we're stupid enough to think that we can hang on to the status quo indefinitely, so what's the big deal?

wherever muslims gather - decay follows them. Israel don't commit siucide like most of western Europe has, let the ticking time bomb there when it goes off be a reminder what you must do one way or day or another. It's GOT TO HAPPEN.

In order to have a refugee right of return to towns like Jaffa and Haifa, there must be one state. Previous "peace agreements" have denied any right of return and have denied any Israeli responsibility for the refugee exodus. Clearly, some Palestinians were told to leave, but it was the nascent state of Israel that refused to let them return to their homes and, instead, supplanted new Jewish arrivals. Also, whether there was a Palestinian national movement before 67 is irrelevant. The Palestinian people existed in towns such as Nablus, Jerusalem and Hebron under the clan structure, and were united by culture and religion. Israel wants to define itself as a national movement to further legitimize its right to the land, and denies the Palestinian claim because there was a lack of a sense of nationhood before the partition. However, this does not negate Palestinian presence or ownership to the land. Since when does a lack of a nation-state structure mean that a people does not exist??? I also find it funny how Jews keep claiming the land is SOLELY theirs, when even in the Old Testament it says that they were foreigners to the Canaanite land. Stop speaking in absolute terms- it ruins your credibility.

And I believe it to be a vital agreement The Faisal–Weizmann Agreement of 1919. Which the Arabs reneged upon.

They want their own state for themselves - fair enough. The one difference will be that in the palestinian state there will be no Jews, but in israel there will be , and is, Israeli Arabs, by choice. You will not find many Israeli Jews who will agree to a one state solution at all.

n.d and Ahmad, What's good for the goose is good for the gander. #12 is correct, Islam did not exist west of the Jordan river until about 1300 years ago. Therefore, Muslims *settled* west of the Jordan 1300 years ago. Since Muslims settled in the land west of the Jordan river 1300 years ago, why was it not okay for Jews to do the same in large numbers beginning about 130 years ago? The Ottomons, for whatever reason, decided to back Germany in World War 1. They lost, and Britain was on the winning side. Britain was given control over the land east and west of the Jordan River. Therefore the British could do whatever they pleased with the land. It was okay for Islam to do that 1300 years ago, why was it not fair for the British (also outsiders, like Islam) to do that 90 years ago? The British decided to implement Balfour. That was their right, just like what Islam did 1300 years ago in the land west of the Jordan River. Fair is fair. Live with it. ------------------- Having said that, I note the author did not mention Rabin and Arafat almost signing a treaty in 1995 until an extremist Israeli killed Rabin. There was an opportunity for peace there, but Israel dropped the ball. Consequently, Arafat could have been quite disillusioned in 2000 at Camp David II.

Demonization of Israel; negation of the right of the Jewish people to exist, let alone exert sovereignty over its homeland; and sponsorship through financing, training, arming and marketing of the Palestinian jihad against Israel, crosses all intra-Islamic lines. Saudi Arabia and Iran which daily compete for leadership of the Islamic world; Iran and Egypt which do not have full diplomatic relations since 1979, can all cooperate harmoniously in supporting the Palestinian war against the Jewish state as explaned at : http://xrl.us/okrfa

The Arabs don't want to partition Israel to form a separate "Palestinian" state. Nor does Israel want such a catastrophe. So why even talk about it? The answer is simple. Annex Judea and Samaria. Pay Arabs to leave. Arabs are already leaving Judea and Samaria by the tens of thousands annually. We need merely vastly increase this wonderful trend.

Balfour Declaration San Remo League of Nations UN It's amazing that the Palestinians are trying to paint the world with their version of history and everybody is just accepting it

In 1948 4 arab countries attack the newly created state of Israel. They threatened to drive the Jews into the sea and kill every last women and child. Fortunately they lost. The arabs that were up rooted are the responsibility of your arab Brothers. But the arab dictator's use you as tools to keep themselves in power. If the arabs truly loved each other they would have resettled their brothers long-ago.

One (Arab) state "from the river to the sea". Keep on dreaming, guys.

<1) Historically, Israel is the a renewed of Jewish sovereignty> Which actually amounts to nothing in this day and age. So what if Jews had two minor and very short lived kingdoms centuries ago? This has no bearing on events nowadays, if such a plea was entered into a modern court of law it would be laughed at and dismissed as irrelevant. <2) Ethically, Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people is the manifestation of the universally accepted right of all peoples, including that of the Jewish people, to national self-determination and independence> Just as the Palestinian People have the exact same right to ‘national self-determination and independence’. What a pity that Israel denies the Palestinians this universal right along with the universal Right of Return. As a racist nation Israel will afford these two universal rights to Jews but not Arabs. <3) Legally, Israel it being the nation-state of the Jewish people is based on the Balfour Declaration, 1917; the San Remo Conference, 1920; League of Nations decision, 1922 and the United Nations resolution, 1947, all of which are part of a body of laws called "international law".> Actually none of the above are ‘legally binding’, obviously you know nothing about ‘International Law’. Israel’s acceptance into the UN was purely *conditional* on its acceptance of the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees (UN GA Res’s 194 & 273). Israel agreed to this and immediately reneged on its word. This has been typical of Israel ever since and has proven to be an unworthy member of the International Community. This is obviously a blatant lie as Egypt and Jordan (both Arab nations) both recognize Israel as a nation state and have peace treaties with Israel. The declaration of independence of 1948. This is the *only* basis/foundation on which the nation of Israel can stand on. Any other pretentious claims eg: 1) A ‘religious right’/‘divine planning permission’ 2) “We were here first” 3) ‘Legally binding International Law’ ie: ‘The so-called right to exist’ etc ...are simply pure fantasy.

but its in highest interst of Israel to achive 2 national states solution. The status quo leads to one bi-national state as arabs wants but still the world support 2 states and its possible to reach - if it will not happen Israel has no future as a jewish state.

Churchill envisioned in 1920 that "in our lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish state under the protection of the British Crown." Churchill later reneged in the illicit Jerusalem Conference agreement in 1921. 1915 - the McMahon Pledge, which did not include Palestine, the Arabs utlimately reject, which post #16 left out. 1919 - the official memoranda at the Paris Peace Conference that excluded Palestine, the Arabs ultimately reject, which post #16 also left out 1921 - Jerusalem Conference agreement which the Arabs ultimately reject, left out from post # 16. 1922 - the Arabs rejected at the time the Churchill White Paper and boycotted elections for the Legislative Council, which post #16 left out.

the culture which united the various Arab clans which existed in Israel/Palestine before 1967. I don't that you can because no unique culture existed at that time but go ahead, prove me wrong.

is what the arabs were in 1948. They said NO to two states. Nothing has changed since then. Politicians are delusional when they BS about a 2 state solution. Israel has offered peace many times. The arabs have rejected peace every time in favor of more war. Iraqi rocketry, Irani threats of nuclear war; Egyptian, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria all more than willing for the "palestinians" to fight for their welfare. They have proven over and over their lack of care for the "palestinians" allowing them to live in camps since '48. Israel is there to stay. If the arab world is willing to share the area, so be it. Otherwise nothing will ever change.

What are u doing in Philadelphia? this land is definitely belong to Indians!

Why do you hate Jews so much?

"By the banks" in a political speech is not a binding obligation but obviously political rhetoric. I will repeat that no geographic coordinates were given for a Jewish state albeit Churchill was in favor of a Jewish State. He reflected his support in the Jerusalem Conference Agreement.. Given the riots in 1921 and demographic make up in 1922 census it was clearly impossible to form a Jewish state in the area you suggest without guaranteeing a civil war. In addition in UNGAR 181 in 1947, Israel agreed to the specific coordinates of a state through both Ben-Gurion and the then recognized ruling authority that assumed power, the Israeli National Council. Ungar 181 would not have been approved had that written assurance not been provided to the UN coupled w/US diplomatic intervention. You may not like the results but your arguments hold no standing what so ever under international law.

You actually researched this and didn't find it? It might be because you are either blind or dumb - which is it? Try the Balfour Declaration 1917, San Remo Treaty 1920 and/or Mandate for Palestine 1922. All of them state the exact same thing all of Jordan, all lands west of the Jordan are ours.

Refugees must be resettled for any peace deal to work but many willing to take cash to leave. The current 2 state peace deal is good for non-refugees but gives them little since then homes were in Israel. The cash should come mainly from Arab and EU countries in exchange for land taken from Jews in the past. A land swap could also put many Israeli Arab's land in north under PA control in exchange for settlement lands. One roadblock is the newer settlers have trouble buying land in Israel proper due to cost, few sellers or state owned, while renting is a poor option for them since they want to build communities and towns. Second roadblock is the need to grow and room for more people to return, the south is mainly desert with few jobs.

There was never in history any state called Palestine governed by Palestinians. To make it simple please tell me one Palestinian President before 1993. Keep thinking and thinking? The Arabs are the Colonialists who stole the entire Mideast and North Africa in the 7th century from the Native peoples.

And ask him to respond to it. You bring up good points but it will be good if we hear abbas's response to the article. Thank you.

is perfect for all Middle East refugees to be settled and resettled and triple settled because our 5% is as big as the entire Middle East Welcome Black Darfurians, Saharawis, Copts, Armenians, Greeks, Cypriots, Chaldeans, Assyriac, Turkomans, Arameans, Jordanians, Phoenicians, Meccans, Ibn Saudis, Maronites, Kurds

Not that I have to speak for Mr. Smith who is not only not blind or dumb but he is totally accurate. Neither the Balfour,San Remo nor the Mandate call for the borders "OF" Palestine for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people. They specifically say only "IN" Palestine. No boundaries were set.

Let's look at the Turkmen, known to Persians for centuries as nomadic raiders of settled villages. Now rich with gas money, their now deceased dictator Niyazov produced a book, "Rukhnama," that teaches young Turkmen that they sailed to the Americas before Columbus, waiving goodbye from their boats with the salutation, "Ameri-ka!," with painstaking etymological detail provided on how this is in fact a Turkmen word. And now millions of Turkmen children believe that their ancestors were not raiders and pillagers, but instead great discoverers. A systemic lie, much like the birth of the "native" "Palestinian" nation in the late 1960s, out of the ummah, fallahin with no national identity, and a motley crew of Arab tribes and even Moors.

In 2000 the Palestinians were told to accept a state that would be essentially controlled by Israel,does the idiot who wrote this article believe the Palestinians would accpet it.Who cares the Brits promised,the land is Arab!Who cares what the Bible said,and all that nonsense!What more do Palestinians,an occupied people have to give to Israel! Israel wants no peace!