I usually agree almost totally with Alon Ben-Meir, but sadly not this time.

"and meets the Palestinians' national aspiration for statehood"

What aspiration is Alon talking about? I wish they did, but they never ever wanted statehood!

"and resulted in the death of nearly 23,000 Palestinians at the time of writing, 70 percent of whom are women and children."

This is what Hamas claims - but why should the author believe it?

"And there is the inconceivably sick option wherein extremists on both sides-messianic Israeli Jews and Palestinian jihadis-seek to expel or even liquidate the other from any territory they currently occupy, which deserves no elaboration but only the strongest condemnation for even thinking of such an option, which is akin to ethnic cleansing and absolute sheer madness."

CONDEMN ME THEN - it could be great to stand by and see them mutually annihilating each other!

And once gone, the normal people of the region will be able to live in peace ever after!

The article seeks a solution for the wrong problem - the problem in the Middle-East is that no "normal" person can live with these extremists.

Even if all "Palestinians" were gone, Israel itself is not a viable state because normal liberal people and Messianic Jews cannot live together. I believe the same to be on the Arab side.

What to do then?

Israel should leave all its 1967-occupied territories unilaterally, build a strong wall along its border (i.e. the Green Line), then stop worrying about whatever happens on the other side of its border between the Jewish/Islamic extremists that are left there.

---

I do however agree with some statements of other commentators, such as:

«Israels current leaders should be imprisoned for the remainder of their natural lives»

AND

«Hamas does not want a two-state solution, it wants an Islamic Caliphate “from the river to the sea”, with Israel destroyed and its Jewish population murdered or expelled.»

---

I disbelieve it when AC claims:
«I don't care if Hezbollah flattens the entire country.»

- Of course he does care, he wants that to happen very much!

Hi Yuyutsu,
If Israels ancient biblical stand towards issues is 'an eye for an eye'
Then why is the concept of karma wrong in this instance?

- do bad to others (wish to wipe the Palestinians out) and that bad should happen to you, right?

- Let them have 'an eye for an eye' if that's what they want.
Let the Muslims hoards descend upon them, wipe them out and say,
'God took it from them and gave it to us'

Truthfully I support negotiations over conflict, and you know I do.
Because with conflict innocent people pay the price.
If negotiations and compromise were possible, none of these wars would happen.
I don't think Israel has negotiated anything in good faith since Netanyahu was elected.
And it was one of his right-wing settler lunatics that assassinated Yitzhak Rabin, the only politician who really tried to change things in recent times.

If supporting Israel means supporting apartheid, oppression, land theft and genocide - then why on earth would you expect me to support this nation and those things?
Why would you make me feel bad for opposing those things?

My ideological position does not mean that I wish harm to your family in Israel.
I'd much prefer that NO innocent Israeli or Palestinian are harmed.

Removing Netanyahu, isn't going to change things when both the left and right support the ongoing settlement building / ethnic cleansing, they just disagree on how to go about it.

- That's a terrorist state.
I'm sorry, it's not personal.

[Cont]
I'm drawing a harder line in my first offer, one that shocks and tells some hard truths, you always make an unreasonable first offer and negotiate it back to one that is acceptable.

Begging for a 2 state solution won't change anything.
Hoping for change won't make it happen.

No-one on this planet had done anything to change the situation except Hamas, I don't like the situation, but that's what it is.

When Israel shows that its capable of living in peace with it's neighbors and can treat them with respect and dignity, then I might roll back my hard line to one that's an acceptable compromise to both sides.

i.e 2 state solution.
But right now as things stand Israel's spent 75 years as a terrorist state.
Things need to change, no more 'mowing the grass'.

I said it ages ago, I don't need to know what the solutions are to know that whats going on now isn't working.

Until then it's not about religions, it's about humanity.
It's about a people having their own state, and their own dignity.

I don't care about being called an Anti-Semite.
Israel is accused of genocide 25,000 dead people mostly women and kids and just as many more under the rubble and faces binding judgement of the ICJ.
Calling someone an Anti-Semite with this hanging over Israels head is just plain ridiculous.
I've seen footage of countless innocent people shot dead for no reason at all.
And what about the 112+ journalists Israel deliberately killed to try and cover up their crimes?
You already know all my arguments and criticisms against Israel, so what do I even have to hide?

Dear Critic,

Sorry I have no time to respond, I will later, but for now just one point:

«when both the left and right support the ongoing settlement building / ethnic cleansing,»

That is absolutely not true.
Unlike whatever it means in other countries, "Left" in Israel means those who wish to get out of the cursed territories taken by Israel in 1967 - and that is about half the population of Israel, including the Israeli author of this article.

Many other pieces of information you provided, now and over the last days, are plainly false, plainly no so. There are just so many of those that I no longer have time or energy to refute them.

The past is a foreign country nobody can actually return to.

So, as I see it there ae just two solutions, one so terrible that I refuse to believe that it has to be the final solution.

In one of many scenarios, the pentagon has one scenario that nukes the middle east with high altitude neutron bombs that hit the place with a huge burst radiation that kills all organic life, even in deep bunkers, creating a sea of glass, while leaving the infrastructure intact and undamaged.

Given that nature of the radiation it is safe to re-enter the are in about six months claiming all the spoils, oil, gas etc. The other solution and the only one, is a negotiated two state settlement.

Those with the power to negotiate, need to be locked in a room until they have a compromise all can live with. They need to be acquainted with the very real possibility of the above scenario if they fail to agree.

Failing an agreed solution, it is only a question of time before the protagonists plunge the area into a full-blown nuclear war. A war which will have far worse consequences than Hiroshima!

Better the M.E. pay the price than the whole world be plunged into WW 3!

Finally, let me say, I agree with Rhian and her rare commonsense post.

Others who see only violent eye for an eye, solutions are part of the problem and endless bloodshed! ttbn likes to prattle on about SFA as usual, while condemning other for making positive suggestions to the debate.

I'm reliably informed that this E-journal could be read in the white house, number 10 downing street and on the hill in Canberra to name but a few, to gauge public opinion.

So, it may not be a complete waste of time as moribund negative nay sayers like ttbn and co claim.
Alan B.

Alan

Reveal the "reliable source" who has advised you that Number 10 and The Whitehouse read what has become mainly ignorance and personal abuse from you, aided by Grammarly, spell check and probably your carer.