Originally Posted by John1234 Apparently you do not follow this topic very well. Israel has killed so many more women and children than the Palestinians that the ratio is extremely large. I will take a guess and say its about 10:1? The only thing that Israel has that gives them any sort of moral high ground is the Hamas Charter. Just because Israel is better at killing does not mean that their victims don't count. Every life on this planet is of equal value.

I disagree that Hamas' charter is the only thing that gives Israel the proverbial moral high ground. Israel, like any other state, has an inherent right of self-defense. So long as its civilians are attacked by terrorists, it has a right to defend them.

Having said this, were Hamas to repeal its charter, that would be a constructive development that would enhance prospects for a negotiated outcome. Once Hamas' rationalizations for rejecting Israel's existence is decoupled from the religious anchor Hamas applies in its charter, the environment would become more hospitable to pragmatic solutions and compromise. Ultimately, peace will very likely require a pragmatic compromise in which a Palestinian state is created to co-exist with Israel.

Originally Posted by Kelzie There are several key differences. One is that Israel does not target women and children. Another is that Palestine hides their military operations in homes and schools. That makes collateral damage extremely likely.

Originally Posted by donsutherland1 That is not correct. Legitimacy involves the capacity to make a rightful claim. Historical legitimacy entails making a claim that is factually correct with respect to an area's history. The evidence of historical legitimacy for the Jewish people is indisputable.

If one adopted your far narrower definition, neither the Arabs nor the Jews would have historical legitimacy in the Palestine region, as neither are descendants of the Caananites and Philistines. Neither of those two ancient peoples exist today. However, the Jewish people have the longest-running connection to the region.

It is factually accurate. The Arabs wanted control over the entire region. They rejected any compromises. They refused to cooperate with UNSCOP.

However, as previously noted, the Arabs, alone, did not enjoy a superior claim to the region. Their claim was equal. Not surprisingly, both the Peel Commission and later UNSCOP reached the same conclusion about the two people's legitimate claims and both also decided in favor of partition given that both peoples' demands were irreconcilable.

Given the differences over British promises, it is important that the rights of the two peoples in the region be fully considered. Given their irreconcilable differences and the low-level ethnic conflict that was underway and intensifying, UNSCOP found that only a partition plan could accommodate both peoples' core needs.

Originally Posted by The Baron That’s a nice sentiment but I simply can’t place the same value that I put on my life with someone who is a Nazi, Communist, Terrorist, Satanist or even on a Palestinian who has no problem strapping a suicide-belt around their child’s waist so they can blow-up my child.

Originally Posted by The Baron As I said, when one life seeks to destroy another then that life loses its value. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, all they want to do is kill Jews. So they live in squalor and pray to Allah to die by suicide-belt.[/size][/font]

Contrary to your interpretation of the irrelevance of historic ties, UNSCOP noted, "it is a fact that both of these peoples have their historic roots in Palestine..." While this recognition of historic legitimacy was not a law per se, it helped guide UNSCOP's assessment of the Arab and Jewish cases.

Furthermore, UNSCOP undertook a comprehensive examination of the body of legal and policy documentation concerning the region. The documentation included British laws concerning the region, British immigration policies, the Balfour Declaration under which Britain committed to establishing a Jewish home, the League of Nations decision that gave Britain the Mandate in the region, the Peel Commission's study, etc. Those laws defined the rights and privileges of the peoples living in the territory. Those laws also gave Jewish immigrants full legal standing in the territory.

In the end, UNSCOP found that both the Arab and Jewish residents had strong cases. UNSCOP's decision was ratified by the UN General Assembly. Later, Israel was admitted to the UN as a full member.

That is very different from a situation in which there were no laws or no precedents. It is precisely because the weight of legal evidence supports recognition of the Jewish people having a legitimate case that UNSCOP's decision took into consideration their needs.

The Jewish case was about far more than historic legitimacy. At the time UNSCOP reached its decision, there were 600,000 Jewish residents living in the British territory. UNSCOP did not find the merits of their claims inferior to those of the 1,200,000 Arabs who resided there.

The Arabs refused to participate. UNSCOP considered a single state, a solution based on cantons, and partition. Given that the demands of the area's two peoples were in conflict and that conflict was irreconcilable, the compromise entailed meeting their core needs under which each would receive a sovereign state, but not would gain the entire region.

Under the League of Nations, Britain was recognized as the region's mandatory power, as it was no longer possessed by the Ottoman Empire. Britain had jurisdiction over the region. Hence, Britain had the authority to transfer the matter to the UN and the UN had the authority to work out and adopt a solution for bringing that territory to sovereignty.

While some modern-day rejectionists might loathe the decision, the bottom line was that the UN had proper legal authority to devise and adopt a solution for that territory. There are no legal documents or treaties that preclude that authority.

On April 2, 1947, British Ambassador Alexander Cadogan asked the UN to take charge of that process. He wrote, "His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom request the Secretary-General of the United Nations to place the question of Palestine on the Agenda of the General Assembly at its next regular Annual Session. They will submit to the Assembly an account of their administration of the League of Nations Mandate and will ask the Assembly to make recommendations, under Article 10 of the Charter, concerning the future government of Palestine."

On April 13, 1947, the UN General Assembly included "Constituting and Instructing a Special Committee to prepare for the Consideration of the Question of Palestine at the Second Regular Session" on its agenda.

On April 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted the agenda that included that item.

On May 1, 1947, an Arab-led bid to block the item from the UN's agenda was defeated 24-15 in the General Assembly.

On May 15, 1947, the UN General Assembly voted 45-7 to establish UNSCOP. UNSCOP was charged with, among other things:

The Special Committee shall conduct investigations in Palestine and wherever it may deem useful, receive and examine written or oral testimony, whichever it may consider appropriate in each case, from the mandatory Power, from representatives of the population of Palestine, from Governments and from such organizations and individuals as it may deem necessary;

...The Special Committee shall prepare a report to the General Assembly and shall submit such proposals as it may consider appropriate for the solution of the problem of Palestine.

On September 3, 1947, as per its mandate, UNSCOP issued its report. The report recommended a partition plan.

On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly approved a partition plan by a 33-13 margin.

The issue concerned strictly the Palestine region at a given period in time. It did not concern Arab-Jew relations elsewhere.

The area's Arab and Jewish peoples were not living in a harmonious paradise of peaceful relations. Instead, UNSCOP found, "that the claims to Palestine of the Arabs and Jews, both possessing validity, are irreconcilable" and "The basic conflict in Palestine is a clash of two intense nationalisms." UNSCOP also explained, "Only by means of partition can these conflicting national aspirations find substantial expression and qualify both peoples to take their places as independent nations in the international community and in the United Nations."

UNSCOP directly addressed that question concluding, "It was apparent that the binational solution, though attractive in some of its aspects, would have little meaning unless provision were made for numerical or political parity between the two population groups, as provided for in the proposal of Dr. J. L. Magnes. This, however, would require the inauguration of complicated mechanical devices which are patently artificial and of dubious practicality."

Those circumstances and UNSCOP's rationale for its decision are quite clear.