How does that make you not occupying Palestinian land?

If you want to help, convince your side to get the hell out of there. Come to Europe, America. You'll be able to migrate back to Palestinia or however it's called in English soon enough and then no one will be launching rockets at you. Both sides of this conflict can stop it very easily.

Steephie are you kidding me?
Leave your country and give it to others, come back later in a few years.
I never imagined such post.
How old are you? 5-6?

I'd rather read someone posting nonsense than someone trying to justify an apartheid state.

+1 Socrates - I couldn't agree more

taos - if you are not occupying Israel can you just explain why the UN have all these outstanding resolutions against Israel, the truth doesn't disappear just because you choose to ignore it. There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.

Part of the problem here is the language of this thread. taos isn't occupying Palestinian lands. The Israeli government is. Giving that land back is the simple solution, but I don't see it as being realistic.
From an American standpoint, I want to say that a good chunk of the (perceived) hatred from the Arabic world directed at us is due to the fact that we're supporting Israel when they don't really need the help anymore. The comparison between the North Korean and Israeli government is actually a pretty good one. Not only is there the cultural clash with their neighbours, there's also the fact that both are very aggressive toward their neighbours. The main difference is that Israel's main benefactor (the US) is geographically further away than N. Korea's (assuming China is protecting them, I'm not really certain. if that's not the case, then this entire branch of my post is moot).

Actually this all thread is a waist of time.
Can you please post all this U. N resolutions? I want to see them.
i declare plain and simple if you show me but truely that we the Israelis are the bad guys and make all this human right violations and Palestinians are so innocent. I will join the other side. How is that for you?

This is a good start but with the magic of google even an idiot with dirt in his eyes wearing kosher tinted spectacles could find this so why not do your own research or don't you want the truth .....
UN Resolutions Against Israel, 1955-1992

Resolution 106: "...‘condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid"
Resolution 111: "...‘condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people"
Resolution 127: "...‘recommends’ Israel suspend its ‘no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem"
Resolution 162: "...‘urges’ Israel to comply with UN decisions"
Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria"
Resolution 228: "...‘censures’ Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control"
Resolution 237: "...‘urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees"
Resolution 248: "...‘condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan"
Resolution 250: "...‘calls’ on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem"
Resolution 251: "...‘deeply deplores’ Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"
Resolution 252: "...‘declares invalid’ Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital"
Resolution 256: "...‘condemns’ Israeli raids on Jordan as ‘flagrant violation"
Resolution 259: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation"
Resolution 262: "...‘condemns’ Israel for attack on Beirut airport"
Resolution 265: "...‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan"
Resolution 267: "...‘censures’ Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem"
Resolution 270: "...‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon"
Resolution 271: "...‘condemns’ Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem"
Resolution 279: "...‘demands’ withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"
Resolution 280: "....‘condemns’ Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon"
Resolution 285: "...‘demands’ immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon"
Resolution 298: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem"
Resolution 313: "...‘demands’ that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"
Resolution 316: "...‘condemns’ Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"
Resolution 317: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon"
Resolution 332: "...‘condemns’ Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon"
Resolution 337: "...‘condemns’ Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty"
Resolution 347: "...‘condemns’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon"
Resolution 425: "...‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
Resolution 427: "...‘calls’ on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon’
Resolution 444: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"
Resolution 446: "...‘determines’ that Israeli settlements are a ‘serious obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
Resolution 450: "...‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"
Resolution 452: "...‘calls’ on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories"
Resolution 465: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel’s settlements program"
Resolution 467: "...‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon"
Resolution 468: "...‘calls’ on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return"
Resolution 469: "...‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians"
Resolution 471: "...‘expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
Resolution 476: "...‘reiterates’ that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’
Resolution 478: "...‘censures (Israel) in the strongest terms’ for its claim to Jerusalem in its ‘Basic Law’
Resolution 484: "...‘declares it imperative’ that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors"
Resolution 487: "...‘strongly condemns’ Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility"
Resolution 497: "...‘decides’ that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith"
Resolution 498: "...‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"
Resolution 501: "...‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops"
Resolution 509: "...‘demands’ that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon"
Resolution 515: "...‘demands’ that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in"
Resolution 517: "...‘censures’ Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
Resolution 518: "...‘demands’ that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon"
Resolution 520: "...‘condemns’ Israel’s attack into West Beirut"
Resolution 573: "...‘condemns’ Israel ‘vigorously’ for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters
Resolution 587: "...‘takes note’ of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"
Resolution 592: "...‘strongly deplores’ the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops"
Resolution 605: "...‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
Resolution 607: "...‘calls’ on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
Resolution 608: "...‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"
Resolution 636: "...‘deeply regrets’ Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians
Resolution 641: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 672: "...‘condemns’ Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
Resolution 673: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations
Resolution 681: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 694: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
Resolution 726: "...‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 799: "...‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.

In defence of Israel I don't for a moment believe that giving control of the land currently defined as occupied to the Palestinians will create the peace everyone wants. You will still have a Jewish state surrounded by neighbours that would quite like it to cease to exist. The only real difference is that it will be smaller.

Israel, whilst not perfect, remains the most civilised state in the region. All of its neighbours seem far more enthusiastic about killing innocent Muslims than Isreal, and are displacing their people with much more gusto. The Holy land ain't a nice place. At least Israel makes an effort to try and be the good guys.

Let's not fool ourselves into thinking there are easy solutions to this or obvious ways forward.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242

UN Security Council
Resolution 242
Date November 22 1967
Meeting no. 1,382
Code S/RES/242 (Document)
Vote For: 15 — Abs. 0 — Against: 0
Subject The situation in the Middle East
Result Unanimously approved
Security Council composition
Permanent members

CHN
FRA
UK
USA
USSR

Non-permanent members

ARG
BRA
BUL
CAN
DEN
ETH
IND
JPN
MLI
NGR

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242) was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Six-Day War. It was adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter.[1] The resolution was sponsored by British ambassador Lord Caradon and was one of five drafts under consideration.[2]

The preamble[3] refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security."

Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

http://www.jcrcboston.org/focus/support/israels-history/un-security-council.html
242 once again just in case you missed it....

Source: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel

The following is a list of United Nations resolutions that concern both Israel and Palestine and bordering states such as Lebanon. The Human Rights Council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel than it has all other states combined

Deplores and condemns is not really objective, coming from u.n
Only one human right resolution doesn't make us evil. But we are in a good path discusing facts and i like it.
Now. ..can we get some resolutions about the other side?
Why not search it by my self? I am a jew i prefer others do the work.

The Draft United Nations resolution on Israeli settlements placed before the United Nations Security Council proposed that all Israeli settlements established in the occupied Palestinian territories after 1967 be condemned, and urged that Israel and Palestine comply with their obligations under the Road Map plan in order to establish a two-State solution. The resolution failed to pass after the United States exercised its right to veto on February 18, 2011. The other 14 members of the council voted in favour of the resolution

"Why not search it by my self? I am a jew i prefer others do the work."

Taos, you're making yourself look quite stupid. And that's saying something when you're debating Nigee.

I would say no offense but your arguments are already offending me so I don't really care if I offend you.

taos: "Steephie are you kidding me?
Leave your country and give it to others, come back later in a few years.
I never imagined such post.
How old are you? 5-6?"

Correction: give ****BACK**** ****THEIR**** country which you took by force. What I say makes more sense if you open your eyes. The only ridiculous thing about it is assuming that people will open their eyes. How much Jesuses do you guys need before you realise bullying your way into the Holy Land makes the land lose it's holy touch? Now there will not be peace. But hey, what's peace when you can die in your holy land instead of living in the holy land after you give it back? Everyone could visit the holy land before you guys went in messing up the peace, I think it doens't take much more than get the hell out again.

I mean, I suppose taking the moral high ground is too much to ask for the chosen people, but at least get even morally before telling the world how wrong your enemies are?

I'm not anti-religious by the way. I'm just saying you're clearly not chosen to see any time soon because you're too stupid to open your eyes for now.

Onar: "Part of the problem here is the language of this thread. taos isn't occupying Palestinian lands. The Israeli government is. Giving that land back is the simple solution, but I don't see it as being realistic.
From an American standpoint, I want to say that a good chunk of the (perceived) hatred from the Arabic world directed at us is due to the fact that we're supporting Israel when they don't really need the help anymore. The comparison between the North Korean and Israeli government is actually a pretty good one. Not only is there the cultural clash with their neighbours, there's also the fact that both are very aggressive toward their neighbours. The main difference is that Israel's main benefactor (the US) is geographically further away than N. Korea's (assuming China is protecting them, I'm not really certain. if that's not the case, then this entire branch of my post is moot)."

Mostly we agree as you probably realised, but as for taos not occupying the land, well, as long as he supports the government that does, even in that very decision, I think we can say 'you' when we clearly mean Israeli's anyway.

"In defence of Israel I don't for a moment believe that giving control of the land currently defined as occupied to the Palestinians will create the peace everyone wants. You will still have a Jewish state surrounded by neighbours that would quite like it to cease to exist. The only real difference is that it will be smaller.

Israel, whilst not perfect, remains the most civilised state in the region. All of its neighbours seem far more enthusiastic about killing innocent Muslims than Isreal, and are displacing their people with much more gusto. The Holy land ain't a nice place. At least Israel makes an effort to try and be the good guys.

Let's not fool ourselves into thinking there are easy solutions to this or obvious ways forward."

I'm not talking about land currently defined as occupied, I'm talking about all the land the Israeli's occupied. That would be Israel. Tell me that doesn't solve the problem. Of course they won't do it, but as long as they don't do it they don't have the moral authority to whine when they get attacked. It would just be payback after all.

@steephie, Nigee ... If you actually think that Israel will EVER simply surrender their nation, you need to find another solution.

There will not be a one-state solution, whether that state is Palestine or Israel. People on both sides need to get over that. Netanyahu and his friends needs to get over that, Hamas needs to get over that, and the rest of the Arab world needs to get over that. Coexistence is the only plausible end.

Israel shouldn't surrender their nation, just give back the Palestinian land that was occupied in 1967 ..... simples

1967 is different than 1948. That I can debate. Maybe I misunderstood.

Though I do not think that Israel will surrender Jerusalem either. They'll, if the Palestinians get insanely lucky, offer to partition it between the settlement areas (Palestinian) and the Old City/current industrial center (Israel). The West Bank though will probably end up Palestinian.

If Israel is going to do anything at all, they are going to require that the new Palestinian state be demilitarized completely and be subjected to international watch for a pretty long time. They'll also likely require that the rest of the Arab nations agree to a long-term peace structure. They may - I would recommend it - try to force the rest of the Arab nations (or new Palestinian state) to take on all of the refugees as well. That should be one of the top priorities in my mind.

@bo - you're delving into detail but what you are doing is painting the picture of a positive way forward, a way of life where everyone could be safer, happier, more prosperous.
If we stop believing that is possible all is lost, this is the problem with the current politicians, they have given up believing that things can be better, they have lost the faith.
Of course an agreement won't solve all ills because you see from other countries in the Middle East there are all sorts of cultural/political/religious/ideological differences that from time to time boil over. In Northern Ireland there are still troubles between the two communities, some of these differences can take a generation to heal, maybe even longer.
If ever there was a time to show leadership in the region it is now. I think if Netanyahu was the man to do this something would have happened by now, I think Israel are in need of a visionary leader who can take the country to the next level, I think the Palestinians also need a legendary leader, someone who is planning for a better future and not stuck in the past.
Of course there is a way forward but it requires people with courage and conviction, and of course people that love their nation enough to give them something more than they currently have, to realise that the ends justify the means, and if that means compromise, a bit of give and take, then that is what is required.
I don't see politicians on either side or in the States with the will or the courage to make a breakthrough, maybe we have to wait for the next generation, but if that generation is dominated by people who think like taos, then maybe it will take another generation.

Nicely put Nigeeeee. Israel seems to have lots of coalitions which probably make it even harder - some factions on both sides simply don't want peace.
The Middle East does seem plagued by dodgy leaders, poor governance, religious extremism and male domination. Pleased my country isn't in the middle of that lot!

The only thing it requires is giving up religious motives and turning toward human motives. The Palestinians want their own state so that they can self-govern and escape alleged persecution (not arguing that either way) and the Israelis don't want the Palestinians voting out their Jewish leaders. The Palestinians don't want to be forced out of their perceived homeland (one of the common proposals in Israel is complete removal and establishment of a religious nation, though it's generally considered extreme) and the Israelis don't want to get rockets shot at them every day from angry revolutionaries. The Israelis want to expand their influence on their nation (as suggested by settlement expansion) and the Palestinians want nothing to do with it. I don't see why neither side is pushing hard for a two-state solution. Both think they are the only people inhabiting the planet or something.

I know the Israeli's are not leaving, and that means the solution will have to come from the Palestinians, but that's not happening any time soon either. All I can say is that every cow can see Israel has fought it's way into the Middle-East for no real reason other than that the fools want their name and flag in the holy land. A flag isn't worth a single life. If the Israeli's are so egoistic to stay in land that should not be theirs we should at least not protect them to show the world how well bullying strategies work. Guess what, North Korea got the hang of it now as well, who's next?

"I don't see why neither side is pushing hard for a two-state solution."

Hamas has hinted that it would be willing to accept a two-state solution; the problem is that every time they do this, Israel launches a new attack on Gaza. The Arab League has been offering peace for more than a decade now for a return to the 1967 borders (and a two-state solution), an offer which Israel refuses even to acknowledge, let alone use as a starting point for negotiations. The Wikileaks diplomatic cables showed that the Palestinian Authority leadership is willing to accept just about any peace deal Israel offers. But Israel will never accept anything less than total control of all the land west of the Jordan and the complete subjugation/removal/extermination of most of the Palestinians. Israel has nuclear weapons, a first-rate military, and a firm belief (as expressed by the Israelis in this thread) that Arabs are simply subhuman tribal savages who are incapable of peaceful relations; why in their eyes should they accept anything less?

"(I don't see politicians on either side or in the States with the will or the courage to make a breakthrough, maybe we have to wait for the next generation, but if that generation is dominated by people who think like taos, then maybe it will take another generation." What do you mean people like taos? I am the most left wing and wnt to make peace in Israel! I accept 67 borders and 2/3 states solution. I am leasening to you and willing to change sides if you enlight me! I don't want demilitarize Palestine ( an eye for an eye). I have great hopes for the middle east but i am one of few, and if you want to know why you just need to be here, Europe is so far away culturaly you will be amazed!

taos - I don't want you to change sides, I would rather you do what you know in your heart is the right thing to do because only that will bring you real peace.
I am always wary about people who label themselves, let others judge you by your actions, I think the concept of left-wing can be very different in very right-wing countries like Israel.
Some Democrats in the US consider themselves left-wing, if they were they would not prop up right-wing dictators and govts around the world, including Israel, sadly Obama has turned out to be an abysmal failure.
I think you know in your heart what normal people want, just a chance to bring up their children in peace with a decent job, give their kids a decent education and put food in their bellies, see them enjoy their life and settle down and have a family. These are the basic needs of most people. If people in Palestine could achieve these basic things without fear for their safety and their lives 95% of them would be happy. You will always have a small minority of people agitating for some kind of change, this will always be the case. You won't end terrorism by making peace with the Palestinians but a significant improvement in life quality for both nations is possible if the politicians stopped pandering to the religious zealots who serve no-one but themselves.
If Abraham were alive today whose side would he be on?