Yes, which was decided by the League of Nations. So if the UN decided to give Texas back to Mexico because of the fucked up reason it was acquired?

That sentence dont make sense. What are u trying to say?

Errr, blaminging that on alcohol. I meant to add if people would be fine with that before the question mark.

If texas was a UN protecterate.  (It isn't.)

That area was given to the UK to do with what they would.

They did.  You can blame the League of Nations, the UK and the UN... but you can't blame Israel.

The people in Palestine got screwed because of Europeon antisemitism... got mad... fought back... and lost.

There is nothing anyone is really going to do for Palestine so they're two options are to accept reality or continue on their path and suffer and likely face ultimate destruction.

The people they're mad at aren't even the right people to be mad at either..

I'm not saying I don't blame the LoN or UK or UN. I blame them more so than Israel by far. However the reason why Israel stood on its own two legs afterwards was due to material support of otheer countries.

Well sure, that sucks.  But that land was under European control since the end of WWI, and when the Brits withdrew it fell to the UN.  Prior to the European control, the land was part of the Ottoman Empire, right?  (I'm not consulting anything atm & it's been a while, so lemme know if I make any mistakes here...)  So, my point is, while it may suck for the inhabitants (both Jewish & Arab) to have their political organization determined by distant entitles... that's the way it had been there for a while.

I mean, the creation of the Palestine state by the UN was, so far as I know, the first time in a very long time that the peoples living there were allowed to govern their own nation.  And basically the first thing they did with their newly found power was to immediately declare war on their neighbors.

I'm not saying that Britain's colonialism was right, or that the UN's division of the land was well executed... but I don't see how any of it justifies the Arab world's response to the creation of Israel.

Uhh, well, I don't see how this matters.  Also, I'm not exactly sure how accurate it is, war for war... but even if it were entirely accurate, so what?  The people living in Israel, imo, are entitled to the same general rights as anyone else.  If the US and Britain have intervened to protect them against unjust opposition, that speaks well for the US and Britain, not poorly for Israel.

But seriously, I think we'd have to look war-for-war.  If I remember right, Israel put up a pretty good fight against the various Arab nations, right from the start.

Well, I guess we'll just have to "agree to disagree" here.  I don't think it's "an international crime, plain and simple."  I think when you get to the point of calling building homes in peace time an "international crime" in order to defend a people who have sought to achieve their ends with a campaign of outright terrorism for decades... then I think it's time to reassess.  The Black Septemberists committed international crimes.  The Israelis just want to live in peace.*

And about comparing it to the US/Mexico... obviously, nothing will line up perfectly, but it would be closer to say this:  what if Mexico said that New Mexico is "occupied by the US" following the Mexican-American War, and that any new homes built in New Mexico consituted "an international crime, plain and simple."  Wouldn't that be a little silly?  So is it, here.

* Most of 'em, anyways.

The invaders signed a treaty guaranteeing the Maori rights to their land and treasures and then had a war with them, won, and confiscated millions of acres of land. Thats a fuck up New Zealand is still paying for today, hopefully they can get all the treaty claims sorted sometime =/

Israel isn't even looking for peace at the moment, the only way they will obtain peace is to remove their incursions into the West Bank and allow a Palestinian state to form with East Jerusalem as the capital. America does need to put more pressure on Israel to move them towards finally reaching a solution with the Palestinians.

I also don't agree with the Arab worlds, especially Iran's and Hamas', positions on Israel. Israel is there, its going to stay there. No amount of posturing is going to get rid of Israel, which militarily can take on the rest of the Arab world combined. Doing all this 'Israel must be destroyed' stuff is just slowing down the peace process.

I'm honestly amazed by the views in this thread, are people entirely blind to the fact that Israel is flawed just like every other country? Its responsible for its own fair share of the conflict in the middle east.

I don't people think that.  I think in general people think it's ridicilious to expect Israel to give a country to people who are constantly firing rockets at them and electing leaders who want to "Wipe them off the map."

Hamas won that election fair and square and should be considered the legal rulers of Gaza.  They simply aren't beause the international community does not like what that would entail.  Aka the attacks that were once terrorist are now acts of war.  Allowing Israel even more free reign in the conflict.

As such the International community is propping up a bunch of corrupt politicians who are pretty worthless themselves.  Even if a peace was reached, Hamas wouldn't agree to it and they have the peoples support.

There is no real way for a peace to be reached as long as the people support Hamas more then the opposite party.

The recent shift towards Palestinian support towards the chosen puppet regime has given Hamas unintentional free reign and pushed Israel in a corner.

And I despise Hamas and what they stand for, radicalism and militantism.

However it was the failure of the PA and Israel to make progress as well as some of Israels more aggressive policies that led to their election. Its hard to deny that the Palestinians have had their lives made difficult by Israel, the constant encroachment of settlements and checkpoints into the West Bank and the blockade on Gaza are really messing up their lives.

Also I wouldn't think of it as Israel 'giving' a country to them, thats slightly generous to Israel. I would think of it more as Israel leaving an occupied territory, internationally the West Bank and Gaza strips are not recognised as part of Israel and I don't believe even Israel claims that they are part of its territory.

Essentially it was a lack of faith in the peace process caused by the consistent failures of both sides to come to a peace agreement that led the Palestinians to elect Hamas and the Israelis to elect Netanyahu.

I would also say there is probably no way for peace as long as Israel has its current far-right nationalist government or peace in Gaza as long as Hamas is in control there.

So yeah, both sides are to blame for the problem, blaming it purely on one side will only end up making the problem worse.

Edit: Also thought I should add that Abbas is generally considered to be the legitimate head of the PNA, and that Fatah is considered internationally to be the legitimate government of both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

The deals offered under Clinton that Israel accepted was more then generous at the time.

Additionally not recognizing Hamas as leaders of Gaza is nothing more then puppet government tactics.