The ever-growing crowd of folks who see a recognized Palestinian State as "not necessarily a bad thing" suggest a sacrifice of legal, documented claim of Israel on the land under consideration by Palestine for a "new state".  Ironically, such a remark was made yesterday by Dr. Ilian Berman, vice-president of the American Foreign Policy Council and author of "Winning the Long War: Retaking the Offensive Against Radical Islam".  Dr. Berman began his lecture at a conservative think-tank with a "full disclosure" comment that he is a "recovering lawyer".  For all the fast-paced brilliance displayed by this amiable gentleman on the subject of the day (Iran and Nuclear Capability) I found his comment that the formation of a Palestinian state would not necessarily be a bad thing quite a bit unsettling.
 
Now, I know that we are all looking for the positives in this mess of international relations, but it seems to me that such remarks are only prolonging the eventual agony and are in some way leading down the path to tolerance, which leads down the path to acceptance.  Note that all the action of leading is "down", not up or even forward.  Curious as to who else may be using the phrase of "not necessarily a bad thing", I did as all intellectual scholars do these days and "Googled" the words. 
 
Here's who came up first on the list:  Obama with the Saudi King meeting in the Oval Office, a blog about Fatah's agreement with Hamas, an interview with Palestinian Ghanem Nuseibeh, a Hussein Ibish blog on the upcoming Obama Middle East speech, and Israpundit comments on action ("a series of unilateral steps") to be taken by Israel if the UN recognizes Palestine.
 
After an hour-plus of reading through these droning, sometimes fuzzy articles, I came up with my own thought..."not necessarily a bad thing?  No.  It would actually be a horrendous, illegal, and catastrophic thing if Palestine is given the status of "State" by the United Nations or any other globally recognized organization.  Not bad, only devastating!  Have any of these experts considered the massive and bloody consequences that would most certainly be the outcome?  Or are these lives considered "acceptable losses" for the greater good of establishing the fact that Israel already holds legal claim?  Of course not, nor do I for a moment believe that anyone is saying this.  Only that perhaps we are not brave enough or willing to risk popularity by stepping forward to wave the historical, written "Title Deed" as legal proof.  
 
I am not a real estate expert or a "recovering lawyer".  Still, this I do know: legal claim can and has been established by Israel for the land on which she sits.  It took me only a minute to "Google" that fact.  The top results are found in the real estate boundaries listed in Numbers 34:1-12 and even before that in Genesis 15:18-21.  Historical precedence was already confirmed by The Supreme's Court.  No United Nations referendum required.
 
So, there it is all laid out with specificity.  It was pretty simple really and did not even necessitate a visit to a courthouse or the need for any lawyer...recovering or not.