Wrighta, I did say in my post that I had no idea - I'm not even going to pretend I care about the idiosyncracies of judaism, islam, christianity or anything else pertaining to a greater being. Each to their own - I was just using the 'eye for an eye' phrase to encapsulate what has been the climate in Palestine/Israel. The point was not to pick at any particular religious context - quite simply, anyone who kills in the name of their religion is grossly miguided - the point was that as far as I could tell, Israelis and Palestinians had begun an approach that seemed a break from this cycle of vengeance that has corrupted both combatants. What I don't understand is why there is so much negativity over a move that was, for once, not instigated or motivated by the idea of vengeance, but by the idea of good will?

And what we are seeing now is an example of this cycle of revenge - Israel kill five Palestinians (for whatever reason), Palestinian suicide bomber returns the favour. Instead of sitting and arguing about who is to blame, won't someone step in and say: 'Get back to the negotiating table.' This cycle has raged for near a century and has accomplished nothing. And as a further note, the Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai coincided with their first and most positive peace treaty with a former sworn enemy in Egypt. Let's think of that for a minute. Anything is possible when you put the gun away.

No Boaz, I am not Jewish.

Monika, the occupied territories were/are not being held illegally. Resolutions 242 basically sets a ‘land for peace’ deal.

You are reading the resolution the way you want to, or reading secondary sources that have interpreted 242 the way they want to. US and Israeli efforts at the UN saw the resolution pass so as it could be interpreted in this way, not so as Israel would be forced to hand back land captured in a defensive war without any guarantees as to their future safety.

When you refer to Sharon as a war criminal, if you are talking about the refugee camp in Lebanon perhaps you should note this: Sharon was not in charge of security at the refugee camps, Lebanese forces were. Sharon warned a Lebanese commander that security at the camps was inadequate (somehow this is cited as evidence that Sharon knew of the coming attack). Few Israeli’s could perceive Christian Arabs murdering their fellow Arabs.

Nice point regarding the Sinai, Nick- this constituted pullout from 90% of occupied territories after a deal with Egypt- think about that Monika.

Wrighta with all due respect your argument is deteriorating into one of semantics. Nick is right. For too long it has been about useless diatribe, territorial negotiations, and nit picking, as well as retaliation and provocation.

The resolution you speak of conveniently ignored the fact that the Arabs were there in the first place, and that the British had promised them a territory in Palestine before the Balfour declaration. The famous Lawrence of Arabia was caught in the middle of all this and lamented the bickering between tribes that ultimately led to the Zionist movement taking the upper hand in negotiations. He also later cringed at the fact that Britain capitualated to the Zionist demands. In effect this was in the face of jewish terrorism-most notably the murder of British police constables in Palestine (The Stern Gang/Menachem Begin).

Now before I'm called an anti semite I'm just pointing out the facts. Personally I believe Israel is here to stay. Having said that we are all on the brink of catastrophe if we don't force the Israelis/Arabs to bring this conflict under control. So instead of being a glass half full person why not try the opposite? Israel is not without blame in this matter.

Nobody will call you an anti Semite. Dont be ridiculous.

The creation of Israel was also a response to the Palestinian involvement with Hitler and the realisation that a two state solution was required to protect the Jews from racists exploiting Islam.

I dont believe the Zionist movement did get the upper hand. The Jews were given a state that was non-contiguous and hard to defend in a region that had been rife with pogroms and exiles for centuries- still they accepted this.

Im not saying the Israeli’s are without responsibility- but clearly the Palestinians and the Arab states have a much greater burden on their shoulders as long as they continue their program of terrorism and hate- the worst thing the PA can do is to continue training their children to become terrorists and maintain an educational program of anti-Semitism, (manipulated) Koran, and propaganda.

Israel was created as a means of separating the increasingly hostile jewish and muslim communities in the Transjordan territory. There is nothing spectacularly unique about that. There was no conspiracy, zionist or otherwise. The same approach was taken in relation to India and Pakistan, for example.

It is Israel's mistake that she settled the lands she seized after her Arab neighbours attacked. No-one ever asked the Israelis to do it, let alone forced them.

The Palestinian terrorists appear to have both nationalist and religious motivations. They also apply the art of atrocity in gross measures. That is beyond dispute.

There is nobody within the dysfunctional Palestinian communities of the West Bank who threatens to break terrorist authority there. As such, road-maps, land-for-peace deals and the like are merely fantasies for the western media. It is up to Israel to solve its political and security problems. Neither the US, nor any likely Palestinian leader can do it for her.

Unilateral withdrawals to create a viable, contiguous Palestinian entity in the West Bank territories is the only way to solve Israel’s Palestinian problem. Of course, this will not prevent such a state falling under the control of terrorists. In fact, it almost certainly will. This, however, is a problem to be addressed when it arises

Monika.. I hate to tell u this, but the UN is morally and militarily bankrupt and as far as I'm concerned, irrelevant. Yes, I know, arrogance.. pessimism....loony... 'religous nutter'..

The day you can show me that the UN is driven by agenda's which don't ultimately resolve down to who is top dog on the security council etc..... or, that umpteen zillion interest groups do not see it as convenient furtherance of their own single issue thing, or when u can show me that human nature in all its self interested glory is not at work there, then I might begin to believe it has some relevance.

The simple fact is:
every nation AT the UN is a result of people and powers doing everything AGAINST what the UN is supposed to stand for, and anyone who thinks that those who were on the rough end of the stick in each particular case have any less legitimacy to use the same 'power' or military related means against such regimes to redress the injustice inherrant in the previous outcome, is in my not so humble opinion... naive.

Classic example would be our own indigenous people.

As for Israel, a pan Arab alliance was out to destroy them. In such circumstances, pre-emption based on good intelligence makes a mockery of the concept of 'invasion'. It totally further justifies morally, them keeping and using the territorial gains for themselves. This is further justified when one considers that the Romans STOLE it from the Jews in AD70, where they had dwelt for 1400 yrs at least.

I'm all for the people displaced by the new Jewish nation having a homeland, but history of our indigenous show that we would be hypocritical to say "We can have OUR stolen land, but the Jews cannot"

So, I recommend consolidating the Palestinians on new territory, just like every other displaced people have had to do. (including MY ancestors driven from the Scottish Highlands)