Solomon, thanks for the rather scholarly effort in history. I stand humbled :) However, you haven't answered my question- how do modern European Jews claim to be a part of Palestine?

"They are a festering cancer and must be excised" Sarah, just to remind you, only 70 years back some folks in germany had similar views with regard to jews. ur words only strengthen the view that the treatment of the palestinians at the hands of the "ersatz" israelis is similar to what the the jews faced at the hands of the nazis. if u say u aren't gassing them, it is either a matter of time or that the very fact that the Shoah happened prevents you from doing that. If u were a german 70 years back, u would have been a proud nazi

Beside being abusive, you go on a rant without actually comprehending the point of my posts. So, here it is, I will lay it out for you: The issue of the intention of there being a Jewish State or not, is NOT what this is about. I was merely pointing out that the British at the time of the Balfour Declaration did not intend for a Jewish state to be formed. The wording of the Declaration was intentional. For you to understand - this is called an anecdote. I suppose you noticed that Article 22 makes no mention of Palestine, but alludes to "parts of the Turkish empire" in general. The San Remo Resolution ( note: resolution) converted the Balfour declaration into a binding act of international law. So, you see, resolutions CAN be converted into international law, like the Resolution for the establishment of Israel. The point is that you rightists who believe in the righteousness of settling in the West Bank, should stop quoting the San Remo Conference, the Anglo-American Accords etc as your legal basis, because it is problematic. The Balfour Declaratrion grants the right for Jewish to settle, on the condition that it does not prejudice existing non-Jewish comunities, a condition which the present settlements in the West Bank does not fulfill. I believe that this would be like " the fruit from the poisoned tree" in laws of evidence. There are other arguments the Right can use to justify the legality of settlement in the West Bank, just don't use this one. I challenge you to take your case to the International Courts and base your argument on San Remo. I believe you would lose. For 45 years, no government in Israel has annexed the West Bank. Do you think there is perhaps a legal reason for that? I do. So, just to lay it out for you, plain and simple: I AM a Zionist and I believe strongly in Israel's cause. I work for what I believe is best for our country. That is different to what you believe, but you have no monopoly on the definition of Zionism. I believe that the West Bank settlements are detrimental to Israel's cause and her future. I believe that they corrupt our values and our mores as human beings. I respect the Levy Commission's report, and believe that it has to be addressed. It IS contrary to the Sasson report, which was just as comprehensive - which basically means that every legal issue can have two good cases. In conclusion, you can say that my research was not comprehensive enough. You can say I was wrong in my conclusions. You can bring contradicting sources to oppose my argument. However, to call someone an outright liar? That must show INTENT to DECEIVE, which does not exist. You have no idea how to debate an issue without being abusive. But, what can one expect from one as crass and abusive as you?

Thank you for your well thought out post. I would agree with a lot of what you wrote. We have no argument there. My point was and remains that the issue the legality of settlement in the West Bank should not be predicated on the historical resolutions of the Balfour Declarion, San Remo etc. They are problematic and will not solve the problem today, If we insist on taking the case to an international court, based on these precedents, we would lose. We need to look at the problem TODAY, with the existing parties today. I do not believe that the way to do so is the bullying way that the settlers have chosen. I believe in the end that if EVER there is a chance for peace ( and I know that at the moment that looks impossible), territorial compromise will be a part of it. Therefore, I believe these settlements are a hindrance.

I said the BRITISH had no intention of establishing a state. Read the reference I mentioned. I am aware that the League of nations classed the Mandate as a stepping stone to the establishment of a state. Instead, go go off on a rant about the League of Nations and call me an outright liar and ignorant. I guess you allow yourself to be so insulting and abusive, because you are safe in the knowldege that you will never have to meet the people you insult/ That's like being a bully as well as a coward.

Thank you for your most valuable posts in defense of historical truth. It is obvious that the left point of view must refute by all means the idea that 51 nations, supported by the US, voted in favour of the creation of a Jewish State, in 1922 (the League of Nations) Who opposed this idea ? Leftists Jews who got hold of the Zionist movement. Nahum Sokolow who was secretary of most Zionist Congresses and became the President of the World Zionist Organization till 1933, wrote in the introduction of his two volume "History of Zionism" (1917) the following, and I quote: "It has been said, and is still being obstinately repeated by anti-Zionists again and again, that Zionism aims at the creation of an independent Jewish State. But this is wholly fallacious. the Jewish State was never a part of the Zionist programme. The Jewish State was the title of Herzl's first pamphlet, which had the supreme merit of forcing people to think"... Rejecting at that time the creation of a Jewish State had as consequence the tragedy of the SHOAH.

your Jordanian travel documents will convert into Palestinian citizenship, after we eradicate one particular Saudi family that's now squatting in the Palace in Amman. Tell you what, since we're humanitarians, we'll let them flee to California. They'll feel right at home in LA, can hang out at the yordim clubs and singalong with Rita.

>> One cannot curb millions of Palestinians’ demands for freedom via legal reports. the Anglos didn't grab New Amsterdam with legal reports. The Muslims didn't grab Mecca with legal reports. The Arabic-speaking armies didn't seize Palestine with legal reports. So, we Hebrews will copy those excellent examples. We won't put legal reports at the tip of the spear.

the partition plan in 1947 was by the general assembly, that is not international law but international recommendation. (only the security council can make international law and that is subservient to previous law... aka San Remo. The Jewish homeland was a Jewish state, like Poland, Bulgaria, Iraq... ect ect.) The League of Nations gave the British a Mandate to give the land and sovereignty to the Jews. There are no provisions. Besides you confuse private property with national sovereignty. Learn international law before you confuse international opinion with international law.

Sorry, I clicked submit by mistake. What I wanted to add was that the British Mandate was for all the population of Palestine, and all the time there was a dilemma of either a bi-national state or a solution of 2 states. If they were to choose the 2 state solution, which they did, it follows that the borders of the Jewish state would be redefined, not so? Thank you for your learned response. It is seldom possible to hold a dialogue on YNet where people remain respectful of others' views. You seem to manage. Good on you.

The preamble to the League of Nations Mandatory stated that the UK government should act on the basis of the Balfour Declaration: .....in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people... Note: 1. It says "in" - not "of" - Palestine; 2. No mention of a Jewish state.

If you want to mention the "Preamble" of the "Mandate for Palestine" than don't limit yourself to a part of a text that suits you. Here some more of that "Preamble": "Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;" Well Bertram, you read the word "RECONSTITUTING" ? It means of course reconstituting their ancient independent STATE ! Besides the word "NATIONAL" adds to leave no doubts about the League of Nations intentions. For more read my post # 42.

Unfortunately, using uppercase lettering (or shouting) doesn't improve your case. Your use of the term 'state' is so loose as to betray a complete lack of historical understanding. Nation-states as we understand them did not really come into existence until the 19th century. Sure, there were kingdoms in the ancient world ruled over by warlords such as David and Solomon, but hardly states. Now, it is quite possible for a state to comprise more than one nation. Indeed, there are many such states in existence, one of the largest being the US which is the homeland for the 'First Nations' (or native Americans). And, for the present, the UK comprises the Welsh and Scots nations. However, to the main issue: show me where it states unequivocally that mandated Palestine, to the west of the Jordan River, is eventually to be transformed into a unitary, exclusive Jewish state.

Per my post #60: ashkenaz Jews are part of Judea and Samaria (called “Palestine” by the Romans) as their ancestors were born and lived there. Many (not all) of these same ancestors were dispersed through the centuries; they migrated to Asia and Africa, then Europe. They all originated, however, in Judea and Samaria. The arabs were ‘intentionally dispersed’ by their conquests throughout the ME from their home in Arabia. They originated in Arabia. It would help discussion if you paid attention to what is posted, rather than ignore facts that you don’t happen to like.

I disagree about Balfour and San Remo. We do agree however that there will be territorial compromise and that there should be no bullying on either side. The settlements may have been a hindrance but now they give Israel a better bargaining position. If the arabs would not be complaining about settlements, they would be complaining even more vehemently (than they are now) about the “Palestinian” cities of Jerusalem, Haifa and Tel Aviv (!?). Their claims are spurious to say the least. The problem is that the arabs have to show they are sincere. They have consistently shown the exact opposite.

The treatment of the ersatz [no quotation marks] palestinians at the hands of the israelis is NOTHING like what the the jews faced at the hands of the nazis. Any inference otherwise shows your extreme prejudice and ignoring facts that are not to your liking. There are no death camps in gaza; they are doing quite well, thank you very much. Freedom? An even better lifestyle? No. But you can thank Hamas for that. Meanwhile, arab israelis vote, are represented in government, go to the same hospitals as Jews and are treated by the same arab and Jewish doctors. An Israeli arab sits on the Supreme Court. Your post only confirms the conviction that you hate Israel and Jews and are willfully blind to facts, to reality. If you were a German 70 years back, you would have been a proud nazi. As it is, you come close.

1. The US recognizes some self-government for the American Indian tribes. The arabs never would have accepted this as shown by their attacks on Jews starting in the 1920's, well before 1948. 2. Wales and Scotland are countries, as is England. This is correctly called Great Britian. The UK is composed of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Each is an agreement for the involved countries to join together. Neither Great Britain nor the UK is a country per se.

1. Try 2012 instead of 1948. Ask if the Palestinian citizens of Israel would accept the status of a national group. 2. Sorry, this is not correct. The UK is a country with the status of a - multinational - state. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their parliaments, and Wales has an assembly, with devolved responsibilities for a range of domestic affaifrs - but certainly not foreign affairs, diplomacy or defence. There are no internal borders. The UK, by the way came about as a consequence of wars, later ratified by law.

1. The Arab citizens already are a national group. Funds are allocated to arab schools, towns, etc. (albeit not enough). As a group, they are not drafted into the IDF. Israeli networds broadcast in arabic. In any case, 1948 is still relevant as the arabs in the WB and gaza say they will never accept Israel. This is both history and current events (2012). 2. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not “homes.” They have borders (look at a map). If their governments/assemblies/whatever make laws, what is the area of their application bounded by if not boundaries? Ask a Scot in Aberdeen if he/she is in Scotland or not. 3. If the system in the UK came about as a consequence of wars, then the situation in Israel should be accepted as it is also a consequence of wars.

With all due respect, you have not understood: 1. Araba citizens are not recognised as a national group inside Israel as the Scots are in theUK, the Basques are in Spain, or the French are in Canada. They are not seen as an integral element of the country but as a - barely - tolerated minority. 2. These are boundaries between (limited) jurisdictions not international borders. 3. Yes, I agree, but it is not about acceptance or legitimacy (an abstract concept) it is about recognition (a political act) - which can vary. The more countries that recognise another country the better - and the UN has kind of taken that collective role. Hence UN membership is a pretty sign of recognition!

1. True. They will not be accepted as a national group in the sense you mean, with all the rights and privileges that entails, until a true peace is agreed upon. Until now they are looked upon as a fifth column. Many Israeli arabs may not support this view of their loyalty, but Israel listens to their loudest voices. The situation in Israel can be considered analogous to Wales and the aftermath of the Welsh revolt against Henry IV. The circumstances may not be exactly the same, but the political situation and enmity between the sides are very close. 2. I now understand your meaning, thank you. And, as you said, they came about as a consequence of wars. 3. UN membership is a sign of recognition, yes. But that pales by comparison to what is necessary in the real world; the acceptance and recognition of those sworn to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews. No other entity can prevent this from happening (least of all the UN). Israel must be the one to prevent this, and the first step is the cessation of viral hatred by its enemies, many of which share a border with Israel. Syria has shown UN impotence. The UNHRC has shown UN hatred of a UN member. Recognition cannot be a piece of paper, but facts on the ground. To accept anything else is both stupid and suicidal. Peace.

I really do appreciate your willingness to enter into reasoned deabte. I agree that there are extreme, fanatical voices within the Palestinian Arab population of Israel. There are also many other moderate voices among that people. One whom I know quite well is quite critical of Israeli government policies towards the Arab citizens of Israel, but that person is as fluent in Hebrew as in Arabic - and regards Israel as home. Can we not get away from fanaticism and extremism on all sides and work out a way of living togther that does not deny the other's existence? Of course, it's not easy, but, ultimately, Israel will be the winner. The only other choice is moral and physical degeneration.

The cacophony of the ME is like a radio set to LOUD. If you want to turn it down you must first convince either the group that wants to leave it at LOUD to turn it down, or the group that wants to turn it down to do so regardless of the reaction of the first group. It is good to hear of an arab that regards Israel as home. I have recently been hearing more of this. But their voices are soft; the loud voices hold sway. I agree with your hopes. I do not see it happening in the present situation however.

It's nice that you believe this but Muslims believe that Jews are on their land and anti-Semitic Russian peasants believed the same. So, we came up with this great idea called "democracy" to get around these kinds of religious problems. It goes like this -- everyone gets to be a citizen. There is no "back" for Palestinians anymore than there is for Jews -- there is no "back where they came from". The places Jews came from they are not going back to and ditto for the Arabs in the West Bank. You are stuck with them -- if you want all of the land, you will get all of the people and those people will eventually become citizens. So, as long as you are okay with a bi-national state, then you're good. Guests are people who are visiting temporarily and who have another home. Neither Jews nor Palestinians have another home, so there are no guests here. Wouldn't it be nice if Jews in Israel were a bit educated in the basics of democratic thought? Perhaps you should be careful in quoting Torah, since Torah Judaism rejected Zionism until WWII.