Columbia University has fallen

[FlyingClayDisk]

Who is the defendant here? Hamas, Palestine, Israel? 

As for the verdict, I'd be more inclined towards Guilty but mentally ill, it seems to fit the region. 

I'll try and end my involvement here with this point.

If we were to snap our fingers and put a Palestinian state the size of the West Bank and Gaza on the border of your current state how would you feel about that? Would the now US Palestinians accept Jewish Americans?

Now instead of doing that with a Palestinian state how about doing the same with Israel, remembering that 2 million Muslims live in Israel now.

You see where Im going with this...

Hamas will never be a defendant in any court I am in.  Hamas are TERRORISTS.  Period.  They are guilty before they set foot in the door.  The only question would be...are they "Hamas"?

Beyond this, I will let you decide. 

Regarding your snap fingers question, you need to remember, these borders go back more than 100 years (to 1917, 1919 and 1948).  It's not like just annexing some land adjacent to a State in the US.  But, just going with your hypothetical for a moment, let's say a Native American land was converted thusly (let's not get into the Native American discussion, it's just an example only to illustrate your point).  Okay, I wouldn't have any problem with immigration of either Palestinian or Israeli to those lands, provided they met the criteria and they legally emigrated/immigrated.  Dearborn, Michigan is a good example of Arab immigration.  As a rule, they are a civilized and taxpaying community who (generally) obey the rules of the society around them.  They can be difficult sometimes, but so can any cluster of foreign nationals in a confined area, but they are by far much better than some of the US national communities which surround them (and they didn't emigrate from anywhere, despite their legacy claims to the contrary).

But back to the topic at hand, and specific to the area formally known as Mandatory Palestine, I would think percentages of the boundaries laid out by UN Resolution 181(II) would be more than acceptable to both sides.  Maybe re-draw the Green Line, or the original Res. 181(II) boundaries and then overlay the new Israeli territory over it.  Calculate the difference and then create a joint "international zone".  Israel is not going to back up, so this would be equally unreasonable to expect (and likely just create more hostility).  A good starting point would be just draw the boundaries today, and start there.  Remember, it's statehood this time...sovereign land.  Maybe it's not the ideal solution in the long haul, but it's a start.  And see, this is key, you just have to start somewhere.  Just something, anything, to show the principles are valid and in force.  Okay, people are going to grumble, but the sign of a good negotiation is when no one leaves the table with a smile.  It's a starting point.  Palestinians have their first taste of sovereign land (regardless of size).  It's theirs, and no one can take it away from them.  UNLESS, they do something stupid, and then all bets are off.  Again, it gives them something to lose, which they don't have now.

As for emigration of Israeli Jews and/or Palestinians to the US, they should be offered the same rules of legal immigration as any other foreign national.  They are more than welcome, but they need to follow the process, not just swim across the Mexican border and then stick their hand out.  Nothing more, noting less.

I believe I have responded to your questions.  Regarding your last question about if I...'see where you are going with this'...honestly, I am not sure I do.  You asked some reasonable questions, and I tried to provide some reasonable answers to those questions.  Beyond that, I don't really see any hidden undertone.

Fair enough?