It is clear that the two state solution has failed. There will be no more success with the two state solution you propose - the states of Israel and Jordan. Two peoples with mainly different religions are fighting over the same piece of land. A better solution would seem to eliminate religion from consideration with the creation of one state with separation of religion and state. Rather than fighting over the same piece of land the two peoples could share it. It would not be easy to do, but the two state alternative whether the two states are Israel and Palestine or Israel and Jordan is a recipe for continued conflict.

Must ask where do we find true Wisdom and Understanding in either Arab or Israeli circles?

Just as Mandela, not classed as a dinkum Christian used the Sermon on the Mount to gain victory against Bible-Bashing Aparthaid white South Africans, so must both Arabs and Israelies each seek humble pie, so both can learn from Mandela.

The Jews of Israel will never agree to commit suicide, which will be the result of allowing the so-called right of return of those who left or were forced out of the newly created state of Israel.
The Green Line, and the borders around Gaza, were not drawn up but are those points at which the armies of Israel and its enemies found themselves at a point in time. They make no sense apart from that. The former, in particular, are not defensible.
The Muslim world as a whole, not just its many fundamentalist versions, does not accept the loss of soveriegnty which the state of Israel represents. The 'palestinians' are but the captive, front-line soldiers in this struggle, and many are willing fighters, more concerned with the elimination of their enemy than building a society for themselves.
Until the Muslim world understands that it is not in the position of strength that it needs to be in to make such demands, more 'palestinians' and Israelis will die. And Hammas et al will only apologise for the non-jews it kills. That's revealing, isn't it?

Once again Singer refuses to listen and only tells us what he would like. It is irrelevant to him what the Palestinians want.
The King of Jordan is right and eminently sensible. Why would anyone want to take on the mantle of oppressor in place of the Israelis. Although anyone who thinks singer's solution would blunt Palestinian hatred of Israel is seriously deluded. They would just be oppressed by Israel AND Jordan and would react accordingly. More extremists, more insurrection and more violence.

Everyone can see the obvious solution but you Israelis wont countenance it because of your Zionist ideology that says all of "Samaria and Judea" belongs to the Jews. You wont stop till you have ethnically cleansed the current inhabitants or worse still commit genocide upon them. You wont share Jerusalem, you continue to colonise and settle lands that dont belong to you. Israel is the problem not Jordan.

It is illuminating that Mr Singer brings up so called Jordanian responsibilities under the League of Nations mandate but never suggests Israel might abide by them as well and return to the borders laid out at the time. Nor that they might pull back from all territory occupied since then by Israel, including Jerusalem. Allow free movement and stop taking resources perhaps. Funny how it is only Jordan who is subject to this reasoning by Mr singer and never a mention of Israel let alone it honouring any of the agreements made in the 40s and 50s.

Wishful thinking of the worst order by Mr singer. Or is it just more of the same delay, distort, deflect and misdirect, cloud the issue propaganda direct from the bowels of mossad and the rest of the Israeli government spin and lies machine?

Good historical account, Camo, but aren't these somewhat like the people of colonial India, including the now Pakistani Islamists, whom Gandhi had so amazingly standing still in front of our angry well-armed Colonial Brits?

How is that just ordinary non-white humans can have this capability when Anglo-Saxons and Germanics in the extreme can only produce Hitlers?

And still so strange that we find Mandela a Negro, really believing in the Sermon on the Mount where the boy Jesus says to love your enemy, which in Greek really just means to try to look on the better side of your enemy?

It is still more strange how Adam Smith, founder of the grab-all Free-Market, warned speculators to prefer to work for the need, not so much for the greed.

Cheers, BB, WA.

bushbred wrote: "How is that just ordinary non-white humans can have this capability when Anglo-Saxons and Germanics in the extreme can only produce Hitlers?"

I find the above an extraordinarily bigoted remark. I am neither Anglo-Saxon nor Germanic, but I know compassion is not limited to any ethnic group. Neither is brutality. There was one Hitler, but dictators have come in all shades.

Gandhi survived through the Raj although the British had the power to kill him. He was killed by a fanatic Hindu.

Dear bushbred,

I sent you this poem by an Anglo-Saxon before and am sending it again.

Which army one is in is mainly a function of where one is in time of war. I was in the US army in WW2. Had I been born Japanese and been there during WW2 I would have been in the Japanese army. Anyhow Thomas Hardy says it.

The Man He Killed

Had he and I but met
By some old ancient inn,
We should have set us down to wet
Right many a nipperkin!

But ranged as infantry,
And staring face to face,
I shot at him as he at me,
And killed him in his place.

I shot him dead because--
Because he was my foe,
Just so: my foe of course he was;
That's clear enough; although

He thought he'd 'list, perhaps,
Off-hand like--just as I--
Was out of work--had sold his traps--
No other reason why.

Yes; quaint and curious war is!
You shoot a fellow down
You'd treat, if met where any bar is,
Or help to half a crown.

Thomas Hard