“History” is derived from the word “his story” : so it depends who is telling the story, his bias included in the story telling, as affected by cultural/religious influences, fears and anxieties etc…What are the objective facts? That is difficult to say.

Basically where does one draw the line of who is entitled to what? Does going back to history help, if so how far back?

Before present day Palestinians, there were the Jews (Jewish kingdom of King Solomon and David) and going back farther before that probably Philistines/Cannites settling there from what is present day Egypt and Syria…

For which I think it is better to draw the line at the date of creation of Israel in 1947 pusuant to UN resolution 181 approved by 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions amongst then member countries.

But even here there is a problem: Israel’s territory is not the same in 1947 due to UN partitioning of British mandated territory. Attacked by Arab neighbours, the Israelis embarked in various military incursions that included West Bank, Gaza and various other parts that they built and are still building Jewish settlements…

So when one objects to Israel being colonial is it because it annexed further lands beyond the 1947 partitioned territory?

Yes in part, but also no in sense that extremist Arabs object to the fundamental existence of Israel. Why? They don’t respect legitimacy of UN resolution 181 creating that state.

You can argue that is unreasonable but one has to understand the US & allies (victor of World War II & Europe) basically “controlled” the UN then to create a state which Arabs, including Palestinians did not agree. But couldn’t do anything about.

This is exacerbated by religious conflicts which inherently hard to resolve. When Israelis annexed Jordanian esatern sector of Jurusalem, it includes parts of an ancient city in which are situate the most revered shrine of Islam : the Dome of the Rock from which spot the Prophet is believed to have risen to Heaven for divine inspiration in his teachings. How does what resolve this?

Then on the other part – asking Israel to give up all lands it occupied (other than 1947 territory), it is not willing too because it needs a buffer. One can’t dispute that Israel is a target of Arab animosity all around, so human beings, whether Jews or Arabs, strive for “security”, and Israelis feel having that “buffer zone” is absolutely imperative for its survival from attack. One can’t say Israelis are unreasonable because they face intermittent rocket attacks or suicide bombings!

Palestinians are screwed because big powers have vested interest in the Middle East region and their own agendas (US, for example the Jewish lobby & Midle East oil) : so do the smallers powers, whether Iran, Syria, Egypt and even Hamas, their own interest using Palestinian plight as rallying cause….

In such circumstance, how does one decide what are the facts, based on which are derived a correct moral judgment, and hopefully a solution? Everyone has a different moral judgment depending as I said on their cultural/religious inclination/bias.

People can talk about international law, morality and the rest, but if all these cannot work, and they have not worked for over 60 year, the final solution (in conflict that canot be stopped no thanks to all the patrons of both sides with their self interest agendas) will be arbitered by who and which side has the raw military power – here we return to the law of the jungle – to obliterate the other, if co-existence, even under oppressed conditions – is not workable….

Promoters of UN resolution 181 would have (sure) made reference to history. Question is whether historical references made are justifiable or selective; and also whilst referring to history, the promoters had agendas extraneous to professed one.

In referring back to history, again how far back, ancient history, modern history ? The status of state can be no if it were sacked by conquerors with its people cast in diaspora. In this way, as f ar as ancient history goes, Caananites lost land to the Jews (Jewish kingdom of King Saul, Solomon and David) and the Jews lost it to conquering Ottoman Turks, who in turn in modern history, suffered their empire carved by colonial powers, with Britain at end of world War I administering it as mandated territory first by Leaque of Nations, then after Word War II by its successor the United N ations (UN).

If one makes references to sacred religious texts/Abrahamic Covenant and argues on the Promised Land, then it is not something I know much to support or contradict. So I prefer to rely on references to interntional law, which by [A] article 38.1(b)of ICJ Statute confers statehood or entitlement based on 4 criteria: (i) a permanent population with majority racially/culturally homogenous (ii) defined territory (iii) its own government & social and economic structure (iv) independent capacity to enter into relations of other states and recognised by those other states as a state with which they could have whether diplomatic or military engagements [B] UN resolution 181 legally by international law, and majority of votes (33 to 13, with 10 abstentions) created the state of Israel, which presently satisfies criteria of statehood listed in [A].

“many Muslims argue that the UN resolution which led to the establishment of modern Isreal is wrong and appeal to historical arguments to show why they think this is wrong”… Wang Yen

I suppose “historical” means going far back in history well before 1947 partition.

Just to share with you the insights of this guy Jason D. Söderblom of The Terrorism Intelligence Centre, Canberra. He cited four “core foundational reasons behind the Palestinian rejection of the 1947 Partition Plan”. The reasons didn’t go too far back in history but dwell more on merits/fairness or unfairness of the Partition based on circumstances and conditions existing at that time.

I quote his 4 reasons:

[1], “the Arab world perceived that the United Nations were not competent under international law to partition or otherwise dispose of the territory of Palestine against the wishes of the clear majority of its inhabitants.

[2] The Partition Plan was perceived as having no legal validity.The Partition Plan was adopted by the General Assembly, not the Security Council. Resolutions of the General Assembly have the force of recommendations to member states of the United Nations but do not have any mandatory force.Therefore, the General Assembly vote to accept the recommendations of UNSCOP to partition Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state did not mean that one or another state was being created over the objections of one of the parties.

(3) The partition plan also violated a very
basic principle in international affairs: that of self-determination of peoples, recognised by Article 1 of the United Nations
Charter. The carving-out of 55 % of Palestine for the creation of a Jewish state and the subjection of part of the original inhabitants (who were not Jewish) to its dominion represents a fundamental violation of this aspect of international law.

[4], the Partition Plan was neither just nor fair. The Partition Plan granted 55% of Palestine to the Jews, who at that time comprised only 30 percent of the population, and who owned a mere 6 or 7% of the land. Within this Jewish State there were to have been 407,000 Palestinian Arabs. The Arab State was to comprise only the remaining 34% of the land. The UN Partition Plan also ordered that the most fertile region, be given to the Jewish settlers. The remaining 45% of Palestine was to comprise a home for the other 70% of the population who were Arab.

The major reason then the Palestinians rejected the partition resolution was on the grounds of its lack of fairness: it proposed to give the minority population an exclusive and hegemonic right to the majority of the land. In 1946, the total population of Palestine was 1,972,0000 inhabitants, comprising 1,247,000 Palestinians and 608,000 Jews, as well as 16,000 others.”