Palestine is now a recognized state!!!

[garebear]

Israel is a useless turd who doesn't give a fuck about honor, about dignity, about respect, about life, about holding truces, about agreements, about peace or anything to do with any form of law, international or otherwise.

Israel is full of shit.

Whining and bitching about Hamas all day long, but then being a murderous scumbag that kills thousands of women and children.

Out of all the 'rockets' fired by Palestinians. Only 26 Israelis have been killed. EVER.

From all the 'precision' weaponery that Israel employes. Tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed. Then we have the non weapons based war, where children are literally jailed, beaten, tortured by Israelis.

Fuck Israhell.

Just now they are stealing more land and plan to build 3000 more settlements.

Same story over and over again, you have to be dumb as fuck to not realize what's really going on. They are the ultimate evil in the region and that's that.

I remember since 97 all the 'settlement expansions'. There is no real 'peace talks' with Israel, they do not want peace. Negotiations are just for fun to ridicule palestinians and buy time. Every single time they kill more, steal more, that's it.

Israel is also the very country that supplied the 'intel' for the invasion of Iraq. No weapons of mass destructon there huh.

People who have been observing the conflict for the last few decades know this.

Israeli politiicans were just talking about 'returning to the table and holding onto oslo accords' WHAT oslo accords? Israel does not follow or obey ANYTHING agreed upon in the Oslo accords.

It's pure evil and pure cynicism at it's finest.

Now that Palestine has been upgraded in the UN, the next step is the ICC. International criminal court. Then Israel will be put in it's place and be judged for the war criminal that it is.

Are Israelis subhuman?

[Conker]

You're ranting but not answering the question.

If a rocket is fired into Israel, it is now considered a legitimate military action, yes? Therefore, Israel can and will retaliate with full military force, correct?

No. The rules of engagement state that any targeting of civilians is prohibited by international law, but then again the same laws also state it is illegal to transfer any of your own civilian population into an occupied area.

So Israel really has no regard for what is or isn't "legitimate"

The reason Israel are opposed to this is because they have breached countless international laws and if Palestine is officially recognised as a state, there is more chance that Israel can start to be brought to book for it's crimes.

[syntaxmachine]

Israel is a useless turd who doesn't give a fuck about honor, about dignity, about respect, about life, about holding truces, about agreements, about peace or anything to do with any form of law, international or otherwise.

Israel is full of shit.

Fuck Israhell.

They are the ultimate evil in the region and that's that.

It's pure evil and pure cynicism at it's finest.

1. What are you referring to when you say 'Israel'? Does 'Israel' have a right to exist?

2. The Jordanian military has killed more Palestinians than Israel, yet you don't seem to rail against that organization and/or the government that utilizes it at all. If your primary concern is pointing out crimes against Palestinians, why the discrepancy?

3. Are you as disgusted with the daily butchery being carried out by your fellow Muslims in Syria as you are at Israel's rather limited military actions these past two weeks? If not, why not?

Out of all the 'rockets' fired by Palestinians. Only 26 Israelis have been killed. EVER.

4. Yet thousands of rockets and mortar shells have been fired into Israel, many (but not all) without provocation. Is such attempted killing of Israeli civilians -- men, women, and children -- any less reprehensible because it happens to be less effective? I don't think so, and there certainly isn't a government in the world that will give an attacker a break because that attacker is only mediocre at terrorism.

Anytime the US or israel don't like someone despite them being elected, they want to undermine, demonize, kill, maim, etc... until the people are presured to give up or forced to accept a puppet imposed by US or Israel.

5. I know, it's almost as if states act first and foremost to promote their own interests in the international sphere, including influencing the form and composition of other governments. Weird shit, brah!

Now that Palestine has been upgraded in the UN, the next step is the ICC. International criminal court. Then Israel will be put in it's place and be judged for the war criminal that it is.

6. This isn't a realistic scenario at all. It simply isn't going to happen, whatever your and my opinion of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. You seem susceptible to swapping in your fantasies for accurate descriptions of the world and all that occurs within it, and this is just another example of that tendency.

[a_ahmed]

[Shockwave]

Lol @ suing Israel. Yeah, im sure that's gonna make a difference. Lol.

[OzmO]

I love how people never address specific points or counter arguments, but instead just paste a bunch of pics, articles, or vids.  Then later on they spew out a bunch of other crap else where doing the same thing.

[a_ahmed]

[a_ahmed]

F'n satan incarnate in human skin, the news lady rips him a new one and so well... so nice to see non censored media speaking the truth:

[syntaxmachine]

I love how people never address specific points or counter arguments, but instead just paste a bunch of pics, articles, or vids.  Then later on they spew out a bunch of other crap else where doing the same thing.

It's unfortunate, but understandable all the same. The fact is, engaging in a legitimate discussion with someone -- identifying their main points, figuring out their reasoning, and formulating a response -- is a cognitively intense activity. Not too many people are on here other than for low-grade dopamine surges, i.e., a bit of entertainment. They certainly don't want a mental workout. So, better to avoid all that difficult "thinking" stuff and instead post videos and emotional diatribes rather than actual arguments that are susceptible to criticism.

[Conker]

1. What are you referring to when you say 'Israel'? Does 'Israel' have a right to exist?

2. The Jordanian military has killed more Palestinians than Israel, yet you don't seem to rail against that organization and/or the government that utilizes it at all. If your primary concern is pointing out crimes against Palestinians, why the discrepancy?

What does this have to do with anything? The discussion is about Israel/Palestine. And at present Israel is the only nation occupying Palestine, no other nation lays claim to any Palestinian land.

3. Are you as disgusted with the daily butchery being carried out by your fellow Muslims in Syria as you are at Israel's rather limited military actions these past two weeks? If not, why not?

I would imagine most people would be disgusted by innocent people dying anywhere, but again what does this have to do with what Israel is doing in Palestine?

I've noticed it's a common tactic for Israel supporters to try and bring up how badly Palestinians have been treated by others or other conflicts as if this is somehow justification for Israel's current subjugation of Palestine



4. Yet thousands of rockets and mortar shells have been fired into Israel, many (but not all) without provocation. Is such attempted killing of Israeli civilians -- men, women, and children -- any less reprehensible because it happens to be less effective? I don't think so, and there certainly isn't a government in the world that will give an attacker a break because that attacker is only mediocre at terrorism.

Without provocation? Well there is the small matter of the 500,000 million Israeli civilians that Israel has transferred outside of it's internationally recognised borders into the occupied regions and the small matter of the people that have been run out of their homes to accommodate this.

Oh and there isn't a government in the world that recognises Israel's right to build settlements in any part of the occupied territories.

And then there is the horrendous living conditions and daily violations of human rights that Israel forces the Palestinians to endure, that has attracted countless UN condemnations.
No provocation? Really?



5. I know, it's almost as if states act first and foremost to promote their own interests in the international sphere, including influencing the form and composition of other governments. Weird shit, brah!

6. This isn't a realistic scenario at all. It simply isn't going to happen, whatever your and my opinion of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. You seem susceptible to swapping in your fantasies for accurate descriptions of the world and all that occurs within it, and this is just another example of that tendency.

7. If you ever go there (I recommend Jaffa in Tel Aviv), you will see Arab and Jew live side-by-side amicably. I understand that it is cheaper to rely on overly emotional propaganda from the internet that confirms your preconceived notions, but I think you might be smart enough (though I wouldn't bet on it) to realize that this is no substitute for genuine data and on-the-ground experience.

That is good that you have witnessed Arabs and Jews living together in peace, shows it is possible. I don't think anyone(well definitely not neutrals anyway) has a problem with Jews per se. it is simply the actions of the Israeli government that most right minded people find abhorrent, and I think there is a growing number of Israeli Jews that are also appalled at what it is being done in their name in Palestine.
/color]

[a_ahmed]

Israeli desperation. Because the TRUTH cannot lose to lies... they spend BILLIONS to cover the truth... and to spread their bs pro-israhelli propaganda.

They PAY soldiers, PAY israhellis to TROLL the internet, chat rooms, forums, youtube, websites, even wikipedia WOW:

“The goal of the day is to teach people how to edit Wikipedia which is the number one source of information today in the WORLD “.

“We want to be there. We want to be the guys who influence what is written, how it is written and insure that is balanced and ZIONIST in nature”.

Desperate losers.

[avxo]

Now that Palestine has been upgraded in the UN, the next step is the ICC. International criminal court. Then Israel will be put in it's place and be judged for the war criminal that it is.

Well, first of all, considering how Israel is not a state party in the ICC, I don't see what jurisdiction the ICC has over Israel to begin with. But let's assume that they somehow, magically, get jurisdiction. Pray tell, what exactly can the ICC do and how would a decision by the ICC against Israel be enforced?


P.S.: Don't conflate this post with support for Israel. I'm just trying to understand what you think the ICC can do in this instance.

[a_ahmed]

[JBGRAY]

Israel >>>>>>>>>> You and the entire shitty Islamic world.  How sad, to have tens of millions condemned to a life of ignorance, ineptitude, poverty, and despair.

Anyway...............Enj oy!   

 Arab/Islamic Nobel Prize Winners
From a pool of 1.4 BILLION Muslims which are 20% of the world's population (2 out of every 10 people)

Literature

1988 - Najib Mahfooz

Peace

1978 - Anwar El-Sadat
1994 - Yasser Arafat *
2003 - Shirin Ebadi

Chemistry

1999 - Ahmed Zewail

Physics

Abdus Salam



 Jewish Nobel Prize Winners
From a pool of 12 million Jews which are 0.2% of the World's Population (2 out of every 1,000 people)

Literature

1910 - Paul Heyse

1927 - Henri Bergson

1958 - Boris Pasternak

1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon

1966 - Nelly Sachs

1976 - Saul Bellow

1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer

1981 - Elias Canetti

1987 - Joseph Brodsky

1991 - Nadine Gordimer

2002 - Imre Kertesz

World Peace

1911 - Alfred Fried

1911 - Tobias Asser

1968 - Rene Cassin

1973 - Henry Kissinger

1978 - Menachem Begin

1986 - Elie Wiesel

1994 - Shimon Peres

1994 - Yitzhak Rabin

1995 - Joseph Rotblat

Chemistry

1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer

1906 - Henri Moissan

1910 - Otto Wallach

1915 - Richard Willstaetter

1918 - Fritz Haber

1943 - George Charles de Hevesy

1961 - Melvin Calvin

1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz

1972 - William Howard Stein

1972 - C.B. Anfinsen

1977 - Ilya Prigogine

1979 - Herbert Charles Brown

1980 - Paul Berg

1980 - Walter Gilbert

1981 - Ronald Hoffmann

1982 - Aaron Klug

1985 - Herbert A. Hauptman

1985 - Jerome Karle

1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach

1988 - Robert Huber

1989 - Sidney Altman

1992 - Rudolph Marcus

1998 - Walter Kohn

2000 - Alan J. Heeger

2004 - Irwin Rose

2004 - Avram Hershko

2004 - Aaron Ciechanover

Economics

1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson

1971 - Simon Kuznets

1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow

1973 - Wassily Leontief

1975 - Leonid Kantorovich

1976 - Milton Friedman

1978 - Herbert A. Simon

1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein

1985 - Franco Modigliani

1987 - Robert M. Solow

1990 - Harry Markowitz

1990 - Merton Miller

1992 - Gary Becker

1993 - Rober Fogel

1994 - John Harsanyi

1994 - Reinhard Selten

1997 - Robert Merton

1997 - Myron Scholes

2001 - George Akerlof

2001 - Joseph Stiglitz

2002 - Daniel Kahneman

2005 - Robert (Israel) Aumann

Medicine

1908 - Elie Metchnikoff

1908 - Paul Erlich

1914 - Robert Barany

1922 - Otto Meyerhof

1930 - Karl Landsteiner

1931 - Otto Warburg

1936 - Otto Loewi

1944 - Joseph Erlanger

1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser

1945 - Ernst Boris Chain

1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller

1950 - Tadeus Reichstein

1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman

1953 - Hans Krebs

1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann

1958 - Joshua Lederberg

1959 - Arthur Kornberg

1964 - Konrad Bloch

1965 - Francois Jacob

1965 - Andre Lwoff

1967 - George Wald

1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg

1969 - Salvador Luria

1970 - Julius Axelrod

1970 - Sir Bernard Katz

1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman

1975 - David Baltimore

1975 - Howard Martin Temin

1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg

1977 - Rosalyn Sussman Yalow

1977 - Andrew V. Schally

1978 - Daniel Nathans

1980 - Baruj Benacerraf

1984 - Cesar Milstein

1985 - Michael Stuart Brown

1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein

1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]

1988 - Gertrude Elion

1989 - Harold Varmus

1991 - Erwin Neher

1991 - Bert Sakmann

1993 - Richard J. Roberts

1993 - Phillip Sharp

1994 - Alfred Gilman

1994 - Martin Rodbell

1995 - Edward B. Lewis

1997 - Stanley B. Prusiner

1998 - Robert F. Furchgott

2000 - Eric R. Kandel

2002 - Sydney Brenner

2002 - Robert H. Horvitz

Physics

1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson

1908 - Gabriel Lippmann

1921 - Albert Einstein

1922 - Niels Bohr

1925 - James Franck

1925 - Gustav Hertz

1943 - Gustav Stern

1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi

1945 - Wolfgang Pauli

1952 - Felix Bloch

1954 - Max Born

1958 - Igor Tamm

1958 - Il'ja Mikhailovich

1958 - Igor Yevgenyevich

1959 - Emilio Segre

1960 - Donald A. Glaser

1961 - Robert Hofstadter

1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau

1963 - Eugene P. Wigner

1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman

1965 - Julian Schwinger

1967 - Hans Albrecht Bethe

1969 - Murray Gell-Mann

1971 - Dennis Gabor

1972 - Leon N. Cooper

1973 - Brian David Josephson

1975 - Benjamin Mottleson

1976 - Burton Richter

1978 - Arno Allan Penzias

1978 - Peter L Kapitza

1979 - Stephen Weinberg

1979 - Sheldon Glashow

1988 - Leon Lederman

1988 - Melvin Schwartz

1988 - Jack Steinberger

1990 - Jerome Friedman

1992 - Georges Charpak

1995 - Martin Perl

1995 - Frederick Reines

1996 - David M. Lee

1996 - Douglas D. Osheroff

1997 - Claude Cohen-Tannoudji

2000 - Zhores I. Alferov

2003 - Vitaly Ginsburg

2003 - Alexei Abrikosov

After reviewing this list, can you supply a reason for the large discrepancy between the Arab/Islamic population's contribution to the world body and that of the Jew? There are 165 Jews listed as opposed to 6 from the Arab side.

[Conker]

Well, first of all, considering how Israel is not a state party in the ICC, I don't see what jurisdiction the ICC has over Israel to begin with. But let's assume that they somehow, magically, get jurisdiction. Pray tell, what exactly can the ICC do and how would a decision by the ICC against Israel be enforced?


P.S.: Don't conflate this post with support for Israel. I'm just trying to understand what you think the ICC can do in this instance.

Israel does not have to be a state party of the ICC for Israeli individuals to be investigated/pursued by the court, anything occurring on a state party's territory falls under ICC jurisdiction.

So if the UN upgrade enables Palestine to become an ICC state party this would allow them to refer to the court any Israeli individuals responsible for the crimes committed in the occupied territories.

"The ICC, as it’s known, is on record as inclined to regard Israel’s more than 100 residential settlements on the West Bank as a crime of war. (The Jewish state pulled its settlers and soldiers out of Gaza in 2005 and argues that it no longer qualifies as its “occupier” under international law. Critics argue otherwise.) The physical presence of the settlements in other words would give Palestine a ready-made case to drag Israel before the court — or to threaten dragging it before the court"

Read more: http://world.time.com/2012/11/29/why-palestine-will-win-big-at-the-un/#ixzz2E1EGQXgL

Of course even if the ICC did investigate and indict Israeli individuals for their pretty much indisputable crimes, there's no way Israel would hand over those individuals and they would be supported by the US.

But it would go a step further to helping people in the west wake up the fact that Israel is guilty of war crimes for what it is doing in Palestine and the state of Israel would be seen to be harbouring war criminals.

[avxo]

Israel does not have to be a state party of the ICC for Israeli individuals to be investigated/pursued by the court, anything occurring on a state party's territory falls under ICC jurisdiction.

So if the UN upgrade enables Palestine to become an ICC state party this would allow them to refer to the court any Israeli individuals responsible for the crimes committed in the occupied territories.

Even if something occurs on the territory of a state that's party to the treaty, the Court cannot compel another non-party State to attend proceedings. You could argue that the Court would try such cases in absentia, but even that wouldn't help. After all, what exactly can the ICC do to Israel? Nothing. The ICC has no enforcement mechanism. At best it can give Israel a stern talking to; one that Israel will completely ignore.

"The ICC, as it’s known, is on record as inclined to regard Israel’s more than 100 residential settlements on the West Bank as a crime of war. (The Jewish state pulled its settlers and soldiers out of Gaza in 2005 and argues that it no longer qualifies as its “occupier” under international law. Critics argue otherwise.) The physical presence of the settlements in other words would give Palestine a ready-made case to drag Israel before the court — or to threaten dragging it before the court"

Read more: http://world.time.com/2012/11/29/why-palestine-will-win-big-at-the-un/#ixzz2E1EGQXgL

Of course even if the ICC did investigate and indict Israeli individuals for their pretty much indisputable crimes, there's no way Israel would hand over those individuals and they would be supported by the US.

But it would go a step further to helping people in the west wake up the fact that Israel is guilty of war crimes for what it is doing in Palestine and the state of Israel would be seen to be harbouring war criminals.

Even if everything above is true and even if Israel is guilty of such war crimes any ICC proceedings would hardly wake anyone up. People are inclined to believe what they believe, and even an utterly perfect decision from the ICC that was completely rational and substantiated wouldn't do much to change people's opinions.

To be clear, I don't think that Israel is pure and untainted. War is a messy, bloody business - not clean or neat. And they could have certainly dealt with the whole situation differently. But, frankly, from where I stand that applies to both sides.

[Conker]

Even if something occurs on the territory of a state that's party to the treaty, the Court cannot compel another non-party State to attend proceedings. You could argue that the Court would try such cases in absentia, but even that wouldn't help. After all, what exactly can the ICC do to Israel? Nothing. The ICC has no enforcement mechanism. At best it can give Israel a stern talking to; one that Israel will completely ignore.

The ICC can only go after individuals not states, so Israel(the state) would not be asked to attend any hearing. But as I explained in previous post, if the court believes a crime has been committed on a party state territory it will issue arrest warrants for the individuals deemed responsible for that crime, regardless of if those individuals are nationals of an non party state.

As I said I can so no way that Israel would turn over any such fugitives, but it really would not do Israel's world image much good to have what would be leading figures of past and present Israeli governments indicted as war criminals by the International Criminal Court.

Even if everything above is true and even if Israel is guilty of such war crimes any ICC proceedings would hardly wake anyone up. People are inclined to believe what they believe, and even an utterly perfect decision from the ICC that was completely rational and substantiated wouldn't do much to change people's opinions.

To be clear, I don't think that Israel is pure and untainted. War is a messy, bloody business - not clean or neat. And they could have certainly dealt with the whole situation differently. But, frankly, from where I stand that applies to both sides.

I don't agree with this. I think the majority of people in the west really have little idea of what is really going in Palestine and something like Israel being investigated for war crimes and arrest warrants being issued would really be an eye opener for many.

[a_ahmed]

Blabla

Obama and Henry Kissinger won the peace prize. It's meaningless shit. The nobel prizes are meaningless, they are indeed very politicized. In Iran there were a few scientific break throughs in the last 2-3 years. They are a really progressive nation. Some examples in stem cell research, some examples in nano technology, etc... firsts, yet they did not get any prize of any kind.

These prizes over all are meaningless especially when they are controlled by a certain group of people. Henry Kissinger a peace prize? OBAMA a peace prize before he did SHIT, he started FIVE MORE wars and wants to start MORE wars... peace prize LMAO...

You get the idea.

[OzmO]

I don't agree with this. I think the majority of people in the west really have little idea of what is really going in Palestine and something like Israel being investigated for war crimes and arrest warrants being issued would really be an eye opener for many.

yeah, probably very true.

[avxo]

Obama and Henry Kissinger won the peace prize. It's meaningless shit. The nobel prizes are meaningless, they are indeed very politicized. In Iran there were a few scientific break throughs in the last 2-3 years. They are a really progressive nation. Some examples in stem cell research, some examples in nano technology, etc... firsts, yet they did not get any prize of any kind.

And in North Korea they "discovered" the lair of unicorns (conveniently labeled as "Lair of Unicorns") per http://news.yahoo.com/real-story-north-koreas-unicorn-lair-235304830.html. Can we see references to these scientific breakthroughs? Have any papers on them been published in peer-reviewed journals?

Even if these are real breakthroughs, it will take a while: even Einstein didn't get his Nobel prize until more than 15 years had passed. He published his paper on the photoelectric effect in 1905 (along with 3 other seminal papers that reshaped physics) and didn't get awarded a Nobel prize until 1921.

Any breakthroughs by Iranians are unlikely to compare to Einstein's work. And if Einstein had to wait 16 years, surely they can wait a little longer than a mere 3...

[garebear]

And in North Korea they "discovered" the lair of unicorns (conveniently labeled as "Lair of Unicorns") per http://news.yahoo.com/real-story-north-koreas-unicorn-lair-235304830.html. Can we see references to these scientific breakthroughs? Have any papers on them been published in peer-reviewed journals?

Even if these are real breakthroughs, it will take a while: even Einstein didn't get his Nobel prize until more than 15 years had passed. He published his paper on the photoelectric effect in 1905 (along with 3 other seminal papers that reshaped physics) and didn't get awarded a Nobel prize until 1921.

Any breakthroughs by Iranians are unlikely to compare to Einstein's work. And if Einstein had to wait 16 years, surely they can wait a little longer than a mere 3...

It's science!

[Conker]

yeah, probably very true.

I think it's definitely true.


Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
ARTICLE 49
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

So as Israeli settlements obviously equate to the transfer of the occupying Power's civilian population into occupied territories , according to the Geneva Conventions those settlements represent a war crime.

But how many people in the west are aware of that? Mainstream media never mentions Israel's breaches of the Geneva Conventions or the 60 odd UN resolutions condemning it's actions...

Most poeple don't bother looking under the surface and just take what they are told by the media at face value.

[a_ahmed]

Of course there was, Palestine existed for thousands of years and for over a 1000 years under Muslim rule where Muslims, Jews and Christians peacefully co-existed (except when christian crusades came and except when zionist jews came)

[a_ahmed]

[syntaxmachine]

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).

"What does this have to do with anything? The discussion is about Israel/Palestine. And at present Israel is the only nation occupying Palestine, no other nation lays claim to any Palestinian land."

I've noticed it's a common tactic for Israel supporters to try and bring up how badly Palestinians have been treated by others or other conflicts as if this is somehow justification for Israel's current subjugation of Palestine

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.

Without provocation? Well there is the small matter of the 500,000 million Israeli civilians that Israel has transferred outside of it's internationally recognised borders into the occupied regions and the small matter of the people that have been run out of their homes to accommodate this.

Oh and there isn't a government in the world that recognises Israel's right to build settlements in any part of the occupied territories.

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.

That is good that you have witnessed Arabs and Jews living together in peace, shows it is possible. I don't think anyone(well definitely not neutrals anyway) has a problem with Jews per se. it is simply the actions of the Israeli government that most right minded people find abhorrent, and I think there is a growing number of Israeli Jews that are also appalled at what it is being done in their name in Palestine.
/color]

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.