Map of Palestine land, according to this most is controlled by Isreal, and if people want to travel approval is needed

SharonEllis thinks that this is 2025 and that you should be focusing on the future. @SharonEllis isn't that right?

How many times have people used the 1947 decision to not support a 2 state solution in 2025? See the post upthread which used what Churchill said as justification for there not being a 2 state solution today. Do you tell posters who follow these narratives that this is 2025?!

Anyway, moving on - firstly the info in the links is interesting and relevant, and secondly the way decisions are made today under the influence of power groups is the same as it was in 1920 - this may shock you. The influence of bankers and financiers and big business in world affairs is quite significant today just as it was then.

Re Hamas, if you google it says they have expressed support for a 2 state solution. They are also funded by Iran and others who support a 2 state solution so there would be pressure for them to come to the table. As you well know as you have posted similar queries on other threads.

Have you read the links, and if so what did you think? Do you condemn the colonial attitudes, and the reckless way conflicting promises were given, some of which were never intended to be kept?

If people were taking responsibility for the future they'd be agreeing to a fair and equal two state solution. Wouldn't they?

When reasons are given (narrative) as to why this shouldn't happen, quoting Churchill, seems relevant to be clear about what Churchill's stance actually was, and why. The items I linked provide really interesting insights into the conflict which i have not seen written about much too, so they have interest and historical value as well. You seem anxious to shut down discussion, though. Why would that be then?

It was the decisions taken in 1917 and then the 1920s which led to where we are in 2025.

While I was looking for the Churchill quote for Anonymummy, I found some interesting information about Churchill's thinking about how not all Jews were seen as equal, and about how he thought that a superior race could legitimately chuck out an inferior race from land - using the fact that native americans and native australians had legimately - he says - been thrown out of land by "superior" settlers. Churchill says that it was acceptable that land could be simply taken from Arabs in Palestinians, as the Zionists were "superior" race, and that this was the natural order of things (views many would find outdated and offensive today). One of Hitler's central ideologies was Lebensraum in relation to which he said he had been inspired by the attitudes of the American settlers' attitudes towards native Americans, and there was support for Hitler in the years up to 1939 by western monied groups because Hitler was anti Bolshevik - Lebensraum was about forcibly taking land to the east from the slavs.

The first link is penned by Churchill and so clearly reflects his thinking, in 1920 - it explains how some Jewish people such as the Bolshevik Jews and Jews from the ghetto were to be distinguished as being not worthy whereas the Zionist and wealthy Jewish classes were worthy. He supported a Zionist state which pushed out Arabs completely and without reservation. The second link I have not fact checked but it is thought provoking.

https://archive.org/details/WinstonChurchillZionismVsBolshevismStruggleForTheSoulOfTheJewishPeople1920

https://mronline.org/2024/06/28/the-treachery-of-the-nazi-zionist-alliance/

@Anonimummy I think that it is reasonably clear that the racial superiority and colonialistic ideas of the power groups which dominated the early 20th c are the only justification for what happened to the Arabs in Palestine - in all seriousness, taking all of this into consideration, would you still side with them? Most people now condemn colonialisation and attitudes of racial superiority, and this is part of the reason why so many favour the two state solution today. The problem is that there are very powerful backers of Zionism and perhaps they feel that a tiny piece of land does not reflect their true status, is that what you think?

The 144 or so world leaders including much of the Arab world who voted in favour of it at the UN at the end of 2024 don't tend to wander around chanting it, for sure.

"useful idiots" is very disparaging. Most of the protesters want some sort of humane, moral, practical resolution for both sides, and though they may not all understand all the issues properly, they shouldn't be referred to as "useful idiots".

Many of the people who chant it don't understand what it means. The 144 or so world leaders including much of the Arab world who voted in favour of it at the UN at the end of 2024 don't tend to wander around chanting "from the river to the sea".

Quote from wiki: "The Palestinian Arab leadership rejected partition as unacceptable, given the inequality in the proposed population exchange and the transfer of one-third of Palestine, including most of its best land, to recent immigrants."

I think I did do that and I have already answered the questions you have asked, if you read all my posts. The two quotes I have searched for since posting and I think they might be fake, as I have googled and only found reference to them in editorials - if you think they are genuine please could you link the primary sources?

To answer your questions in a different way, this is a very clear video giving the history up to 1948, which you can watch and which will explain things really clearly, better than I have. In terms of fact checking you can look up the Balfour Agreement and the Mandate for Palestine online - both are still available in their original formats and are short and easy to read. You will hopefully see the problem, understand the feelings of both sides and realise that this is not just a piece of small land.

If you then search on youtube for Melanie Phillips and the Palestinian Mandate you will see that what she is saying is not reflected in the actual Balfour Agreement and Mandate for Palestine - and this is another key problem - there are huge differences in narratives between the two sides - it is important to listen to both sides but also to fact check hard facts such as terms of agreements.

If after you have done this you want to know more about the history 1948 to the present day, please ask, I will set out the known "facts" as objectively as possible.

Just to reiterate again (I have said this in previous posts) most of the Arab world and the world in general do support a two state solution which is fair and equitable - they voted for this in November 2024. To some extent this is a "we are where we are" situation and in the present day a two state solution which is equal and fair in all respects and allows both countries to have control over security and have fair split of resources is acknowledged to be the only path to peace. In terms of what normal people think, there is a myriad of views, as ever, both sides, ranging from educated to extreme.