# 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