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

#Mikk

In reply to your post

1. "It is irrelevant to [Singer] what the Palestinians want."

What they want was attainable between 1948-1967 but no longer possible in 2010. There has to be another solution.

2."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."

Because the West Bank was part of Jordan between 1948-1967 and the West Bank Arabs were Jordanian citizens until 1988. West Bank Arabs will again become Jordanian citizens and be liberated - not oppressed - by Jordan.

3. " 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. "

My proposal calls for sovereignty in the major part of "Samaria and Judea" to be ceded to Jordan and for not one Arab or Jew to leave his current home.

No ethnic cleansing, no genocide.

4. "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."

The borders laid out under the Mandate provided for the Jewish National Home to be reconstituted in the land west of the Jordan River which includes the West Bank and Gaza and today's Israel.

Jews lived in the West Bank and Gaza prior to 1948 pursuant to the Mandate until they were then driven out by the invading Arab armies from Jordan and Egypt who occupied the West Bank and Gaza until 1967.

5. "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."

What agreements are you referring to?

Mikk - try and stick to discussing the message, not shooting the messenger.

A few observations and comments:

--There may or may not have been a Palestinian people prior to 1967. There is one now.

--King Abdullah is not be the sharpest intellect in the Middle-East but he's smart enough to avoid any action that will make the Palestinians his problem. From his perspective Jordan is well rid of its Palestinians. Singer's suggestion that Jordan re-incorporate the West Bank and re-instate the Jordanian citizenship of the Palestinians is the stuff of fantasy. One wonders what Singer has been smoking.

I think it equally unlikely that Egypt would ever re-incorporate the Gaza Strip or offer Egyptian citizenship to its inhabitants.

--Short of irresistible coercion no Israeli Government will ever agree to anything that, in its judgement, would endanger the Jewish nature of Israel. Specifically no Israeli government will agree to a "right of return" to Israel of those who fled in 1948 and their descendants.

--No Palestinian leader will ever foreswear the claim to a "right of return". In the unlikely event that one does his (post-assassination) successor will reverse the decision.

--The wider Muslim world will never accede to a Jewish enclave in the heart of what they regard as Dar ul Islam.

Under the circumstances I do not see how peace is possible so long as Israel exists. Since I do not expect the Israelis, or the wider Jewish community, to give up without a fight it looks as if this long and bitter war still has a way to go. It may yet end in a nuclear conflagration.

I write this post with the sole intention of introducing a note of reality after reading Singer's fantasy. I shall NOT debate the rights and wrongs of the situation.

<<What agreements are you referring to?>>

How about the Green line for starters. UN security council resolution 242.

<<The borders laid out under the Mandate provided for the Jewish National Home to be reconstituted in the land west of the Jordan River which includes the West Bank and Gaza and today's Israel.>>

Not true but even if it was it is still theft of land belonging to someone else.

<<My proposal calls for sovereignty in the major part of "Samaria and Judea" to be ceded to Jordan and for not one Arab or Jew to leave his current home.
No ethnic cleansing, no genocide.>>

Then why not just give them a state? Why the pleading to Jordan to take them? They dont want to join Jordan and Jordan does not want them. Why not give the sovereignty over "Judea and Samaria" to the people who actually desire it and currently live there?

<<Because the West Bank was part of Jordan between 1948-1967 and the West Bank Arabs were Jordanian citizens until 1988.>>

The same logic is used to justify the removal of the state of Israel and the repatriation of the Jews to their countries of origin. After all before 1948 there were no Israelis.

<<West Bank Arabs will again become Jordanian citizens and be liberated - not oppressed - by Jordan.>>

The same as the Jews will again become German and Russian citizens and be liberated - not - oppressed by their former homelands.
Yeah right Singer and the fairies in the bottom of my garden are waving at the pigs flying overhead.

<<What they want was attainable between 1948-1967 but no longer possible in 2010. There has to be another solution>>

Yeah Israel must return to its internationally recognised borders, set those borders within its constitution forevermore, remove settlements from Palestinian land, return water and other resources to the Palestinians, cease the siege of Gaza, join the IAEA, cease using stolen/illegally obtained passports by mossad, cease government sponsored assassination, share Jerusalem, release political prisoners, normalise relations with your neighbors and the world and stop calling us Goyim!

mikk:

For the reasons I set out in my first post, peace is impossible. For better or worse this appears to be a fight to the death. The most likely end point is a nuclear conflagration.

However, to address your specific point, you wrote:

"Yeah Israel must return to its internationally recognised borders,…."

What are Israel's "internationally recognised" borders?

And who would recognise them?

Most Muslims, 20% of humanity, refuse outright to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish State in Dar ul Islam. Many, perhaps most, OLO posters, as well as many other people throughout the world, agree with them. They regard the whole of Israel as stolen land.

From this point of view Israel has no "internationally recognised" borders.

The governments of Israel's neighbours accept Israel's existence because, for now, they are powerless to do anything about it. Few doubt that given the opportunity Israel's neighbour would attempt "regime change" in Israel.

I know no Israelis who believe Israel would be permitted to live in peace if it retreated to its 1967 borders or even its 1948 borders. After all they weren't left in peace in 1948 or 1967.

Most Israelis believe themselves to be in a situation of "I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't".

Under those circumstances I do not see how peace is possible.

Note mikk that I am merely describing the situation as I see it. I am NOT going to debate the rights and wrongs.

#stevenlmeyer

What you regard as my "fantasy" involving Jordan's re-entry to the West Bank and its division between Israel and Jordan still remains the only possible solution to avoiding what you yourself are predicting - more war and possible nuclear conflagration.

Given your scenario the Quartet is seeing the same danger with the collapse of the two-state solution. In those circumstances pressure must be applied to Abdullah as he holds the key to avoiding such conflict. Jordan - 78% of Mandate Palestine - is the circuit breaker and Abdullah must be subjected to enormous international pressure in the form of financial incentives and security guarantees for Jordan to resume its role in the West Bank where it left off in 1967.

If he fails to come to the party then the future is indeed gloomy.

Referring to my possible smoking habits belittles your thoughtful contributions. Pity that you could not resist the temptation to attack the messenger. You will gain much greater credibility if you can resist the temptation to do so in the future.

Mikk

1. You said Israel did not honour agreements made "in the 40's and 50's". Resolution 242 was passed in 1967.

I ask again - what agreements are you referring to?

The Green Line is an armistice line not an international boundary.

2. Turkey's sovereignty of "Palestine" for 400 years was ended when the Mandate was established in Palestine for the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home on 0.001% of the former Ottoman Empire. The other 99.999% was given to enable Arab self-determination to occur.

The land belonged to Turkey and was taken away from Turkey by unanimous approval of the League of Nations. You call it "theft". I call it the consequences to the loser of a war.

3. A State was offered to the Palestinian Authority in 2000 and 2008 by Israel and rejected.

Given such a state was rejected on even a much larger area in 1937 and 1947 and was available in all the West Bank and Gaza between 1948-1967 when not one Jew lived there, I think it is fair to say any hope of a state emerging by negotiation is not going to happen.

4. You draw some strange conclusions from my proposal that does not involve any West Bank Arab having to leave his home and move anywhere else nor the destruction of any existing member State of the United Nations.

5. Considering the overwhelming population of Jordan are originally from West of the Jordan River, it is difficult to see how reunification of part of the West Bank with the East Bank will result in oppression. The West Bankers certainly were happy to be part of Jordan between 1948-1967.

6. Israel can't return to its internationally recognized borders because there are none - only armistice lines as referred to in 1 above because the Arab States refused to sit down, negotiate and define the borders between them and the Jewish State after the 1948 War.

7. The West Bank is not Palestinian land. It is disputed territory comprising about 5% of the Mandate remaining unallocated between Jews and Arabs.

Dear Mr. Singer,

I apologise for my comments on your smoking habits. It seems your inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality does not require chemical assistance.

Abdullah is about as likely to accede to the re-incorporation of the West Bank as Netanyahu is to agree to a Palestinian "right of return". And for much the same reason.

You write:

"Abdullah must be subjected to enormous international pressure in the form of financial incentives and security guarantees for Jordan to resume its role in the West Bank…"

Who is going to exert this pressure? What possible "security guarantees" can be offered Jordan when the main threat would emanate from 2.5 million newly minted Palestinian citizens? Have you forgotten Black September? Have you forgotten the uprising in the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon in December 2009? Do you think Abdullah would risk incorporating 2.5 million Palestinians into Jordan no matter what the carrots or sticks?

But what you leave out of your analysis is the same elephant in the room that almost every Jewish pundit ignores.

Muslims are as determined to destroy Israel as Jews are to preserve it. Peace is not possible so long as a Jewish enclave exists in Dar-ul-Islam.

If you believe anything else you really are living in a fantasy world.

The issue of "Palestine" is one of the Muslim world's trump cards in their campaign to delegitimate Israel. It provides the cover for anti-Semites all over the world to attack Israel*.

But if it weren't "Palestine" Muslim leaders would find something else. This looks like a fight to the death. I cannot see this story having a happy ending.

To reiterate, I am NOT going to debate the rights and wrongs of the situation.

*There are also critics of Israel who are not anti-Semites and who do have a genuine concern for the welfare of Palestinians. But there is no denying that many of Israel's critics are motivated by anti-Semitism just as many critics of Islam are motivated by racism.

<<The Green Line is an armistice line not an international boundary.>>
Call it whatever you like it is the closest there is to a border and is widely recognised by the rest of the world. Even by a lot of the "Arabs".

40's, 50', 60's its just splitting hairs and you know it. Israel has studiously avoided most agreements but there are still a few. All of which have been broken or ignored. The refusal to set borders and the illegal nuclear program is indicative of Israels perfidiousness.

<<I call it the consequences to the loser of a war.>>
Will you still call it that if you were to lose and Israel ceased to exist? Or would you bleat about "property rights" or "god given favors"? How about the fact that the Romans beat you Jews and so the land is theirs by right? Or does it belong to the crusaders or Saladin's descendants? Even in 1919 it wasnt the Jews that defeated the Ottomans was it? Why doesnt the middle east still belong to the victors in that war? Is this how you justify the theft of land from the people who lived in what is now Israel proper? Was it war in 1948 or did they just "leave"?

<<it is difficult to see how reunification of part of the West Bank with the East Bank will result in oppression.>>
Because the Palestinians dont want to be Jordanian any more than they want to be Israeli or Mongolian or Martian for that matter. They want to be Palestinians! What gives you the right to tell them otherwise? You would think a Jew would have some understanding of the idea of identity and homeland?

continued

continued

<<7. The West Bank is not Palestinian land. It is disputed territory comprising about 5% of the Mandate remaining unallocated between Jews and Arabs. >>

Only disputed by people like you Mr singer. The people who live there and have lived there for centuries have no dispute about where they are and who owns and lives and works and farms on the land of the West bank. Your legalistic, denialist views on the Palestinians are calculated to advance and justify Israels theft of land and the oppression of its inhabitants.

Steven
I have also seen reports that the Arabs see the Jews as just one more in a long line of crusaders and even if it takes 300 years they will get their land back and destroy israel. Thats pretty scary talk and seriously insane but with the Israelis being just as crazy you may just be right about the nukes. Armageddon may be coming. Make you proud does that singer?

Like i have said many times before a pox on these crazy religionists and their cults of death and murder. They use their god to justify atrocities and then expect the rest of us to show them respect and social and economic favoritism. All godbotherers suck and religion is dangerous and must be wiped out.

David F, must say that the poetry you quoted was often talked about in WW2.

However, I must say that I am disappointed that you seem to regard the actions of both Gandhi and Mandela as just old hat, even to the point of boredom.

Must say yoy are the boring one, certainly not Gandhi or Mandela...!

bushbred wrote: "However, I must say that I am disappointed that you seem to regard the actions of both Gandhi and Mandela as just old hat, even to the point of boredom."

Dear bushbred,

I am mystified by your remark above. I mentioned neither Ghandhi nor Mandela.

Mikk wrote:

"I have also seen reports that the Arabs see the Jews as just one more in a long line of crusaders and even if it takes 300 years they will get their land back and destroy israel."

On the one hand you acknowledge that Israelis will not have peace and security no matter what they do.

On the other hand you state that Israel "must" do this and Israel "must" do that.

But why should they?

If Israel is doomed to a war to the death no matter what they do, why should they do any of the things you and many other OLO posters demand of them? Even if they're not "crazy religionists" what reason is there for the Israelis to make nice with the people who want to destroy them?

Again, I am NOT debating the rights and wrongs. I am simply pointing out that there appears to be no incentive for Israel to, for example, withdraw to its 1967 borders if, as seems probable, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Mikk, here's an exercise for you:

Post an open letter to the Israeli prime minister explaining to him how it will benefit his country to do what you ask of it.

Of course if Israel does go down a goodly slice of the world's oil pumping capacity will be reduced to radioactive rubble. Look for petrol at $10 a litre. That is Israel's ace in the hole. It is the real reason America tends to be supportive of Israel.

Is there anybody on OLO who honestly believes that peace is possible so long as a Jewish enclave exists in the heart of what Muslims regard as Dar ul Islam?

Is there any poster who doubts that Muslims are as determined to destroy Israel as Jews are to save it?

If you answered "yes" to either of these questions then I suggest you have joined David Singer in fantasy-land.

You didn't have to, David F.

Your smart-arse insinuations against my historical comparisons were enough.

You certainly wouldn't get too far among academics, one wonders if you have ever met one?

steven
Just because that is the way the people think now does not mean it has to stay that way. Take religion out of the mix and the problems will melt away and people would wonder what the fuss was all about. Without religion and with a bit of cooperation the middle east could be a powerhouse of productivity, technology and creativity.

Many problems in the past have seemed just as intractable and unsolvable as this one but have been changed by mass pressure from lots of people, using protest, sanctions and boycotts and political muscle. South Africa comes to mind. India, Europe, the USSR. To just give up is to invite Armageddon and dismiss the lives of millions of innocents.

#stevenlmeyer

You ask:

1. Who is going to exert the pressure on Jordan? The Quartet

2. What possible "security guarantees" can be offered? Guarantees by the Quartet and Israel to protect the Hashemite monarchy from being overthrown by Hamas or the PLO as you mentioned was once attempted by Arafat in 1970. The 2.4 million "newly minted" Palestinians are not the problem just as the existing population of Jordan are not a problem. The Hashemites have ruled 78% of Mandate Palestine since 1923 and their future reign should be safeguarded as a condition of Jordan's re-entry into the West Bank.

I am not as totally pessimistic as you in believing that there is a general Arab or Muslim consensus to destroy the State of Israel. There will always be crazies who dream of the day this will happen. They will not go away and Israel has to confront and defeat them as has happened in the last 60 years.

In saying I am in fantasy-land you fail to take into consideration that Israel has had signed peace treaties with Jordan since 1994 and Egypt since 1979.

The advantage of the peace treaty with Jordan is that it already deals with the settling of core issues like refugees,water and Jerusalem'

Jordan is indeed the key to unlocking the West Bank and offering its Arab citizens hope for a brighter future and a happier life.

#Mikk

Religion is at the heart of the dispute and no amount of wishful thinking will make it disappear. Judaism,Christianity and Islam all have their beginnings in the region. The Middle East is not South Africa and what happened there will not happen in the Middle East. 22 Arab Islamic States and one Jewish State are not going to throw away their religious foundations and live happily ever after. The best one can hope for is a realization that war has no rewards for anyone. The continuing argument by the Arabs over a piece of land one twelfth the size of Tasmania is only a recipe for misery and sorrow for everyone caught up in the fracas

David Singer

Write out a 100 times:

Regardless of what the GOVERNMENTS of various Muslim majority countries may do, the worldwide "Ummah" will NEVER accept a Jewish enclave in the heart of Dar ul Islam.

Yes after suffering multiple defeats the governments of Israel's neighbours have, for now, abandoned the military option. But the attitudes of their PEOPLE towards Jews varies between antipathy and hatred. King Hussein signed a treaty with Israel in the teeth of opposition from most Jordanians. He did it only after his sugar-daddy, Saddam, had been financially crippled and he needed American aid.

If you truly want to understand the FEROCITY of Jew-hatred in the Muslim world read:

"A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad" by Robert S. Wistrich.

See:

http://www.amazon.com/Lethal-Obsession-Anti-Semitism-Antiquity-Global/dp/1400060974/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266497933&sr=1-1

Warning: This is a TERRIFYING book. Wistrich meticulously documents the depth of Jew-hatred in the Muslim world and the re-awakening of Jew-hatred in Europe.

Read it and then tell me you do not believe in a Muslim consensus to destroy Israel and kill Jews.

But Israel's greatest strategic challenge is growing Muslim – and anti-Semitic – influence in Europe. I predict the Netherlands will be the first country to deny El Al landing and overflight rights. Spain may be the second despite the current warming of relations between Israel and that country.

Mikk

Interesting how the myths about South Africa persist. To get a more realistic picture of Mandela and the ANC I suggest "South Africa's Brave New World" by R. W. Johnson.

http://www.amazon.com/South-Africas-Brave-World-ebook/dp/B002RI94TG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266498607&sr=1-1

However, never mind South Africa.

Religion is not going away. There is ZERO chance of the Muslim Ummah acceding to a Jewish enclave in the heart of Dar-ul-Islam - especially now that they believe, with reason, that TIME IS ON THEIR SIDE.

They scent blood.

It follows that this is a fight to the death regardless of anything Israel does.

Fortunately I am a keen cyclist so I won’t be paying $10 / litre for petrol when the end comes!

Again, I am NOT debating the rights and wrongs.

Dear stevenlmeyer,

I think your pessimism is a realistic appraisal of the situation.

# stevenlmeyer

I cannot agree with your comment:

"Regardless of what the GOVERNMENTS of various Muslim majority countries may do, the worldwide "Ummah" will NEVER accept a Jewish enclave in the heart of Dar ul Islam."

Governments make war and make peace - not the worldwide Ummah.

At present 27 members of the 56 members in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) maintain diplomatic relations with Israel - which is very heartening considering 22 of the 29 remaining OIC members are Arab states only two of which maintain diplomatic relations with Israel.

The 22 Arab League States (excluding Jordan and Egypt) and Iran are the real Muslim protagonists presently facing Israel. Till they recognize Israel as the Jewish State the possibility of conflict with these States is high.

I agree that Muslim (and non-muslim)anti-semitic influence in Europe is a growing and concerning problem. However as the embattled European countries face a Muslim takeover in the face of increasing Muslim immigration that presses for the introduction of Sharia law and recognition of polygamy - which as citizens they are perfectly entitled to agitate for and demand - the scene can rapidly change. Europe is fast becoming a tinderbox ready to explode.

But even if you think I am still in fantasy-land your following prognosis:

"It follows that this is a fight to the death regardless of anything Israel does."

is very defeatist in accepting that nothing Israel does can avoid the fight to the death.

Do you not see a ray of hope if Jordan were to re-enter the West Bank with Israel's approval and grant Jordanian citizenship to its Arab inhabitants? Isn't it worth your effort to use your undoubted intellectual ability to pursue this or any other solution you think possible to break the current deadlock in an effort to avoid the fight to the death?

Or are you just going to sit by and do nothing, knock any proposal because nothing Israel does will be accepted by the Arabs and then proudly claim that when the inevitable war comes your opinion has been vindicated?

There is an obvious way to avoid a fight to the death. That is to give up the idea of ethnic nationalism whether Jewish, Muslim or Palestinian and create a state which separates ethnicity and/or religion and the state. In such a state all citizens would have equal rights and the religious or ethnic preferences of the citizens would be no business of the state.

A Palestinian state as it now is working out is not a friendly place for Christian Arabs and even less so for Jews. In Israel there is no civil marriage and the orthodox decide who is a Jew. In the United States and Australia who is a Jew is no concern of the state, and that is the way it should be. Under a Jewish state the discrimination and the separate educational systems for Muslims, orthodox Jews, secular Jews, haredim and Christians will continue. In the US the Supreme Court has found that segregation in government funded schools promotes an unequal society. The same is true for Israel.

Let people associate freely. It should be anybody's right to enter or leave any group. That is one of the human rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Exercising that right is inconsistent with ethnic nationalism.

Davids f and Singer

I call 'em as I see 'em. And what I see is that one fifth of humanity adheres to a genocidal belief system called Islam. Whatever may have been the case in the past, CONTEMPORARY Islam, Islam 2010, is indistinguishable from Nazism.

David f,

I do not think I am misrepresenting when I say that the above statement reflects the private view of most Jews. The only difference between me and "most Jews" is that I am prepared to say it in public.

It follows that most Jewish Israelis would as soon form a joint state with the SS as with approximately 5 million Muslims.

Now you may feel our perception of Islam is mistaken. I am not going to argue the point with you - though to me the evidence seems compelling. However I think you have zero chance of persuading Jewish Israelis that it is reasonable for them to risk the lives of their loved ones by forming a joint state with the Palestinians.

For one, a state with such a large Muslim contingent would be unable to defend itself when, not if, but when, its Muslim neighbours attacked. And the aftermath of a successful Muslim attack on Israel would surely be another Shoah.

If you think Israelis are unique in their perceptions consider the brouhaha the arrival of a few boat people causes; or the fierceness with which planning permission for the establishment of Islamic schools is contested. Yet this is minor compared to what you are asking Israelis to contemplate.

I am afraid your solution is as much a fantasy as Singer's. I think most Israelis would prefer a war where they have a fighting chance rather then risk being slaughtered while defenceless - again. Better to die with a gun in your hand and your enemies transformed into nuclear waste.

David Singer

Europe is the wild card. Will the natives resist Islamisation? I am sceptical. Read:

"Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West" by Christopher Caldwell

http://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Revolution-Europe-Immigration-Islam/dp/0385518269/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266558785&sr=1-