"Are the hard-core settlers on Gaza's Hamas side?"

That's an excellent question!

They will never admit it officially, obviously, but they have more in common with Hamas than with, say, you and I. Both are male-dominant and violent societies, both follow stringent traditional-law texts, both go through a lot of dirty nappies for ideological reasons.

Those hard-core settlers actually call on the government of Israel to allow Abu-Mazen's moderate Palestinian-Authority to collapse and be replaced by Hamas. This is because the prospect of peace terrifies them more than rockets and bombs. They believe that with Hamas on the other side, there is a better chance to perpetuate the state of war, which will eventually give rise to an opportunity to kick the Palestinians out into Jordan.

Hamas' fanatic-streak is well-known: "Jihad", wanting the world to be ruled by Shariah law.
The fanatic-streak of the hard-core settlers is their mystical belief that settling in the West-Bank is the key for bringing their Messiah, that every small effort they make in settling the whole ancient land arouses the Messiah to come sooner. Once their Messiah comes, they believe, he will conquer the lands all around as well as enforce strict Mosaic law over Israel, including flogging and harsh capital punishments for law-breakers, as in Iran. They believe that while now they can only punish public offenders, once their Messiah comes he will also punish those who offend in private against their codes.

They name the majority of Israelis who do not share their ideals, "Messiah's donkey", here to work hard, protect and carry them, then have their corpses discarded along the road once they die of exhaustion.

BTW, I think you confuse between two different groups. The ones who "are bound by their beliefs not to bear arms, they do not contribute to Israel's purse through labour/businesses, nor pay taxes" are not the settlers, but the ultra-orthodox, a distinctly different group (but they also go through a lot of dirty nappies) which rarely harms anyone except themselves.

# Danielle and Yuyutsu

Your derogatory and denigrating comments concerning the personal lives of Jews living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are offensive and embrace the language of hate.

Your dismissive approach to their right to live there contributes nothing of value to the discussion.

Your posts ignore the following:

1. The West Bank and East Jerusalem are areas where close settlement by Jews was encouraged on state lands and waste lands not required for public purposes under article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine.

2. Their right to do so was preserved in the UN Charter under article 80.

3. Jews indeed lived in both areas until they were driven out during the 1948 War.

4. The West Bank is currently "no man's land" where sovereignty is claimed by both Arabs and Jews.

5. Israel has annexed East Jerusalem as part of its capitol but this has not been recognized by the international community.

6. The UN might well consider itself the repository of the Mandate in respect of the 6% of the Mandate (Gaza and the West Bank) still remaining unallocated between the two successor States to the mandate - Israel and Jordan.

7. The UN could well decide to make a recommendation regarding the allocation of sovereignty of the West Bank and East Jerusalem between Jewish and Arab claimants.

8. Any UN proposal would have to take into account the principal purpose of the Mandate which was the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine.

9. There are about 8 million Jews who live outside Israel and the West Bank. The Mandate vested legal rights in them and their descendants that cannot be ignored.

10. The Arabs have refused and still refuse to accept the provisions of the Mandate and the UN Charter.

These are the facts and parameters which I believe are relevant in any discussions on the future allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

David,

I truly am sorry that you believe that I was using the language of hate when discussing a certain group within Israeli society. I did not intend that. However, extremists in all religions worry me a great deal. Yes, the groups in Israel have every right to live there, but you cannot deny that they attempt to impose their religious beliefs upon other Israelis ... in not very charitlable ways. Toleration and acceptance seems to be a one way street.

Having been on the receiving end of religious extremists (not Jews), I find their actions and abuse repugnant, not consistent with civilized society.

I also believe that any group who live within, and benefit from a society are morally bound to contribute to it. Even the Amish who are self-sufficient, living in isolation in communal support, pay taxes.

I may, well, be wrong, David, but these are my views.

I fully concur with Israel controlling East Jerusalem. In the 60's, archaeologists were called in by many communities worldwide to prove their origins on certain lands, right to live there, and provide a common identity. These activities were considered valid. Archaeological reseach of East Jerusalem establishes beyond all question this area as Jewish, and predating all other claims by many, many years.

Yuyutsu,

I am afraid my phrasing with clumsy. I meant the Gazan side.

You cite the definion of religious extremists:

"male-dominant and violent societies, both follow stringent traditional-law texts"

This pretty well says it for all religious extremists.

Danielle,

"You cite the definion of religious extremists"

Not so, I cite the definition of those who use the guise of religion to perpetrate darkness. I deliberately refrained from using the word "religious" here because these people and those behaviours are not religious at all. Religion is about coming closer to God, it has nothing to do with worldly politics and nationalism. God is not a male-chauvinist, God is not a Nazi and God has no interest in building a regime of terror.

True religious extremists probably sit in caves and meditate - and turn the other cheek of course.

"I meant the Gazan side"

Then the answer is 'No'. The only Israeli in Gaza at the moment is the poor kidnapped young conscript, Gilad Shalit, and he is not a settler or a settler-supporter.

David,

Your posts ignore the following:

1. That half the settlers wish they weren't there.

2. That the other half are there for the purpose of bringing over their Messiah.

3. That they consider the rest of the Israelis as their donkey.

4. That they are loyal only to their Rabbis, not to the state of israel.

5. That their provocation against Arabs brings hate and terror to Israel.

6. That Israelis spill their blood to protect those settlers.

7. That Israel is condemned by the whole world because of the settlers' actions.

8. That the occupation corrupts Israel from within and undermines its moral foundations.

9. That Israel has in fact accepted the Green-Line as its border, and had the Arabs not attacked in 1967, that would have remained unchallenged.

10. That life is not a zero-sum monopoly game.

Hey, fake name person!
Have you ever lived in Israel or the Palestine territories? We have, and what you are claiming is total nonsense. What's your real name? Mohammad Kalzel Kazai? (If you know Arabic as I do, you'll know is is a play on words, and fairly insulting.)

What Israel really wants is a prosperous, peaceful partnership with all who live in the region. Is that too much to ask? Yes it is is, because the prime motive behind all this crap from the 'Palestinians' and the terrorist organisations is the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews.
If you have no real experience, go suck your white wines and Caffe-lates and get out of the mix. You people disgust me, you are wanna-be's who in your arrogance think you have all the answers. Yet you are totally ignorant.

It seems to me that a problem exists with the Palestinians themselves, who have little or no sense of identity - thus the bloodletting, infighting, and potential to be manipulated.

After 80 yrs or so they haven't achieved a sense of community and unity of one people. This seems difficult to understand - especially for those in Åustralia. This might be attributable to the fact that the 'indigenous Palestinians' are in a tiny minority, and the Arab populations now living there have different histories. In Arab areas, one's history means everything.

Emir Faisal, son of Sherif Hussein, in signing an agreement with Chaim Weizman in 1919, welcomed the establishment of a Jewish homeland and with it immigrations of Jews 'on a large scale, and as quickly as possible ... to settle and cultivate the soil.' Faisal saw this as a move to bring back Arabs who had left the territory and gone elsewhere (in droves it would seem). Even large land holders were living elsewhere ... Unhappily, this treaty depended upon Britain fulfilling an agreement which it renaged upon. Nevertheless, this does indicate that the area was severely underpopulated.

During the Mandatory period, Britain placed restrictions on numbers of Jews immigrating,
yet Arab immigration was unresticted. The 1930 Hope Simpson Commision reported that Britain ignored the uncontrolled, illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan and Syria. Between 1922 and 1947 the Arab population increased by 120%. The contributing factor was that Arabs wanted to take advantage of the higher living standards created by Jews - the draining of malarial swamps, improved sanitation and health care for the region. Muslim life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 years in just twenty years.

cont ...