"The percentages will change slightly - about 82% for the Arab state and 18% for the Jewish state depending on direct negotiations between Jordan and Israel. Is that really so unfair a division of Palestine between Jews and Arabs?"

Yes, it would be unfair towards Israel.

You operate under a false assumption that "the more land the better", but in fact it would be better for anyone, especially for Israel, to even own land in Fukushima than in the West-Bank (including Eastern Jerusalem). Jordan's King Hussein was a very wise man, so he realised it first and took his feet out of there as fast as he could. His son is not a fool either, nor the various Egyptian leaders who would never set foot in Gaza again.

Is it not bad enough that Israel had to enter that cursed territory in 1967 because it had been unfairly attacked from there, that now it should also unfairly have keep part of it, and moreover, be held responsible for the actions of the mad Jews who live there?

Also, you are suggesting to divide Palestine between Jews and Arabs, ignoring the fact that it is no longer terra-nulla, that meanwhile the state of Israel was formed on 17% of its area. You are asking to willy-nilly take away the land from the Israelis and hand it over to "the Jews" - no thanks!

"Sorry - I will continue to view this as a conflict between Jews and Arabs - because that is what it is, always has been and will be."

Then go find your "Jews" who are happy to live in that extra 1%, or 5% or whatever and be accountable for their actions there, but please leave the state of Israel out of it! Once Israel withdraws and is finally out of there, you are welcome to try and bring your "Jews" there (with the blessings of the league-of-nations, of course), so long as the state of Israel is not held responsible neither for their actions nor for their subsequent gloomy demise.

Yuyutsu,

You know my opinion about Jewish settlers on the West Bank.

A wall, Yuyutsu, a wall? The current security fence brings so much outrage ... apparently it must be porous, but only one way, and there must be no delays. Each Palestinian that goes through it regards any delay as a personal insult, a personal outrage. I have gone through many security checks which I would hazzard took longer and were more intrusive. To have taken them personally would have been the height of stupidity. If any tried to run a security check, it was a ruling "shoot first, ask questions later". This applied even to royalty. In the case of those here who are so dim as to not understand the latter, a security check was needed to ensure such a personage had not been hijacked, nor their vehicle used to smuggle weapons or explosives. Identity cards were essential for everyone.

Considering the many security walls around the world - even between northern and southern Ireland - to which none object, Israel’s security fence bring howls of international outrage - and this despite the fact that Israel’s internal security is truly reliant upon it. One can only surmise this a new ugly form of antisemitism.

If Israel were to build a wall as you suggest, it would do well to copy the proposed Saudi-Yemen barrier, 10ft height of reinforced concrete embedded with electronic detection equipment, which, on any movement detected, will blast sox off, even if it be a wandering goat. Tch, tch, and the Saudis were so loud in the condemnation of Israel’s security wall ...

An aside, which is admittedly a ‘lateral’ thought. Sometime ago I tried to purchase cookware from the Middle East, but was not permitted to bring these into this country. The reasons being that the glazes used were lead-based with other toxins. These leached out into the food when cooking with certain ingredients.

Considering the general insanity seen in the Middle East ...

Dear David Singer,

What on earth are you trying to sell us now?

“one Arab state in about 83% of Palestine and one Jewish state in about 17% of Palestine”?

Your percentages represent revisionist claptrap that is at best desperate and at worst hardly what I would call honest.

You know as well as I do that the Transjordan Memorandum separated the areas controlled by the British into Palestine and Transjordan well before the British Mandate came into effect.

The fact is under the UN proposal 1/3 of the population got 2/3rds of the land designated Palestine despite owning less than 7% of it. And the Palestinians were supposed to be happy with the deal?

Arguing with you about whether or not the Palestinian people exist as an entity is like arguing with creationists about evolution. The determined refusal by yourself to accept what the rest of the world sees as a given at some stage has to mean further discourse is just giving air to abhorrent views.

I will just add a line from the UNSCOP recommendations; “Although sharply divided by political issues, the peoples of Palestine are sufficiently advanced to govern themselves independently.”

You claimed “"Citizenship" does not necessarily imply a "State"” but then used an example that included one such “State”. Please!

However I will run with the argument because I do think there is a point to be made here. Citizenship is usually divided between jus sanguinis ("right of blood") and jus soli ("right of soil"). At its simplest the conflict in Palestine can described as a clash of citizenship types. Israel granting “citizenship based on ancestry or ethnicity" and Palestinians granting citizenship to anyone born on the territory of the State be they Arab Muslims, Arab Christians or native Jews. Granted there are degrees exhibited by both but this generally holds true.

Cont'

Cont'

Your comment about comparisons between the Charter of the PLO and the Charter of Likud being a furphy is rot. They are perfectly appropriate for comparison, something you proceeded to do yourself. Just as the PLO Charter rejects the notion of a Jewish state within Palestine so the Likud Charter rejects a Palestinian State within Palestine. Both parties would be happy seeing them set up elsewhere, just not within Palestine.

You instead directed me to compare “the PLO Constitution to the Basic Laws of Israel you might be on firmer ground. But I guess you would want to avoid any such discussion.”

More than happy to discuss them, shall we start with the Jerusalem Law passed by the Knesset in 1980 which stated “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.“ but without defining its boundaries? Predictably it was not well regarded by the international community prompting the “UN Security Council Resolution 478, adopted by 14 votes to none, with 1 abstention (United States of America), declared soon after that the law was "null and void" and "must be rescinded". This resolution called upon member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city.” Wikipedia.

Thankfully the world heeded that call and it is my understanding all embassies were withdrawn from the city of Jerusalem.

When we get down to it you aren't very good at this are you.

I am going to take a line from U.S. Secretary of State Edmund Muskie's address on the Jerusalem Law, completely out of context of course, but in my opinion quite descriptive of your OLO contributions as “illustrative of a preoccupation which has produced this series of unbalanced and unrealistic texts on Middle East issues.”

Couldn't have said it better myself.

#csteele

You state:

"I am going to take a line from U.S. Secretary of State Edmund Muskie's address on the Jerusalem Law, completely out of context of course, but in my opinion quite descriptive of your OLO contributions as “illustrative of a preoccupation which has produced this series of unbalanced and unrealistic texts on Middle East issues.”

My answer:

What Muskie actually said was:

"In remarks made to the Council U.S. Secretary of State Edmund Muskie said "The question of Jerusalem must be addressed in the context of negotiations for a comprehensive, just and lasting Middle East peace."

The draft resolution before us today is illustrative of a preoccupation which has produced this series of unbalanced and unrealistic texts on Middle East issues. It fails to serve the goal of all faiths that look upon Jerusalem as holy. We must share a common vision of that ancient city's future-- an undivided Jerusalem, with free access to the Holy Places for people of all faiths.[1]"

Your unbalanced and unrealistic texts - based on misstatements of fact - unequivocally qualify for similar condemnation.

Here is another one.

You state:

"You know as well as I do that the Transjordan Memorandum separated the areas controlled by the British into Palestine and Transjordan well before the British Mandate came into effect. "

My answer:

The British mandate came into effect in 1920 and was confirmed by the League of Nations on 24 July 1922. The Transjordan memorandum came into effect on 23 September 1922.

What the Transjordan memorandum did was to prevent the Jews reconstituting the Jewish National Home in Transjordan - thereby reserving 78% of the Mandate territory exclusively for the non-Jewish communities of Palestine. Britain remained the Mandatory Authority until Transjordan became independent in 1946.

I don't intend replying to your further posts - unless to correct any further misstatement of facts.

Arab propagandists obviously have a faithful disciple on their side.

#Yuyutsu

Greatly excited about the prospect of joining you for lunch.

Why don't you also join with me in urging Israel and Jordan to enter into direct negotiations on the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank and East Jerusalem?

Don't knock the negotiations before they start. Get Jordan and Israel to the negotiating table first (maybe under UN Secretary General Chairmanship)and let them decide if they can come to an agreement.

Such a settlement would accord with the history, geography and demography of "Palestine" and determine the allocation of 4% of the remaining 5% of Palestine still remaining unallocated between Jews and Arabs.

Kissing King Abdullah's feet and having lunch with me will be your reward if a settlement is reached.

I must say I am intrigued by this comment of yours:

"Also, you are suggesting to divide Palestine between Jews and Arabs, ignoring the fact that it is no longer terra-nulla, that meanwhile the state of Israel was formed on 17% of its area. You are asking to willy-nilly take away the land from the Israelis and hand it over to "the Jews" - no thanks!"

Please clarify:

1.What in your view is the difference between "Israelis" - whose population is 80% comprised of Jews - and "Jews"?

2. Is "Israel" the Jewish State or not?

3. What land do you think I am asking be taken away willy-nilly from the Israelis and handed to "the Jews"?