Mac, but Israel has twice offered to recognize a Palestinian state, and both times they have refused to recognize Israel right to exist.

And yes, the state of Israel is valid. Not from scripture or old covenants. , but on way more modern legalities. The Partition of act of 1947 was passed in the UN by a majority. 33 voted for, 10 voted against and 10 abstained.

And it was the Palestinians, who refused to recognize the rights of Jews to live there and started the actions that led to the civil war. It is a modern myth, that no Jews resided there, and that after WW2 the UN the Jews then came to Palestine. Jews, had lived there, all along. Its just that more immigrated to the region after the war.

And from the start, it was the Palestinians them selves who rejected the partition act, and who caused the civil war leading up to the State of Israel being a nation.

All these twits had to do, was accept the right of Jews to exist, and they still refuse.

Not that the alternative facts Christians , are right in any way. {Jeez, just look at how stupid they are with this Muslim ban. For security reasons, yea right. Saudi Arabia is exempt, and they have the most prolific Islamic terrorist`s and sponsors}.

Once in a while, even morons get some thing right, even if its by accident and crystal ball-ery. ,

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Partition of Palestine" redirects here. For the Partition of Palestine into Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank, see 1949 Armistice Agreements.
UN General Assembly
Resolution 181 (II)
UN Palestine Partition Versions 1947.jpg
UNSCOP (3 September 1947; see green line) and UN Ad Hoc Committee (25 November 1947) partition plans. The UN Ad Hoc Committee proposal was voted on in the resolution.
Date 29 November, 1947
Meeting no. 128
Code A/RES/181(II) (Document)
Voting summary
33 voted for
13 voted against
10 abstained
Result Recommendation to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out in the resolution[1]
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal by the United Nations, which recommended a partition of Mandatory Palestine at the end of the British Mandate. On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted the Plan as Resolution 181(II).[2]

The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and a Special International Regime for the city of Jerusalem. The Partition Plan, a four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem. Part I of the Plan stipulated that the Mandate would be terminated as soon as possible and the United Kingdom would withdraw no later than 1 August 1948. The new states would come into existence two months after the withdrawal, but no later than 1 October 1948. The Plan sought to address the conflicting objectives and claims of two competing movements, Palestinian nationalism and Jewish nationalism, or Zionism.[3][4] The Plan also called for Economic Union between the proposed states, and for the protection of religious and minority rights.

The Plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, despite its perceived limitations.[5][6] Arab leaders and governments rejected it[7] and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division,[8] arguing that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN Charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.[6][9]

Immediately after adoption of the Resolution by the General Assembly, a civil war broke out[10] and the plan was not implemented.[11]

The problem I see Rich is that the return of Jews who weren't born there is like 8th generation African Americans claiming persecution in the states and then turning up in an African country and saying we are going to run this place.

If you look at the numbers for the "indigenous" residents the Muslims were the majority yet the Brits decided to accommodate the European Jewry with rule over the land - I realise they didn't seize control until 1948, but none the less it could be considered an invasion/takeover by a "foreign" party.

Two other options (other than actually doing something about antisemitism in Europe) was somewhere in Africa or Argentina. Both were rejected.

I agree the numbers increased with immigration - and the USA and Canada were basically colonized in a similar fashion as Palestine.

But does that make it right?