Palestine’s beleaguered president may turn to the Islamists for help

What nonsense. Egyptians speak Arabic, not "egyprianese". Syrians speak Arabic, not "Syrianese". Iraqis speak Arabic, not "Iraqianese". That does not mean they don't have a distinct national identity, on top of the Arab one.

As for sovereignty, many peoples in the world have never had "nation-states" of their own throughout history, yet they proudly define themselves as "peoples" or "nations". Jews themselves have been stateless for centuries, yet that never precluded them from declaring themselves a "people". It's the right of self-determination, you know. You are "a people" because you say so. To exercise such right on someone else's home is entirely another matter.

And all this is entirely irrelevant regarding Palestinians' inalienable right to their ancestral homeland. Sovereign or not, they are the natives of Palestine, and they have lived in that patch of land for countless uninterrupted generations, unlike those arrived from the four corners of the world to steal their homes.

The Economist: "American administration withdrew its support in the wake of President Mahmoud Abbas’s controversial bid for full statehood at the UN in late 2011."

Right. The next administration should do the same and to declare clearly and loudly, like Newt Gingrich recently did: Palestinians are an "invented" people.

This is a brilliant insight that lays the basis, finally, for a real solution to the Middle East conflict. Gingrich simply noted the well-known facts that Palestine, though referred to in old maps, was once part of the Ottoman Empire but not a separate nation, that after WWI and the end of the Ottoman Empire Palestine became merely "Mandate Palestine" under British rule and still not a formally separate and independent nation, and that so-called Palestinians speak Arabic, not Palestinianese, which means they are part of the Arab-speaking people (Arabs), who live in many nations and certainly do not need one more named "Palestine"; thus there is no nation of Palestine and hence no "Palestinian" people.

I agree that it is very important to be specific about UNSC resolution 242: it states quite clearly that the acquisition of territory through conflict is inadmissible.

So Israel just has to look at what it considers to be its territory, deduct those parts that it acquired through conflict, and the result will be its legitimate territory.

Or is it only the bits of UNSC resolution 242 that Israelis like, that are applicable?

More nonsense. Bedouins and Druze are just as Arab as the rest of Palestinians. Same goes for Egyptian Copts, Syrian Alawites and Iraqi Shias, despite the tensions and power struggles there may exist in their countries (not so Kurds, who are indeed not Arab and who rightfully demand a state of their own, exposing once again the fallacy of sovereignty as a prerequisite for peoplehood). Just more divide and rule hasbara BS. Palestinians exist and are not moving from their ancestral homeland, whatever Israel and its cheerleaders may say.

As I am sure you're perfectly aware the international consensus is for a Palestinian State to be formed in the territories occupied by Israel in the June 1967 War. This is what is known as the Two-State solution to the Israel-Palestine Conflict. No one is suggesting that Gaza be returned to Egypt or East Jerusalem and the West Bank be returned to Jordan. In fact, if you were familiar with your history this was-with territorial adjustments here and there-Israel's long preferred option who feared the rise of Palestinian Nationalism and were vehemently opposed the idea of a independent, Sovereign Palestinian State.

Furthermore, for there to be a lasting peace there needs to safe and secure borders for both Peoples-not just Israel. Moreover, a future Palestinian State needs to be economically viable if it has to end its reliance on international aid, which includes that it be Sovereign and territorial contiguous. No doubt you're aware that some of Israel's Jew settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank make this task particular hard by chopping up any future Palestinian State into separated segments. Hence that is why there is a lot of international disdain on Israel for its Jew-only Colonies in the OPTs because not only are they medieval in outlook but are completely contrary to the International Community's pursuit of peace in the region.

SF, Both Druze and Bedouins are undeniably Arab, even if it's true that Israeli Druze have traditionally shunned Arab nationalism and the Palestinian liberation plight. Bedouins, on the other hand, despite a growing rift with non-Bedouin Palestinians, still consider themselves very much as Palestinians, and only a small part of them partake of the occupation regime apparatus. Bedouins share with other Palestinians a history of cruel dispossession and marginalization, with hundreds of their villages still unrecognized by Israel, despite of predating the state itself, its inhabitants living in conditions unseen in developed countries. Israel tries to divide Palestinians in every possible way, but they will always share a common identity shaped by Israeli oppression and dispossession.

Froy, you are simply unfamiliar with the actual details of sects in Israel. Druze are indeed Arabs. But try to tell a Druze he is a 'Palestinian', and ... soon enough you'll understand your error. Druze in Israel share their part in Israel's life, INCLUDING full service in the IDF.

For the Bedouins it is the same. The Bedouins DO NOT identify themselves as 'Palestinians'. Bedouins also serve in the IDF.

Contrary to that, Christians all across the Middle East are cleansed - From Iraq, through Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, through Egypt, to Sudan. 8 million Arab Christians already moved to Brazil, more than a million to Mexico, and others to other South American states. Middle Eastern Christianity has no future in an ever expanding Islamic ideology hemisphere. It is to become extinct.

Sovereignty, as you say, isn't a prerequisite peoplehood. Similarly, looking at the fate of Christians in the Middle East, namely their cleansing when are not part of national Christian state to protect them, proves again that the only way Jews can exist in their homeland is through a sovereign Jewish state that protects it, and not as part of any Muslim entity, especially not a single state solution for Palestinians and Jews..

If the Palestinians consider themselves a nation - so be it. Regardless, they have no right for the entire land, as they demand.

The preamble clearly refers to any acquisition of territory through conflict: if it meant to exclude acquisitions by Israel, it would say so: it does not, and therefore can only be interpreted one way: that acquisitions of territory by anyone (including Israel) through conflict are inadmissible.

That's all the West Bank, the Golan, Gaza and all of Jerusalem: Israel has no right to any of them, per UNSC resolution 242

I think you're suffering what is commonly referred to as 'Zionist Fever'. I suggest you drink plenty of water and take a long hot bath. Once relaxed, please familiarise yourself with the Geneva Fourth Convention.

'...Egyptians speak Arabic... Syrians speak Arabic... Iraqis speak Arabic... That does not mean they don't have a distinct national identity, on top of the Arab one.'

If we've learned anything from past year's 'Arab Spring', is that Arab nationalism is non-existent:
Egypt - When Egypt was a nation and not a Muslim entity, the Coptic Christians were indeed part of the fake Arab national identity of Egypt, as they are Arabs. Now, when Egypt's identity turns into a Muslim one, Coptic Christians have no place in Egypt. After a series of more Churches burnings, they are leaving in their hundreds of thousands:

http://www.aina.org/news/20110926194822.htm

Is Iraq a nation? - The Sunnis seek autonomy for the ruling Shiites, and the Kurds already declared their intention to break up from Iraq and finally bring justice by establishing Kurdistan:

http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/41419.htm

Is Syria one nation? - Kurdish 'Syrians' will join up with their Iraqi Kurdish brethren, and also Syria will break up. Syria is in the midst of a cross sectarian civil war, and you still regard it as a nation?

Also Libya is a fake nation. It is likely to break up to two - Tripolitania (Tripoli) and Cyrenaica (Benghazi).

You say:
'Sovereign or not, they [Palestinians] are the natives of Palestine, and they have lived in that patch of land for countless uninterrupted generations'.

Among local residents in Palestine who lived for generations were Arabs, Jews, Druze, Bedouins, Cherkessk. Only the first are regarded as 'Palestinians', and not a few of those are recent emigrants from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Transjordan.

Anyway, as proven to you recently, 'Palestinians' never owned more than 25-30% of the land strip between the sea and the river, so even following your logic, demanding everything for themselves is baseless.

Somebody call Joan Peters! Saturn 476 just plagiarized her hoax (Alan Dershowitz is not the only one, it seems). After so many years of having being debunked even by Israeli historians, hasbara still insists in that ridiculous argument.

It is widely accepted by historians tha Palestinians do not have their roots in neighboring countries (much less arrived attracted by Jewish kibbutzim in the 19th century, which at that time had a hard time to survive, and always shunned non-Jewish labour). Palestinians are indeed the descendants of the different peoples who have dwelled in that piece of land through the ages: Canaanites, philistines, Arameans, Samaritans... and Jews (unlike those arrived from Russia, Morocco and elsewhere).

Get another excuse to justify the dispossession of the natives of Palestine.

Before the 1930s, that is before mass Jewish immigration that arrived in Palestine during the '30s-'40s, Jerusalem was a mixed city with a predominantly Palestinian-Muslim and CHristian population. In fact, the same can be said for the whole of present day Israel.

Israel has a simple choice to make: A One-State or a Two-State solution.

Perpetuating the Occupation, which includes the barbaric blockade of Gaza and the colonisation of Occupied-East Jerusalem & the West Bank will subsequently open charges of Apartheid-like rule from more mainstream opinion that will gradually lead to international pressure on Israel to grant citizenship to all those Palestinians in the OPTs; thus leading to the One-State solution.

If Israel wants its Zionist experiment to work then it needs to end the Occupation!

No one says that the occupation is illegal. However, the construction of Israeli settlements on occupied land-as stated by international Law and interpreted so by every member State of the UN-is ILLEGAL. Moreover, it is morally inexcuseable hence why the majority of the world are more sympathetic to the Palestinians.

One more thing, Froy.

You choose very strange words to describe what's going on in Egypt, Syria, and Iraq as if they are "tensions and power struggles".

Is this a 'power struggle', or a 'tension'?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wun3c8i-oK4

or this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SScPUudoJPY

or this?
http://www.aina.org/news/20111030133621.htm

Is this 'power struggle', or a 'tension'?
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-02/world/iraq.church.attack_1_salvation-...

or this? - How would you call that?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/01/us-iraq-violence-idUSTRE69U1YE...

I guess you are familiar with pictures coming out from Syria. Some 'power struggle' that leaves thousands of dead.

Strange selection of words on your part, Froy.

Jehuda (the illegal settler in the occupied Syrian Golan):

1) it was Israel who attacked Egypt back in 1967, not the other way around
2) you can't acquire territory by war, regardless of the nature of such war. It is only up to the native inhabitants of the land to decide what country it belongs to.

"And, the only parties in the conflict that actually had conquered territory and incorporated it have been Egypt, Jordan and Syria."

Huh? 242 was issued after the Six Day War, when Israel was the only party to conquer and retain any neighboring territory. Your whole comment is absurd. Enough of twisting UNSCR 242. It's just ridiculous.

Dear All, Palestine is recognized (as of now) by 130 nations (that include India, China, Russia, Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia and most recently Iceland). The successful UNESCO bid for Palestine was supported by France, Spain and Ireland (amongst many Western European nations). In addition there are over 150 UN Resolutions, the ruling of the International Court of Justice pertaining the illegal "separation barrier" dividing Palestine and the Road Map (2003) which is an international agreement - enshrined in international law and supported by the US - stipulating a Palestinian State is a must and that settlements should be ended. There are resolutions by the international community that state that the Palestinians are a people. There is not one single of the 150 UN Resolutions stating that "Jordan is Palestine". In fact in 1980 UN Security Council Resolution adopted unanimously stated that Israel's claim to East Jerusalem was null and void. God bless

The preamble is just a recital of international law: it applies to Israel

P.S. It is of utmost importance to be specific about UN Security Council Resolution­, 242, which passed unanimousl­y and has been accepted by all relevant parties to the conflict:

a. 242 came about on the infrastruc­ture of the fundamenta­l resolution­s listed above, i.e. San Remo, League of Nations, and UN Charter.

b. 242 expects the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to retreat from "territori­es" of captured lands in 1967, but not from all or the territorie­s. And, not to any particular line, something that Israel has fulfilled some time ago.

c. 242 does not call for the setting up of an additional state between the River and the Sea.

d. 242 does not even make use of concepts such as "Palestini­ans" or a "Palestini­an state".

In short, 242, in essence, expects all existing states in the region to be recognized by their neighborin­g states that continue to exist beyond "secure and recognized boundaries­".

Why is it so difficult for the Muslim-Ara­bs to accept this, and why doesn't the internatio­nal community stand by its own internatio­nal law in applying it to this conflict..­..??!!