Israel's Independence Day

Looked up the Nabi Musa riots which was quite interesting as I hadn"t thought such riots really started until the mid 20s. So thank you for that.

It"s interesting because in 1920 11% of the population was Jewish compared to 7% when the two populations had lived together fine.

From reading up it seems like the Palestinians became so concerned not because of the numbers of Jews, but because the Jews arriving were extremely Zionist, and the Palestinians became worried the British were supporting the Zionists, not the local residents (which of course we can now see was not a misplaced fear). This explains it, and the later riots are obviously much more easy to understand.

What about the unilateral disengagement from Gaza in 2005? That was a massive concession you seem to have overlooked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel-Egypt_Peace_Treaty
Israel gave back the whole of the Sinai Peninsula, an area more than double the size of the whole current State of Israel. That was also after 1973 and again you have managed to overlook it.
Heard about the massive concessions offered at the Camp David Accords or the Oslo Accords?

You know nothing mate and with that comment have shown yourself to be a spanner.

Well, firs of all, there was nothing wrong with a Jew being a Zionist. This is not what caused the Arab population to go on a killing rampage. Infact, it was, as usual, Haj Amin Al Hussaini which called on all muslims to defend the Al-Aksa mosq from 'imminant Jewish destruction'. The Imam's ecoe'd his call, and the rest is history, hundreds of Jews were massacred, and the 400 year old Hebron community was destroyed.

Is it Jews or Zionism which the Palestinains were opposed to? Having just read up on it, it would seem that the Palestinians were worried about the increasing number of extreme Zionists they were seeing, and were scared that the British were supporting the Zionists over the locals. The British report at the time says that the Zionists were being opportunistic and the Palestinians were worried about it. It is of course important to differentiate between immigration where the immigrants are intent on integration and immigration where the immigrants are intent on taking over the land. When seen this way, it is much easier to see why the Palestinians were concerned. Since then they have lost that land. It is also the case that prior to the Zionist movement, Jews lived peacefully alongside Muslim and Christian Palestinans. It is clear that Zionism radicalised the population then, and continues to do so today.

You mean disengaging from somewhere they shouldn't be in the first place? Makes it seem like Britain leaving India was some great diplomatic move. Israel gave back the Sinai peninsula, that it had annexed during the Yom Kippur War. Israel was making moderate concessions to international consensus, but never going the full way as to actual recognise its colonies as a nation.

The Oslo Accords denied any future Palestinian statehood and The Camp David talks were cancelled prematurely by Ehud Barak. For a single week in Israel's history it almost looked like it would recognise Palestine, but of course it went back on that, and we see the result today.

The problem is that Israel will not recognise Palestine, everything else stems from that problem. The Palestinians cannot make peace with Israel because they are not on equal footing with Israel. They are subjects of what is essentially colonial domination. Israel doesn't want to recognise Palestine because then it would have to recognise its borders. Violence against Palestinian civilians would stop being 'anti-terrorist' actions and start being war-crimes. To reject Palestine as a state gives Israel carte blanche to kill, kidnap, rob and starve who they will. Because while these people have no states, the only ones to protect them are Israel (or indeed Hamas, who are inevitably branded terrorists for committing the same actions as the Israelis but on a much smaller scale)

Camp David Accords 1978, not the 2000 Camp David Summit. And it was definitely Arafat who ended negotiations. He was offered 91% of the West Bank, rising to 96%. Refused, and now look: West Bank still disputed. It is widely accepted Arafat was at fault for extortionate demands including right of return for not only all Palestinian refugees, but also their children and grandchildren.

Regardless of Arafat's faults at the meetings, my point still stands. Israel cannot hold the moral highground while it refuses to recognise Palestine. The whole world wants it to recognise Palestine, with the exception of the US. There is really no excuse, unless of course Israel intends to expand into Palestine's borders further than it already has, which is much easier if there is no 'Palestine' to expand into.

Regardless of Arafat's faults at the meetings, my point still stands. Israel cannot hold the moral highground while it refuses to recognise Palestine. The whole world wants it to recognise Palestine, with the exception of the US. There is really no excuse, unless of course Israel intends to expand into Palestine's borders further than it already has, which is much easier if there is no 'Palestine' to expand into.

The point is you are factually correct. Israel has recognized Palestine's right to exist, and it is Arafat, not Barak, who walked out of the negotiations, chosing violance over negotiation, despite being offered what was a deal very close to the 1967 borders. Had he agreed to it, or at least continued negotiating, we wouldnt have had an intefadah, we would have had a Palestinian state, so please refrain from laying the the blame on Israel, for faults attributed to the Palestinian leadership. I know its hard to believe, but the underdog is not nesseceraly allways morally superior.

PS I don't recognise anyone trying to kill me.