Columbia University has fallen

[FlyingClayDisk]

...

As far as being a Zionist, that's nothing more than the belief that Israel should exist as a sovereign nation.

True, but Israel IS a sovereign nation.  This was decided in 1948, and ratified in 1949.  The question then becomes 'how much?'.  The other question, and where the disputed problem lies, is...'Should Palestine be allowed to exist as a sovereign nation?'. 

So, what is 'Palestine'?  Remember, Palestine is defined by a series of documents beginning with the Balfour Declaration in 1917, the Mandate for Palestine in 1919 (and ratified in 1923) as well as some other collateral complimentary documents of around the same time frame.  The result, 'Mandatory Palestine', was a geographical region, not an ideological designation and boundary.  In 1947, just prior to the Israeli Declaration of Independence, the UN adopted Resolution 181 (II) which effectively divided what was then known as Mandatory Palestine into (3) distinct areas (an Arab apportion (42%), a Jewish apportion (56%), and an 'International Zone' (2%)).  This resolution drew cultural and ideological boundaries inside the geographical region known as Mandatory Palestine.  All of this was to be put into place before the expiration of the Mandate for Palestine Delcaration which was scheduled to lapse in 1948.  In parallel with this, Israel was also working on their own Declaration of Independence (also in 1948) to coincide with the expration of the Declaration.

The takeaway from all of this is two things:

1. The Israeli's agreed (albeit begrudgingly) with Resolution 181 (II).  And,...
   
2. Nowhere was there ever the offer, nor reasonable expectation, that Israel was entitled to ALL of what would formerly be known as Mandatory Palestine.  In other words, Israel was entitled to some portion of Mandatory Palestine, and someone else (not Israel) was entitled to the balance of the territory of Mandatory Palestine.  This 'balance' was established as Israel (56%), Arab (42%), and 'other' (2%) control.
   

The Arab League rejected Resolution 181 (II) which led to the Arab-Israeli War in 1948, but this doesn't change the fact that the Resolution was in fact formally adopted.  What the Arabs were objecting to, more than anything else, were boundaries not the Resolution in principle.  The 1948 Arab-Israeli War bore this out.

All one needs to do to understand the basic principles of the disputes going on today is to look at the territory occupied today by both Israel and Arabs in comparison to the territory laid out in Resolution 181(II), and ask themselves a three basic questions:

• Are the footprints of territory the same (between the two time frames), and if they are not, then whose has increased and whose has decreased?
  
• Do the Israeli's acknowledge that the territory 'outside' of the territory outlined in UN Resolution 181(II) designated for Jewish peoples, but inside the territory formerly known as Mandatory Palestine, does not belong to them?
  
• Do the Israeli's reject the Right to Self-Determination as set forth in the UN Charter, Chapter XI, Article 73(e)?
  

These questions are really the crux of all the arguments and debates.  People will do about anything to avoid distilling the discussion down to these basic principles, IMO, simply because it makes the issue much clearer.  My opinion means zero, but I would posit the answers to the questions to be..."No", "Israel has increased and the Arab territory has decreased", "No", and "Yes."  But I remain open to considering opposing viewpoints, and again, my opinion means zero; these are just my observations.

Lastly, before anyone starts hurling "anti-Semitic!" labels at me, know that I am far more on Israel's side as a people than I am on the Arab's side as a people given their conduct around the world.  And, even further to the point, make absolutely NO mistake...HAMAS ARE TERRORISTS!  Period.  Terrorists deserve nothing!  Hamas deserves nothing!  Ever!  Beyond this, all I am trying to do is be objective and analytical about the situation.  Oh, and there is a BIG difference between "anti-Semitic/Pro-Hamas" and saying something neutral about Israel with doesn't align perfectly with Netanyahu and/or the Israeli government's agenda!  The two are not the same thing (contrary to how many conduct themselves in discussions).  I don't agree with a whole lot of things the American government does, but this doesn't make me "un-American", far from it.