Your solution to the ME crisis

[Saigon]

The bottom line is, after 1900 years as a Scattered People, and after being slaughtered nearly to extinction in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, some sizable percentage of the world's nations and peoples figured that the Jews ought to have a homeland again...

And, given Palestine's tremendous Jewish history and ancient spiritual and legal claims, Palestine drew the short straw, to make room for that new Homeland...

It's not as if the existing residents were doing anything particularly remarkable with it anyway, and parking the Jews there seemed the lesser of various evils at the time...

Trouble is, it was done badly, by the fledgling United Nations, and some of its more bleeding-heart members, and those co-conspirators (co-founders) simply folded their tent and walked away from the situation before the job was done - leaving the principal players to go at each others' throats...

Had the UN possessed more teeth and courage at the time, it might have carved-out a very different future than they one those early UN types bequeathed to us...

The UN only has the power its members give it, you cannot just blame the UN for the conflict. Back in 1947, the UN had only been in existence a few years. They had no resources to force the Partition Plan on the people in Palestine. When Israel was admitted as a member nation in 1949 after her representatives agreed to abide by the UN Partition Plan and the resolution calling tor the refugees to be allowed to return to their homes, the UN had no way to force Israel to abide by these agreements and resolutions which she has yet to do, after the passage of 64 years.

Very good points by both Kondor and Sherri there.

I have never thought the UN plan was particularly strong, but had both sides respected it in 1948, perhaps we would have seen many more years of peace since.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The bottom line is, after 1900 years as a Scattered People, and after being slaughtered nearly to extinction in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, some sizable percentage of the world's nations and peoples figured that the Jews ought to have a homeland again...

And, given Palestine's tremendous Jewish history and ancient spiritual and legal claims, Palestine drew the short straw, to make room for that new Homeland...

It's not as if the existing residents were doing anything particularly remarkable with it anyway, and parking the Jews there seemed the lesser of various evils at the time...

Trouble is, it was done badly, by the fledgling United Nations, and some of its more bleeding-heart members, and those co-conspirators (co-founders) simply folded their tent and walked away from the situation before the job was done - leaving the principal players to go at each others' throats...

Had the UN possessed more teeth and courage at the time, it might have carved-out a very different future than they one those early UN types bequeathed to us...

The UN only has the power its members give it, you cannot just blame the UN for the conflict. Back in 1947, the UN had only been in existence a few years. They had no resources to force the Partition Plan on the people in Palestine. When Israel was admitted as a member nation in 1949 after her representatives agreed to abide by the UN Partition Plan and the resolution calling tor the refugees to be allowed to return to their homes, the UN had no way to force Israel to abide by these agreements and resolutions which she has yet to do, after the passage of 64 years.

There are a few things that she doesn't mention because she has wished for the destruction of the JEWISH STATE many times


Right of Return of Palestinian Refugees:
International Law and Humanitarian Considerations
When Israel was created in 1948, Arab states and Arab Palestinians attacked the Jewish community in Palestine and the Jewish state, vowing to "drive the Jews into the sea." They lost the war however, and some 725,000 Arab Palestinians fled or were expelled from the area that became Israel. Thousands of Jews were displaced from areas conquered by the Arab forces as well, and some became refugees for a while.In December 1948, UN General Assembly Resolution 194 called for return of refugees who were willing to live in peace with their neighbors. Jewish refugees, including refugees from Palestinian Arab areas and hundreds of thousands of others expelled from Arab lands, were absorbed into Israel and did not claim refugee status. Arab refugees were placed in camps.

Palestinian Arabs claim that any peace agreement with Israel must allow the descendants and families of these refugees, numbering about 4 million, to return to Israel. This is the position adopted at present (2006) by the moderate Palestinian leadership of Mahmud Abbas, enunciated in the "moderate" Palestinian Prisoners' Document and presented as well by Palestinian negotiators at Taba in 2001: In the Palestinian "compromise" proposal, all refugees would return to Israel gradually. Jews would become a minority in their own state. Return of the refugees would put an end to Jewish self determination and the Jewish homeland, yet Arab Palestinians and their supporters insist that this solution is "justice" demanded by international law. This stand has been reiterated many, many times by "moderate" Palestinian officials

Which is exactly what the Pro Palestinian wants. If it can't be done from the outside ( A War) it will be done within




Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;


Notable in this wording, is the fact that a "right of return" was not mentioned, and the reference to "refugees," rather than "Arab refugees" and "governments," rather than the government of Israel. This implies that the framers had in mind the rights of Jewish refugees in Palestine as well, and would also be applicable to Jewish refugees forced to flee Arab countries as a result of the conflict. The number of Jews were forced out of Arab and Muslim countries because of the conflict is about equal to the number of Arab Palestinian refugees.

The above also speaks of them wanting to live " At peace with their Neighbors" lol

Obviously, the above is not the entire post

Palestinian Refugees Right of Return - Zionism and Israel - Issues and Answers FAQ

The right of return belongs to the refugees. Nobody has the authority to negotiate away the rights of someone else.

 

[Kondor3]

The Palestinian Right of Return can be reasonably argued as the Right Thing or the Moral Thing to do.

It would also be suicide for the Jews to concede it.

Consequently, it will never materialize.

Never.

When survival and morality are toe-to-toe on the macro (national) level, survival wins-out every time.

Every time.

 

[Saigon]

Tinmore -

I don't agree. We can all agree that if Muslims ever gained a democratic majority in Finland, the end result would be the end of Israel as a state, and could even lead to genocide. That is no solution.

Israel has the right to preserve itself, but should do so as generously and democratically as possible, and with respect to law. I think limited right of return would be a fair compromise for all. After all, many Palestinians were born in exile, so have no real connection with those lost Palestinian towns.

 

[irosie91]

[
sherri>>
Rejecting Zionism is not rejecting The Old Testatement.

irose>>it is clear that you never read the Old Testament.
In fact ZIONISM is one of the MAJOR themes of the Old
Testament.

Christianity and Christians existed for 1800 years without Zionism.

Christianity is not Judaism----the concept of ZIONISM as
presented in the bible refers to jews ---not non jews.
Many christians thruout the ages have continued to
accept that idea, In fact it was so prevaelent that it was
so accepted in the writings of the koran (another book
you should read sometime)

ZIONISM is the reason there is a conflict today in Palestine.

Is is the reason that hundreds of millions of innocents were
brutally murdered in Africa, Asia, europe and the americas---
I would not ascribe the murder by Isa-respecters of aboriginal
australians to ISA-RESPECT---- Millions are still being brutally
murdered in the name of ISA


The idea that one people can go and kick another people off their land and use God to justify it, there is certainly nothing whatsoever in the teachings of Jesus to justify this. Christians believe in Jesus and the teachings of Jesus, John 3:16 being a key verse. And back to the OP again,


Try again----constantine's legal genocide of non isa respecters
IN PALESTINE was based on HIS understanding of the bible---
in fact he sponsored the NICEAN project which led to the filth of
your hero ADOLF ABU ALI by virtue of distorting sophist
reinterpretation of the words attributed to jesus of nazareth
-----(with inquisition inbetween) ----and
huge land expropriations around the world in the NAME OF
CHRISTENDOM The build up of the ISLAMIC EMPIRE---was based
on EMULATED FILTH ----montezuma died in the name of the filth
you so eagerly endorse. The exclusion of the bible----and zionism
has resulted in almost every death be genocide and massacre
and lynch-----in the past 1700 years ----the past 1700 years
has seen far more BRUTALITY IN THE NAME OF YOUR DISGUSTING
creed-----than has existed thuout the entire rest of the history of
man kind on the planet


I think the Palestinians should keep practicing samud, standing on their land and
staying on their land God gave them, where God placed them, and passionately embracing nonviolent resistance. And one day, the Injustice that is Occupation will end, God will reward their samud.

some "god" gave the "palestinians" land? really?
according to the koran "allah" gave palestine to
THE JOOOOOS sheesh I heard an Imam describe
the New Testament as a piece of perverted crap----written
"BY PERVERSE LIARS ----ENEMEEEEES OF ISLAAAAAAM"
But I never experienced an isa/allah respecter who so
defecates upon the koran
the koran

 

[Mom]

Tinmore -

I don't agree. We can all agree that if Muslims ever gained a democratic majority in Finland, the end result would be the end of Israel as a state, and could even lead to genocide. That is no solution.

Israel has the right to preserve itself, but should do so as generously and democratically as possible, and with respect to law. I think limited right of return would be a fair compromise for all. After all, many Palestinians were born in exile, so have no real connection with those lost Palestinian towns.

You gonna carpet bomb the ME with reindeer?

 

[Saigon]

Mom -

Sorry! A Freudian slip, perhaps?! I meant a majority in Israel, of course!

 

[proudveteran06]

The UN only has the power its members give it, you cannot just blame the UN for the conflict. Back in 1947, the UN had only been in existence a few years. They had no resources to force the Partition Plan on the people in Palestine. When Israel was admitted as a member nation in 1949 after her representatives agreed to abide by the UN Partition Plan and the resolution calling tor the refugees to be allowed to return to their homes, the UN had no way to force Israel to abide by these agreements and resolutions which she has yet to do, after the passage of 64 years.

There are a few things that she doesn't mention because she has wished for the destruction of the JEWISH STATE many times


Right of Return of Palestinian Refugees:
International Law and Humanitarian Considerations
When Israel was created in 1948, Arab states and Arab Palestinians attacked the Jewish community in Palestine and the Jewish state, vowing to "drive the Jews into the sea." They lost the war however, and some 725,000 Arab Palestinians fled or were expelled from the area that became Israel. Thousands of Jews were displaced from areas conquered by the Arab forces as well, and some became refugees for a while.In December 1948, UN General Assembly Resolution 194 called for return of refugees who were willing to live in peace with their neighbors. Jewish refugees, including refugees from Palestinian Arab areas and hundreds of thousands of others expelled from Arab lands, were absorbed into Israel and did not claim refugee status. Arab refugees were placed in camps.

Palestinian Arabs claim that any peace agreement with Israel must allow the descendants and families of these refugees, numbering about 4 million, to return to Israel. This is the position adopted at present (2006) by the moderate Palestinian leadership of Mahmud Abbas, enunciated in the "moderate" Palestinian Prisoners' Document and presented as well by Palestinian negotiators at Taba in 2001: In the Palestinian "compromise" proposal, all refugees would return to Israel gradually. Jews would become a minority in their own state. Return of the refugees would put an end to Jewish self determination and the Jewish homeland, yet Arab Palestinians and their supporters insist that this solution is "justice" demanded by international law. This stand has been reiterated many, many times by "moderate" Palestinian officials

Which is exactly what the Pro Palestinian wants. If it can't be done from the outside ( A War) it will be done within




Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;


Notable in this wording, is the fact that a "right of return" was not mentioned, and the reference to "refugees," rather than "Arab refugees" and "governments," rather than the government of Israel. This implies that the framers had in mind the rights of Jewish refugees in Palestine as well, and would also be applicable to Jewish refugees forced to flee Arab countries as a result of the conflict. The number of Jews were forced out of Arab and Muslim countries because of the conflict is about equal to the number of Arab Palestinian refugees.

The above also speaks of them wanting to live " At peace with their Neighbors" lol

Obviously, the above is not the entire post

Palestinian Refugees Right of Return - Zionism and Israel - Issues and Answers FAQ

The right of return belongs to the refugees. Nobody has the authority to negotiate away the rights of someone else.

Obama wants the Israelis and the Palestinians to " negotiate". Even the Arabs do. It's not in Israel's best interest to agree to borders that were NEVER recognized before, have NO access to E.Jerusalem, something they were supposed to have had after 1948 and " Right of Return".

You have even conceeded that eventually the Jews would be a minority in their own Country and become annexed to " palestine". How did you phrase it? Oh... I remember " It's Israel's problem"



Definition of NEGOTIATE
intransitive verb

b: to arrange for or bring about through conference, discussion, and compromise <negotiate a treaty>

The above is not happening? Neither is a " palestinian state" which is O.K. with me. Hope Abbas keeps insisting on everything. It will not happen

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tinmore -

I don't agree. We can all agree that if Muslims ever gained a democratic majority in Finland, the end result would be the end of Israel as a state, and could even lead to genocide. That is no solution.

Israel has the right to preserve itself, but should do so as generously and democratically as possible, and with respect to law. I think limited right of return would be a fair compromise for all. After all, many Palestinians were born in exile, so have no real connection with those lost Palestinian towns.

Israel was founded by, and populated by, recent immigrants virtually none of which had any ancestors from Palestine. How can you say that it is the refugees who have no real connection to the land?

Israel was created by violating the rights of the natives. Israel cannot continue to exist without violating the rights of the natives.

Explain to me how Israel gets the "right" to violate the rights of others.

 

[RKMBrown]

Tinmore -

I don't agree. We can all agree that if Muslims ever gained a democratic majority in Finland, the end result would be the end of Israel as a state, and could even lead to genocide. That is no solution.

Israel has the right to preserve itself, but should do so as generously and democratically as possible, and with respect to law. I think limited right of return would be a fair compromise for all. After all, many Palestinians were born in exile, so have no real connection with those lost Palestinian towns.

Israel was founded by, and populated by, recent immigrants virtually none of which had any ancestors from Palestine. How can you say that it is the refugees who have no real connection to the land?

Israel was created by violating the rights of the natives. Israel cannot continue to exist without violating the rights of the natives.

Explain to me how Israel gets the "right" to violate the rights of others.

The same reason the democrats think it's ok to redistribute income to themselves? The same reason we distributed the land of the Indians to ourselves? The same reason killing 2million people in our Civil War was justified?

 

[Mom]

Tinmore -

I don't agree. We can all agree that if Muslims ever gained a democratic majority in Finland, the end result would be the end of Israel as a state, and could even lead to genocide. That is no solution.

Israel has the right to preserve itself, but should do so as generously and democratically as possible, and with respect to law. I think limited right of return would be a fair compromise for all. After all, many Palestinians were born in exile, so have no real connection with those lost Palestinian towns.

Israel was founded by, and populated by, recent immigrants virtually none of which had any ancestors from Palestine. How can you say that it is the refugees who have no real connection to the land?

Israel was created by violating the rights of the natives. Israel cannot continue to exist without violating the rights of the natives.

Explain to me how Israel gets the "right" to violate the rights of others.

They were chosen by god to do as they please. Just accept it and move along.

 

[irosie91]

For Mr Tin-----Israel was created by jews who had remained in palestine since it was
ethnically cleansed of jews 1700 years ago by CONSTANTINE----and also by jews who
purchased land in palestine by the owners of that land in the 1800s and first half of the
1900s -----when those owners ---the OTTOMANS lifted the ban on jews owning land that
was founded by the FATHER OF NAZISM ----CONSTANTINE How does buying land
constitute a VIOLATION of anyone's "rights"? I grew up in the USA in a town that
had been "restricted"-----the people there considered selling a house to a black
american a "VIOLATION OF THEIR RIGHTS" too. ------in fact they were a bit
"violated" when my family moved in in the 1950s----and later on I heard from
my mom that they were in an UPROAR of that "VIOLATION" feeling
in the 1970s when a PAKISTAN FAMILY MOVED IN--- I am so glad
I did not grow up with that which is your sense of VIOLATION---and
understood
that lots of my neighbors were the filthy scum that they really were.

I also came to understand what makes some jews so WARY of the fact
that the STENCH CONTINUES-----I was optimistic that filth like you
would waft away

 

[proudveteran06]

P. Veteran -

There has been quite a lot of talk about this offer, but very little detail. Apparently is known as the napkin proposal, because the offer amounted to a drawing on a napkin.

I have no idea why Abbas was not more enthusedand likely he was foolish not to show more interest, but I'd want to see more facts before I could really say the offer was "insanely generous".

Of course the propagandists never mention the clunkers. Only a small token number of refugees could return. Israel would control the water. All people and goods, entering or leaving, would have to go through Israel. Israel would control travel, tourism, and trade. Israel could shut the whole place down whenever it wanted like it did to Gaza.

The offer really sucked.

So, the only " offer" Abbas should accept are the 67 Borders which never existed in the First Place, No rights to E. Jerusalem, and your admission that eventually Israel would disappear? ( Not literally, but figuratively). Tell us please, why Israel would agree to it's own aleniation and how that's to Israel's " advantage"


If I am wrong in the above, tell us please what if your opinion would be a " fair and just negotiation."


Definition of NEGOTIATE
intransitive verb

b: to arrange for or bring about through conference, discussion, and compromise <negotiate a treaty>

Since this is what everyone wants, tell us please why Israel would agree to everything . It's not going to happen.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P. Veteran -

There has been quite a lot of talk about this offer, but very little detail. Apparently is known as the napkin proposal, because the offer amounted to a drawing on a napkin.

I have no idea why Abbas was not more enthusedand likely he was foolish not to show more interest, but I'd want to see more facts before I could really say the offer was "insanely generous".

Of course the propagandists never mention the clunkers. Only a small token number of refugees could return. Israel would control the water. All people and goods, entering or leaving, would have to go through Israel. Israel would control travel, tourism, and trade. Israel could shut the whole place down whenever it wanted like it did to Gaza.

The offer really sucked.

So, the only " offer" Abbas should accept are the 67 Borders which never existed in the First Place, No rights to E. Jerusalem, and your admission that eventually Israel would disappear? ( Not literally, but figuratively). Tell us please, why Israel would agree to it's own aleniation and how that's to Israel's " advantage"


If I am wrong in the above, tell us please what if your opinion would be a " fair and just negotiation."


Definition of NEGOTIATE
intransitive verb

b: to arrange for or bring about through conference, discussion, and compromise <negotiate a treaty>

Since this is what everyone wants, tell us please why Israel would agree to everything . It's not going to happen.

Abbas left the government in June of 2007.

 

[Saigon]

Tinmore -

I don't agree. We can all agree that if Muslims ever gained a democratic majority in Finland, the end result would be the end of Israel as a state, and could even lead to genocide. That is no solution.

Israel has the right to preserve itself, but should do so as generously and democratically as possible, and with respect to law. I think limited right of return would be a fair compromise for all. After all, many Palestinians were born in exile, so have no real connection with those lost Palestinian towns.

Israel was founded by, and populated by, recent immigrants virtually none of which had any ancestors from Palestine. How can you say that it is the refugees who have no real connection to the land?

Israel was created by violating the rights of the natives. Israel cannot continue to exist without violating the rights of the natives.

Explain to me how Israel gets the "right" to violate the rights of others.

I believe in the concept of the Jewish people, and I believe that the Jewish people have an undeniable claim to, and link to, the land upon which the Jewish faith is founded. For me that is immutable, and relatively rare in that the link is so very old. (I would say the same of many indigenous peoples, though.)

At an individual level I agree few Jewish families from Russia can claim that they must live in Hebron because their ancestors lived there 1,000 years ago - but then few do say that. Most Jewish settlers are happy to live somewhere in Israel.

I think Palestinians should be happy to live somewhere in Palestine, unless they have recent and direct ties to Beit Shan or wherever.

 

[proudveteran06]

Of course the propagandists never mention the clunkers. Only a small token number of refugees could return. Israel would control the water. All people and goods, entering or leaving, would have to go through Israel. Israel would control travel, tourism, and trade. Israel could shut the whole place down whenever it wanted like it did to Gaza.

The offer really sucked.

So, the only " offer" Abbas should accept are the 67 Borders which never existed in the First Place, No rights to E. Jerusalem, and your admission that eventually Israel would disappear? ( Not literally, but figuratively). Tell us please, why Israel would agree to it's own aleniation and how that's to Israel's " advantage"


If I am wrong in the above, tell us please what if your opinion would be a " fair and just negotiation."


Definition of NEGOTIATE
intransitive verb

b: to arrange for or bring about through conference, discussion, and compromise <negotiate a treaty>

Since this is what everyone wants, tell us please why Israel would agree to everything . It's not going to happen.

Abbas left the government in June of 2007.

So what ? Still the mouthpiece. STILL haven't answered my question. Is it because you don't have one, want to, or is it because you can't?

What " counter offers" have the " negotiators" lol proposed.? it's a fair question. STILL haven't told us why Israel would agree to ( by your own admission) commit suicide.

 

[proudveteran06]

My solution would be to move Israel to somewhere like Canada or Australia that has some room to spare and have people who don't mind Jews.

Translation; The end of Israel. You and the old man have a lot in common. Israel is NEVER going to give up the land where their most religious sites are, where their History goes thousands of years back. It's that simple.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tinmore -

I don't agree. We can all agree that if Muslims ever gained a democratic majority in Finland, the end result would be the end of Israel as a state, and could even lead to genocide. That is no solution.

Israel has the right to preserve itself, but should do so as generously and democratically as possible, and with respect to law. I think limited right of return would be a fair compromise for all. After all, many Palestinians were born in exile, so have no real connection with those lost Palestinian towns.

Israel was founded by, and populated by, recent immigrants virtually none of which had any ancestors from Palestine. How can you say that it is the refugees who have no real connection to the land?

Israel was created by violating the rights of the natives. Israel cannot continue to exist without violating the rights of the natives.

Explain to me how Israel gets the "right" to violate the rights of others.

I believe in the concept of the Jewish people, and I believe that the Jewish people have an undeniable claim to, and link to, the land upon which the Jewish faith is founded. For me that is immutable, and relatively rare in that the link is so very old. (I would say the same of many indigenous peoples, though.)

At an individual level I agree few Jewish families from Russia can claim that they must live in Hebron because their ancestors lived there 1,000 years ago - but then few do say that. Most Jewish settlers are happy to live somewhere in Israel.

I think Palestinians should be happy to live somewhere in Palestine, unless they have recent and direct ties to Beit Shan or wherever.

I have always said that the Jews have the right to live in Palestine. Even the PLO in their charter says that the native Jews are legitimate citizens of Palestine.

The problem is conflating Israel and Jews. They are two different things. The Jews have as much right to live in Palestine as anyone else. Israel is a different story. Look at the facts:

The Balfour declaration mentioned a homeland for the Jews that would not mess with the rights of the natives. I do not see how that can be translated into "Jewish state." It seems to say the opposite.

The League of Nations Covenant eluded to the fact that the people, (meaning the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish inhabitants) had the rights in that defined territory. It did not mention religion. It did not mention any special rights.

The people (the natives) have the right to self determination without external interference. External interference that denies the people their right to self determination is illegal under international law.

That being said:

The British when they defined the meaning of the mandate in their 1939 white paper, said that they could not impose a Jewish state in Palestine against the will of the people. This complies with international law.

When the UN Security Council contemplated the implementation of resolution 181 they said that they could not impose a Jewish state in Palestine against the will of the people. The Security Council did not implement resolution 181. This complies with international law.

So, how was Israel created?

 

[Hossfly]

Israel was founded by, and populated by, recent immigrants virtually none of which had any ancestors from Palestine. How can you say that it is the refugees who have no real connection to the land?

Israel was created by violating the rights of the natives. Israel cannot continue to exist without violating the rights of the natives.

Explain to me how Israel gets the "right" to violate the rights of others.

I believe in the concept of the Jewish people, and I believe that the Jewish people have an undeniable claim to, and link to, the land upon which the Jewish faith is founded. For me that is immutable, and relatively rare in that the link is so very old. (I would say the same of many indigenous peoples, though.)

At an individual level I agree few Jewish families from Russia can claim that they must live in Hebron because their ancestors lived there 1,000 years ago - but then few do say that. Most Jewish settlers are happy to live somewhere in Israel.

I think Palestinians should be happy to live somewhere in Palestine, unless they have recent and direct ties to Beit Shan or wherever.

I have always said that the Jews have the right to live in Palestine. Even the PLO in their charter says that the native Jews are legitimate citizens of Palestine.

The problem is conflating Israel and Jews. They are two different things. The Jews have as much right to live in Palestine as anyone else. Israel is a different story. Look at the facts:

The Balfour declaration mentioned a homeland for the Jews that would not mess with the rights of the natives. I do not see how that can be translated into "Jewish state." It seems to say the opposite.

The League of Nations Covenant eluded to the fact that the people, (meaning the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish inhabitants) had the rights in that defined territory. It did not mention religion. It did not mention any special rights.

The people (the natives) have the right to self determination without external interference. External interference that denies the people their right to self determination is illegal under international law.

That being said:

The British when they defined the meaning of the mandate in their 1939 white paper, said that they could not impose a Jewish state in Palestine against the will of the people. This complies with international law.

When the UN Security Council contemplated the implementation of resolution 181 they said that they could not impose a Jewish state in Palestine against the will of the people. The Security Council did not implement resolution 181. This complies with international law.

So, how was Israel created?

In answer to your question.
"In the beginning, GOD created the heavens and the earth".
That includes Israel.
It was eluded to in the Torah.
Wasn't it?

 

[Kondor3]

The Buddhists have their Holy Sites in India, Sri Lanka (Ceylon), etc., and a domain to call their own...

The Muslims have their Holy Sites in Arabia and Iraq and Syria, etc., and a domain of their own...

The Christians have their Holy Sites in Italy and Germany and France, etc., and a domain of their own...

And the Muslims and Christians both have some Holy Sites in modern-day Greater Israel...

Christians, for the most part, are entirely OK with the Israelis being the custodians of Christian Holy Places in that land...

Everybody else has huge tracts of land and populations and enough Holy Sites within their own domains to last them an eternity...

The Jews have nothing anywhere on the planet but that pi$$ant tiny scrap of land called Israel...

Don't be miserly and un-generous after what they've been through... let 'em have at least one tiny little slice of land in a place meaningful to them... just let 'em have the damned thing and be done with it...

They're almost done taking back the rest of their ancient spiritual homeland anyway, whether we like it or not.

And nobody is gonna stop 'em before they've completed their annexation and consolidation and mop-up operations.

May as well avoid the Christmas Rush and acknowledge The New Reality.