Barry's recycled his article first printed in The Australian on February 2 so I'll recycle the letter I sent, of course in vain, to The Australian in response:

What is it about those dopey Palestinians, always missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity whenever those wonderful Barak-style offers come their way. As Barry Cohen so correctly points out they've been living in "fantasy land" ever since 1947 (not 48, Barry) when they got that terrific deal from the UN - the partition of their country! How could they not have seen the justice of giving over 50% of their homeland to a colonial minority newly arrived under the protection of British bayonets and who owned only 6% of the land? How could they not appreciate being relieved of the tedium and inconvenience of a nation-wide referendum on the issue? How could they fail to be impressed by the skillful US arm-twisting of the likes of Haiti, Liberia, the Philippines and Paraguay to secure the passage of the partition resolution? Ingrates! And how can we not admire the tirelessness of those such as Barry Cohen who never miss an opportunity to remind us of such wonderful offers?

STREWTH...don't get me started :) you .. you.. my goodness.. there is enough raw material in our own country to fill volumes of 'bad bad history'. Neither you nor I have any safe place to stand where we cannot say "This was someone elses, but we took it". So, don't crow too hard there against the Israelis.

Speaking of Barry.. how EXILERATING it is to hear the voice of one who is a direct blood descendant of no less than 'that ficticious figure of mythology' Aaron the brother of Moses.. (he is another of those 'ficticious' figures).....

Its moments like this, when I rejoice in the evidence before all of us that such people were NOT ficticious, and neither were the likes of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob.

Barry is correct. The clarification of the Palestinian position, is a good thing. Its much easier to deal with an enemy in full uniform in public places than a gurilla in the jungle.

I am looking with interest at the next few months to see if Hamas actually does tone down, well, actually it is REJECT its foundation pillar of destruction of Israel.

a) They reject it.... peace is a possibility, talks can begin. (But they have then morphed into 'fatah' and will alienate their voters.

b) They confirm it... Israel has the legal right to attack the PLO as never before. Every voter who voted for Hamas is an enemy in the military sense of Israel, and must be accountable for that. There is no such thing as 'Innocent' civilians any longer. (Except the Christian Arabs who would not vote for Hamas I'm sure) This goes for Fatah also, as they are in bed with Islamic Jihad etc.. same goal.

Why Israel did not learn from the original "palestinians" the "Phillistines" is beyond me. Perhaps they might review their 'picking off the main culprits' policy ?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There will NEVER be peace between Israelis and Muslims. The history goes back to Genesis 12 and following.
Read it to find out more about 'why'.

And another thing, Barry, that bit about "the destruction of the state of Israel". Hamas? Iran? As if. You're either living in fantasy land or this is your stock response to deflect attention from what has really been happening in Palestine since 1948 - the actual, tangible, dunum by dunum wiping of that still-born nation off the map. Once a majority in their own land, how much will the Palestinians ever get out of the so-called peace process? 10%if they're lucky? Something new to political science, a sort of swiss cheese state? And if they've got a problem with that, what? Spirit them off to Jordan and rebadge it as Palestine?

Boaz

Where did you get the idea that the actions of a government make all civilians a legitimate target?
Did you get it from Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt, Nixon, Johnson, Bush #1 or Bush #2, or Tojo? They, and a lot of other leaders all seemed to have the same idea as you?

A lasting Peace never seems to be achieved by killing people, as this only leads to creating more enemies. It is about time that we started trying making a lot more friends and a lot fewer enemies.
If we could work towards having a lot fewer people in favour of killing (and spent a lot less money on killing) then just maybe we could have peace.

The only thing to add to the previous postings is the statement made in the United Nations in 1947 by Sir Staffod Cripps, when he exhorted the Arabs and the Jews to settle their differences in a true Christian spirit.

I tend to agree with BOAZ_David that there will NEVER be peace between two groups. Like a lot of others I believe that there is a major war coming in the Middle East, and that Australia will effectively be Israel's ally.

Barry

Thank you for your article.

Hey BD - you and I are the same age. When have we seen peace during that time?

Cheers
Kay

barry

I think you've overstated the Hamas victory. And you are wrong. The election was democratic and represents democracy at work.

Hamas victory came about mostly because of the disorganisation of Fatah in the district elections. The party supported candidates lists resulted in a very close victory to Hamas but in the individual district elections(first past the post basis) Many official Fatah candidates were opposed by independant Fatah candidates. The result was a split Fatah vote and victory to Hamas. Next election will see an end to that situation and a probable re-birth of Fatah. Less the neoptism and corruption.

Hamas did not include in it's election manifesto any reference to the destruction of Israel. It does not follow it has a mandate to undertake that course, as you incorrectly claim.

Hamas is fundamentalist. Palestinians have traditionally rejected that course. They will do so again.

Hamas has rejected talking to anyone. They've stated they want a return to the borders at the time of the establishment of the Palestinisn state in 1948. You are correct about the formation of Israel and a parallel Palestinian state. So let's see a return to those borders. I think Hamas and the Palestinians would be content with that. The big question: Would the Israeli's accept that?

I'm not stupid. I see the biggest impediment to peaceful existance between Israel and Palestine is the land stolen by the Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. I don't belive talking will result in peace. Nor do Hamas. The Israeli's have to give up too much. I action by Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the Palestinian land as detailled by borders in 1948 as the single most precursor to peade. Hamas don't need to negotiate. Israel does they've stolen lands.

Hams have turned the tables. It's now not a case of them accepting Israel's right to exist but a case of Israel accepting Palestines right to it's legimate lands as defined in 1948.

Iranian bombs will be armed by terrorists in America. Israel isn't a primary target in the Mullah's minds, mate.

Barry,

Your mention about Hamas winning a democratic election and becoming kind of legit', could cause them to think more about Jaw JAw rather than War War. Let's hope so.

Your mention at the end of your thesis, however, Barry, seems to indicate that Iran is the main worry about not only keeping Hamas at bay, but peace in the whole Middle-East.

Nonetheless, a study of modern International Relations theory, could show that it is Israel with its arsenal of nuclear rockets which does hold the key to peace in the whole area - and backed very much by the US, of course.

Now in power politics there is that old theory about the arrangement or even allowing the levelling or matching of powers to prevent war, or even a disturbance like making sure the Martins and the Coys each had always the same amount of guns and ammunition.

An example in more recent times and regarding nuclear levelling was the case of India and Pakistan, which though causing a diplomatic uproar, would certainly have had some weary diplomats breathing a sigh of relief when Pakistan matched India in nuclear warhead potential.

Somewhat behind the scenes, it could even be arranged by diplomats that Iran receive a store of primed nuclear warheads to use in their long-range rockets, which could be even on the go with China or North Korea right now. We also have nuclear India which also could be dangerously interested in that way

Just a suggestion, mind, but from one who was involved in a study of nuclear deterrence tactics during the Cold War.

BRUSHY let's also remember re Pakistan and India... they were actually ticking off the cities which would be left after a Nuclear Holocaust.. figuring the odds for 'when' it happened.. the 'leveling' effect you mention is not why they avoided war, it was just a desire not to have one. Mutual deterrance in their case was not applicable to the degree you suggest.

PEACE
thanx for picking me up on that :) perhaps I did not make myself clear enough..(*checks wording*) Here is what I said: "Every VOTER who elected Hamas"
My reasoning was pretty straight forward.. Person A stands for election with a known policy of destruction of Country B, therefore those who voted for Person A are culpable.(in the eyes of Country B)
Its a simple "If....then" like in Basic programming.
If you vote for Adolph Hitler KNOWING he will slaughter Jews, you are as guilty as he is. The Germans didn't know he would do that, the Palestinians who voted for Hamas DID know and DO know.

Kay... true. I was in Vietnam for a bit during final stages of the war, Australia has been pretty peaceful but not many other places.
Still the same old fight over resources, territory and pride.

STRUTH as for shipping the Palestinians off to Jordan...(Probably the best solution) well lets see.. the American Indians were shipped off to reservations. The Australian Aborigines were shipped off to be 'not' where you are now... the Kmers were 'shipped off' from Ankor Wat by the migrant Thais, the migrants to Ivory Coast are trying to 'ship off' the indigenous Ivorians to 'anywhere but near the diamond mines'...The Hutus were sick of Tutsis picking off their leaders one by one, so they went for the 'final' solution, and so history goes on.

Boaz,

These studies were done during the Cold War, the research books contain all degrees of deterrence, including the one you mention. The fact is, you have one small country only made powerful because it is the only one in the Middle East, apart from outside perpretators, who has a nuclear arsenal.

The hatred thus ensuing from both Arabs and Iranians for a allowing a small country like Israel to be so potentially dangerous must be amplified a dozen times or more.

The problem seems to be, Boaz, that political philosophers who devout their whole lives to studying such problems, seems to be regarded by many of our contributors as loony lefties or bleeding hearts, because they teach that there can be a way without reverting to war.

Iran is quickly reaching a position like the proverbial tiger cat in a corner, and even without nuclear war capacity will surely cause tremendous damage before she is crippled.

If you want that to happen, Boaz, okay then, mate, go for it. But those lefty academic professors whom some of you seem to spurn so much, please listen to them for a while rather than certain goons in the White House, as well as in our own Parliament House, who would be lucky to get five out of ten in any International Relations course, particularly as regards going to war. And please don't mention WW2, because the position right now stirring up religions, is totally different, and thus potentially longer lasting.

I've got a problem with a few themes in the posts previous. The logic seems to work like this.

"Hamas stands for the destruction of Israel.
Hamas wins the election.
Hamas has a mandate conferred upon it by the Palestinian people to destroy Israel."

Some of you have then taken a further step to say Palestinian people who voted for Hamas are legitimate targets for Israel to kill. Putting aside the very very large problem of trying to find and kill those who voted for Hamas in a supposedly secret election (don't you support secret voting?) for one moment, surely that's the same logic al-Qaeda used to justify killing civilians in the World Trade Center, that Americans who support US attempts to wipe out al-Qaeda are legitimate targets to be killed by al-Qaeda.

Hopefully that silly idea's been put to bed, but above all, I'd argue the Palestinian people have not necessarily conferred a mandate upon their government to pursue the course of the destruction of Israel. The over-riding themes of the campaign involve corruption, delivery of services, fiscal responsibility and reliance on overseas aid, in addition to the Israeli relationship. Palestinians wanted a far more isolationist, self dependent, values driven government as opposed to the Fatah. In response to this Israel is within its rights to refuse to hand over customs duties to the PA, and continue on its unilateral settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it's a logical course of action in response to the mandated goals of the Palestinian government. When put in light of the Hamas supported ceasefire which has held for 12 months now, there' no way Hamas has been given a mandate to destroy Israel.

Above all, elections very rarely except in referenda confer mandates upon specific policies, rather they confer mandates for values in a government's actions in matters. The Palestinians gave a mandate to policies more closely aligned with Hamas, than Fatah, values.

Which underlying causes are the most important for the tensions under which this region suffers?
There is a great heap of them.
Whatever they are, it is sobering to consider that they will be multiplied by a factor of two in forty years. If they survive that long.
By that time, in the combined lands of Israel, Palestinian Territory, Lebanon and Jordan, at the present rate of increase twice as many people will be jostling shoulders for a fair go on these overstressed landscapes.

Good to hear from you again Barry, those great years come back to me , your post is spot on.
And your well known humor will make some posts against you here reason for a grin

I feel as though Israel will never garner complete world support though it may ensure majority support should it follow the UN resolutions calling for it to withdraw to the sanctioned borders (prior to 67 I think they were) and then constructed its security fences along those lines. That would forstall many voices who argue that UN resolutons are being enforced selectively based on whether or not you are a friend of the United States. I think Israel has a complete right to exists as a seperate state but I also think that I will not see if within my lifetime while it relies on it's friendship with the United States to stare down any pressure for it to comply with the United Nations resolutions. The United States manages to do itself a grave disservice by insisting that the Palestinians make the first move. There would be no greater gesture than Israel retiring to and then fortifiying it's legal borders.