Mr Singer,
Can you tell us why isn't solution to this problem starting with Israel moving back within the borders set in 1947?

#Kenny

1. The 1947 UN borders were never agreed to by the Arabs and were violated by six Arab armies in their bid to destroy the newly declared State of Israel on 15 May 1948. Israel will therefore never withdraw to these "Auschwitz lines". Would you?

2. The armistice lines set at the end of the 1948 hostilities - which extended beyond the 1947 borders - were never accepted by the Arabs as final borders which resulted in the Six Day War in 1967.

3. Resolution 242 does not require Israel to withdraw to the 1948 armistice lines and recognizes the right for Israel to have secure and recognized boundaries. 17 years of negotiations since 1993 have failed to achieve any breakthrough in determining those boundaries. Until there is a breakthrough Israel will be staying where it is. The history of the conflict makes this decision perfectly justifiable - especially in the light of what happened after Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005..

What the Arabs demand now was available to them at any time between 1948-1967 when not one Jew lived in the area (West Bank and Gaza)- yet they were quite satisfied to become Jordanian citizens and unite the West Bank with Transjordan into one State.

Perhaps it is time for you to ask the Arab states why the result of the missed opportunities over the last 63 years should not be compensated for by those Arab States - particularly Jordan.

Jordan could end the conflict by once again re-entering the West Bank and uniting the Arab populated areas on both sides of the Jordan River - without one Arab having to leave his home or business.

Drawing a new boundary between Israel and Jordan would transform the lives of the West Bank Arab population and allow the resettlement of the 1948 refugees and their descendants living in Syria and Lebanon.

There would be no state between Jordan and Israel - but then the Arabs rejected that notion in 1937, 1947 and 1948-1967. Maybe they have to just accept the consequences of their past rejection in 2010.

Greater Israel,what greater Israel Mr Singer Palestine was there before Israel lesser or Greater,most of this rubbish comes from the Bible a book written by a bunch of people who made it up as they went along.
But I see your backing the Murderous Settlers now,but then since you back the theft of land the concentration camp that the Palestinians a forced to live in where the IDF and the Settlers kill a few 1000 every now and then to keep them in line.
How the hell you have the hide to come on here and push the Settler and Israeli Government propaganda, when you know your telling porkies and that Israel is turning into the equivalent of Iran in Western eyes over its unjust and indecent occupation,you lot learned very well of the Germans about brutality and glossing over of what they/ your Govt does /did.
You really should find another record to play your getting boring and tiresome

David,
I give you that you are persistent, even if your assumption are some what historically ...well shall we say biased....and the implicit assumptions are conveniently legalistic and devoid of reality.

In short your argument is as irrelevant to day on the ground as Israel's claim to the land.i.e. Our god promised it to us.

*Israel is a reality, so is the Palestinian claim to the land and people*. you want to split with Jordan. To legitimise a hypercritical, morally moribund, colonial hegemony, unreasonably disproportionate displays of violence and bullying. While showing the internal moral/political ineptitude of Israel. Hiding behind the skirts of the USA international protection.

How short/selective is Israel's collective Memory? It is now imposing similar repression and you are expressing the same arguments that were level against the Jews in their Diaspora.

Israeli didn't exist the Jews were just another separatist religious cultural grouping, who aspired for a religious home land. I ask you give the real history, why is Israel now denying the Palestinian the same human right it claimed for it's self?

The realities on the ground are far more complex that your chauvinistic mental meanderings. Don't give up your day job.
A wannabe plunderer is the same by any excuse.
Take you war somewhere else.
Undoubtedly you will see me as anti Semitic (more pathetic denial)...I respect *both sides* right to exist and am not impressed or swayed by your puerile justification.

Here is a link to a transcript of the Abdullah's interview with WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304017404575165993793337612.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

I leave it it readers to decide whether Abdullah's actual words support the case Singer is trying to make.

Steven,

I was aware of that interview and of course Jordan wants the land back.
BUT Jordanians don't want the the people. The prejudices are palpable (so I'm told). And yes there are issues of support for Various groups and national pride etc.

There has been too much water under the bridge.
One needs to look at what is there today

WHAT DO THE PALESTINIANS WANT? All the they don't have a separate language etc as is nonsense likewise that they didn't try to be seen as 'Palestinians' prior to 1949.

As I have said to David both here and prior to this article, his view highly selective and is seen through Jewish eyes for Jewish ends.
The point of my florid language was to make that point, as it is seen by others, other than avid supporters of Israel and its "law unto it's self" mentality.

The best thing that can be said for Singers argument is that it is irrelevant and simplistic.He is trying to create the most favourable situation for Israel both territorially and morally. Sorry, it doesn't wash. In truth the situation is complex and the Palestinians are a pawn/ victims on several counts. To deny them a state after all this is to tell them they have suffered for nothing.

NB I bear neither side any particular angst save the fact that it isn't Australia's war and I resent ANY side in ANY war trying to manipulate us to "their side".

#John Ryan

When I use the terms Greater Israel and Greater Jordan I mean the states of Israel and Jordan after sovereignty in the West Bank has been divided between them and the new international boundary is drawn between Jordan and Israel.

You froth at the mouth but offer no alternative solution to freeing the Arab population of the West Bank from Israeli control by allowing them to once again become Jordanian citizens as existed between 1948-1967.

Put up or shut up. Your rant does nothing to end the conflict.

#Examinator

Israel's claim to the land is based on the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter. It is a legal claim. It is supported by eminent jurists. It is not an irrelevant argument.

You are entitled to believe in the law of the jungle. I don't happen to agree.

Just 0.001% of the disbanded Ottoman Empire was set aside for Jewish self-determination. The rest - (99.999%)- was set aside for Arab self-determination. This carve up has proved too much for the Arabs (and apparently you) to still accept.

Nevertheless - Israel has tried for 17 years to create a new Arab state between Israel and Jordan in 90% or more of the West Bank and Gaza but these offers in 2000 and 2008 have been rejected. Israel is not going to commit political suicide and return to the territorial lines existing in 1967. Resolution 242 makes that clear. Again I suppose you will ignore that bit of international law too - as have the Arabs.

The two state option has failed. Jordan's re-entry to the West Bank remains the only solution in my opinion to free the West Bank Arabs from Israeli control

#stevenlmeyer

Rather than leave it to readers to decide whether Abdullah's actual words support my case - why don't you have the courage of your convictions and tell us precisely where you believe I may have got it wrong?

Why make that sly innuendo? It does you no credit. I thought you were better than descending to that level.

Abdullah in the article is wringing his hands and talking of war. Hasn't he got an obligation to try and stop it - not by telling Israel or Obama what they should do - rather by himself doing what he can do.

Picking up the phone and saying to Netanyahu - "let's sit down and see if we can come to some agreement where you free the Arab population of the West Bank from your control to mine which hopefully will avert another war" - does not seem that difficult for Abdullah to do.

Nothing else is happening - other than recrimination and counter recrimination. Abdullah is the circuit breaker.

# Examinator

I am not trying to manipulate anyone. If I did you (and some of your fellow responders) would be living proof of my total inability to succeed. Frankly I would not waste my time trying to do so.

I am trying in a calm and dispassionate manner to present to readers the facts and the legalities relating to the conflict (which no one seems to dispute apart from generalised attacks on myself) and to present an alternative to the failed two state option that has well and truly passed its use by date.

The current status quo is indeed undesirable.

If you and other respondents were to put forward alternative concrete and well argued proposals to change that status quo - instead of writing the trivial and pathetic posts you do - maybe steps to changing that status quo could emerge.

In the absence of any alternative solutions you may propose - I still happen to believe that the status quo is only capable of being changed if Jordan and Israel divide sovereignty of the West Bank between them.

The problem is Dave there never was a state of Israel

#John Ryan

You again make a general claim without any evidence to support it.

Try reading some history over the Anzac weekend.

Perhaps you can start with:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Kings.html

David,
Thank you for your explanation but rhetoric aside I am no naive enough to believe the basis of this conflict is the non application of 1947 ruling?
The problem began a *long* time before that and subsequent history would attest to the reality that your proposed solution is irrelevant.

Who is right and wrong is no longer the issue. The issue today is more about equity (justice) for the PALESTINIANS. Israel has got it's nation such as it is now it's time for the Palestinians to get a viable nation.
IMO The UN would solve a lot of issues by being brought in to move the Jewish settlement back behind a line that enables the viability of Palestine and enforce the proxy war to cease.

However, I am also not naive enough to believe that this can happen with out *massive* effort by *all* parties involved.
As it stands today there isn't enough motivation to make the commitment by *any* of the players. In the mean time the Palestinians are the meat in the sandwich.

It is not a mystery nor should it be why the Palestinians are emotionally swayed by the Arabic protagonists. The British, French, USA culpability and the Zionist myopic opportunism are all palpable and *in hind site* contemptible.

From the point of a resolution to the issue your groups contribution serve one purpose that of Israel's hegemony. Either way it has no real point in Australia other than adding to the background noise intending to favour Israel's interests. Again, no sale

Yes of course Dave I can make things up as well,the earth is, what is it 5897 yrs old, the Bible which is what you and your settler mates are basing your claims on is a folk tale, funny how no one can find any trace of anything that went on in it,just ifs buts and maybes.
Your an apologist for the Israeli Govt and the Settler movement,you have been pushing this BS on here for a long while,your main allies are the Mad US religious right who make very nice TV docos about JC and the old Testament complete with ham acting,Their main concern is Israel stays so Armageddon can take place on a constantly moving date.
You should get a job as a propaganda writer for the Israeli Govt,O hang on you do that already

#Examinator

The basis of the current conflict is not solely the result of the Arabs' refusal to accept the 1947 UN Resolution, It is only one of several opportunities that have gone begging to solve the conflict because of Arab rejectionism and inaction which include:

1. Failure to accept the Peel Commission findings in 1937
2. Failure to accept the UN Resolution in 1947
3. Failure to create a new State in the West Bank and Gaza between 1948-1967 after driving out all the Jews living there
4. Refusal to negotiate with Israel between 1967-1993
5. Refusal to accept offers made by Israel in 2000 and 2008.
6. Failure to accept the existence of Israel as the state of the Jewish people

The only solution I see as having any chance of success is the division of the West Bank and Gaza between Israel,Egypt and Jordan in direct face to face negotiations. Why you suggest that this solution is "irrelevant" is mystifying considering it worked between 1948-1967 and the sky did not fall in. I am suggesting it be revisited once again.

Face up to the fact that the creation of a new Arab State between Israel,Egypt and Jordan is dead in the water. 17 years of trying to create such a State have proved fruitless. The last 6 years spent by the most influential negotiating body ever assembled - the Quartet - has failed to achieve a breakthrough.

How many more years of conflict, trauma and suffering on both sides is to occur before the two-state solution is consigned to the garbage tin?

These are the cold hard facts that you just will not see.

#John Ryan

Your fixation on who I am or should be has nothing to do with the message I am trying to get through as articulated once again in my above reply to Examinator.

Do you wish me to give you a whole lot of archeological findings that substantiate much of what appears in the Bible? Access "bible+archeological evidence" on Google yourself.

You offer nothing positive or constructive in voicing your diatribes.

Yes Dave a bit like you playing your propagandist games