Dear Dan,

«Give in and roll over to the Jihadist demands.»

Suppose a Jihadist approached you and said: "Don't you dare give me your purse, keep it for yourself"
- would you then hand him your purse?

Getting the hell out of the occupied territories from 1967 is a genuine Israeli interest, it is the only thing that can save Israel from corruption and internal implosion. That some Jihadists also happen to demand the same (and not even mean what they say), is completely incidental - I am not trying to appease anyone.

If you don't like the Jihadists to have these cursed territories, then well and good, find me someone else who is willing to take over - so long as it is not Israel!

How about the Kurds for example?
Good people who are being persecuted all over the Middle-East, will they be willing to settle in and take over the West Bank instead?

"About half the Jews, both in Israel and worldwide, support Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank."

Such a blanket statement is completely useless. Withdraw under what circumstances? Ask them if they think Israel should withdraw if it meant that Hamas or Hezbullah were likely to gain power and watch your 50% figure evaporate.

I'd venture that most Jews would favour withdrawal if it could be demonstrated the resultant entity would remain peaceful and not a threat to Israel. Failing that, from the surveys I've seen, most are in favour of remaining and protecting Israel by keep the violent wings of the Palestinian movements in check.

Gaza is of course a totally different proposition. Israel gave the Gazans complete autonomy and freedom and bequeathed them the economic wherewithal to create a prosperous state and they turned it into an armed camp. The vast majority of Israelis are opposed to ever making that mistake again.

Dear Mhaze,

«Such a blanket statement is completely useless»

Indeed, but not because of the reasons you stated:
It is useless because the Messianic settlers and their supporters would violently resist and Israel could not withstand the ensuing civil war.

Nevertheless, it is good for Australia and others to morally support Israel's true interests and peace-loving half. That is anything but Jew-hating.

«I'd venture that most Jews would favour withdrawal if it could be demonstrated the resultant entity would remain peaceful and not a threat to Israel»

Everyone knows that this would not happen if the resultant entity is "Palestinian".

A "Palestinian" state will always remain a threat to Israel, but a threat Israel can handle well. It will keep Israel on guard and should Israel be attacked again despite the "Palestinians" having their own independent state, then they will meet a similar fate as Gaza today. I'd venture they won't dare. All international resolutions should therefore include a clause that "Should an independent Palestinian state attack Israel even after its withdrawal, then Israel will have its hands free to destroy them like in Gaza".

Then again, why should the resultant entity be Palestinian?

Israel, knowing too well that it does not have the power to remove the West-Bank settlers, should simply leave them there. The settlers may receive individual offers, either for a good financial compensation if they return to Israel, or remain there and lose their Israeli citizenship. Once the deadline is over, Israel could just withdraw and let the dice in the West-Bank fall wherever.

Then there is the Kurdish solution, especially if Turkey drives the Kurds out of Syria. The so-called "Palestinians" were originally Syrian, so Syria is their natural home and with Syria becoming democratic and with adequate financial compensation they should be more than happy to exchange their homes with the Syrian Kurds. If a few of them remain under Kurdish rule, then that is OK too.

But if the the world insists on a purely "Palestinian" state, then it must participate and send considerable military forces, because Israel itself just cannot do it.

Yuyutsu.

I base my arguments on the premise that the current ME conflict is motivated by Muslim religious hatred of anything and anyone different from them; a purely religious war.
Outside of religious bigotry by Muslims, there is no strategic necessity to confront Israel; there are only pretexts of land claims which are completely ingenuine, in view of the larger fact of a religious jihad against the infidel West. (Front line Israel ).

Your question; who should occupy the West Bank:
The answer is those decisions are entirely a responsibility for Israel affairs, which are currently governed by the military necessity of security.
Based on my own opinion , no Muslim should be trusted to reside anywhere inside the current boundaries , (be they annexation boundaries or security zones or legitimate Israeli territory).
And no, not the Muslim Kurds, but other religions minorities such as Christians should be exempted from the mix.

It is nonsensical to entertain the enemy inside the gates: I doubt you’ll ever understand that concept

.

Dear David (the author),

.

You wrote :

« Australia joins Jew-haters at United Nations »
.

Israel’s enemies can be divided into two groups: the surrounding Islamic nations that have historically been their opponents in past wars, and radical terrorist organizations.

Presumably, you are referring only to the surrounding Islamic nations, terrorist groups not being members of the United Nations.

Australia voted alongside 155 members of the international community, including the UK, New Zealand, France, Germany and Japan. Only 4 are Islamic nations sharing a common border with Israel.

Historically, of course, we came close to housing Israel here in Australia in the 1930s. In 1939, the Freeland League for Jewish Territorial Colonisation identified the Kimberley in Western Australia as a place to resettle 75,000 European Jews fleeing rampant anti-Semitism.

Tasmania was also briefly considered a possible alternative for establishing a Jewish colony.

There was popular support for the Australian-Israeli project but the outbreak of the Second World War caused delays and the Menzies government subsequently declined the project, considering :

« The Commonwealth does not favour the settlement of any one area by a group of migrants as the establishment of an isolated community of migrants is contrary to the Government's assimilation aims »

Warren Austin of the Jewish Historical and Genealogical Society of Western Australia explained :

« At that stage, we had a White Australia policy and I think what the Government was interested in was having British stock coming here.

If it had gone ahead, several people's lives might have been saved from the Holocaust because they would have come to Australia. I think that would be a fact. »

Not only that. It would also have avoided the Six-Day War in 1967 as well as the current dramatic Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Robert Menzies, our longest-serving Prime Minister, was, of course, leader of the United Australia Party (that ruled in coalition with the Country Party) and, subsequently, the inaugural leader of the Liberal Party.

Despite his rejection of the Australian-Israeli project, he firmly condemned antisemitism.

Here is the Australian-Israeli project :

http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2020/7/6/the-plan-for-jewish-settlement-in-australia-in-the-1930s-the-kimberley-scheme

.