This history is so completely wrong.

Time frame for what is considered the old or eastern part of Jerusalem:
1. it was a Canaanite city.
2. it was conquered by early Israelites.(Jewish)
3. it was conquered by Babylonians.
4. it was returned to full Jewish control.
5. it was conquered by Romans, pre-christianity, yet primarily only Jewish residence.
6. it was vacated of most Jewish inhabitants and was purely a mixed city.
7. it was conquered by Arabs (Muslims). This happened around 700CE. Then inhabited by mostly by Jews smaller groups of Muslim and Christian Arabs.
8. in about a decade it switched to being predominantly Arab, mostly Muslim and smaller but almost equal groups of Arab Chrsitians and Jews.
9. it was conquered by Christian Europeans and reconquered by Arab Muslims. During these times the Christians and Muslims removed eachother from the city, with the exception that only the Christians removed jews as well and Muslims allowed Arab Christians to stay.
10. it was finally conquered by Arabs for the last time. From here until about 1949, the city was predominantly Arab (Muslim and Christian) and a decent group of Jews.
11. When the UN gave Jews control much of the Palestinian territory they only lived in the newer western part of the city. Not the original old city in the east.
12. Israel conqured the old city in the 6 day war in 1967.
13. Since then Israel has made numerous racist laws and forcefully evacuated many Arab home owners from the western part of Jerusalem. Most of whom had documents that go back 100's of years proving the land had always been under Arab ownership.

Since international law states that you cannot take land by means of war, the border should go back to 1967 boundries and the city should be split. Anything else is just not legal or morally right.

The 1967 borders were never offficially agreed on by the Palestinians. As such it was never officially there land... and instead they started a war with their allies. As such... they have no real legal claim except a revisionist history.

Palestine never having been an actual state never had any land to lose. Had they agreed to the boriders and an actual recognized palestinian state existed you'd have a point Superchunk.'

Any land Israel took from that was recognized as part of a foreign power... like the Suez Canal... you'd have a point. Palestine however... while occupied during a time of war was not gained through war. As said people were not part of any nation on which war could be declared. Despite there being people there... legally it would be no different if say the US colonized an uninhabited island when the war with iraq was going on.

You can argue other things... however the legal arguement is a poor one for the borders since palestine had no legal standing as a internationally recognized state. It could have, but it rejected such an offer in hopes of being greedy and grabbing more land then the UN decided. It's going to be hard to find anyone who isn't biased to support the 1967 borders in consideration of this.

Hence why the term "all territories" was rejected from UN resolution 242 on many occasions.

so, since the west, i.e. mostly Britian, fucked them over after WWII by not abiding by their (British) promises of allowing any Arab majority region to be self governed and thus never created a Palestine when it was nearly 90% Arab populated and instead offered them roughly 55% of the total land (in 1947) where it was only 20% of the total farmable land and that since they (the Arabs) justifiably declined this offer and instead tried to fight for what was legitimately their property they are know not even entitled to roughly 40% of their total land?

Yeah, that seems fair. Instead they should only get what the highly moral Israel decides is justifiable which is about 20 to 30% of their original land, of which a very small percentage is farmable.

That's alright. Since Israeli-Arabs have a much larger birth rate than their Jewish counterparts, most numbers show them being the majority again in the Israeli occupied areas. This combined with Israel having no constitution and being a democracy means that they can eventually vote on reunification with the rest of the land and have one large Arab 'Israel'.

 Status quo will return. To bad the Hamas' and other groups couldn't see the eventual outcome for what it is and lay down arms and work on peace so the Arab populace can continue to dramtically out birth their Jewish counterparts and just take the land back by purely democratic means. It would be a lot easier.

Do you want to argue morals or legality here?

If your arguement is based on international law you need to follow the mandates of the international community. If someone attacks someone else because they were screwed out of their money by a lawyer. They still go to jail... they still pay a penalty.

Israel also was pretty screwed by britain at the time. Maybe England should give up some of it's land to the Isralei's and palestinians.

I do find it ironic and hypocritical that you claim the war was justified even though by your own admission any land gained would be illegal by international law. Arguements shouldn't be used for the mere justifcation of getting your way.

Your right, legality only.

When Israel fought for its existance in 1948/49 it gained land that was immediately granted by the international community since it hadn't existed yet as a Nation and was not bound by those specific laws.

However, in 1967 Israel was a State that had specific legal borders. Upon the end of that war it has unilaterally claimed land outside of their legally owned land. Regardless if that land was part of a "State" it is still not part of their land. Therefore it was still illegal and against UN laws.

Also, the reason why older UN resolutions have various terms have been rejected on certain resolutions had nothing to do with their legality. It had to do with US bias and veto powers.

Actually if you look at the law it deals with the adition of lands owned by other states through war... and deals not with the addition of land, but the rule over people of another state or another state in it's entirity... or the removal of people from a state from said land.

Palestine not being a state had no claim via international law... and UN resolutions are simply the interpretation of the itnernational community of the law and what needs to be done to bring things to legality.  Just like the US supreme court it is an interpretation of the laws.

I still think the purpose of the law is embodied in that example. I think that any unbiased judge or group of peers would soundly agree that Israel is required by law to move back to the 1967 borders pre-6 day war.

I think this is self-evident in the fact that no Nation includes those territories as part of Israel, including E. Jerusalem. Even the US official policy is that Tel Aviv is Israel's capital and that E. Jerusalem is part of the Occupied Territories.

This is illegal as well as not allowing the right of return to all Arabs and their direct descendants to their homes in Israel. Granted this should be given up by Arabs in the prospect of gaining full 1967 boundaries and monetary compensation for other lost homes. But, that is just my opinion.

what about compensation for the Jews that were run out of arab countries?

Actually official US policy is that Jerusalem is Israel's capital... as is the view of a lot of countries.

Every 6 months the US president has to sign an order delaying the movement of the US embassy to Jerusalem. Basically just to not stir up the area.

See the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act

Obama has promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem as had been planned way back in 1995.

They did not leave due to a war in their area and they could return if they wish. In fact every territory that they left still has Jewish populations. Granted, they don't have the same religious freedoms as they would have outside of those nations, but, they are citizens as are those that left.

Whereas the Arabs tried to return home when the hostilities stopped and were not allowed and this extends to those who were living in the occupied territories and fled in '67 as well. They are not even allowed back into those territories unless they have a visa from another country, which is only temporary.

In reality it is no where near the same circumstance. The Jews left for two reasons, many out of fear of retribution from their Arab leaders and many for the free land, homes, and money that was given to them to immigrate to Israel. The Arabs all fled out of fear and when they tried to return home they were told no. They havn't even been able to get their possessions.