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.