Philip Mendes, as part of this progressive Jewish intelligentsia, has put forward a view that is sober yet fails to interrogate the power structures and cultural hierarchies that the state of Israel has been built upon. 'The Dirty Linen' becomes a sensitive issue to elites within communities precisely as it undermines their flawed ideologies based upon the demonisation of the 'other'. In Israel's case there are internal and external others, namely Mizrahim, Ethiopian and non-Ashkenazic Jews and the Arab states that are personified in the Palestinian 'terrorist'. This orientalist thinking becomes perpetuated, reproduced, reapproporiated and justified in the diaspora. Its collision with inherent racisms in the host societies, in which Jews have become integral members of social, political, economic and cultural aspects of them, suppresses any or limited avenues of dissidence that subvert the domination and pervasiveness of these ideologies. The position of the 'Jew' in the diaspora has become so powerful that he/she can afford to appear progressive, and even question Zionism from an engaged perspective, but without relinquishing their position as possessors of stolen land. Perhaps, land as a symbol and tangible effect of privilege needs to be put forward in the Australian context precisely because living on stolen land has not caused a level of discomfort and societal incivility as much as the indigenous owners of this land have suffered. This does not deny the pernicious effects of the Holocaust on the Jewish nation. Nevertheless, 'communities of suffering', should put forward how their suffering has elevated them to a status of untouchables that represses their oppressive prejudices and allows for cross racial hostility to continue gently in the symbolic, and on occasions deplorable physical violence, that marks all dealings with the ‘other’.

Farid Farid
PhD Student
Centre for Cultural Research,
University of Western Sydney

I think there's probably a basis for all sides to claim the land as their own. Obviously, no side is going to relinquish a claim on the area, and why should they? Obviously, both sides should have their own right to a homeland. As the article rightly pointed out, every other ethnic group can support the "homeland", so why pick on the Jews? In general, they actually fit in and contribute a lot more to Australian society than a lot of groups and they rarely, if ever, cause any trouble.

I'm not always enamoured with Israel, and they do dodgy things too. However, at the end of the day, only a fool could be an observer and fail to realise that whilst Israel more or less wants to be left alone, for the rest of the region, the only option is the total destruction of Israel and Jews. It's absurd and it's precisely why, despite what extreme measures Israel may take in dealing with Palestinians and the other nations in the region, everyone realises that when faced with the option of Israel existing or being destroyed, one's hand is forced.

Personally though, I've never understood why all these monotheistic religions and their associated ethnic groups have fought over such a barren hole as the Promised Land. If we were talking about Britain's rolling green hills, or endless vineyards in France, or even nice tropical beaches with banana and mango trees, I could understand, but who but a religious nutter would want the Middle East? Therein lies a large part of the problem I think.

Farid Farid's post may have had more impact if it wasn't full of post-modernist jargon. And as for the "demonisation of the 'other'", isn't this something that is done about Jews all throughout the Arab and Islamic World? Nonie Darwish's article that was published in The Telegraph (London) on February 12, 2006 is a good place to start. She was born in Egypt and raised in Cairo and Gaza. As she notes in her article:
"In school in Gaza, I learned hate, vengeance and retaliation. Peace was never an option, as it was considered a sign of defeat and weakness. At school we sang songs with verses calling Jews "dogs" (in Arab culture, dogs are considered unclean). .....
Sadly, the way I was raised was not unique. Hundreds of millions of other Muslims also have been raised with the same hatred of the West and Israel as a way to distract from the failings of their leaders. Things have not changed since I was a little girl in the 1950s."

Sadly, there are plenty of other sources that I could quote in which the Jew is demonised as the 'other' within the Arab and Islamic World.

SavagePencil perfectly portrays the convenient withdrawal to engage with me to a charge of anti-semitism. This mantle as I previously explained shields any criticism of communities and individuals that have suffered past injustices and that are too willing invoke these narratives as a justification to always be regarded as victims that can never turn oppressors. In this fallacy resides a fear to become vulnerable. It alludes to the fragility of the person's identity to be questioned. It is always more economically emotional to think with one's prejudices without exposing one's deep seated resentments and hatred. I'm not denying my own prejudices here and I'm not embracing myself in self-congratulatory rhetoric (or postmodernist jargon as SavagePencil thinks). I'm merely expressing my views in this supposedly democratic forum and would also draw SavagePencil's attention to Mitzi Goldman's documentary 'Hatred' and Barbara Bloch's thesis "Unsettling Zionism". These are examples of engaged Jewish academics in Australia who are trying to unsettle this fantasy of anyone who critiques notions of Zionism, Jewishness and Israel are castigated automatically as anti-Semites. SavagePencil's defensive posture must be seen though as a sign 'encouraged discomfort' and would be better aided if he/she did not concentrate on articles (i.e The Guardian one) that solidified his convictions that Arabs are preoccupied with hating Jews in school anthems.

Farid Farid
PhD Student
Centre for Cultural Research,
University of Western Sydney

Savage...well said.

I'd love to see someone do a survey, of Jewish Schools in Israel and those of the type you mentioned in Gaza. I somehow doubt that the Palestinians are demonized at the same level as the Jews are.

I think the Jews are more interested in getting on with the job of living and survival, than simply maintaining a level of red hot hatred.

I wish someone would leak "secret plans" to the militants of Gaza, suggesting that if attacks continue past a certain date, the policy of complete ethnic cleansing will begin. Of course, there are no such plans to my knowledge, but Im sure many have thought of it.
I certainly have.

But... life goes on, we will see where things lead.

If Israel turned its heart toward God, the land would be healed. yes, there might be a very sharp and heated war, but I'm sure it would have the result conducive to peace.

The only way Israel has any claim on the land is the theological way or the 'might' way. But the theological view includes all land to the Euphrates...now that would be a bone of contention eh :)

The 'might'way seems to be the path chosen by the government, and if that is the case, then why worry about where the border is 'supposed' to be,.. MAKE IT where u want it and do so in the best strategic manner. If they are surviving 'now' by 'might' then does it really matter where the border is ?

cheers

Dr Phil's recognition of the "lack of organic connection" between Australian Jews and Israel undercuts his claim that we're dealing here with just another ethnic group's ties to the 'old country'. Even the term 'ethnic group' is not borne out by reality, Jews being adherents of a faith, and coming from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. The existence and work of Zionist groups, education, fundraising and advocacy that he refers to might well be a reflection of just how inorganic and artificial the link between Australian Jews and Israel is. Particularly insulting I would have thought to Australian Jews is his suggestion that "the establishment of Israel is regarded by Jews as...atonement by the international community for failing to prevent the Holocaust." Think of its implications: do Australian "Jews" (Dr Phil makes no attempt to be more specific) really consider that "the international community" was collectively responsible for the Holocaust and so had a responsibility (putting to one side the question of whether it had a right to do so) to hand over a corner of the Arab world - Palestine - to the Zionist movement, sacrificing its indigenous people in the process, to atone for its alleged collective guilt? The very notion is preposterous and offensive to any acceptable moral code. And, I would have thought, to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust. Dr Phil also needs to be reminded, with reference to his last paragraph, that the Israeli occupation and colonization of the Palestinian Territories preceded the growth of Hamas and the phenomenon of the suicide bomber and can be seen as their cause.

I am sorry Farid Farid but your original post and your follow-up are full of near incomprehensible post-modernist jargon.

Also in my original post I did not allude to any anti-Semitism on Farid Farid's part. What I did point out was the degree of the "demonisation of the 'other'" - the 'other' being Jews in this case - throughout the Arab and Islamic World.

Here's another, very recent example of that demonisation. In the April 14, 2006 edition of his weekly show on Al-Resala TV, The Raids,in which he discusses the battles of the Prophet Muhammad, Egyptian cleric Hazem Sallah Abu Isma'il explained to his audience that, according to U.N. statistics, "Jews produce more than 82% of the video clips in the world," and added that "82% of all attempts to corrupt humanity originate from the Jews."

I certainly would call that demonisation. Wouldn't you Farid Farid?

What amazes me is that jew, christian and muslims are prepared to bring their problems to Australia. Anyone that supports countries or organisation that are in conflict over religious differences doesn't deserve to be in this country. Why don't you all go to your religious country of choice and settle it there.

For a belief system that promotes love, peace and caring, yet is constantly fighting shows how far from reality that belief system is. In the last 3500 years, since the inception of monotheism, there has been only about 230 years that have been free of religious war. For a belief system that prides itself in its spiritual approach to life, the followers of god appear to be more materialistic than non believers. All their conflicts are about land and their desire to control and be there.

Jews live as far in the past as other god followers. They conveniently forget the millions of gypsies, poor and other ethnic groups that were also massacred by christian nazi's. They are as racist as the nazi's were, constantly lying about their expansion plans, and slowly demolishing the palestinians around them.

Why aren't those that send money to isreal or any country in conflict classed as supporters of terrorism and charged accordingly, then thrown out of Australia. By using this country to support war mongering monotheists, you are abusing the freedom and rights that are a part of this country. Jews, muslim and christian lobbiests should be classed as supporters of terrorism and a threat to the stability of this country. Their aim is to be the defining power in whatever country they are in and to use whatever methods they can to achieve that aim, to everyone elses detriment.

Alchemist,
Though I support much of your argument regarding wars I suggest rather than genralise you try to clarify your arguments with facts. There is a difference between humanitarian aid given and funds given to fund terrorism.

For instance we give aid to refugees in war torn countries but we do not support wars.

I personally support a Christian young Australian man in Austria helping with settlement and humanisation of refugees from Middle East and African countries they are 99% Muslim seeking a better life in Europe; especially Germany.

Strewth: For their own strange reasons, Jews do feel an intense connection to Israel as their old country. That's the Diaspora. As to them being several ethnic groups, big deal. There are plenty of countries that on paper look like a patchwork affair. Besides the obvious examples of Australia and the U.S., we could throw in Brazil, India or Russia. Should this stop them from having a common identity?

As to Palestine being stolen for the Jews, that's true to an extent, although my understanding of it is that even before Israel was founded there were Jews living there and always have been. They would probably claim that it's just been a very, very long occupation of their lands for thousands of years by Arabs, Romans, etc. If the Slovaks could be occupied/conquered for about a millenium and end up with their own homeland, why shouldn't the Jews?

Whether it should be or not, I am sure that Israel was founded in part as atonement by the west for the Holocaust. In some ways it was for participation (and let's not forget that except for Bulgaria and Denmark, every other occupied nation sent its Jews to the Death Camps) or failure to intervene. Not only did Britain, America, etc. know what was going on, but they actually prevented a lot of Jewish immigration, sent German or Austrian Jews back to The Third Reich because they were "German" or "Austrian" and supposedly "the enemy", and of course, the Allies made absolutely no attempt to bomb the railroad tracks to Auschwitz, etc. (which would have dramatically slowed down the efficiency of the Final Solution). So I'd say that the west at the time was pretty damned well complicit in the Holocaust.

Finally, whilst Israel may have preceded Hamas, it certainly didn't precede the sort of militant Arab sentiment in the region. Israel was attacked on several occasions. Furthermore, it doesn't justify the existence of suicide bombers. The cause of suicide bombers is the twisted minds of idiots who can't see past the Dark Ages in their world view.

Shorbe: "an intense connection"? Fine. Spiritual Zionism? Fine. But not a Jewish state built on the statelessness and dispossession of the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine (Political Zionism). Australia (and the other states you mentioned) differ fundamentally from a country like Israel because, instead of being just the state of its citizens, regardless of their ethnicity or religious denomination, Israel, as a self-proclaimed Jewish state, underpinned by the ideology of political Zionism, presents itself as the state of a dubious ideological construct known as 'the Jewish people'. Hence its blatantly discriminatory Law of Return which entitles any citizen of any other country in the world automatic Israeli citizenship - provided they are Jewish (and nobody really seems to know exactly what this consists of these days) - while excluding Palestinian Arab refugees whose fathers and grandfathers were born in Palestine. You want "an intense connection" to the land of Palestine? Try a Palestinian refugee. The problem with political Zionism is that it has largely replaced Judaism as the core identity of many Jews with Israelism, which is to say the worship of a state. And we all know where that leads. Re Jews always living in Palestine? No problem. They lived there not at the expense of non-Jews, but alongside them. Re the Holocaust, you talk about "the west" being "complicit". Let's assume for argument's sake that that is correct. Does that then give "the west" the right to condone the handover of part of the Arab world to the European Jewish victims of the Holocaust? Re Israel coming under attack: have you forgotten (or never studied ) your history? Every attempt to colonise the land of another people is met with resistance - sometimes futile, sometimes effective, sometimes quite bloody. Not to recognise the prior, primary violence of colonisation and occupation, while playing up the reactive violence of resistance to same, or pretending that it is the product of sick minds, as you do, betrays a vested interest in the maintenance of that colonisation and occupation. If your house is invaded you'd be less than human if you didn't resist.

I’m grateful to the respondents for their primarily constructive comments on my article.

The intention behind the article was to provide a factual and hopefully informed discussion of the Australian Jewish community as they view themselves. That is the best I can do as a secular Jew who sits inside – albeit arguably on the margins of – that community. It may be that others would like that community to be something radically different but short of magical social engineering that is not likely to occur.

In my opinion, potential oppressors and victims sit in every community. There are Jews who were persecuted in both Europe and in the Arab world, and equally Jews who have persecuted others. Ditto Arabs and Palestinians. This should be obvious to anyone.

One final point: My article was not about the rights or wrongs of Israeli policies, and I would suggest that those who obsessively want to discuss such should have the courage to submit their own article and policy recommendations on that topic.

Philip

Savage Pencil, you say that in Arab culture dogs are considered unclean. How 'bout we find out what dogs think of Arabs?

BD no criticism of FF and his use of big words. Why?

Radical phil, why bring your ancient feuds to our shores? Why not take The alchemist's advice and take your ridiculous religious bun fight back to the holy land?

radical phil, the first thing that has to be determined is what's factual. Thats an interpretation according to your position on your evolutionary path. Whats factual to a jew, christian, muslim, Buddhist, atheist, communist, non believer or whatever is always different.

The comments on this article, are representative of the majority of the Australian community,(maybe except mine). Most find it hard to understand why monotheists continue to commit war.

What's reprehensible is that monotheists place themselves above others, yet fail to realise that they are the problem, not the cure.

Philo, I understand how you see the work you do and commend you for that. But what you and other monotheists fail to grasp, is that your beliefs are the cause of what you are trying to fix. Having been in Vienna recently and knowing the situation there, through many friends, most ordained in a church, you are supporting something that Europeans are seeing as the destruction of their lifestyles and values and the collapse of their communities.

Jews believe in their right for Israel to exist where it currently is and they will destroy the world too enforce that. Yet their religion tells them, that their scared land (the body of god) is within their souls, not in the material world.

If your prepared to provide financial and philosophical support for those that determine their right by violence and suppression, when they could provide the world with a positive example of peace, care and the ability to assimilate within the general society,.then you don't belong in Australia.

If that happens, the enlightened on the planet may see the religious, as other than violent, infantile, superstitious and a danger to existence.

Alchemist,
What do you say we do in this situation: Muslim refugees are moving into every Western nation and their young male men are joining the military forces in droves. This way they learn Western strategies of war, our secret codes etc. When conflict arises with Muslim Nations their loyalties lie first with Allah and their Muslim brothers above the country they represent. Thus is their intent to take over the world in the name of Allah and unite the Muslim brotherhood. The war on extremist Muslim terror is foiled by this chech mate move.

Do you say we fight them on the shores and in the streets so we get our freedoms back, or do we allow them to make up our armed forces? Where do you stand on war then? Are they your enemy that must be resisted? Are you a pacifist?

Applying Dr Phil's "Jews [He means Zionists] have persecuted others. Ditto Arabs and Palestinians" to Nazi Germany, and you get 'Germans have persecuted others. Ditto Jews.' To the era of slavery, and you get 'Slave owners have persecuted others. Ditto slaves.' To apartheid South Africa, and you get 'White Supremicists have persecuted others. Ditto South African blacks. To West Papua, and you get 'Indonesians persecute others. Ditto West Papuans.' This kind of useless, centrist fence-sitting only strengthens the oppressors. If Dr Phil can sit "on the margins" of his community and make a living out of platitudes like the above, no wonder the bulk of his community never get around to protesting Israeli settlements and occupation.

Just a quick reply to Sage re. dogs and Arab culture. The words in brackets were in the ORIGINAL article published in The Telegraph on February 12, 2006. It probably would have been more appropriate for The Telegraph to have used Islamic culture, rather than Arab culture, as not all Arabs are Muslim. However it does appear that dogs are considered to be "impure" in Islamic culture.

Here is what an Islamic website (islamicconcern.org) has to say about dogs:
"Traditionally, dogs have been seen as impure, and the Islamic legal tradition has developed several injunctions that warn Muslims against most contact with dogs."

I hope that has kept you informed.

Philo, there you have the problem. Its the influence of religion that has placed countries in this situation, in their desire to populate or perish and their desire to allow anyone to come to their country in the hope they can convert them.

Send them back, don't allow immigration, or refugees. Thats the problem your beliefs have given us, your constant desire to control, no matter what god faction you are from. I'm a pacifist, it comes from active service. But I certainly won't hesitate to defend my country as violently as possible.

Australia may have a chance of surviving the current escalation in sociological breakdown, caused by god factions. To do that we need strong non religious leaders, who are prepared to shut this country down, look after ourselves first and let the world work itself out.

Sadly that won't happen as our leaders follow god, so their determined to take us down the same road via globalisation and open borders. Which by the way have been fully supported by all religious factions and still are, even as their societies collapse around them.

The only solution for isreal is war, nothing else will satisfy both factions. Those that support Israel monetarily are contributing to ongoing terrorism as much as muslims are. That makes gods country the USA, a supporter of Israel terrorism. Even the jews fight amongst themselves violently, but we can expect nothing less from the followers of god

As the belief in god is a primitive delusion, hopefully evolution is passing it by. We may be seeing the last death throes of the violent superstition called god. Lets hope it happens quickly so evolution can go on and not be held back by these psychological primitives

Strewth: I have no problems admitting my prejudices regarding the Jews and their neighbours. I personally think both sides have a lot of blood on their hands, but whilst I'm not a fan of the Orthodoxy, in the main, Jews are part of our broader western culture (and I'm not talking about religion -- just look at Nobel Laureates), and have contributed greatly to it and wish to continue to do so. Not so for their neighbours. As such, I'll support them. If some other nation in the New World were willing to give them a piece of land and the Jews were willing to move there, I'd urge them to do so. That way, when the oil runs out, we could turn our backs on that entire crappy region and let it return to the Dark Ages where it wants to return (and belongs).

Your points about countries based upon discrimination don't apply just to Israel. We could pick a whole lot more countries in the world, including most in the Middle East. The only reason much of Europe isn't like that is because at various points many such countries have kicked out any minorities (eg. kicking ethnic Germans -- even those who were anti-fascist -- out of Czechoslovakia) or still heavily persecute them (eg. the Roma). Likewise, talking about colonisation of Israel the way you do, we'd have to talk the same nonsense about the entire New World. Like I said though, Israel was originally Jewish back in the day. Again, there have been other nations in the world that were occupied for a very long time until independence, eg. Slovakia.

The alchemist and Philo: I'm wondering how long it will take before "tolerant" Europe shows its real colours and we see the rapid growth of fascist anti-Muslim forces and violence. Because if there's something Europeans do really well, it's a good old-fashioned pogrom.

Shorbe, you wrote: "Jews are part of our western culture...and have contributed greatly to it...Not so their neighbours. As such I'll support them..." That's your criterion, is it? They're westerners - like us - and the others are not. All I see here is tribalism at best, racism at worst. Your second paragraph indicates that you are completely ignorant when it comes to the nature of the Israeli state. My example of Israel's discriminatory Law of Return (just one of a panoply of laws that discriminate between Jews and non-Jews) was obviously lost on you: we are dealing here not with racist individuals who may be found in every society, but laws which discriminate between citizens - in other words with a form of apartheid. But I imagine from your above quoted sentence that you'd have been more than happy with white supremicists ruling the roost in apartheid South Africa because they're "part of our broader western culture".

Strewth: No, you missed my point in my second paragraph that the charges levelled against Israel are rarely levelled at any of the other many states (eg. Japan and Malaysia) that are discriminatory, and that Israel's historical claim to its land is ignored (and it's called an invading force) when plenty of other nations have made historical claims to land occupied by others. Why is Israel so singled out? Could it be because it's white/western, and somewhere in the leftist mindset, whites/westerners have a monopoly on all that is bad? You're also conveniently missing the point that the Palestinian people sponsor terrorism and that many other nations in the region sponsor such terrorism.

Right back at the start of this debate, I said that whilst I'm not happy with Israel a lot of the time, I'm under no illusions that if we don't support Israel it will cease to exist. As I also said, if we could convince a nation such as our own to convince the Jewish population of Israel to abandon that crappy bit of land, I'd be happy because once the oil runs out, the Middle East could be consigned to the trashcan of history where it belongs and the rest of the world could get on with being civilised instead of being hamstrung by world views born in the Dark Ages. However, given that the west sold the Jews out once before, why would they take any of us up on that offer?

We're talking about two groups of people who cannot live together, if only because their neighbours will make sure of that. The Middle East has a vested interest in keeping Palestinians in their present situation because it serves their anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic agenda.

Yes, I will always be a tribalist. It's common sense survival. I don't believe all cultures are equal or that they can live together or even want to. The Middle East doesn't want peace with the Jews, and in a broader sense, with the Christian or secular west either. Why would I shoot myself in the foot then?

"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labour; even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it." Samuel Johnson

This is interesting given the current topic:

“The Palestinians of 1948”
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001137.html

Strewth,
A perfect summary of the above ignorance… Well said.

And for Propaganda Pigs with an interest in Israel's Palestinian Arab minority, that is, those who managed to survive the The Great Ethnic Cleansing of 48, here's part of what it's like for non-Jews to live in a Jewish state: "The High Court in Israel has narrowly upheld a controversial law that bars West Bank Palestinians from living with their Israeli Arab spouses and children in Israel itself...One of the groups that challenged the law said thousands of families are affected, they have been forced to move abroad, live apart or if they stay together, risk being arrested or deported." What a Paradise! (ABC Online 15/5/06)

Oh no, I just saw the old "anti-Semitic" claptrap in use as a means of stiffling critisism of Israel.I hadn't intended to post, but really, could we knock this on the head once and for all?

It is NOT anti-Semitic to critisise a nation that has brutally occupied millions of men, women and children for decades. On the contrary, it would be anti-Semitic not to critisise Israel's persecution of a Semitic people,the Palestinians. Israel is the only country in the world actually practising anti-Semitism.

AND, Israelis could be Hindu, Catholic, brown, blue...it is their ACTIONS, not their religion, that causes them to stand condemned. Jewish, smooish..who cares?

Let's face it - some elements of the Israeli (and other Jewish) media demonise Arabs, and some elements of the Arab media demonise Israel and Jews. Surely, then, if we are going to use the archaic definition of 'semite' (descendant of Shem), both are antisemitic? Which would mean that Israel is antisemitic if they are planning to destroy all Arabs and Arabs are antisemitic if they are planning to destroy Israel?

This is always a fun little debate, because people get so worked up about it. And, while we are choosing our words carefully to prove our point (eg. Israel is 'brutal' but no mention of 'brutal' suicide bombers), people in the Middle East are living and dying with a problem that our intellectual discussions are not solving.

O: One of the reasons the problem persists is the curious inability of people such as yourself to see the differences between the two sides. Does it have something to do with history no longer being a core subject in our schools, or maybe the fact that no one reads anymore? There is nothing unique about the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. It's just another example of well-armed and determined European colonialists imposing themselves (with the backing of first one imperial power (Britain), followed by another (the US)) on a native people. Cowboys and Indians, if you like. Unlike some others on onlineopinion, who in one form or another seem to get some kind of vicarious thrill out of the rampaging of bullies, I've always had an instinctive sympathy for the underdog, the poor bastard being done over. That's why the Palestinians have my understanding and support in this vicious struggle to dispossess and cage them. It's really, really important to understand the basic dynamics of the issue BEFORE you speak about it. May I suggest you read Susan Nathan's wonderful new book, 'The Other Side of Israel'?

Thanks, Strewth, for speaking down to me. I appreciate it, because (apparently uneducated) people like myself, with no emotional attachment to either side but five years of study focusing largely on this issue, couldn't possibly know a thing about the situation.

I didn't bother to quote academia in my post because I don't see a need. I don't deny that, in terms of modern history, the Palestinians have a more legitimate historical claim to the land. I also don't deny that the Israelis have, over time, used a range of dirty tricks to maintain their ownership of their territory. But to suggest that the dirty tricks are one-sided is to create a revisionist history. What concerns me is that there are two generations of Israeli Jews who have no other home, and several Arab states who would like to deprive them of their current homes. Similarly, there are generations of Palestinians who have lost their homes and, as a result of the Israeli occupation, have lost everything their ancestors - and their parents - worked for.

What is the solution? Displace the Jewish population to reinstate the Palestinians? Further displace the Palestinian population to restore the entire Biblical holy land to its former glory? I don't have the answers, but I guess that is because I couldn't possibly know a thing about Israel, Palestine or anything else for that matter. I guess I'll blame the education system for letting me down.

Oto: How depressing - 5 years studying Israel/Palestine, but still "emotionally unattached"? Still just a "fun little debate" watching those who "get so worked up about it" and standing on the sidelines tut-tutting about "dirty tricks"? You're comfortably above it all, aren't you? You still can't see that the Palestinians are one of those people who have been well and truly served up on toast for breakfast: entirely innocent of wrongdoing towards European Jewry, but presented with an impossible situation of existential threat (ie the establishment of an ethnically exclusive Jewish state in their homeland) by a European colonial-settler movement (Zionism) and its imperial backers - to the point where, occupied, dispossessed and stateless, they're barely hanging on to the tiny shreds of Palestine still (for the present) in their hands. And all you can find to concern yourself with is some hypothetical and non-existent 'threat' to Israeli Jews (who possess one of the world's most powerful armies, complete with hundreds of nukes and WMD's and whose every whim is catered for by their current imperial backer, the US) from Arab regimes (most in bed with the US and two having concluded peace treaties with Israel) chronically incapable of uniting around anything. Finally, to cap it off, you come up with the absurd either/or of "displace the Jewish population" or "displace the Palestinians". Has it ever occurred to you that , if as you say "the Palestinians have a more legitimate...claim to the land" but that "there are two generations of Israeli Jews who have no other home", then the only possible just and equitable solution is a binational state of its Jewish and non-Jewish citizens. And for that to be achieved the onus is overwhelmingly on the Israelis and their current imperial backer to accomodate legitimate and internationally recognised Palestinian rights. It's been achieved in South Africa. It can be achieved in Palestine. Your fence sitting is part of the problem.

At least you, Strewth, are able to accept that the Israeli state is a long-term necessity. Many other pro-Palestinian advocates do not. Perhaps I am emotionally unattached because I do not have any friends or family involved in the conflict. My grandad fought in Palestine in the 40s, but that's about it. Feel free to trivialise my thoughts all you want, and feel free to continue belittling me. Personally, I think that sitting on the fence allows a clearer picture of the issue than taking one side or another. I don't make apologies for not siding with the Arabs or the Israelis. Refusing to take sides does not indicate apathy, it indicates an ability to see that neither side is right and neither side is wrong. It may even help to understand what must be done if the situation is ever to draw to a close.

Oto, Israel isn't a long term necessity, but a long term calamity that will end in destruction for all. I agree that European jews invaded Palestine, and are still carrying out terrorist attacks. I see the palestinians as being silly try and remove Israel, but they are justified. Just as the Iraq's are entitled to kill their invaders, the USA, Britain and Australian troops.

Wow Strewth, you cite one source 'The Other Side of Israel' and declare that it will tell you all you need to know about the Arab-Israeli conflict. NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL VERY THOROUGH & BALANCED RESEARCH. No beating about-the-bush with you!
[It sounds like one of those scenarios where you formulated your views first, then sought out a book which supported those views]

Gee, Horus, were Nathan's book the only one I'd ever read on the subject, it'd probably be one more than you have. But please, when you're lucid, feel free to point me to where I "declare that it will tell you all you need to know about the Arab-Israeli conflict"?

Strewth I would suggest that the most influential book(s) you have read on the issue would have been ‘The Adventure’s of Robin Hood’ (or fables of a simular ilk),and you are still trying to live out their plots.Your still see the world in terms of (good) “underdogs” and (bad) overlords, with no grades in between.

I think your views on the Middle East have less to do with history and more to do with pop journalism and skilful marketing.

Are the Palestians plight markably different to the Armenians who the Turks massacred & dispossessed, or the Greek Cypriots who the Turks dispossessed, or the stateless Kurds. These other groups, though equally deserving, are not in the public face everyday, they do not have the militant sponsors/marketeers the Palestinians have.

The crowd that you move with Stewth have a little pantheon of worthy causes, and one needs to register to get recognised-sorry to say the Amenians,Cyriots & Kurds (& others) are not newsworthy enough to get you fired up.

Thanks, Alchemist, for your comments. By long-term necessity I mean that, if we were to displace the Jewish population of the region, we would be doing to them what they did to the Palestinians. Strewth has the right idea when talking about a binational state. The trouble is that most people seem to agree, but nobody can find a way to make it work.

Horus: Still tossing and turning? Armenians, Gk Cypriots, Kurds? Anything to avoid the hot potato of Palestine. Turkey, Israel's ally in both the ME AND in denying responsibility for crimes against humanity, needs to own up to its historical responsibility for the Armenian Genocide and make amends where required. Armenians, however, unlike Palestinians have a state. Gk Cypriot refugees, like Palestinian refugees, have an absolute right in line with the UDHR to return to their original homes. At least, unlike the Palestinians, they're still in Cyprus and not under occupation. Kurds? There is no Kurdish state to be sure, but, unlike the Palestinians, they are still living in the areas they've always lived in. Still, I'm glad to see you've taken up the causes of these peoples, BUT, and I hate to tell you this lest it disturb your Islamophobic 'mind'set: the Kurds are actually - shock, horror - Muslims. Oh God, he's fainted!

Surely, then, if Horus is sticking up for the Kurds, then he/she is not an 'islamophobe'? Unjustified accusations of prejudice and stupidity don't aid your argument. They just make you seem like you have little to say and are diverting our attention to cover it up. Just when I was thinking your posts were actually quite reasonable, Strewth . . .

Strewth your lip-syncing of concern for the Armenians,GK Cypriots & Kurds was far from convincing.

Rather than a 'hot potato' the Palestinian CAUSE is your 'hobby horse'(And I emphasize cause –because your heart lies with the polemic rather than the people)

It suits a lot of interested parties to play the PRs for all they can get.-they don’t really want a solution.

Many PRs born & raised in neighboring countries don’t want to return to their former homes-their home is where they were raised. But the Arab countries they reside in will not help defuse the situation by granting citizenship:
-Jordan claims to have granted PRs “full citizenship” –but it does not include the right to settle permanently in Jordan (and those on the west bank face restrictions on access )
-In Lebanon they are denied citizenship
-Likewise Saudi Arabia

The principle that they must “avoid dissolution of their identity’ is more important than the day to day suffering of the people.It suits them to keep the pressure cooker boiling

-For Iran it buys acceptance in a Arab dominated Islamic club
-For Syria it buys a chance to fondle its coveted Lebanon ( & divert attention from their internal problems)
-For groups like Hamas it gets them position of power

And while hacks like you Strewth can do little that would be constructive –like a veracious hyena you prey on the situation- it affords you a chance to act pompous & swagger about as if you know more than you do. Without the PRs you'd have to find your jollies elsewhere-though I’m sure you could HANDle yourself well in that regard.
[And, oh yes-I did know the Kurds were Muslim]

Oto, Horus' Islamophobia is on display on another thread.
Horus, if as you assert, the Palestinian refugees don't want to return to their homes and lands in Israel AND, as you also assert, the Arab countries are intent on keeping them where they are to make political capital against Israel, then Israel, as a state which wishes to maintain a Jewish majority, has a wonderful, win-win situation on its hands. It can happily declare that it's prepared to allow the Palestinian refugees back, and so reap the resulting PR benefits of finally abiding by international law and implementing UN resolutions, confident in the knowledge that a) the refugees don't want to return, and b) their Arab brothers don't want them to return. In light of this golden opportunity to have its cake and eat it too, can Israel really afford to miss this opportunity?

I would surmise that if even a small percentage of PRs returned, combined with the number of Arabs already living inside Israel, their numbers would swamp the Jewish character of Israel. That
Of course would not be acceptable to the ruling class in Israel.
[There is already talk in some circles that the number of Arabs living inside Israel are reproducing at a rate that will make them a majority in the future]

Any country/culture which values its survival seeks to control it immigration-Israel is not alone in that regard.

Now you can argue the moral rights or wrongs of such a stand-but its reality, & short of war, it is not likely to change.

If you take the attitude that you’re going to insist that Israel adheres to all UN conventions etc -rub Israel’s nose in it- such and attitude is only likely to polarize opinion, and prolong the agony. Additionally, I suggest such a stand would be motivated more by one’s own internal idiosyncrasies that any real concern for the PRs.

I believe our aim should be to find the PRs a settled and viable state ASAP.A two state arrangement as annunciated by Oto & yourself.

Horus: "Swamping the Jewish character of Israel"/"the number of Arabs living in Israel are reproducing at a rate [of knots]". Persuade us that what we're dealing with here is not simply racism. How, for example, might a concen about the Jewish character of Israel differ from a concern say about the Aryan character of Nazi Germany or the white character of apartheid South Africa. How might a concern about "reproducing Arabs" differ from a Nazi German concern about "reproducing Jews"? And, on another matter, what part of "binational state" (my words) do you not understand?

Strewth the implication from your words is that Israel is racist and the Arabs are not.

I put it to you that there is not a lot of difference between Zionism and Arab nationalism.
The Israelis (on the most part) want a Jewish Israel &
The Arabs (on the most part) want Muslim, Arab states.
-Iraq has long practiced a policy of moving Arabs into Kurd, Turkoman & Assyrian lands and dis possessing their original inhabitants
-Take a look at Sudan. The Arabs are doing their utmost to make it an Arabs only state.
-Take a look at Egypt. Large numbers of Arab settlers moved into Egypt before & during the Abbasid Caliphate –and the original inhabitants the Copts are now second class citizens.
-What do you suppose Saudi Arabia’s response would be if we suggested that we resettle thousands of Christian refugees there?

And who is it you are comparing to Nazi Germany?
I suggest you take a long look at one of the PRs main supporters IRAN.
"Christians & Jews to wear labels"
Now where have I heard that before?
(Oh, apart from Afghanistan that is -another kindred spirit of the PRs)
Think outside the (ideological) box (you have your head in).
Racism is not some exotic affliction endemic to Israel.

And if by "Bination" you mean the coerced marriage of Palestinians & Israelis
(If it the joints don't fit, we'll force it together with a hammer solution)
I'm afraid I must differ with you on that issue too.
Let each have its own state -a solution we are already part of the way to.

Horus, Nice little sidestep. Yesterday it was Armenians, Cypriots and Kurds. Today it's Egyptians, Saudis and Sudanese. Tomorrow...who knows? Your little diversionary tactic is based on the false premise that Palestinians=Egyptians=Saudis=Sudanese etc. In other words, they're all just generic AAARABS. A little like assuming that French=Croations=Russians. So let's get back to Israel/Palestine and stop beating around the bush. My question was: tell me how your concern for the maintenance of the "Jewish character" of Israel differs from the concern of, say a 30's-40's German Nazi for the maintenance of the Aryan character of Germany. Your other red herrings: that nonsense about Iranian Jews and Christians was a hoax and you know it. Nor is anyone suggesting that racism is endemic to Israel. No, the situation in Israel is far worse than mere racism. The difference between Israel and other countries (excepting thankfully defunct apartheid SA) is that in Israel racism is regulated in law through acts of parliament and enforced through the legal system (the most obvious example being Israel's Law of Return whereby assorted Horus's, comfortably seated in front of their computers in Melbourne or New York, can become Israeli citizens at the drop of a hat, while millions of Palestinians and their descendents, booted out in 1948, are denied entry). Israel is thus an apartheid state based on the fundamental distinction in law between Jew and non-Jew. And thankyou for the insight into your notion of binationalism: "the coerced marriage of Palestinians and Jews" [you do have that annoying Zionist habit of never distinguishing between Israelis on the one hand, and Jews on the other, don't you?]. The bottom line is this: if in the 20th-21st centuries settlers insist on moving into the lands of others AND wish to get away with it, they better be prepared to live with, as opposed to without, the original inhabitants of those lands. We left the imperial age of Herzl and Weizmann behind a long time ago. When is the penny going to drop? Now please answer my question.

Part 1)
Zionism and Arab Nationalism(for want of better word) are kindred spirits-with similar attributes:
-Zionism was a prime factor in the establishment of the state of Israel & the dispossession of the Palestinians (though not the only factor).
-Arab nationalism on its part was a prime factor in the dispossession & or suppression of the Kurds, Turkomam.Assyrians & Africans.
The point of mentioning the Kurds etc was to illustrate to you that Arabs were & are expanding at the expense of their neighbors-in much the same ways as the Israelis/Zionists had

2) It is valid to talk in terms of Arabs as a 'generic' unit:
Your comments about ' generic AAArabs' shows your IGNORANCE- and reeks of EUROCENTRIC PREJUDICES
Not all cultures put their national identity before their racial, religious or linguistic identity.
Semites (which for your benefit includes Arabs & Jews) often identify strongly with their linguist group.
from Halim Barakat ‘ the Arab World: Society Culture & State’
“It has often been stated that the great majority of Arabs speak Arabic as their mother tongue and thus feel that they belong to the same nation regardless of race, religion, tribe, or region. This explains the tendency to dismiss the existing states as artificial and to call for political unity coinciding with linguistic identity. The prevailing view is that only a small minority of the citizens of Arab countries do not speak Arabic as their mother tongue and lack a sense of being Arab; this minority category includes the Kurds”-( Yikes! –if we substituted Jew for Arab you would brand it Zionism )

Part B:
3) The attributes you highlight as evidence of institutionalized racism are widespread & not exclusive to Israeli society.
As for your great 'distinction' furphy “Israel’s...apartheid {is} in law"
You really need to read more widely.
-Malaysian law "enshrines" special rights for the Bumiputras Malays over and above other Malays ( Shorbe (the wise one ) pointed this out to you, but you still have not taken it on board!)
-The Australian Aborigines have special rights enshrined in law
-And even the English Monarch, by law, must be Church of England .
When will you start to rail against those arrangements?

4. And your bottom line is crap:
You attempt to portray Israel’s crimes as of the 20th & 21st century while the ones I mentioned were too old to concern you.
Obviously you have some ‘statue of limitation’ on your humanitarian concerns/empathy.
but you have a much greater limitation in terms of knowledge of the world:
-Iraqi Arabs stealing of land from the Kurds, Turkoman & Assyrians goes on to this day.
-The dispossession of Sudanese Africans goes on to this day
- The Copts are brutalized even as you’re read this
[But you don't give a dam do you ? because you can't make political capital out of the Kurds,Sudanese Copts ]

Horus, you can huff & puff all you like, just answer the question: Jewish/Aryan character of the state - wherein lies the difference? I do believe, however, we've made some progress here given your recognition that Israel is a dinky-di case of institutionalised racism amounting to apartheid. But what you wrongly go on to suggest is that that's OK because so too is Malaysia, Australia and England. I was not aware, for example, that these countries had reserved in law 93% of their land exclusively for cultivation, development and settlement by one, privileged group of citizens, as pertains in pre-67 Israel. You're a mine of (dis)information. Now for your red herrings: 1) Zionism and Arab Nationalism are both ideological constructs to be sure. However, the latter, whatever its many failings in the hands of a Saddam, has not brought about a situation whereby Kurds, Turkmen etc are living in their millions in refugee camps beyond the borders of their homelands; 2) Although the Palestinians are tied to other Arabs by language and cultural ties, to blithely gloss over the differences between them to the point where you're happy to ship Palestinians off to Arab countries - your real agenda - would be as outrageous as shipping off Chinese Singaporeans to China or Australians to the US; 3)As for 'Arab unity', virtually a dead issue since Nasser, this is on a par with European unity. Neither involve the overriding of national identities or sovereignty.

Is it any wonder Israel gains support from democratic societies when totalitarian States try to enforce laws such as this.

Badging Infidels in Iran

American Thinker, Andrew G. Bostom, May 20th, 2006

“The Iranian Majlis or Parliament has reportedly passed (now disputed) a law requiring that, “Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth.” An outraged Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Weisenthal Institute immediately responded to the provisions for Jews:

“This is reminiscent of the Holocaust…Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis.” Such a comparison sprang to the minds of many. But Rabbi Hier’s statement and this general view ignore the immediate context—most glaringly, the simultaneous dress badge requirements for Christians and Zoroastrians living in Iran—and more importantly, the sad historical legacy of Shi’ite religious persecution of all non-Muslims which dates back to the founding of the Shi’ite theocracy in (then) Persia, under Shah Ismail at the very outset of the 16th century….”

At: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5513

Earth control to Philo. The trains to Auschwitz are not running. The Iranian President has not sprouted fluff just below his nose. Get a grip on yourself (Horus knows all about that) and take a cold shower. The subject of your post is a hoax. It's been debunked. It's a D-e-a-d Dead Parrot. Cheers.

Strewth,
Having a restricted land ownership policy, based on race/religion,
And having a highly selective immigration policy, may not be programs people bought up in, prosperous & peaceful, liberal democracies can readily empathize with. (A point you exploit to the nth degree) BUT THEY DO NOT MAKE ISRAEL = NAZI GERMANY.

Outside the western countries such programs are very much the norm.
Outside the west, countries take serious steps to maintain their identity

Ground control to Strewth -whether or not Jews & Christians have to wear badges in Iran may be "debunked", but it was on the agenda in Afghanistan-but you may not like to recall such things!

Horus, Horus, Nowhere have I made the equation you claim. What I did do was ask you the following basic question which you keep shying away from: how in essence is a preoccupation with maintaining Israel's Jewish character/identity really any different from the Nazis' preoccupation with maintaining the Aryan character of pre-war Germany? The problem with Israel's "restricted land ownership policy" and "highly selective immigration policy" is that they do not operate in a vacuum. Palestine was not terra nullius when the Zionist project was conceived. It had a Palestinian majority, owning most of the land and resources, a situation which continued up until the state of Israel was declared in 1948. Not only was the Palestinian majority reduced to a minority by ethnic cleansing in 1948, but the homes, lands and assets of the ethnically cleansed (now refugees and declared 'absentees') were stolen by the new Israeli state. So, Israel's "restricted land ownership policy" is based on ethnic cleansing, expusion and wholesale theft. Likewise its "highly selective immigation policy" is based on keeping the Palestinian refugees out, simply because they are not Jews, and encouraging the immigration of anyone else, providing they are Jewish. What we have as a result is not Nazi Germany, but a form of apartheid based on the distinction between Jew and non-Jew. Such discriminatory policies, based on the dispossession and exclusion of the indigenous Palestinians, coupled with a truly vicious little occupation of the remaining bits of Palestine, are what make Israel a blight unto the nations.

Given the incredible contribution (in fact, it's downright amazing how much they are overachievers) of Jews intellectually and culturally, I'd hardly call Israel a blight unto the nations, especially since so much of this was produced in an incredibly hostile environment to Jews, ie. Europe. They may have left a mixed legacy for mankind, but I hardly think it's one-sided.

In the past few hundred years, both in Palestine and abroad, the Palestinians on the other hand have given us...have given us...that's right, just about their sole statement to mankind has been the suicide bomber. Great. Thanks for that. Under adverse conditions Jews compose music or discover science and Palestinians blow themselves up. I wonder who history will make into a mere footnote (if that).

Strewth –you all but said Israel=Nazi Germany. You were making all the usual cliché allusions to it-you know if you through enough mud, some of it will stick.
And as for the land question(s) I refer to a very interesting page I found on the internet which debunks your whole line:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=39&x_context=2

Stroube - good to hear from you again-Stewth still hasn,t taken on board some of the comments you made about other countries such as Malaysia being discriminatory.You see, it doesn't fit with his little view of the world. In his world view the Jews are the font of all evil.

Horus: I think it's quite possible that as someone said (perhaps it was you? I haven't checked) that criticising any of the many other nations on this planet doesn't get as much political mileage. Israel is a fairly easy target because it's basically white and western. However, it's harder to be critical of a nation or culture that isn't because then the basic, underlying myth of the evil white man and noble other starts to look really wobbly.

I think I'm at least open enough to show my prejudices, not that that actually means I'm going to try to overcome them (assuming there's no merit to them), of course.

I'm also open enough to admit that ultimately, I couldn't really give a rodent's earlobe because it doesn't affect me and that this is all hot air from me, which is why I've been watching but refraining from contributing to this debate -- in short, it's amusing, but ultimately a bit self-indulgent. The anti-Israel crowd won't readily admit such self-indulgence though and I'd perhaps caution you from getting dragged into it further. It's not so much a search for truth as an opportunity to hear one's own voice, and thus, justify one's own existence.

Horus, I "all but said", did I? Well, if you'd be so kind as to point out the essential difference between wanting a Jewish or Christian or Islamic or white or black state and wanting an Aryan state... As for "the land question", your reference to Zionist propaganda site, camera.org, simply doesn't get you out of the woods. Para 2: "After 1948 state-owned lands...together with property abandoned by Arab refugees, passed into the control of the new Israeli govt" glosses over the details: the wholesale destruction of some 400 Palestinian villages in 48-49 (which followed the ethnic cleansing of their inhabitants). The refugees were then declared 'absentees' and their land and property - somewhwere between 70 and 88% of pre-67 Israel - declared 'absentee property' under the Absentees' Property Law of 1950, ripe for the picking. Israel is quite simply stolen Palestine. Sherbert of course operates on the false Zionist premise that Jews=Israel and that any criticism of the latter is therefore a criticism of the former. I must thank him, however, for his comic gem: "Under adverse conditions Jews compose music or discover science [How does one discover science?] and Palestinians blow themselves up." [And Sherberts puff themselves up.] Moreover, the argument (when all else fails) that Israel cops criticism merely because it's "basically white and western" is nonsense. Quite apart from Israel copping flak because it's an apartheid state founded on ethnic cleansing and wholesale theft, with an infamous record of non-compliance with UN resolutions, and a brutal occupying power, Sherbert's 'argument' also falls down when one considers that 60% of Israel's Jewish population are Jewish Arabs and 20% of its overall population is Muslim/Christian Palestinian Arab.

Strewth -why shouldn't I/we consider/listen-to the Zionist side of the debate?
After all -most of your information seems to be gleaned from HAMAS press releases.

Surely the important issue is the validity of the argument and not the source?

Listen to "the Zionist side of the debate"? We're not dealing here with a debate or some abstract, academic exercise. We're dealing with the unjustifiable takeover of Palestine by a colonial-settler movement totally dedicated to the expulsion, exclusion and occupation of its people - people in no way responsible for Tsarist pograms, Dreyfus affairs, Nazi Holocausts or any other manifestation of good old-fashioned European anti-Semitism. I'm sorry, but Zionism simply doesn't have a moral leg to stand on. But thankyou, Horus, for at least refusing to believe your own lies. If you had you'd probably be over there now, living in a subsidised apartment in a settlement bloc built on occupied land. Wasting your time on onlineopinion is definitely the lesser of two evils. And I'm sorry that your life's focus is being exposed as an anachronism and a sham, but really, the penny's got to drop sometime. And anyway, it's the poor bloody Palestinians, not you, who are eating glass.

Lebanon explosion kills Jihad official
Terror group responsible for most terror in Israel

The detonation of a powerful car bomb Friday afternoon killed an official of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror group and critically injured his brother, the group's leader in southern Lebanon, security officials told The Jerusalem Post. Nidal Majzoub was killed instantly and his brother Mahmoud is in critical condition, the security officials said, speaking anonymously.

Islamic Jihad, a virulently anti-Israel group backed by Iran and Syria, claimed responsibility for April's suicide bombing in Tel Aviv that killed 11 and injured over 60. The group has been behind the majority of deadly Palestinian terror attacks against Israel during the past 18 months and claims that violence is a legitimate response to the Israeli crackdown on Jihad terrorists operating in the territories.

Islamic Jihad's policy rules out any compromise with Israel, and the group utilizes terror tactics with the intent of turning all of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza into an Islamic state.

PM and Peretz to arm Fatah gunmen

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz decided Thursday to transfer Israeli weapons and ammunition to supporters of Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas out of concern for his life and his position as head of the PA, officials told The Jerusalem Post.

This is the first time that Israel has been an active participant in the power struggle between Hamas and the Abbas-controlled Palestinian security forces that started over a week ago. Earlier on Thursday, a shootout between the rival factions left one Hamas gunman dead and eight members of the Fatah force wounded.

Sources in the Likud opposition party were quick to condemn the decision, calling it "wrong and pathetic." In a letter of appeal to Olmert and Peretz, Likud MKs wrote: "Past experience has taught us that giving weapons to the Palestinians has ended in its being turned against the IDF and Israeli citizens

I see Abbas is pushing for a referendum on an independent Palestinian state.
I guess that consigns the proposition of a 'binational state’ to the dust bin of history-where it rightly belongs. On this and other recent stands, Abbas is shaping as a prime candidate for the Nobel Peace prize. -and a Gandhiesque figure for his people

An independent Palestinian state? What, side by side with the West Bank settler state and Israel improper? And what about my question? You've had your holiday and time to think - how about an answer? Oh, and before you get too carried away by Ghandi: he had sufficient sense and morality to reject political Zionism.

[ lol -Strewth I had a feeling a comment like that would bring you out of the woodwork ]

I would have thought that:
Given the a long history of mutual antipathy between the two peoples.
Given the importance each side places on maintaining its identity.
Given the inability or unwillingness of the Palestinian Authority to control its extremists.
Given the bloody failings of similar sharing of land & power arrangement,in Lebanon.
It would be a given, that the most practical ( & sensible solution)
would be a two state arrangement- and it's gratifying to see that Abbas agrees.

Horus, Your qualifications/excuses are one & all simply another way of justifying Israeli domination of Palestine and denying Israel's need to fess up and seek a genuine reconciliation with Palestine's indigenous population. Two-states might be an interim solution, but spell out what you mean by a Palestinian state. Let's call your bluff. Amaze us all by telling us you're FOR the dismantling of all Israeli settlements, the full and complete withdrawal of your heroes to the Green Line, and the handing over of East Jerusalem. And how about throwing in the Golan Heights.

AAAah yes..the Assyrians... probably the most notable victim of Islamo/Arab fascism of the past 2000 yrs...

When one considers:

MAP http://www.aina.org/aol/peter/brief.htm

The Assyrians came from an area now divided into Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran, there is JUST as much a case for them having an independant state as the Palestinians.. the descendants of those who committed Genocide against them over the past 2000 yrs.

They remained nominally Christian in spite of continual Islamic/Arab persecution and genocide, and thus, because they have a history at least as long as the Arabs, are entitled to their own state.

We cannot use the idea 'They are so few now' to justify no statehood because the only reason they are so few is because of ISLAMIC/ARAB Cultural and Physical GENOCIDE against them. If this is used, then the Israelis can wipe out most of the Palestinians and we can use the same reasoning......

So.. perhaps its time for a call, for Independant statehood for Assyria.

They have been:

1/ Perscuted (By Arabs/Muslims)
2/ Been Victims of Genocide (Arab/Muslims and Tamerlane the Mongol)
3/ Dispossessed (Taxed into Islam )(By Arabs/Muslims)
4/ Have a distinct language,culture and race.
5/ Maintain their claim to Nationhood.

Example: 737 A.D.
The Caliph Mahdi decrees that all churches built since the Muslim conquest be destroyed. Over 5000 Christians from Halab were forced to accept Islam or death.

More here: http://www.aina.org/martyr.html#650

Gee.. I think I've heard this about Palestinians...... could be wrong.

But wait....THERES MORE....

Lets look at how the Arabs treated the Christian Assyrians....

In the spirit of "Slay them wherever you find them" Quran 4:89
"Make war on them until Allah's religion reigns supreme" Quran 8.39

1310 A.D.
Arabs, with the help of the Mongols, capture Arbela and massacre all of the inhabitants that could not be sold as slaves. Here is a description of the event:"'And they [Assyrians] went out at daybreak on the Sabbath, with their sons, and daughters, and wives, without any weapon, and without a sword, and without a knife, and when the wicked people of the Arabs saw that they had come down, they were filled with a fierce passion, and they drew their swords, and they slew them from the greatest of them to the least, without pity and without fear". Of those who held out in the fortress: "Famine vanquished them completely! Widows stretched out their hands and wept, and there was none to bind up what was broken. And there was absolutely no one to bury the dead. Who was there who had strength enough to dig a grave? Orphans died on the dung heaps. Others fell down dead in their houses and dried up, and others hurled themselves down from the wall, and those [Arabs] who were below received them on their swords, and hacked them to pieces. Their visages are blacker than ashes, and they cannot be recognized. Their skins have shrunk on their bones, and have dried up, and become like wood. Far happier are those who have been slain by the sword than those who have been slain by hunger".

Yes indeed.. we need to have such sympathy for these delightful people who's ancestors did these things... Strange.. I see the same attitudes and evil in the faces of the gun toting thugs who rampage the streets looking for some 'evil Jew' to kill.. just like their ancestors murdered the Assyrians.

Peaceful Islam.. we need more of this (?)

"Far happier are those who have been slain by the sword than those who have been bored by Boazzzz." www.lordraptureboaznow.com

Before addressing the withdrawal of Isreal from ‘occupied territory’ we need to mindful as to how & why the territory came to be occupied.

In 1967 The Palestinians & their Arab state allies attacked Israel.
They gambled- if they had won- there’d be no Israel today
[And I suspect there’d be no bleeding hearts crying over the plight of dispossessed Israelis]
But the gamble failed - they lost -they were occupied, & large numbers fled (whether through fears of retribution or through pangs (of a guilty) conscience –we don’t know).

Now when a party wages a war & they loose that war
(as unpalatable as it may be for you), there are usually costs.
One of the costs is often loss of territory & or occupation.
Accordingly, Japan does not have all the territory pre-war Japan held
Likewise, the boundaries of post-war Germany are not those of pre-war Germany.

You need to explain to ‘your heroes’ that in the big world people play tough.
If you gamble & loose –you loose your chips.
If you sell land to settlers –you can’t play Indian giver and expect to take it back next week.

However having said that , I agree that Gaza & the West Bank should be returned-and that appears to be in progress. It makes little sense for Israel to ride shotgun-long term- over a largely restive Gaza or West Bank.I also think that a Palestinan State with East Jerusalem as its capital would be reasonable.However getting Israel to agree, may require a lot of negotiation.
The Golan Heights which have an important strategic/defensive role
Should stay with Israel.

I don’t know about the Palestinians being the indigenous population of the region.My gut feeling is that the real indigenes -have been ethnic cleansed- and are now somewhere buried sixteen layers deep, under the foundations or Jerusalem.

David
An excellent post.
Well research -well presented.
It's good to see someone with the courage to standup for those who are downtrodden, but who are not deemed newsworthy.

Horus, Some progress at last. Cutting through the propagandist waffle and bypassing the garden paths, it appears that you "agree that Gaza and the West Bank should be returned" to make way for "a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital." Now for the devilish details: Is that "returned" to the PALESTINIANS, and does it mean ALL of the West Bank to the Green Line in the west and the Jordan River in the east? Are the Israeli occupation forces to be completely and unconditionally withdrawn? When is this to take place? Are all the Israeli settlements to be dismantled and the settlers evacuated? Finally, justify by reference to international law Israel's retention of the Golan Heights.

Strewth
What no criticism of my 1967 war commentary?
No sarcasm?
No sneers?
Are you feeling well?

I gather that I am being too accommodating. You're like a boa-constrictor -every time I make a concession you tighten the coils & that becomes the starting point for the next round of concessions. A bit like your allies the Palestinians, taking advantage of the good natured Israelis,beying for more each time they pull back, but offering no concessions of their own.

But let’s talk business –how about some corresponding Palestinian concessions.For Israel to withdraw and feel safe there has to be few fundamental changes in Palestinian/Arab society. We are told that the Palestinians are the most educated & ‘progressive” in the Arab world, but they have nothing like the open society of Israel. In Israel you will find groups openly supporting the Palestinian cause, you will find people openly repudiating the Talmud- you won’t find parallels in Palestinian society. So as a precondition to Israeli withdrawal let’s have:
1) The disarming of all militant/extremist groups.
2) The application of liberal western style anti-vilification laws to all Palestinian territories( & later all Arab states).
3) The fair portrayal of Israel & the west in Palestinian media (& later all other Arab media)
4) And how about a self critical Palestinian/Arab academia

I will keep an eye open Strewth-If I see pigs flying around, then I will know you can deliver on your side of bargain.

Dear Horus
thanks for ur kind words. You are also doing a fine job.

If I may, I'd like to address one point you made:

"a Palestinan State with East Jerusalem as its capital would be reasonable"

I'd agree that to a non Jew , and specially to a Muslim this would seem reasonable. I say "Muslim" rather than "Palestinian" for a reason. The issue over East Jerusalem is not primarily Geographic, it is Spiritual. While possibly even most Israeli's don't think too seriously about the heritage aspect, it should always be remembered that the Temple Mount is as central to Jewish Identity as 'The Land' is to Indigenous Australians. More so I suggest, because Israel only came into being around the concept of the Oneness of God, and "His dwelling place" (to use an anthropomorphism) in Jerusalem.

Have a read of I and II kings, Chronicles.. see Solomons and Davids Prayers in regard to this. Read Ezekiel, the majority of the book towards the end is solely concerning the restored Temple and People.

We had a Jewish Christian at our fellowship the other day, and he explained how Priests are already being trained, furniture and vessels etc are all being prepared for the next Temple.

Even one of the authors of a recent Article here Barry COHEN is qualified to be a Jewish priest, but only those with his surname, which comes from the sons of Aaron, Levites.

So in conclusion, I believe East Jerusalem will never be negotiable while there are right wing/Orthodox Jews having a voice in the Government.

It would be tantamount to lets say Indigenous Aussies having developed superior weaponry, taking control of most of Australia, and then givng back 'The Land'..... it aint gonna happen :)

Horus, See what you've done? You babble on about boa-constrictors and what do we get? Boazzz-Monty Python! Seriously though, you're acting in bad faith. I asked you to clarify YOUR statement that the WB should be returned along with East Jerusalem. To the 49 Green Line? Complete military and settler evacuation? They're simple enough questions for someone who sincerely meant what they said. But now you're hedging. Why? Perhaps you didn't mean a word of it? You do after all suggest you've been "too accomodating". The Israeli boa-constrictor swallowed 78% of Palestine in 67. As of now, it's swallowed around 40% of the remaining 22%, and is still going strong, squeezing the Palestinians into bite-size bits just waiting for the next squeeze. And the Palestinians are supposed to come up with concessions!? Horus, you're as Monty Pythonesque as your friend, the Boazzz. Fess up, you didn't mean it in the first place, did you?

Strewth,
Still the Palestinians can consider themselves mighty lucky.
Had they been living in liberated South Africa or Zimbabwe (being Caucasian as they are),they might have ended up with 0% of the land- in the name of the redistribution of wealth.
(And no sympathy from Strewth to boot!).

Liberated South Africa? You're straying from the topic: a separate Palestinian state or not, Horus? On 22% of Palestine or not? With East Jerusalem or not? Your list of unanswered questions is mounting. You still haven't pointed out the difference between maintaining the Jewish character of a state as opposed to maintaning the Aryan/white/black character of a state or justified by the standards of international law your heroes' hanging on to the Golan Heights. It's all too difficult, isn't it. I don't know how you can live with this degree of cognitive dissonance.

Strewth,
Now Israel has already taken the first bold step. It has withdrawn from Gaza.
But what was the result; the militants moved in and used it as a staging zone for more mortar barrages & rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. [Doesn’t instill much goodwill!]

....................................................................

David -Just taking a step back.
I actually have some friends who are Iraqi Assyrians.
They have often told me about the discrimination they suffer in Iraq.
And as you indicated, it’s not something that started and ended with Saddam
It’s been their plight ever since Arab colonization.

Cut the crap and answer the questions.

Strewth,
The only thing with crap on it here is your line of thinking.

How is anyone going to sell the proposition to Israel that they should withdraw completely & unconditionally in the face of:
1) Daily rocket, mortar & sniper attacks on civilians.
2) Periodic suicide attacks in crowded public places.
3) A rabid vilifying Arab media
4) And a history which includes the hijacking of ships, planes & the Olympics to murder Israeli nationals, and the 1967 surprise attack, the yom Kippur 1973 surprise attack.
Get real!

Are you sure your name isn't Anthony Loewenstein?

Horus, Your lack of sincerity only increases with your increasingly irrelevant posts. Since when does the notion of ending an occupation have to be SOLD to an occupying power? Ending Saddam's occupation of Kuwait didn't have to have his consent. Nor did Hitler have to be reasoned with first to get him out of France. Your constant failure to recognise that occupation, ie state-sponsored terrorism, breeds resistance and hate, and your distortions and misrepresentations of the historical record, only serve to ensure that the agony in Israel/Palestine goes on and on. You've shown that you have no answers to my questions, Horus, only tactical evasions. Antony Loewenstein? Are you sure your name isn't Boaz-David?

Strewth,
No negotiations.
No concessions.
I'm stumped!
Tell me -how would you solve this problem -how would you make Israel comply, in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land?

You're stumped, are you? I'll give you a clue: it happened to another, now defunct apartheid regime.

Strewth: Modern South Africa being a model of race relations and good government to this day, of course.

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that for those who wield power amongst the Palestinians, as well as a large percentage of the Palestinian population, the only decision is whether to kill all Jews quickly or slowly. Get real. I honestly don't believe you really want, let alone have, a solution to this problem. You just like the sound of your own voice, so to speak.

Good grief, I thought I was dealing with the organ-grinder, not his monkey.