Sounds like a plan and sage advise? Same old same old has created what we have now? So, should we persist with more of the, taxpayer funded, costly same?
Alan B.

The problem of the Israeli/Palestinian situation is
particularly acute because the subject matter involves
issues of deep human and moral concern. An attempt to
be objective has proven to be difficult. The author
has presented an intelligent well reasoned article.
We can only hope that President elect Trump with an
alleged IQ of 140 will be able to recognise that sooner
or later, Israel and the Palestinians will have to meet
face-to-face, listen to each other's grievances and
negotiate with honesty. Only then - and on the condition
that both Israel and the Palestinian state achieve safety
and security will this conflict be resolved.

As Antony Loewenstein pointed out in his book, "My
Israel Question,"

"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."

Fingers-crossed that President Trump will have the
intelligence to realise that and not be pushed into
any disastrous action by the Israeli government.

I am glad it is not me that will have to sort this mess out.
UNESCO recently affirmed that Jerusalem is and always has been an Arab Islamic city.
It has established new Arab names for the Temple Mount area.
That together with the UN Security Council decision recently has
given the Palestinians confidence in claiming Jerusalem as their capital.

The crux of the problem might be the Koranic policy that an area once
occupied by moslems always remains moslem land forever.
They believe this after all Allah said so.
From what I have read the PLA insists that Jerusalem MUST be handed to
them in any possible solution. All jews must leave Jerusalem.

Israel of course insists that Jerusalem has been their capital city
for some 3000 years plus and they just cannot give it up.

Foxy, how would you like the job of sorting that out ?

Dear Bazz,

I wouldn't be good at it at all.
I'm too emotional. I believe in mutual
respect and understanding. I believe
that they need to move past using dehumanisation
and delegitimisation as weapons to be wielded
against each other. The issues are complex and
it is time for a radical rethinking of the conflict.

What many people are either unaware of or choose to ignore, is that the artificial country of Palestine, and Hamas, are payrolled by Iran, and Iran wants Israel wiped off the face of the earth. No ifs or buts, that's the deal. The 'two nations' talk is just political hocus-pocus. There will never be peace or any amicable settlement. The two contributors who keep stirring the pot on this subject know this to be true, and they should stop their nonsense.

The biggest pile of scaremongering nonsense doing the rounds is that Iran 'wants Israel wiped off the face of the Earth'.

I look forward to someone posting the speech that supposedly claimed that.

No Billyd, I have read the Iranian statements and heard their speeches.
It is exactly what they say, Death to Israel, Death to America etc etc.
Just recently they suggested that Israel could be removed in 8 minutes.
You seem to miss a lot of that but then of course so does everyone in
this country as it is seldom reported here. Tooo Boooring ! or not pc.

You need to change your reading habits Bazz, you seem to read what you want to hear, and completely miss context. Israel are constantly threatening Iran, but I guess that's OK because Iran are the 'bad guys'. Israel also bombed Syria the other day, unprovoked, I suppose that's OK too?

I hear and read Iran making the threats.
You say I am seeing/hearing out of context !

What nonsense, they do not mince their words.
They say it and they threaten it, you have to take them at their word.
Oh and they do it in English just to make sure you get it.
What you say is just plain ridiculous.

You sound like one of their useful idiots.

That's right Bazz. And, President Almondbread made sure he told the world what was going to happen to Israel at every opportunity, followed by the clerics after his demise from leadership. And, shoot, there are demonstrations everyday in Tehran, with people screaming "Death to America, Death to Israel". One would need to be as far out of the loop as billy bulldust not to know that. It's common knowledge to everyone else. Billy's ignorance is sad, really.

Bazz

The term 'Death to ...' is just an Arab expression of frustration. Like death to traffic, death to taxes, death to reality TV.

I don't know about the '8 minutes' stuff, but I'm sure it's just another expression of Palestinian frustration at having their lands seized, their culture destroyed, their populations bombed and their people routinely humiliated.

Why does so much propaganda rhetoric push these silly armageddon timelnes? I suppose you still believe that Iraq could have nuked the US in 45 minutes.

foxy

'Fingers-crossed that President Trump will have the
intelligence to realise that and not be pushed into
any disastrous action by the Israeli government.'

No way. He's an Israel supporter through and through. Things will get a whole lot worse under his regime. It's hard to grasp how much worse they could possibly get, but there are a few thousand Palestinians alive today that will be dead or crippled under the next Israeli Operation Spoiltbratstorm or whatever sexy name they want to give it. And the US and western media will treat them as just a footnote.

Killarny, Iranians are not Palestinians, they are Persians.
They are proud of their support of Hezbollah and I doubt that they
care in the least about Sunni Palestinians.

Your comment, it is just like death to traffic, well maybe, it is just
rhetoric but are you certain ? It is certainly not friendship.
Anyway my ideal policy to the Middle East is to cut them off and let
them fight it out amongst themselves. No matter how many innocents
get killed, they will not be happy until they kill everyone else.
It is just the way they are. I doubt it will ever change until a
couple of hundred years after they stop marrying their cousins.
Hmmm, do the Iranians marry their cousins ?

Funny how "palestinians" were part of Jordan prior to 1967?

The Israelis are the only ones in this debate that have done what they said they would. With no elected palestinian leaders, no recognition of the right of Israel to exist, and wildly unrealistic preconditions, the Palestinians are clearly not prepared to negotiate.

Yes, of course, "everyone knows", well that proves it then, especially as they say it in English.

Don't bother with proof then, that's OK, if everyone knows it it must be true.

"The Israelis are the only ones in this debate that have done what they said they would."

Yes, they said the West Bank was theirs, and they took it, they said they don't want a two nation solution, so they set about making it impossible.

There is only one country that can bring about peace and that's Israel, and they have no desire to do so.

BD

If you are simply going to post BS perhaps you should go on twitter. The capture of the west bank occurred only during a war started by the Arabs in 1967, after it was captured and annexed by Jordan in 1948. Israel met its agreements set at the Oslo accord, while the Palestinians did not.

Secondly, Israel cannot unilaterally create peace, it requires the commitment by the palestinians to negotiations and restraint which has been completely absent.

Dear Billy,

«There is only one country that can bring about peace and that's Israel»

There is only one person who can bring about peace and that's you.

«and they have no desire to do so.»

Rather, they have no ability to do so.
For the last couple of decades or so, Israel can no longer control the Jewish settlers of the West Bank, whether it wants to or not.

If you are so keen on peace, then why select this part of the world of all places and those two specific groups of all people, many of which are, as individuals already at peace with each other?

---

Dear SM,

«Secondly, Israel cannot unilaterally create peace, it requires the commitment by the palestinians to negotiations and restraint which has been completely absent.»

Why Palestinians, of all people?
They have nothing, they can't do anything, they are totally irrelevant and Israel doesn't need them!

Israel cannot create peace because it is torn from within and has no peace within itself.

Shadow. If you continue to act intellectually superior, you should try getting your facts right, or it looks as though you are making it up as you go along.

History Lesson #1 for Shadow

Israel attacked first in 1967.

BD,

Actually the first act of war was the blockade of the gulf of Aqaba by Egypt and Jordan.

The Arab states led by Nasser coordinated a massive military build up on Israel's border with the declared intention of driving Israel into the sea outnumbering the Israelis many times over.

The first blow was struck by the Arabs, the Israelis had no intention of waiting for a second.

Stop trying to re-write history to suit your arguments Shadow, the Israelis struck first, and made an excuse to justify it.

So let's correct your post ....

"The capture of the west bank occurred only during a war started by Israel against the Arabs in 1967."

Their objective is now clear, they wanted the West Bank to settle the extremists, to pacify them.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/07/04/israels-attack-on-egypt-in-june-67-was-not-preemptive/

"Yitzhak Rabin, who would later become Prime Minister, told Le Monde the year following the ’67 war, “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent to the Sinai, on May 14, would not have been sufficient to start an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/07/04/israels-attack-on-egypt-in-june-67-was-not-preemptive/

BD,

What a pile of rubbish, where did you find this fake news site?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSCryr_WkeY

Watch this documentary then comment.

Israel attacked first, FACT. You can make all the pre-emptive excuses you like, they attacked first. Read the declassified CIA papers, read Begin's biography, read the 1982 reports of his speech.

"After 1957, Israel had to wait 10 full years for its flag to fly again over that liberated portion of the homeland. In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. Wars With No Alternative

This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation."

That's the FACTS, the CIA, who were deeply involved, dispute that it was pre-emptive as self defence, but whoever you believe, the Israelis struck first.

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/21/world/excerpts-from-begin-speech-at-national-defense-college.html

BD,

From the same article

"The Second World War, which broke out on Sept. 1, 1939, actually began on March 7, 1936. If only France, without Britain (which had some excellent combat divisions), had attacked the aggressor, there would have remained no trace of Nazi German power and a war which, in three years, changed the whole of human history, would have been prevented."

The alternative to which Begin referred was to wait until Egypt struck which might have destroyed Israel, or at least prolonged the conflict with massive Israeli casualties.

While there was no absolute proof that Egypt, Jordan and Syria were going to attack, but there was very little doubt, and while the first military strike was made by Israel, the first Act of War was the blocking of Israel's southern sea port. And the destruction of the aggressors' air forces meant that Israel's tiny army could face the 5:1 odds

Fact: Nasser had massed roughly 14 brigades of 100 000 men, hundreds of tanks artillery etc. in Sinai on the border of Israel,
Fact: Egypt had nearly 300 front line fighters and bombers
Fact: Egypt had defense treaties with Syria and Jordan who also built up their armies on the border of Israel,
Fact: at the start, Saudi, Iraq, and other Arab countries were mobilising and sending their armies to join the Egyptians.
Fact: Initially Israel pleaded with Jordan to stay out of the war, yet Jordan began massive shelling of West Jerusalem, prompting Israel's attack of East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Fact: Syria unprovoked shelled Israel prompting the response later in the war.

Shadow, Israel attacked first, do you now accept that?

I have no more idea than you or anyone else as to whether an attack was imminent, the CIA, Israeli government, and the Arabs claim it wasn't. What we do know is, after they attacked and conquered their neighbours Israel annexed the Sinai and the Golan Heights, and occupied the West bank and Gaza strip, starting settlements in each.

Whatever the truth of it is, Israel attacked first, and yet most people still believe, as you did, that it was the other way round.

BD,

At no point did I claim otherwise. The first act of war was the blockade by the Arabs, and the first military action was the obliteration by Israel of the Egyptian air force.

The entire world knew that the Arabs intended to attack Israel. Nasser had said it many times, the entire Arab world had said it, and had at vast expense called up reserved and massed a huge army in the middle of the desert, and had the Egyptian news service broadcasting into Israel propaganda that they were going to be crushed. Only a moron would believe that there was any other intention. The only doubt is whether Nasser would get cold feet and commit to a humiliating backdown.

The attack by the Israelis has been accepted by all the world (with the exception of a few fanatics) as a legitimate act of defense.

Hasbeen, there is a mental set that we should always give the benefit
of the doubt to the moslems.
I think this is because they so often rave on & on about silly things
such as cartoons.
It is their culture of at the slightest offence what we call overreaction.
They consider it to be manly and properly establishing their rights.
They think our mild reaction to offence is a sign of weakness, not a
case of maturity.
The problem then is we tend to ignore what might be really dangerous threats.

It means that we have to take every threat a moslem makes seriously.
It is their cultural behaviour problem.

"At no point did I claim otherwise."

Yes you did, which was why I brought it up .....

"The capture of the west bank occurred only during a war started by the Arabs in 1967"

And it makes a huge difference when read ...

"The capture of the west bank occurred only during a war started by the Israelis in 1967"

..... especially in light of the settlements erected since, a HUGE difference, because it then looks as though Israel started the war in order to steal Palestinian land.

The other nonsense you spout is Jordan's capture of the West Bank, which was to save it from capture by the Israelis, not to keep it for themselves.

BD,

Unfortunately, the Arabs started the war. Technically as there had never been a peace treaty since 1949, there was still a state of war between Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

The first overt acts of aggression were the huge military build up by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, the first act of war was the blockade, and the second act of war was the Israeli retaliation.

You can think what you want, the facts and the rest of the world disagree.

Definition of Blockade:

Blockade: an act of war by which a belligerent prevents access to or departure from a defined part of the enemy's coasts.

You really are a tool, you got it wrong and now you are creeping around trying to justify your mistake with ridiculous arguments.

Be a MAN and admit you were wrong, and stop toadying around in a sulk.

I am exactly right.

Your ideology clashes with reality and it is difficult to accept. Unless you believe the Egyptians assembled 100 000 men 500 tanks etc for a picnic in the sand and the blockade was only a joke, then the Arabs started the war.

As you haven't disputed the facts I put forward I assume you have accepted them and have no problem with how badly they clash with your fantasy.

The one who sends in troops firing, the one who sends in planes dropping bombs, before the other side has moved, THEY started it.

Remember this ...

"Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged in a speech in 1982 that its war on Egypt in 1956 was a war of “choice” and that, “In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

[Deleted for abuse.]

BD,

The first hostile act was the blockade, the choice for the Israelis was stark.

1 - Wait for the tiny chance that Nasser would back down, but risk huge casualties if Nasser attacked first,

2 - Mount a preemptive attack and eliminate the massive enemy forces with minimal casualties.

Israel chose self defense.