I don't decide anything, but if I could I would decide the parameters based on common sense, fairness and justice.

How would you?

The point isnt if it's 3000 years or 1000 thousand years, the point is who came first of the peoples who claim ownership of a particular land.

define common sense in this context
define fairness in this context
define justice in this context

I would not have the arrogance to individualy think myself capable of defining thoose parameters I would suggest that it is an issue that our species will at some point need to adress though, in a way, I suppose my answer is diplomacy, finding a way of deciding things that works best for individual regions.

  I doubt we even have anything that could be called evidence of who the first humans on that particular land are, let alone the first to claim ownership of it

and by that logic, the USA belongs to the native americans, Australlia to the aboriganess, England to who knows?, etc, etc, etc...

The idea that land belongs to whoever settled there first is completely unworkable. For starters, in most cases it would be almost impossible to determine who that land now actually belonged to (especially in Europe) and the list of countries who would have to give back power to indiginous people would be huge. We can argue that the land should never have been taken off them in the first place but the fact is it was and that can't be undone now.

As for Isreal in particular, they may have settled there first but they haven't had control over the area for around 2,000 years (until the new state was established). After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire the land obviously had to be administered by someone after the British left but I think what gets most people so angry is that such a large portion of what was Palastine was partitioned as the Jewish state when the Jewish people were the minority in the area. Also most of those were very recent immigrants, although granted they had good reason to leave Europe around that time. The establishment of Isreal had nothing to do with granting the Jewish people an 'ancestral' home land from the Western governments point of view, it was purely a political decision.

^ So if the argument of being there first doesn't work, what does it matter in this case? It doesn't matter in the case of Israel, because Israel and the Jews are there already.

So if you say "We can argue that the land should never have been taken off them in the first place but the fact is it was and that can't be undone now." it means the current Israel should be accepted, right? Because the fact is that the Jews control Israel, the West Bank and Jerusalem and that can't be undone now, right?

Broadly speaking yes, sorry I actually meant to clarify that in my post. It would be ridiculous now to suggest that Isreal should not exist or that the Jewish people should have to move. Although expanding settlements into contentious areas should stop. However, a dimplomatic solution needs to be found between Isreal and Palastine and the only way that may be achieved could rely on powersharing in Jerusalem or concessions in other land.

CrazyHorse - There you go. I think that is the most logical statement made, yet.

If you cannot accept rulership based on some sort of ancient heritage (Jews inhabiting Israel prior to the Palestinians), then by the same token, you could say that the Palestinians don't own it either, as Jews have re-occupied the land since the 40s.

Because they are currently there now... and there is nowhere else for them to go.

The Israeli's and Palestinians had a deal in place that was fair, but the Palestinians didn't like it, and declared a war with a bunch of surrounding nations.

They lost, and not support terrorism to try and get back to the original deal in the first place.

Palestine is asking for land back, they lost when commiting a war of agression, while commiting terrorism who's effectivieness is based on proximity... and who's democratically elected government is a terrorist group.

It'd be the same functionally if an Afghanistan led government by Osama Bin Laden asked the USA for land in Afghanistan back.... and Afghanistan included part of Washington DC... oh and if Afghanistan decalred war on the US instead of vice versa.

(Yes I know Osama Bin Laden wasn't actually part of the Taliban.  Just an example.)

Both nations have been walking away, ever since the Palestinians screwed it up by walking away from the best deal they've ever had because "Their people wouldn't accept it".

The PLO is corrupt through and through, and Hamas is a bunch of terrorists.

Well not even terrorists now.  They're technically the offical government of the west bank.

They should be treated as such, but no nation does, because if they did, Hamas' terrorism suddenly becomes not terrorism, but a war... and war crimes.

I know this sounds good and reasonable--"Nation, stop expanding into disputed areas"--but what we're talking about, ultimately, is messier than that, isn't it?  Because it comes down to individuals who are living in these regions, who are making their own personal decisions to move out into new homes... kind of like I moved out from my parent's home when I came of age.

It's not just Israeli policy at stake, but the ability of Israeli citizens to do what most people in any country take for granted.  Sure, from the security of our own countries where our rights are not questioned, we can sit back and say: "well, those people can simply move to a different part of Israel, one that's not disputed," but in reality, people's hearts lead them as they lead them.  Some people want to stay in the same neighborhoods as their families.  As they grew up in.  That's true in the States, in Europe, and, I imagine, in the Middle East.  It's not a criminal desire, but a human one.

And yes, a diplomatic solution ultimately needs to be found... but is such a diplomatic solution possible at the moment?  I'm not sure.  Dividing Jerusalem, according to what I've heard over the years, has been on the table before.  Also, the final creation of a Palestinian state.  And Palestinian leaders have, time and again, walked away, refusing to accept any peace that doesn't give them the full measure of their demands.

I mean, c'mon--there could have been peace under *Clinton*.  But instead, those with the Palestinians' "best interests" in mind chose to keep things as they were; to keep the Palestinians as Israeli refugees rather than nationals of their own state.  And people even now might say that such a peace wasn't the best possible one for the Palestinians... but to that I'd say "compared with what?"  Compared to the second Intifada?  And the resulting road blocks that the OP's video laments?  Compared to another decade of "apartheid" with no end in sight?  Compared to the Lebanon and Gaza conflicts, the infighting between Arafat's party and Hamas?  Surely that peace was better than no peace at all.

If the Palestinians had really wanted peace, they could have had it.  It was there for the taking.  And frankly, I imagine that if they wanted peace right now--*truly* wanted it, to the point of being able to make the same kinds of "compromises" that they demand from the other side--that they could have it within the year.

Diplomatic solutions, again, sound like a wonderful thing.  But a necessary precondition for them is having two sides who are *willing* to come to terms.  I'd like to believe that the Palestinians are desperate to end the current situation--that they're desperate for peace, and willing to sit down at the table and do what needs to be done to achieve it.  To achieve, once and for all, a Palestinian state.  But are they willing?  Based on what I've observed in my lifetime, I fear that, for now, the answer is "no."