(...continued)

As Israel withdraws within its own borders, it will make it absolutely clear that a rocket on Tel Aviv or the airport will result in terrible destruction on the other side. Not by a rocket, but by bulldozers (supported of course by air and ground forces), crossing over and wiping everything in their path, then returning home, till the next time if necessary.

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

No, I have no delusions of the impossible, though I do believe that the stronger Israel is, the longer a cease-fire can hold. My only concern is that my family in Israel are safe and well. For that, Israel must be able to defend itself both externally (against the Islamic surge, as mentioned) and internally (against the moral and social corruption caused by the 1967 war, which can only be healed by letting go of those cursed territories to the last centimeter).

As for the Arabs, I see no hope for those in Gaza - not so long as Iran is there, but I see good prospects for peace (whether formally declared or otherwise, it doesn't really matter) for those in the West Bank - so long as they are kept in isolation from the Hamas (of both Muslim and Jewish persuasions), because apart from those fanatic extremists, ordinary Israelis and ordinary West-Bankers have no conflict between them.

Dear Awv,

If you think I would leave such a comment as that alone then you are an idiot.

And the fact you have made it only leaves the conclusion I was correct in my original assessment of you, one determined "try and turn what is a cultural and political issue into one of race." and reiterate it is a "distasteful and whose inappropriate use has debased it's currency."

What it makes you sir is a troll, certainly a persistent one but a troll none the less.

To take my line "To believe the line David Singer touts on OLO" and turn it into "simply because I agree with some of what David Singer says in this article" has troll written all over it.

However I suppose mutual distaste shouldn't preclude a continuing discussion of the facts.

You state;

"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,"

No it most certainly was not. One only needs to look at the Faisal - Weizmann agreement of 1919 to see how close the Jewish and Arab concepts of Palestine were. Both signed the map which closely resembled the earlier Sykes-Picot map. It was somewhere within these boundaries the national homeland of the Jews was to be established without prejudicing the rights of the existing non-Jewish population.

Weizmann was the head of the Zionist movement and later Israel's first president.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal–Weizmann_Agreement

So ultimately the question is which is geographically closer to the truth, David Singer's line that Jordan is Palestine or what the world regards as self-evident, that Israel is Palestine. If you accept the former then enough said.

Csteele:

Resorting to rage and name calling does nothing to advance your argument, it only serves to weaken it. Any comments I made regarding your controversial remark are short and to the point, unlike the prominence it occupies in your posts. Persistency, it seems, is very much your strong suit, not mine. I will not comment any further on your remark, even though I’m confident you will. I’ll let the facts (your posts) speak for themselves.

“To take my line "To believe the line David Singer touts on OLO" and turn it into "simply because I agree with some of what David Singer says in this article" has troll written all over it”

I was not trying to turn your line into anything. I was assuming (naively perhaps) that you read and understood my posts before depicting me as a narrow minded right-wing nationalist. It appears I was wrong. Can you point to any comment I made “believing the line David Singer touts on OLO”? My initial response to your post was based on fact, specifically your initial claim that Transjordan was not included in the British Mandate of Palestine. I never claimed to support (or oppose) the opinions stated by Mr Singer in the article, only the facts. Once again, you choose rage and name calling to support your viewpoint, rather than facts and logic, or even bothering to properly read my posts.

continued...

continued...

As for the agreement between the Arabs and Jews about the boundaries of Palestine – you cite the Faisal-Weizmann agreement as an example to support your argument. There are several problems with this example: The agreement was between Faisal, striving to establish his kingdom in the east, and the Zionists, who hoped to establish their own state to the west. The Palestinian Arab population, despised by both sides, was ignored and had no input into the agreement. It did not last more than a few months. It can hardly be considered as a worthy example of any serious consensus between the Palestinian Jews and Arabs about what constituted the boundaries of Palestine. The most important authority, the League of Nations, included the whole area as the ‘Mandate of Palestine’, not the ‘Mandate of Transjordan and Palestine’.

Dear Avw,

You are basically calling me a racist yet you're sooking up about being called a troll? Wow. Stop being so bloody precious and hypocritical my friend, it does you no favours, in fact it invites the impression of insipid petulance.

You are immediately dismissive of any evidence I produce about the perceived boundaries of the former Palestine, yet provide none of your own. If you have nothing just admit it.

And your posts have become quite confusing. For instance you say that the concept of Palestine at the time of the Balfour Declaration was significant, then dismiss it when it is illustrated to you. Rather than asking me to review your posts perhaps it might be more fruitful if you were to engage in the exercise yourself.

Furthermore you have avoided the question; do you agree with the view of David Singer that Jordan is Palestine? If you do then I am more than happy seeing you as rightwing and nationalistic.

You might think you are on a high horse but from here it is giving a very good impression of being an ass.

To csteele and Avw

I have been following your correspondence with interest.

csteele is muddying the waters by referring to the Sykes-Picot agreement and the Faisal - Weizmann agreements for the following reasons:

1. Neither had the binding force of international law.
2. Only the Mandate for Palestine approved by the League of Nations had such legally binding effect. Its terms were preserved by article 80 of the United Nations Charter and are as alive today as they were in 1922.
3. The Mandate did include today's Jordan which comprised 78% of the territory of the Mandate and it remained part of the Mandate until granted independence by Great Britain in 1946.
4. The PLO Charter makes it very clear that Palestine during the Mandate is one separate and indivisible territory.
5. The Mandate is the starting point - and still the relevant reference point for settling the conflict between Arabs and Jews.
6. The Palestinian Arabs - and the Arab states generally - have never accepted the decision of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and everything flowing from it - including article 80 of the UN Charter - and continue to deny the Mandate's binding effect in international law. Disregard for the law has put them in the sorry position they are in today. They have no one but themselves to blame.

csteele

By the way I am still waiting for you to acknowledge the incorrectness of many of your earlier factual statements to which I drew your attention - and to which you have not had the decency to respond. Never mind - your silence is worth a thousand words.

Avw

You have not been duped by csteele's efforts to downplay the importance of the Mandate. He continues his habit of shooting the messenger and ignoring the message. Thanks for your support in presenting the facts.