead of any admittance of wrong doing.

Furthermore it would be good it this was caused by the will of the people. Since Palestine'a legally elected legislature and Prime Minister are infact Hamas. It would seem to indicate the the majority of the people would infact perfer to keep fighting, and support the goals of Hamas.

Which is the destruction of Israel through Jihad as the only solution. Also making there legal government a terrorist government.  Of course this government was illegally abolished by the current leaders.

As such, you want Israel to give concessions to a group of people, who by majority want israel eradicated throuh Jihad.

Can't you see how this attitude needs to be changed for any progress to go foward?

So... he's wrong because he has an objective opinion? Having an emotional connection to EITHER side is called having bias.  "Cold" unemotional reasoning is the only way to get unbiased solutions.

1. Geneva conventions were finalized in 1949. That is why the Arabs have only been asking for land as of the 1967 borders. Not the land Israel took beyond what they were originally given in 1948/49 wars.

2. The laws regarding European immigration into Palestine while British controlled it were created during WWI.

3. Wether or not Palestine was ever a "state" is irrelavent. +-90% of the population was Arab for over 1400 years. Why does it make it ok to forcefully allow a huge influx of Europeans into the lands and them give them most of the aggregate land and nearly half of the total? This does not seem unfair? 

4. As I discussed earlier Hamas' elections were a lot more to do with what they do for the social services of Palestine than the bombings. Even so, Palestinians consider the settlers and IDF as much as terrorist as you see Hamas. So, of course they don't see a suicide bomber in the same way as you do.

I think you and starcraft need to read this book. It is written by Charles D. Smith the department head of the Near Eastern Studies Department at the University of Arizona. His book "Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents" is in is 5th or 6th edition and is used by professors all over the world as a primary source for classes on this dispute. It is very detail with population figures and original documents from the time. Heck, you can probably find an older edition at a bookstore and borrow it for free.

Amazon Link 

This will be my last post on this topic as the discussion is getting nowhere. Regardless of the facts on the ground and the laws that exist to you the Arabs are solely responsible and Israel is righteous. I would simply suggest doing a little more homework and reading more sources.

 In fact the wikipedia article is pretty good. As is this article on the British Mandate of Palestine. Here is a pretty good quote from that article that displays the racism and unequal treatment the Palestinians were forced to accept.

"The Palestinian Arabs felt ignored by the terms of the Mandate. Though at the beginning of the Mandate [1920] they constituted a 90 percent majority of the population, the text only referred to them as "non-Jewish communities" that, though having civil and religious rights, were not given any national or political rights. As far as the League of Nations and the British were concerned the Palestinian Arabs were not a people. In contrast the text included six articles (2, 4, 6, 7, 11 and 22) with obligations for the mandatory power to foster and support a "national home" for the Jewish people. Moreover a representative body of the Jewish people, the Jewish Agency, was recognised." -- so the Jews were less than 10% of the population but immediately given more power. Yeah that's fair.

Also be sure to look the tables near the bottom about population figures and land ownership. Again, fully illustrates the way in which the Arabs got totally screwed and robbed. One tidbit in 1943 There was approximalty 26,184,702 dunams of land in all of Palestine; of which the Jews only legally owned 1,514,247. Thats a mere 6%. Yet, in 5 years they were given approximately 45% of the land. Again, yeah real equitable.

How can anyone say that the original partition plan was anything but racist and completely unequal. I think history proves over and over why the Arabs have had plenty of reasons to hate the West and Israel. It is time to make at least some real attempt at ammends.

1. Pull back to 1967 borders, this includes Jerusalem.
2. Make monetary compensation to the refugees.
3. Assist newly formed Palestine to get powerful enough to squash any underground militant movement.

Another good source is this website.

Stop all the violence from both sides is definitely needed. Again, some of you only see what's broadcasted on the crappy news networks. You don't see the daily atrocities the Palestinians have to deal with from the IDF and the settlers.

Realistic border? What give up another 50% of the tiny amount of the land they have now so Israel doesn't have to relocation 500K people? Cmon man, the '67 borders are realistic.

Already read those Superchunk, as well as a lot of stuff. I understand everything PERFECTLY.

I also have a firm grip on reality. If Palestine wants anything done. They need to surrender. Otherwise the settlers and other atrocities can continue on the Israeli side as well.

Regardless of why they elected them. They elected a terroirst government who's foreign policy to israel is to destroy it. The reason is pointless, by voting for them they voted for their ideals. Giving those ideals a public mandate.

You talk as if the US is the only thing preventing a compromise when in reality the US is the only thing preventing the situation from getting worse! Without the US Israel would likely push even harder.

The only way the Israeli violene will stop is if the Palestinian violence stops first and those responsible are turned in. Basically the Palestine people have to give up it's war. Instead of supporting it's politcal leaders who support this "war".

If you actually think the UN would do anything about it... you should look at the rest of the world. Where much greater attrocities happen and nothing is done.

The actual honest to god genocides that happen every day in africa. The criminal missmanagement of the economy for self gain and taking away of civil rights of Zimbabwe. (Biggest thing there i think is England barring them from a cricket match! Even then the end result might be britian losing hosting rights.)

You need to look at things from a realistic point of view.

Also, your ignoring the fact that during the war of 1967 a MAJORITY of the people who left, left of their own free will at the behest of the Arab Nations who promised them all of the land in Israel and Palestine. Therefore they immigrated legally and have no rights to return.

So your asking Israel to pull back AND allow back peolple who made a deal with other nations to leave with them in order for them to take ALL the land for them.

Suddenly the pre-war borders are ok for them because there allies lost a war. To me it sounds like they gambled and lost, and as such should give up more land as penalty for agreeing with the 1967 war.

Why should they lose pre-war lands? Because they gambled and lost. They and there allies decided to attack Israel instead of continue to discuss things like civilized people.

It's as if you and I were neighbors, and then i decided hey i'll let my friends attack you and try and take your house from me. Then as you defend youself, and take my house to prevent them from having a base in which they could attack you. I left and then sent you a letter saying I wanted my home back.

Are you really going to feel safe living next to me? Keep in mind, every once in a while my kid threatens you publically and throws fire crackers at you and your family and there is absolutely no precedent in our history of neighbors that we will be able to live together peacefully.

So, are you going to want me livng right next to you? Or are you going to want a bit of a buffer?

What Israel should do is.

1. Pull back SOME, but not to the 1967 borders. Instead it should only be a partial withdrawl with both the Palestine and Israel halfs of this withdrawl being a demilitrized zone. Jerusalim being demiliterized and protected by UN peacekeepers who are actually vowed to holding the city, as oposed to the usual UN peacekeeper mission of saying they are there to keep the peace, but leave as soon as an army attacks.

2. Compensate the government of Palestine. How that money is distributed is up to the government to decide and figure out who left because they were forced out, or because they were afraid, and who left at the urgings of the other arab states.

both of which should be conditional and not fully acted opon until.

A. Palestine turns in the leaders of Hamas and other terrorist groups, with help of the international community. Or atleast they are forced to flee and live in exile in other arab countries.

This needs to happen because the last time this was attempted it by withdrawing from the gaza strip anything jewish was defaced, and it was used as an attempt to attack Israel.

You expect Israel to give land back, when the last time they did that land was used to attack them? This is fair to you? To expect them to try the "Land for Peace" resolution when the last time they tried it all they got was a more violent situation?

While those very people who attacked them then, are now sitting at the head of the legitimite government of palestine? (which has been disbanded by the current government against the constitution of the PA.)

Palestine has to make the first move. It can be with this illegal government that's in control now. (Though personally i'd perfer the legal democractically elected government to rule. Terrorist nation or not.)

Also, i'm not seeing anything on that site that Americans don't know. Or atleast americans who actually would care enough to form an opinion.

We are dealing with the human element here, "cold" solutions that don't have that human emotional connection will fail. I assume that's why it has always failed, the ones coming up with the solutions and have the power are disconnected from the human suffering on the ground.

We will always fail if we do not actually recognize what being a human in these conditions actually does to a peoples psychology and outlook and build a solution around this instead