There is no immediate solution to the Arab-Israeli dispute because nothing less than the total extermination of Israel is acceptable to most Arabs. I say "most" because the leaders of the Gulf states are getting sick and tired of their religious zealots clamouring for war with the Jews, and they know that the Jews are good people do do business with.

On the Israeli side, they have no intention of being exterminated. And being the smartest race on earth, they intend to just hang on until the Arabs run out of oil and come running to the Israelis with their begging bowls.

Am pro-Israel, but not Jewish, happy knowing Israel's nukes keep the Arab and Iranian states away.

Wow, have we broken a record?

The article mentions the phrase "Jewish People" 5 times without even attempting to define that term, while the author has declined time and again to specify what exactly he means by that expression.

How could a conflict exist between such a body of people which does not even exist, and some other body of people, "The Arabs", which also is so vague that it could mean so many things, if at all. Further, how can a non-existing conflict ever be solved?!

(also, how can anybody be "anti-Jewish" without any understanding of what the term "Jewish" means?)

With the author refusing to define what he is talking about, how could anyone expect the League of Nations to know what they were talking about and make an intelligent decision? Do we even have a clue as to what they had in mind in 1922? Most likely, each member-state had some different idea in mind, if at all!

Unless the author provides some definition, I suspect that by "Jewish People" he refers to his own ideological splinter-group, which by their adopted name only, were supposedly the ones who were granted by the League-of-Nations/United-Nations the right to do whatever they like in the land of Israel, ignoring even the interests of the State of Israel and the well-being of its people.

Y,

Seriously! can't you work out who are the Jewish people as opposed to the "Palestinian people" referred to by the UN?

If I was to say to anybody the word "Arab", what might come to mind is a prson in robes on top of a camel with a big nose. Or it might be somebody wearing western clothes, a big nose, and wearing Addidas shoes.

Neither term is absolutely correct, but then it does not need to be. it is correct enough to form a concept, and that concept will become clearer as the speaker puts the noun "Arab" in context with what he or she is saying. It is a generalized term, and everybody ues generalised terms in everyday speech.

If I was to say to Yuyutsu, "there is a bird sitting on your car", Yuyutsu would not think that there was a penguin, an ostrich, or an emu sitting on his/her car. He/she/it would conclude that it was some sort of feathered avian, of indeturminate species and colouration. the word "bird" is not specific, it is general. General enough to make people understand what you are saying.

Yuyutsu claiming that unless nouns are always specific then they are not valid is absolutely potty. Which pretty much sums up Yuyutsu's whole mindset.

Dear ShadowMinister and LEGO,

My last post cannot be understood in the context of this article alone, but as a response to the author's never-ending series of articles on this same point, some 300 of them since 2008.

The vague, undefined nature of the term "Jews" or "Jewish People" allows the author to constantly change the goal-posts so he can use and incorrectly interchange different groups of people as convenient for the promulgation of his ideas, evading the inevitable criticism he could receive had he been using the term consistently.

"Jews" could mean, among other things and in different contexts:
* The descendants of the legendary three forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (also called "Israel"), to whom, according to the Bible, God granted the "Promised Land", subject to certain conditions.
* The people who lived in Israel 3000 years ago and their descendants.
* The people who practice the Jewish religion.
* The descendants of people who once practiced the Jewish religion.
* The people who are considered as Jews according to Jewish Law (Halacha).
* Those who actively follow Jewish culture.
* Those whom Hitler killed or attempted to kill on the grounds of being "Jewish".
* The citizens of Israel.
* Whoever members of the League-of-Nation had in mind when considering a "Jewish Homeland".

As for "Arabs", it's evident that most of those who intuitively identify as "Arabs" are now at peace with Israel, so what "conflict" is the author attempting to solve?

«Seriously! can't you work out who are the Jewish people as opposed to the "Palestinian people" referred to by the UN?»

Seriously, this is not clear at all: what many UN members must have had in mind, is to get Jewish refugees out of their countries. At the time, Israeli Arabs mostly considered themselves as Syrian, certainly not "Palestinian". In fact, it was mainly Israeli Jews then who considered themselves "Palestinian", and these people did not even want a Jewish state, but rather a Hebrew state where they can revive the Hebrew culture: I doubt that this was ever in the mind of UN members.

Y,

Seriously, you are trying to boil the ocean. Common sense would indicate that the author meant those that identify as Jewish (by religion or heritage) in the broader state of Israel.

Dear ShadowMinister,

«Seriously, you are trying to boil the ocean.»

Yes, this is how it seems to one who joined this discussion recently without going through the articles and comments that were flying here for years.

There is an ongoing conversation, including over these pages, regarding who owns the land of Israel, but it is usually limited to only two broad and vocal camps, seeing only blue or green respectively and accordingly siding with either the "Israel" team or the "Arab" team.

But the reality has many more nuances, not just blue and green, so the questions of who EXACTLY "owns" the land of Israel and why, are important.

For years, the author has refused to answer this question, because vagueness serves his purposes.

Did God grant the land to all descendants of Jacob, or only to those observing His commandments?
Has God granted the land as gift for the recipients to do as they please, or only appointed Israel as His trustee, to serve His purposes?
Then what about converted Jews who are not of the seed of Jacob (apparently, research shows, they are the majority of Jews)?
And what about the many ethnic Jews, of the seed of Jacob, who under pressure converted to Islam and now constitute the majority of "Palestinians"?

Did the League-of-Nations, later the UN, intended to grant the land (or parts thereof) to those who were Jewish by religion? by culture? by antisemitism? or to this group of pioneers (Chalutzim), predominantly non-observant Jews already there, who physically came to Israel to build and toil the land, in the hope of establishing there a new secular (possibly socialist) Hebrew state (not Jewish, Hebrew - the nuance is important)?

What is the position of the modern state of Israel in all this?
While Israel has some Jewish characteristics, they are limited, changing and subject to the democratic will of its citizens, thus Israel is not a "Jewish state", nor exclusively represents all Jews.

No intelligent discussion is possible until and unless the author answers these and similar related questions!

"These are the Ma’on and Isaschar Manne farm outposts in the South Hebron Hills. A new B’Tselem report shows that settler violence has helped the state take over 2,640 dunams of land around these settlements. In five areas examined by the report, the state misappropriated 28,416 dunams through settler violence, more than the area of the Israeli cities of Ramat Gan, Bat Yam, and Holon combined.

The direct violence is executed by settlers, yet the strategy belongs to the state.

Settler violence is state violence."


http://www.btselem.org/publications/202111_state_business

SR,

More propaganda from your favourite Hamas mouthpiece?