Palestine Should be Free, the Israeli Foundation and Occupation are Unjust

1. I omitted the Sinai Peninsula and Jordan because they are not in dispute for one, while culturally, nationally being separate. Defining what constitutes Palestine is a hard thing as I recognize. They were not omitted solely due to being predominatly occupied by Arabs. Because of the Jews presently living in the state of Israel, however unjust acquisition of the land was, it would be wrong to kill or disposses them. On the other hand, in the West Bank settlement is expanding aggressively, which must be stopped, as for one it causes more conflict, and is wrong anyway. The Palestinians will likely have to recognize Israel in the future if there will be peace. However this sticks in their throats, with the past conquest, all of which makes it that much harder. I do not claim to know exactly how separate entities should be composed, achieved and exist. To claim that I did is foolish. I am an outsider, yes, as we all are. I fully understand it's not that simple. My argument has been that Israel is not the victim, but took land from a resident majority unjustly, with the help of the United Nations and United States. That's it's foundation and hence occupations are unjust. That as the majority and original residents, the Palestinians have the right to self-determination, resistance and to stop further expansion of Israel. Obviously it is not a simple issue, no one least of all me denies that. I do not say all the Jews should go. I have never said that. Exact division is vexing and will remain so. I am merely claiming that from the beginning Jewish people had no right to reclaim Israel, with or without outside help, and hence occupy Palestinian land. The details of the solution are beyond me. Even claiming the first is controversial as we know, however. My efforts are focused there. Neither God nor the United Nations can be said to dictate who gets what. I might note it was the United Nations, not League of Nations, which formed Israel. The League of Nations gave the UK the Mandate of Palestine after WW1. The idea of the Palestinians just going to Jordan is an offensive one, implying they can leave ancestral homes. This is comparable to saying "Jews have no nation" and so could be expelled to anywhere, a sentiment which led to all this at least in part. Arab Palestinians have persecuted by Arab states, Jordan included, such as the infamous Black September of 1970, in which thousands were killed by the Jordanian Army. I have no love of the Arab states or any particular group. I speak about the broader issues of right. "Ideally there would be no friction, don't start none, there won't be none." Well, reclaiming land you lost over a millennium ago from the people who live there started friction. All the rest has come after it. C-2 Israel did in fact steal some land, kick the Arabs out, and set up an unfair government. The League of Nations did not choose anything but to give Britain the Mandate. The United Nations, on the other hand, chose to establish a nation for Jews in Palestine, because of their historical claims and suffering during WW2. I have never denied it, and since this was their home for thousands of years in the past, that made sense. That does not make it any more right though. I understandy why the Zionists desired a homeland, and to reclaim Israel. The problem is there were people living there already. It would be one thing to settle peacefully beside them, assuming that were possible, but not to claim you were owed all that back, no matter what your suffering, which I fully sympathize with. Two wrongs do not make a right. That land had been referred to as "Palestine" for nearly a thousand years. The Romans may have begun it as an insult against Jews, but the Palestinians did not even exist then. I have never denied religious faith plays a role in this. In fact religious faith is key and makes the crisis all the more intractable. I do not wish for the Jews to be oppressed. However the chain of events had brought us to this place, and what happened was wrong. They oppressed themselves in order to escape oppression in the countries they fled. There is much tragedy in all of this. I do not know the way out now, but again wish merely to prove what happened cannot be justified, even with the suffering the Jews over many centuries, up to and including the Holocaust, which established Israel for good. C-3 I do not deny or reject the fact that the Bible and Qu'ran play a key role, as I've said. I do reject the idea they are factual historical documents, at least in large part, and give valid claims to land. I understand this is why they both feel entitled to it. That has never been denied or rejected. They are part of history, but do not record it well. I took Zionist quotes off a pro-Palestinian website my opponent takes issue with. Apparently to copy and paste them for quotation is somehow wrong. My opponent has not refuted the quotes, or addressed the fact that they show the intent of Zionist leaders, from the Labor Left to Religious Right, for the forcible removal of all Palestians, hardly a peaceful aliyah, though I do not that many did want that. Of course the website is biased, I do not deny that either. Is there any website not considered biased about this subject? Quotes cannot be biased simply by being cited. Those who said them were biased, indeed. My intent with the quote of early settlers was to show that it was part of Zionism from the beginning, not a later development. Even then oppressed Jews were contemplating oppression themselves. It may be understandable, but unacceptable nonetheless. I note my opponent is not addressing the quote of Ben-Gurion, or the other Israeli leaders. His quote on settling for Israel the size of a bed sheet if the Arabs would recognize their right to exist in this concept is suspect, possible a salami tactic for taking it all later, as his other quote shows he desired. I no more recognize that the Ottoman Empire had a legitimate right to Palestine and thus could sell or allow land to be sold. However, it was long in the past and those living there now were not to blame. I realize the rest were won in wars. To take someone's land and then accuse them of being violent in attempting to retrive it (particularly when you yourself were violent in "reclaiming" it before) is purely hyporcisy. If the landlord divides sells land you have lived on for generations that he claimed by force, you struggle against this, and then a higher authority steps in to award half to the settler as compensation of sufferings, this is a blow that makes you seethe in agony, hoping for it back. Living peacefully beside the neighbor who took it becomes very hard then. Nonetheless, I desire peace but merely wish to show you this was unjust, and the opposite view. Imagine what every peace deal is to Palestinians-a thief deigning to give half of their land back, if that. Rabbis for Human Rights (http://www.rhr.org.il...), Gush Shalom (http://gush-shalom.org...), Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (http://www.icahd.org...), Yesh Gvul (http://www.yeshgvul.org...), etc., are Israeli groups which oppose their country's policies. I would cite Amnesty Internation and Human Rights Watch, but those are probably also without credit in your eyes. Perhaps none is credible to you if they oppose an Israeli policy or any part of it. These are only a few of the Israeli or Jewish groups-more by far exist.