David Singer,

Why should Israel negotiate on humanitarian principles since its settlements are expanding into Palestinian land and the Palestinians have no power to prevent this? Your Point 2 is rather grotesque considering the rationalisation for the foundation of Israel in the first place. We don't have lemons but invasion, despair and injustice, only a poisonous brew can be produced from those ingredients. Oh, and to avoid the usual retort, I recognise that Israel, like Australia and other colonial projects is a fact that cannot be dissolved, and I support the rather forlorn hope of a two state solution.

“Arab - Israeli War in 1948 “

Why bench mark anything on this particular date, when the territorial definition and national boundaries were redefined, for all purposes in 1967, following the failure of the combined arab forces to push the Jews into the sea?

I would further ask how defining things on the 1948 date would influence the peace agreement determined between Israel and Egypt since?

Lets address the elephant in the Arab room,

The Palestinians, through their leadership (largely Arafat) failed to follow through with any commitments they ever made.

They have murdered sports people in Munich in 1972, bombed civilian aircraft repeatedly, were thrown out of Jordan and cannot rule themselves in Gaza today,

Attempting to appease Palestinians is a pointless and unworthy waste of time.

The UN would do better to save their budget and leave the Palestinians to murder each other,

they seem quite proficient at that.

THE TRUTH WILL NOT SET U FREE.

If there is no truth in the premise all who condone a 3-state in Palestine are criminals - intentionally or not does not change the result - then I am criminally wrong or insane. And I freely accept this. I unreservedly call a muslim state in Palestine as a Genocide by stealth and spin.

The term 'Palestinian heritage' has to be the biggest joke in history - it is a brand, spanking new, post-60's heritage created out of a genocidal aspiration, to be precise when one Pope shook hands with an Egyptian born terrorist named Arafat in the 60's, with no imprints in history other than what is carefully orchestrated by Europe and the Arabs - and exposes only their past histories - to be more precise. What heritage - they may as well speak of their new mobile phones the same way!?

My issue is not that Jordan was created and the Arab muslims have a good place to go to - namely 80% of the land originally allocated to Israel, and itself miniscule compared to the sizes of the 22 Arab states; rather, the issue is that Jordan's creation was itself a crime. So is the calling of a 3-state as a 2-state; this lot pretends about the real agenda of the so-called persecuted Pretend Pals - its a VE VERE NOT AVARE again by the same people.

So why does none suggest it was a great error - that the Balfour should be restored? Because its *ISRAEL* - the Jew factor - that's what. That calling a deathly 3-state as a 2-state is a crime against humanity - not to mention a historical and mathematical corruption - even if it is put in a spin 'FOR PEACE IN THE MIDDLE-EAST'. Who are you guys fooling if not yourselves? Oh! pardon me - I forgot something. Europe and the Arabians need a new golf course on soccer-sized Israel. For the persecuted Palestinians of course, who's land, ZION, is occupied by them evil ZIONISTS.

Wanna buy a 4-state for peace in Palestine?

With all due respect, David Singer, in all sincerity, do I surmise correctly, is of the Jewish faith? To recap: The foundation of the Jewish state now named "Israel" was settled in the aftermath of WW1 by colonial powers, without a doubt with colonial outlooks. It was further densely settled by Jewish immigration(still continuing) following WW2. The original Arab people were displaced/replaced without their consent or agreement. Perhaps they were badly led or misinformed? Nevertheless they were bona fide original inhabitants & were dispossessed.
If it is your desire to have a three country existing solution: namely:Israel, Jordan, Egypt, rather than the proposed two state solution: Palestine(West Bank,Gaza) & Israel. Then surely it would be a far better simpler( and more humane) solution, that the Palestinians, as a separate race, both past(refugees) & present inhabitants, be admitted to full citizenship to this newly unified state of Israel. Both Palestinians & Israili's must of course make huge accommodations. A federarated Israel is a genuine possibility, both races having a measure of self governong within a federation, but Israel must allow the genuine refugees the right of return & monetary assistance with that resettlement.

Whatever else has or could be said about the situation in Israel/Palestine, is that it will never ever be resolved until the right wing Zionists and "settlers" (really invaders and thieves) give up the conceipt that their ancient tribalistic cultic "god" promised the disputed piece of real estate to the Jewish people and that the associated idea that Jewish people are somehow gods "chosen" people.

It would also be most helpful if we stopped referring to that benighted piece of real estate as the "holy land".

It is more like a lunatic asylum, and has been for a very long time.

Real God, the Indivisible Divine Conscious Light does not grant special favours or territorial "rights" to any one, or groups of people how ever large or small.

They should have gone ahead with the plan to establish a Jewish state in Tasmania, rather than plonk it on top of the Arabs. The world would be a much nicer place.

I wonder how many of the people who cite Israel's right to traditional land would similarly endorse the handover of the East coast of Australia to aborigines? If the aborigines then got massive military and political support from, say, China, would the same people stick up for their right to gradually annexe the rest of the country?