When I was a kid, back in the days before cd’s, itunes, and MP3’s, we used to have an old turntable on which we played records.

My mother’s taste in music aside – Tom Jones and Roberta Flack were hardly considered worthy by pre-teens – and probably because of a propensity to man-handle the vinyl while simultaneously sucking on chuppa-chups and stuffing over-blown hubba-bubba back into our mouths, the stylus would often get stuck. Of course, it always happened at the most discordant moment in a song, accompanied by lots of crackling and my mother yelling at us to get away from the record player while she lifted the stylus up and over the offending blob of congealed sugar so the song could resume, albeit with a few chords missing.

Regrettably, it’s time to lift that stylus, David. While I appreciate your nostalgic efforts to enable me to relive the lazy, hazy days of my youth, it’s time to skip the repetitious rhetoric so we can all finish listening to the song.

“Mum!! David’s got the record stuck again!”

Enough already of the endless equivocation and broken record rhetoric! The Palestinians need to have their own state and recorded legal boundaries!
If only to stop the endlessly equivocating prevaricating Jewish state, stolen from the legitimate, SONS OF ABRAHAM owners, over half a century ago; as the so-called spoils of war; from "acquiring" any more Palestinian land, for illegal settlements!
It's time for D Singer, to sing another song.
Rhrosty.

There is no need for a Palestinian state. There is no need for Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist states either. There is a need for democratic states which have separation of religion and state and do not discriminate among their citizens on the basis of religion or ethnicity. If Australia were to become a Christian state I would become a second class citizen as I am a Jew. Therefore I cannot support a Jewish state where non-Jews are second class citizens. Have separation of religion and state in Australia by getting rid of chaplains in the schools and tax payer financing of religious schools, and make the area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean a state for all its citizens. Democracy requires separation of religion and state.

MEH – thanks for the link. Long, but worthwhile, and infinitely more interesting than anything Mr Singer writes. Off to buy the book. Peled’s, that is.

Rhosty – And just where would you place those boundaries? All good intentions aside, a two-state solution will not work. Ever.

David f – you are right. A single, democratic state with equal representation and equal rights for all is the only answer.

This spokesman for racist Israel calls for facts, not fiction, after grandly allocating the Palestinian people between bits of Palestine not yet fully grabbed - 55% here, 41% there. Facts, not fiction, include the 4-5 million outside Palestine in enforced exile. Instead of the surrender (a.k.a. "peace") process, how about a justice process - exiles to return to their homeland, settlers to return to theirs?

David Singer –

Quote title: “great expectations founded on fiction”

Okay, I see what you did there. Clever. But no. In fact, ‘Great Expectations’ was a work of fiction, founded on the issues of Dickens’ time. Not the other way round. See the difference? It’s subtle, I grant you, but important nonetheless.

Now, I am not a fan of Dickens. He is far too morose, his characters too dark and his writing just a tad repetitious, for my taste – much like your own, really, which is probably why you misappropriated one of his titles for your masterful argument. Well that, and the fact that your article is about writers. Had I not read the body of your essay, I might never have understood your brilliant wordplay.

Nevertheless, despite my unwillingness to waste time reading Dickens when I could be re-reading that other great writer, Dick Francis, or a Simpsons comic, I have to admire the man’s efforts in bringing to light social inequality and injustice through great works of fiction. One can only assume Grossman, Sansal and those other ‘well-meaning authors’ intend to do the same. We can also assume their work won’t be as long-winded as Dickens, or as tedious as yours.

And while we’re on the topic of great titles, David, there are any number of ideas to be found amongst great literature. Here are a few you might want to consider for your next article. Feel free to use them. I'm generous that way.

“War and Pieces – The aftermath of Israeli Occupation”
“Pilgrim’s Regress – Considerations for the Right of Return”
“Dangerous Liaisons – Israel and America”
“Pride and Prejudice – A Zionist Approach”
“Brave New Israel – Another Zionist Approach”
“Golan Heights – Catherine and Heathcliff lost in the Desert” (actually, this is just silly)
“Bibi’s Adventures in Wonderland – “’The White Rabbit made me do it!’”
“The Great Gaff – Carving up Palestine, post WWII”
“Waiting for the Barbarians – A Palestinian Perspective”
“Atonement – Not in our Lifetime”
“Persuasion – Israel’s influence in American Politics”
“A Tale of Two Cities – Two halves do make a Hole. An in-depth study of modern day Jerusalem”

Dear David F.,

<<Democracy requires separation of religion and state.>>

Wrong: I do support the separation of religion and state, but democracy has nothing to do with it - democracy is the rule of 51%, which can tyrannize the 49% and it can be perfectly democratic for 51% who belong to one religion to ban the religion of the other 49%... which is why I don't agree with democracy!

It may not be that extreme, but in a subtle way, Australia IS a Christian country and as a Jew you already ARE a second-class citizen: if for example you are caught opening your shop on Christmas Day, which to you means nothing, then you will be fined, while on the other hand you may be required to attend court on the Day of Atonement. Or centerlink may require a Muslim to work or seek work on Friday, same for Jews on late Friday afternoons in the winter when the Sabbath starts early. That could never happen in Israel!

So the devil is in the details: the Jews require a state where the Sabbath and the Jewish holidays are sacrosanct, where no one can compel them to work or attend court or anything of similar nature on the Sabbath, and so do the Muslims require a state where Fridays and Ramadan are sacrosanct. Throwing them both into the same cauldron is cruel to both, though perfectly democratic.

There are other reasons, such as Kosher standards in public, why Jews need a state of their own, but certainly the Sabbath is the foremost concern.

True separation of religion and state is very hard to achieve and something we are yet to dream about even in Australia (it requires deep reforms that remove the rights of government to intervene in our lives - once governments stop intervening in our lives, they will necessarily also stop intervening against our religion), way before it can be imposed on other countries. Meanwhile, both the Jews and Palestinians need small and separate plots under the heavens where they can live their life freely as first-class citizens.

The PA promises its people that in the future, the State of Israel will be completely erased and replaced by a State of Palestine. A Fatah member of Palestinian parliament, Najat Abu Bakr, told Palestinian Authority TV that the Authority supports and adopts the “stages plan.” To the world, the Authority claims that the Palestinians seek the West Bank and Gaza Strip, when in fact the goal is all of Israel: “It doesn’t mean that we don’t want the 1948 borders, but in our current political program we say we want a state on the 1967 borders.” The Palestinian Authority, in agreement with Mr Singer, do not want a 'two state' solution but a 'one state' solution. This position makes the seeking of a just, amicable solution somewhat problematic I think.

There is no such thing as a religious country, there are some countries who are predominately run by people who all believe the same religion.

As for Singers fractured fairy tales, why does OI bother to continue to publish this tripe?

The country was and is Palestine, how else could an illegal partition of Palestine be voted on.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Australia is a country with a Christian majority. It is not a Christian country. A Christian country is one which gives Christianity special status.

The men who wrote the Australian Constitution took pains to see that no religion has a special status. The Constitution refers to religion in only one article. It follows:

Section 116:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Australia is a country under law, and the above specifies the role of religion. It is simply none of the government's business. At present in some areas the Australian government has violated its constitution. However, I hope that the government will eventually observe its constitution

Dear Yuyutsu,

Democracy is more than the rule of the majority. Democracy is government under law which requires that the rights of all citizens be observed. This is incompatible with either favouring or restricting a particular belief system. Apparently that is not the way you understand democracy.

Dear David F.

I appreciate the good intentions of the Australian constitution.

I do suggest that violations of section 116 are not incidental, that it is indeed very difficult for anyone to keep such neutrality and translate it into practical terms making everyone happy. This is not out of bad intention, but a reality of life.

The majority of Australians, for being Christians to one degree or another, want their public holidays to include Christmas and Easter and the state supports their wish. However, if every religion and sect was catered for, we would have a public holiday every day, all year round!

Because the Jewish morning prayer takes at least one hour (longer on Mondays, Thursdays, Sabbaths, new moons and holidays), and cannot be started before there is sufficient natural light, while the afternoon prayer is relatively short, Israel takes this into account when designing its daylight-saving schedule. Now suppose another religion had its longest prayer in the afternoon which must be completed before sunset, and suppose they were a majority in some country, then that country would have naturally set its daylight-saving schedule the opposite way.

It's nice to know that Australian Jews can be elected to parliament, but what would they do when parliament sits late on Fridays, or even on Saturday when urgent? Also, what should they do when Jewish law forbids them to attend the "Our Father" prayer at beginning of parliament sittings (which I'm sure is not ill-intentioned)?

These are just three examples, there are endless more. The best way is therefore to break down countries into smaller units to suit the different wishes (religious or otherwise) of different groups.

(the only limiting factor when dividing up countries is the ability to maintain internal and external security, but this goes well beyond the scope of this topic)

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: "
These are just three examples, there are endless more. The best way is therefore to break down countries into smaller units to suit the different wishes (religious or otherwise) of different groups."

I think the above is a rotten way. I think it is better for people to live together, work together and accept our differences. I think it is better to have adequately funded public schools for children to grow together, learn together and live together in society.

I object to ethnic nationalism or self-determination where some ethnic or religious group controls the country, and those who don't belong to that group and live in the country are second-class citizens.

I think we can live together in peace and friendship as equals with those of different ethnicities and religions.

The United States has elected a dark skinned president with a Muslim father in a country where black people are only 18% of the population. He is running for re-election against a Mormon whose religion is that of only 2% of the population. If the US were divided into Mormon enclaves, black enclaves, Indian enclaves etc. it would not be the great nation that it is.

Many in this world live in peace with people of other cultures. That is called multiculturalism, and I think it is a great idea.

Dear David F.,

No dispute that multiculturalism is better than ethnic control and that self-determination must not come at the expense of other groups.

But I go a step further:

You stated about the US, that had it been divided, "it would not be the great nation that it is".

Well, as a side remark, I don't consider the US to be a great nation. It has for example the highest rate of incarceration in the world and it exports much junk culture and products to the rest of the world... back to the topic:

I have no interest in being a great nation. While you reject ethnic nationalism, I reject all nationalism. I see no point in it and I believe that we have better ways to spend our limited time on earth than to merge into such large-scale blobs.

What I do support, is that groups of people who for whatever reason, religion included but not exclusively, want to live together in an environment that supports their unique lifestyle and makes them happier, should be able to do so [PEACEFULLY!] and carve their own independent state on some small patch of this earth (obviously that patch must belong to them, I'm not talking about stealing other people's land).

There is no justifiable reason why one must adept and suffer living under a culture that doesn't suit them. Those who want to live together and work together may of course do so, and yes, it is good for people to accept their differences, but accepting differences doesn't mean that one must also live with those differences everyday and thus compromise their own values.

In my previous example, if a group of people need to pray for an hour each morning, they should be able to live in a place where daylight-saving-time is adjusted to their need, where they do not need to hurry on dark cold mornings to try squeezing their prayer before running without breakfast to [public-]school.

Dear Prompete,

You seem to completely underplay the intentions of the Israeli government. Your statement “The PA promises its people that in the future, the State of Israel will be completely erased and replaced by a State of Palestine.” can be easily replaced with 'The Israeli government promises its people that in the future, the State of Israel will completely erase and replace any notion of a separate State of Palestine.'

It is the reality on the ground that should determine which view holds the most weight, Mr Singer's or the writers his disparages, and it is evident to all but the most grievously afflicted that the cancer eating so effectively at any chance of a meaningful settlement is the continued building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. These are in direct violation of international law and their displacement of Palestinians lays bare the absurdity of the assertion that what is in place is not an occupation in every sense of the word.

Your post turns victim into perpetrator. It flies in the face of the obvious. While perhaps there may be some degree of forgiveness, based on his heritage, we should afford Mr Singer for the poison he puts out on a weekly basis, I find it hard to make any similar concession for your approach which tries to equally apportion blame for stalled negotiations.

As I have no reason to believe that you are anything but a fair minded person could I invite you to look past Mr Singer's offerings and accept, as the rest of the world now does, that Israel's ambition and intransigence are by far the biggest impediment to any just resolution between the parties.

David Singer seems to have such a strong and impenetrable mental state. Perhaps that is the type of mental state that has derailed any peace initiative that required the Israeli politicians to engage with the history and reason that the outside world offers.

Dear Yuyutsu,

So you reject all nationalism. Actually that’s a good idea. The nation state system breeds wars. Unfortunately it’s not something one can reject unless one becomes a stateless person, and I assume you are a citizen of a country. In such a case you are part of the system whether you reject it or not.

The United States is a great nation. I was not defining great as good although there is much that is good about it. It is great in the sense of being powerful. It is also good in the sense that the president does not have to be of any particular background although I doubt that the US would elect an openly atheist president at this time. It certainly has flaws some of which you have pointed out.

I agree that people of a particular background who want to live together peacefully should have a right to do so. However, they do not need to have a nation state around them to do so. That gives them the opportunity to oppress others. To say you reject all nationalism and support ethnic nationalism is contradictory. In the United States there are groups who choose to live together and exclude others . The Amish and Orthodox Jews are two examples. I support that right. They can choose to live together without setting up an independent nation state. They need to live in a country which allows them to live together as an entity. The US is such a country.

As to stealing other people’s land Australia, NZ, North America and South America were settled by Europeans who stole the people’s land. I support Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTaR) which recognises the seizure in Australia. We recognise that we cannot restore the country completely to the people who were invaded, but we have help them get title to some of what was their land.

As to living in a place which has a climate convenient to prayers that is a matter of choice constrained by other things that are possible and desirable.

Csteele.

Please cite the relevant international law which establishes the settlements on the West Bank as illegal.

Those who see a single state solution can hardly object to settlements on the West Bank ... can they?

I don't agree with settlements there. After all the the rest of the Arab Middle East is effectively Judenfrei ...

As a country constantly under siege, Israel has had to ensure it's security. Anyone who lived in Malaya during the Emergency, or elsewhere where the threat of terrorism, indeed annihilation, is a constant, would recognise and respect that Israel has had to set safeguards in place. It seems that those who have had nothing more stressful in their lives than losing their car keys, are unable to comprehend this.

As for the gullible, or should that be those with deep-seated confirmation bias (a pre-existing bias, in which any and all 'information' that supports their bias is grabbed at indiscriminately) ...

A disinterested article by Abdulateef Al-Mulhim, retired, Naval Commodore, Saudi Arabia. Al-Mulhim is a frequent contributor to “Arab News”. This article appeared some two-weeks ago, on Saturday 6 October 2012
http://www.arabnews.com/arab-spring-and-israeli-enemy

Why haven't the Palestinian refugees been settled in the states in which they have gone? The number of Palestinian refugees does not bear close scrutiny. Where else is refugee status passed on to children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.

UNRWA has everything to answer for. An operation of 30,000 members, it is a monolithic organisation with vested self-interest. Having highly inflated salaries, they expect 'tenure' of employment.

Why a Special Issue on UNRWA? by Steven J. Rosen
Middle East Quarterly Fall 2012, pp. 3-10
http://www.meforum.org/3344/unrwa-special

UNRWA Resists Resettlement by Alexander H. Joffe
Middle East Quarterly Fall 2012, pp. 11-25
http://www.meforum.org/3350/unrwa-resettlement

UNRWA Betrays Its Mission by Nitza Nachmias
Middle East Quarterly Fall 2012, pp. 27-35
http://www.meforum.org/3354/unrwa-mission

Some UNRWA Refugees Have Resettled by Emanuel Marx
Middle East Quarterly Fall 2012, pp. 37-44
http://www.meforum.org/3364/unrwa-refugees-resettled

Csteel

I fully agree that the continuing construction of settlements in the West Bank are extremely problematic in reaching any sort of resolution (single/multi or whatever ver configuration). I do believe that we're the Isrealis to freeze all settlement activity, even abandon some, there would still be no cessation of hostilities. The Palistinians simply do not want Isreal to exist. period.

so what is the pragmatic solution to this problem other than having all of Isreal evacuated to Naru and or Manus Island?

from my reading and observation it really does require two to negotiate, bot groups need to want peace. I do not believe that Isreal wants to continu a life of conflict with its neighbours. I read that something like 90+% of what the Palistinians demanded was offered to the. The unfortunate remaining 2% that was demanded was the elimination of the state. Hardly a deal any government could accept wouldn't you agree?

Looking past Mr Singers posts as you suggest, I cannot see that it is "Isreali intransigence" that is the biggest impediment to resolution, quite the reverse in fact.
cheers

Dear Danielle,

Shall we start with the most obvious one and go from there if the need arises?

The Fourth Geneva Convention – Part lll – Section lll – Article 49

“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Danielle,

Thanks for the reading material. I must admit I winced when I saw the length of the articles on the MEF site, so I hope you don’t mind, but I just skimmed over them. Just as well really, as the sentiments expressed in each were pretty much the same.

Now, having been criticized many times in the past for my selection of reading material – mostly by my mother who, as an ex-English teacher despairs of me ever reaching the dizzying heights of literary appreciation she has attained – I am loathe to inflict the same criticism on others.

However, you wrote: “As for the gullible, or should that be those with deep-seated confirmation bias (a pre-existing bias, in which any and all 'information' that supports their bias is grabbed at indiscriminately) ...” after which you posted no less than three links to the MEF site. Methinks this smacks of hypocrisy.

Out of interest, and following my tendency to research what I read (unfortunately, usually after I have already read it), I looked up the MEF mission statement and was not at all surprised to find the following:

“The Middle East Forum promotes American interests in the Middle East and protects the Constitutional order from Middle Eastern threats.

The Forum sees the region — with its profusion of dictatorships, radical ideologies, existential conflicts, border disagreements, corruption, political violence, and weapons of mass destruction — as a major source of problems for the United States. Accordingly, it urges active measures to protect Americans and their allies.

U.S. interests in the Middle East include fighting radical Islam; working for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia; developing strategies to deal with Iraq and contain Iran; and monitoring the advance of Islamism in Turkey. …”

What struck me most was the sentence “working for Palestinian acceptance of Israel”.

Really?

Dear David F.,

I think we have two sources of confusion:

One is about the difference between state and nation, the other about the difference between the ideal and 2nd-best situations, arising from your suggestion to skip directly to the ideal when it comes to Israel/Palestine, while even Australia is yet to reach a 2nd-best status.

A state does not necessarily imply a nation. The state is a mechanism whose proper role is to [aim to] provide security (internal and external) for its citizens. If it does just that and doesn't get involved in controversial ambitions, then no nation is created.

The state, being a non-voluntary organization, the only non-voluntary body one must belong to, should be very careful never to impose anything on its citizens beyond the one area where force and impositions can be justified - security. All other functions should be addressed by freely-entered voluntary bodies, including economy, culture, education, etc.

In the ideal scenario the state recognizes its limits, so as it doesn't impose on its citizens anything beyond what is absolutely necessary for security, different cultures can live side-by-side and then it doesn't really matter much whether that state is smaller or bigger, weaker or "greater".

As 2nd-best option, when states do still harbour ambitions, including national, ethnic, religious, economic, cultural, educational, sporting - whatever, then the solution must be to divide countries up into smaller states, so that individuals of different cultures can form their adequate living spaces, and should they be unable to do so in one state or find some of its laws unacceptably oppressive, there are better chances for them to find another state to accommodate their needs.

As a down-to-earth example, if one state forces children to attend [public] school at 8am (and also decides itself when 8am is) and this is unacceptable due to long morning prayers, then the parents have the option to move to another state where school starts at 9am or daylight-saving-times are different. If, OTOH, the state does not concern itself with schooling, then everyone can live there peacefully and attend their own schools.

Scribbler,

Hypocrisy? Hardly. The contributions offered by the the usual anti-Israel crowd here are slogans.

On the very, very rare occasion, a 'fact' is dropped into the discussion. This has resulted in the 'fact' being demolished with solid evidence. This shoddy scholarship hardly does the Palestinian cause any good.

If you had bothered to look at the MEF articles you would see that these are rigorously referenced. Readers can verify the facts and also see them in context. This is correct scholarship.

You made no comments about the articles. Do you agree, or not with the observations? If not, why not? Now you have the opportunity to refute them providing your own evidence.

“ … dizzying heights of literary appreciation ...”

The articles were not intended to be literature. Am I correct in thinking that their length was too much for you?

“ ...Palestinian acceptance of Israel”

Where have you been? This is the problem. If the Palestinians had accepted Israel, there would now be two states living in harmony along side each other. All the loss of life on both sides would have been avoided. How can there be peace when, particularly, Hamas is entrenched in seeing the destruction of Israel? For those lobbying the Palestinian cause - wouldn't it have been better for them to accept Israel?

Do read the article by Abdulateef Al-Mulhim,
http://www.arabnews.com/arab-spring-and-israeli-enemy

Dear Prompete,

FYI

September 9, 1993

Yitzhak Rabin

Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.

The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.

In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

Sincerely,

Yasser Arafat
Chairman
The Palestine Liberation Organization

September 9, 1993

Yasser Arafat
Chairman
The Palestinian Liberation Organization

Mr. Chairman,

In response to your letter of September 9, 1993, I wish to confirm to you that, in light of the PLO commitments included in your letter, the Government of Israel has decided to recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and commence negotiations with the PLO within the Middle East peace process.

Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel

Dear Yuyutsu,

We are simply at odds. Can you give an example of a state which is neither a nation or part of a nation such as Queensland or Ohio? In my post state and nation were synonymous.

Queensland is subject to the laws of Australia, and Ohio is subject to the laws of the US.

I used the example of the Amish and the Ortodox Jews in the United States where a group has different standards from the mainstream and has the freedom to live according to those standards.

Both the Amish and Orthodox Jews have their own schools. The United States has social security for almost all workers. The Amish are an exception. They do not wish to get involved with US Social Security. Their community takes care of their own, and the US government allows them to stay out of the Social Security system. They not need a nation or a state of their own. As pacifists they are exempt from military service when the US has conscription.

In the case of the Orthodox Jews they are free to live their life style in the United States. In Israel they force their life style on other people. It is better that they don't have a state. They can live the way they want to live but cannot force it on others.

Danielle,

Thank you for your concern about my ability to concentrate long enough to absorb the articles on the MEF. It's nice to know there are people out there with my best interests at heart.

Thankfully, I had only yesterday upped my dose of fish oil tablets, purchased a new pair of coke-bottle spectacles and, armed with a six-pack of Red Bull, managed to stay the course. Unfortunately, sitting for so long in my un-ergonomic chair has played havoc with my hemorrhoids, but I consider this to be a small sacrifice.

As for your inquiry as to my opinion of the articles, I thought I’d already given it.

‘Rigorously referenced’? Well, to be fair, articles on Wikipedia do that too, but I don’t rely on them solely for brain fodder. I’m sorry you didn’t get my reference about ‘literature’ – I admit it was a little glib. And yes, I did read the article by Abdulateef Al-Mulhim.

Danielle, we see things differently. You read the articles on MEF and see reasoned arguments bemoaning the UNRWA and its over-reaching mandate; arguments that contest the right of return of Palestinians to Israel so many generations after they were expelled; arguments that insist Jordan should be the new Palestine as so many Palestinians are already there, so why bother to relocate the poor sods again.

I read them and see no admission of responsibility by Israel for the Palestinian refugee problem – even though every article admits there is one; I see no viable solution offered, except to dismantle (or at least disempower) the UNRWA- which would play so nicely into Zionist plans - or heap the responsibility on Jordan.

Now I happily admit that deconstruction underpins both sides of the argument. Zionists argue that they have done nothing wrong, that Jerusalem is theirs to build on and manage however they wish, that the Palestinians and Arab nations have no-one to blame but themselves, that Israel acts the way it does because it is a lone paranoid state beset by enemies. They deconstruct facts, dates and intentions to promote their view.

(cont’)

Pro-Palestinians argue that Israel has, still is, and will continue to thwart international opinion and law in its push for Zionism; that its treatment of Palestinians within Israel is unjust; that its continued resettlement program in the West Bank is (under current circumstances) illegal; that Zionism promotes apartheid. Again, and to be fair, deconstruction plays an important part.

Deconstruction is a dangerous thing. Why, just the other week I went out to dinner with a couple of friends to one of those fancy foodie restaurants people go to just so they can tell less-fortunate people that they’ve been; the sort of place where the amount of food on the plate is inversely proportional to the price of the meal. At the end of the evening, having already spent a fortune and been left very hungry, I ordered one of my favourite desserts – tiramisu.

When it arrived, I peered down at my plate, squinting so as to be able to focus on the minute offering. The waiter, clearly trained to spot customer dismay, hurried to explain that the few crumbs, wisps of cream and delicate tendrils of coffee liqueur were indeed what I had ordered. “It’s been deconstructed,” he explained.

When I pointed out that I would have liked to have been given the opportunity to deconstruct it myself, he just shrugged. Needless to say, I didn’t eat the tiramisu. Instead, I took it home in a miniscule container and gave it to my dog, who fancies himself a bit of a connoisseur. He gave it a sniff and looked at me, as if to say, ‘Didn’t I eat this already?’

The point is, if you deconstruct something enough so that it bears little resemblance to the original (no matter your POV), cherry-picking the very best ingredients to create a masterpiece, arranging them artfully on a plate and tossing in a few minute details to enhance the flavour, you end up with a dog’s breakfast. If it doesn’t appeal to the customer, if it isn’t what they expected, they’re not going to like it.

Nor, it seems, will their dog.

Dear David F.,

The less the state interferes in people's lives, the more it is possible to accommodate very-different groups within that state without oppressing any of them, but look at the people of the Middle-East: do you consider them mature enough to not interfere in each others' affairs? You yourself just gave the example of Orthodox Jews in Israel and Islamic pressure on ordinary Palestinians is no less harsh, so how can you expect from them such a leap straight from where they are now to the ideal perfect state, from 10th century into the 22nd, this while sadly, even Australia today is unable (or unwilling) to accommodate people like the Amish (the USA slightly more accommodates them, but even there the Amish, while exempt from high-schools, are in trouble being forced to attend state primary-schools)?

The answer to hot-headed Middle-Easterners can be summarized by Genesis [13,8-9]:

{So Abram said to Lot, “Please let there be no strife between you and me, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen; for we are brethren. Is not the whole land before you? Please separate from me. If you take the left, then I will go to the right; or, if you go to the right, then I will go to the left."}

Not forcing one's ways on others is essential, elementary, but is only the beginning of the road.

Sadly it is difficult to find nowadays states with no nation, though easier to find nations without state: the Jews until 1948, Palestinians, Kurds, Tibetans, Aboriginal tribes, etc.

Nationhood is comprised of common ambitions. I find it wrong and oppressive to impose nationhood (in other words, supposedly-common-ambitions) on people merely because they happen to live in a particular geographical region. The larger that region, the more wrong it is, as less choices are available!

I am indeed deeply shocked by the current Australian government's talk of "nation building".

Dear Yuyutsu,

The Amish in the US are not forced to attend state primary schools. They can and do set up their own primary schools. They have a tradition which other groups might copy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumspringa tells about it. They have a great deal of autonomy. They have their own schools, and they pay for their own schools. It is illegal in the US for the government to subsidise non-public schools. Australia should copy.

I almost agree with your statement following, “Nationhood is comprised of common ambitions. I find it wrong and oppressive to impose nationhood (in other words, supposedly-common-ambitions) on people merely because they happen to live in a particular geographical region. The larger that region, the more wrong it is, as less [fewer?] choices are available!

I am indeed deeply shocked by the current Australian government's talk of "nation building".

Where I disagree is that the reality is that small nations in general cannot defend themselves against absorption by a larger nation next to them.

I also agree (with some reservations) with the statement:

The less the state interferes in people's lives, the more it is possible to accommodate very-different groups within that state without oppressing any of them.”

The reservation I have is the state can make it possible or harder for people to live together. Communities can have their own schools. However, if they have their own schools they should fund them themselves. Taxpayer funding should be restricted to public schools.

Then I look at your statement, “but look at the people of the Middle-East: do you consider them mature enough to not interfere in each others' affairs?”

The people of the Middle-East are human beings. They are not a homogenous group. Some of them are quite mature enough not to mess in each other’s affairs. Others like some in our society are in the grip of primitive ideas. Iran which is run by a group of primitive clerics has a large part of its population that are quite well-educated and I am sure are mature enough to not interfere in each others' affairs.

Csteel.
Appreciate the letter of 1993 from Arafat to Rabin, relevant and timely in this post. On the other hand, whilst the rhetoric of Arafat is to be lauded, the results appear not to be evident 'on the ground' as it were. Without letup, the rockets were sailing over the boarder even as the letter was being written. Hamas was evidently not a party to any agreement made by the Palistinian Authority.

To this day, Palistinian media, schools and every form of communication refer, not to 'Israel' but to the "'48 territories" .

When Arafat undertakes to "submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant", the "approval" was never given?

And still the rockets fly and still the children are taught that Isreal will be wiped out by the blood of the martyres who, by good fortune, will receive 45 virgins for their effort.

@ Prompete,

“And still the rockets fly and still the children are taught that Isreal will be wiped out by the blood of the martyres who, by good fortune, will receive 45 virgins for their effort.”

Only 45?

Boy, there are going to be a lot of pissed-off martyrs up there who thought they’d be getting the full quota of 72!

Dear David F.,

It was good reading about the Rumspringa - thanks, but that wikipedia-entry did not contain the word "school". I admire the Amish way of life, but unfortunately I couldn't join them because I don't share their religious beliefs.

<<Where I disagree is that the reality is that small nations in general cannot defend themselves against absorption by a larger nation next to them.>>

Indeed, sadly external threats are the limiting factor on how small a state can be. Otherwise for example, Israel, with populations so much at odds with each other, should have naturally been broken down into 2-3 different countries, not counting the Palestinians.

<<Taxpayer funding should be restricted to public schools.>>

Why? What makes it right to take money from everyone then give it back only to some (not even on an economic basis)? The best is if every school-aged child received a fixed amount in educational vouchers, sufficient to pay for a public school. Subsequently, these vouchers can go toward public schools, private schools, private tutors, books, etc.

<<Others like some in our society are in the grip of primitive ideas.>>

The tragedy of the Middle-East is that the silent majorities are silent and in the grip of those primitive, violent minorities.

----
Dear Prompete,

<<will receive 45 virgins for their effort>>

The original number was 72, making us wonder who is taking 37.5% tax!

Dear Yuyutsu,

The taxes of people without children who do not use the public schools still pay for those schools. People with children who do not choose to use the public schools because they wish to indoctrinate their children have the right to do so. However, like people without children they still have to pay for the public schools but should not expect the general public to pay for indoctrination.

The public schools are for all children and are funded from general tax revenues. Schools that are not for all children should not be funded by tax revenues. That is the way it is in the United States, and I think that is the way it should be in Australia.

I think it is good for children to go to school with children of other traditions and cultures and people to live together with people of other traditions and cultures. If people wish to segregate themseves and their children it should be funded by the taxpayer.

We differ on that point.

The article on the Rumspringa did not deal with schools. I referred to it because I thought it interesting as a way the Amish deal with the outside world. There is some literature written by Amish who have made the choice to leave the community. The Amish and Mennonites are both descendants of the Anabaptist tradition. They are pacifists who are for the separation of religion and state. They have been persecuted in many countries but have found refuge in the US and Canada.

Dear David F.,

<<We differ on that point.>>

I suspect we don't, after all.

You see, when a voucher is given to a child for education, it is given for EDUCATION, not for indoctrination and/or segregation.

So, if a [private] school is deemed to be an institute of indoctrination rather than an institute of education, then it is not eligible for the voucher system. However, if the school also teaches reading, maths, science, etc. then it should be eligible for that portion of what it does. Naturally if the student devotes most of their time there to indoctrination, then the vouchers will fall far short of funding that school.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I don't agree with the voucher plan. We differ on that although we agree on other things.

I suspect that one reason for private schools is not for education at all but to lessen the chance of intermarriage by limiting contact of children with other backgrounds.

Dear Prompete,

What is relevant to the conversation is the fact that after Arafat made that concession the language from the Israelis changed. They then started insisting that the Palestinians recognise Israel as a 'Jewish' state, a demand that was never made prior to this. Israel is perpetually taking one step back from a negotiated settlement and unless we get a willing US they will continue to do so. The game now is illegal settlements.

You wrote; “And still the rockets fly”.

I'm sure you would have been one of those defending Operation Cast Lead because 'Israel needed to defend itself against the thousands of rockets being fired from Gaza'.

From Wikipedia “Between 2005 and 2007, Palestinian groups in Gaza fired about 2,700 locally made Qassam rockets into Israel, killing four Israeli civilians and injuring 75 others. During the same period, Israel fired more than 14,600 155 mm artillery shells into the Gaza Strip, killing 59 Palestinians and injuring 270.”

A year before Cast Lead.

The expected lethal radius for a 155mm high explosive projectile, such as the artillery the IDF used on Gaza City, is reportedly between 50 and 150 meters and the expected casualty radius is between 100 and 300 meters. The majority of the rockets fired from Gaza were a less than a fifth of that.

Gaza has a population density nearly three times that of suburban Melbourne.

Here is a report about recent rocket attacks this week from Gaza.

Part of it reads;

“Over the three-day period, armed groups pounded Israel with more than 100 rockets -- more than 70 of which were fired on Wednesday alone, leaving two Thai workers severely injured.”

It is only later in the piece that the following is reported;

“The agreement was aimed at ending an eruption of bloodshed which began on Monday morning when two militants were killed in twin air strikes on north Gaza which were launched as armed groups fired at Israeli troops who had crossed the border.”

Do the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have the right to defend themselves from armed Israeli incursions?

Perhaps the Palestinians are not quite the full human in the eyes of some, just like the Aboriginal peoples were only ancient humans destined to die out, thus justifying the killing of Aboriginal peoples with vastly superior weapons for revenge, convenience, and sport (after Inga Clendinnen) by our invading forbears.

Dear Chek,

Perhaps it is just two peoples claiming the same piece of land. When that happens it is sensible for the two peoples to share the land in peace, but people do not always do the sensible thing.

Scribbler,

Your response is merely a very, very long and winded exercise in semantics ... (predicated on “tiramisu”?). You haven't addressed one point made.

Yes, I too have had issue with Wikipedia. On querying, was in informed that as it is an open source anyone can contribute. One always has to do further research. If you have problems with the articles, I would suggest you do this, then respond. Or, at least read the citations in context ...then respond.

Incidentally, how do you account for the fact that 20% of Israelis are Arab?

The majority of Israeli Jews are descended from the 800,000 Jews violently expelled from Arab lands.

A leading question is that if Israel is such a dire place for Palestinians, why do any want to stay, ... or indeed go there …? Most people think with their feet; look at our migrants.

Indeed, during the Palestinian civil war – which no one bothers to mention – 100,000s fled or tried to flee the Palestinian territories.

Csteele,

I suggest you check how many rocket attacks Hamas have levelled at Israel just in the past year. The reason deaths don't result is that the Israelis have had to build bomb shelters. You don't mention the rockets that fall short and kill Gazans … Every issue is happily so simplistic to you.

Did you propose to your wife "Me man ... you woman"? :-)

It is also rather significant that Israelis are no longer in Gaza, so what is their problem?

Incidentally, regarding the number of virgins, it was explained to me that '72' used this way in Arabic is not a specific number ...it means 100s of 100s, or countless numbers.

I am not returning to this topic as the responses are samo samo ... it becomes so deadly dull and predictable.

david f

Of course it makes sense to work out a peaceful solution. so far as I can see, the Israelis have the most advanced guns and warplanes that money and political subterfuge can deliver, and the Palestinians make do with home-make rockets - their only means to show their defiance to the continuing Israeli oppression of their daily lives, their sense as a people, their loss of hope for their future generations.

To share a land would mean to trust one another. The Aboriginal peoples could not have trusted the British invaders. The brutality of the immense gulf between the punitive powers exercised by the two sides would have put paid to that. It cannot be easy for the Palestinians after 60 years of systematic oppression, by a vastly superior war machine that is never backwards in inflicting inordinate responses.

Our dark past was a century and more ago. I just hope that the world communities could one day somehow succeed in encouraging the Israelis to see that military oppression cannot last forever, and that prevailing at all cost is reminiscent of the mentality of the Third Reich.

Dear Danille,

I'm not sure seeing two sides of an issue instead of the single one you do allows the charge of “Every issue is happily so simplistic to you.” to be sustained by any rational assessment, but then I'm equally unsure that rationality plays much of a part in this issue.

You wrote; “The reason deaths don't result is that the Israelis have had to build bomb shelters.“

It is good that they are able to do this. Unfortunately blanket bans on the importing of cement into Gaza (because the IDF claim it could be used as an offensive weapon, go figure) has not allowed the Palestinian population the means to do the same.

As to repetition I completely agree. I find myself often cutting and pasting from earlier posts of mine. Yet it is probably preferable to just posting a link. The other reason is that so little has changed. Very depressing really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6qA-4PWdsg

Cheers,

Tony