1/9     I have a question.  I've heard at least 1 person on the motd refer
        to the military occupation of Palestine, or some similar term.
        I've also seen signs that say, "End the Israeli Occupation of
        Palestine" around campus.  What are you suggesting when you say
        this?  That all the Israelis should leave Palestine?  A two state
        solution? -jrleek
        \_ There are a range of possible meanings depending on who is
           saying it. Some folks (most notably the group behind Internat'l
           A.N.S.W.E.R.) advocate no Israeli presence in Palestine at all. As
           you might guess, this is not very many people, even among poll of
           Palestinians. For most folks likely to say this, I believe this
           means a roll back to the pre-1967 border, including abandonment or
           at least, demilitarization of the settlements in the West Bank and
           the Gaza Strip. Israelis could remain. They would become citizens
           of the new state the way Arab-Israelis are citizens of Israel.
           That's my understanding, anyway. Does that help?-- ulysses
           \_ Yeah, thanks. -jrleek
           \_ Middle east is the land promised to the Jews by God, just like
              America is the land promised to Mormons by God.  Are you an
              atheist?
              \_ aaron, is that you?
                 \_ It might be an incredible simulation.
              \_ My grandma believes that (Middle East -> Jews)
           \_ I think we should rollback to when Great Britain controlled
              it. Wouldn't that be so much better and also historically
              appropriate? Look what happens when you give these people their
              own government. Hmmm. Maybe cede it back to Italy (Rome).
              While we are at it we should give California and Texas
              back to Mexico, or is that to the Native Americans?
              \_ Ah, let's just send all of these newcomers back where they
                 came from. Half of me can be sent to Denmark, while the other
                 two quarters can be divided equally throughout Ireland and
                 Poland.
        \_ The BEST argument I've heard re the two state soln is that the
           the land belonged to the poor Palestinian and the EVIL JEWS took
           it from them in 1947. How would you like it if someone came to
           your house and took it from you I'm asked. However this view of
           history is quite wrong and overlooks the historic possession
           of Palestine by the Jews going back to the time of David (some
           3000 yrs ago). The better question to ask people who believe
           in no Israel or a two state soln is: If you were driven from
           your house and wrongfully imprisioned for a long time, when you
           finally made it back home and you found some squatters claiming
           that your land was really theirs WTF would you do? Leave them
           to it? I'll bet you would.
           \_ No I would slaughter them all and rape their women and feast
              on their goats.
           \_ But the fundamental difference is that the people who were
              forcibly ejected from their homes in 1947 are still around,
              or at least some of them are. Things that mythically happened
              2 or 3 thousand years ago can't be followed with a clear title
              claim. We can right the injustice of the wrong to an indvidual,
              but at some point, you have to let the past be the past. Do you
              think the US should give all its land back to the Natives, too?
              \_ Not only that but who knows but that some of those
                 Palestinians are also descended from some ancient Jews? And
                 In the Roman empire some Jews voluntarily moved around.
              \_ I think the point here is that the land belongs to the
                 Jews now because Britain, which conquered it, essentially
                 gave it to them. The Palestinians have no more claim to
                 the land than the Spanish do to Mexico. Just because
                 'they were living there' does not make it theirs. Jews
                 were living there, too.
              \_ If we are talking about title (and I was not), perhaps you
                 should consider that the current inhabitants have acquired
                 clear title via adverse possession.
                 I was simply pointing out that the argument of priority is
                 ridiculous and when taken to its logical conclusion it
                 yields as result not favorable to those who expouse it.
                 Personally I don't think that the US should give land back
                 to anyone and I don't think Israel ought to yield one single
                 inch either.