Conker, next time please respond outside of the 'quote' brackets (I had to copy and paste quote brackets to reconstruct your responses rather than just quoting you).
I'm simply interested in the personal psychology of many of those who berate Israel with such zeal. I don't intend my questions -- nor what they imply about such people to the extent that these people aren't consistent in their criticism of those who harm Palestinians -- as a defense of Israel's actions.
In any case, I'd be curious to know what the basis is of your claim that the land under discussion is inherently 'Palestinian.' Assuming the 'occupation' narrative to be accurate, the brutally reductionistic reality of the situation is that one group of apes has moved in and taken land where previously another group resided; what remains once the latter are gone to say that the land is still theirs? Further, how long do the traces of this mysterious force remain before the land can now be deeded to the occupiers? Until you explicate what this force is, you are being rather cryptic when the reality on the ground is that the land is Israeli in all the relevant respects (I encourage you to go and see).
Note that this isn't a justification for such occupation. Perhaps you, I, and the world community abhor such actions and wish to punish Israel accordingly. The important point is that this moral component has no effect on the reality on the ground, which is that for all intents and purposes the land is Israeli; unless, that is, you wish to submit similar arguments that Tibet is really 'still Tibetan' or that large swathes of North America are really 'still Indian.' Without some sort of compelling argument your claim that the land is 'still Palestinian' is false. And I think it's important to let the facts on the ground dictate the world community's discourse and decision making going forward, not just ideals.
Well, as is usually the case in international relations, there is the reality on the ground and the rational calculus each state must engage in on the basis of that reality, and then there are moral considerations. The two may coalesce, but often they diverge (hint: states almost always behave rationally at the expense of moral considerations).
You're letting the notion of international law do a lot of legwork for you by presuming that it dictates what is right and wrong. Well, as I've just said above, what is right and wrong is often irrelevant to how countries behave, so in that respect the international community's opinion is irrelevant. But, more importantly, what is it about international dictums about borders and all the rest that makes them authoritative, i.e., morally binding? It seems to me that the U.N. isn't even a genuinely supranational organization anyway (look at who founded it, why, and how it has generally functioned to promote Western interests across its history) -- it is dominated by state interests. So, we've got an instance of state interest vs. state interest, not some magically binding moral force over state interest. Maybe the one form of state interest is more authoritative because more states are involved, but I don't think you wanted to argue from popularity in making the claims you did.
I haven't a mind-reading device so I can't disprove your claim that 'nobody that is neutral has a problem with Jews' (paraphrase), but nonetheless I think it is almost certainly false and that in fact, if the situation entailed two Muslim populations (say), there'd be drastically less interest in the conflict.
Still, the spirit of your post is accurate: polls show that increasingly, both Jew and Palestinian want an end to the violence.
I never claimed Palestine is inherently anything, but if every government worldwide refers to Israel's incursion into Palestine as an "occupation" and no one supports their right to be there , who should I believe in regards to who's land it is?
Israel as the only nation on earth that believes it has a right to be in Palestine? Or the rest of the world?
My argument is not based on any predictions of what I think will happen , but on what I believe to be right.
I have no idea on the timespan for how long an occupying power has to continue it's occupation until the rest of the world recognises the land to then be theirs, but I have an idea Israel is trying to find out...
I'm also not calling for Israel to be punished, i would just be happy to see some real pressure put them on to try and get them to start complying with international law. At present the US is simply rewarding them for their subjugation of Palestine , by continuing to make them their largest recipient of foreign aid, whilst using their veto to avert all attempts by the UN to put pressure on them.
What is happening on the ground as you say (i.e Israeli imposed Palestinian living conditions) is even more reason why the international community needs to start getting serious with Israel.
I urge anyone(who hasn't already) to go read some of the findings and reports from the Israeli group B'Tselem who observe events in the occupied regions.
