For once I agree: The settlements are not the problem. Why should Jews be prevented from living in what they believe to be their ancient land?

The issue with the settlements is not the fault of the Jewish settlers - it's the fault of the Israeli government which still retains control of the territories that it took in 1967, partially in order to protect those settlers (with the blood of young Israelis) and partially for other ambitions. It was not settler-like Jews who took over and occupied these territories in 1967, but rather a corrupt, secular, socialist (Labor) Israeli government. I agree that for Israel's security it was necessary at the time to enter and clear up those territories from enemy combatants and their weapons, but it was not necessary to remain there.

While the Jewish settlers may do what they like (and face the consequences like we all do), they have no right to expect the citizens of Israel to protect them. If they want to have a state, then let them have a state, outside Israel. Muslims already have dozens of states, so why can't Jews have two?

As SteeleRedux just mentioned, following the Oslo accords the so-called "Palestinians" already recognised the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. What they "failed" to "recognise" is the hypothesis of Jewish ownership of Israel: Netanyahu's demand that Arabs recognise the right of the Jewish people to their own independent state implies a great insult to the people of Israel. Their own prime-minister is traitorously suggesting that rather than being democratic, their state is (or should be) run by foreigners, who do not pay taxes in Israel, who do not spill their blood for it, who are not under any risk of rockets, bombs and attack-tunnels, who only want to give instructions from the sidelines to suit their own interests, believing that they have that right only because they happened to be born with Jewish blood. The author appear to be one of them.

Part two.

1920, a year after the World War 1 Paris peace talks where the Arabs had been seeking self-determination. There was little Arab self-determination, only Eastern European nations qualified for the lot! What the Arabs got was French and British Mandates drawing arbitrary lines to form boundaries of new nations that would be controlled by their new French and British imperial overlords. To rub salt into their wounds, they were being told a new independent state for Jews would be established in their midst.

This is what makes the simplistic dichotomy of Arab and Jew so utterly ridiculous. I would have thought the Abrahamic religions would have been a dead give away about the shared ethnicity of Arab and Jew. DNA shows clearly that the people of the fertile crescent have a common ancestry. (Sorry to put the mockers on the chosen ones.) Why only a Jewish state? Why not a Christian state as there are probably far more Christian Arabs than Jewish Arabs? Isn't Judea the birthplace of Christianity? Why not a Druze state or any one of a plethora of Middle Eastern religions? To isolate Jewishness out of all the Arabian diversity and make it a special case is an insult to all the other Arabs and their cultures.

As modern democracies are putting distant between religions and the workings of government, Netanyahu wants it front and centre. It's not hard to figure out why and you only have to look across its northern border to know it's a disaster in the making. Palestinians have agreed to accept Israel. Their rejection of it as a Jewish state is not only understandable, it is to be commended. It wasn't just Iran that Israel developed nuclear weapons with, they did the same with apartheid South Africa. Credible reports continue to be written about the apartheid style practices the Israelis are engaged in currently. Creating a constitutional Jewish state leaves the way open for non-Jewish citizens to be further marginalised. It's yet another Netanyahu roadblock in his never ending attempts to stall the peace process.

Hi Steele,

As usual, I agree with you bout religious-based states: I'm very uneasy about Islamic states, Christian states (if there are still any), India as a Hindu state, others as Buddhist states, and a Jewish state. But since there are plenty of others, then why get stuck into a Jewish state ? If all citizens in such a state have equal access to rights and opportunities and obligations (as in Israel), then - in a world of other religiously-based states - it's not the main game.

After all, are there churches and mosques in Israel ? Yes, of course. Are there synagogues in all Muslim states ? Perhaps not I do believe that one of the most significant mosques in Islam, the al-Aqsa Mosque, sits on top of the Temple Mount, the ancient Temple of Solomon, and that Jews are not allowed to visit it without permission. And why is it there ? Because both Jews and Muslims believe that it is the site of Jacob's Ladder, the only way to get into Paradise - which is why Muhammad flew there on a winged horse on the night of his death, rendering Jerusalem such a sacred place for Muslims. Therefore forever, they assume.

As for your kind remark, "Being deliberately slippery with history is becoming your forte now it seems..... ", I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to my misgivings about religious and faith-based beliefs, and a preference for evidence, for the scientific method over passion, and for the defence of the constantly-evolving principles of the Enlightenment ?

Cheers,

Joe