Do you have a shred of evidence that Palestinian State is not? Given the fact

If a critic of Israel is not necessarily an anti-Semite, then why is a critic of a Palestinian state a supporter of Zionist expansion.  Does double-standard ring a bell?

Not all, the case for a Palestinian State back in 1947 including Jews and Arabs was greater than a case for a "Jewish" State who's sole purpose was to displace people who weren't Jewish and giving priority to those who were Jewish.

A critic of a Palestinian State is most definitely a supporter of Zionist expansion, no doubt about it. Being a critic of Israel and being an anti-semite are not mutually the same thing.

You actually misquoted me in the first sentence and then chose to answer a question with a question.  The mandate divided the land into two regions to be controlled by Arabs and Jews.  It did not, in any way, create or design statehood for either side.  The Jews, however, created a state and declared as such.  The Arab side has not yet, 60+ years later.  Furthermore, you keep harping on the idea of Arab displacement as the sole purpose for the creation of a Jewish State.  Was some displacement a RESULT of the creation, absolutely.  That is why they were given their own piece of the pie, which by the way, they turned down.

Wrong, I answered your question with an answer. Regarding two regions, they were both designated to be States as proposed prior to 1947. As for displacement a result of the creation I too agree but go beyond that in saying it was Zionist plans as noted by the scholar Khalidi to expell as many Arabs as possible (the Jewish Agency denying as many Arabs as they could with Israeli citizenship was evident of that) and to eventually expand their existing State antagonsing a cycle of violence, 56% of the mandate wasn't enough for them.

Your response that a critic of a Palestinian state must be a supporter of Zionist Expansion is so far from reality, I don't know how to respond.

The fact that you have attempted to chosen to insult the fact rather to reply to it speaks volumes.

The fact is a critic of a Palestinian State, would rather Palestinians be expelled or put under Israeli citizenship. Both are in reality, serving Zionist purposes who believe Jews have a greater right to the Mandate area than Palestinians thus fulfilling encroachment.

Jun 12, 2009 -- 8:47AM, Ufaratzta wrote:

Is peace possible? No, not in our lifetime. Will the Palestinians stop terrorism? Well, no. Will Israel give up? No. It is a fight to the end. So there you have it.

Your pessimism puts you in a good position to be right.

Unless complete utopia comes to the region you can claim your clairvoyant vision.

I on the other hand believe that this complex issue is constantly changing and even though peace may not have been possible in the narrow window of Arafat and Ariel Sharon there are constant new developments and untried approaches to peace.

I agree and disagree. The Palestinians certainly need to want a state for themselves more than they wish to destroy Israel. At the same time, what this demands of them is to also want a state for themselves upon a much smaller piece of land than what is 'historic Palestine,' which they believe is there's to begin with. So the demand is twofold and I do not fault them that the decision is very hard to make and very painful. Yet, the reasonable people out there are quite certain that the Palestinians have only one real choice that is both in their favor, albiet given the circumstances, and also life-affirming and that is to accept the state of Israel once and for all and to work on making a state in West Bank and Gaza. What terrorism shows, despite what the madman Fanon supposed in his book, which is essentially anarchistic, that the Palestinians, some perhaps more than others, are more willing to wreck war with Israel than they care about their lives, the lives of their families, and the prospects of their being a home for them. The only thing that would or should stop Israeli constructions of settlements is not rockets or terror but simply the acceptance of the state of Israel; once they do that, Israelis have no choice, but to evacuate from all the territories. If they continue to reject Israel, Israel will contine to reject Palestine and build settlements. This is the rule of the game; a stalemate that will not wither away, I am afraid, unless one really corageous Palestinian should stand up, with a really thick bullet proof vest and a million bodygaurds and declare to his people, "enough is enough." 

PS - Given the situation as described in my last post  I think the Aab nations who 'nationalized' the assets of their Jewish populations and didn't give them any compensation, should pay reparations.  Incidentally, it's been estimated that the area of land formerly owned by Jews and seized by such governments, amoounts to four TIMES the acreage of pre'67 Isael..... 

If Israel should give their 'illegally' gained land back - then so should the Arab states.