Why not make Israel a democracy? Why divide it and give part of it to Jordan. Why not have Israel become a state for all of its citizens? Why not have civil marriage, an integrated public school system and separation of religion and government as in the tradition of western democracies? With full and equal rights for all of its citizens, freedom from the coils of anachronistic religion and fully exploiting the potential of all of its citizens regardless of ethnicity and religion Israel could become even better than it is.

The operative word here is, new! As in no new state! And not how spinner Singer, claims.
Alan B.

Well Shihabi cannot be blamed for promoting what is good for his country, Saudi Arabia.

Yet Israel should consider what is good for Israel, not Saudi Arabia and Jordan should consider what is good for Jordan, not Saudi Arabia - in both cases, to be out of and have nothing to do with the West Bank and Gaza.

---

Dear David F.,

«Why not make Israel a democracy?» Why not X? Why not Y?....

Because the people there do not want it - is this not a good enough reason?

For you, apparently, it is not: you seem to push for your own personal agenda, just like Shihabi...

To achieve your stated goals, I suppose you would even use force against Israel and its people, if you could, and grind it to dust like Mariupol if that is what it took to subdue them into surrender to your secular-democratic wishes.

On second thought, you are probably not to blame for these world-domineering attitudes - having been raised up in the United States of America can provide the explanation.

"Chomsky on Israeli apartheid

Chomsky believes that calling Israeli policies towards the Palestinians "apartheid" is actually a "gift to Israel"; at least, if by apartheid one refers to South African-style apartheid.

"I have held for a long time that the Occupied Territories are much worse than South Africa," the professor explained. "South Africa needed its black population, it relied on them. The black population was 85 per cent of the population. It was the workforce; the country couldn't function without that population and, as a result, they tried to make their situation more or less tolerable to the international community… They were hoping for international recognition, which they didn't get."

So, if the Bantustans were, in Chomsky's opinion, "more or less livable," the same "is not true for the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Israel just wants to get rid of the people, doesn't want them. And its policies for the past 50 years, with not much variation, have been just somehow making life unlivable, so [the Palestinian people] will go somewhere else.""

http://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20220627-chomsky-on-israeli-apartheid-celebrity-activists-bds-and-the-one-state-solution/

Nobody in any country should be compelled to go anywhere else. Everybody in every country should have free equality with everybody else. Non-Jews in Israel will probably not have that while Israel is a Jewish state. Non-whites in Australia did not have that as long as Australia had its white only policy. Ancient Israel was not a democratic state, but it recognized that non-Jews should not be given a hard time.

The Jewish Publication society has printed an English translation of the Masoretic text, the Jewish Bible. It states:

Exodus 22:20 And a stranger shalt thou not wrong, neither shalt thou oppress him; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

The word, stranger, refers to a person of a non-Jewish ethnicity. The Jewish Bible tells Jews that they should not treat non-Jews the way Jews were treated in Egypt. One could extend that to the way Jews have been mistreated in many countries where they were a minority.

Dear SteeleRedux,

Yes, the so-called "Palestinians" are not welcome in Israel, not even their labor. Is this surprising? Do you need professors to tell you that? Every Israeli government said so all along, openly, never trying to hide it.

There was a time when they were welcome, in the early 20th century, long before they called themselves "Palestinians", when they were invited to take part in the Zionist project, to be equal partners in a new modern state. This is what Theodor Herzl proposed in his book "Altneuland", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_New_Land

But instead of happily grabbing Zionism's generous offers and be considered full-fledged Israelis, the local Arabs responded with violence and terror. They showed Israel time and again that they can never be trusted (later they showed the same to Jordan) and even the very name they chose to describe themselves is a Roman anti-Israel provocative insult, so is it a wonder that nobody wants them?

The question of course, is, what is Israel doing there to begin with in that cursed land with all these not-so-nice people?

Israel does not need these areas for its security, they are in fact a burden on its security. Israel remains there only because there is a crazy fanatic Jewish sect that won't leave and is too strong for Israel to remove without an all-out civil war. The solution therefore is for Israel to get out, wash its hands and leave both these not-so-nice groups there to their own devices, to stew there in their own juices.

Would all those who have commented so far care to abandon their usual practice of spewing rabid Jew-hatred - and comment for once on the subject matter of my article - a Saudi Arabian proposal for ending the conflict between Arabs and Jews by the creation of the "Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine" incorporating Jordan, Gaza and part of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) into one state where its exclusively Arabs-only citizens will have equal rights and no one will have to leave his current home unless he voluntarily wants to?

This newly-created "Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine" would exercise sovereignty in about 80% of the territory comprised in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine - whilst Israel would end up with about the remaining 20%

Do you regard this proposal as the best solution put forward to date for ending a conflict that has escaped solution for the last 100 years?

Do you favour a different solution and if so why?

Dear David Singer,

Would you stop your noxious practice of accusing those who disagree with you of 'rabid Jew hatred'. It is an extremely unpleasant way of arguing. I am a Jew, and I resent it. There are enough real Jew haters around. I am a Jew and glory in the fact that I live in a country where a Jew like Frydenberg can hold high office. That is because Australia is a democracy where one can hold high office regardless of the fact that he or she does not practice the dominant religion. A Jewish state or any state controlled by any religion is not a democracy. You have been advocating making non-Jews part of Jordan. If Israel were a democracy with equal rights for all of its citizens non-Jews could live in peace in Israel. People could be free to marry who they wished without clerical intervention. They could go to school together, learn together, work together and live together.

Dear David,

«Would all those who have commented so far care to abandon their usual practice of spewing rabid Jew-hatred»

Only a magician can abandon what they do not have...

«and comment for once on the subject matter of my article - a Saudi Arabian proposal»

A terrible proposal, one that if enacted would destroy Jordan and place Israel in great peril too.

«for ending the conflict between Arabs and Jews»

Which does not exist!

«by the creation of the "Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine" incorporating Jordan, Gaza and part of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) into one state»

Called Syria!

The moment the so-called "Palestinians" get a foothold in Jordan, they will revolt against its King and hand the whole of Jordan to Syria's Assad - exactly as they formerly tried before Black September.
A particular consequence is Iranian forces positioning themselves all along Israel's Eastern border, all the way south to Eilat. Russian forces might also follow, should the fragile Israel-Russia relations deteriorate... and everyone knows what Russia likes to do to neighbouring countries...

«where its exclusively Arabs-only citizens will have equal rights and no one will have to leave his current home unless he voluntarily wants to?»

They all have equal rights in Syria - ZERO, and half the Syrian population was already forced to leave their homes.

«This newly-created "Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine" would exercise sovereignty...»

Newly-created and lasting just one day before being gifted to Assad.

«Do you regard this proposal as the best solution put forward to date for ending a conflict that has escaped solution for the last 100 years?»

Definitely not!

«Do you favour a different solution and if so why?»

Yes: the State of Israel leaving the West Bank and returning to its pre-1967 borders. Israeli citizens in the West Bank will be able to choose between returning to Israel with fair financial compensation, or staying where they are but losing their Israeli citizenship. What eventuates then between the former Israelis and the local Arabs, would be up to them and nobody else's business.

#Yuyutsu

Part 1:

Thank you for at least having the backbone to respond to the contents of my article.

Your comments on the Saudi proposal and my responses:
1. "the conflict between Arabs and Jews does not exist"
Don't agree- this conflict has being going on for 100 years and is still unresolved as the ongoing body count of Jews and Arabs attest.

2. "The moment the so-called "Palestinians" get a foothold in Jordan, they will revolt against its King and hand the whole of Jordan to Syria's Assad - exactly as they formerly tried before Black September"
Don't agree:
(i) The PLO sought to take over and rule Jordan in 1970 after the loss of the West Bank in 1967 by Jordan - trying to replace its Hashemite rulers for the previous 50 years - not hand it to Syria.
(ii) The PLO did not claim regional sovereignty in the West Bank between 1964-1967 whilst the West Bank was part of Jordan. One would expect the PLO to make the same decision again - especially if the Arab League endorses the Saudi plan. The PLO would return to the role it played between 1964 and 1967 in the West Bank as laid out in its Charter: Its activities would be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.
(iii) The Hashemite rulers of Jordan clearly have the support of Saudi Arabia to continue to rule an enlarged Jordan as the name of the proposed new State makes abundantly clear -"The Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine" - not for example "The State of Palestine"

Part 2 to follow:

#Yuyutsu

Part 2

3. As to your alternate proposal:
"the State of Israel leaving the West Bank and returning to its pre-1967 borders. Israeli citizens in the West Bank will be able to choose between returning to Israel with fair financial compensation, or staying where they are but losing their Israeli citizenship. What eventuates then between the former Israelis and the local Arabs, would be up to them and nobody else's business."

An unrealistic and totally unattainable solution that would be a recipe for sectarian conflict and great human suffering for both the "former Israelis" and "local Arabs" in the scenario you are presenting - which would be a mini rerun of what has been happening for the last 100 years - which the Saudi proposal aims to end.

There were no "1967 borders" - only "1949 armistice lines" agreed on 3 April 1949 between Israel and Jordan. The border between Israel and Jordan was finally agreed by them in their signed 1994 peace treaty.

The peace treaty specifically stated that the boundary "is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967."

The Saudi plan would involve Israel and Jordan redrawing their current agreed border in negotiations that would incorporate those parts of the West Bank within Israel and Jordan respectively - as agreed in those negotiations - to give effect to the Saudi Plan.

#Yuyutsu: It always helps to argue on the basis of facts - not hyperbole or ignorance.

Dear David,

1. There's no conflict between Arabs as such and Jews as such (even to the small extent that the fluid terms "Arabs" and "Jews" are well defined). As a fact, 20% of Israelis are Arabs and enjoy the same freedoms as Israeli Jews (I would claim that they're even freer than Israeli Jews because they're not similarly obliged to serve in the army, yet those who serve voluntarily receive the same privileges).

Israel also has peaceful, sometimes even excellent relations with an increasing number of Arab states.

So what you must refer to as "Arabs" are just a tiny but hostile fraction who tactically claim to be "Palestinian" but in fact never accepted being torn away by the British from Greater Syria, in World-War-I, where they still feel they belong. That fraction will continue to identify as Syrian indefinitely, overtly or covertly, thus causing trouble to anyone who tries to separate them from Syria, Jewish, Arab or whatever.

2. The so-called "PLO" is only a scheme, a tactical step. If they ever wanted independence/liberation for "Palestine", then they have had plenty of opportunities to obtain it. They could possibly claim allegiance to the Jordanian King and People if it suits their purpose, but whenever he slips off guard they would stab them in the back and invite Assad instead. They may say one thing, but they are not the kind of people that can be trusted.

3. You asked, "Do you favour a different solution and if so why?", so I told you exactly what "solution" I favour, not that it was presently realistic.

Now that was a misleading tricky question and I fell into your trap, because "solution" assumes the undesirable existence of the "problem" you stated, while I disagree about neither the conflict's existence nor its undesirability.

What you wish to "solve" here, is the alleged Arab-Jewish conflict, certainly not something I care to "solve", while the problem I wish to solve is Israel's continued internal corruption by holding onto the land it captured in its 1967 uhholy war, obviously not something you care to solve.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I find many points of agreement with you and have learned from you although in many areas I still disagree with you. However I would appreciate you addressing your posts either:

Dear David Singer,

or

Dear David F,

I am more in disagreement with David Singer than I am with you. I think you are more reasonable.