Dear Awv,

You said:

“Your earlier comment stated unequivocally “if you are Jewish then of course … I’m possibly wasting my time”. “

That is at best disingenuous.

My statement was in fact; “It is hard to fathom there are others around who believe this stuff. If you are Jewish then of course I must cut you some slack and acknowledge I'm possibly wasting my time, if not then how have you come by this viewpoint?”

Contrary to your claim “You did not make any distinction between a fundamentalist Jew, left-wing, or any other type.” I did, in the very first sentence. To believe the line David Singer touts on OLO would generally have you regarded as a person with a narrow, right-wing, nationalistic viewpoint, certainly not a Joe Halper, a Noam Chomsky or an Anthony Lowenstien.

My comment was qualified from the start and for you to be leaping on to your high horse was unwarranted.

My only concession is to admit I, in my own mind, erroneously attributed to you the comment “so-called "Palestinian's"” and it influenced my response. It was Custard and not yourself.

Cont...

Cont...

You also asked “ Do you really consider their secret partition of the Ottoman Empire as more significant than the League of Nations Mandate? I’m sorry, but this does not make any sense to me. “

If you do not think the concept of what was Palestine at the time of the Balfour declaration was significant then you will need to attribute to the British powers of reading the future that are supernatural.

Again I will concede that Balfour thought “Palestine should be extended into the lands lying east of the Jordan. It should not, however, be allowed to include the Hedjaz Railway”, about 50kms in.

The eastern border of the British Mandate for Palestinian was years later established more than six times that distance from the river, or nearly tripling the size of the former Palestine.

As to Britain ceding any part of the Mandate to a foreign power, in the case of Jordan it didn't. Indeed “The object aimed at by France and the United Kingdom in prosecuting in the East the War let loose by the ambition of Germany is the complete and definite emancipation of the peoples so long oppressed by the Turks and the establishment of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous populations.” Anglo-French Declaration of 1918.

European Jewry were not indigenous to Palestine and what ever we may think about the deserving nature of the Jewish people to freedom from the persecutions of Christian Europe that “complete and definite emancipation” is also deserved by the Palestinian people, something that hopefully they will achieve soon.

Dear David,

"Jordan may not be interested in returning to the West Bank... then a little bit of pressure - like that placed on Israel from time to time by the international community can - and will - achieve wonders in getting a change of heart."

In other words, bullying a peaceful nation is a valid way of achieving one's goals. Same in one's personal life?

"...lack of certainty as to who is the sovereign ruler is causing grave security and humanitarian concerns for Israel..."

I fail to see Israel's humanitarian concern once it is out of there, but I do understand about Israel's security concerns. Fortunately there's a simple solution: return the army back inside Israel, build a big wall around Israel's border with the West Bank, then any shot, missile, bomb, etc. from the other side will be answered with one kilometer east of the wall bulldozed away, erased and turned into a wasteland. Another shot - another kilometer, etc. until whoever is on the other side learns not to disturb Israel.

"It is also in the national interest of both Jordan and Egypt that sovereignty is established in the West Bank and Gaza..."

Then let them do the worrying. I believe your concern is about Israel.

"Yes - Israel left Gaza without anyone's permission and look what has happened since - a total shambles. Do you think a similar outcome in the West Bank would not happen?"

It's a great achievement that Israelis are no longer in Gaza (except one). Apart from internal benefits, it saved Israel from being considered even worse of a pariah state, and embargoed by the rest of the world (even the USA). Arabs can be annoying at times (though the level of their attacks have by now subsided), but cannot cause too much military damage to Israel. Israel, however, has two far more dangerous enemies: Iran... and Israel. It's crucial to have the world side with Israel and help it stop Iran, and it's crucial to prevent a civil war within Israel. Only a withdrawal from the West Bank will achieve both.

To Yuyutsu

Jordan and Israel are sovereign in 95% of former Palestine. Carving up the remaining 5% between them should be a piece of cake. If pressure is needed to get both of them to the negotiating table then it will have been well applied to help save the region plunging into another war.

Israel offered to cede sovereignty in more than 90% of the West Bank and Gaza in 2001 and 2008 - both of which offers were rejected by the Palestinian Authority.

The Israeli army will not be leaving the remaining 10% of the West Bank - nor will the overwhelming majority of the 500000 Jews who live in the West Bank. The racist demand that they all be transferred should be universally denounced. Jews have the legal right to live there under article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter.

Your bizarre idea to build a big wall around the West Bank would not last three months.

Rockets are still being fired from Gaza:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel

You are very naive to believe a rocket fired into Tel Aviv or Ben Gurion airport from the West Bank would be responded to with a rocket fired from Israel to turn an area within one kilometer of the Yuyutsu fence into a wasteland.

Israel's security interest is to ensure not one rocket is fired into Tel Aviv or Ben Gurion airport. That is why there will never be a complete disengagement from the West Bank. Israel has learned from its disastrous Gaza disengagement.

My concern is for peace in the region - isn't that yours?

Israel's disengagement from Gaza been a disaster - not only for Israel's civilian population but also ending any hope that the Palestinian Authority might have had to establish itself as the legitimate governing body. Hamas control has caused havoc and split the Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza into two warring groups. That is a current ongoing civil war that you seem to overlook.

Csteele:

The phrase “It is hard to fathom there are others around who believe this stuff” does nothing at all to qualify a racist comment such as the one you made in the following sentence. In fact it makes it worse. Let’s leave it at that - the more you try to defend it the less credible your arguments becomes.

You seem to imply that I must be narrow minded, right-wing and nationalistic, simply because I agree with some of what David Singer says in this article and disagree with left-wing champions such as Chomsky. But… isn’t this the usual line parroted by the left? ‘if you don’t agree with us, then you are narrow minded and a right-wing nationalist’?

None of your elaborate attempts to explain why the secret British map of Sykes–Picot should have more relevance to this discussion than the subsequent League of Nations Mandate are convincing. The concept of Palestine at the time of the Balfour declaration was indeed significant in British policy. However the British concept of Palestine was quite different from what the Zionists imagined, which was again very different to what was imagined by the Arabs, and different from the League of Nations Mandate. I’m afraid no supernatural powers were at work here: once the British obtained their mandate they proceeded to implement their own policies which, not surprisingly, resembled what was outlined in their earlier secret plans.

As for the declaration by the French and British for a “complete and definite emancipation of the peoples so long oppressed by the Turks” – you need to remember the difference between public statements and actual policy. The Brits did not leave Palestine voluntarily, just as they did not leave India or their US colonies voluntarily. The French, similarly, would still be present in Syria, Algeria and Vietnam if they were not forced to leave. Keep this in mind before taking such political statements at face value.

Dear David,

Now it's my turn to ask whether you are really that naive:
The existing tensions have nothing to do with sovereignty, but with the fact that Hamas (mainly, and similar Islamic factions) is bent on an Islamic state and is fanned by Iran. Hamas insists that the whole of "Palestine" must be a Muslim Waqf. Gaza is probably the most densely populated area in the world and every child there is armed. Do you really believe that any combination of Israeli-Jordanian-Egyptian sovereignty could stop them? Nothing short of genocide of all Gazans will, and no-one will dare that.

However, the number of rockets shot at Israel has fallen sharply in the last 2-3 years, and that's because Hamas are pragmatic and understand [only] the language of armed-power. They care not for sovereignty and international law, but they understand the bitter consequences to themselves if they attack at this time. Meanwhile, Israel is constantly improving its missile-defense systems. Armed conflict will remain a permanent feature of the middle-east, but active wars can be prevented [only] by Israel remaining armed to its teeth.

It is also of utmost naivety to believe that the world cares for the small print of the law, that EVEN IF Jews have a legal right to live in the West Bank (I have no presumptions of understanding such detailed legal matters, which are purely academic anyway. I also admit that I have no patience to read more about it), then the world would suddenly embrace the Jewish settlers (themselves nearly a carbon-copy of their Islamic Hamas brothers, just Jewish instead of Muslim, for whoever cares for the difference). If you're inclined to think of it as racist, then fine, then the world is racist, and that's not going to change any time soon (more plausibly though, the world simply operates on interests).

(continued...)