Indeed. And we can only hope that Zionists worldwide will find the "foresight and audacity" to allow the emergence of a "parity of esteem". That's a light-on-the-hill concept, parity of esteem. How much better a world would we all share if it were to become THE leading light in international affairs!
But to Israel and the near if not immediate future: The example of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission adapted from South Africa might also need to be considered along with this notion of "consociationalism" from North Ireland. Such a commission might prevent a blood-letting of recrimination such as it did in South Africa.
"Facts on the ground" have already rolled over the dream-turned-nightmare of a two-state solution. As a single Israel/Palestine emerges, Zionists will have to get used to the idea of sharing, of not getting it all their own way. And of Jews being in the minority.

Halduell,

Yep, for years I've pushed the idea on OLO of a single-state, secular, democratic nation rather than a semi-racist two-state solution which neither side actually wanted. All sides seem to want access to all of the state, so why not ?

Of course, the dilemma of demography will have to be dealt with, but it will probably mean that supporters of democracy will have to work very, very hard, constantly, to spread their message of equal rights, the rule of law and the values of the Enlightenment for all. No, I don't think it will be easy, but a two-state 'solution' will never satisfy anyone, so what else might there be as an option ?

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Dear Joe,

<<All sides seem to want access to all of the state, so why not?>>

There are more than two sides to the conflict. Yes, both Israeli and Palestinian extremists want to have it all, but it would be against the interests of the moderate ordinary people. As for access to the other area, just get your passport stamped and cross, but then you will be under a different jurisdiction.

The two-state solution is not dead, but it can no longer be reached through negotiation. Instead, there should be a unanimous security-council resolution for Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders and for the Arabs to cease all demands, hostilities and attempts to gain access to Israel proper. If Israel fails to withdraw as told, then the marines and other international forces should step in and kick the settlers back into Israel.

The only one stopping such a security-council resolution is America - and here is where J street can help.

Two state solution? What two state solution?
As things stand, it's only a matter of time, (around a decade) before Israel becomes a Palestinian state!
All the Palestinians need do in the interim; become law abiding model citizens, (yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir) who do absolutely nothing to rock the boat, or give the Israelis, any sort of half-baked excuse, for changing the current status quo!
If they do try to change the current electoral status quo?
Palestinians have the choice to react with peaceful, organized commercial boycotts, which to date, have been far more powerful, with far greater effect, than anything else they have done thus far!
Rhrosty.

Dear Rhrosty,

When trying to give Palestinians a good advice, you must be assuming that they are Jews, so let me tell you a story:

---
Due to some computer-bug, a Jewish sinner was mistakenly sent to the gentile's hell.

There he saw all the gentile sinners sitting across both sides of a very long table, watching it laden with the best food in the world, their eyes were popping out, yet they were all hungry because their hands were tied to their sides and they held forks and knives that were far too long to reach their mouths.

So the Jew asked: "you must be hungry, why don't you eat?"
So the gentiles answered: "see for yourself, our hands are tied and the utensils are too long"
So the Jew told them: "Why, let each of you feed the person in front across the table!"

So the gentiles were excited, they ate and were very happy.

Soon the angels heard the commotion and said: "Oh, there must have been a Jew in here", so they found the Jew, picked him up and threw him in the Jewish hell.

There he saw all the Jewish sinners sitting across a very long table in exactly the same manner, so he asked them: "Dear Jews, why don't you eat? you know you can..."

So they all answered: "What?!? You mean that I should feed HIM? No way!"
---

So, Dear Rhrosty, when Israeli election time comes, there would be no need to change the electoral status quo because by then the Palestinians would forget that complex advice of yours and wonder how they got in the ballot-place and what they are supposed to be doing there. Just take the example of Israeli Arabs/Palestinians, already Israeli citizens, but only half of them bother to vote.

@ Yuyutsu
And what percentage of the rights enjoyed by Jewish Israelis would Palestinian Israelis enjoy?
For some reason I have no doubt that you are better than the arguments you tout. In my heart I am sure of it.

Dear Halduell,

First, it is common-sense that if a sector of the population systematically fails to vote (election is not compulsory in Israel), also if they fail to vote as a block, then the politicians tend to ignore the interests of that sector.

Second, I believe that Palestinian Israelis have MORE rights than Jewish Israelis, rather then less.

Yes, Israeli Arabs suffer from being discriminated against here and there, but it fails in significance compared to the way Jewish Israelis are discriminated against:

Jewish Israeli men are conscripted to the army for 3 years and women for 2 years, then again in reserves for about a month a year for many years thereafter, no ifs and buts. Arab Israelis are not conscripted, yet they can still volunteer to serve in the army if they want and if they do, they receive all the same rights as Jews.

Being taken against your will for 3 years of terrible slavery, where on top there is increased risk of losing life, limb and purity of conscience, is worse than any discrimination Israeli Arabs face.

By the time an average Israeli boy completes his army duty and enrols in university, his Arab-Israeli neighbour has already completed his bachelor's degree.
While the Israeli-Arab student completes his courses in an orderly fashion, the studies of his Jewish-Israeli neighbour are constantly interrupted by reserve-duty, at times so badly that he must repeat some courses.
While the Israeli-Arab adult can plan his life in advance and make appointments for the coming months and years, his Jewish-Israeli neighbour cannot because he could be called to reserve-duty any time at 6-week notice.

Mr Gordon is yet another deluded apologist for a racist regime that in the eyes of the vast majority of ordinary citizens of the Middle East is the greatest threat to world peace in their region, not Iran as western propaganda constantly claims. A few facts about Israel that the western media conveniently overlook:

Israel has ignored 69 UN Security Council resolutions.
Israel has had the benefit of 69 US vetoes protecting them from justified censure
Israel has ignored UN Resolution 242 (this is for you Yuyutsu) requiring them to retreat to their 1967 borders.
Israel occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and annexed that territory in 1981, contrary to international law. (Incidentally, the Israel government very recently let a contract to an oil company to explore for oil and gas in the Golan Heights, a company that just happens to have links to Rupert Murdoch)
The Oslo accords had Israel agreeing to no new settlements on Palestinian land, but they have since then alone so far built 270 such settlements involving more than 500,000 people.
Israel continues to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Palestinian territory.
Israel has threatened to bomb Iran for three decades, and is currently carrying on an assassination program against Iranian scientists
Israel is an undeclared nuclear power with likely 400 nuclear warheads, yet refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, or allow inspections.
Israel has never signed the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty, yet has the largest stock of chemical weapons in the Middle East and has used those weapons in attacks on Syria, Lebanon and Gaza in recent years.
The current leader is only the latest in a long line of sociopaths leading that country, all of whom believe in Eretz ("Greater") Israel and have documented plans to constantly expand Israel's borders.

(To be continued)

Needless to say, none of the above actions draws a word of criticism from successive Australian governments.
It follows in my view that talk of a "two-state" solution is absolutely idle as Israel has no intention of ever allowing Palestinians any meaningful rights at all. There will never be peace in the Middle East while a Zionist State is permitted to continue the path it has followed since 1948.

Dear James,

<<Israel has ignored UN Resolution 242 (this is for you Yuyutsu) requiring them to retreat to their 1967 borders.>>

Resolution 242 was not decisive enough, it did not spell clearly what needs to be done, thus is open to different interpretations. What is needed is a unanimous and explicit resolution of the security council, something like:

1. The pre-1967 'green line' is Israel's absolute and final border.
2. At midnight, [date, 5 days from this decision], the area between Israel's eastern border and the Jordan river shall be declared an independent state, provisionally called 'Palestine'. Also, the Gaza strip shall be declared an independent state, provisionally called 'Gaza'. From then on, no Israeli citizen shall be present in Palestine or Gaza without a valid Palestinian/Gazan visa and no Palestinian/Gazan shall be present in Israel without a valid Israeli visa.
3. Each state (Israel, Palestine and Gaza) shall be responsible to prevent attacks from its territory on its neighbouring states. In case of such attacks, the attacked state has the right to retaliate, including by occupying buffer zones across its border as required for its protection.
4. If any of the sides fails to comply, a U.N. international force, headed by the U.S.A. shall enforce this resolution.
5. A resolution about the border between Israel and Syria will be made separately at a later date once the Syrian civil conflict is resolved.

This resolution should be backed by American marines: the Israeli army will not dare shooting at American soldiers and while the Jewish settlers are likely to do so, they do not have sufficient military strength to hold against an international force.

It's simple. Some adult must declare firmly: "no more talking, it's bed time, each to their bed and lights are off".

The problem is... unfortunately it won't happen, because this Middle-Eastern conflict produces a constant supply of interesting news for the media, so the media would not allow it!

---
P.S. 'Eretz' in Hebrew means 'land', not 'greater'.

Yuyutsu. Complex advice? Surely you jest?
All I've advocated is keeping it peaceful, and Palestinians remaining model citizens until they as voters outnumber the Jews, not all of who are antagonistic to or afraid of their Palestinian friends.
Nor are they happy about foreigners coming over and basically claiming, that this land is mine!
Failing as they make those patently untrue claims, that they have no more right to claim land than any of the other sons and daughters of Jacob!
That that genealogy applies equally to the Palestinians, an inconvenient fact myopically overlooked by those who think they can justify their land grab, by some passage in some ancient book written and revised by men! A book that seems at odds with much of the emerging archeological evidence?
And there's nothing very complex about commercial boycotts, which the Palestinians have already very successfully employed, with far more compelling behavioral change results, than any and all the bombs and rockets, which to date have been completely counter productive, and or, placed a world of excuses in the hands of the more militant Jews?
Some of who would nor look too out of place, I believe, in brown shirts, SS emblems and jackboots?
Rhrosty.

Water will run uphill before those states can find agreement. How long do some people need before they can see that there's no hope.

Hi Individual,

Yes, there have been one-hundred-year wars and thirty-year wars, and really a thousand-year war of the Arabs/Islam against Europe (711 AD, invasion of Spain; 1699, siege of Vienna). But I live in hope that there will eventually have to be an internal revolt within Islam (or more correctly, against Islam), something like the Protestant Reformation in Europe,coupled with a recognition of the impartial rule of law, and the recognition of genuinely equal rights for men and women. Only after these revolutionary changes might the situation in Palestine/Israel move towards a preference for secular and democratic co-operation.

Yep, that probably won't happen in my lifetime. It would probably mean the destruction of that blind and unchallangeable adherence to a backward ideology rather than its modification, with god knows what sorts of upheavals and twists and turns on the long and painful road to democracy, but that's for Muslims and ex-Muslims to work out. I certainly wish them well, and for the least painful struggle towards universal Enlightenment values.

Joe

Dear Rhrosty,

If Palestinians can remain peaceful model citizens for say 10-20 years, including the removal of hateful anti-Semitic materials from their children's textbooks, then it would become a habit, a second-nature, then indeed everything will be well once they have the numbers in the ballot. The question is, can they?

<<Failing as they make those patently untrue claims, that they have no more right to claim land than any of the other sons and daughters of Jacob!>>

Interesting. Assuming that Jacob even existed, the Palestinians are not commonly considered his descendants, but rather of his uncle, Ishmael. However, recent research indicates that a significant portion of Palestinians are ex-Jewish farmers who converted to Islam following the Arab conquest, in order to avoid the heavy taxation on non-Muslims. Many Zionist leaders originally wanted to include them as brothers and sisters in the Jewish state, but that stopped in 1929 due to the Arab massacre in Hebron and later due to the Arab rebellion of 1936.

<<And there's nothing very complex about commercial boycotts, which the Palestinians have already very successfully employed, with far more compelling behavioral change results, than any and all the bombs and rockets, which to date have been completely counter productive, and or, placed a world of excuses in the hands of the more militant Jews?>>

So true, but the question remains: Are the Palestinians capable of stopping their violence, or is it just wishful-thinking?

<<Some of who would nor look too out of place, I believe, in brown shirts, SS emblems and jackboots?>>

Disgusting indeed.

It makes me want to vomit, but contrary to some OLO commentators I would like to see Israel reformed, whereas they would prefer to see Israel erased from the maps altogether, probably replaced by a 'progressive' Muslim Caliphate covering the whole Middle-East, eventually expanding to cover the whole planet.

Hi Rhosty,

"Some of who would nor look too out of place, I believe, in brown shirts, SS emblems and jackboots?"

Nope, haven't seen that yet. But let's see, where have I seen TV footage of men marching in black shirts and what could have been jack-boots, under a black flag ? Anywhere in Palestine ? Gaza ? Ramallah ?

Pot-kettle :)

Joe

Peace will not arrive without fundamental changes.

Edward Said wrote in 2001, "Arbitrary arrest,
incarceration without trial, the killing of civilians,
inhumane roadblocks, settlement expansion, all lead
the Palestinians to one conclusion: the Israelis, and
their US backers, aren't serious about peace."

"Criticising Israel is not anti-Semitic and saying so is vile.
But singling out Israel for opprobrium and interational
sanction - out of all proportion to any other party in the
Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest."

(Thomas Friedman).

Antony Loewenstein ends his book, "My Israel Question,"
with these words,

"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."

Israel has been calling the shots since 1967, always
without Palestinian consultation, and clearly believes that
the US will continue its support no matter what.
The international community continues to
place a higher value on Israel's vision of its historic
destiny than on the humanity of the Palestinians. Even
though many politicians continue to talk about believing
in the "emergence of an Independent Palestinian state,"
as long as Western and US support for Israel continues
carte blanche - this will not happen.

States founded on injustice are bound to fall, and failing a programme of radically re-evaluating the ancient lies on which it is constructed and eliminating its injustices Israel's turn will come as surely as that of the racist Boer Apartheid Republic of South Africa came. A two-state "solution" will not happen unless it is based on justice and equality. Moves to bring it about will get nowhere without:

* Right of return of exiles
* Equal state sovereignty.
* Neither allowed to dictate the legal structure of the other.
* Elimination of restrictions on the flow of goods to one not matched by the same restriction on the flow to the other. This includes weapons.
* Elimination of major weapons held by either and not matched by the other.
* Equal rights for each to maintain full and free international relations and alliances.
* Visa requirements for entry the prerogative of each territory.
* Neither to be allowed to foist or retain by force settlements on the other’s territory.
* Neither to have power to abridge the right of the other to accept immigrants or visitors.
* Neither to be allowed to restrict the free flow of people and goods between parts of the one state.
* Removal of the illegal settlements which spread like a pox across the face of the West Bank.
(Just LOOK at the map at http://www.bobmay.info/images/westbanksettlementsmap.jpg !)

Those conditions may not be sufficient but they are all necessary to a just solution.

@Julian. Agreed, and no doubt we could add others as well. Which is precisely why it will not happen. The sooner we rid ourselves of the "two state"solution delusion the quicker we can move on to look at real solutions. That is also unlikely to happen. So we are doomed to a continuation of the current situation which will end either with the Palestinians being ethnically cleansed completely or yet another war with the same result.

If anyone thinks a nuclear armed and expansionist Israel is going to change its ways they are living in a parallel universe.

One lesson we might draw from this tragedy is the folly of allowing great powers to draw boundaries setting national states to suit their needs and to hell with the people concerned. We see the consequences of this in more places than the Middle East, and not just historically.

Dear Julian and James,

If you set more reasonable goals, then you may one day see them achieved.

Absolute justice and equality are never going to happen (nor is any of the sides involved interested in them anyway), but the living conditions of Palestinians can be dramatically improved and their pain dramatically reduced once they abandon the path of armed resistance.

A two-state solution is a requisite for keeping the peace: placing Jews in control of, or easy access to, their 'holy places' creates a very explosive situation. The two must be separated or the Jews become intoxicated and violent. That separation is both for Israel's good and for the good of its neighbours.

While it may be correct to say that Israel and Palestine cannot reach a negotiated two-state solution any time soon, the alternative is for the international community to enforce that solution on both sides. Some adult must come and tell them: "stop quarrelling, it's bed-time, each to their own bed right now and lights are out".

But alas, I suspect that you two do not truly hold the poor Palestinians close to heart, but are rather more interested to leverage their suffering towards unrelated global goals.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Thankfully, none of us is an Emperor and few people are dictators.

On the issue of Palestine, as for many others, we can curse the darkness forever, or we can try to light a candle: what can anyone do, that might move things in the right direction ? Take for granted that such a bitter dispute has no quick-fix solution, although who thought the Soviet Empire would collapse as quickly as it did (to be replaced by a neo-Tsarist Putin, but there you go) ?

Yes, a two-state solution might work, if each side was resigned to leaving the territory of the other to the other. But I live in hope that, further down the track, perhaps over generations, the two parties can work together more and more, and perhaps come to, first, say, an alliance or cooperative arrangement, then a confederation, then a federated state, and who knows then a single state ? Non -religious, i.e. secular, democratic, with all people moving freely about the entire territory. Perhaps it could include Jordan.

Yes, pie in the sky, but dreams are better than nightmares.

Joe
www.firstsources.info

There have been follow-ups to the list of requirements in a two-state solution which I suggested would be needed to meet minimum requirements of fairness and justice. I don’t have rejoinders to these comments (with many of which I agree) - rather further observations. I might run out of OLO’s very generous word allowance.

James O’Neill: Yes it’s quite true, the Zionists are far too arrogant to agree to anything that fails to recognise that God chose them as much more “special” and require far more consideration of their wants than mere goyim. Equality would never do – that’s why they left their real homelands where they had to live with racial equality. Why put up conditions they would certainly reject? The reason is that their overwhelming military superiority depends not on hardware (even their WMDs) alone, but importantly on the very high approval rating they have among the people of the West and even of the non-West. Their “poor little us, bullied by the Arabs” ploy, relentlessly magnified, would blunt any plea for what Westerners brought up on tales of “pesky redskins” would recognise as fair. Yuyutsu on this list has dismissed equality as “unreasonable”. The Zionist hasbara operatives show extreme sensitivity to any challenge to their sense of inborn privilege, such as Bob Carr calling illegal settlements illegal settlements. If they are seen to reject a fair two-state solution this will undermine any propaganda advantage of not being taken to be the ones to reject negotiations demanded by John Kerry. A fruit of the Enlightenment is that millions of people recognise and value justice. Worth driving home the lesson that Zionists don’t.

Yuyutsu: Justice is eminently reasonable goal provided its offer is repeatedly made public. Sure neither side wants justice. One wants a permanent racist “homeland”, the other wants the monstrosity of Sharia “law”. Justice excludes both. The West must make it quite clear both are off the table. The Egyptians are putting their foot down, so must the Palestinians or the West will do it for them.

[To be continued]

[Continued]

Yuyutsu claims James and I have global goals other than compassion for the Palestinians. Can’t speak for James but I certainly do. As a youngster I was blown away by the rightness of the unfolding Nuremburg trials and their outcome. Still am. The power of justice for the salvation of humanity is the greatest gift of the Enlightenment. Compassion for the hopelessly dysfunctional Palestinians is there, and hatred for the racism of the Zionists or the Nazis or the Boer overlords, but a nurturing attachment to justice as a force comes top.

Loudmouth’s goal of a state that is non-religious, i.e. secular, democratic, with all people moving freely about the entire territory, is spot on. I agree the campaign for a just two-state solution is not a goer and would soon lead to more conflict unless both “God-chosen” racism and Islam’s hatred for human liberty were finally abandoned as “just not on”.

[Continued]

Yuyutsu claims James and I have global goals other than compassion for the Palestinians. Can’t speak for James but I certainly do. As a youngster I was blown away by the rightness of the unfolding Nuremberg and Tokyo trials and their outcome. Still am. The power of justice for the salvation of humanity is the greatest gift of the Enlightenment. Compassion for the hopelessly dysfunctional Palestinians is there, and hatred for the racism of the Zionist or Axis or Boer overlords, but a nurturing attachment to justice as a force comes top.

Loudmouth’s goal of a state that is non-religious, i.e. secular, democratic, with all people moving freely about the entire territory, is spot on. I agree the campaign for a just two-state solution is not a goer and would soon lead to more conflict unless both “God-chosen” racism and Islam’s hatred for human liberty were finally abandoned as “just not on”. I’d merely say to the sides: “If you’re going for a two-state solution make sure it’s a just one so that the world will learn from what happens to the proposals.”

Dear Julian,

Pope Francis recently said: "I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else."

Requiring strict adherence to equality as a pre-condition for Middle-East settlement is equivalent to demanding that even atheists must avoid using condoms. Neither ideology can get very far with such demands.

In the end, the Boers of South Africa got a deal that was less than just, yet it works and yet it taught the world a lesson.

Joe's (Loudmouth) goal of a non-religious state is throwing the baby with the bath-water. Instead I pray for the Middle-East: "Lord, forgive them for they know not what religion truly is".

The results of a survey published yesterday may be relevant to this thread:

48.9% of Jewish Israelis believe that Jews should have more rights than non-Jews.

32.3% percent believe that it's more important for Israel to be Jewish than democratic, while 29.2% believe that it's more important for Israel to be democratic than Jewish. The rest believe that it is equally important.

64.3% believe that the Jews are the chosen people, including 42% among non-religious Jews (note the interesting logical contradiction).

43.8% support government initiatives to encourage Arabs to voluntarily leave Israel, but there's a clear age-difference: it's 57.7% among those aged 18-24 and only 28% among those aged 65+.

Another seeming contradiction is that while 67% of Jewish Israelis feel part of the state of Israel and its problems, 83% are proud to be Israelis.

Among Arab Israelis, 28% feel part of the state of Israel and its problems, while 40% are proud to be Israelis.

Dunno what Yuyutsu means by the Boers getting less than justice, but if he means they were treated over-harshly that couldn't be further from the truth. The main beauty of the Nuremberg trials was the recognition that impunity is the deadly enemy of justice. It was that fool Tutu that pushed South Africa into a "reconciliation" process which means impunity for those who committed all the crimes of Apartheid. Thus the murder of Steve Beko for example went unpunished. The result is a widespread cynical disrespect for the law among the black South Africans.

Justice is served only by (1) a stop to the crime, (2) a penalty for the perp and (3) compensation for the victim at the expense of the perp. The unconditional surrender achieved (1) , the Nuremberg trials achieved a minute token amount of (2) (Stalin's much better proposal was to shoot all who had been officers in the SS), and there has been an ongoing compensation of some of the victims at the expense of Germany.

My own partial list of provisos for a settlement in Palestine goes only as far as requiring a stop to the continuing crime arising from the major crime of the Nakba. Punishment of the guilty and compensation for the victims could be canvassed in the negotiations (i.e. not a precondition).

Yuyutsu's objection to proposing that negotiations be on the basis of equality looks to me like proclaiming a precondition that Jews be treated as born Übermenschen. Even the traitor Mahmoud Abbas would reject that.

Dear Julian,

It seems that you completely misunderstood what I wrote about the boers: they got a deal that was less than just - if that deal was just, then they would have been severely punished, but they weren't. I do however salute that less-than-just deal and Desmond Tutu as being wise and generous. I do not salute Stalin's blind cruelty.

<<Yuyutsu's objection to proposing that negotiations be on the basis of equality looks to me like proclaiming a precondition that Jews be treated as born Übermenschen.>>

Again, I didn't say that I oppose negotiations on principle, only that negotiation (equal or otherwise) is simply not going to work due to lack of good will, so instead of wasting time, the world needs to enforce a division of the land, so that Muslims are separated from their rockets and other silly weapons and Israel be separated from the Jewish 'holy sites'. No reasonable negotiation can occur until Jews come out of their intoxicated stupor arising from their contact with those 'holy sites' and Palestinians come out of their intoxicated stupor arising from holding weapons (you may recall how they enjoy waving their guns and shooting in the air at weddings and other occasions, encouraging their kids as young as 5 to use guns).

While I personally hold no such views, I have no control over Israel. It is a fact that 64.3% of Jewish Israelis believe themselves to be Übermenschen (just as a similar percentage of Palestinians probably view them as Dhimmis or worse) - why would they ever behave differently around the negotiation-table?

<<My own partial list of provisos for a settlement in Palestine goes only as far as requiring a stop to the continuing crime arising from the major crime of the Nakba. Punishment of the guilty and compensation for the victims could be canvassed in the negotiations (i.e. not a precondition).>>

Crimes have been perpetrated by both parties. I prefer a wise solution over a just one, and the first wise action is to separate a drunk person from his bottle.

Justice is a message to sociopaths, Yuyutsu. Impunity masquerading as “wisdom” is another. Those who dispensed impunity to the Boer criminals are indifferent to the consequences of sending a message to sociopaths: “Go ahead, commit your crimes, the do-gooders will make sure you won’t have to pay.”

Respect for law in a betrayed black population of South Africa has been shattered by Tutu’s “wise” granting of impunity , violent crime is rampant. Cops remember their predecessors got away with murder - and last year they followed their lead and gunned down striking miners at Marikana, killing 34.

Impunity has victims, usually decent people. Pinochet’s impunity is a “do it” message to every fascist in Latin America. Melbourne ABC journo Jill Meagher wouldn’t have been raped and murdered if do-gooders hadn’t “wisely” let the crim out on parole. Nazi trash would be less likely to serve in the SS if they knew they’d be lined up and shot for it. The murderer of Jean-Charles de Menezes would have been less keen to pull the trigger if not assured corrupt “inquiries” delivering anonymity and impunity are par for the course in Britain. War crimes in particular (like the ultimate crime of aggression) would be harder to get people to commit if the price was a hang-rope.

The ultimate fate of the Nakba killers will be a message to war criminals everywhere. Probably, alas, “Go on, DO it - you’ll get away with it. They did in Palestine”.

I’m inclined to support the call for two-state negotiations as it will be a valuable object lesson for a grossly deceived world.

Dear Julian,

If we analyse our choices all the way down, they come from two and only two sources - love or fear.

Your concerns for the rise of sociopaths are based on fear.

Acting out of love is wise because it increases love in the world.

But.. But.. But.. Fear is screaming.

Well Fear doesn't need to scream because Fear is strong and powerful. No matter what I say, how convincing it is, people will still act out of fear and punish out of fear and only rarely act out of love. Using my weak voice to encourage acting out of Love places only such a tiny random dent on Fear, far from letting sociopaths off the hook.

So much for the case of sociopaths, how more so in the case of perpetrators who themselves were incited to act out of fear and how more so in the case of brainwashed people who always believed themselves to be good people because they never knew otherwise.

The Nakba generation is all but gone, certainly those who were in decision-making rolls. Isn't it time already for compassion and reconciliation?

But first, separate the drunk person from his bottle!