#Yuyutsu

Please explain why going back as far as is now possible to the territorial position that existed at June 1967 can be a BAD idea.

When I spoke of a "marriage in hell" I was referring to the partnership between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). If - as you state - the West Bank itself is a hell and the Arabs have no life there - ( which I did not state)- then the Arab population should get rid of its political masters - the PA. It rules over the daily lives of 96% of the West Bank Arab population.

There is a problem of freedom of movement and association. Hopefully this can be eased as the security control of the PA is extended when circumstances justify such a relaxation.

Jordan probably would resist wanting to negotiate with Israel. There are plenty of ways to twist Jordan's arm - just as has happened to Israel when it has wanted to say "no".

500000 Jews cannot be transferred - just as it would be obscene to call for 500000 Arabs to be transferred. No one - Jew or Arab - would have to leave his home under my proposal.

The locals were "Jordanians" until 1988. Is it so bad that they again return to the Jordanian fold?

When not one Jew lived in the West Bank between 1948-1967 was there the idyllic peace you predict will now occur if the West Bank was cleared of Jews? Security Council Resolution 242 recognized the need for secure and recognized borders. The 1949 armistice lines were inadequate and still are. Only negotiations can determine those borders.

Article 6 is still operative in 2010. The objectives of the Mandate still remain to be finally determined in the West Bank and Gaza.The Mandatory resigned his job in 1947. It was "the Administration of Palestine" (now Israel) that was given the authority to encourage Jews to "close settlement" in the West Bank and Gaza "on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."

You know what my answer to this is already David.

Israel must withdraw from all lands conquered since 1948. And be grateful they got that much.
Renounce the zionist enterprise of death, dispossession and genocide.
Join the NPT or destroy their WMDs.
Recognise the Palestinians right to a state in what is left of their homelands. Free from Israeli military control.
Stop the illegal and immoral siege of Gaza.
Share Jerusalem!

That you cannot possibly countenance such simple, fair and just solutions shows your real loyalties and hopes lie with the expansionist, colonial, zionist cause rather than any real, genuine efforts for peace.

shalom

David,

Jordan always treated the "locals" as 2nd-class citizens. Quite reasonably they don't want this time-bomb again. If Palestinians ever become Jordanian again, they will most likely uprise and turn the whole of Jordan into an Islamic Hamas state. I remind you that Jordan is now Israel's friend: it is not proper to attempt twisting your friend's arm, nor to dump your garbage at your neighbour's yard.

I don't predict an "idyllic peace" (as in 1967-1975 before the settlers came), just a very gradual improvement, as much damage was done by the settlers, so it will take time to heal. Meanwhile, of-course, Israel will need to take the necessary military steps to maintain its security.

I just can't understand this obsession with negotiations, though the 1949 lines are already the result of the negotiations in Rhodes between Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. These lines are internationally recognized as Israel's borders (and were accepted by Israel itself until 1967 - was it not the Israeli government that erected the signs, "Halt, border ahead"?).

Israel should thank the world for accepting its 1949 borders, way beyond any of the League of Nations intents, rather than become greedy for more. Aren't you ashamed to apply selected bits and pieces from an expired 1922 document, aimed at helping Jewish refugees, to the 21st century where Jews have a state and are no longer refugees?

Why should it prove impossible to transfer 500000 Jews? are they so heavy? It's just a matter of money! Half of those 500,000 settlers are eager to leave anyway, just waiting for the cheque, while the other half represents a cancerous Messianic cult that needs to be uprooted once and for all. They aren't innocent, they came for political reasons and knew in advance what they are entering into. If money can be found to salvage Greece, then money can also be found to re-settle them, partly from selling their houses/apartments to the locals. I agree that Israel cannot do it on its own and will require all the help it can get from the rest of the world.

Mikk, I am afraid I can only partially agree with you.

What you describe is a nice ideal situtation, which hopefully could be achieved in 100 years, but as a proposal it lacks insight into the practical details and does not explain how to get there without forfeiting the lives or ordinary Israelis, people like you and me that happened to be born there.

While many on the Israeli side are not innocent, Palestinians are not innocent either, not to mention the Iranians, so as it stands, if Israel was to unilaterally follow the "simple" steps that you describe, soon after all its population would be slain.

The siege on Gaza will stop as soon as the Gazans release the kidnapped French-Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, 19-years-old at the time, now 23, but they insist on Israel releasing mass-murderers in exchange, who killed women and children in cold blood, which Israel cannot accept.

Are you perhaps able to refine your proposal, indicating finer steps and a realistic time-table?

"soon after all its population would be slain"

By who? Hamas and their firecrackers? The stone throwing youths? Hezbollah? Hardly a match for Israel and its Apaches and F16s and illegal weapons of mass destruction. Iran? Would they really commit suicide to be rid of Israel? Any attack from Iran would be met with Armageddon by the Israelis. Even imadinnerjacket is not that stupid.

If Israel was to follow my prescription the Arabs would not have a leg to stand on when it comes to violent actions against Israel. The international community could rightly intervene with sanctions or stronger if the Arabs continued to attack Israel. I would even allow for a no mans land between the countries if the Arabs continued their belligerence. But by no mans land I mean NO MANS land, not land to be filled with Israeli settlers.

Currently it is Israel who is in the wrong. Stealing land, dispossession and ethnic cleansing. All international crimes against humanity.

The siege of Gaza is another international crime. The whole population of Gaza CANNOT be to blame for the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit. Do the children of Gaza deserve punishment for kidnapping him? Collective punishment of whole communities is (rightly) considered a war crime and Israel must be held to account for its policies which are without doubt criminal and in line with the worst of the pogroms aimed at jews in the past.

Mikk,

I like your idea of a NO MANS land, but I'm afraid that the Arabs involved would not, especially those who would be evacuated from their homes as a result, then scream "War Crime, War Crime". Then, suppose they sneak back into the forbidden area, would you just shoot them, children and all?

To be born as a Gazan child is to be damned in the first place, the Israeli siege being way down the list of woes they endure. Those kids are intentionally brought to the world as ammunition to begin with, as Hamas unashamedly announced the womb as their weapon of choice, producing the highest rate of babies into the densest area in the world, with no employment prospects in sight, then they train those children with guns and explosives at the age of 5. At least they get food and water in this deluxe siege (and many other goods through the tunnels), compared with the 1948 Arab siege of (western) Jerusalem that attampted to kill all Jewish children by thirst.

Comparing with pogroms, I am not aware of any hostages kidnapped by Jews in Europe. I wonder whether you held the same views and were so concerned about "war crimes" had Gilad Shalit been your own child.

I believe that you overestimate Israel's strength, or rather mix up power with strength. Weapons are not enough to win a war - you also need infrastructure, and due to its tiny size, all of Israel's infrastructure is within easy reach of Arab/Iranian missiles, that can paralize the country and render all weapons useless - except nuclear. Also, Apaches and F16s are useless against kidnapping and sabotage from underground tunnels dug into Israel's area. You have just contradicted yourself in claiming that Israel's superior WMDs can save them: didn't your perscription include a clause that Israel must rid itself of them?

As for Iran: Ahmadinejad belongs to a sect which believes that the "hidden-Imam" is about to re-appear very soon, raising along the faithful dead, so evaporating Iran is not a big deal for him.