It’s basically an archaic pan-Arab notion of pre-nation state (1914) unification, which has little or nothing to do with Palestine/Israel, and a lot to do with post-colonial movements.

I’ve written a bit more here: http://newsfromsyria.com/2009/01/05/the-jewish-problem/#comments

Internationally, too, we live by a legal system. If we let certain countries ignore international law, and force others to abide by it, the system breaks down, to the detriment of everyone.

The UN resolutions on the occupied territory are imperfect – they do no justice to the lands occupied in 1948, but does that give Palestinians the right to claim those lands? Legally, no.

And in the same way, if Israelis believe the West Bank was theirs 2000 years ago, can they claim it? Again, legally, no.

Sorry – this is not facetious – I ask quite seriously. Because when one considers the occupation to have started determines what and who must stop the occupying, yes?

“Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”

And:

“a just settlement of the refugee problem” (generally considered to be a return of the refugees, or compensation for those who choose not to return – but that’s for another discussion!).

The transfer of settlers into a land occupied by military force is illegal under the Geneva Conventions.

So while UNSCR 242 doesn’t say who should live where, or where the demilitarised zones should lie – it does quite clearly call for an end to occupation.

It is funny that you say that the Arabs are divided, because I have seen that in person.

I used to work with a couple of Syrians. Interestingly enough one was Muslim and the other was Christian. They had relatively different ideas of how to make things work.

But they agreed on one thing, they despised Palestinians. It was shocking to me to hear what they had to say about them. But that is a different story.

Both of them told me that the only way Israel could survive was to act like an Arab. They spelled that out by saying that Israel needed to be exceedingly brutal or that it would be overcome. I found that to be very depressing.

But let’s focus on 242 for a moment. Let me grab an excerpt: For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

That doesn’t spell out who lives where. It doesn’t delve into the questions of what size the demilitarized zones should be or what other measures should be taken to guarantee the territory and safety of the country or countries as the case may be.

And that is part of the rub.

Jack, I think the situation is very simple. It’s politicians on both sides (all sides?!) who benefit from the status quo which like to tell us it’s too complicated for our little brains, and they are trying their best to navigate through the muddy waters.

Rubbish.

There’s occupation and 40 years of military rule over millions of people. Border disputes can be sorted out in an hour.

As for the international law, the laws I am referring to are:

-the laws of war (land gained through war can not be annexed – like the Syrian Golan – or held through military occupation – like the West Bank and Gaza)
-UN Security Council resolution 242 (which is binding on all parties and takes the form of law)