While the tomb of Abraham in Hebron and Rachel in Bethlehem are biblical sites sacred to Jews they are no less sacred to Christians and Muslims and of great historical interest to people of all faiths and none. Since they are located in the Occupied Palestinian Territories then under international law Israel has no claim to sovereignty over these sites (nor any other part of the West Bank).

David claims that "the Jews" have a legal rights to settle on the West Bank "for the declared purpose of reconstituting their national home in accordance with Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter."

Mate you can't have it both ways. Under the partition Israel also had obligations. Under the laws relating to military occupation there are obligations. How many of these responsibilities has Israel shouldered?

And David, Israel has never declared the borders of this national homeland - where do you think they should be? How much Palestinian and other Arab land should Israel be permitted to colonise?

As for this nonsense that we should recognise Israel as a Jewish state, I have a lot of respect for those who support democracy in Israel and the idea that Israel should be a state for all its citizens rather than a theocracy that discriminates in favour of the 80% who are Jewish.

# Mona

(Part 1)

Your attempt to suggest the religious significance of the tombs in Hebron and Bethlehem are equal for Jews, Christians and Moslems is rubbish that does not merit a response.

The tombs are not situated in Occupied Palestinian Territory. They are situated in territory whose sovereignty remains in dispute and undetermined. That is what the current negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are supposed to resolve. You have jumped the gun in seeking to predetermine the outcome of those negotiations. Take a cold shower and cool down.

Israel has a claim in international law to sovereignty in the West Bank pursuant to the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter. Read the sections.

Israel's right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the West Bank is to be without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities that live there. 95% of the non-Jewish communities living there are under the administrative control of the Palestinian Authority - not Israel. If there are any breaches of those civil and religious rights then those aggrieved should look to the PA to address them - not Israel.

(To be continued)

# Mona

(Part 2)

I believe the borders of the Jewish National Home will ultimately be determined in negotiations between Israel and Jordan since the current negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have not even got the parties to first base after 17 fruitless years of on and off negotiations .

The West Bank, Gaza and Israel comprise just 0.001% of the Ottoman Empire captured by Great Britain and France from Turkey during World War 1. The Arab people already have attained sovereignty in the remaining 99.999% in many Arab states - Lebanon, Syria,Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Jordan.

The West Bank is 1/12th the size of Tasmania. Israel has already offered to cede its claims in 90% of the West Bank. The Arab insistence on 100% or nothing remains a major stumbling block to ending the conflict.

Remember too the Arabs had 100% of the West Bank between 1948-1967 when not one Jew lived there as they had all been kicked out by the Jordanian army in the 1948 War. The Arabs did not attempt to create a new Arab State in all the West Bank. That opportunity will not return again.

Israel's demand that the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel as the Jewish State is necessitated because of the provisions of Article 20 of the PLO Covenant which states:

"Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong."

Whilst this racist attitude prevails any hopes of ever finally ending the conflict between Arabs and Jews remains very bleak indeed.

Israel is a state for all its citizens - 20% of whom are Arab. It is a democratic republic - not a theocracy. Many of its Arab neighbours would do well to emulate its example rather than continuing to plot its annihilation and elimination.

"Sleeping man acquitted of drink-driving" - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/24/3075421.htm

[A man has been acquitted of high-range drink-driving because police could not prove exactly when he started his car.

The Darwin Magistrates Court heard police found 35-year-old Ilija Jacobs asleep at the wheel of his car at 8:00am in May.

The court heard the engine was still running and it took officers five minutes to wake him up.

Police turned off the engine and arrested Mr Jacobs.

He later recorded a blood-alcohol reading of 0.15 per cent.

Mr Jacobs fought the matter in court.

His lawyer Peter Maley argued that police could not prove if he had started the car within the four-hour time limit that a person can be legally breathalysed after starting or driving a car.

The magistrate agreed and today acquitted him of the charge.]

So innocent Mr. Jacobs turned on his car while sober, then sat inside and drank without driving, then fell asleep for over 4 hours, all while the engine kept going, so the 0.15 reading is invalid and he was never officially drunk despite it being clear to any sensible person that he was in fact drink-driving.

Before even attempting to approach the subject-matter whether Israel is innocent or not, just the need to resort to (and repeat many times over on this forum) this type of arguments, as constructed by the shrewdest of lawyers, based on an obscure and petty interpertation of antiquated documents from 1922 and 1945 despite the reality that the middle-east has changed so dramatically since, way beyond anything the delegates of the early 20th century could ever imagine, makes Israel's innocence seem just as fantastic as Mr. Jacobs' - That causes Israel great injustice, for even IF the argument is technically correct, with such a solicitor, who needs the prosecution?

Now claiming that those patriarchs ever existed and were buried approximately 3500 years ago in these particular spots, is also at least as fantastic as Mr. Jacob's innocence.

# Yuyutsu

You claim my arguments are based on an "obscure and petty interpretation of antiquated documents from 1922 and 1945" without any attempt to particularize your specific objections to anything I have written.

What part of my interpretation do you find obscure and petty?

When you let me know then I will be more than happy to respond.

Many of our laws are of much older vintage than 1922 or 1945 but remain in force until repealed. Respect for the law and the rule of law - however imperfect or unjust it might be - remains one of the fundamentals of most democratic societies.

The legal rights created in favour of the Jewish people in 0.001% of the conquered Ottoman Empire took place simultaneously with the legal rights created in favour of the Arab people in 99.999% of that conquered Ottoman Empire.

The Arab inability to accept the justice or equity of this legal carve up by the League of Nations still remains the major stumbling block to resolving the conflict between Arabs and Jews.

Put simply in language you can understand - The Arabs are not satisfied with 99.999% of the land given to them for self determination after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. They want 100%.

The Arabs have suffered a lot of indigestion in indulging their gluttony for an extra 0.001% - equivalent in size to 1/12th of Tasmania - the greater portion of which still looks like it did 3000 years ago when Abraham,Isaac and Jacob trekked across it as the Old Testament relates.

The Arabs relentless pursuit of this objective will no doubt cause a lot more suffering for both Jews and Arabs.

People like you who apparently believe such Arab claim should be supported and maintained in the face of what was legally decided by the League of Nations and the United Nations are either brain dead or brainwashed. That is your perfect entitlement.

It is not my view.

David,

I never said that I believe the Arab claim - I don't.

But I believe that the Israeli Jews are driving like drunkards.

Perhaps the Arabs, given their large numbers and reserves of oil, can afford to be stupid, but the Jews, with smaller numbers and no oil to export, cannot afford to immitate them.

Take what you wrote, starting from "The Arab inability to accept" up to "will no doubt cause a lot more suffering for both Jews and Arabs", substitue "Arabs" for "Jews", adjust the percentages accordingly, and voila, it fits!

Respect for the law and the rule of law even when the law is unjust, is evil. Isn't that what most Germans just did in the 1930's and 1940's?

Notwithstanding this, even IF the law ALLOWS many unwholesome actions (which it probably doesn't, but I am tired of delving into the legal details right now), no current international law REQUIRES Israel to keep occupying any of the territories it took in 1967, or to be cruel in its occupation, or to unnecessarily provoke the local inhabitants, or to take away their land and water, or to restrict their movements.

It is your perfect entitlement to abandon common-sense and try to use complicated international-law formalizations as a fig leaf, but we can all see through it.