The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Paulson pinpoints Palestine's panacea > Comments

Paulson pinpoints Palestine's panacea : Comments

By David Singer, published 26/9/2008

How to resolve the intractable 130-year-old conflict between Arabs and Jews over a piece of land once called Palestine.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All
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.
Posted by mac, Friday, 26 September 2008 12:57:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“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.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 26 September 2008 1:45:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by IamJoseph, Friday, 26 September 2008 2:02:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Jack from Bicton, Friday, 26 September 2008 3:13:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 26 September 2008 3:15:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by Sancho, Friday, 26 September 2008 3:20:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ho hum

You say >> “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.”

If you can’t see that you could also replace the word "jew" in the above paragraph with "arab" or "muslim", then you really aren’t interested in a solution at all.

It seems to me that virtually all the settlements bar a handful of the very large, (ie over 10,000 people) should be handed back and as for the rest, the Palestinians must be offered USEFUL Israeli land in recompense.

The Palestinians need to accept that there is no “right of return”. Compensation should, however, be payable.

Israel needs to accept that Arab Jerusalem will be the capital of a Palestinian state.

Palestinians and those in the west need to accept that Israel has the right to be a Jewish state, just as Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc, are Islamic states.

But before all this can happen, Hamas and the other terrorists MUST renounce violence. Israel needs to be reassured that the new Palestinian state won’t be a terrorist superstate, biding their time before they can completely overrun Israel.

Sancho,

Your comparison is NOT even remotely valid. Israel was formed with the express support of both the league of nations, and later the UN. On independence Arab armies tried to wipe out Israel, and tried twice more in the next 30 years. Furthermore, almost no-one believes Israel wants to keep all of Palestine. In fact, Israel recently gave back control of all of the gaza strip. Israel controls the west bank purely for reasons of internal security. Previously Israel has shown through its peace deal with Egypt that it is willing to cede land in return for peace. There is NO gesture on the Palestinian side of this magnitude.
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 26 September 2008 3:48:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul L,

Israel doesn't have the right to be a "Jewish" state any more than Malaysia has the right to be an "Islamic" one, the term implies inferior status for citizens of other religions.
Posted by mac, Friday, 26 September 2008 4:00:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
By todays news Israel sees itself as a Middle East Power Bloc,when they asked George Bush if they could bomb Iran.

George of course flipped and said " No! No!!", well he is up to his neck in it, until the election!
Posted by Kipp, Friday, 26 September 2008 4:50:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author is grasping at straws.

He at last recognises the situation. The meltdown in America will continue and a world wide depression will result.

As a consequence America will now be unable to support Israel's militarism.

Singer's response to this situation is revealing especially his comment re nuclear war. It is terrifying... for the only nation in the mid east with nuclear weapons is Israel.

Singer's a warmonger and an advocate for using nuclear weapons.

What a bloody disgrace
Posted by keith, Friday, 26 September 2008 6:46:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to most Humanities studies, the Jewish-Arab problem in the Middle East will never be solved until we take note of what was discovered in the White House archives recently -

Found was a statement by Henry Kissinger, who while being Minister of State during the Nixon regime, gave the following warning -

To allow a little nation like Israel to become militarily atomic will upset the Middle East balance of power between Jews and Arabs to the point of so much Arab resentment it could become a major global problem.

To be sure it has proven so very true, having probably the only sensible Israeli Mordecai being made a prisoner for life, and the UN rendered virtually useless to handle the situation owing to America's lack of true scientific understanding of a matter which could even eventually cause a war with Iran possibly merging into a major war if Putin feels justified to back Iran.
Posted by bushbred, Friday, 26 September 2008 7:08:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbred,

You have repeatedly told us about Kissinger and his supposed "warning" to the point where I could quote you verbatim. So

One simple question for you.

How has Israels possession of nuclear weapons affected the outcome of the Arab-Israeli conflict?
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 26 September 2008 7:44:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It may come as a surprise to most that many Jewish people, prior to WWII and the Nazi regime, had no real desire for a separate homeland –apart from a minority of Zionists. Most Jewish people were happy to live and settle in Europe or the U.S. as permanent residents. Whilst anti-Semitism was used as a cause for national unity in forming the state of Israel – it was largely the left of politics who supported its formation and invoked the sceptre of civil human rights.

Ironically, the ‘left’ of the political spectrum has done an about face, now citing the religious conviction of a sought after ‘holy’ land, emanating from Israel, as the main scourge. Their focus, however, shows a complete bias. To some degree, fanaticism certainly exists on both sides of the Gaza strip, but not of equal proportion.

The proclamation of the State of Israel could not have occurred in Uganda, as once suggested (about as likely as Tasmania); the current formation of Israel and its geographical location underpinned the formation of a U.N. declaration, and to paraphrase the sentiments expressed from one of the ugliest events in history, the motto was, briefly, “Never again!”. Colonialism or its extension has never been the real issue. Dispossessed Arabs have certainly fudged a boundary between black and white – as has the rightful invocation of the British terra nullius in Australia

If the West avoids its responsibility, through either appeasement or moral grandiosity, and does not give proper deference to the principle of ‘estoppel’ (i.e. keeping your word) we become the purveyors of a catastrophic outcome - the sovereign, secularly governed state, we sanctioned, will act according to our same principles.
Posted by relda, Friday, 26 September 2008 8:24:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find the responses to my article to be particularly disappointing, negative and offering no hope to ending the conflict between Arabs and Jews other than the prospect of another war. That is a depressing thought.

I have suggested a way forward in the face of the obvious inability of Israel and the Palestinian Authority to reach the Quartet's two state solution - the last in a line of negotiations attempted since 1993. That is a fact that will not go away. So where to now?

My proposal involves offering

(i) massive international financial aid to compensate both Arabs and Jews who became victims of the 1948 War between six Arab armies and the newly declared Jewish State

(ii) to resettle and rehabilitate Arab refugees by their becoming citizens in the countries in which they currently reside.

(iii) dividing sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between Israel,Jordan and Egypt.

Criticise this proposal if you wish and I will try to answer your responses. If you do, I would hope you would also be able to advance a better solution that could also be discussed. Perhaps then there could be a constructive dialogue between us.

However going backwards - rather than forwards - may be a fertile ground for expressing your pro-Jewish or pro-Arab positions. It does nothing to advance a resolution of the 130 years old conflict between Jews and Arabs to a territory that was once called Palestine.
Posted by david singer, Saturday, 27 September 2008 9:45:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Singer,

Let's examine your proposals, (you avoid the term "Palestinian" I notice).

(i) Why is it the responsibility of the international community to compensate (a) those Palestinian victims who were disposessed because of Israel's creation or (b)Jewish victims of anti-semitism in Arab countries?

(ii) Surely this is unrealistic , it explicitly denies the rights of Palestinian refugees in relation to Israel's injustice towards them by transfering the area of redress to their present countries of residence. Why should these countries grant them citizenship?

(iii) divide "sovereignty between Israel, Jordan and Egypt", this is a method of writing a people out of history, as if they never existed.

I wonder if there will ever be a "Sorry day" for Palestinians, not likely I'd wager.

Finally, I doubt if Israel is in much danger given its nuclear weapons and superpower protector.
Posted by mac, Saturday, 27 September 2008 2:08:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's an alternative solution.

Set up a fund for public subscription with the aim of compensating and resettling in western democracies all new arrivals in the region. Let's nominate 1945 as the cut-off date for classification as new arrivals.

The region would then naturally and rightly return to the residents whose families have had continuous connection with the land for the past 1800 years.

Makes more sense to integrate peace loving liberal democrats into like-minded societies than trying to inject a few million peace loving liberal democrats into the midst of millions and millions of hostile, peace-hating despotic-prefering hordes.
Posted by keith, Saturday, 27 September 2008 7:08:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David.. I think your proposal is probably one of the most creative and workable I've ever heard.

For Mac's benefit there is no such thing as a 'Palestinian' people. It's as much of a mixture as most places with Druze, Muslim Arab and Christian Arab, Samaritans (who's history goes back to the first exile of the northern 10 Israelite tribes around 722bc)

Then there is the issue of immigrant Arabs who came with the Muslim invasions...

Given all this, the idea of a split as David suggests is quite brilliant.

The sooner the sense of 'Palestinian Idenity' is erased from the pages of history the better off we will all be, including them.

Jordan would be reluctant though given the events of Black September and the attemped coup.
Egypt? unknown quantity.

The major sticking point with such a solution would be as it is now, the "status of Jerusalem".

It is there that the theological and the territorial intersect and violently so. The peace (or lack thereof) will always depend on that.

The idea of 'Palestinian connection to the land' is invalid.
Many of the immigrant Arabs/Muslims would have only been their for a much shorter time.

The Jews have occupied it for longer and with more meaningful history. The Romans took it from them, and historically they have as much right to take it back as the Romans did to take it from them.

It should never be forgotten that even our Western date traces itself to the events in Jerusalem long ago, which in turn connect us to the history and prophetic traditions of Israel the nation, the Kings, the Prophets, the Temple, Moses, The Law, the slavery in Egypt, the dramatic salvation, wanderings in the wilderness and so much more.
Posted by Polycarp, Sunday, 28 September 2008 9:17:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Polycarp,

According to your logic there are no such identities as an Australian, Greek or any other people, human history is a record of invasions and migrations, the fact that Jews lived in the area in the past in no way justifies the creation of Israel.Your statement that the Jews predated other ethnic groups in the area is rubbish, read some history. Many of the Palestinians probably have ancestors that arived in Neolithic times, the argument that Jews have some claim which is superior to the Palestinians is chauvinistic nonsense. What about those Jews who are descendants of Khazar converts, by your logic they would have no claim to "return". References to Bronze Age religious propaganda in support of 21st century policies are irrelevant to the discussion.
Posted by mac, Sunday, 28 September 2008 10:43:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mac:
In response to your queries:

(i) The League of Nations and the United Nations endorsed the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine and the granting of Arab self determination in the entire Arabian peninsula after the Ottoman Empire had been dismantled. It is therefore appropriate that any compensation for those affected by the outcome of those policies be met by the international community.

(ii) Citizenship, resettlement and rehabilitation in their host countries offers the best prospect of ending the refugees continued existence in squalid and depressing refugee camps.

(iii) Offers of a State in the West Bank and Gaza have been made by Israel to the Palestinian Authority since 1993 all of which have been unsuccessful. Attempting to assign blame is a pointless exercise. A new approach is necessary to divide sovereignty of these areas between Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

Keith:

In response to your proposal

I think it is impractical since it involves major changes to the status quo and the political realities that exist today. My proposal deals with the "here and now" in trying to find an acceptable and honourable way out of the present impasse without point scoring or arguing about the past. I do not pretend that the resolution of these issues will end the desire of many Arabs to wipe Israel off the face of the map. I would hope however that their resolution might help to defuse the current very dangerous situation in the Middle East which is wreaking havoc on the lives of both Jews and Arabs.

Polycarp:

Thanks for your endorsement.

I believe the issue of Jerusalem is not a major sticking point. Its status has already been discussed and its future dealt with in the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan signed in 1994.

The fact that there are already signed peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan is the foundation on which I hope my proposals could be advanced. It is much easier to solve problems with friendly states than enemy non-states.
Posted by david singer, Sunday, 28 September 2008 12:19:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good argument David

Now apply the same principle to the illegal settlements... from the Palestinian and world point of view.

Of course you'll be an inconsistant hypocrite and advocate retention of all the brand new illegal settlements and their expansion ....
Posted by keith, Sunday, 28 September 2008 12:30:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Readers may find Ahmadinejad’s speech to the UN helpful (Realplayer or K-Lite universal player required):

http://www.finalcall.com/media/news/UN_Ahmadinejad09-23-2008.htm

In any case, there's a transcript.

It's laced with a bit of ayatollah stuff, but that's OK - the emphasis is still on universal brotherhood based on respect and love, so even if you're not sitting in the palm of god's right hand, you'll get the drift. I really enjoyed it.

It does starkly reveal one thing though. Senator Obama condemned the speech as being anti-semetic and offensive, when it clearly was not (no US delegate was present at the speech of course):

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20879.htm

You don't have to be a genius to figure out that the Zio-cons are in full "smoke-screen" mode. Worse, their naked influence in US politics stands revealed for all to see. If I was Obama, I would die of embarrassment. That's what makes him a professional politician I suppose.

Dunno about you guys, but I crave a bit of honesty so much. Sometimes in moments of quiet reflection, I can almost remember what honesty smelled and tasted like. Ah, but it's all so long ago.....

- about 60 years to be exact -
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Sunday, 28 September 2008 1:45:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Singer,

Your proposals are very plausible if we accept that the Palestinians don't exist as a people, however, I think that they do. Why do we need to assign blame? Because it demolishes the moral high ground so readily assumed by uncritical supporters of Israel. The Palestinians are paying the bill for 2000 years of anti-semitism and it appears that they will pay with their homeland.
Posted by mac, Sunday, 28 September 2008 3:05:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

Sorry but I just can't see what you are trying to say; Like any effort to rescue a people that prefer to remain refugees. Maybe look closer to home and you will find the answer to why a people prefer one way of life over the other.
What ever it is you actually want to achieve with your prose, you better hurry up before those hybrids take over
Posted by ShaneG, Sunday, 28 September 2008 11:40:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Polycarp

If I'd have said

"The sooner the sense of '(Jewish) Idenity' is erased from the pages of history the better off we will all be, including them."

"The idea of '(Jewish connection} to the land' is invalid."

I'd be condemned in every forum by every propaganda mouthpieces and by decent people evberywhere.

You sir are a coward spouting hate who is hiding behind a non-de-plume .

David Singer do you endorse Polycarp's words?
Posted by keith, Monday, 29 September 2008 10:31:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris Shaw

You say >> “It does starkly reveal one thing though. Senator Obama condemned the speech as being anti-semetic [sic] and offensive, when it clearly was not … ”

I’m not sure what exactly you would consider anti-semitic and offensive, but NORMAL people would conclude that the remarks by Ahmadinejhad below fit that category perfectly.

Ahmadinejhad says >> “In Palestine, 60 years of carnage and invasion is still ongoing at the hands of some criminal and occupying Zionists. They have forged a regime through collecting people from various parts of the world and bringing them to other people's land by displacing, detaining, and killing the true owners of that land. With advance notice, they invade, assassinate, and maintain food and medicine blockades, while some hegemonic and bullying powers support them. The Security Council cannot do anything and sometimes, under pressure from a few bullying powers, even paves the way for supporting these Zionist murderers”.

>> “The dignity, integrity and rights of the American and European people are being played with by a small but deceitful number of people called Zionists. Although they are a miniscule minority, they have been dominating an important portion of the financial and monetary centers as well as the political decision-making centers of some European countries and the US in a deceitful, complex and furtive manner.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20872.htm

I shouldn’t be surprised that an extreme loony-lefters like yourself would see nothing anti-Semitic or offensive in the above statement. However I would point out to you the similarity of this speech with the central tenet of a book called Mein Kamp, perhaps you’ve heard of it.

Yeah that Ahmedinejhad is all about the brotherly love of mankind. That’s why they’re working on nuclear technology. So they can spread their love around.

I dunno about everyone else but I crave a bit of honesty as well. Seems that some people are still totally incapable of being honest about their rabid hatred of Israel and Israelis and to a lesser extent the US.
Posted by Paul.L, Monday, 29 September 2008 11:19:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it not time for everybody to accept that there is no solution ?

If we can start from that premise, and everyone wipe their hands of
the problem, maybe when faced with each other that starkly both
might sit down and have a hard think.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 29 September 2008 11:33:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If only those pesky Palestinian families would understand that they don't actually exist and quietly fade away into historical obscurity then Israel could truly get on with the job of being "the middle east's only democracy".

What is it about conquerers rewriting history that colonised and dispossessed peoples don't understand? Like the Palestinians, Indigenous Australians also have a history of bloody-minded refusal to put the past behind them and get on with their lives and continue to insist on justice and return of stolen lands.

If Aboriginal peoples had abided by the assimilationist policies of the past they'd have all died out as a seperate identity by now and we white Australians could get on with congratulation ourselves on our great egalitarian democracy and our national commitment to "the fair go".

Like the Palestinians, Aborigines stubbornly continue to undermine our side of the story and insist that their kids are entitled to something better.

What's wrong with these people? Can't they recognise a democracy when its sitting on them?
Posted by BigAl, Monday, 29 September 2008 12:29:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith:

I am not advocating anything other than direct negotiations between Jordan, Egypt and Israel to divide sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between those respective states. The issue of settlements will be dealt with in those negotiations. What you or I think about them is irrelevant.

Mac:

Sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza currently resides in no one country or entity. The Palestinian Authority has rejected the latest opportunity presented by the Roadmap to acquire sovereignty in reportedly 93.5% of the West Bank and Gaza and to be further compensated by Israel transferring an area of its own land equivalent to the residue.

In the face of this rejection, my proposal for division of sovereignty between Israel and the last two Arab states to occupy the West Bank and Gaza from 1948-1967 - Jordan and Egypt - seems the only way forward to end the 60 years old sovereignty stalemate in the West Bank and Gaza - short of another war.

Keith:

My views regarding Polycarps comments are irrelevant. Can't we restrict this discussion to examining the merits of my proposal? Hurling abuse at each other does nothing to end the conflict.

I have yet to read one post that offers some constructive criticism of my proposal that needs to be addressed. There will no doubt be many Jews and Arabs that oppose my proposal in their own political interests. However to allow the current situation to continue cannot be acceptable to those who wish to see an end to the death and tragedy inflicted almost daily on both populations.

I believe my proposal will go a long way to achieving this outcome. I wait to be told where I have got it wrong.
Posted by david singer, Monday, 29 September 2008 1:54:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

I'll tell you where you have got it wrong, for the umpteenth time, you don't appear to acknowledge the existence of the Palestinians as a people. BigAl and others on this site have also indicated this( sometimes less politely than me) how tendentious your proposals really are. They are a prime example of "begging the question" in its correct usage.
Posted by mac, Monday, 29 September 2008 3:56:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mac:

My proposals may well be tendentious for you and many others.

No doubt the Peel Commission proposal in 1937, the United Nations Partition Plan in 1947, the Oslo Accords in 1993, Clinton's plan in 2000, now Bush's Roadmap, were also tendentious for many as they unsuccessfully attempted to resolve the 130 years conflict between Jews and Arabs.

Some innovative thinking must now be applied.

Negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are clearly incapable of ever being successfully concluded. They have lasted 15 years and there is not the slightest sign of an agreement. How much longer should they have and what is there left to talk about that has not already been dealt with in depth?

Israel, Jordan and Egypt on the other hand have been able to successfully negotiate peace treaties in 1979 and 1994.

Therefore my proposal hopefully might just succeed where the others failed. But we will never know until Jordan, Egypt and Israel sit down and try.

Have you got any better solution to offer?
Posted by david singer, Monday, 29 September 2008 5:04:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

Of course, Israel should return to its pre June 67 borders, evict the "settler" carpetbaggers( they could be compensated) and acknowledge the Palestinians as having legitimate rights while allowing that a great wrong could not be undone- an Israeli version of Mabo perhaps. This, sadly is a fantasy given Israel's intransigence, we both know the problem will, with time, disappear, along with the Palestinians. A thought experiment for you, imagine that the Israelis worshipped the sun and the Palestinians the moon, and you read a history of the past 60 years, which side is the oppressed and which the oppressor?
Posted by mac, Monday, 29 September 2008 6:05:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mac,

You have made it abundantly clear that there is only ONE party at fault in this situation. That kind of thinking, shared by many on both sides of the conflict, is what has prevented any solution to this conflict and will continue to do so.

Israel has entirely valid security concerns. Hamas have promised that they will not rest whilst the state of Israel is still in existence. Iran has intimated more than once that it will “end” Israel if it gets the chance. Hezbollah are just as committed to Israel’s destruction.

It is a FACT that merely returning control of the west bank and gaza strip to Palestine won’t end the conflict. Indeed Israel rightfully believes that such an approach will create the likelihood of MORE violence, as extremists groups will be able to point to the fact that their campaigns of terror are working, and that they should be extended.

This is not idle conjecture. See what happened when Israel pulled unilaterally out of the Gaza Strip. There was a struggle for power among the militant groups, and instead of getting on with the task of establishing a Palestinian state, Gaza has been used as a giant forward operating base from which to better attack Israel.

You say >> “This, sadly is a fantasy given Israel's intransigence, we both know the problem will, with time, disappear, along with the Palestinians”

This is utter nonsense. The average age of a Palestinian is 15. Palestinian numbers are going to increase at a rate eclipsing Israelis by some margin. And the other important point to note about a society with lots of young people with nothing to do, is that they generally have serious problems.

None of this negates the fact that the Palestinians have a legitimate grievance.

Only a resolution which addresses both sides concerns will be effective. Palestinians need to be able to guarantee Israel its security. Israel needs to return behind its 1967 borders.
Posted by Paul.L, Monday, 29 September 2008 6:49:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Singer

This is a public forum and I am challeging you to reject and condemn Polycarp's attitudes and statements as inciting racial hatred.

The attitudes he shows with the language he uses are parallel to the hateful attitudes expressed by the Nazi's and other anti-semites.

The,now silenced, cowardly polycarp is expressenig hatred and inciting hatred towards the Palestinians. If I knew his identity I'd immediately launch such an action against him in the Australian Courts.

It is time for you to stand up and clearly show you reject such ideas and attitudes. Unless you do the ideas you are espousing could at the very least be seen as tainted, and at the worst as inciting the same racial hatred.

Come on, be a man, here's your chance.

No weasel words or excuses just a simple rejection and condemnation of Polycarp's simple statements, as cited below will suffice.

In case you have any doubt, these ones, the ones that are so reminiscent of the Nazi's and other anti-semites:

"the sooner the sense of 'Palestinian Idenity' is erased from the pages of history the better off we will all be, including them."

"The idea of 'Palestinian connection to the land' is invalid."

If you cannot bring yourself to do this then any claim you have to impartiality in seeking a solution could easily be seen as a pretense and is utterly undermind.

I then will personally dog you for a very long time for your display of utter lack of courage and insincerity.

Keith Kennelly
Posted by keith, Monday, 29 September 2008 8:46:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith, I don't see why David should be required to deal with what another poster says. Like everyone else he gets two chances a day to post, and it is great to see that he is using them and dealing with some of what is here.

I don't think it's legitimate to frame him so that if he doesn't disagree with someone else, then he must agree with them. That is not a logical position. And the language you are using suggests that you are imputing the views of that poster to him, which again is not logical. I thought about deleting your post for flaming, but decided to let it stand.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 30 September 2008 11:12:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reckon the worst thing that the UN or rather the US could have done for genuine peace between between Jews and Arabs was to stay silent while Israel became militarily atomic.

Certainly any historian worth his salt must agree with Henry Kissinger's report way back when we were were clapping our hands over the end of Hitler and the Jews being encouraged at last to return to their Biblical homeland.

But now with Israel owning the most modern in long-range rockets and deep penetrative nuclear warheads, very little interest has been shown in an article by Kissinger giving warning of increasing Arabic anger and possible global trouble ahead with a tiny talented nation like Israel allowed so much nuclear strike power.

Thus we had the former friend of America, Saddam of Iraq trying to match Israel's strike capacity way back in the late 1970's with Israel allowed to take out the possible nuclear installation way back in 1981.

And so it goes on with Syria being struck by little Israel just recently, and the much bigger Iran, former proud Persia believing it has the right to match Israel's red-back spider like sting.

Certainly many of us academic historians have lost our love for Israel, and even against America and her ridiculous hold over the UN, possibly even allowing a future WW3 come to pass.

So again must come the warning to America to use sensible historical insight to keep track on her foresight to prevent a possible WW3.
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 30 September 2008 11:19:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi Grahame

Thankyou for your judicious stance.

I have challenged David, not for sharing Polycarp's racist and hateful statements but because he has welcomed and thanked Polycarp for his support.

'Polycarp:

Thanks for your endorsement.'

Posted by david singer, Sunday, 28 September 2008 12:19:46 PM

The original post by by Polycarp, was Sunday, 28 September 2008 9:17:11 AM. In my view it was the post of a racist.

David didn't express any disapproval of those views.

My thinking, while maybe not strictly logically, is that if David accepts the praise from Polycarp and doesn't reject Polycarp's racist views then he as accepting support from a racist who's view are similar in many ways to his own ... even though I think David's views are legitimately expressed and free from the taint of racism.

With acceptance of Polycarp's support David's argument is seen to be tainted, in essence by the non-rejection of Polycarp's racist view.

As you are probably well aware, I have been very critical of Israel in the past. I have always been very mindful of the possibility of allegations of anti-semitism and have defended myself from many. To this end I have never accepted any support for any position I have adopted from anyone who is openly anti-semitic ... as I am sure I would have been slurred by association. I honestly cannot recall if I have rejected any such support but equally I am sure that my fair and liberal nature would have ensured I had ... or would.
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 30 September 2008 11:57:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Probably like most people, the whole Israel vs Palestine debate gives me a headache. Much of the problem, of course, is the virulent nationalism combined with religion (or ethno-religion to be more accurate) and two ethnic groups claiming the one piece of land. As we know, both Jewish nationalism and Palestinian nationalism are new in the scheme of things. The former does not go back further than the late 19th Century and Palestinian nationalism dates back to events from 1948 onwards. Furthermore, Israel has been a useful client state for the US - armed to the teeth and supported by American taxpayers. The Palestinians have been used as pawns by Arab nationalists and Islamic fundamentalists. What a witch's brew!

I can't point to a panacea, but peace in the area can only happen once the various Arab monarchies and dictatorships are destroyed. Once that happens and once Jewish people can live freely in other regimes apart from Israel (and Palestinians can live freely in regimes they are currently refugees) we may be making progress.

Israel should be recognised by other states in the region as a legitimate state but not as a Jewish state. Nor should a state which considers itself an Islamic state have any legitimacy. As I said, ethno-religious nationalism has caused this mess (combined with interference by bigger powers) and it's time we seriously removed this poisonous cocktail once and for all.
Posted by DavidJS, Tuesday, 30 September 2008 2:49:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David

You appear to have ignored the reality of the existance of a lasting peace between Israel and the Egyption dictatorship and Israel and the Jordanian monarchy.
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 1 October 2008 10:44:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some Graffiti for Intellectuals:

• Geography is interesting, particularly where names can take on a novel meaning using ‘strange’ bias. Take the word "Palestinians". It didn't exist in its present meaning prior to the1960s. Palestinians were the Jews who lived in British-ruled Palestine, while the Arabs were just that, Arabs.

• The culmination of an anti-Jewish campaign, rooted in an alliance between the Mufti of Jerusalem and Adolf Hitler, resulted in a violent dispossession (Farhud) of Iraqi Jews.

• In 1942, Arab unity coalesced around the notion that all Iraqi Jews were Zionists and therefore enemies of the state. During the remainder of the war, anti-British and anti-Jewish hatred was everywhere palpable in Iraq.

• Iraqi Jews were, in fact, decidedly anti-Zionist in the 1920s and 1930s - so much so that no immigration representative, or shaliach, of the Jewish community in Palestine had been posted to Baghdad, and none was welcome.

• The war film, ‘For Freedom’ was screened in Baghdad cinemas, audiences booed Churchill and cheered Hitler. The defeat of the Third Reich in 1945 only heightened hatred of Jews, as thousands of Holocaust survivors made their way to Palestine.

• In 1947, the UN voted 33 yes, 13 no, with 10 abstentions, to create two states in Palestine: one Arab, the other Jewish.

• In April 1948, a month before Israel declared independence, Iraq shut down the Kirkuk-Haifa oil pipeline, slashing its own oil royalties by half. It joined other Arab countries in a military invasion of the new Jewish state. "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres," promised Azzam Pasha, secretary-general of the Arab League.

• Israel survived the war. A UN-negotiated armistice agreement with Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, and Lebanon followed – Iraq didn’t sign.

• The Israel-Egypt agreement (1979) set expectations for all the later peace negotiations between Israel and the Arab countries that have repeatedly tried to destroy it, not to mention the ‘Palestinian Arabs’ where they are looking for a "no lose" style of treaty i.e. a lack of compromise.
Posted by relda, Wednesday, 1 October 2008 12:06:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Still cannot find any record of a UN vote allowing Israel to go militarily atomic.

Certainly if so, it would need to have had authoritive permission from both the Geneva and Hague Conventions?

And certainly if it was so, because of the Arab resentment it has caused, as well as a possible WW3 through an Israeli attack on Iran, it should be regarded scientifically and politically as one of the most tragic mistakes of modern history.

Regards, BB, WA.
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 1 October 2008 1:42:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Relda,

"the UN voted..... to create two states in Palestine, one Arab the other Jewish". Did the UN vote for 1/2 an Arab state then 1/4 then an 1/8 of an Arab state? Your history of Arab anti-semitism doesn't justify the eviction of Palestinans from their land.
Posted by mac, Wednesday, 1 October 2008 2:25:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to Keith:

"You appear to have ignored the reality of the existance [sic] of a lasting peace between Israel and the Egyption [sic] dictatorship and Israel and the Jordanian monarchy."

No, Keith. There is peace in our time. Not a so-called lasting peace. And at any rate, so what? I should be clearer and I will be. I don't want peace. I would like to see the destruction of Israel as a Zionist state and the destruction of every dictatorship in the Middle-East beginning with those that label themselves as Islamic states.

If that sounds shocking then consider the fact that officially, in places such as Saudi Arabia, China and North Korea peace exists. Peace exists in plenty of countries where Jews and/or Palestinians (or Kurds) suffer persecution. What is termed peace is often only a treaty between unaccountable leaders and virtually meaningless for anyone else.
Posted by DavidJS, Wednesday, 1 October 2008 4:02:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David

I don't find your position at all shocking. What I find amusing is that you don't propose what should replace them.

A 30 year peace is pretty lasting ... at least for the middle east and especially since it is also a peace maintained by parties you indicated you thought impossible to live in opeace.

If you don't want peace then what do you want ... ongoing conflict? Or do you niavely expect the destruction of the governments of Zionist Israel and the Arab and Persian dictatiorshipos of the mid east to simply result in peace?
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 1 October 2008 4:20:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbred,
The original tragic mistake was that no Western or European nation would or perhaps could allow for the Jewish refugee just as now, little allowance is made for the Palestinian refugee. Both are tragic and we haven’t properly learnt from the first lesson.

Israel is, as with many others and rightly or wrongly, a sovereign state under UN sanction. Morally, nuclear weaponry is reprehensible. The ‘authoritive permission’ you cite, of whether Iran, Israel, Pakistan or the U.S. etc. can have these WMD’s, will be insufficient. This is because, currently, there is no universally recognized force, superior to all, with sufficient moral authority. Until this occurs, we continue along tragically and dangerously raise the stakes.

mac,
I can quite agree, the "Jewish problem" was solved by creating a "Palestinian problem". Truman did not consider that the placing of 100,000 displaced Jews to Palestine would also the mean the placing of weapons in the hands of radical Zionists and the eventual displacement of 900,000 Palestinians.

The Arabs also wanted to establish a single state in all Palestine, but they had not the wherewithal to establish such a state in the half granted to the them. The Jews would certainly have risen against this state, with effects little different than those that resulted.

Truman's support for a Jewish state remained cautious and conditional. He was especially irritated by the torrent of support for a Jewish state from Zionists, and became more so as time went on. But had the tables been reversed and the "single state for all" as proposed by the Arabs, led by Nazi collaborator Haj Amin el Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, was followed, there would have been be no Jewish survival. Husseini had told the British his plan for solving the 'Jewish Problem' in Palestine was the same as the one adopted by Nazis in Europe. Some may cynically say, “Well, problem solved” and yes, there would no longer be a Jewish/Arab conflict. Remaining in force, however, would be the Nazi ideology and the nuclear bomb.
Posted by relda, Wednesday, 1 October 2008 4:22:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mac and Paul L:

Israel will not be returning to the 1967 armistice lines. You both wrongly refer to them as "borders" which they never were.This is a very important distinction since it highlights the status of the West Bank and Gaza as "no man's land". To return to those armistice lines would involve uprooting 500000 Jews which is simply not going to occur. The Palestinian Authority has reportedly rejected Israel's offer of an equal area of land from within Israel to compensate for the retention of the West Bank land it retains.

Keith:

You need to emerge from your cocoon and concentrate on the current situation.Shooting the messanger and ignoring the message is really a waste of time. To me it indicates you have no real criticism to offer regarding my proposal.

Graham Y:

Thank you for your support.

Bushbred:

Your concerns are the very reasons why it is necessary to get negotiations started between Israel, Jordan and Egypt as soon as possible.

Keith:

Please elaborate on your thoughts about the peace treaties between Israel and Jordan and Israel and Egypt as I am not sure what you are trying to say.

I am proposing that the West Bank and Gaza be divided between Jordan, Israel and Egypt in direct negotiations between them. Virtually no one - Arab or Jew - will have to leave his existing home.

I am not calling for the destruction of any existing States. I am saying the creation of another Arab State between Israel, Jordan and Egypt is dead after 15 years of unsuccessful negotiations to create it. It is now time to divide the West Bank and Gaza between three existing States to try and defuse the conflict and end the suffering of Arabs and Jews.

Let us all stick to discussing my proposal or coming up with any other suggestions that can be critically analysed without abuse directed at those who make them. Leave the past behind, deal with the present situation as it exists and how the future should proceed.
Posted by david singer, Wednesday, 1 October 2008 8:04:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Singer,

Israel has no qualms in uprooting Palestinians it appears, how many Palestinians equal one "settler"? Where will Israel's borders end, at the Euphrates? Your automatic assumption of the moral high ground is insupportable, given the evidence and would be treated with disdain in any other context. "No man's land" indeed, where have we heard this before, 18th century England perhaps. It's pointless continuing the discussion since you insist on begging the question--which is understandable of course.
Posted by mac, Thursday, 2 October 2008 7:56:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith, we had peace (if that's what you want to call it) in Eastern Europe between 1945 and 1989. It was disrupted by East Germans in 1953, Poles and Hungarians in 1956, and Czechs in 1968. The Russians had to move in to restore the peace. And as we know, virtually everyone ruined the peace arrangements in Eastern Europe come the late 1980s.

In other words, there is no real peace where violent oppression exists. This includes places like Jordan, Israel and Egypt. However, I do have one important proviso. Like the people of Eastern Europe prior to 1990, the people of Middle-Eastern regimes must make their own arrangements and fight for democracy themselves.

It's a cliche but I think true: democracies tend not to go to war with each other. That's why I think it is not enough for real democrats in the Palestinian movement to focus on Israel (as they have often historically done) but broaden their tactics and strategy.
Posted by DavidJS, Thursday, 2 October 2008 9:43:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Singer,

You are not offering much that is new.

The borders of the new state would still have to be drawn. So the questions are posed.

Where do you propose they be?

1. At todays illegal course.

2. At the 67' borders.

3 At the 48 original UN mandated borders.

How do you propose removing the illegal settlements?

From my coccoon I have seen Hamas and Israel approach peace, I have seen the Arab League give guarantees for the existance of Israel. I see those illegal settlements, Israeli's expansion and the illegal occupation and repression of Palestinians as the impediments to peace today.

What you are proposing is giving Israel, Jordan and Egypt responsibility for accepting the decisions of your proposed International Boundaries Commission.

My question is why jepodise the existing peace between these three nations?

Why can't your IBC mediate with Israel and Palestine for removal of the illegal settlements and a return to the '67 boundaries. You might recall this is the proposal from the Arab League of which both Egypt and Jordan are members, and which both have endorsed.

In your proposal you do discuss the removal of the occupation or the lifting the repression? Are they to be allowed to stay until Israel decides they go or should they be gone before negotiations take place?

I don't agree involving Jordan and Egypt and dividing up and proposing to give up Palestinian lands will solve anything. The illegal settlements, Israel's expansion, the occupation, the repression and the stealing of Jersulem will just not be accepted by any Arab.

It's wrong to exclude the Palestinian people from invilvement in determining their affairs.

David JS

Name the conflict between Jordan and Israel and Egypt and Israel since the time of Sadat.

The Cold War and the occupation of Eastern Europe was ended by Ronnie Reagan. I never saw the period from 1945 till then as at all peaceful.

I know there is no peace in the countries we are discussing. That was not my claim.

My claim is that there is a long lasting peace between them.
Posted by keith, Thursday, 2 October 2008 2:59:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Singer expresses some disappointment with the discussion, saying it's a bit negative and backward-looking (I stopped reading after a while, sorry if more good has happened and been acknowledged).
Singer says a 130-year problem needs to be resolved. I think the problem is a lot older than that.
1400 years ago (634-638) the Muslim (some call them Bedouin, see late version of the formation of Islam) armies invaded the area which the Romans called Palestine in 173.
They found a majority Christian and Jewish population. Through the process of invasion, occupation, massacre, enslavement and transportation (and flight), the majority original population has almost disappeared from the land, and an Arab and almost completely Muslim population has taken its place.
Regardless of whose god is invoked in this arguement, the Jews have a good right to call 'Patestine' their home, through being the aboriginal occupation (see the North) and through continuous occupation, including under extremely difficult conditions (dhimmi).
An Arab (and that's Muslim) majority Israel will be a return to the oppression of Muslims against Jews that has been Islam's sorry history all too often. That's why a Jewish Israel will never accept the right of return. The (mostly) Muslim Arabs can't accept that they have lost every war against Israel, and keep the former Arab inhabitants of Palestine a hostge to that incapacity. They have had some success in eliciting sympathy for these hostages.
The solution to this problem will only be found when the (mostly) Muslim Arabs understand that they cannot carry out their genocidal plans against the Jews. They may wish to fight a nuclear war before they accept this. They certainly seem happy perpetrating violence all along the way.
Posted by camo, Thursday, 2 October 2008 4:29:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mac:

Sorry you have nothing to contribute other than a continuation of the current conflict.

Keith:

1. Virtually no Arab or Jew will have to move from their homes under my proposal. Please understand what that means for the current and future generations of both the Arab and Jewish populations and their descendants. Surely these humanitarian outcomes are well worth pursuing instead of continuing the current political conflict.

2. The International Boundaries Commission would chair the negotiations between Jordan, Israel and Egypt. My opinion is really irrelevant.

3. Why do you think such negotiations would prejudice the existing peace treaties?

4. Negotiations with the representative of the Palestinian Arabs - the Palestinian Authority - are in my opinion completely at an impasse after 15 years of trying. What point is there continuing negotiations that have no possible chance of succeeding?

5.It is time for Israel to find other Arab negotiating partners. The last two Arab occupiers of the West Bank and Gaza seem ideally suited for that purpose - especially as they have peace agreements with Israel and adjoin the West Bank and Gaza respectively. Matchmaking is indeed an art. The mismatch between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is clearly there for all to see. The chemistry with Jordan and Egypt will be light years more favourable.

6.My proposal offers the hope that the Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza will acquire citizenship in a sovereign Arab country be it Egypt or Jordan. This is the best outcome in my opinion that can now be achieved in negotiations. The new Arab state envisioned by the Roadmap - the 22nd - is dead in the water.

7.The Palestinian Arabs negotiating stance has seen them lose the opportunity afforded by the Roadmap to acquire a state in the last part of Palestine not already allocated to Jordan or Israel. That is the reality unfortunately that we are faced with following the rejection of Israel's reported offer to cede the Palestinians 93.5% of the West Bank and Gaza plus an additional area from within Israel equivalent to the remaining 6.5%.
Posted by david singer, Thursday, 2 October 2008 6:22:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Singer

No matter what the words what you are suggesting is tantamount to legitimising the theft by Israel of Palestinian land. And you think that won't be opposed ... as it is now.

You are sadly optimistic and woefully wrong.

The Palestinians will still exist you cannot simply ignore them.

Even with your proposals you are still endorsing the wrongs of land theft.

Your position is just more Israeli weasel words.
Posted by keith, Thursday, 2 October 2008 7:40:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith, I think it's a bit simplistic to say that Reagan liberated Eastern Europe. Certainly the Reagan Administration's policies helped but Solidarity, the Velvet Revolution and the smashing of the Berlin Wall was done by the people themselves. The problem in the Middle-East is that we've had various agreements over the years made by governments eg: your example of Egypt and Israel and it has not resulted in real peace ie: it has left corrupt and repressive regimes in tact (even worse, created a new one - the Palestinian "Authority") and has done little to stem the oppression of Palestinians nor the theft of their land.

Maybe it is too late, but I still think the genuine democratisation of Middle-Eastern regimes where Jews, Muslims and others all had equal rights is a better option than just border fixing or population transfer. After all, in democratic Western Europe Catholics and Protestants now have equal rights in countries where such a thing was unheard of a few centuries ago (a short period in human history). In France, Protestants and Catholics live together in a state where it was simply not possible in the 16th and 17th Centuries.

That said, I know I'm being idealist but I think the notion of particular ethno-religious groups having their own state is a problem not a solution.
Posted by DavidJS, Friday, 3 October 2008 8:19:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, as a trained political historian, as well as scientist, all I can do is again point out the lesson lost during modern Middle East history, about forgetting to use historical insight to keep track on our foresight.

Balance of power also comes into the above, David, thus to match militarily nuclear Israel, Iran has every right to be the same.

And we might all be very surprised when Iran makes nary a move to attack Israel, as she has never attacked another nation since her Persian days.

Could go on about both America and Soviet Russia backing the Iraqi attack on Iran, with Iran losing nearly a million troops, but still won out without declaring war on anyone one else over it.

Cheers, BB, WA.
Posted by bushbred, Friday, 3 October 2008 5:43:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

You say >> “From my coccoon I have seen Hamas and Israel approach peace, I have seen the Arab League give guarantees for the existance of Israel. I see those illegal settlements, Israeli's expansion and the illegal occupation and repression of Palestinians as the impediments to peace today.”

I see you continue to pretend that Hamas attacks on Israel are irrelevant, just as you ignore the fact that Israel had to defend its very existence three times against attacks by the same Arab League which is supposedly giving Israel assurances of security.

David Singer,

There is just NO WAY that the Palestinians will go for this. That much should be blatantly obvious. Neither will any international body give its agreement to the idea that the Palestinian people should have their future determined by others.

I tend to agree that there was no such thing as a Palestinian in 1948, at least not in the sense they are known now. However this identity has developed since then and is now as real as any other.

The conflict will only end when BOTH sides realise that they won't achieve any more by continuing to fight, and that it would be profitable to negotiate and even make certain concessions, in return for the chance to get on with life without having to look over the shoulder.

I never suggested Israel should remove all of its settlements, I accept that some of them will stay, in particular the very large settlements. But whether you call the 1967 Armistice lines borders or not, that is where agreement will stand or fall. The offer by Israel to hand over 93.5% of the west bank, as well as Israeli land to compensate for the remainder. Israel must go further however.

The process has stalled for the moment due to the dead-duck US president, however that will pass. Hamas needs to get real and become part of the negotiating process. They need to assure Israel that they are serious about respecting Israel’s right to exist. Until they can do that NO progress can be made
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 3 October 2008 8:57:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith:

So you - like Mac - have nothing better to offer the Palestinian Arabs or the Israelis than continuing the current conflict over a piece of land one tenth the size of Tasmania for goodness knows how many more generations to come.

What should the next step be when President Bush leaves office and his two state solution is given the last rites?

My suggestion is to get Jordan,Egypt and Israel to negotiate a division of the West Bank and Gaza. What's your proposal?
Posted by david singer, Friday, 3 October 2008 8:57:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Singer,

Olmert, McCain and Obama share my view... and you need to check their positions especially Obama's who is prepared to sit down and talk with the Iranians, cut and run from Iraq, cut defense spending and review the US Foreign Aid committment.
Then check McCain's position on Foreign Aid.

Doh.

Nobody of any consequence thinks your idea realistic or anything other than an attempt to legitimise the past and ongoning Israeli land stealing.

We all see your weasel words for what they are.

We all recognise it is Israel with it's land stealing, meddling and aggression that is the real impediment to peace ... no longer are the Palestinians viewed in the West as you warmongers would wish.

For Israeli's own sakes we all recognise, for Israel's long term security, it is best Israel gets out of the Palestinians' lands and removes those illegal settlements and settles it's borders... at '67 borders.

If that was done there would be peace tomorrow. But the Israeli's and you propaganda merchants are just shortsigted and blighted with tunnel vision to see the long-term eventualities from your stupid militarism and expansionism.

BTW where's your racist cheer squad gone?
Posted by keith, Saturday, 4 October 2008 9:01:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In a more direct reply to David Singer, I would say that you could simply redraw the boundaries between Jordan, Syria and Egypt making Israel and the Palestinian Authority disappear. This would at least simplify the conflict in the Middle-East - the successor Arab states could no longer complain about Zionist colonisers because the Zionist state would be eliminated. Sure, the problem of Palestinian and Jewish oppression would continue but nobody would be able to blame their problems on Zionist machinations as the Arab states tend to do.
Posted by DavidJS, Saturday, 4 October 2008 3:50:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

you say >> "We all recognise it is Israel with it's land stealing, meddling and aggression that is the real impediment to peace ."

No Keith. No No No No No.

You seem to perpetually confuse your own wishful thinking with reality. The reality is that there is blame on both sides.

Unfortunately there is no body which actually represents the Palestinians as a whole, elected or otherwise. More importantly there is no person or group which is able to deliver a Palestinian bargain that includes all Palestinians.

Even during this so called ceasefire, the Palestinians are still lobbing rockets into Sderot. Who can Israel actually make peace with? It has only been recently that Hamas has accepted that Israel has a right to exist. I know you don't think that's a problem, but I can tell you that most of the civilised world believes it is.

BTW, I find it interesting that someone who supports the Hamas terrorists is not more careful about calling other people "warmonger". It has more than a touch of irony attached.

David Singer,

Shimon Peres seems to be under the misapprehension that the two state solution will work. So do the quartet. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-09/25/content_10105055.htm
Posted by Paul.L, Saturday, 4 October 2008 6:01:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith:

Tut, tut - "Nobody of any consequence regards your idea realistic"?

You have obviously not read my article in which I refer to two recent surveys conducted in the West Bank and Gaza where 28% of the Palestinian respondents already support such an idea and 69% regard the possibility of establishing a separate state as low to non-existent. Obviously these people are not regarded as being of any consequence by you. These numbers will only increase in future surveys if your recipe for doing nothing is followed. West Bank Arabs want to get on with their lives and are sick to the teeth of rabble rousers using them as fodder to pursue their own unattainable political agenda to wipe Israel off the face of the map.

David JS:

Obviously your suggestion will not be acceptable to Israel. However perhaps the restoration of the Caliphate and merging the 21 Arab States into one massive Islamic State alongside one miniscule sized Jewish State might be a possibility one day. Whilst most of these States continue to not recognise the State of Israel the conflict between Arabs and Jews is guaranteed to continue.

Paul L:

Peres and the Quartet have been saying the two state solution would work for the last six years - yet it has gone nowhere in that time because of two immovable Arab demands:
(i) That 500000 Jews get out of the West Bank
(ii) That millions of Arab refugees be admitted to live in Israel

Until these demands are dropped (and they have been pressed continuously in the same form for the last 40 years), the two state solution is dead in the water.

It would be interesting to know how Peres and the Quartet hope to overcome these fundamental impediments to a two state solution. If they can persuade the Arabs to abandon these demands then a two state solution might well be feasible. In my opinion however they have Buckley's of doing so. Hence the need for a new direction and a new approach to end the suffering of both Jews and Arabs.
Posted by david singer, Saturday, 4 October 2008 7:07:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Singer,

I'd love to see the methodology of your 'survey'. If it is that one that was so-called independantly conducted by that US university then it is utter crap.

That one was presented on one of these forums some time ago. All sorts of fantastic claims were made about it.

After I researched it I made a few pointed enquiries to the person who had stated exactly as you have ... well the upshot was not surprisingly he/she never responded.

Among other things I asked the following:

Who were the authors?
Who conducted and was present at the interviews?
When and where did the survey interviews take place?
What questions were asked?

Care to respond?

The harder you try the sillier you'll look.

I quote real people and their public statements you respond with the results of a suspect survey conducted by a bunch of Israeli university under-graduates and then you attempt to deride me.

Laughable really ....
Posted by keith, Saturday, 4 October 2008 9:10:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith:

The surveys were not conducted by "that US university" or "a bunch of Israeli university undergraduates" and are not "crap" as you erroneously and ridiculously suggest.

They were conducted by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Public Research in Ramallah and the Al Najah University Centre for Opinion Polls and Survey Studies in Nablus.

Why don't you contact them directly to seek the information you want? You can find their addresses by googling the above names. I am sure they will be more than willing to oblige and authenticate the conclusions of those surveys as I have stated in my article.
Posted by david singer, Sunday, 5 October 2008 9:47:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh I will David and promise you, you will come see that I have
Posted by keith, Sunday, 5 October 2008 3:18:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

“Whilst most of these States continue to not recognise the State of Israel the conflict between Arabs and Jews is guaranteed to continue”

That’s a common misunderstanding or a piece of propaganda depending on your intent. I grew up in one of these Arab states and it’s a common belief among most arabs that they would recognize Israel 1967 Borders. Israel never got an internal consensus to define its own borders.

Jewish people lived in Arab/ Muslim majority states for centuries and as an average person I respect their right to chose to live alone in their own land. The just need to define their borders which you have to accept can only be resolved by Israelis.

Peace,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Monday, 6 October 2008 11:19:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fellow_Human

Firstly there are no 1967 borders - they are only armistice lines. Resolution 242 makes it clear that they will not be the final borders. There will have to be adjustments to provide Israel with secure and recognised boundaries. The Arab League has yet to accept the Security Council's decision.

Secondly the Arab League offer as contained in the 2002 Saudi Arabian Initiative would require 500000 Jews to pack up and get out of the West Bank. This same demand has been made by the Palestinian Authority for the last 15 years and has been rejected by Israel. Imagine the uproar if someone advocated moving 500000 Arabs out of the West Bank. Refusal by the Arab League to budge on this issue ensures its Initiative will never get to first base.

Thirdly the Arab Initiative is very vague on the return of Arab refugees to live in Israel. It might help if the Arab League were to clearly spell out that compensation only would be sought but I doubt they are prepared to say so.

So a withdrawal to the 1967 armistice lines cannot happen unless brought about by war - which can now only be avoided in my opinion by dividing sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between Israel,Egypt and Jordan.

Yes, there will be a new map. This is the inevitable consequence of Jordan losing the West Bank and Egypt losing Gaza in the Six Day War. The Arabs cannot now possibly hope to wholly recover these lost areas after 41 years. Too much water has gone under the bridge since then.

Division of sovereignty offers the Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza the best chance of acquiring citizenship in an Arab country without having to leave their homes or businesses as well as liberating them from any Israeli control.

It is the best offer they can expect in the face of the collapse of President Bush's Roadmap.

How many more lives have to be lost and injuries sustained by both Jews and Arabs before the Arabs finally decide to accept Israel's permanent existence?
Posted by david singer, Tuesday, 7 October 2008 8:26:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david Singer,

'Imagine the uproar if someone advocated moving 500000 Arabs out of the West Bank.'

Delete the words West Bank and add the words West Bank illegal settlements.

Then look at the uproar that was caused by the partition of Palestine in the first place .. and factor in the removal of (how many?) Arabs from their legally recognised homes ... then and since.

You've just made a major blunder and the negative implications for you and your proposals are immense.

Your comments are discrimatory ... which makes you ...?

Yep that's right ... racist.

Congratulations you've revealed your true self for all to see.
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 8 October 2008 1:35:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith:

Your twisted perverted logic is there for all to see. I am proposing a solution that could involve no Arab or Jew leaving his current home or business. I have said that on at least three occasions so far. How many times do I need to say it before it sinks in?

You on the other hand wish to kick out 500000 Jews. That is also the policy of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, the PLO and the Arab League. You are welcome to your views. They certainly will not help resolve the conflict as the last 15 years have proved.

You apparently just don't want to read or try to understand what I write.

I think you owe me an apology. I hope you are man enough to make it.
Posted by david singer, Wednesday, 8 October 2008 3:32:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David

Show me where I have suggested kicking half a million illegal settlers out of the West Bank. That is another of your assumptions and typically a closed-minded half-baked slur.

I am on the public record for supporting giving sovernity of the West Bank to a Palestinian State.

Let the Palestinian State and it's people determine rightful title to individual particular plots of land.

Of course the illegal settlers would naturally become Palestinians
... and there is a precedent for such an action in the region ... one you clearly support.

I fully understand, with all your nuances, exactly what you write. Your problem is in your ignorance and tunnel vision you cannot see fully all the meanings contained in what you write.

I owe you no apology. Your statements clearly support different treatment, in similar circumstances, for Palestinians and Jewish Israeli's ... that sir makes you discrimitory on the basis of race. That makes you a racist.

Have no doubt I am an independant thinking man. You need to give respect to those who hold differing views to you.

I have published my views on this topic in this magazine.

Try this
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5358
Posted by keith, Thursday, 9 October 2008 2:11:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Singer

'Please tell me specifically what matters in your posts I have not responded to.'
Posted by david singer, Wednesday, 8 October 2008 2:11:47 PM

Well here are five very specific matters in my posts to you which you have evaded a straigth forward, and in some case any, response:

One:
'David Singer do you realise your rants are merely attracting the worst type of racist a.......s aka Iam Joseph'
4 October 2008 9:18:34 PM

Two:
'You conveniently and deliberately ignore the illegal settlements and the illegal eviction of the Palenstians from those areas since '67.
Why don't they count in your grand scheme?'
5 October 2008 3:08:46 PM

Three:
'Why don't you reject Iam Joseph's racism ...'
5 October 2008 3:08:46 PM

Four:
'Care to deny you are unfamiliar with the following offer from the Arab League first proposed in Beirut in 2002 and endorsed in Riydah in 2007.
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm
'The Arab Peace Initiative, 2002'
7 October 2008 11:16:30 AM

Five:
'I put it to you it is that you see this course as more beneficial to Israel and excludes input from the native Palestinian residents thereby giving greater possibility of allowing Israel a sneaky and underhand attempt at a legitimisation of Israel's past public illegalities. A creeping progrom.'
8 October 2008 12:49:30 PM

Given your past exhibition of racism and tunnel vision ... I'm really not holding my breath waiting for a reasoned response.

Manik Josiah

'An Israeli withdrawal from this position may be helpful for peace, but how long will that peace remain? Peaceful relations between Syria and Israel may even last for years, but what of the next generation?'

I agree long term peace will be very difficult to maintain ... given Israel's perchant for territorial expansionism ... since '67.
Posted by keith, Thursday, 9 October 2008 2:46:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

"Firstly there are no 1967 borders"

Let me repeat my point: Most if not all arabs would recognise Israel right to exist pre the 1967 war (ie before the lands that Israel captured in 1967).

Israel justified capturing the land so they can negotiate land for peace in the future. I think the problem is that the 'land for peace' strategy was replaced by the 'land for settlers' which is the US and the EU administrations have been saying all along.

"So a withdrawal to the 1967 armistice lines cannot happen unless brought about by war - which can now only be avoided in my opinion by dividing sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between Israel,Egypt and Jordan"

Agree on the first half of your statement and it was actually the late president Sadat philosophy to initiate the 1973 war.
The second half of your statement however ignores on ground realities as follows:

1. The surrounding governments you mentioned are non-democratic and in most cases unpopular and are of touch of their main street opinion. In order for a divided sovereignty to work, you need a long and massive change management plan at the people level. Government decisions only won't survive for long and might add to the divide between the people and their governments.

2. You would agree that the threat to Israel's security won't be by a hostile government but rather by a group of individuals or an organisation like hamas or its likes. This renders governmental peace deals irrelevant and non lasting and also reduces Israel's might at the retaliation level. Even its nuclear arms have no use scenario.

My view is similar to the one that Olmert left the office with which is its up to Israel to push for peace and make a deal before many different small groups start taking bites. By then it would be too late.

I am no professional analyst but I don't think I am wrong.

Peace,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Thursday, 9 October 2008 9:37:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith:

Your suggestion that "of course" the 500000 Jews living in the West Bank will be offered Palestinian citizenship would be a very interesting development if it were true - but it has never been proposed to my knowledge in the current Roadmap negotiations.

Indeed Israel is reportedly prepared to evacuate 70000 Jews in return for an agreement with the PA. This has been rejected by the PA. They want all 500000 Jews out.

Now that's pretty racist isn't it?

There is no point in impugning the character of those who post in these columns. Attack their message by all means but don't try to do so by attacking them personally. Everyone has their biases - even you Keith. However concentrate on the message and attack it -not the messanger - with well grounded argument.

I regret you have not seen fit to apologize.

Keith and Fellow_ Human

You clearly do not agree with my analysis.That is your prerogative.
I don't see you suggesting anything else to overcome the demise of the Roadmap other than the Arab League Initiative which mirrors the PA demands for all Jews to be kicked out of the West Bank and so it will not be acceptable to Israel on this one issue alone.

I think it is a waste of time to rehash the events of the last 60 years because trying to reach any consensus on them will end up in failure - like the Roadmap negotiations.

There is a dispute that has been ongoing for 130 years and needs to be resolved. I have put forward an idea on how to do just that.

If you don't agree as you both appear to do so - then so be it.

I hope I might be able to convince a lot more others to see its merits and hopefully see it tried to be implemented in the near future when the Roadmap is consigned to the dustbin of history - where I am now consigning this correspondence between us.

As they say in the movies - "No further correspondence will be entered into.
Posted by david singer, Saturday, 11 October 2008 7:44:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Singer,

I regret you will not recant your racist views or expunge your lies.

You haven't addressed my issues and especially the issue of the Palestinians dispossessed of their lands since '67, as you claimed you would.

True I do think the illegal settlers should be offered Palestinian citizenship. I don't think anyone else ever suggested that. Your assertion about ejection of the settlers is incorrect. The Palestinians simply want their stolen land returned. To suggest they wouldn't accomodate a solution as I have suggested again just shows your tunnel vision and inability to reject the stupid notions of Greater Israel, it's racist connotations or overcome your own racist view. Please try to remember even Israel has accepted the settlements as a problem and have offered a land exchange. The Palestinians, as is their right, have rejected that course and it is wrong of you to attempt to portray them as an impediment to peace because of that stance. The inital wrong is the land theft.

You like your idealogue mates in Israel simply want to legitimise the land stealing ... anyway you can. Your thinking of 'weight of numbers' is simply stupid and unjust.

So please don't put on your false face of reasonablness pretending you are looking for peaceful solutions.

You are not, you are simply a stupid liar who holds racist views.

Oh...have no doubt as Macather once said 'I will return'

And just for you from another of my great Liberal Democratic heros,

'Tear down this wall'.
Posted by keith, Saturday, 11 October 2008 12:37:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

I wonder where it is you get the gall to demand anyone answer your silly rants, especially when you have declined to comment upon any of the questions I have put to you.

Your attempts to label David a racists are ironic in the extreme, given your support for Islamic racists.

Fellow Human

you say >> "Most if not all arabs would recognise Israel right to exist pre the 1967 war (ie before the lands that Israel captured in 1967"

WHAT?? ??. That is the most UNBELIEVABLE thing I have yet seen you post on OLO. Do you means all of those ARABS who didn't support the attempts to wipe the newly formed Israeli state OUT, in 1948? Or those Arabs who didn't support the warmongering and bloodthirsty NASSER in 1967?

ARE they the same people who did not support the next attempt in 1973 to drive all of the Jews into the sea?

Secondly, there seems to be some kind of viral infection going around and you and Keith have caught it. Its called wishful thimking.

you say >> " it's up to Israel to push for peace and make a deal before many different small groups start taking bites. By then it would be too late."

TOO LATE? Israel has no real internal threats. Not the type which could fundamentally destabilise the country, anyway. Israels only real threat is an nuclear armed Iran. If those internal groups of which you speak ever do get anywhere near the point where the state of Israel is at threat, the gloves will truly come off.

Israel is NOT in any mortal danger from these ragtag groups of Islamo-Facists.

However, it is in everyones interest for the conflict to be resolved in an equitable manner. It remains to be seen whether the Arabs can accept an equitable setllement after many years of being deluded by their leaders, Nasser style, that they could have it ALL.

The Refugees simply WILL NOT be going "home". Large numbers of settlers will STAY in their homes, outside the 1967 armistice lines.
Posted by Paul.L, Sunday, 12 October 2008 3:01:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul

As I told you once before when you try to paint on me your stupid lies and racist labels... get stuffed.

You are below contempt.
Posted by keith, Monday, 13 October 2008 9:01:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Paul,

Sorry fo the late response but I just saw your comment.
I was expressing my belief as someone who grew up and lived in the arab world. The fact is most people my generation and younger don't mind at all Israel's 1967 borders and most local research and polls confirms that. I am sure the same notion exists among Israeli youth.
Warmongers will always exist on everyside.

Peace,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Tuesday, 21 October 2008 11:00:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy