Whatever the boundaries of Israel will eventually be (we do not know what these are at present) the State will be occupied by a 'people', many of whom will be descendants of Kahzars with no possible links to the land.

It will also be occupied by half a million 'non-people' whose ancestors have lived there for a thousand years. The 'people' have decided that it will be a Jewish State. It will therefore have to reinforce this racist concept with even more apartheid type laws and more ethnic cleansing.

If they are successful I wonder how this pariah state will live and trade and act as world citizens in conjunction with all the other countries in the world. It appears to me that they are racing towards their own disaster.

"It appears to me that they are racing towards their own disaster"

- Aren't we all?

"many of whom will be descendants of Kahzars with no possible links to the land."

- Except for being born there and knowing no other home: is that not a link enough?

"It will also be occupied by half a million 'non-people' whose ancestors have lived there for a thousand years."

- If they behave as 'non-people', they will be treated as such.

"The 'people' have decided that it will be a Jewish State."

- And they can therefore change that decision, which I believe they will once they no longer feel that their lives are under external threat.

"It will therefore have to reinforce this racist concept with even more apartheid type laws and more ethnic cleansing."

- That will entirely depend on the neighbouring people: if they continue to employ terror, then they will indeed receive apartheid terror in return.

"If they are successful I wonder how this pariah state will live and trade and act as world citizens"

- Anyone's first concern is to survive. Only when you feel safe you may contemplate such luxuries as being "world citizens".

lol david
your so funny
semite covers more than just israel

as for newt
goyishe kup...[right]..wink wink nudge nudge

who makes the most holy place a war zone?
we should expect more from the 'chosen people'
who cheated the red string,..then later betrayed the rite

those clever few..who cant put ursury on themselves but heck the goy
no sweat...that 911 thing was clever..[i will admit]

anyhow if you dont know what goyishe kup means
you know your not the super elite few
who want iran really bad

ron paul would be better
but heck he would only get bumped
and the vp runs the usa cash cow..direct into the unholy lands

all land belongs to god
live with it

that obtained by vile
has gods curse wrote large upon it
the balfore letter..dont outweight god's claim

how did the family levie
loose to the unholy of zion

via the deciets of yiddish and the new unholy texts
in the book less than two hundred years..and a deniable unspeakable texdt even their own deney..you insult my semite people

[but as god has caused to be written..those who say/think..god tests..
decieve themselves..[he don't*make them go insane first..either

thats the fruit
by their works shall we know them

Indeed it is long past time that the truth about Palestine (and the Zionist regime in Israel) were told in the Australian media. But don't expect to find it in the columns written by Mr Singer. His rewriting of history, cultural blindness and inability to see the facts as they are have too long disgraced the pages of online opinion. It is one thing for the editors to promote a diversity of opinion; it is quite another to promote this endless propaganda. Perhaps the editors could take a page out of Sarkozy's book and tell Mr Singer that he has passed a golden opportunity to shut up.

Palestine - time to tell the truth?

Whose truth?

The moment any historian begins to look critically
at events, at things like motivation, circumstances,
context, or any other such considerations, the product
(truth?) becomes unacceptable for one or another camp
of readers.

People are usually more interested in condemnation
and punishment than in explanation. Explanations seem
tantamount to sympathizing and excusing. This often
all too easily leads onto the questionable practice of
stereotyping nations and people. Continued stereotyping
of any nation, can encourage "counter-stereotyping,"
and the sad result is usually a complete breakdown in
communication.

While there exists a reluctance for either side to modify
their judgements - this conflict will continue.
Antony Loewenstein, in his book, "My Israel Question,"
tells us:

"It is time for a radical rethinking of the conflict...
I support the rights of Israelis to live in peace and
security, but not at the expense of the Palestinians.
Why do we constantly hear about Israel's need for 'security,'
as though that justifies erecting walls, checkpoints and barriers?
Why is the world told to believe that the Palestinians should
only accept peace on Israel's terms? I've come to the sad
realisation that many in the West simply don't like Arabs or
Palestinians very much and therefore believe that we have the
right to treat them as we wish..."

"The Kadima vision is of a concrete wall, with Jews on one side
and as many Arabs as possible on the other. Sooner or later,
Israel and the Palestinians will have to meet face-to-face,
listen to each other's grievances and negotiate with honesty.
Only then - and on condition that both Israel and the Palestinian
state achieve safety and security - will this conflict be resolved.
Neither side has a monopoly on suffering, but only one
party has the power to end the occupation and to recognise
that Israel and Palestine are historically destined to share the
same homeland."

Dear Lexi,

Somehow as usual, the discussion turned away from the original topic to be about Israel and its right or otherwise to exist.

What David Singer wrote about "Palestinians" is true, although for any practical purpose it really makes no difference.

"The Kadima vision is of a concrete wall"

A wall is needed in order to keep away the bad people, those who want to shoot and plant bombs and those who try to impose their way of life on the population. It makes no difference whether these are Arabs or Jews.

The prevailing idea as if there is a conflict between Arabs (or Palestinians) and Jews is extremely superficial. The number of opposing groups in that region is much bigger than two, where the differences between moderate "Jews" and moderate "Palestinians" are tiny, if any, compared with the huge differences within each so-called "camp". How can you suggest that Jews and Arabs share the same homeland with each other when they cannot even share it with their own kin!?

The extreme Jews do not want peace, while the extreme Arabs do not want a state. They each want the others out, nothing else, even if it costs them their life. If it was up to the moderates, there would have been no conflict in the first place.

Given this situation, there is no point in negotiations. Even if a settlement were to be reached, none of the sides would be able to keep it due to the internal conflicts. so why bother? If anyone really cares about peace, then talking is not enough: some military force needs to step in and just say: "You go to the left; You go to the right; You go up in smoke; and here shall stand the wall."