Dear Yuyutsu,

Whatever you see in hindsight, the latitude given Israel in Resolution 242 was based on sound militarily, logistic principles; retention of some territory provided defensible borders. Those who draw up Resolution 242 were not acting capriciously, they would have been advised of this. One recognises in the apparent 'latitude' of this resolution, considered thought.

And considering ... within a week of Sadat stating he was ready to make peace with Israel, Mohammed Heikal, his confidant, was committed not only to reclaiming territories occupied by Israel, but also to the elimination to the State of Israel itself. (Al-Abram, February 25, 1971)

All thoughtful people would agree that, in whatever form, the Jews need a secure homeland and a place on the world stage of politics.

In WW11, German and Austrian Jews were granted visas to enter this country. As soon as Britain entered the war, these visas were not only overturned, but the Jewish applicants were not advised. Many Jews went to the gas-chambers waiting for their promised visas to arrive. Many of these Jews had escaped Germany/Austria and were resident elsewhere in Europe.

With the fear of 'reds under the beds,' Russian Jews, albeit being persecuted and murdered in their country, were being denied entry.

In times of war or conflict, one's nationality determines determines one's status.

Germany, a democracy, considered the most civilized country in the world ... look what it threw up. Nazism occurred not so long ago. In living memory to many.

The situation occurring in Western Europe does not bode well.

Jews have always been an easy target for persecution ... especially so, if exploited to unite disparate groups.

Dear David,

One would hope you are right. By whatever means, Jordan or the UN, this ongoing Palestinian situation should be resolved.

As for Gaza ... The Hamas are mentored and financed by Iran. Gaza is effectively an Iranian "toe-hold.' Iran wants to take dominance in Middle East ...

Dear David Singer,

I am afraid the confusion lies with you my friend. The Mandate system was a League of Nations protocol. The four Allies powers that made up the San Remo Conference could suggest it as a process but it had to be confirmed by the League to have any validity. This was not done until 1922 and did not come into effect until 1923 and only after Turkey accepted the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne.

Another FAIL as my daughter would say.

I must say to puts ones self up as knowledgeable of the history of Israel you would appear to be poorly informed. This should be bread and butter stuff for you. I know from Google how far your reach is especially among the right-wingers in the US. My concern is the misinformation you may be spreading through incendiary channels. I would be happy to spend some time with you to correct some preconceptions that do not stand up to more rigorous examination.

By the way trick to trickery was a segue on my part but nice deflect by yourself from the Charter to Constitution swap.

Dear Danielle and Yuyutsu,

I have not responded to any of your posts because they were not directed specifically at me. May I say I do not have any Jewish friends that I know personally of have met on-line who think like you two do, particularly Danielle, even among some of the more strident of the Zionists. If I could be so bold may I ask if either of you are Jewish? It may well be self-evident so excuse me if that is the case and feel free not to answer if you like but I am interested and would like to be sure.

#csteele

Yet another misstatement:

You state:

"The Mandate system was a League of Nations protocol. The four Allies powers that made up the San Remo Conference could suggest it as a process but it had to be confirmed by the League to have any validity."

My answer:

The four Allied powers did not suggest the Mandate as a process. They determined it would occur, they would appoint the Mandatory, determine the boundaries and determine the nature of the Mandate. The terms of the Mandate were to be formulated by the four Allied Powers and then submitted to the League of Nations for approval

The following articles in the Treaty Of Sevres make this clear.

"ARTICLE 95.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

The Mandatory undertakes to appoint as soon as possible a special Commission to study and regulate all questions and claims relating to the different religious communities. In the composition of this Commission the religious interests concerned will be taken into account. The Chairman of the Commission will be appointed by the Council of the League of Nations.

ARTICLE 96.

The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval."

Dear David Singer,

Not even close.

Why are you quoting from a treaty you know was annulled within a couple of years and superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne which does not even mention Palestine?

The Mandate system was from the League of Nations.

“Three steps were required to establish a Mandate under international law: (1) The Principal Allied and Associated Powers confer a mandate on one of their number or on a third power; (2) the principal powers officially notify the council of the League of Nations that a certain power has been appointed mandatory for such a certain defined territory; and (3) the council of the League of Nations takes official cognisance of the appointment of the mandatory power and informs the latter that it [the council] considers it as invested with the mandate, and at the same time notifies it of the terms of the mandate, after ascertaining whether they are in conformance with the provisions of the covenant." Wikipedia

Note, “ at the same time notifies it of the terms of the mandate”. That is The League of Nations telling the mandatory power how the mandate will operate.

As a side note the Treaty of Lausanne does have some poignancy for Australians because it codifies access to the war graves of the ANZACs, however the Treaty of Sevres would have been far more advantageous to the Kurdish people if it had stayed in force.

Look this should be simple even for you, could Britain have had a legal and binding Mandate over Palestine without the League's approval? No!

Have you conceded yet that the Mandate did not come into effect until the 29th September 1923? If you can't after all the evidence I have provided here you will look even sillier.

Dear Danielle,

Resolution 242 also includes the cessation of belligerency, an unrealistic/unenforceable goal, so 242 had better never existed. Not blaming anyone for lack of hindsight, but without the word "all", the militant-Jews of Israel get the false impression as if the world will accept their retaining parts of the occupied-territories, hence the endless-negotiations and the terror-attacks that come with it.

The tragedy of the Nazi holocaust was most terrible and shocking, no need to repeat the gory details. The Arab desire to throw the Israelis into the mediterranean is also shocking, as well as their actual behaviour since the massacre of 1929. This is why the UN approved the formation of Israel and also why Israel must remain armed to its teeth.

The question is whether every aspect of life needs to be based on the worst-case scenario. Should we allow Hitler and his ilk to dictate how we live at present?

Suppose that some hypothetical psychopath acted to rid the world of green-eyed people. Both the green-eyed people and the rest of the world have therefore resolved to grant all green-eyed people a state of their own where they could be safer. The question is, would the green-eyed people wish under any other circumstances to live together, given that they have nothing in common but the colour of their eyes? What if another psychopath will tomorrow target those with pimples on their back?

It's tragic that so many types of people who would otherwise have nothing to do with each other were, and still are, forced to live together and defend themselves shoulder-to-shoulder against a cruel and irrational enemy. As they do so, however, originally out of necessity, new generations and a new culture were formed.

Dear Csteele,

I do not consider myself a Jew.
However, having been born to Jewish parents, neither Hitler and his followers, nor the Rabbis and their followers (each for their own reasons) will ever respect my wishes not to belong to that group. They would still, against my will, consider me a "Jew" till the day I die and even beyond that.