I see what you are trying to say. A bit like..

14 May 1948 - Arabs living in British Mandate of Palestine change their name from colonial British subjects to second class non-Jewish Israeli citizens.

Why are you constantly trying to wipe Palestine off the map? You really are an insidious character.

At midnight on May 14, 1948, 648000 Jewish residents living in Palestine became "Israelis".
Whats you're point? Aside from monumental hypocrisy?

Not to mention be careful what you wish for Mr singer. Instead of Jordan subduing and controlling the Palestinians whats to say the Palestinians would not inflame and incite the Jordanians. Then you would have made things much worse for Israel.

Your simplistic wishful thinking is no substitute for justice and freedom. Stop stealing peoples land and give the Palestinians the freedom to have the country they want. Where they want it and where they already live.

Mr Singer,
I suggest you spend a bit more time reading the history of the mandate and how the Jews helped the Brits to divide and destroy the various attempts for Palestinian nationhood during that time, you so conveniently ignore.

Face it, Israel has no moral right to maintain it's hold over the west bank.

Claiming it has for security purposes is the height of colonial arrogance. When clearly the insecurity is a consequence of Israel's own doing i.e. it's collective inane claim to sole occupancy of the land it now calls Israel and conquered lands. Much less the claims of all Palestine by the extremists' who have disproportionate power in the Israeli parliament. Not forgetting the 2nd class citizenship of the Arabs in Israel. (Shades of pogroms.)

Notwithstanding the reality is Israel exists. However, It has no moral/legal right beyond the 1948 boundaries.

Such spurious propaganda as this article clearly is, offends or should offend the sensibilities all Australians.

In short *your* war is *your* doing, don't bring it here.

LOL David Singer,

You really do enjoy flogging dead horses.

--The Hashemite monarchy considers itself well rid of the Palestinians. In case you hadn't noticed, it doesn't want them.

--King Abdullah has shown no sign of wanting to re-incorporate the West Bank – or have I missed something?

--The Palestinians have evinced no desire to become part of Jordan again

--Nobody has shown any interest in forcing Abdullah to re-incorporate the West bank

So how, pray, is your plan – I use the word loosely – to proceed?

Anyway, none of this is relevant. The worldwide Muslim Ummah, 23% of humanity and growing, will never accede to the existence of a Jewish enclave in Dar ul Islam. And it is preposterous to pretend that this will not influence the behaviour of Muslim governments. A leader who defeats Israel will be a "hero for life" in the Muslim world.

Look how the Shia, Narallah, won kudos even among Sunnis simply because Hizbullah survived an Israeli attack and managed to kill 43 Israeli soldiers.

Also, in case you had not noticed, the Ummah is infected with a genocidal strain of Jew hatred. Muslims are a heterogenous bunch often as likely to kill each other as to pray together. But one thing that unites them is hatred of Jews and a determination to destroy Israel. To achieve these goals it’s a case of "WHATEVER IT TAKES".

So it's war to the death. THAT IS THE REALITY. There does not appear to be any way of altering it.

My usual disclaimer. I am NOT going to debate the rights and wrongs of the situation

# Dane

You state:

"Why are you constantly trying to wipe Palestine off the map?"

Palestine was wiped off the map when 78% of it became the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan in 1946 (now Jordan), 17% of it became Israel in 1948 and 5% was unified with Jordan in 1948.

# Mikk

The PLO tried to overthrow King Hussein in 1970 and paid a heavy price for failure. If the PLO or Hamas wish to try again that is their decision - and they will rue it in my opinion.

My proposal might well be a problem for Israel- but they have overcome before and they will do so again if the existence of Israel is threatened. They do have a peace treaty with Jordan and I am sure would do everything to maintain that Treaty with Jordan's Hashemite rulers.

# Examinator

You state:

"Face it, Israel has no moral right to maintain it's hold over the west bank.

Claiming it has for security purposes is the height of colonial arrogance.....

However, It has no moral/legal right beyond the 1948 boundaries."

Israel has not only a moral right - but also a legal right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the West Bank pursuant to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Security Council Resolution 242 only requires Israel to withdraw to "secure and recognized boundaries" not from the entirety of the West Bank.

What you refer to as the "1948 boundaries" are only armistice lines.

I suggest the value of your contribution to any discussion is greatly diminished when you misstate the facts

#stevenlmeyer

We have been down this track before.

For you "Its war to the death"

This may well be the outcome. However I would prefer trying to work for a negotiated settlement before such a dreaded eventuality occurs. Wouldn't you?

The unification of the major part of the West Bank with Jordan will become a diplomatic option when flogging the two-state solution is abandoned. Once that occurs it may happen much sooner than you think.

steven
I think you are going too far here. To say that every muslim is a rabid jew hater who wont stop until israel is destroyed is extremely disingenuous and more than a bit racist. Israel drives what hated there is and furthers the cause and appeal of the extremists by its unjust actions in the occupied territories.

Walls that cut people off from their land and families. Burgeoning settlements full of rabid extremist jews who would happily commit genocide and regularly abuse their arab neighbors. A country crisscrossed with roads for the exclusive use of jewish israelis. The few roads left for the arabs to use blocked by abusive troops and checkpoints. Major military attacks on civilian areas as seen in Gaza.
Destruction of homes and even whole towns by the military bulldozers. The unequal allocation of water resources. Mossad running round like an organised crime gang.

Like I said before a pox on all you f ing godbotherers and your ideologys of hate and death. You are all f ed in the head and should be locked in mental asylums until you are not a threat to the rest of us. You are all to blame. All religions are to blame. If you support any religion or magical imaginary friend then you are also supporting all these evil murderous terrorists that actually pull the trigger or press the button or administer the poison. Religion is dangerous and ridiculous and if humankind cant free itself from the clutches of superstition and hate then we are doomed to a future much like our past. Full of misery, injustice, horror and backwardness.\

Why wont you debate the rights and wrongs steven. Have you not heard the saying "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. Which seems to be your position. Do nothing.

I still say the way to alter the situation is get rid of religion, a concerted effort by others to pressure israel to behave decently and improvement in the lot of all arabs through education and aid from the rest of us.

Using singers logic I think all of the middle east should be be returned to the ottomans. It was a great and glorious empire for hundreds of years till they picked the wrong side in WWI.

Singer you mentioned that in 1948 17% of Palestine became Israel. Is it still 17%? I think we have your slippery borders right there. Did the "armistice line" in 1948 cover 17% of Palestine? If it did then you have just shot your own argument in the foot. Your own words state Israel is 17% of historic Palestine. So where exactly does the border go mr singer. 17% that is all you can "LEGALLY" justify. If you want to keep the rest (settlements etc) then it is a one state solution for you and all that goes with it. Democracy, equality and secularism not apartheid, segregation and theocracy. Let alone Jordan taking responsibilities for the palestinians.

You say "Palestine was wiped off the map" in 1946. OK but Israel was wiped off the map in 63 BC wasnt it. Even if palestine was 'wiped off the map" the Palestinians werent were they? They still exist the same as the jews still existed after the romans. Your argument is so full of fail it is embarrassing for you mr singer.

Mr singer
Article 80 where? Talk about cherry picking! League of Nations it doesn't exist!
In essence you are using the security argument of Security Council Resolution 242 which is tendentious at best as is your interpretation there of. Legal? last time I looked The Palestinians (Palestine aren't members of the UN or are they signatories there of)

The document doesn't give license to appropriate territory for settlers either! Which clearly bring the threat closer and consequently by your unique reasoning justifies more territory appropriation, the wall is point in fact. It's all part of the same issue. Your "reduction to the ridiculous" is a manipulative technique to control the topic for your ends i.e. propaganda

I also note you ignored the fact that YOUR piece is predicated on misinformation and unsupportable claims and assumptions but that doesn't count does it? You have your God and the US on your side.

I have no problem with discussion but your piece, is clearly selling Israel's self made problems here....No thanks, no sale.

# Mikk

You ask:

"Singer you mentioned that in 1948 17% of Palestine became Israel. Is it still 17%? ... Did the "armistice line" in 1948 cover 17% of Palestine? "

Answer: Yes and Yes

You further ask:

"So where exactly does the border go mr singer. 17% that is all you can "LEGALLY" justify."

Answer: Not correct. Israel can legally justify claiming sovereignty in any part of the West Bank and Gaza pursuant to the Mandate and article 80. Israel does not want to keep it all and offered more than 90% to the Palestinian Authority in 2000/2001 and 2008 - which has been rejected.

Your last question asks:

"You say "Palestine was wiped off the map" in 1946. OK but Israel was wiped off the map in 63 BC wasnt it."

Answer: Correct. "Eretz Yisroel" was renamed "Palestina" by the Romans after their conquest and occupation. The PLO and Hamas now wish to obliterate the Jewish presence and change the name of "Israel" to "Palestine". My point was that there is no place called "Palestine" that can be found in any atlas today.

#examinator

You can find Article 80 in the United Nations Charter - as I clearly pointed out in my earlier reply.

The League of Nations does not exist. That is why article 80 was inserted in the UN Charter.

Security Council Resolution 242 is binding in international law. It recognizes that Israel will not be required to return to the 1967 armistice lines but only to "secure and recognized boundaries". That is why the Palestinian Authority's insistence on Israel withdrawing to the 1967 armistice lines has resulted in negotiations for the last 16 years leading nowhere. Israel is not going to do it - nor is it required to do it.

You state:

"I also note you ignored the fact that YOUR piece is predicated on misinformation and unsupportable claims and assumptions but that doesn't count does it?"

Isn't it a little unfair to make such a sweeping generalization without pointing out the actual facts in my article that brought you to this conclusion?

You really are a vile piece of work singer. You know damn well that the mandate for PALESTINE and UN article 80 etc are all designed and supported so as to give the Arab and Jewish populations of what used to be called Palestine a share of the land equal to their numbers. Palestine had been recognized as a dependent state with its own nationality under the terms of the mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter. I cant see anything in article 80 nor the mandate that says Israel can take whatever it wants.

What about the parts that say Jerusalem will be an international city. Ignored that havent we Israel. What about the fact that the mandate continually talks about "both states" rights and responsibilitys. Does this not indicate a definite 2 State solution was in the minds of the framers of these agreements? What about the obligation of the UN to step in if there is any attempt to use force to alter the proposed agreements?

You cant twist and turn , use all the weasel words under the sun, distort and disemble , lie and defame all you like but the facts remain that Israel stole land that did not belong to it, and continues to do so today. Your ONLY justification is that "god said we can" and that for me is total garbage and indicative of why religion is evil and dangerous.

Mikk,

I do not claim that "every muslim is a rabid jew hater" any more than I would claim that every German was a rabid Jew hater in 1939. But the Ummah constitutes a Jew hating group in the same sense, perhaps even more so, than Nazi Germany constituted a Jew-hating state. Saying this is no more "racist" than saying Germany was a Jew-hating state in 1939. It is a simple statement of fact supported by a mass of EVIDENCE.

See for example:

http://www.amazon.com/Lethal-Obsession-Anti-Semitism-Antiquity-Global/dp/1400060974/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267132483&sr=8-1


Mikk, Examinator

Let's cut to the chase. do either of you believe there is anything Israel could do that would lead to the Muslim world acceding to the existence of a Jewish-controlled enclave in Dar-ul-Islam?

I am not talking about what you believe Israel "ought" to do. I am NOT talking about what you believe are the rights and wrongs of the situation. I am not asking what the pair of you think Israel could have done differently in the past. I am asking whether either of you TRULY believe there is ANYTHING Israel can do NOW that will result in the Ummah acce;pting its existence.

Frankly if your answer is "yes" then the only difference between the pair of you and Singer is that you occupy different fantasy words; but they are nonetheless fantasy worlds.

The bottom line, and I see no way out of this, is that the destruction of Israel has become as much part of the ideology of the Ummah as the killing of Jews was part of the Nazi ideology. The available evidence says to me that that there is NOTHING Israel can do.

Singer,

Would I prefer a negotiated settlement?

Your and my "preferences" have nothing to do with it.

The situation is what it is.

No negotiated settlement is possible because the Muslim 23% of humanity will never agree to one while most of the rest of the world either does not care or, like mikk and examinator, more or less agrees with the Muslims.

Usual disclaimer. I am NOT going to debate the rights and wrongs

#Mikk

Just a few questions for you to answer following your latest post.

1.You are confusing the 1922 mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the UN Charter WITH the UN Partition Resolution of 1947 - which was rejected by the Arabs and led to the 1948 War. Do you agree with this?

2.Its a bit late to raise the Partition Resolution chestnut again. The region has moved on since 1948.Do you agree with this?

3.The Mandate however is still alive and kicking in 2010 because of Article 80 in the UN Charter. Do you agree with this?

4.The Mandate was established to enable the reconstitution - in Palestine - of the Jewish National Home without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities. Article 80 preserves those rights today.Do you agree with this?

5. The reconstitution of the Jewish National Home was soon restricted to 22% of the Mandate (today called Israel and the West Bank and Gaza.) The other 78% of the Mandate territory (today called Jordan) became an Arabs only - totally Jew free - State in 1946 - and still is. Do you agree with this?

6.The Arabs have never accepted the legality of the Mandate. They have never accepted any subsequent offers to resolve the conflict. They have never accepted the legitimacy of Israel as the Jewish State. Do you agree with this?

7.Jews have legal claims in the West Bank and Gaza pursuant to the Mandate and Article 80. Do you agree with this?

8.Jews lived in the West Bank before being driven out by the Arabs in 1948. Do you agree with this?

9. The Arabs could have established a State in the West Bank and Gaza between 1948-1967 but failed to do so preferring to have the West Bank unified with Jordan into one State. Do you agree with this?

A simple "Yes" or "No" to each question will do.

I hope you pass this test with flying colours so we can then continue this discussion in a meaningful and civil manner.

#stevenlmeyer

I do not agree with your claim that the Muslim 23% of humanity will never accept a negotiated settlement.

As I pointed out to you in a previous post:

"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 certainly high."

Not having received any response I assume you had accepted this position. Clearly this is not so. Can you tell me why?

You have obviously given up on any negotiated settlement being achieved. This certainly is a recipe for war. Pity that your contribution is so defeatist.

david,

Since you are such an expert on international law, perhaps you could let us know what it says about one state using another state's passports for assassinations.
When Israel is so dishonest with its 'friends' how can we believe what you say about your enemies?
Your strategy is to obfuscate with inane and irrelevant 'factoids'. You clearly have no desire to make peace with the Palestinians but yearn for a 'Greater Israel' You are more dangerous to democracy in Australia than the extremist Muslims. They are less sophisticated and poorly resourced. We see them as threat and so can take counter measures. The threat you pose is much more insidious. You pretent to think and act like us, all the while harbouring ideas reminiscent of nineteeth century nationalism mixed with an unreformed old testament. People like you really are a worry.
Note: I don't see you as an Australian. You clearly put the interests of another state before ours.

1.I am not confusing them. I am saying they ALL say that there must be two states and one of them is to be called PALESTINE. Since you started this by babbling on about Jordan I felt it was relevant.
2.You were the one who kept bringing up past connections with Jordan. Once again you show your inconsistency and hypocrisy with "The region has moved on since 1948" in regard to partition but not in regard to Jordan or the Palestinians who must honour every past agreement.

The rest of this I am sure is leading up to some devastatingly clever legalistic loophole that you think absolves Israel of its land theft and genocidal ethnic cleansing.

3. Dont know.
4. Sounds good.
5. No I do not agree with this. According to my reading of the situation the British chose the Jordan river as the border thus leaving what is now Jordan outside Palestine. The British agreed to 22% of the Land WEST of the Jordan river to be given to the Jews the rest was for the PALESTINIANS. The land EAST of the Jordan river was to be called Transjordan and later became todays Jordan. Totally separate, totally different countries. Do you tell these lies deliberately? Do you think we are stupid?

continued

continued

6.No I do not agree. Terrorist organisations and mad mullahs might spout about "wiping Israel off the map" but no one (except rabid warmongers like yourself) takes them seriously. Israel has done well for itself with its "facts on the ground" doctrine and as abhorrent as I find that policy it is the case that Israel now exists and will exist for a long time to come. To try to remove the population living there now would be as wrong as it was in 1948. Many Arabs have no fight with Israel and just want to get on with living their lives. It is Israels actions and continued belligerence that is causing the majority of conflict.
7.No bloody way. Israel has claim to no more than 22% of the land West of the Jordan river. Do you agree with this?
8.Yes
9.No. They wanted a united state of Palestine in ALL of the land of West of the Jordan river

A few questions for you David Singer. Since you started this game.

1.In 1948, for whatever reason, a whole lot of Arab people left their homes and businesses in what is now Israel. Whole towns and villages left. These homes and businesses were then taken over by Jewish people imported from around the world. How do you justify this? If I leave my home for a few weeks, even a few months or even years does that give the Jews a right to come in and take it over? Please explain.
2.As I keep pointing out all the UN, LoN, British Mandate documents and agreements are all built on not only providing a country for the Jews, Israel, but also one for the Arabs, Palestine. Do you agree?
3.How do you justify the annexation of Jerusalem when all agreements say it should be a shared city at the very least?
4.How do you justify the expansion of Israeli settlements beyond 22% of the land West of the Jordan river?
5.How do you justify the Israeli government sanctioning the practice of extrajudicial assassinations. No trial, no innocent until proven guilty, no respect for the rule of law. How far does it extend? Are all critics of Israel in danger from the mossad?

Hope thats meaningful and civil enough for ya :)

#Dane

Posters like you who ignore the message and shoot the messenger have no credibility and are entirely irrelevant.

#mikk

In reply to your answers to my questions:

1. You still ignore the Arab refusal to accept their own state in 1937, in 1948, between 1948-1967, immediately after the Six Day War in 1967, in 2000/1 and 2008. How long must such Arab rejectionism be allowed to continue and at what cost to human suffering on both sides. Forever?

2. You continue to ignore that the Jewish rights to settle in the West Bank and Gaza are legal rights preserved under Article 80 of the UN Charter. That is why they are alive today. The offers and opportunities made to the have Arabs come and been lost.

3. Thank you for being truthful. My above responses I hope will help you come to accept my view.

4. It "sounds good" because that is what the Mandate document actually says.

5. I can accept your statement:

"The British agreed to 22% of the Land WEST of the Jordan river to be given to the Jews the rest was for the PALESTINIANS."

This is exactly the crux of my argument. You see we have eventually started to talk from a common factual background. That is very encouraging.

6. It is not only "terrorists and mad mullahs" who have rejected Israel's existence but the entire 22 members of the Arab League except Jordan and Egypt. See 1 above.

7. I agree 100% with what you say. I have never suggested anything else.

8. We agree again

9. If you are correct, why did the Arabs agree then to unify the West Bank with Jordan and make the Arab residents of the West Bank Jordanian citizens from 1950 until 1988?.

We have now reached agreement on 4 of the 9 questions I have posed. If we can reach agreement on the other 5 after you read this post, then we will have a firm basis on which to start talking about solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

I await your responses to 1,2,3,6 and 9.

# Mikk

In response to the questions you posed to me I respond as follows:

1. War is never pleasant and human suffering is not confined to those Arabs who became refugees of the 1948 War.

However unlike any other refugee problem worldwide the United Nations created a special body - UNWRA - to look after the welfare of those Arab refugees.

UNWRA pursued a policy over the last 62 years of keeping them in refugee camps rather than resettling them in other countries - as we well know is happening at this very moment with the refugees from the Sri Lanka, Afghan and Iraq wars.

This has bred hatred and extemism and false hopes of return and made resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict more difficult than ever.

2.The Mandate was promulgated to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine - which under the Mandate comprised today's Jordan,Israel,the West Bank and Gaza. Palestine eventually was divided into two states - Transjordan (now Jordan) in 1946 and Israel in 1948.

The West Bank and Gaza remain the only areas of the Mandate in which sovereignty remains unallocated between the Jews and Arabs.

3. The Mandate never said Jerusalem could not form part of the Jewish National Home or that it had to be shared. Nevertheless offers by Israel to share Jerusalem in 2000/2001 and 2008 as part of a peace treaty have been rejected by the Arabs. In the 19 years Jordan occupied East Jerusalem between 1948-1967 no attempt was made to declare it the Arab capital of Palestine.

4. No Jewish settlements have been established beyond the Jordan River - only in the 22% of Palestine provided in the Mandate.

5. Your question is totally irrelevant to the subject matter of my article.

I am glad however to see you are an advocate for the rule of law so I hope you are slowly coming to accept that the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter is international law and forms the legal basis for the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine.

Singer wrote:

"I do not agree with your claim that the Muslim 23% of humanity will never accept a negotiated settlement."

LOL, David, how many Muslims have you ever hung out with? I don’t mean "show Muslims" at carefully scripted events. I mean chat with Muslims who do not know you're Jewish.

I've hung about with dozens. Not ONE has ever been willing to accept the existence of Israel.

But it goes beyond that. Do you have any idea of the depth of Jew hatred that pervades the Ummah? The kids' comic books in from Pakistan that depict Jews as slimy subhuman monsters? The TV preachers who repeat over and over the ahadith about stones and trees telling Muslims to kill Jews who are hiding behind them. The endless repetitions of koranic verses in which "Allah" curses the Jews?

Hatred of Jews is as much part of the culture of the Ummah as it was part of the culture of Nazi Germany. Perhaps more so. Anyone who thinks otherwise either does not understand the facts or is in denial.

You wrote:

'As I pointed out to you in a previous post:

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

And as I point out to YOU in a previous post it is preposterous to believe that such deep seated hatred for Jews can fail to influence Muslim governments – especially since many of them, including those that, like Egypt, have signed a peace treaty with Israel, are fanning the flames.

Get real Mr. Singer, the only reason Israel's neighbours are at peace with Israel right now is because they figure they'll lose a war. Either Israel will defeat them with conventional weapons or it will nuke them.

In fact if Seymour Hersh is to be believed Egypt was within minutes of getting nuked in 1973. They were saved when the US agreed to resupply Israel.

See:

http://www.amazon.com/Samson-Option-Israels-Nuclear-American/dp/0679743316/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267272992&sr=1-8

No wonder Sadat made his trip to Jerusalem. He did not want Cairo vaporised and the Americans did not want Abqaiq turned into radioactive waste.

Lets start at the beginning shall we David.

You stated in your last post that "War is never pleasant and human suffering is not confined to those Arabs who became refugees of the 1948 War"
So you are saying that in 1948 the Jews waged war on the inhabitants of the land West of the Jordan river and then when they left their homes and land the Jews took over and created Israel.
What did the Arabs of 1948 ever do to the Jews?
Why did the Jews attack them?
Do you think people who wage unprovoked war on another people should be rewarded and allowed to keep anything they gain by such actions? Should countries have to pay reparations when they mistreat and dispossess another country or group of people?

There must be some sort of misunderstanding here.
Twice you have stated that the mandate encompassed all of what is now Israel, the occupied territories and Jordan and that the British gave 22% of that to the Jews (implying all the land West of the Jordan) and the rest to the Arabs.
Yet you agreed with me when I said that the English divided it into Transjordan and Palestine and gave the Jews 22% of the land West of the Jordan. Please explain why you keep saying things like "Palestine eventually was divided into two states - Transjordan (now Jordan) in 1946 and Israel in 1948." This is wrong isnt it? The mandate was divided into two states alright Transjordan EAST of the Jordan river and PALESTINE West of the Jordan river, of which Israel was to be given 22%. Let me restate to make sure you understand. 22% of the land WEST of the Jordan river. Do you agree with this or not? You cant agree with both positions.

mikk,

You have fallen into David's trap. Do you think you will ever get agreement on the 'facts'? David is not an intellectual trying to ascertain the 'truth'. He is a very sophicated, partisan political advocate trying to advance his own interests by manipulating public discourse. He, and other Jews, use the 'existential threat' hysteria as an excuse to use all means possible in their cause. Lying, disinformation, obfuscation and dissemblance are all seen as legitimate to 'defend Isarael'. Heck, they are even prepared to forge the passports of their friends in order to carry out assassinations abroad. Do you really think you are going to get something reasonable out of this man?
Good luck.

#stevenlmeyer

You still fail to address the following which I now repeat for a third time:

"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 certainly high."

Whilst 27 members of the OIC maintain diplomatic relations with Israel - how can you say that the Muslim 23% of humanity will never accept a negotiated settlement?

Should Israel just give up trying and see those 27 countries end their diplomatic ties or should Israel be striving to achieve a resolution other than the failed two-state option?

#Mikk

Are you really unaware of the fact that that on 14 May 1948 the armies of Egypt,Syria,Transjordan,Saudi Arabia,Lebanon and Iraq invaded the newly declared state of Israel in an effort to sweep the Israelis into the sea.

On May 15 the Secretary General of the Arab League said:

" This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades"

Who was waging war on whom? Wars like this create refugees and if the Arab armies had won, Jews would have become the refugees.

I agree there should be an international Claims Commission set up to compensate claims made by both Arab refugees and Jewish refugees who fled from Arab lands as a result of the war and its aftermath.

Now regarding what you call a "misunderstanding"

I said I agreed with your following statement and nothing more:

"The British agreed to 22% of the Land WEST of the Jordan river to be given to the Jews the rest was for the PALESTINIANS."

The land west of the Jordan River comprised 22% of the total area of the Mandate. The land east of the Jordan River comprised 78% of the total area of the Mandate.

Your statement was therefore acceptable to me as a basis for discussion.

Please point out where you say I agreed with you when you said:

.."that the English divided it into Transjordan and Palestine and gave the Jews 22% of the land West of the Jordan.

My statement:

"Palestine eventually was divided into two states - Transjordan (now Jordan) in 1946 and Israel in 1948."

is 100% correct.

If you are now trying to say that Israel was to be given 22% of the land area west of the Jordan River you are totally wrong. On what information do you rely for this assertion? It is completely and utterly false

David Singer

And as I've said for the umpteenth time, most Muslims do not agree with what their governments do when it comes to Israel.

Case in Point:

One of the OIC countries that has relations with Israel is Egypt. The Jew hatred of the populace is tempered only by the need to protect Egypt's profitable tourist industry. Even so, Egypt's tightly censored media seem to be trying to compete with the Third Reich when it comes to Jew hatred. Have you forgotten eg "A Knight Without a Horse" – a "documdrama" based on the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?

You call me a defeatist. I call myself a realist.

What I am about to write will strike many as harsh. Nonetheless I believe it is the only realistic way of assessing the situation.

There is only ONE lesson worth learning from the Holocaust:

When people demonise Jews, when they compare us to apes and pigs, to slimy subhuman beings, to viruses and cancers, then assume that eventually they are going to try and massacre us.

That is the ONLY lesson worth remembering. If we ever forget it six million Jews will have died in vain no matter how many memorials we erect.

The Holocaust did not "just happen". For centuries Europe was drenched in anti-Semitic propaganda. See for example "Saint" Chrysostom's Homilies against the Jews.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html

The kind of material about Jews that pervades the Ummah today makes Chrysostom look like a pacifist! I can only compare it to Der Sturmer.

David,

I do not know whether war can be averted or whether Israel can survive. But this I do know. You do not save a nation by indulging in fantasy - which is what you are doing. Successful survival strategies need to be grounded in reality. Unfortunately reality included the unremitting and ferocious hatred emanating from the Ummah which poisons everything.

It is what it is.

My usual disclaimer. I am NOT debating rights and wrongs or "legalities", merely describing the situation as I see it

You asked
7.Jews have legal claims in the West Bank and Gaza pursuant to the Mandate and Article 80. Do you agree with this?
I replied
7.No bloody way. Israel has claim to no more than 22% of the land West of the Jordan river. Do you agree with this?
You replied
7. I agree 100% with what you say. I have never suggested anything else.
Seems pretty clear to me where you agreed.

You quote the Secretary General of the Arab League
How about I quote Ben Gurion
"after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand into the whole of Palestine"
Or what about Menachem Begin
"The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever.

The arab nations only invaded because of Israels (illegal) declaration of ownership of what did not belong to them. I should have been clearer in stating that I was talking about Arabs that lived in what is now Telaviv, Ahskelon, Haifa and Natanya et al not the ones that invaded? What did those people do to the Jews and how do you justify stealing their properties after they left? No matter why they left the fact remains Israel stole their property. Their homes and businesses, their towns and infrastructure. Please explain how this is just? This was happening months before Israels declaration or the end of the mandate. The fact is from November 1947 to May 1948 the Zionists were already on the offensive and had already attacked Arabs. In the months before Israel was declared, the Zionists had driven 300,000 non-Jews off their land.

You are squirming like a worm on a hook over the distribution of land to the Jews and Palestinians after the British left arent you. You say Israel was given all the land between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan river. That is not what UN General Assembly Resolution 181 says is it. Indeed nowhere in any document I have seen does it say anything like that. Please point one out if you can.
Israel is only entitled to the land within the green line and even that only if you accept that land captured in war can be kept. If so why does not America now "own" Iraq? Or Afghanistan or why the allies did not "own" Germany or Japan after the second world war?

The crux of the matter is I see Israel as a dishonest, expansionist, colonial state willing to do anything, including genocide, murder and ethnic cleansing to get back "eretz israel" and the Palestinians have every right to fight this with whatever means they have available. Since Israel is much more powerful than the Palestinians and they have very few willing to stand up on their behalf terrorism and guerrilla warfare is all they have

# Mikk

Let me repeat once again:

1. Israel now comprises 17% of Mandate Palestine.
2. Jordan now comprises 78% of Mandate Palestine
3. The West Bank and Gaza now comprise 5% of Mandate Palestine.

Of the land comprised in the Mandate of Palestine WEST OF THE JORDAN RIVER
1. Israel is 78%
2. The West Bank and Gaza is 22%

The Mandate and Article 80 entitles the Jews to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in all of the land west of the Jordan River or such lesser part of that land as the Jewish people determine.

You seem to not want to see a solution to the conflict . The two-state solution is dead. The only possible solution now is the division of sovereignty of the West Bank between Jordan and Israel. Gaza is a hell hole that at the moment must be put in the "too hard basket" whilst it remains under Hamas rule.

Mandate this mandate that. Cut the BS singer and answer me how you justify the theft of arab homes, businesses and land after the 1948 conflict? If someone is driven from or leaves their home why can jews just come along and say it is mine now? This is the basic injustice Israel perpetrated and is the root of all arab grievances.

<<The Mandate and Article 80 entitles the Jews to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in all of the land west of the Jordan River or such lesser part of that land as the Jewish people determine.>>

What utter lies singer. No one has ever recognised Israels right to this much land and if they did it would be in a one state situation and we know what that means dont we. The two state solution is only dead if Israel kills it and the only alternative is to make the current residents of the West bank and Gaza Israeli citizens. With full political and social rights.

#Mikk

Your proposal cannot be achieved. Too much hatred between Jews and Arabs in the West Bank built up over the last 40 years makes your proposal unachievable.

The only proposal that has any chance of succeeding is that the heavily populated Arab areas of the West Bank be incorporated in an expanded Jordan and the heavily populated Jewish areas of the West Bank be incorporated in an expanded Israel.

The solution for Gaza will ultimately have to involve Gaza becoming part of Egypt or Jordan if and when Hamas cease to control Gaza. If Jordan is the Arabs' choice, Israel's consent will be necessary since it would involve some connecting tunnel or route through Israel to the West Bank to be provided.

Those appear to be the peaceful options available in my opinion.