It's time to end the I/P conflict by carving the boundary into international law and encouraging the combatants to deal with one another instead of abusing history to provide phony justifications for continuing the conflict.              

List of UN resolutions concerning Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From 1967 to 1989 the UN Security Council passed 131 resolutions directly dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Of the 131 resolutions passed, 43 could be considered neutral while the remaining 88 either criticized and opposed the actions of Israel or judged against its interests. Nearly half of the 88 resolutions against Israel "condemned," "censured," or "deplored" the member state or its actions.^[3] During this time, in the UN General Assembly, 429 resolutions against Israel were passed, and Israel was condemned 321 times.^[4]

Israelis and Palestinians have something to learn from the Great Powers in World War I, who battled to the death in the waning days of the war in order to establish a front favorable to their territorial interests.  In this case, the "front" between the two nations has been more or less stable for a long time.

I don't think that analogy is apt at all. WWI saw the Great Powers of the day duking it out. The I/P conflict was never a conflict of equals. A nuclear power on one side, armed to the teeth with the most modern weapons and with billions of dollars in foreign support, loose bands of Kalashnikov-waving or just stone-throwing youths in a starved economy on the other side. It wasn't even a conflict of states: Palestine was never allowed to form (not just by Israel). There is no 'front' between the two sides, either: one side absorbed 75% of the originally shared territory which was later recognised internationally, and conquered the rest which wasn't recognised internationally, but still continued to colonise parts of it. If one views the limits of settler expansion as the front, then the front continually moved. Sharon's Wall de-facto extended Israel proper a good deal, and chokes on new Palestinian enclaves.

This conflict can only be solved by Israel, whatever happens on the nonexistent other side. Historical denial and myth-making is a strong factor, maybe even stronger than you see it.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

It is irrelevant what happened long time ago.. in the past...

the only relevant starting point is the f---- British Empire... when they controlled the land.. well they had the right to do whatever they wanted (as the turkish empire before that)... disgusting but true...

And so the UN accepted to give a tiny area to create Israel...coming from an EMpire is actually the best one can get... I can live with that...no worst (actually given other experiences better) than other parts of the British Empire dissolution...

And then the arabs over there did not like it. OK.. fair enough... then ..Independence war .. and unfortunately that settles the question (at least at that time.. no with almost no inter-state waar it seems weird..b ut this is how it used to be)

Of course, the problem is that the crazy zionists elements wanted .... the full God's land.. geeeee....

and proceed with the settlements and more and more...

but above all .. they wanted Jerusalem....

So... unless Israel accepts to come back to the War of Independence borders I do not see any way out...although some palestinian fundamentalists want the destruction of Israel... the main problem now is the siege mentality Israel lives in together with the crazy right-wing elements both  preventing the complete unilateral (ala Sharon) withdraw from the West Bank. Result....it is putting Israel in a path of future apartheid and demographic self-destruction.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

Jews once owned the land under the Davidic Empire (though they ruled for scarcely a hundred years, only during the reigns of David and Solomon)

If I remember correctly, the top archeologist of Israel opined that there never was a Davidic Empire, nor a King Solomon, instead the two statelets Judea and Israel, which the Bible presents as break-up products emerged and existed alongside; and if I remember correctly, David established Israel (the Southern one). The Davidic Empire legend was then developed successively by the monotheist revivalists of Judah king Josiah, the returnees from the Babylon Captivity, and the Maccabee revolutionaries.

they last occupied it only sixty years ago.  This last part seems a lot less persuasive when you consider that Japan last occupied the Korean Peninsula only sixty-two years ago

That's a very off analogy. Japan militarily occupied Korea as a colony, the Japanese weren't making up the bulk of the natives. A more sophisticated analogy, raised by some pro-Israel folks (including Richard Perle), is the ethnic cleansings at and after the end of WWII in Europe, where border changes were finalised and the refugees absorbed elsewhere. However, even that analogy is of little worth, because Israel's expansion is continuing, international law developed since, no European refugee population was on the scale relative to the host populations as to threaten their overturn, and there was no cold war and totalitarian dictature to suppress movements for changing it all back. (Not to mention that even so, most of these ethnic cleansings have repercussions to this day.)

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

you compare the Palestinian claims to their land to the Japanese occupation of Korea?

and you call yourself non-partisan!

what a laugh!

how much is AIPAC paying you or are you a volunteer?

The fighting in Lebanon this week highlights an important problem that gets scant attention. This is the status of Palestinian "refugees". Lebanon alone has something like 11 semi-permanent refugee camps. The one under attack has about 40,000 residents in a 1 Km square area. Some of these people have been there since 1948. Why?

The Lebanese (and Jordan, etc) have not allowed these refugees to integrate into the local countries. They can't work, attend school, own businesses and even build proper homes in the camps. Why?

The common Arab answer is that the host country can't "absorb" this number of refugees without losing its character. This implies that these people will always be regarded as outsiders by the hosts, which, itself, implies some sort of tribalism or ethnic differentiation. This is not very charitable on the part of the hosts, to say the least.

The common Israeli answer is that the host countries won't allow integration so that there will be a steady supply of disaffected people who can keep up pressure on Israel. As the fighting in Lebanon shows those bred to be disaffected may not turn their attention where the host country expected.

Now regardless which of these explanations is right (I think both, partially) the question remains as to why the various states want to maintain the status quo. Do Arab leaders really think they are going to eliminate Israel at this point or do they have some other motivation?

Israel, of course, won't let any of these people back into Israeli territory since they are afraid of being demographically overwhelmed. This is probably true, but also reflects their tribal and ethnic biases.

So what is it that Syria, Jordan, Egypt and the rest of the bunch really want?

My guess is that since all the neighboring states are dictatorships with high levels of social and economic inequality the I/P issue serves as a way to keep people's minds off internal problems by offering up a foreign bogeyman. If this works in the US why not in th middle east?

I'm open to other ideas as to what are the motivations of the states in the area which keep them from resolving the issues.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

In "Common Ground", in fact.

At the end of the day, Nation states are about a contract between the State, and its Citizen individuals who have rights of occupation of land within the territorial borders which the State asserts and maintains by force of arms, if necessary.

It is quite possible for one State to "lease" territory from another, giving exclusive rights of occupation against the "lessor" State - Hong Kong was a good example - typically pursuant to lease agreements made by force of arms.

Enclaves operating on such a basis are not uncommon -the US has bases in over 100 countries within which the host nations' writ does not run.

I believe that it is possible to create a solution - not a million miles away from a "Mandate" solution - whereby disputed territories are held in trust, and non-exclusive rights of occupation granted to individuals who would have the choice as to which of the two (or more!) "Occupier" States they will be affiliated to.

Co-ownership.

No freeholds would be granted of properties, and no leases either, but instead a "Community Land Partnership" would apply whereby Member individuals would be allowed a right of exclusive occupation provided they pay a "Land Rental" (a share of income or production) into a "Community Pool" consisting of all occupiers of land in the area.

This "Pool" would then be redistributed equally to all.

Beyond that "Land Rental" for the exclusive right of occupation of a particular location, individuals would then pay an agreed "Capital Rental" in respect of any capital invested in the land for their personal use(eg to build their home)or for the communities' use (eg to build a school).

In other words, they would build a participative form of "Co-ownership" state from the ground up in a manner similar to the Kibbutz movement, but with the addition of capital beyond mere "Sweat Equity", but not toxic forms of capital based upon unsustainable bank-created "deficit-based" money "secured" by claims over freehold property.

Using a "co-ownership" model, the payment of "taxes" to States would be minimal and would apply only to services delivered by States as "operating partners" in the disputed area.

One of the principal reasons for Hong Kong's success was IMHO the fact that land remained in state ownership.

With investment in property and energy (with a return in local flows of energy orproperty rental value) it is possible using such a common ownership and partnership-based architecture for "land rental units" and "energy units" to circulate upon a clearing platform/payment system as a local form of value alongside any other money that the citizens trust.

This solution would essentially be consistent with the views of those who say that "absolute" ownership of land is God's alone: as far as I know that being common to Judaism and Islam alike.

It would allow third parties eg the UN - rather than any one State - to guarantee the borders against aggression - and it would allow two sets of amazingly intelligent and entrepreneurial people to develop this Common Ground literally from the ground up.