Correction, it wasn't a religious argument. It was an argument based on how nations usually come to be - historically by a people self-righteously just claiming a piece of land, or in the modern era by UN decisions.

Are you a muslim? I thought u was married to a Palestinian, not that u are muslim though.

Its a very bad argument then, for the reasons mentioned above.

Are you American?  If so, where will you be going when we give the Native Americans all their land back?

I don't.... get your argument.  Wouldn't that be a pro-Israel argument?  Afterall... what the UN and UK did was basically similar.  Except they put the jews there insead of stayed themselves.

It would of been as if the US conquered Peru and said "Whoops sorry Native Americans..  You can live here now."

I don't understand you point then. I know and understand the religious view, even if I disagree with it, but the UN decision did not give ALL of the land to the Jews. So, if we are going strictly by UN then Israel needs to backup and help create Palestine. But, that brings a whole other discussion.

My point of this thread was to see where others stood on the idea that if Palestinians essentially gave up and allowed Israel to take over the rest of the area and pushed for unification, if that would be better? I still say yes as living conditions should vastly improve, even compared to other Arab states and eventually arabs would be in control over Israel. Hell, eventually that will happen even without unification.

I just wish I could persuad Hamas and other warmongers to see that simple truth and simply fight the war of birth rates instead of death rates.

Palestinians were living in Palestine for millenia, and then israel claimed that the land belonged to them because they lived there a long time ago.

By the same logic, even though European Americans have been living in America for centuries, the right thing to do would be to take land from European Americans, give it to Native Americans, and force Europeans out of the country.

So how much time must pass then before it's suddenly "Ok".

After all the Jews have been there for over a half centurty and had to endure quite a bit.

If Israel stalls another 150 years it's ok? 

There is little difference between US and Israel in that regard.  Outside the comparisons that favor israel.

It was the International community and not themeselves who gave Israel that land, and unlike the US who attacked first... Israel wasn't the agressor in there war for land.

Your argument's logic doesn't match your position.

Those who support Palestine should also be for the Native Americans getting back their lands... etc.

I dont understand what you are arguing.

For Americans and Native Americans, the time where we came in and took their land was long ago (as for almost every other country that did the same thing in less civilizzed times).  For Palestinians, Israel didnt take their land until around 1950, and up into the 60's they made gains and moved Palestinians out.  Thats a short period of time, many Palestinians remember the land they use to own or grew up on that was forcefully taken from them.

Time does matter.  In a few centuries (if Israel can stall justice for modern Palestinians for that long), Palestinians wont remember living on the land that was once taken from them, nor will they remember their fathers and grandfathers who were victimized in such a way.  They would only have a baseless historical claim, which is what Israel had in the first place.

And it was the Israeli Zionist movement that was responsible for Jews being given a part of Palestine, which had been around for a short while and really picked up steam after World War II.  If forcefully taking land away from someone else isn't aggressive then I dont know what is.

Ownership of land is decided by the most powerful people. No one really deserves the land, no matter when they lived there or what the circumstance. It's land. If the people in power believe that it should be Israel, then tough luck.

So basically...if the US had "lost" the Cold War, and the USSR decided "What the hell, lets just take the US for ourselves" you would totally understand if you lost your house and your livelihood?

Just wanted to ask...see how much conviction you have behind that stance, 'tis all.

I wouldn't support it, but it's not like I could do anything about it. That's the point of someone being in power. Civilizations have been fighting over this relatively small plot of land for a long time now, and it's been under control by many different nations. Is one more deserving than the other? No, it's land. Just because it has holy connotations to a bajillion different groups doesn't mean that one deserves it more than another. I know I'm pestering the wrong person, but still, the whole debate is silly.