Dear Foxy,

Please let me qualify my throw-away remark:

"..... if Israel wants to build a wall on its borders, then so be it: every country theoretically has that right. It's not Apartheid to do so, IF one group has its sovereign country (and borders) and another has its too. A wall marks the border. End of."

I certainly don't support encroachment by Israeli authorities on Palestinian land - as we've both agreed, a two-state solution requires the recognition by BOTH Israel and Palestine of the borders as at the time of the 1967 War, or some other mutually agreed point in time. So no encroachments: return of stolen lands. UN resolutions have reinforced that position.

Should there be a wall along an agreed border ? It probably wouldn't be necessary IF there was an agreement. It's not a very friendly gesture. But it is a country's right to build one. Still, it's a tragedy that anybody should think that one is necessary.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Thank You for further explaining your position.

We can only hope that as Loewenstein writes -
"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.
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."

If in the 90s Arafat had accepted the settlement negotiated with the UN that granted Palestine the vast majority of the west bank, this issue would have been settled, the PLO at the last minute caved into the right wing of his organisation that couldn't stomach agreeing to recognise the right of Israel to exist or ceding one inch to Israel.

Since then the Arabs have refused to even start negotiations without Israel accepting the 1967 green line as the border even though it includes the old Jewish quarter that Jordan captured in 1948 and then expelled the Jews, desecrated the synagogues and blocked jewish access to their most holy site the temple mount.

What I see is that in another 50yrs, the Arabs will still be as intransigent, and the existing borders will be walled and accepted as the borders between Israel and Palestine.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Loewenstein:

"Arafat refused the offers on the table because
they were too vague and did not appreciate the
requirements of the Palestinian people. The USA
hoped to bring the parties together, but was never
an honest broker and always preferred Israeli terms.
Barak hoped the Palestinians would accept Israel's
rules, then dared to suggest that Arafat was
incapable of accepting the existence of the Jewish
state. All should share the blame, but the power
inbalance of the negotiations - the Palestinians
had already agreed to give up much of their historic
homeland - almost guaranteed a disappointing outcome."

The media coverage of this and of other issues
concerning this conflict is not reported accurately.
We may well question the overall media coverage -
Loewenstein:

1) Why was Arafat's rejection of the 2000 peace deal
rarely presented as anything other than a refusal to accept
peace?

2) Why was there such an incomplete and inaccurate media
understanding of what was offered by Israel in 20003?

3) Why were there so few local Palestinian voices heard in the
Australian coverage?

4) Why do the Australian media run so many overseas reports,
but rarely carry perspectives from the Arab or left-wing
Israeli press?

5) Why do the Australian media seem to accept the argument
that the USA will be a central and constructive participant
in any future peace talks? After all, from 1990 to 2000
the US provided military aid to Israel worth more than
US$18 billion. Since 1993, the Palestinians have received
US1.7 billion in US economic assistance via US aid projects.
It's hardly the record of a neutral broker.

Robert Fisk wrote, "A vicious campaign of slander is being
waged against any journalist or activist who dares criticise
Israeli policies or those that shape them. He concluded
that the situation has only worsened in recent years.
"You've got to fight," he wrote. "It's the only conclusion
I can draw as I see the renewed erosion of our freedom to
discuss the Middle East. It is simply an attempt to shut us up.
It must not succeed."

Fat chance!

Foxy,

Firstly Loewenstein and Fisk are essentially pro palestinian activists who consistently ignore the shocking behaviour of Hamas and ignore the legitimate security concerns of Israel.

The offer that Israel made to Arafat in 2000 included many major concessions that at the time (when there was desire to make peace) many Israelis were deeply unhappy with. Arafat could have accepted, settled his people on an area far greater than they presently have, and then moved forward to ensure prosperity for his people.

His refusal was a prime example where the perfect was the enemy of the good.

Nearly 2 decades from Arafat failure, the palestinians are further than ever from settlement and bear the blame almost entirely.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Firstly neither Antony Loewenstein nor Robert Fisk
are pro-palestinian activists. Nor do they ignore
the legitimate security concerns of Israel. And
saying so is not only vile, but dishonest.

On the contrary both men are journalists and authors
and unlike you, they believe in not accepting the dominant
narrative and getting to the truth of the issues.
Both are Middle East experts who do their research.
Fisk has been the Middle East correspondent since 1976
for various media. He holds more British and International
journalism awards than any other foreign correspondent and
has been awarded the Press Awards Foreign Reporter of the
Year seven times. He's also an Arabic speaker.

Loewenstein is a free-lance journalist and author who's not
only published several books but has written for The Guardian,
Haaretz, The Washington Post, Sydney Morning Herald, The
Australian, The Bulletin, to name just a few.