David Singer wrote: “This unity of the Arab people living on both sides of the Jordan River needed to now be revived in Amayreh's view to prevent what he believed was to be the wholesale expulsion of the West Bank Arab population as well as the Israeli Arab population.”

There need be no expulsion of the West Bank and Israeli Arabs. There is a way to end the long conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Jews. Recognise their connection!

Get rid of the barriers that keep related peoples apart.

From Alla Katsnelson. Jews worldwide share genetic ties: But analysis also reveals close links to Palestinians and Italians." Nature.com (June 3, 2010)

"Different communities of Jews around the world share more than just religious or cultural practices -- they also have strong genetic commonalities, according to the largest genetic analysis of Jewish people to date. But the study also found strong genetic ties to non-Jewish groups, with the closest genetic neighbours on the European side being Italians, and on the Middle Eastern side the Druze, Bedouin and Palestinians.”

Give up the idea of a Jewish or a Palestinian state and work together to create a state which does not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity or religion.

Have one state with public schools which integrate all students regardless of ethnicity or religion. If parents want to send their children to other schools they or their religious organization must pay the cost - not the taxpayers. That is a good idea for Australia, too.

Have civil marriage. As it is now marriages must be approved by either Muslim, Jewish or Christian clergy. Let all marry who they will.

Go to school together. Work together. Live together. There is already too much separation. It is stupid to postulate more separation as a solution.

Tear down the walls. Create a new and vibrant nation by reuniting two related peoples!

I entirely agree. Jordan has actually taken the bulk of the land granted the Palestinian People under the UN Plan. Egypt took the Gaza Strip off the Palestinians then too. Israel removed Egypt from Gaza & Jordan from the West Bank in 1967.

The Difficulty for the author is that the current Kings (King Abdullah II: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_II_of_Jordan), great-grandfather (Abdullah I:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_I_of_Jordan) was assassinated by a Palestinian, (his grandfather Talal abdicated due to health reasons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talal_of_Jordan) and his Father (King Hussein: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_of_Jordan) expelled (and killed) many Palestinians (which led to the formation of "Black September":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_%28group%29).

The level of distrust and hatred between the Palestinian Arabs and the Hashemite Bedu has not receded. How the fate of the two is kismet in a good way will take rather more explaining than was given in this article.

But back to the point, Israel has now handed back the vast majority of these lands (excluding some settlements and areas of defensive significance). Billions of dollars in aid have flowed into these areas.

During this period, with much less investment but with a great deal of hard work and fortitude (and a high degree of inventiveness - drip irrigation, t-tape, etc. are all Israeli designs), the Israeli's have converted the wasteland (as was described by the Palestinians) into a veritable oasis. They even mine the dead sea for minerals.

Meanwhile the Palestinians, giving life to the proverb you can give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach him how to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime, have achieved very little. Thus the only "real" source of income for those on the West Bank & Gaza is to work for Israeli employers (why they are 'forced' to endure the checkpoints, which wouldn't exist if they hadn't been abused).

The UN has been ineffectual in building for the future of the Palestinian people. The Jordanians have built quite a kingdom from even worse land, yet the Palestinians continue to blame everyone else for their lack of success. The aid is a constant because it is consumed directly, it does not build industry/farms for the future.

Sad as it is, they are stuck there by the fact that they chose to absent themselves from the Jewish controlled areas on the dates chosen by the UN (Check the original partition plan - if they absented themselves, they abandoned their property, so did the Jews who absented themselves), thus they abandoned their belongings/lands/etc. The reason they did so, was the call by the United Arab Armies to get out of the way, so they could destroy the fledgling State (in 1948). The Arab armies lost and these people lost out badly too.

Why has nothing been done? Why do those from the West Bank & Gaza continue to live in abject poverty? Is it because Israel & the World haven't given them enough assistance? Enough advice?

No. The simplest answer possible is that their fellow Arabs, and then their Leaders, have chosen to convince them not to allow themselves to settle into the areas granted them by the UN. The aim was to instill in them a hatred of Israel that will act as a constant slur upon that Country. It is not unique in this regard, the farmers in the Kashmir Valley live in very similar circumstances, and the same happens in Afghanistan, telling the people that they OWN that land (the spurious "right of return"), so they shouldn't improve the land they have.

How to improve their lot? Try and convince them that armed struggle is not going to get them what they want. I had high hopes that HAMAS, the party least involved in the corruption in the region and which built its name on humanitarian work, might be the answer. It still may, Menachem Begin was a terrorist (leader of the Irgun) and won a Nobel Peace Prize.

"Why do those from the West Bank & Gaza continue to live in abject poverty?" asks Custard.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that they've been under brutal occupation since 1967. That's 43 years, Custard, during which time the Palestinians been subjected to assassinations, checkpoints, house demolitions, sieges, attacks from tanks, helicopters, F-16s, warships, etc.

Their children have been shot in the head by Israeli snipers, their farms have been taken for new Israeli settlements, concrete walls have been built to divide them. They've been starved, had their taxes stolen, had their children imprisoned without charge, etc, to say nothing about the constant humiliation they've received from their cruel occupiers.

It's a shame that you and the other Israeli-apologists on OLO don't know (or don't want to know) what has been going on in the West Bank and Gaza otherwise you wouldn't ask such a silly question or continue to laud the racist, imperial rogue nation that is Israel.

http://www.dangerouscreation.com

DAvid G has nailed it....

"Brutal Occupation" yep..that's the unambiguous verdict of history... absolutely zero provocation or invasions by Arabs.. nope..not a one.

Onya David.. I'll expect to see you at Druids house next thursday right?

Oh..speaking of 'that' mob.. here is there though about how the future might work out.

"Why we need a revolution to get socialism"

//That is why socialists don’t see the struggles for reform and revolution as counterposed; there’s a dynamic relationship between the two.
Only a revolution by the mass of workers which mobilises their collective power can sweep aside the machinery of capitalism, and only the process of revolution has the potential to equip workers – by providing them with the experience, lessons and unity – to build socialism, a society for the liberation of all.//

So..David.. where do we sign up for our part in your glorious socialist revolution ? Then we can FIX that scummy Israel and alll those pesky JOOOS.

DAVID F has another brilliant solution. "forget all the barriers" :)

Onya David.. I'll expect the Nobel peace prize announcement for that totally workable suggestion by the end of the year.

Dear davidf,

Great post.

The only reason I now come to a David Singer piece is to do a quick search to see if yet again he has managed to write a thousand words on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict without once using the word Palestinian/s himself.

Yet again he has not disappointed as was the case in the last five of his offerings.

You can tell those intent on disappearing a people when they refuse even to use their name.

Dear csteele,

I agree completely with you. There are many variations on the theme of denying the existence of the Palestinians. That same sort of thing has been used on the Jews. Self-determination has been a shibboleth for some who would deny to the Jews because 'they are not a real people'. Mr. Singer either doesn't know, denies or obfuscates that.

Actually I would deny self-determination to anybody since I don't dig ethnic nationalism. Being a people does not require erecting the barrier of a political boundary. I prefer a multicultural society where we all live together.

However, denial of the peoplehood of the Palestinians - they don't have a history as a people - they are really south syrians - they only came into the area a couple of generations etc. ad nauseam - is a sickening exercise.

Sometimes I wish I didn't exist, but I do. So do they, and so do you.

Goodnight, friend.

# david f

You misread what Amayreh has written. He is postulating for less separation by calling for the Arab populations on both sides of the Jordan River to be reunited as existed between 1948-1967.

#Custard

The UN Plan did not grant anything to the Palestinian People. It recommended the Partition of Western Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. The Jews accepted the plan. The Arabs rejected it.

I believe you overestimate the level of hatred and distrust between the two segments of Jordan's population who have managed to live together in reasonable peace and harmony in a united state that has lasted for 64 years. Their fate has been inextricably woven together ever since present day Jordan was included in the Mandate for Palestine in 1920.

The difference between Hamas and Begin was that Begin was fighting for the establishment of the Jewish National Home sanctioned by the League of Nations in 1922 and endorsed by the UN in Article 80. In fighting the British army that was preventing this happening innocent civilians were unfortunately killed. Hamas is fighting to reverse the League of Nations and United Nations decision and is prepared to deliberately target civilians in order to achieve its aims.

I fear your faith in Hamas being the Palestinian Arabs' salvation is sorely misplaced.

#David G

The consequences - as you see them - would never have occurred had Jordan not joined the Six Day War and lost the West Bank. Jordan is part of the problem and will have to be part of the solution.

Transforming the lives of the West Bank Arab population as far as possible to that which existed prior to 1967 is indeed an urgent imperative. That is what Amayreh is saying - and I agree.

Do you?

#csteele

It is a pity you waste your time counting the words in my articles and to check out whether I use the term "Palestinian/s" - rather than commenting on the subject matter of my articles which surely would be more constructive.

Do you agree with Amayreh's view?

Dear David Singer,

I don't misread what Amaryeh has written. He is an antisemite who would like to unite all Arabs against the Jews. I would like to tear down the separation between Arabs and Jews.

To argue that Israeli Arabs have less connection with their fellow citizens than with Jordanian Arabs is possibly a self-fulfilling prophesy. That is what you seem to be arguing for.

I hope Israel/Palestine will become a genuine democratic state whichj makes no distinctions as to ethnicity and religion among its citizens.

I am sick of your trying to unite the Arabs by separating them from their Jewish cousins.

That is a unity that can destroy. Although you are not an antisemite you are playing into their bigotry.

Get rid of religious and educational exclusion. Let all the people of Israel merge to form a finer union.

You are selling your birthright for a pot of message.

Dear Mr Singer,

You said: “It is a pity you waste your time counting the words in my articles and to check out whether I use the term "Palestinian/s" - rather than commenting on the subject matter of my articles which surely would be more constructive.”

The wonders of Firefox enabled me to enter a search request on each of your pieces and if it showed pink then no Palestinians were to be found. I will confess to estimating your word count per article so the entire exercise took very little time at all. I believe the point made was a very salient one and while possibly not constructive it certainly was instructive. It bears repeating; around 6,000 words from you on the Palestinian/Israeli issue without mentioning the word Palestinian.

Even in replying to me you felt the need to place quotation marks around the word. Does it offend you so much?

I will not be commenting on your piece because I purposely have not read it. But I undertake to read and respond to the next one if you include the word Palestinian even just the once. Please note a quote from someone else does not count.

Dear Mr Singer,

The word should be Palestinians since to be fair you do use Palestinian when referring to the Palestinian Authority. That is an organisation rather than a people.

#csteele

I am sorry if you are offended by my non-use of the term "Palestinians".

Can I assume your careful monitoring of my articles has led you to find nothing else to disagree with?

Jumping to the conclusion that in failing to use that term I am one of "those intent on disappearing a people when they refuse even to use their name" is a load of nonsense.

I prefer to use the term "Palestinian Arabs" in my articles as another search by you on Firefox will no doubt establish. That term has a more clearly defined meaning in the PLO Covenant than the definition of "Palestinians" which I find confusing and ambiguous.

The use of loose language is too frequent in any discourse regarding the ongoing conflict between Jews and Arabs. I try to avoid that in my articles and warn against it whenever I can.

I hope that given the above explanation you might find the time to now read the article and comment on Amayreh's view that:

" … the Jordanian and Palestinian peoples are the two most homogeneous and closest Arab peoples, given their ethnic, cultural and religious commonality. We are actually one people, as Arab clans on both sides of the River Jordan have one common ancestry.

This indisputable fact should debunk all the myths about any proclaimed intrinsic distinctiveness, let alone contradictions, between Jordanians and Palestinians.

It should also demolish all parochial ideologies such as territorial nationalism, namely exaggerated Palestinian and Jordanian nationalisms, ideologies that grow out of fanatical tribalism which Islam condemns as acts of Jahilyya or ignorance."

You might also care to read my article
http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=3464
dealing with the use of the term "ethnic cleansing".

Language regrettably can be misused or abused or simply misinterpreted.

Perhaps it is the lawyer in me that causes me to be very wary of using words whose meaning is undefined,imprecise or unclear.

Dear Mr Singer,

You said; “I prefer to use the term "Palestinian Arabs" in my articles as another search by you on Firefox will no doubt establish.”

No you don't and no it doesn't.

I have searched the last six pieces and not one mention by you of Palestinian Arabs. I have even gone back and extra couple to give you the benefit of the doubt, still no Palestinian Arabs mentioned there either.

I am less offended than deeply suspicious of whatever you may write by your non use of the word Palestinians (please note it can be written without quotation marks) and now it would seem we can add Palestinian Arabs.

That deep suspicion has just been reinforced.

Perhaps it is my search methods so if you can show me a single use of either word by yourself in the last half dozen of your articles I will attempt to move on.

You wrote: "" … the Jordanian and Palestinian peoples are the two most homogeneous and closest Arab peoples, given their ethnic, cultural and religious commonality. We are actually one people, as Arab clans on both sides of the River Jordan have one common ancestry."

That may quite well be true. However, you neglect the powerful forces of nationalism and identity with a homeland. I know several Palestinian Arabs. They feel an identity with Palestine not Jordan. During their struggle with Israel they have developed a national feeling which those other Arabs who have not been involved in the struggle do not have.

That may be true for you and me also. I am a Jew of European descent. Probably you are also. I have lived most of my life in the US and now live in Australia. Although ethnically and religiously I am closer to Jews who live in Israel I feel very little connection with Israel. That is because I identify much more with my homeland, the United States. One reason we Jews have done well in the United States is because separation of religion and state has allowed us full citizenship. I belong to organisations which promote that separation as it is under threat. I do not support any foreign country which does not have that separation.

I appreciate both Australia and the United States as they have given people of various ethnic and religious backgrounds an opportunity to be free citizens in their country. I am somewhat disgusted with you. You are a Jew who has received an education to become a lawyer in a multicultural country. You don’t seem to appreciate your blessings but try to limit other people to a primitive ethnic nationalism. If Australia were a Christian country you would be a second class citizen. The same is true for me. Remember that!

I prefer an open society where people of any ethnicity and religion have equal opportunities. You have had those opportunities but promote ethnic nationalism for others. Shame on you. SHAME

#csteele

Perhaps if you search the following you will see that I do use the term "Palestinian Arabs" on many occasions.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22palestinian+arabs%22+%2B+david+singer&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

I suppose it would be too much to expect an apology from you and you obviously don't want to comment on any aspect of my article.

The best thing indeed is for you to move on.

David.F. I commend you for your latest comment and I will be interested to see how D.Singer responds to it, or if he does.

It's a shame there aren't more moderate Jews like you living in Israel. Then I guess, once Jews move there, they get caught up in the mob mentality or perhaps fear repercussions from more fanatical Jews who seem to run the show.

Currently, Israel is a sick nation. People like D.Singer don't help the situation.

#davidf

I did not write:

" … the Jordanian and Palestinian peoples are the two most homogeneous and closest Arab peoples, given their ethnic, cultural and religious commonality. We are actually one people, as Arab clans on both sides of the River Jordan have one common ancestry."

That was written by a Palestinian Arab journalist Khaled Amayreh.

In my opinion Amayreh's comments are very significant as the "two-state" solution favoured by all the world sinks further into the quicksand as attempts to bring it to fruition continue to go nowhere after 17 years of trying.

You can spruik your proposed solution - the "one state" solution as long as you like but it can never happen - except by an attempt to impose it by armed conflict.

Negotiations between Jordan and Israel in my view do have a chance of success and the sooner they are started the sooner the current unsatisfactory and dangerous status quo will be ended.

Who you think I am is entirely irrelevant. Personal attacks on me do nothing to advance the resolution of the conflict. It seems you are incapable of understanding this.

Rather why don't you spend your time more positively by expressing your views on the following written by Amayreh:

" Palestinians should welcome and encourage any Jordanian orientation to cancel or reconsider, even if gradually, the unwise Jordanian decision of 1989 to dismantle the administrative and legal ties with the West Bank. The Re-institution of these ties should strengthen the Palestinians’ ability to survive and thwart Zionist efforts to empty our homeland of its real people.

In the final analysis, the people of Jordan and the People of Palestine can’t and will not have separate fates. According to the Islamic prophecy, the liberation of Palestine from the hands of Zionist Jews, will come from the east, namely from Jordan.

Our fate, our kismet is that we are one people. We must not escape this ineluctable fate."

"Our fate, our kismet is that we are one people. We must not escape this ineluctable fate." Thus spoke David Singer.

I guess, David S., looking at what your crowd have been doing to the Palestinians since 1967 demonstrates that, Jews, as a people, have little to be proud of.

I mean Israeli Jews have excelled at collective punishment, genocide, land stealing, militarism, brutality, war crimes, humiliation of the Palestinians to say nothing of starving them, destroying their farms, separating them from each other, bombing them, using phosphorous shells on them, demolishing their homes, assassinating their leaders, taking their taxes...I could go on.

Given this record, I would hide my ethnicity but, of course, Jews have no shame, have they?

P.S. I have listed the atrocities that the Israelis engage in on several occasions but, thus far, you have ignored the points I've made. You may be one people but, judged by your actions, who needs or wants your people? The world would be better without them!

Dear David S.

I apologise for not making it clearer that you were quoting from an Arab antisemite. However, you quoted him because you accepted his argument that the Palestinian Arabs are one people with the Jordanian Arabs. He was pushing your barrow, and apparently you accept any sleazy character who pushes your barrow.

Yes, I attack you personally because you got your education and presumably are a respected citizen in a multicultural society which is trying to be pluralist and, yet, when it comes to the Middle East, you rely on the opinions of a racist antisemite because it suits your purposes.

Although I would like to see Jews and Arabs unite in a single state you are right. It is probably not possible. It is not possible because bigots like Amayreh and you do not want the peoples to come together. We agree that the status quo is dangerous.

I can only see a separate Palestinian state as setting the stage for another war. I can also see a union of the Palestinian Arabs with Jordan as setting the stage for another war, too. I think that is what Amayreh wants, and this time the Arabs might win. I think you know that the Arabs can afford to lose many wars, and Israel is a small country which can probably lose only one.

As far as I know Palestinian Arabs do not want to be considered Jordanians even though Amayreh and you would like them to be together. You want me to consider the words of Amayreh. You want me to push the barrow with two bigots?

You have made his opinion and yours quite clear. Some countries which make no distinction among their citizens as to their ethnicity or religion and some people of good will rise above ethnic ties to promote a common humanity. Neither Amayreh nor you is apparently capable of that.

#David G

I have previously identified you as a rabid Jew hater with whom any type of rational discussion is a waste of time.

You have now confirmed my view and have further exposed yourself as an intellectual cretin for the following reasons:

1.You write:

" "Our fate, our kismet is that we are one people. We must not escape this ineluctable fate." Thus spoke David Singer."

I did not say this. It was said by a Palestinian Arab journalist Khaled Amayreh. He was speaking about the Arabs that live on both sides of the Jordan River. It had nothing to do with the Jews. Amayreh was significantly pointing out that there is no difference between an Arab living in the West Bank and an Arab living in Jordan. They are one people.

Are you intellectually capable of acknowledging that you have made an error in attributing Amayreh's remarks to me? More importantly have you got the decency to apologise?

2. Your concluding comment -

"You may be one people but, judged by your actions, who needs or wants your people? The world would be better without them!"

- amounts to racial incitement and vilification,to a call for ethnic cleansing and provides further undeniable evidence of your rabid hatred of Jews.

I could have your remarks expunged by OLO but prefer to let them stand so that when people read your rants they will understand the irrational and unbelievable hatred that drives them. Regrettably you are not on your own. There are many more like you that I have similarly exposed on OLO and I will continue to do so when the need arises.

I confirm that I do not intend to waste my time replying to any of your future posts - except to the extent that you attempt to personally denigrate me or call for the extermination of the Jewish people or the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel.

#csteele

Have you developed writer's cramp? I am still waiting for an apology from you for alleging I have never used the term "Palestinian Arabs" in any of my articles. The clear innuendo that I am a liar is defamatory and should be withdrawn by you.

Kevin Rudd managed to summon up the courage to say "sorry." Is it that hard for you to do likewise?

Dear David S,

I agree that, from his posts, David G is a rabid Jew hater. I wish we could agree on more than that.

David S., yet again you ignore the list of Israeli atrocities and war crimes and collective punishment, etc, that I have provided, all of them provable. You never acknowledge them but continue to try to shoot the messenger who is trying to show what Israel is all about, namely me.

You also resort to insults and ridiculous accusations, such is your hate for anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow, racist position or that of the Jewish Israelis.

Your writing style is dictatorial, stilted, rambling and boring and is often open to misinterpretation. If you're quoting why don't you put important quotes in italics?

You again accuse me of hating Jews. That is not correct. I do however hate what they do especially to the Palestinians.

You accuse me of wanting Jews killed. Again that is not correct. I do however agree with Helen Thomas that the Jews should relocate to a place where they might be welcome.

As to you not answering my comments in future, I say good! I've wasted far too much time on you already.

Certainly, OLO seems to have more than its share of Israeli-apologists who seek to stop serious debate with nothing but duplicitous Jewish propaganda, red herrings, and childish personal attacks and insults.

Of course, Israelis, who regularly carry out brutal atrocities and war crimes, don't want the truth to be told and, as we all know, they control most of of the world's MSM and can filter the news to suit the Jewish agenda.

If the truth is being jammed on magazines like OLO then the world is kept in the dark about the evil of Israel. But not only their evil!

There is the real threat of them nuking Iran and setting off WW3.

#david f

Thank you for your apology.

We agree on far more than you think.

We agree that a one state solution or a two state solution is not possible without a war. There are too many powerful forces aligned against either such solution ever occurring by negotiations.

We agree the status quo is dangerous.

So what is left to try and end the status quo? Only the union of the Arabs of the West Bank and Jordan as I see it.

You believe this will not be enough to avoid another war. I on the other hand whilst not dismissing your view - believe it must be tried in an attempt to bring the current status quo to an end. I believe that the successful conclusion of any such negotiations by two States that already have a signed peace agreement will act as a stabilising force to resist any attempts to overturn that negotiated agreement by force.

We also agree that David G is a Jew hater. I think we would also agree that there are lots more Jew haters all over the world who harbour the same sentiments to get rid of me and you.

Dear David S.

I do not apologise for my comment that you should be ashamed of the fact that you got your education in a pluralistic society but put other people together by ethnicity.

You wrote:

We agree that a one state solution or a two state solution is not possible without a war.

We do not agree on that. I don't refer to either outcome as a solution as a solution is something that will end the conflict. I see almost no hope in two states but more hope in one state. Actually, as much as I appreciate what Israel has done I want it to be a democracy and do not think it can be a democracy and a Jewish state.

You wrote: "We agree the status quo is dangerous.

So what is left to try and end the status quo? Only the union of the Arabs of the West Bank and Jordan as I see it."

I see that as more dangerous. I think Amayreh wants it so the Arabs will be better united to destroy Israel. In that I think he is right.

David G and Amayreh are both Jew haters. Of the two Amayreh is far more dangerous. He wants Jordanian-Palestinian unity for his purposes, and I think such unity will serve his purposes.

Dear David S,

You would have the Palestinian Arabs unite with Jordanians on the basis of their shared culture, ethnicity and religion.

I think it is very wrong because I would want it done to me. The people I am probably most close to in culture, ethnicity and religion are the Jews of Israel. I do not want to be part of Israel regardless of how close our backgrounds. I would regard some entity who tried to make me part of Israel as a great oppressor.

Can you see the analogy?

#david f

I find your thinking very confusing.

1. You state:

"I appreciate what Israel has done I want it to be a democracy and do not think it can be a democracy and a Jewish state."

For me a democratic state is one in which there is freedom of expression, the rule of law prevails, each citizen has one vote and free and fair elections are held at regular intervals.

Why is Israel not a democratic state just because the majority of its citizens are Jews?

2. You further state:

"I think Amayreh wants it (unifying West Bank and East Bank Arabs in one state} so the Arabs will be better united to destroy Israel. In that I think he is right."

So why do you denigrate Amayreh as a racist anti-semite and a bigot if you agree with what he wants to achieve? Isn't he a hero in your eyes?

3. You also state:

"The people I am probably most close to in culture, ethnicity and religion are the Jews of Israel. I do not want to be part of Israel regardless of how close our backgrounds."

You can make that choice and still continue to lead your pleasant existence in Australia in an environment you apparently relish.

The Arabs of the West Bank are in a different situation. They may not want to reunify with the East Bank Arabs however close their backgrounds - but they do live next to each other, have familial ties extending across the Jordan River and all live within an hours drive of each other. If however it is the wish of the majority to not reunify then it will not happen. The current status quo will then be maintained and an opportunity to transform their miserable lives will be missed yet again - as occurred in 1937, 1947, 1948-1967 and since 1993.

The consequences of the West Bank Arabs not wanting to be part of Jordan - regardless of how close their backgrounds - have far greater ramifications to them personally than your choice to not become part of Israel.

Dear David S.,

Thank you for responding. You asked: “Why is Israel not a democratic state just because the majority of its citizens are Jews?”

Israel can be a democratic state with a majority of Jews. Israel has some features of democracy with an independent judiciary, a free press and a robust civil society. It cannot be a full democracy if it makes distinctions among its citizens on the basis of ethnicity or religion. It cannot be a democracy unless it has separation of religion and state. I apply the same criteria to Australia. There are two current law suits based on S. 116 of the Australia Constitution that claims the funding of religious schools and the National School Chaplaincy program violate S. 116. I support them both.

Not only does Israel make distinction between Jews and non-Jews, but it also makes distinctions among Jews. A Knesset committee determined that grossly unequal infrastructure funding has been applied to Jewish and non-Jewish villages. There is no civil marriage. Either Jewish, Christian or Muslim clergy must approve.

The Treaty of Tripoli treaty unanimously approved by the Senate, June 7, 1797, states the US is not a Christian nation.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...

Democracy has evolved. The Athenian democracy denied participation to women, slaves and foreigners. The US Constitution ratified in 1789 allowed foreigners to become citizens but denied the vote to women and slaves. Currently most democracies have universal adult suffrage, separation of religion and state and laws that do not make distinctions among its citizens on the basis of ethnicity or religion. Those are my criteria for democracy, and Israel does not fit those criteria.

Amayreh wants neither democracy nor Jews. I want both. I want equal rights for all.

Amayreh remains a racist antisemite who wants the destruction of Israel. I want the transformation of Israel/Palestine to a full democratic state. It is not politically feasible at this time, but that is the most reasonable way I see to peace and justice.

David S and Davidf, I don't want you boys fighting among yourselves. Remember that disunity is death.

Look what happened to the the Palestinians when Hamas was democratically elected as the Government. Fatah, the losers, with some help from Israel and America, refused to accept the will of the people and split the Palestinians. They are traitors.

Davidf, you seem to have some redeeming attitudes and qualities even though you are Jewish.

DavidS, sadly is a lost cause! He is drowning in hatred.

Hamas grew from the opposition to the blatant corruption of Fatah & the Palestinian Authority. Hamas, in its original form was more interested in providing assistance to those who were disenfranchised by the PA, than in fighting Israel.

The Palestinian Authority on the other hand, grew from using Israel as a rallying point in order to garner support and more importantly aid dollars.

They hate each other, probably more than they hate Israel. The chances of them uniting are effectively nil.

The "funny" thing is that Hamas is rapidly falling into the trap that enmeshed the PA, reliance upon foreign aid, while keeping power solely through armed resistance to Israel.

It is funny how that AID corrupts isn't it?

I'm still yet to see, whether in Gaza or the West Bank, any attempt made to bring employment to the majority of the people, whether through industry or even farming. The aid just gets consumed, never invested.

Short-term thinking will never solve this issue.

#david f

You state:

"Amayreh remains a racist antisemite who wants the destruction of Israel. I want the transformation of Israel/Palestine to a full democratic state. It is not politically feasible at this time, but that is the most reasonable way I see to peace and justice."

1. When do you think it will be politically feasible?

2. What should happen until it occurs?

3. Do you hold the same views in wanting to transform Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iran and Iraq into full democratic states?

Dear David S.

It will be politically feasible to have a single state with equal rights for when enough people are persuaded that it is in their interest.

Until then those of us who are for that goal will work for that goal.

I would like to see Saudi Arabia and other repressive states also be democracies with equal rights for every one.

There is one big difference between Israel and the other states you named. Israel has some of the attributes of democracy with a free press, an independent judiciary and a politically involved population so it doesn't have as far to go to become a full democracy.

#david f

Hamas and Amayreh certainly don't have your goals in mind. They want to replace the Jewish State with an Islamic State.

Jew haters like David G don't have your goals in mind. They want to rid the world of all Jews - including you. Getting rid of the Jewish State is a big step in that direction

You have embraced Hamas and Amayreh in wanting to see the end of the Jewish State - but not for their reasons.

David G has embraced you because your rejection of a Jewish state fits in with his evil intent.

Meantime you refuse to embrace Israel - and its people with whom you are most closely identified - until they decide whether they are prepared to embrace your views or not.

That is a real shame.

We will obviously get no further with this discussion. You have your opinion and I have mine. So shall it be.

Dear David,

Finally you have made it clear. You want me to be an ethnic nationalist and embrace Israel. I used to be a Zionist until I saw the contradictions between ethnic nationalism and democracy.

We Jews haved suffered for centuries because many parts of the world saw no place for Jews. Democracies like the United States and Australia accept Jews as full citizens as well as people of other ethnicities and religions.

In Israel Jews have constructed a state which is a Jewish state. A Jewish state logically has no place for non-Jews as full citizens similarly to the way other ethnic nationalist states had no place for Jews as full citizens.

I prefer to live in a country where all people of whatever nationality and religion have full citizenship. The US and Australia are such countries. Israel is not.

I support no foreign country that discriminates among its citizens whether that country is Israel or Saudi Arabia.

Dear David,

You wrote: "Jew haters like David G don't have your goals in mind. They want to rid the world of all Jews - including you. Getting rid of the Jewish State is a big step in that direction."

I disagree with the above statement. We Jews have survived for many centuries without a state. Now according to you and other a Jewish state has become necessary for our survival. I believe we have survived because we had a common heritage as a people and were not identified with any particular state.

Perhaps I can review a little Jewish history. Jews have been horribly oppressed in history but have survived unlike the pagan Norse and Gauls who were either Christianised or eliminated.

In the nineteenth century there were those who saw an end to Jewish oppression. Some saw it in Marxism which would end the oppression by uniting all peoples in a classless Utopia. That was false as what we saw of that Utopia meant the end of Jews as a people.

Herzl and others saw the solution as a Jewish state where Jews were free to be anything they liked. That has also turned out to be false as a Jewish state has become an ethnic nationalist state where Jews are the top dogs and discriminate both against Jews who don’t buy the establishment and non-Jews.

Some Jews migrated to countries such as Australia and the US which either started with or developed an ethos of pluralism which accepted all religion and ethnicities. Some Jews have absorbed that ethos of pluralism and freedom for all.

Judaism contains many lofty ideals such as regard for learning and striving for social justice. Albert Einstein, Moses Maimonides and others have exemplified these ideals. Jews who embrace these ideals are alienated from Israel because the ideals take second place to a narrow ethnic nationalism.

I think Israel is bad for the Jews. A dicey Jewish survival at the cost of what is finest in Judaism isn’t worth it

Davidf, I almost couldn't believe your last comment. You seem to agree with many of the things that I believe. You can see the idiocy of the direction Israel is going in. Congratulations.

Why can't there be more Jews like you and less Singers?

#davidf and David G

If my article did nothing else it has apparently brought you two together in an embrace of mutual admiration and common purpose - the destruction of the Jewish National home.

Enjoy your new relationship. You deserve each other.

Dear David Sionger,

That was a mean comment you made. I care very much about the Jewish people and our great traditions. The Jewish people is much more than the state of Israel. I am not going to sacrifice my Jewish ethic at the altar of a petty, jingoistic nationalism.

#davidf

The truth obviously hurts.

Not wishing to sacrifice your Jewish ethic (whatever that means) will - if taken to its ultimate conclusion - result in 6.5 million Jews losing their national independence.

It will also result in future generations of Jews being deprived of the opportunity to join in the building of the Jewish National Home - to which the international community unanimously recognised they had a legal and historical entitlement ninety years ago.

You have to live with the consequences of your abandonment of Israel - and with people like David G who applaud you for adopting that view. Enjoy his embrace.

[Deleted for abuse].

Dear David S,

It is important for Jews, like everyone else, to be a free people. Being a free people does not mean domination of other people. It means having equal rights and for others to have equal rights.

Whether or not there is a Jewish state Jews can be a free people. That is far more important than the state of Israel.

Freedom should be for everyone. Ethnic nationalism results in those who control the state controlling others.

Israel was declared the Jewish National Home by the Balfour Declaration. Lord Balfour was an antisemite who spoke against letting Jews into England when he supported the Alien Exclusion Act. Other people were living on the land that Balfour called the Jewish National Home, but Balfour didn't care about that. The Balfour Declaration was an imperialistic, anti-Semitic Act. Balfour cared neither for the people living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean nor for the Jews.

Balfour was an antisemite who did not want more Jews in England but was quite happy for them to be elsewhere. I want a world where Jews are free to live anywhere.

I did not abandon Israel. Israel was never mine to abandon. Israel did not exist when I was born and has never been my country. One cannot abandon a foreign country. I have not abandoned my own country.

I want all people to be free. I will support all countries which do not discriminate among their citizens as to ethnicity or religion. That seems far better than to support a country which does not support equal rights for all its citizens regardless of ethnicity or religion.

The Christian ethic declares that only through Jesus can one enter the Kingdom of heaven.

The Jewish ethic is different. We exalt all the righteous of the earth regardless of their religious belief or lack of it.

Whether or not you want it so, Jordan is not Palestine.

I wish you well and hope you can deal with reality.

# david f

1. You state:

"It is important for Jews, like everyone else, to be a free people. Being a free people does not mean domination of other people. It means having equal rights and for others to have equal rights."

What unequal rights do you presently identify in Israel between its Jewish and Arab populations?

2. You state:

"Whether or not there is a Jewish state Jews can be a free people. That is far more important than the state of Israel."

How can Jews be a free people without their own State?

3. Israel was not declared the Jewish National Home by the Balfour Declaration. That was done at the San Remo Conference, the Treaty of Sevres and by the League of Nations when unanimously endorsing the Mandate for Palestine.

4. Your view of Balfour merely underscores the reason why Jews then needed - and still need to have their own national home.

5. Israel continues to be the Jewish National Home for every generation. You have abandoned your support for it. You even admitted you were once a Zionist until you saw the light. It is your right to walk away. Why not just admit it.

6. On what basis do you claim that Israel "does not support equal rights for all its citizens regardless of ethnicity or religion."

7. I agree that Jordan is not Palestine - it is 77% of Palestine. The Arab populations on both sides of the River Jordan comprise one and the same family and ethnic group - as our agreed rabid anti-semite Khaled Amayreh has truthfully acknowledged - but which you do not accept. You can lead a horse to water ...

I wish you well and hope you can deal with reality.

Dear David S,

What I wrote about Balfour is historically accurate. Without the Declaration no Mandate.

Jews are free in the United States. They can marry who they like by civil marriage which doesn't exist in Israel. Progressive or Masorti Jews marry by rabbis they choose rather than having to go through an Orthodox ceremony. That's one example why Jews in the United States and Australia are freer than they are in Israel.

To be a free people one needs full citizenship rights and the right of free association not a state.

Something is not true merely because it suits the purpose of the person who said it. Amayreh and you want to erase the difference between Palestinians and Jordanians. I know some of them, and there is a difference.

I did not support Israel because it was the Jewish National Home but because it was a place of refuge for persecuted Jews. Other countries are now more welcoming to Jews.

In addition I no longer support it because:

I disagree with the idea of promoting aliyah from places where Jews have a good life and are not persecuted. That counters my reason for originally supporting it.

I prefer separation of religion and state.

I saw Zionism as merely another kind of nineteenth ethnic nationalism which I would like to see done with.

Houses of suspected (just suspected not convicted) Palestinian terrorists were demolished. That was punishing a family for something a member of the family was accused of doing. The houses of Yigal Amir who shot Rabin and of Baruch Goldstein who murdered the praying Arabs were not demolished. That is an example of unequal treatment.

I have already written of other inequalities. Look at my past posts.

Zionism was once a good idea giving Jews hope. I think its time has passed, and the main hope now for a better life for Jews and others is to have one state neither Jewish nor Arab but one that makes no distinctions among its citizens on the basis of ethnicity or religion.

Any how. We go round and round.

"I have previously identified you as a rabid Jew hater with whom any type of rational discussion is a waste of time.

You have now confirmed my view and have further exposed yourself as an intellectual cretin."

This was part of a defamatory comment written by David Singer on the 11/06/2010 at 1.19 pm and is obviously not considered to be abuse by the OLO management (yet my comment replying to him in kind was deleted).

Strange justice!

#david f

1. Sorry but the Balfour Declaration had no legal effect. Only the unanimous decision of the 51 countries comprising the League of Nations legally sanctioned the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine.

2. You may find Israel's marriage laws objectionable but they apply equally to all its citizens. You confuse freedom to act within the law with the obligation to comply with the law.

3. All Israelis have equal citizenship rights with only one exception to my knowledge - army service.

4. Can you name me a free people with full citizenship rights and the freedom of association that do not live in a State?

5. What is the difference between a Jordanian and a Palestinian?

6. So you supported Israel as a country of refuge. Isn't it still such a country of refuge?

7. Name some other countries that in your opinion are more welcoming to Jews than Israel and the reasons for your view. Is this a reason for wiping Israel off the map?

8 Why shouldn't Jews have the right to return to their homeland if they wish to do so. Is this a reason for wiping Israel off the map?

9 Would you also like to see other ethnic nationalisms such as the 21 Arab Moslem States and the 36 other Moslem States done away with? What about the Vatican and India? What about Iran? Do you ever write about getting rid of such states on a constant basis as you seem to do with Israel?

10 So far as I am aware only the houses of terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza have been demolished. This law is still applicable in the West Bank having been introduced during the time of the Mandate by the British. Your comparison with what happens in Israel is misplaced. That is not the law in Israel.

11. I don't mind you repeating any other inequalities so please list them again.

12. Israel makes no distinctions among its citizens on the basis of ethnicity or religion and I challenge you to name any such distinctions.

D.Singer, in his efforts to brainwash DavidF, has presented Israel as a bastion of democracy and human rights. Of course, this doesn't apply to the Palestinians or Arabs, only to Jews.

The following link will give some idea of how the Jewish/Israeli lobby in the U.S. works and should be read by everyone who is interested in the truth rather than fatuous Israeli propaganda.

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/06/20106168451670414.html

Dear David S,

The reason we have been discussing Israel rather than other countries is because of your article. Of course I would like to see all ethnic nationalist states done away with, and all nations have separation of religion and state and make no distinctions among their citizenry as to ethnicity and religion.

You don't seem to even read my posts or you would know that. I have said that several times. I see no point in repeating myself and having you ignore what I write.

I am more interested in Jews and other people living well than in where they live. Many of the Israeli Jews who are living in Australia and the US seem to find those countries better for a Jew to live in.

Until next time.

Dear David S,

You keep asking questions that I have already answered so it is apparent that you really don't care what I or anybody else say but just want to push your views.

I don't think a judge would let you argue that way in court.

However, I will post next time I see an article from you. I don't expect you to listen, but I like to let others know that I don't agree. It isn't likely that you will post much that I find agreeable.

Dear Mr Singer,

The reason for my tardy reply is twofold; firstly I have been overly busy but more importantly I did not want to interrupt the conversation between yourself and davidf. I felt what he had to say was important and uplifting so I suppose a small thank you must go to yourself for getting him to so clearly voice his position. He has almost brought me around to a single state solution.

Thank yous aside I am not going to apologise to you. You may have misunderstood me so I will be quite clear, I used my web browser Firefox to look over your last six contributions to Online Opinion and found you have used neither the word Palestinians nor the term Palestinian Arabs within them. That was my contention and I offered you the chance to refute it but nothing was forthcoming except a reference to other works.

You said;

"The use of loose language is too frequent in any discourse regarding the ongoing conflict between Jews and Arabs. I try to avoid that in my articles and warn against it whenever I can."

Bull! How more loose could one possibly get than using the words Jews and Arabs in describing the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis?

In your own words "Language regrettably can be misused or abused or simply misinterpreted.", indeed!

Finally to your statement, "I am still waiting for an apology from you for alleging I have never used the term "Palestinian Arabs" in any of my articles. The clear innuendo that I am a liar is defamatory and should be withdrawn by you.".

Please don't use legalese to try and intimidate anyone on a discussion forum. I regard it as cowardly and I don't think I would be alone in that view. A more careful reading of what I have said in earlier posts would show exactly what I was referring to and as a lawyer careful reading should be your craft.

#csteele

Is it that hard for you to say:
"I now note that you frequently used the term "Palestinian Arabs" in many articles written by you and my suggestion that you have not used that term - based on my scrutiny of your last six articles - was incorrect"

You also state:
"How more loose could one possibly get than using the words Jews and Arabs in describing the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis?"

I am being very precise in my use of that language. This dispute has always been one between Jews and Arabs - of Jews - seeking to reconstitute their national home in Palestine for themselves and future generations of Jews as sanctioned by the League of Nations - opposed by Arabs - those then living in Palestine and also those living in the former Ottoman Empire which now comprises 21 Arab States. Only two - Jordan and Egypt - have been prepared to recognise Israel during this ongoing conflict which has lasted 90 years.

I will not stop using this language to define the conflict. It started long before 1948 and is ongoing in 2010.

Why do you refer to the use of such language as "loose"?

Also how do you define the terms "Palestinians" and "Israelis" as used by you in the statement above?

Dear Mr Singer,

You said; “I prefer to use the term "Palestinian Arabs" in my articles as another search by you on Firefox will no doubt establish.” in a blatant attempt to deflect from my very salient point that you managed to write 6000 words on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict without using the word Palestinians.

In my view you were implying that you had instead used the term "Palestinian Arabs" in those articles which was not correct and have since been trying to wriggle your way out of it by saying you were referring to different articles altogether.

It is up to others whether or not they buy it but I'm not.

You ask;

Also how do you define the terms "Palestinians" and "Israelis" as used by you in the statement above?

An interesting question, should I be lumping the Mizrahi Jews living in Palestine before the formation of Israel with their then Arab neighbours as Palestinians? This would mean describing the colonising European refugees, determined to form their own state, as Israelis. Not sure I'm entirely comfortable with this but it will do for a start.

How am I doing?

#csteele

Your "very salient point" was not worth the paper it was written on. Just a lot of hot air based on an incomplete analysis of the many articles I have written. Better to wipe the egg off your face now than continue to walk around with it plainly visible for all to see.

Trying to discredit me on the basis of my last six articles without bothering to look at all my articles may have seemed attractive to you at the time. Given the explanation I gave you I would have expected a retraction. I regret you are not big enough to do so.

It further appears from your uncertain response that you use the terms "Palestinians" and "Israelis" without really knowing what you mean.

Instead of asking my advice why don't you just define both of these terms - as you understand them.

Otherwise I may take the view that you don't really know what you are talking about and are simply mouthing the words of others without understanding their meaning.

When you tell me what you mean then maybe we can continue this conversation. Until you do we are wasting each others time.

I have given you my meaning of "Jews" and "Arabs" in defining the conflict as being one between these two groups.

Is it that difficult for you to do the same in relation to your defining the conflict as one between "Palestinians" and Israelis"?

I ask once again - who do you include in the term "Palestinians" and who do you include in the term "Israelis"?

Dear Mr Singer,

I was finding you concerning but now I think you are amusing, as my grandfather would say with a hint of admiration in his voice, “What a bloody hide!”, usually followed with “Does he have no shame?”

However 'concerning' was also interesting, 'amusing' less so therefore we had best leave it there until your next contribution to OLO.

And yes I will find it interesting to see if you have included the word Palestinians. From where I sit not to do so will certainly discredit you.

#csteele

I have made it clear to you that I do not use the term "Palestinians" in my articles because I do not know what that term means. I use the term "Palestinian Arabs" and have given you my definition and the reasons for my using it.

You continue to use the term "Palestinians" but are unable to define what it means.I have invited you on several occasions to give me your definition and also your definition of "Israelis" and you refuse to do so.

How can you have a conflict between people you cannot identify? Who are the "Palestinians"? Who are the "Israelis"?

Just more egg on your face as you run off unable to answer my request. Perhaps you should stop using words whose meaning is unclear to you.

CSteele, I have a saying on my blog, one that states: "Do not argue with fools, fanatics and frauds. Seek instead better companions."

You would be wise to take heed of it! It would save you a lot of wasted time.

Cheers.

#David G

You can add "Jew haters" to your list of "fools, fanatics and frauds."

I would like to have a look at your blog. Can you please give me the web address