sxydrkhair saidThe West Bank doesn't belong to Israel. It never has. Gaza,
You do realize that other than between 1949-1967, Trans/Jordan's so-called "West Bank" was known as Judea & Samaria, right?
That Jews have been living there, e.g. in Hebron and in Gaza, for thousands of years, right?
Until, that is, they were all ethnically cleansed during the 1948 Arab invasion.
The last legal accepted partition (1922-23) assigned all of western Mandate Palestine (the 22% from the river to the sea) to the Jewish state.
While all of eastern Palestine (77%) was assigned to Trans-Jordan for an Arab (only! no Jews allowed) state.
sxydrkhairsaidGolan, South Lebanon and Sinai too.
Why aren't these part of "Palestine"?
When did Sinai become part of Egypt? What about self-determination for its Bedouin population?
When did Lebanon south of the Litani River become part of Lebanon?
When did the Golan become part of Syria?
sxydrkhair saidillegally occupied the West Bank and Gaza.
As discussed time and again, an "occupation" is what happens between war and peace and is not "illegal".
This is just the regular dose of vapid soundbites and silly slogans that some confuse as arguments.
Was the occupation of Germany and Japan following WW II "illegal"?
Should it have served as a pretense to perpetuate the war forever?
Note that UN Security Council Resolution 242, which is binding on the parties, authorizes Israel to hold the disputed territories until a border is negotiated as part of a comprehensive peace agreement, only after which it should withdraw in accordace with that agreement.
The problem is that the Arab parties were quick to war and glacially slow to peace.
Thus the situation is not resolved, with some Arab parties insisting on war forever (until victory) instead of negotiations, compromise and peace.
Trouble is there is only compromise so long as israel gets what it wants or all deal are off. Thats not even meting half way.
BINGO!!! caesraea4 doesn't get that in his head.
How quaint that this complaint comes from people who oppose the paradigm of compromise, can't think of one thing on which they can compromise, and issue list after list of ransom demands required for them to stop the violence and terrorism.
Already 10.5 years ago Israel was willing to compromise on a net 97% of the disputed territories and on the Arab neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem - which would become an independent, sovereign, and internationally recognized state - contiguous in Gaza and the WB. Clinton further offered a $30 Billion fund to compensate/resettle the Palestinian Arab refugees in the nascent Palestinian Arab state. And Israel was willing to compromise on the Temple Mount, Judaism's holiest site, placing it under some shared mechanism.
The Arab side violently rejected this (as it has compromises proposed in 1937, 1947 and since).
So rather than argue history and sling their propaganda slogans and anti-Israel soundbites, let me ask - in the spirit of the Obama initiative and this forum topic - for each of the Israel-haters (who put demonizing Israel ahead of doing what would most benefit the Palestinian Arabs) to state on what the Arabs can and should compromise.