I agree Colin. In terms of internationsl stability the conflict in Israel is probably the most important. As both sides become increasingly radical the prospect of all out war in the middle east intensifies.

However, when this conflict is reported in the Australian media, stories rarely go beyond the number of casulties or the nature of operations. There is very little analysis of the situation or historical context given

Thank you Colin for voicing with clarity some information which gives a little balance to what we receive from the Australian media.

I have always been bemused by the double-speak which casts fighters from the other side as terrorists, describes suicide bombers as cowardly when the only thing they have to fight with is their lives in the absence of tanks, planes and helicopters, and describes the capture of a soldier as a kidnap!

A just settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute is central to the so-called war against terror.

All that Andersen is doing here is displaying a personal pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel attitude. He claims that the media is not saying what he wants it to say merely as an opener for his views.

Colin,
Well said!
You raise an important matter about media bias in your article. Apart from this particular conflict, and the trusim of "truth being a major casualty of war", is Australia's populist consumption of mainstream media.

I agree that the Internet is a good source of news, even though its reportage may sometimes not be as scrupulous as quality journalism. However,discerning audiences are smart enough to sense error or bias.

News coverage is expensive and time to get all the facts may be confined to organisations with large budgets. However,in relying to a large extent on these major radio, TV and print sources in this country, we are handing to a small number of propietors and commentators a power out of all proportion to their real worth.

Also, many stories reflect the attitudes or opinions of just ONE person who may be completely out of touch with the lifestyle and practices of many. This single writer or speaker can have vastly different opinions to thousands, yet his or her opinions can be accepted by many as the prevailing norm.
This is what gives unjustified power and influence to the mass media, and I suggest that it can be lessened by increased skepticism from readers and audiences.
A vast range of independent thought and voice is a valuable counter to Pravda.

The Australian is spot on in its analysis of this conflict. One side wants peace, one side wants war. And you, Colin, are on the losing side and don't like it. Tough bikkies.

Hamas's ceasefire? Palestinian terrorists only launched "few isolated Qassams"?

Colin, nearly a *thousand* Qassams have been launched from the 100% unoccupied Gaza Strip at Israeli civilian targets in Sderot.

If you call that Palestinian restraint, uh...

Jeremy29, The Israelis don't want war? You are clueless.

Its very easy for you sit back and say 'tough bikkies' to the side you want to lose in your comfotable existance. Have you ever considered what it might be like to live under occupation of a foregin power? To have the constant threat of a superior military force on your doorstep? Having to line up for up to four hours a day just to go to work and be treated like a criminal?

Start thinking about the reality of the situation instead being some sort of armchair cheerleader.

There are two ancient precepts that apply to the middle east situation today as much as ever.

The first is that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The second is that the friend of my enemy is my enemy.

The result of these precepts is that Israel is our ally and the palestinians are one of our enemies.

plerdsus: There are 2 even more ancient and relevant precepts that apply to the ME today and have always applied to comparable situations: 1)Taking over a country already inhabited by another people WITHOUT their consent leads to a justified resistance against the takeover; 2)Failing to own up to your crimes and make amends for them only prolongs the agony for both abuser and abused.

Can anyone tell me the difference between what the Israeli Govt is doing in Palestine and what the Germans did in WW2,for which many were tried and shot,but then there only Palestinians arn,t they,the attude sounds familiar dont it to the attiude of certain people in Germany 1932-1945

If there is a cease fire in operation how on earth can a soldier be captured, especially from his own territory?

It looks as if more blood will flow in the ME as a result of the actions of both sides.

Colin is Awesome!

I don't know if Australia is plaugued with the same problem we have in the US with the media. When the second Intifada started, the level-headed news agencies began reporting the conflict unbiasedly giving accounts of both sides. It was the first time I had ever seen that.

Then it became publicly known that Jewish groups began "boycotting" the media because it wasn't completely Israeli-friendly. Because our government is run by lobbies, the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the most powerful lobby in Washington, ran a nationwide campaign with other pro-Israeli Jewish groups to get the media to show only the Israeli side of the story. It worked and still continues to this day. In fact, two Professors from prominent United States universities wrote about that and the reason our relationship with the Middle East is the way it is. It can be found at the London Review of Books online at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html. Academia is so scared of Jews in our country, it didn't do what it should have done and let these brave souls get lambasted by extremist Jewish groups across the country.

I have read numerous articles from Australian papers online and they are so fervently pro-Israeli. I don't understand why.

Leigh
its not often that I have to disagree with you, and disagree in the strongggest terms... :)

You claimed the author is "just showing his personal pro-palestinian/anti Israel bias"

No mate.. its MUCH worse than that.
Yes, he is showing bias, but also "Lunacy". Here is why.....

"In war, you do not 'kidnap' enemy soldiers, you capture them"

So, there we have it, 'Its WAR'...... but, given that on the reliable estimate of our friend 'Stewn' (th) Israel has the 4th largest Army in the .. world...soo... makes you wonder. WHY THE HECK THEY ARE SO PATIENT' with the mosquito bites of these idiot Palestinians who regularly suck their blood, when they should know damn well that if push comes to shove the only place they would have would be the salt water off Gaza beach.

I agree, it IS 'war', so..... lets take it the next step, move in, take full control, take literally Arafats proclaimation "All Palestinians are fighters" and act according to their own

a) Attitude/statements
b) Actions.
c) Election of a government dedicated to destroying Israel

The only sensible thing Stalin ever did was 'remove' the Chechyn problem by removing EVERY Chechyn to Kazakstan or somewhere.

So, Colin, is it REALLY war ? do you want that ? what drives these defeated, miserable,brainless dillbrains who think a few AK47s and some pathetic home made rockets will do anything other than FINALLY move Israel to make a FINAL solution ?

WAR= You want to win
WIN= You MUST have superior force.

This kind of madness requires radical surgery to be kind to them.
Move em all out to Syria, Lebanon, Jordon Iraq, Saudi Arabia, North Africa. No camps, just disperse them among many villages/towns so the next generation can be absorbed. Some of them are even ethnic Jews, forced into Islam some generations ago... ask them.

Who is UK reporter Donald Macintyre who writes in The Independent? Is he an expert on the area or just a journalist who supplied a convenient article which supports Colin Andersen´s views?

There are reports which show Israel has suffered more attacks than the Palestinians. Colin Andersen should supply some reasonable statistics which show his case otherwise he is just giving an unsubstantiated opinion.

Too often personal opinion passes for an arguement. It supplies grist to the mill of the cheer squad but no useful commentary. Israel has been attacked by the Palestinians and vice versa. One thing which does seem to be hard to deny that Hamas refuses to accept the Jewish state and has often stated its determination to eliminate it. On the other hand Israel has removed if belatedly its settlements which shows that elimination of Palestinians is not on its agenda.

How would feel if a group of aborigines started killing us and claiming that they wanted us to disappear and showed that they are happy to kill us if we don´t.

Is Israel to be condemned because it is capable of defending itself.

elig: re thousands of Qassams. Human Rights Watch in their 9/6/06 report, Hamas Must End Attacks Against Civilians says "According to the Israel Defence Forces, Hamas has launched more than 300 Qassam rockets since September 2000." That is, up to Hamas' near one and a half year old ceasefire which ended with the Gaza beach massacre. Tanya Reinhart in 'A Week of Israeli Restraint'(21/6/06), which is obviously where Colin got some of his material, has written that: "Even though it is impossible to compare the sufferings of the residents of Sderot with the sufferings of the residents of Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahiya in the North of the Gaza Strip, on which 5000 shells fell in the past month alone, my heart also goes out to the residents of Sderot. It is their destiny to live in fear and agony, because in the eyes of the army their suffering is necessary so that the world may understand that Israel is the restrained side in a war for its very existence." To cross the t's and dot the i's: Israel is prepared to risk the deaths of its own civilians in the interests of its crusade to overthrow the Hamas government.

Yes Strewth

And the Elves and the Hobbits lived together in peace after the destruction of Mordor. Sorry but we get further and further into fiction.

Goodby as the sun sets into the West.

Strewn... your logic is exactly as my version of your nick.

It is MUCH more in the Israeli interests to leave the settlements in GAZA and then claim 'attacks' from Palestinians. But did they ? nope..they withdrew them and STILL the morons send rockets at them. Bear in mind, they reached Ashkelon today, much FURTHER away than Sderot, so.. what you are REALLY saying is this:

"ANY part of Israel which is in firing range of INCREASINGLY long range rockets is JUST there to 'bring sympathy to Israel".

And, being the not so well disguised Arab/Muslim/Palestinian or Arab/Muslim/Palestinian stooge that your words denote you to be, you will CONTINUE doing this until you have made the same claim about every inch of Israeli territory where there is a Jew living.

You know the sound you make when you twiddle ur fingers on your lips when speaking ? That is as meaningful as your biased, twisted, one sided, pro-terror anti Israel stance.

So, having demolished your reasoning and leaving it 'strewn' over the pages of OLO, perhaps we can move on to better things.

Rather than waste time trying to justify a political position by microscopic examination of specific incidents, you would be better off convincing the Palestinians who voted for Hamas, to gird their loins, and fight a 'final' war with Israel to decide the matter.

We all know what the outcome of that would be, and still may well actually be, so I think Arab countries should begin construction now, of the extra housing and employment opportunities they will need for the large exodus of Palestinians from Gaza.

Its the only workable political solution.... and the kindest in the LONG run.
Military defeat by Western Values powers is not the end of the world, look at Japan and Germany.

Ah... we have BOAZ_David with us - end of any rational discussion. There are I believe some laws against racism, but BOAZ stands convicted by our contributors on the evidence of his written pronouncements of bigotry.

On the matter of Israel having the 4th largest army in the world, so why should they be so patient in clearing out all the Palestinian occupants from their homeland, history has a recent lesson for us. In Vietnam America had the world's largest army.

In negotiations, the hard-line, cruel, arrogant, ambitious Israeli government needs a strong opposition, and their attitude got Hammas elected. Two strong negotiators could bring about a just settlement, and that is what Israel is afraid of - justice confounding their ambitions.

j5o6hn, there is no meaningful comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany. What's the difference between them? Well, for one thing, with Nazi Germany, there was that little issue of the Holocaust. You know, the systematic, premeditated genocide that killed a third of all Jews in the world, in death camps, concentration camps, slave labor camps, etc. There is simply nothing at all comparible going on in Israel/Palestine.

J5o6hn, for goodness sake, about 20% of Israeli citizens ARE Palestinian Arabs. They enjoy all the civil rights of any Israeli, come and go freely, and unlike Jews in Nazi Germany, they are not desperately seeking refuge from a regime that has set up factories for their efficient extermination. Likewise, millions of Palestinians live in autonomous territories in the West Bank and Gaza. They too are not threatened by a policy of extermination, and they never were.

Palestinians and Israelis are locked in national struggle because they both claim the same homeland, and in particular because too many claim that common homeland exclusively for themselves and refuse to consider an appropriate compromise solution. The result is violent and tragic for both sides, but it is not genocide.

In fact, despite the impression one might get from obsessive press coverage in Israel/Palestine, many modern ethnic, national and international conflicts have taken a far greater toll in human life, and some of these really have reached genocidal proportions, although they still don't share the systematic and industrialized nature of the Nazi Holocaust.

The mutual violence of the Israel/Palestine conflict pales in comparison to what has recently been experienced, for example, in Afghanistan; Algeria; Angola; Bangladesh; Bosnia; Burundi; Cambodia; Chad; Chechnya; Colombia; East Timor; El Salvador; Equatorial Guinea; Eritrea; Ethiopia; Guatemala; India; Indonesia; Iran; Iraq; Kashmir; Lebanon; Liberia; Mozambique; Nicaragua; Nigeria; Pakistan; Peru; Philippines; Rwanda; Somalia; Sri Lanka; Sudan; Uganda; Vietnam; Yemen; Yugoslavia; Zaire, etc.

I urge you to read Rory Miller's article, "The Israel-Nazi Slander in Historical Context" http://zope06.v.servelocity.net/hjs/sections/middleeast/document.2005-10-19.3753444436

I once knew a young man called Akram Al Masri who had escaped from persecution on the Gaza Strip and came to Australia. He was locked up in Woomera instead of having his claim for refuge heard and ended up with a crippled arm. You see he asked to go home to Gaza but Israel would not let him go home.

So he stayed locked in Woomera until the courts released him.

He is a Palestinian. How many critics of the Palestinians have ever met or spoken to anyone from Palestine or heard their stories? What if Sydney was annexed by Indonesia for it's personal use - would Sydney siders sit patiently by and allow the occupation without fighting back?

It's really funny that on Independence Day Dubya made a speech about how the US got their freedom by kicking out the Poms - yet it was the poms who became the Americans after they had committed the genocide on the 500 tribes of native Indians.

Funnily enough Bush applauded the resistance to the English rule at the same time he said the US would squash the resistance to occupation that has now been thrown at the US by Iraq and now Afghanistan.

I bet he didn't even see the irony.

Now to the Palestine/Israel story. Every person on the occupied territories is a thief, they deliberately went to Israel from the US and Europe, from Russia and all parts of the world and stole that land and dared the Palestinians to fight back.

It is easy to blame the muslims of Palestine to cover the guilt of the west who stood by while 6 million people were slaughtered by the Nazis - but the problem is when we white, so-called christians look in the mirror the nazis are us.

One facet of middle east history that is rarely mentioned is the comparison between the events in europe at the end of world war 2 and those in palestine. In europe, the west german government looked after the ethnic germans who had been expelled from the east, and resettled them in europe and many other countries, including Australia. The camps were basically emptied by the early fifties. In comparison the arab countries in the middle east, even though they commanded oil money of an amount never before seen, did very little to help the palestinians stuck in camps in countries surrounding Israel. This was because it suited their purpose to have a horde of bitter unemployed refugees on Israel's doorstep. The existence of Israel has never been accepted by the militants, and the area seems doomed to continue with perpetual war. Israel is fighting for its existence, and it is fighting the same people who are attacking us.

Boaz,

Your comparison with Japan and Germany is ridiculous. Both of those countries were militaristic imperialsits who came close to conquering the world, not a divided population with rocks and home made missles who have been living under occupation for nearly fifty years.

You also seems to have forgotten the religous significane of jerusalem to the muslim population, which is why 'resettlement' (or are you proposing 'the final solution') will never work.

Another example of how religion screws up everything .

Two comments on the rantings of Boaz David: a)If ever we needed proof that religion and morality don't necessarilly go together like the proverbial horse and carriage, he provides it; b)Nor is he a harmless nutter. As his rants have made abundantly clear, from the comfort of his living room, equipped with computer, he is using OLO as a platform to push for the perpetration of a crime against humanity: ethnic cleansing. Now it isn't my intention to censor his rants, but simply to draw attention to their bottom line, that a group of people he knows nothing about and who have never done him any harm-every man, woman and child among them-must simply be uprooted, moved on, and dispersed throughout the Arab world. And how's this for the capper: it's nothing personal! The devastating effect of a perverse ideological obsession (in this case, Christian Zionism) is nowhere better displayed. The least we can expect of those posters who could be described as Israel-Firsters is for them to come out and differentiate themselves from Boaz David's advocacy of ethnic cleansing. Failure to do so will be taken as an indication that they are closet advocates of same.

David

All of the attitudes in your post display an unchristian attitude. They fly in the face of Christ's teachings as expounded in the Sermon on the Mount.

But look your position is also illogical and overlooks blatant facts. The silliest comment was your final two sentences.

'Its (Ethnic Cleansing of Gaza and Palestine) the only workable political solution.... and the kindest in the LONG run. Military defeat by Western Values powers is not the end of the world, look at Japan and Germany.'

Yep and neither Japan nor Germany were subject to any ethnic cleansing by Western Powers either. OOps but the Nazi's indulged in that somewhat...eh

OK perseus, if 4 million Australians were displaced due to an invading army would those Australian's sit quietly by and let the invaders do what they want.

There is a plaque in the Holocaust Museum that says something like this "we in Australia don't have a racial problem and don't intend to import one".

With those ghastly words uttered in 1938 in Evian, France the fate of the Jewish refugees were sealed - 21 other countries said the same and 6 million died.

All parts of Europe and Russia had been committing pogroms against the Jews for centuries.

Why then do we blame the Palestinians for wanting their lives and their country back? Why is it legitimate for the Israeli's to do to innocent Palestinians what we did to them?

Come on, now this absurd notion that penetrates the west against all things muslim and arab is madness. They are humans too.

Fancy trying to help your own children to survive in 50 degree heat without water, electricity or decent food, with sonic booms flying over day and night, bombing raids and so on. Why on earth should 1.3 million innocent people, mostly women and children have to suffer in this way for one Israeli soldier that they had nothing to do with?

Marilyn Shepherd, re Al-Masri, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Israel refused him passage. Eventually Israel allowed him to return.

MS: "How many critics of the Palestinians..."

One ought not adopt such simplistic labels. One should feel free to criticize or praise the policies of any government, be it Palestinian, Israeli, Australian, or Mongolian. Of course, criticism should be be reasonable and balanced.

Yes, I have met and spoken with many Palestinians...

MS: "What if Sydney was annexed by Indonesia..."

Jerusalem is Israel's capital, and its population and character were more Jewish than Muslim even before the rise of Zionism. While from the Palestinian perspective Israel's sovereignty in Jerusalem may seem akin to "Indonesia annexing Sydney", from the Israeli perspective, we are just "Indonesia keeping Jakarta".

MS: "Every person on the occupied territories is a thief..."

Most people in the occupied territories are Palestinians, and most were born in Israel/Palestine. A small minority is Israeli, and most of them are also native to this land. Still smaller is the population of Palestinians and Jews who were born abroad and who have since made their homes here. All are thieves? Most just wish to live their lives in their claimed homeland. Also, most of the Arabs and Jews in the occupied territories are children. Surely you don't blame them for the bad decisions, irresponsible policies, etc., of their parents.

MS: "It is easy to blame the muslims..."

The Arab-Jewish conflict over Israel/Palestine started before the rise of Nazism, and would have happened even if the Nazis had never come to power. While WWII and the Holocaust had a profound influence on events here in Israel/Palestine, the conflicts are largely independent and I see no one blaming the Palestinians as you claim. Finally, the failure of the west to save Jews during the Holocaust is history, while the Palestinian-Israeli conflict requires a solution now.

MS: "but the problem is when we white, so-called christians look in the mirror the nazis are us."

I'm not Christian and I don't see a Nazi when I look in the mirror.

Aaannnnnd the self flagellation, self abuse, masochistic Shia style self whipping to draw blood continues... with Marilyn at the head of the torch bearing mob calling for right wing scalps.
Stan1 is her 2ic, Carl the Cadet :)

Sganot -the moderate voice_of_reason, calling out to Marilyn and Stan to ‘wait..lets look at this in perspective’, but he/she is howled down by the mob revved up by Marilyn....and pushed aside into the mud by big Stan1. Off the mob goes, wild eyed, raging, yelling, fuelling each other with anti ‘us’ sloguns.

Marilyn, with her

“Genocide of the 500 Native American Tribes”

-no argument with that statement except that it does not ‘quite’ go far enough, if you were not spinning propaganda, you would have added

“Many of whom committed genocide against enemy tribes, for territory, women, slaves and freebies.”

but that would not suit your ‘anti USA/Bush at any cost’ program..would it ?

The thought that Bush/Blair/Howard are “no worse than, and probably better than many other major historical forces” is too much to bear..right ?

Stan1 says I’m ‘irrational’ (blessU_Stan), but I fail to see ‘irrational’ in my posts. I DO see, ‘cruel 2b kind’ and ‘radical solutions’ which are unpalatable to some, but irrational ? Nope. don’t see it.

Problem with Marilyn and Stans torch bearing rampage to ‘lynch’ the rest of us, is they see one side , and use it to whack us as (insert list of mean nasty names including ‘bad’ Christian).

Sganot gave some perspective, but I sense you don’t care about that. you shriek about ‘justice’ while manifestly unjust and deceptive in your own propaganda towards those who give you the framework of peace for your own lives.

Stan and Marilyn, referring to the UN for support (when u do) simply demonstrates how you see it as the means of achieving your own narrow political goals.... and why it is irrelevant.

CARL “Religion_the_problem”?

James 4:1 “What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? 2You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet”

Jerusalem is Israel's capital ? Actually this city was created and built by the indigenous Canaanites. The occupying Israelites, who invaded the city under David's leadership, were in turn kicked out later and never possessed it for very long. In 1949 the Zionist lobby was delighted to be granted half of Palestine by the "generous" United Nations, and they did not object to that UN decision to keep Jerusalem under international/UN control, given the claims to this city made by all three monotheistic religions. Now Israel wants it all. Well the Crusaders also invaded and occupied this city and claimed it as their own. They lasted a few hundred years. I doubt if modern Israel will last even that long. Palestinians with their home made rockets may seem like a joke now but blind Freddy can see that the Arab/Muslim world is not going to be a pushover for much longer.

kang: The Arab (and broader Muslim) world isn't going to do squat except go back to squabbling amongst itself once the oil runs out. If it ever does really get too big for its boots, it will promptly be put back in its place. I don't think that will necessarily happen from the west (though who knows if push really comes to shove), but I can conceive of a day when the west won't be number one, and I could also conceive of a day when China wouldn't pussyfoot around. Likewise, India is not exactly enamoured with the Islamic world.

The reason I doubt this whole notion of a clash of civilisations between the west and the Arab/Muslim world is that you can't have a clash of civilisations if there's only one civilisation involved.

The Muslim world has had great civilisations in the past, greater than the west at the time, but for the past half a millenium they've produced diddly. Culturally, intellectually, scientifically, they're where Europe was prior to the Renaissance -- hamstrung by a medieval religion -- let alone the Reformation, Age of Enlightenment, etc. Until Islam goes through such phases and ultimately embraces modernity (which, like with Christianity, will ultimately spell the end of the religion), it will remain insignificant. Once the oil runs out (I've read that without oil, the entire Middle East has a GDP less than the turnover of Nokia) and we all move on to something else, it will attain its rightful status in human affairs: on a par with Vanuatu or Surinam.

sganot: Where do I start? 1) So long as we don't have death camps and gas chambers, then the ethnic cleansing of 48 and the ever more brutal occupation of the Palestinians since 67, is a mere bagatelle? Not! 2) Israel's Palestinian citizens may have the vote but 93% of Israel is reserved in law for the cultivation, development and settlement of Jews alone, making it an apartheid state and its Palestinian citizens 2nd class citz. 25% of them have property in Israel but cannot by law access it. 4-5 mill. Palestinian refugees, denied return to their homes & lands in Israel, remain stateless & disenfranchised while those in the ever-shrinking territories are squeezed between land-grabbing settlers and a trigger-happy army. 3) Palestinians & Israelis are locked in national struggle, not "because they claim the same homeland" but because Israel dispossessed the majority of Palestinians in 48 and continues in kind today. Whether it's called genocide or politicide - it's wrong. 4) Jerusalem is not recognised as Israel's capital by the rest of the world. It was supposed to be under UN administration after 47 but was overrun by Zionist forces. East Jerusalem was illegally occupied in 67 and remains under Israeli occupation today. 4) WB settlers "native to this land"? As Judge Judy said: Don't pee on our legs and tell us it's raining.

I am not a christian either but the west said they were christians and watched while 6 million innocent people were slaughtered.

Now they are watching while Israel does to the Palestinians what they did to the Israelis.

Israel has an army with tanks and helicopter ships that have blown up the water and power supplies of 1.4 million people all over one soldier.

Doesn't anyone else see the shocking over kill here?

Why are the Israelis supposed to be exempt from criticism?

Marilyn Shepherd: "Now they are watching while Israel does to the Palestinians what they did to the Israelis."

Not sure what you mean. I hope that you too aren't comparing Israel with Nazi Germany! When you say "what they did to the Israelis", I suppose you mean what they did to European Jewry. But then, to take you literally, you seem to be saying that Israel is standing by and watching while someone else commits genocide against the Palestinians, which is ridiculous. There is no genocide here. But many Israelis have been the victims of Palestinian war crimes and crimes against humanity, and yes, the world mostly sits back and watches.

MS: "Israel has an army with tanks and helicopter ships that have blown up the water and power supplies of 1.4 million people all over one soldier."

It's not just one soldier (although yes, we take the abduction of even a single soldier very seriously). Since Israel withdrew from Gaza, the Palestinians have launched hundreds of missiles into Israeli towns and villages. These attacks have to stop.

MS: "Why are the Israelis supposed to be exempt from criticism?"

Exempt from criticism? You've got to be kidding. Criticism of Israel in organizations like the UN is way out of proportion to its actions. (For more on this, see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/israel_un.html ) Did you see the partial list of recent conflict areas that I posted in a previous message? Every one of them more violent than the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, including some real cases of genocide, and the world sits back and lets it happen.

Why are Israelis supposed to be exempt from criticism? We're not! You want to criticize, go right ahead. We criticize ourselves all the time!

Colin is spot on.

One only has to go to the Australian newspaper's so called "forum" for evidence of media bias. I have written at least 4 posts in connection with the topic of Palestine/Israel; none have been included, though many attacking Palestinians have been added...none speaking of Israel's internationla crimes sees the light of day. I know that I am not alone; so just how many have been ignored because they do not join in the fallacious attacks on the indigenous people of Palestine.

The SMH has obviously opted out of any controvosy on this subject- ALL letters to do with the subject are ignored. I also know that many people have written condemning Israel's abuses and crimes to this newspaper...why is there a blackout on this subject? Could it be, that in the interests of fairness - the Australian isn't concerned about fairness- they would have to print both "sides" and it's easier just to print none!

Dear Sganot, clearly from your posts and use of 'we' you are either Jewish or Israeli or both.

Welcome to the forum.

To Strewth and Marilyn and others.

Given that every piece of real estate on the face of this globe has borders which were established AND are now 'maintained' by force and power, I'm mystified why Israel is singled out for special condemnation. To do so is to condemn ourselves.

JERUSALEM.

"Indigenous" Canaanites ? *YES*!

Believe it or not, even the 'Bible which has so obviously been 'manipulated to favor Jews' SAYS that...

Genesis 10:18
"Later the Canaanite clans scattered and the borders of Canaan reached from Sidon toward Gerar as far as Gaza, and then toward Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha."

So.....'why' would those pesky Jews and those biased biblical scholars allow such a section to remain ? Why would they not remove it, or change it ?

Deuteronomy 9:5

It is NOT because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the WICKEDNESS of these nations, the Lord your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Exodus 23
31 "I will establish your borders from the Red Sea [a] to the Sea of the Philistines, [b] and from the desert to the River(Euphrates) I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you.

Israel is the only 'nation' which has specific borders given by God.
(why not 'beyond' the Euphrates ?, why not include Egypt ?)
ALLIES JUDGED HITLER. ...and 'drove him out' because of....'HIS WICKEDNESS'.....
based on THAT action, we continue to speak English today rather than Japanese or German.

Canaanite Wickedness ? Hurling their children into fires in sacrifice to pagan idols for starters ! Sodom..Gomorah.. u know the story.

Howdy,

I struggle to comprehend, how exactly is it relevant whether the taking of the soldier is kidnapping/capture? In either event it is cassus belli, which justifies Israel taking ANY & ALL action it sees fit. If the Palestinian militia's choose to shelter in built-up areas, and the civilians choose to allow them to do so, so be it. I do not believe tha this choice should force Israel not to make the best of its advantages in both air superiority & artillery. This would cause massive civilian casualties, ONCE, however, even palestinians are not completely stupid. The civilians will no longer be at all keen to provide shelter etc. to militia's knowing that there entire universe can & will be obliterated in a moment, a fortiori, the civilians will no longer provide the requisite support to the militias.

Granted, it is not proportionate, but it is WAR, don't like it, don't pick on one of the most heavily mechanised armies on the planet. Inshallah.

2 bob

So what you are saying 2bob is "I am bigger than you are, and I am a bully, so I will do what I want in your home which I have invaded". (There is some dispute about whether god said you could have the lot.)

Boaz David, advocate of ethnically cleansing Gaza to solve Israel's inconvenient Palestine 'problem', launches yet another incoherent rant. One wonders whether, had he been a subject of Hitler in the 30's, he'd have advocated the ethnic cleansing of Jews to solve Germany's Jewish 'problem'. As a believer in 'might is right' presumably he has no problem with the Nazi genocide either.
sganot: I take it that if you'd had a problem with BD's ethnic cleansing advocacy, you'd have spoken up by now. On to your propaganda pearls: a) "Palestinian war crimes"? By forcing itself on the Palestinians, the Zionist movement and its creation, the state of Israel, bears the greater share of responsibility for violence in Palestine in exactly the same way as the European invasion of Australia bore the greater share of responsibility for frontier violence here. Yes the world "sits back and watches" the Palestinians being squeezed, but the US stuffs Israel's pockets with billions to enable it.
b)The UN reports the ratio of homemade Qassams into Israel, as opposed to far more destructive Israeli ordinance into Gaza as 1:10. Don't pretend that the current conflict is caused by Palestinian pinpricks.
c)UN "criticism"? The US veto is used way out of proportion to shield its little mate from meaningful action by the UN and Israel's/your willingness to accept criticism is just about zero, with screams of anti-Semitism reserved for anyone with the temerity to do so.
2 bob: In case you haven't noticed, something's been going around for yonks called the Israel/Palestine conflict. Haven't those tanks on the telly going BOOM BOOM registered yet? It's a matter of resistance, sometimes (lightly) armed, versus an occupying power armed to the teeth. In other words, a WAR. In which soldiers/resistence fighters may be killed, wounded or captured. But not kidnapped.

Strewth,

Someone asked how Israel is different from Nazi Germany. I brought up one crucial difference, which makes his comparison appalling. I never said Israel is perfect or beyond criticism.

Your information about property rights in Israel is incorrect. What is your source for this lie, or did you just make it up? Does that mean there is perfect equality in Israel? No, there is much room for improvement. BTW, do you know how much land Jews can cultivate, develop, and settle in Palestinian-ruled areas? None. And the penalty for a Palestinian selling land to a Jew is death.

About the "ever-shrinking territories": In 2000, Israel suggested creation of a Palestinian state in around 97% of the territories, with its capital in Jerusalem. The Palestinians responded with war. Their leadership remains more interested in destroying Israel than in building their state.

You say "Jerusalem is not recognised as Israel's capital by the rest of the world." And yet, it is the capital. Whether it is Israel's capital or not is a functional question, and does not depend on the recognition of others. Most countries put their embassies in the Tel Aviv area; it just means the ambassadors have to drive farther when they present their credentials at the President's Residence, which of course is in Jerusalem. Every reputable political scientist will tell you that, while Jerusalem's final status is negotiable, it is Israel's capital.

"WB settlers 'native to this land'?"

Most were born in Israel/Palestine, just like most Palestinian residents in this land.

"I take it that if you'd had a problem with BD's ethnic cleansing advocacy, you'd have spoken up by now."

Don't. I don't support ethnic cleansing, but I don't play those games. Shall I assume you agree with everything you haven't denounced?

" ‘Palestinian war crimes’? … the state of Israel, bears the greater share of responsibility for violence…”

We disagree about relative responsibility, and your statement is a non sequitor to the issue of war crimes. Each side is responsible for its own crimes regardless of who bears the greater share of responsibility for the conflict.

sgranot:
1)My information about property rights is from Uri Davis' 'Apartheid Israel'. The main body of Israeli law (Absentees' Property Law, Law of return, Development Authority Law, WZO-JA for the Land of Israel Law, JNF Law, Land Acquisition Law etc, etc), by incorporating the apartheid distinction between Jew & non-Jew contained in the constitutions of the World Zionist Organization, the Jewish Agency and the Jewish National Fund, denies 93% of Israeli territory to non-Jews, Palestinian citizens of Israel and of course the Palestinian refugees. "Do you know how much land Jews can...settle in Palestinian-ruled areas? None." Is this why approx 40% of the West Bank is now under settler/army control? And "Palestinian-ruled"? Under occupation!?
2)Barak's 'generous' offer to Arafat? What a sham. Let's explore: WB & Gaza = 22% of Palestine. With Oslo the Palestinians conceded 78% of Palestine to Israel. Now that's a bloody generous offer! Not good enough for Barak, though. He wanted 69 Israeli settlements as well (10%) and territories under "temporary Israeli control" (10%), leaving the rest, split up by settlement blocs, bypass roads and roadblocks, to the Palestinians. Oh, and let's not forget Israeli control of borders. Spare us more of your propaganda.
3)"Jerusalem's final status is negotiable"? "We will keep Jerusalem united." Olmert, Haaretz, 8/2/06 Make up your mind.
4) Will you stop the games - Israeli settlers are as native to the occupied Palestinian territories as you are to Mars.
5) You'd have denounced Nazi proposals to ethnically cleanse Germany of its Jewish citizens in the 30's, no? BD is calling for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza. What, in the name of morality and consistency, are you waiting for?
6) In America's West Bank, Indians killed European settlers who encroached on their lands. Tell me they were war crimes committed by terrorists.

David

Is that the Old Testament you are forcing down others throats?

Do I need to quote you own words again?

While there is no doubt that there are atrocities committed from both sides of the Gaza strip, the one fact that remains is that Palestinians were forced off their land by Zionists under the guise of religion.

One has to ask why Israel receives so much support from such a right wing, christian evangelistic government as the USA?

Apart from materialistic concerns - maintaining its interests in the Middle East for the control of oil deposits, the other overriding interest is the belief in the second coming of christ. Comments such as our own evangelistic zealot Boaz' "ethnic cleansing" indicate the truth of this worrying belief.

Christian fundamentalists are ardent advocates of free-market capitalism, having played a key role in America's war against communism during the Cold War. Christ, capitalism and American supremacy go together.

Some key tenants following from biblical inerrancy and held by the vast majority of Christian fundamentalists include:

*belief in the Bible as an accurate history (e.g. the story of Noah's Ark and the Flood is historic fact),

*rejection of modern biblical scholarship, that is, scholarship that including studies--drawing from textual criticism to archeology--concerning the Bible's authorship,

*belief in the future bodily return of Jesus Christ ("the Second Coming") and the future bodily resurrection from the dead of all Christians,

*refusal to recognize the reality of biological evolution and its evidences in favor of a form of biblical creationism,

*adherence to the principle of the subordination of wife to husband and women to men,

*belief in a literal Satan, hell, demons, heaven, and angels,

and

*anticipation of a future "End Times" --though various schools of biblical interpretation concerning End Times exist in fundamentalist Christianity.

What is intriguing is the Zionists acceptance of this pro-christian assistance, for these christian extremists believe that unless Jews accept christ in the second coming they will perish along with muslims and all other non-believers.

While religion rules the agenda for war between Palsetine and Israel, peace will never be achieved.

SOLUTION TO MIDDLE EAST/PALESTINE/ISRAEL.

Yes.. its a bold statement :) but someone has to make it.

1/ ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY.

a) 587 BC, Babylonians invade Israel, disperse Jews among the Babylonian Empire.

OUTCOME Jews settle, make new homes, new lives, get on with their lives. (No more 'Jewish' problem for Babylonians)

b) 539BC Persian King Cyrus reverses the Babylonian policy and allows ethnic diaspora's to return to homelands. (required a loyalty oath to Persia, -impossible for serious Jews)

c)OUTCOME 515 BC Jews rebuilt Temple and Walls of Jerusalem. (Immediate conflict with the 'Palestinians' of the day who seek to undermine this-Sanballat and Tobiah -Refer_Books of Ezra&Nehemiah)

d) 332 BC Alexanda the Great defeats Persia. Hellenization of Israel begins.

e) 170 BC Jewish Maccabean revolutions.

f) 63 BC Romans under Pompey take over Israel. Romanization begins.

g) AD 66-70: Jewish revolt, war with Romans, destruction of Jerusalem and Second Temple

AD 73: Masada falls

AD 130-2: Hadrian outlaws circumcision and plans to rebuild Jerusalem as a pagan city

AD 132-135. Bar Kochba rebellion. Jews crushed by Romans, sold into slavery, and driven into exile (the Diaspora). Jerusalem is rebuilt as Aelia Capitolina.

OUTCOME For the Romans, this....was the END of the 'Jewish' Problem and was in effect until the late 18th century when Zionism revived. Thats err.. close to 1900 years.

CONCLUSION When the religious and ethnic attributes of a people (be they Jewish or Arab or Chechyn or Kosovo_Albanians or anyone) are such that they will ALways rebell against that which goes against their Faith, the only workable solution is 'exile and dispersal'.

Arab (Muslim) Oil Money (kazillions of it) should be used to facilitate exile,dispersal and absorption of Palestinian Muslims. Provide land, housing and employment.
Christian and Druze Arabs and Israelis occupy and include Gaza and West bank in Greater (peaceful_prosperous) Israel.

PROBLEM SOLVED.

P.S. Irish fled from a potato famine, leaving their land, to Australia and USA, it was not the end of their world.

Sganot appeals to 'law', and importantly to the Ehud Barak accord which (to quote Sganot) "offered 97% of what Palestinians were asking for"

Now.. do we all notice how Strewn distorts this ? Lets get the Facts

1/ 97% of.......What Arafat was asking for.

2/ Strewn then grumbles "but this is like 20% of Palestine"

Do we now actually SEE why I propose the ethnic dispersal solution ?

Strewn does not see any place for Israel AT ALL. Hence the futility of arguing on the basis that Sganot and others appear to be doing. i.e. 'International Law/UN etc'.

KEITH You were quite right, I was bring the Old Testament to bear on the subject and speaking from the viewpoint of 'Divine Revelation'.... so, you will notice I hope, that in my last post, I argued purely from History and proven track record:)

You can have it either way a) 'Divine Right' or...b) 'Military Might'.

If one takes "b" by itself, it will end in disaster,-no philosophical/Theological basis. Only "b" backed up by "a" will give the correct mix for Israelis.

SCOUT I am-> "Conservative/Evangelical/Protestant/Christian annnnd Fundamentalist" (in the sense of accepting scripture as from God, correctly interpreted based on context and culture)

I am NOT an advocate of 'free market capitalism' as you say.

How many posts do I have to make where I claim 'unrestrained capitalism' is as bankrupt as 'unrestrained socialism' before it sinks into your noggin ?

My support for Israel is theological on the one hand and practical on the other. But I don't for a moment believe that what 'we' do will have an iota of impact on either hastening or delaying the 2nd coming of our Lord.

Sganot, you are looking in the wrong place, seeking to establish Israel on the higher moral ground. The new testament says "All....have sinned....and fall short of the Glory of G-D.....
BUT.. (the next verse says):

...are justified freely by his GRACE through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."Rom3.23/4

Regarding "The Law".. miss by an inch or a mile, you miss. Hence Pauls encouraging verse above. "But....

While the Western press and this website is awash with stories, real and exaggerated, about 'Islamic fundamentalists', insufficient mention is made about christian fundamentalists, who, with their vast resources and close links with the current American administration, are a potentially more menacing threat than their Muslim counterparts.

The extreme christian posters to this forum exemplify this menace by consistently preaching anti-Palestinian dogma, without a critical look at Zionism.

According to newspaper reports more than a third of Americans are associated with one or the other Christian fundamentalist outfit, most of which are fiercely anti-communist, anti-Muslim and are passionate advocates of free-market capitalism, global American hegemony and the myth of the civilizing mission of white America.

The same is happening here in Australia - witness Hillsong which is actively supported by the federal government.

In recent years, these fundamentalist groups have been engaged in aggressive missionary work in other countries as well, including in the so-called 'Third World'.

Fired by a passionate hatred for other religions, which they dismiss as 'false' and even 'Satanic'(such as Coach has done frequently on OLO), they are today among the most well-funded missionary groups in large parts of Asia and Africa.

Crusading for Christ, these fundamentalist groups are not simply out fishing for souls. Rather, for them Christianity is only part of the agenda, which also includes aggressively promoting American and Zionist interests. Today, these groups preach not only Christ but also Pax Americana and even American-led imperialist wars, which they bless as holy causes to usher in the final arrival of Jesus.

Boaz - answer one single straight forward question, please. Your candour will be appreciated.

Do you believe in the second coming of christ?

Scout

I too share your concerns about all forms of fundamemtalist religion whether Christian or Muslim. Both groups have a biblically inspired belief belief that only they will receiver favours from the deity. Hence both wish to convert others. Judaism does not hold this view.

In Australia where religion was always suspect as being part of the establishment these extreme views never gained hold and Jews (who were selected by British judges for the first fleet) became part of the establishment. My ancestors are Jews who came here (of their own volition) over 100 years ago. I am sure Muslims (who first arrived in the colonial days) will for the most part settle into the Australian mould, in fact they are already become valued citizens.

My family´s very liberal practice of Judaism has evolved into a form of which my great-great grandparents would not have approved and I am sure Muslims will do the same.

The support of Israel by the west however comes because Israel has a Westminster style government and legal system and Israel maintains a western culture. The majority of Israelis are not religious and the extremists keep largely keep to themselves. It has nothing to do with religion and no Jewish missionaries exist to push others into their faith. The suicide bombers in western lands and the preaching of hatred by a small minority of Imans and of course Al Qaida has strengthened the western view.

You are incorrect in saying that "the one fact that remains is that Palestinians were forced off their land by Zionists under the guise of religion." Jews arrived in Israel largely for the purposes of survival. They came from both Europe and from Arab lands. They needed a place where they could live in peace. Israel had a historic association and land could be legally purchased there.

Hatred came, some would allege principally from the Arab side and terrible things were done. An easy case can be made for both sides.

When the Irish bog farmers fled they were fleeing the British aristocracy who owned the farms.

Strangely when they came to Australia we didn't lock them up and allowed them to foster their catholic violence and hatred against protestants - a state that existed even in 1960 when I was sent to coventry in my small country town because I refused to throw rocks at the catholics and demonise them.

I was only 7 years old and the families were the relatives of the kids I had gone to school with for the previous 2 years.

That is partly why I am an atheist. But the situation in Palestine is now a catastrophe. Just how many slaughtered Palestinians will it take to be enough for the capture of one soldier?
Another 43, or 1003 or 20003 - come on what is the safety of one Israeli soldier worth in a country that treated a boy who shot himself in Iraq like a national hero even though they couldn't be bothered reading his name tag in the body bag?

For this one Australian soldier about 100,000 Iraqis have died. Is he worth it? I was talking to an Iraqi family last night with relatives still in Iraq.

They don't think so. So come on, someone tell me how many dead Palestinians there need to be - what is the life of one soldier worth to the warmongers?

logic: In admitting a concern about "all forms of fundamentalist religion whether Christian or Muslim", a concern I share, why do you omit Jewish fundamentalism? Here's a quote from an interview by Amos Oz with an Israeli settler: "Leibowitz is right. We are Judeo-Nazis, and why not?...I am willing to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug from underneath the feet of diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up one or two synagogues here and there, I don't care. And I don't mind if after the job is done you put me in front of a Nuremberg trial...What you lot don't understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet...True it could have been finished in 1948..." Logic, note what he said about 1948 - "the dirty work of Zionism". That's the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people which many Israelis, including current government ministers wish to see continue. And all this in the name of Jews everywhere, which is where you come in. The crime of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine that began in 48, was resumed in 67, and is proceeding more softly softly today was/has been and is carried out in YOUR name. If I were you I'd want to differentiate myself from it. In addition, your portrayal of Israel as some kind of benign Westminster style democracy leaves out the gerrymander that enabled it (the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians in 48) and its underlying apartheid legislation mentioned by me in an earlier post. Displaced European Jews may well have needed a refuge after 45, but the Zionist movement did its best to ensure that they did NOT go to their preferred refuges of the UK or USA, but to Israel. Check out Yosef Grodzinsky's 'In the Shadow of the Holocaust: The story of Jews in DP Camps & their forced role in the founding of Israel'.

Strewth

I did not omit Jewish fundamentalism. I quote from my own letter.

"The majority of Israelis are not religious and the extremists keep largely keep to themselves. It has nothing to do with religion and no Jewish missionaries exist to push others into their faith."

Extremist = Fundamentalist

I offered an olive branch and you refused it. Would you be willing to lay your cards on the table and tell us all something about yourself.

Marilyn Shepherd

"When the Irish bog farmers came to Australia ..... we didn't lock them up and allowed them to foster their catholic violence and hatred against protestants"

Australia took care of the Irish who fled. Exactly. But the other Arab administrations did not take care of the Palestinians who fled - look at the situation in Lebanon. Are the Palestinians not locked up there? I was horrified with the hatred a Lebanese colleage held for the poor Palestinians there. That is a large part of the problem.

Also Ireland was invaded by English armies who took over the land. I hope that you are not suggesting that the poverty stricken Jews who arrived in Palestine under either the Turkish or English administration before partition were actually invading and taking land forcefully with the aid of armies!

So David what is it?

Is It This reasonable attitude?

"No well informed Christian to my knowledge uses 'specific historical events' from the Old Testament context as '2006 commandments' or.. examples to follow."

OR this fundamentalist rubbish

"Believe it or not, even the 'Bible which has so obviously been 'manipulated to favor Jews' SAYS that...

Genesis 10:18
"Later the Canaanite clans scattered and the borders of Canaan reached from Sidon toward Gerar as far as Gaza, and then toward Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha."

So.....'why' would those pesky Jews and those biased biblical scholars allow such a section to remain ? Why would they not remove it, or change it ?

Deuteronomy 9:5

It is NOT because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the WICKEDNESS of these nations, the Lord your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Exodus 23
31 "I will establish your borders from the Red Sea [a] to the Sea of the Philistines, [b] and from the desert to the River(Euphrates) I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you.

Israel is the only 'nation' which has specific borders given by God."

Your own words betray you David. You scorn the old Testament but then turn and quote it to support your view of an ethnic cleansing.

That sure beats any reasonable argument. You win. I resign.

sorry stan,

but it appears that you have missed the point. Israel did not steal the land that it is on, firstly, the land was granted to teh new state by its owners - England. Secondly, unless I have been badly misled, the UN provided the support necessary for the state to exist. The remainder of the problem is derived from the willingness of the surrounding nations to begin wars that they cannot finish.

Quite frankly, as to bullying, does likud have as its foundational promise to destroy the Palestinian territories? No it does not, unlike HAMAS. Quite frankly this smacks of the hamas argument of collective punishment - if you choose, to support a leader who wishes to commit warlike acts against your bigger & better equipped neighbour, best be ready for the consequences.

You know, teh same way that very few germans in 1946 admitted to thinking that invading russia was a good plan, or even to having supported hitler? As a democratically elected government, HAMAS has a mandate to declare war on Israel, which it has effectively done. Israel, as a democratic state has the right to obliterate any country that attacks it, however, and heres the key point, Israel has teh weapons with which to do so.

inshallah
2 bob

Kang: "Jerusalem is Israel's capital?"

Yes.

Kang: "Actually this city was created and built by the indigenous Canaanites."

That's nice. According to Wikipedia, Canberra was home to the Ngunnawal and Walgalu tribes, and there is evidence of "human habitation... for at least 21,000 years." Modern Canberra was created and built by Scottish and English settlers. But today it is not a Ngunnawal or Walgalu or Scottish or English city.

Kang: "The occupying Israelites... never possessed it for very long."

Jerusalem was the capital of the first Israelite and Jewish kingdoms from 1000 BCE to 586 BCE; capital of independent or semi-independent Jewish kingdoms from 538 BCE to 70 CE; again capital of a Jewish state from 132-135, and has been the capital of Israel since 1948. That's 1083 of the last 3000 years. How long have Palestinian Arabs ruled Jerusalem? 0 years.

Kang: "In 1949 the Zionist lobby was delighted to be granted half of Palestine by the 'generous' United Nations..."

The Jewish community in Palestine (not "the Zionist lobby", whatever that means) was "delighted" by the partition plan, which by the way is from 1947, not 1949, because it was so desperately needed and because it could have avoided a bloody war. But Jewish acceptance was a moot point because the Arabs rejected the plan and went to war in the hopes of taking all of Palestine for themselves.

Kang: "Now Israel wants it all. Well the Crusaders also invaded and occupied this city and claimed it as their own. They lasted a few hundred years."

Crusader rule was from 1099 to 1187 -- only 88 years.

Kang: "I doubt if modern Israel will last even that long. Palestinians with their home made rockets may seem like a joke now but blind Freddy can see that the Arab/Muslim world is not going to be a pushover for much longer."

Sounds like you're threathening ethnic cleansing. Or worse. But if you think Israel will go the way of the Crusaders, think again. We're not going anywhere.

BOAZ_David, you misquoted me. Please don't.

Strewth,

-Israeli wingnutter and PLO-member Uri Davis's book is full of fabrications. The "Apartheid" comparison is outrageous, and a cousin to the "Nazi" comparison.

-The Palestinian government made selling land to a Jew a capital offense, and people were summarily executed on suspician of committing this "crime". What do you say about Palestinian Apartheid?

-I didn't say Barak's offer was generous; I said it amounted to 97% of the WB&G. In each territory the land was contiguous, not as you described.

-With the Oslo accords, the Palestinians supposedly "conceded 78% of Palestine" -- Israel within the Green Line. It isn't their land to concede, but never mind. Now the Hamas-led government says it doesn't recognize the Oslo accords, doesn't recognize Israel, will never make peace, and will continue jihad until it destroys Israel.

-In the Oslo accords, both sides agreed that Jerusalem's final status is negotiable. That doesn't mean they have conceded any claims, and is not inconsistent with keeping Jerusalem united.

-Some Israeli settlers are native to the West Bank, but that's not what I said. I said that like most Palestinians in Israel and the territories, most are native to this land, i.e., to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza -- "Greater Palestine" or "Greater Israel". Most didn't come "from the US and Europe, from Russia and all parts of the world" as Marilyn claimed.

-"You'd have denounced Nazi proposals to ethnically cleanse Germany of its Jewish citizens in the 30's, no?... What, in the name of morality and consistency, are you waiting for?"

There's that appalling Nazi comparison again. I already said I don't support ethnic cleansing.

-"In America's West Bank, Indians killed European settlers who encroached on their lands. Tell me they were war crimes committed by terrorists."

The world didn't have the same laws of war then, but terrorism was used by both the Europeans and the Indians.

Do you really wish to defend Palestinian terrorism, war crimes and crimes against humanity as defined by international law and denounced by groups like Human Rights Watch (see http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/11/isrl-pa1101.htm )?

sganot:
1) Avoid ad hominem attacks and demonstrate, not merely assert, the alleged "fabrications".
2) What has shooting collaborators got to do with apartheid?
3) Re Barak's "offer", you're recycling a myth. Would you be prepared to accept the verdict of Barak's Foreign Minister on said "offer"?
4) Now we're talking! "Palestine isn't theirs to concede"? I think it's clear where you're coming from, but correct me if I'm wrong: Palestine from the Mediterranean to the Jordan belongs exclusively to Israel and any Palestinians still there do not belong and have no rights? Re Hamas, the pot is calling the kettle black: Israel's torn up the Oslo accords, doesn't recognise Palestine, has no interest in peace & has been conducting a REAL jihad against the Palestinians from 1948-2006.
5)Re Jerusalem: admit you're a lawyer!
6)Re Israeli settlers: a) How does "like most Palestinians...are native to this land" tally with Palestine "isn't their land to concede"? b) If you believe in a Greater Israel, come out and say so clearly. I'll put this one to you: if Israelis have the right to colonise the occupied territories, how about ALL Palestinians be given Israeli citizenship AND be allowed to settle west of the Green Line? Fair enough?
7) You don't support ethnic cleansing? How do you think Israel achieved its Jewish majority in 48?
8) Do you defend the infinitely greater number of crimes against humanity/war crimes perpetrated by Israel as defined by international law, the UDHR and condemned by the UN and groups such as AI, HRW & Btselem?

SCOUT

“Yes”

KEITH...

thanks for pulling me up on what must have seemed quite contradictory positions taken by me, on the ‘and as an example’ part of the applicability of the Old Testament.

Let me try to clarify.

My mention of the divinely appointed borders of Israel is in fact a statement which does (in my opinion) apply to today but admittedly, that is a theological position which depends on faith.
It could never justify a Christian country seeking to establish such borders militarily, but it would justify Israel itself doing so.

The Judgement of the Canaanites had consequences we can learn from, but was time, place and reason specific.
The point I was trying to make, is that we cannot use the judgment of the Canaanites to justify ‘genocide’ today.

Regarding the ‘examples’ aspect. The events I was referring to, i.e. the Babylonian exile and the Persian restoration are in fact secular history as well as Biblical.

We don’t need to use the Old Testament to know of the impact of these well attested actual events, but they happen to be recorded there anyway. I was not making ‘Christian’ points there, I was making ‘historical’.

I see the removal, dispersion and resettlement of Palestinians as an abundantly merciful act, given that the Israelis will never, ever....ever....ever.... allow them to return.

Consider this. The government decides to put a freeway through your land, and used ‘compulsory acquisition’ to take it. No matter how you feel about it, you and I both know its a no win situation. But they will give you a reasonable (in their eyes) compensation package. Its reality for us, no less for Palestinians.

Don’t giveup :)

MARILYN Re you being Atheist. Refer the Gospels. Meet the real Jesus, not the one throwing stones.

SGANOT. Did not mean to misquote you, sorry. You said "Israel suggested" re 97% of the territories, not 'What Afarat was asking for'. But unless I'm mistaken, they are the same thing.

ETHNIC CLEANSING should apply to Muslims only. Note this. The corporal kidnapped is being treated 'Well, in accordance with....ISLAM' <-What_utter_rot !

Dear Sganot

Have you not yet seen Strewn's approach ? He is similar to a Jehovah's Witness. He waits for you to speak, ignores what you say and then uses that as a launching pad for his next outburst.

You are arguing comparisons. Israel 'Good'.. Palestinians 'Bad' or.. 'worse'.

But sound reasoning should tell you this will vary on a day to day basis, and is not a sound foundation for establishing high moral ground or making a claim to territory.

SOLUTION TO MIDDLE EAST....continued.

The Christian one.

Israelies realize that Jesus is 'The Christ', turn to Him as Messiah and Lord.

Muslims likewise, abandon the prophet of doom and gloom, of violence and Jihad, and embrace Christ as Redeemer and Lord. God the Son and Son of God.

Former Muslims and Former 'Judaizers' embrace one other in Christ and the conflict ends. "In Christ there is neither Greek nor Jew, Slave nor Free". Property is distributed on the basis of need.

AGAIN...PROBLEM SOLVED.

Until they are prepared to do this, then I stand by my 'Ethnic Cleansing' approach as the only workable one. I would allow Christian Arabs and non Muslims to remain.
Muslims who would be allowed to remain are:

Those who pledge loyalty to Israel, abandon "Islamic" claims to Jerusalem, and do so with the Quran over their heads with an oath unto death.

STEWN... lets just say Palestinians are allowed BACK to former homes and land. WHERE....will you send the Jews ? (maybe a dabble in the well of 'Ethnic Cleansing' ? :)

BOAZ_ David,

Goodness, you love putting human beings into catagories! I don't expect any insight from you on this subject...but I'll give it a go- WE ARE ALL HUMAN BEINGS. If you prick Palestinians/ Muslims/ Arabs do they not bleed? Do you understand what racism is?

Strewth brings up facts and your response- vilify millions of men, women and children that you do not, and never will, know becuse of their race and/or religion. Racism by any other name does not smell sweet.

There are hundreds of thousands of men, women and children brutally occupied by other men and women who want their land...and have already taken 78% of it. It is irrelevant what race or religion the occupied or occupier are....except to thise who are unable to see human beings as human beings.

ISRAELIS COULD BE HINDU, CATHOLIC, BLUE, FROM MARS; these are not the issue; the issue is the ACTIONS of Israelis toward the human beings they occupy, steal land and water from and killon a daily basis.

And give the bible a rest- it's a book written by non-scientific men wandering around in a desert. I do realise that logic and fact are not important to you...but they are to many others; humanity, compassion and care for our fellow human beings are also important to a great many of us...those of us who do not catagorize people on irrelevant things.

And, for the record, Palestinians belong to different religions- Muslim, Christian, agnostics, athiests and Jewish..have you read Dr. Uri Davies' work?

And BOaz_ David,

YOur question, "where will you send the Jews?" is absurd; people belonging to the Jewish religion live very nicely all around the world...many here is Sydney- as oppossed to the indigenous people of Palestine, who are languishing in camps around the world..and international law says they are entitled to go home, but when did international law mean anything to Israel?...not a rhetorical question by the way.

If Israel would begin to make reparation for the huge injustice and abuse of the indigenous people there, it would go somewhat to beging the healing process. Like the South African "Truth and Reconciliation" trials, oppressed people want recognition of their pain as a first step toward peace. It will take the men, women and children of Palestine decades to recover from what has, and still is, happened to them...Israel needs to start as soon as possible.

Sunrise

When will you stop trotting out the mantra about "indigenous people" in Palestine? The Palestinian Arabs are no more indigenous than the Jews. The rights of the Jews from Alexandria, Yemen and Iraq, now in Israel, to live in the Middle East are just as strong as the rights of the Palestinians. There is room for both as long as neither side has a policy to push the other into the sea. This goes for Jewish settlers as well as Hamas.

You argue that "people belonging to the Jewish religion live very nicely all around the world" (your words). Are you suggesting that the Palestinians are not capable of doing the same? Your confidence in a noble people with a great reigious faith seems to be lacking.

The state of Israel is an social, geo-political, economic & moral failure.
I agree with the President of Iran that it should be moved. The best place would be in America.. Arizona, New Mexico perhaps. This would remove a running sore from the Middle East & allow the people of Israel to settle in to the home of ratbag religions. I think the silence from Downer & the Australian press is a discrace.

Do you really think that the removal of Israel from the Middle East would leave the area in peace?

You have more faith in the middle eastern governments than I do. Would the Sunni and Shiíte groups stop fighting each other just because Israel is not there and would the oil rich billionaires and Sheiks there share their obscene wealth with the poor. They were not even ready to share with the Palestinian refugees unlike other displaced groups after theb war like the Sudaten Land Germans and the Jews who were helped by charitable others to renew their life.

'The simplest thing really is to release the soldier, stop the rocket fire and then things will return to normal' Justice Minister Haim Ramon, a confidant of Olmert, told Israel Radio.

Who'd've thought it?

Tell you what, whoever (amongst the Palestinian leadership (oxymoronic I know)) thought of this current fiasco should be shot (appears rather likely). The UN is trotting out its standard response, 'the evil occupying power should stop'?!! UN must realise semi-autonomous regions are no longer occupied (Well, they may be at the moment - you know what I mean). Therefore, without being an occupying power Israel is not restrained by International Law norms when dealing with cross-border attacks & artillery/rocket strikes. Proportionality is rather irrelevant in war.

How come if I saw this as the only possible outcome of Palestinian self determination that they did not? terrorists are a protected species in an occupied area, however, once no longer occupied they are legitimate targets, whether they are armed or not. The rules of armed conflict provide much greater protection to invading forces than they do to occupiers!

Inshallah

2 bob

Talk about as silly as a 2 bob watch. If the soldier were released & the rocket fire stopped "then things will be returned to normal." What's "normal" for Gaza? Total siege. No access to sea or air. Crossings under Israeli control and closed most of the time. Economic siege. Israel to decide IF workers get paid, IF people eat, get medicines etc. Periodic air strikes killing fighters & civilians alike to provoke a response which can be used to justify the fake mantra of no peace partner whenever it's required. No, the occupation of Gaza never ended. The Imperial Israeli bully is addicted to beating up the powerless. Truth is, Israel is doing its level best to ensure that no Palestinian government is ever in any shape to stand up to it so that it can go on annexing more and more of the West Bank. Its biggest fear is a strong, principled Palestinian government that it might actually have to sit down and negotiate with. Ah 2 bob watch, you & your fellow cheer leaders must be very proud of yourselves as your ubermenschen pound this little Warsaw Ghetto by the sea to rubble.

strewth,

I agree with your assessment as to the cause of the incessant internicine strife in Gaza, but, I think you oversimplify it way too far when you try to blame it all on Israel. Why should a neighbouring country - which is sooo hated by teh inhabitant's of Gaza, provide them with jobs & livelihoods & be required to allow people that profess to hate Israel into Israel in order to do so?

Perhaps if the money that is spent on luxury vehicles & parisian villas for the leaders was used to build viable industry (even farms) more Palestinians would have steady work. Unfortunately, it does not happen, it suits the leaders to keep everyone pissed at Israel, while they tickle the till. Corruption is endemic, and because of the lack of opportunity, the poor (the majority) will continue to live in a hell hole. Unfortunately, they are then told their life is the fault of the Zionists, heres a bomb - go blow yourself up, or heres a mortar/rocket, go shoot at them.

Israel will only be able to cop so much, as a democracy once the people get pissed off at the incessant shelling / bombing, the government must act. How about people try to understand the cause of the problem, not whinge and moan about the outcomes.

Inshallah

2 bob

Boaz_david, Arafat didn’t ask for anything at Camp David/Taba. He put forward no peace plans, and just said no to everything.

Strewth,

-The limitations here don't allow for in-depth discussion. I encourage people here to join the Jewish Palestinian Encounter (http://www.salam-shalom.net/salam-shalom/salamforum1.html ), a forum of Jews, Palestinians, and others discussing issues of common concern. The site is temporarily down, but should be online soon.

-I am not talking about "shooting collaborators". You mentioned land that Arabs supposedly cannot buy. All land under Palestinian rule cannot be sold to Jews, and this is enforced with summary execution. What do you think about Palestinian Apartheid?

-I agree with much of what Shlomo Ben-Ami says, for example here http://www.mec.utah.edu/Lectures/2004%20lecture%20pages/Lecture%20pdf/Minister%20Shlomo%20Ben.pdf and in his recent book. In this debate http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml Ben-Ami confirms that Arafat turned down an offer of 100% of Gaza and 97% of the West Bank. American negotiator Dennis Ross's book also sheds much light on what happened in the negotiations.

-You could hardly be more wrong in your assumptions about my views. I didn't say Palestine isn't theirs to concede; I said Israel isn't.

-I didn't say Israelis have a right to colonize occupied territories, and like Ben-Ami, I believe that peace cannot result from the two sides exercising what they view as their full rights.

-The land allocated to a Jewish state in the partition plan had a 55% Jewish majority. 100,000 Jews in Jerusalem would vote in Israel, raising the majority to 60%. Hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees were waiting to immigrate (almost 700,000 arrived by 1951), so Israel would have had a 76% Jewish majority with no "ethnic cleansing" necessary.

-I don't defend crimes against humanity or war crimes, regardless of who perpetrated them. The selective defense of megacrimes based on the nationality of the perpetrator is your thing. And this "infinitely greater" business shows your infinite bias against Israel.

Albion and Sunisle support ethnic cleansing against Israel; Boaz_David wants it for Muslims. Luckily, even the terrible actions of us Palestinians and Israelis have been generally more moderate and peaceful than what some of you seem to prescribe!

2 bob: Blessed are they who have nothing to say and cannot be persuaded to say it.
sganot:
1)I take your failure to challenge Uri Davis' alleged "fabrications" as an indication that you accept his description of Israel as an apartheid state.
2)As to your bizarre concoction, "Palestinian apartheid", why would your Israeli colonist buy Palestinian land in the Occupied Territories when he can just take it in defiance of the 4th Geneva Convention which prohibits colonization by occupying powers? BTW do you reserve the expression "summary execution" for Palestinians & 'targeted assassination' for Israelis?
3)As for Arafat turning down an offer for 100% Gaza/97% West Bank: a)it was not an offer-it was Clinton's 'parameters' & b)both sides had reservations about these & c)it was the Israelis who pulled out of the Taba talks making the business academic from then on.
4)"Israel isn't theirs to concede": why all the bulldust then about the Palestinians recognising Israel's 'right to exist'?
5)By the beard of Herzl, you are confused about the Partition plan: a)the Jewish state had a minority of Jews (499 thousand to 510 thousand Palestinians-UN figures); b)Jerusalem was not to be part of the proposed Jewish state; c)1951? We're talking 47-48 in case you hadn't noticed. And how convenient of you to ignore that in 1951 some 750,000 Palestinian refugees expelled in 48, to enable a Jewish majority, were waiting to return!
6)Until you own up to the simple moral fact that by imposing Jewish sovereignty on the Palestinians without their consent, Israel bears the prime responsibility for the violence that ensued, nothing you say can be taken seriously. As the Mayor of Jerusalem wrote to France's chief rabbi in 1899: "In the name of God, leave Palestine in peace." The Zionist project in Palestine was a GUARENTEE of war. It's now up to the supporters of that project to make amends, not its victims, and your defence of the indefensible makes a mockery of both salam & shalom.

Sganot...
I think I'm finally 'getting' it about the Camp David events.
Your constant reference to 'Arafat asked for nothing etc' is noteworthy. STREWN.. do you have any comment about that ?

I'm just recalling the discussion Dennis Ross had on a TV interview about that time, and he did indeed suggest as you have, but my memory was a bit blurred on this. I assume that if Arafat was going to 'ask' or put forward anything, it would be the removal of Israel.

Sunisle

Your speaking from an idealistic and naive viewpoint (so is Sganot to a degree) in that you believe concepts such as worrying about being seen as 'racist' are going to significantly alter world events of such magnititude as the status of Israel.

Albion....

says it all "No Israel" You cannot negotiate with that, and I hope Sganot gets to the point where he realizes that THAT idea is what is really driving the agenda in Muslim Palestinians.
Suggestion. Fight 100% for it, and either win or lose and shutup.

I have suggested 2 possible solutions to the ME crisis.

1/ Ethno/Religious cleansing of all Muslim Arabs except those who will pledge loyalty and abiding submission to Israel (This is a very 'Islamic' concept u know, except that the "Dhimmi's" in this case are the Muslims) (This would fail at the point of the Temple Mount and new temple being built.)

2/ Muslims and Jews accept Christ as Messiah and embrace each other in Him, thus totally diffusing the situation and bringing in a time of unparalleled peace and prosperity.

The Irish experienced this as genuine Christ loving Protestants and Catholics met in sweet fellowship across the sectarian lines. It IS possible.

Sganot persists with his 'legal/diplomatic' approach and Stewn seeks to tear all he says to shreds, then beat him and others over the head with various verbal tools, which is how it works 'on the ground' over there.

Sganot, please get back in touch with your wonderful rich heritage in the Old Testament. Think about where you came from.

Strewn, find "Struth" :)

Logic,

I note that you take one sentnce of mine and ignore the rest...unable to refute anything, so you disingenuously "misinterpret" "Jews live very nicely around the world". Now, the only other conclusion to draw is that you haven't an iota of knowledge about life for Palestinians under occupation or those in diaspora. These millions of human beings cannot live "very nicely" either under occupation, in refugee camps and neither are they able to leave. You need to psend at least a week with a Palestinian family in gaza to have some inkling about what they are up against.

The "Jews" who Boaz-David was lamenting the fate of, are not occupied or persecuted...and please enough of 60 years ago; there is no monopoly on suffering. The Palestinians need help NOW , just as the Jews- and others- did in the last war...and there is not a race or religion on earth that has not been persecuted at some time in history.

And Sgarnot, where did I advocate any ethnic cleansing- of Israel or anywhere? Put up or shut up.

Sunisle, when you entertained the question “where will you send the Jews?", it sounded like you support ethnic cleansing. I apologize if I misunderstood.

Strewth,

1) I already said this format is too limited for in-depth discussion. It certainly doesn’t allow for deconstructing a book’s worth of fabrications. Refrain from this game of “I take your failure to challenge” or I will assume you agree with every unchallenged point in every Zionist book from Herzl to Dershowitz.

2) When you thought wrongly that Arabs couldn't buy land in Israel, you called it "Apartheid". Jews really can't buy land in Palestinian-ruled territory. You remain silent on "Palestinian apartheid". Why must Palestine be Judenrein?

3) Re Clinton’s “parameters”, read Dennis Ross’s “The Missing Peace”. I assume you agree with all his points that you don’t specifically challenge.

4) I never said anything about the Palestinians recognizing Israel’s right to exist. Again you make incorrect assumptions about my views.

5) According to the UNSCOP report of August 1947, the Jewish state would have 498,000 Jews and 407,000 Arabs and others -- a 55% Jewish majority. Jewish Jerusalemites were entitled to vote in the Jewish state, raising the practical majority to 60%. It was known that hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees would further increase this majority, and indeed almost 700,000 came within a few years. (And if not for the war, many would have come earlier.) If there had been no 1948 war and no nakba, the Jewish state would still have an immediate and fast-rising Jewish majority, and this would be bolstered by the further waves of immigrants.

6) We disagree about “simple moral facts”. The UN voted to partition the country, which meant Jewish sovereignty would be imposed on an Arab minority and Arab sovereignty would be imposed on a Jewish minority. It isn’t perfect; in politics, nothing is. Arab sovereignty is imposed on minorities without their consent in almost two dozen countries. Jews live as tiny minorities everywhere but in Israel. Arabs can be a minority in a Jewish state. It isn’t a tragedy.

sunisle

I did not take one sentence of yours and ignore the rest. I basically challenged you about your premise that the Palestinians were the indigenous people of the area implying that they had superior rights to be there.

I too feel badly about the plight of the Palestinians but how does their condition give them the moral superiority to preach that the Jewish Israelis all leave? Are the Palestinians in Lebanon doing better? And why do you suggest that the Jews can all simply leave their homeland and live somewhere else and that the Palestinians can not? Why the difference? Why can´t they each develop their separate patch and exist side by side. The Israelis live well in their patch why can the others not do the same?

The simple truth that many cannot face is that there is currently no Islamic nation that is doing well. All blame western imperialism for their problems ignoring the fact that other recently occupied nations are prospering - Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Poland, Hungary to mention a few. Vietnam is moving ahead. India is tipped to be one of the next world powers while Pakistan with an almost identical colonial history is struggling. Indonesia is trying to buck the trend and I wish them success. But they are having to fight terrorist bombs and vicious fundamentalism.

What is wrong with the Muslim nations? Why did the oil rich billionaire Arab Sheiks not help the Palestinian refugees instead of leaving them in squalor? Muslims in this country have shown that they are excellent citizens. The fault is clearly not with Islam but somewhere else.

Logic,

(Which clearly you are not)- "Arab Sheiks" are not dropping bombs from helicopter gunships, shooting from tanks and armoured vehicles, destroying homes and farms with bulldozers,( not to mention murdering people with them too), violating international law and plain murdering people with impunity. ISRAEL IS..so don't put this tragedy on "Arab Sheiks"...and get with the facts...they speak for themsleves.

All the PREVIOUSLY occupied countries you mentioned do not have the IOF thugs persecuting them. Vietnam is recovering from the US atrocities...as one day Palestine will...WHEN THE ISRAELI THUGS START OBEYING INTERNATIONAL LAW.

And I couldn't care less about Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu...IT IS ISRAEL THAT IS THE AGRESSOR- THE RELIGIOUS SECT OF THE PEOPLE THERE IS IRRELEVANT. So, we are talking about Israelis, not Jews....it is absurd and obscene to think that anyone belonging to this religious sect can go to a land they have never even been to and take it- whilst the indigenous people of that land languish in refugee camps.

The thugs from Brooklyn who go to Israel have no more kinship to the land than the man on the moon. Meanwhile, the men and women who have keys to their houses there are prevented by Israel from going home- AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW.

A question- do you care about international law?

sunisle

You say "..it is absurd and obscene to think that anyone belonging to this religious sect can go to a land they have never even been to and take it- whilst the indigenous people of that land languish in refugee camps."

If by religious sect you mean Jewish faith do you actually believe that these people have never ever been to Israel and that the names of cities like Jerusalem Bethlehem Nazareth etc are not names of Hebrew origin? And are you denying the existance of the so called Sephardi Jews who arrived with the Muslim Caliphate?

And talking of INTERNATIONAL LAW why did the Palestinians not accept INTERNATIONAL LAW and the UN partition of the British colony of Palestine? And I presume that you exempt the Palestinians who attacked the Jewish citizens in Hebron and elsewhere in defiance of INTERNATIONAL law from the title of thugs.

And by inference I suppose you are suggesting that India was not persecuted by "IOF thugs" whoever they are and Pakistan was, and this explains the difference in prosperity and individual freedom between the two.

And why the reference to "the thugs from Brooklyn", how many of this unexplained group went to Israel and why should they be denied as long as they obey INTERNATIONAL LAW and go to a territory established by INTERNATIONAL LAW which accepted them?

Incidently how do you describe the bombers who murdered 3000 New York citizens and whose efforts were financed and encouraged by a group led by Osama Bin Laden a rather rich member of an aristicratic Saudi Arabian family?

Will you dismiss all of this as Zionist propaganda or would you prefer to blame it on the American imperialists or perhaps the multinationals. Try the communists thay haven´t been blamed for anything for a long time.

sganot:
1)It's OK, why not just say you haven't read 'Apartheid Israel'?
2)If I "thought wrongly" that "Arabs" couldn't buy land in 93% of Israel, demonstrate my 'error', don't just assert it. "Why must Palestine [ie the occupied West Bank] be Judenrein"? Who knows what might be possible if and when the Occupation ends. In a binational state of Israel/Palestine embracing all who presently live between the sea and the Jordan, & those potential citizens currently in exile in refugee camps, all of its citizens could live wherever they choose AS EQUALS. Oops, don't choke on your coffee!
3)Read Dennis Ross, Zionist - what was your word? - "wingnutter" and WINEP-member? Dennis Ross's book is - what was that expression of yours? - "full of fabrications".
4)Diddums.
5)UNSCOP report, eh? There's just one teensy problem: you left out 105,000 Bedouin. 407,000 + 105,000 = 512,000 Palestinian Arabs to 499,000 Jews. Are you sure you're on top of this subject now? "JJerusalemites entitled to vote in the Jewish state"? Cite your source. And those ultra-orthodox, weren't many - gasp - anti-Zionist? Now they'd be itching to vote for Ben-Gurion's mob, wouldn't they? As for the "700,000" that "came within a few years" - uprooted from Iraq, Yemen etc (by covert Zionist campaigns) to take over the homes and lands stolen from the Palestinian refugees, they cannot be imported into a discussion of Palestine in the late 40's. In fact, but for the Zionist conquest of Palestine and the Nakba, they'd most likely still be living in their respective homelands. You lot wanted the land, but its people had to go to accomodate your obsession with ethno-religious exclusivity.
6)The entire anachronistic Zionist project from its inception was predicated on carving a Jewish state for an immigrant population out of a mostly non-Jewish land, two-thirds of whose inhabitants in the late 40's were still non-Jews, AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE MAJORITY OF ITS POPULATION. That was a bad idea from the beginning and we are living with the sorry results today. No, it isn't a tragedy - to you.

Logic and Sganot....

don't you guys 'yet' see the problem ?

Sunisle mentions 'INTERNATIONAL LAW'

Strewn mentions 'AS EQUALS' and reconsructs the numbers to fit his scenario etc....

History and common sense tell us that 'as equals' is probably the most naive of all statements when it comes to Muslims and Non Muslims
which include Orthodox and plain 'religious' Jews.

Strewns comment totally ignores (OR ...is it skilfully camoflages) the Hamas Charter of TOTAL "Islamic" (not 'Arab') control of the whole area.

In each case where you folk are arguing from numbers or international law, you are disputing the other parties view,sources,facts, and are spinning them to suit your own desired outcome.

I repeat, does it surprise you that I rest on the side of ethno/Religious cleansing ?

Do you REALLY believe that you can persuade the other side to adopt your view ?

When Sunisle and Strewn goto Redfern, contact the senior Aboriginal Elders (or to Fitzroy if Melbourne) and indicate that they have now vacated their property, which is to be returned to the 'rightful' owners, (but they will continue paying the mortgage) because truly Indigenous people of Australia have the same rights not to be 'occupied' as Arab Palestinians.....then their chirpings and mutterings might have some credibility.

After Jesus had fed the 5000, and then the 4000 he asked "Do you not yet understand"? (They were worried about 'not having bread').... so interestingly, the next thing Jesus does is heal a 'BLIND' man.
'What do you see' He asked "I see men, like trees walking" i.e. BLURRED.
Do you guys see trees or men ?

sunisle, cc: Logic,

If “no Islamic nation …is doing well", it isn’t because of Israel! Even if one accepts your hopelessly one-sided analysis about the violence in Israel/Palestine, this only explains the condition of about 0.5% of Muslims. What about the other 99.5%? In truth, the violence goes in both directions, and like most Muslims, most Israelis come a background of recent liberation from colonization, occupation, enslavement, and worse, but Israel is doing much better than the Palestinians who were offered independence simultaneously.

Re "thugs from Brooklyn", you clearly don't know Israelis. Few are from the USA, fewer from Brooklyn, and still fewer are “thugs”. One researcher found that there are four times as many Israelis in the USA as Americans in Israel. (I think he underestimates the imbalance.) If indigenous people are to return to their native lands, far more will go from the US to Israel than from Israel to the US!

You don't seem to get that Israel is the Jewish homeland. Like many countries throughout the world (Armenia, China, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Ireland, Japan, Poland, Spain, and Taiwan, to name a few), we have a special relationship with a diaspora population, and this is partly expressed in preferential treatment re immigration and acquisition of citizenship. This is quite legal, and very much the international norm. If the Palestinians ever accept the independence they’ve been offered, their state too will have a discriminatory "Law of Return", and they’ll bring “thugs” from Brooklyn, Beirut, and Brisbane who weren't born here, have never seen the land, and have no more kinship to it than the man on the moon.

Strewth,

You and Davis tend to conflate JNF land with all of Israel. The JNF was founded to buy and prepare land for Jewish settlement, and acts as a kind of Jewish “wakf”. It doesn’t sell land to anyone, Jew or non-Jew. The Supreme Court recently ruled that because of the JNF’s special relationship with the state, its land-allocation policy is unfairly discriminatory. But the JNF only owns 13% of Israeli land.

Continued…

Sunisle said:

*Thugs from Brooklyn have no more connection with the land than the man on the moon*....

Sun.. mate.. do you want to put money on that ? how about a million ? :)

Step 1
Goto New York of even Melbourne, Sydney ..anywhere in fact, and look up the phone book and find the 2 names "Levi" and "Cohen". There are plenty.
Step 2 Learn some Judaism and Jewish culture, and discover that both these names have been preserved biologically/Genetically all the way down history from Aaron, brother of Moses. (i.e. direct connection)

Step 3 Goto Jordan, and then take a guided tour to PETRA where you will find.. wait for it... sit down... AARONS TOMB.

The promise from God to Abraham concerning the land was carried through to Aaron/Moses and confirmed time and time again.

So, with all due respect, these biological descendants to the land have a pretty good claim no matter where they happen to be currently.

SOLUTION TO MIDDLE EAST version 3
(Sunisles version... as I understand it)

Your view is (correct me if I'm wrong)

a) Palestinians be allowed to return to land/homes they fled from (or were driven from, depending on which history u read).
b) Israelies currently living on this land should be kicked off and sent who knows where.
c) Israel then becomes 'Palestine' with a large population of Jews and Arab Muslims.
d) They will all now live in harmony because "they should".
e) They will never squabble over resources, water, farmable land etc, nope..they will just have a quiet talk and work it out.
f) Hamas will magically disappear along with their 'Charter'.
g) Jerusalem will have lions,lambs and maybe a few Squirrels lying down together at Temple Mount, and the Orthodox Jews will simply 'change their minds' about 3000 yrs of Jewish heritage.
h) The UN, Humanist society, and Left wing Political groups and you will pat them all on the head, -peace now reigns.

PROBLEM SOLVED (?)

Do you see any difficulty with this... maybe just a tad like a dream ?

Goodness, what a waste of time this is...it is impossible to talk facts and rationale to 1. a person who refers to a book written thousnads of years ago by men wandering around in a desert.....so what if a person from New York has a name like Cohen...Does that mean tha all the Davies', Thomas' and Owen-Bennetts' from around the world can go to Wales and expel the people living there and take their land?

2.a person who goes on and on about being Jewish...smooish...who cares? Get over it...it isn't important....humanity is.

Get with the plot...this is about intertnational law and human beings in need becasue they are occupied by other human beings.

I have had a busy day( and worthwhile) at work and feel that you do need to get real...can't be bothered to keep stating the facts...they obviously mean nothing to you...oh, and the constant prattle about biblical times- can all the Papadopolous', Hatzianisis' etc around the world now go and take homes from the people living in Greece? - Because Homer wrote about it years ago?

And the person vilifying milllions of human beings he/she does not know becasue they are Arab/Muslim/ Palestinian , racism is for the ignorant.

On the argument between Sunisle and Boaz re ethnicity: have either of you read Arthur Koestler's book "The Thirteenth Tribe" (not sure of the date, lost my copy). Koestler said that Ashkenazi Jews are probably not semitic at all, (therefore had never set foot in Palestine) but instead were the scattered descendants of the Khazar kingdom whose king had converted to Judaism - and all his subjects had to follow suit - in order to avoid an awkward choice between Islam and Christianity. When invaded later these non-Semitic Jews fled north, to what is now East Europe,populating what became the Jewsih ghettoes of the cities. Perhaps some of you scholars know more than I do, but given the accuracy of genetic testing these days, this would be an easy way of resolving the ethnicity debate. I won't hold my breath, but until Koestler is proved wrong I have the right to question Boaz's arguments about ancient bloodlines etc. In short, the Levis and Cohens are probably no more pure than the rest of us, and all this may explain why many Israelis have fair hair and blue eyes. This may seem like a minor quibble but since being able to prove that you are "Jewish" gives you the right to migrate to someone else's land, and exclusive rights to own it, the matter is of more than academic interest.

sunisle

You keep claiming that you are talking about facts.

One of the principal facts which you claim is that the Arab Palestinians are the indigenous inhabitants. This is clearly not so. They were certainly the majority when the first Eastern European immigrants arrived at the beginning of the 19th century but never indigenous. Arriving immigrants from Europe did not have guns and purchased their land. This sort of thing happened in Wales, in France, in Taiwan and elsewhere often without the support of the majority. Nevertheless in these other countries they all moved on.

If we use your logic Australia would allow only the aborigines and people of British and Irish descent. The Arab, Lebanese and Turkish immigrants would certainly have to go as they were not represented on the first fleet or in early colonial times.

In Egypt the Arabs would now have to leave as the Copts and perhaps some of the Jews were well in evidence long before invading Arab armies arrived and have been there ever since. In fact they have been treated badly and encouraged to leave.

Also you quote International law. A UN resolution partitioned the British colony called Palestine into two sections. In violation of International law the surounding people started a campaign of terror intending to "throw the Jews into the sea." The Jews defended themselves successfully and later did the same against invading foreign armies from outside the Palestine area who attemted to illegally invade the UN accepted state of Israel, hardly in accordance with International law. This is not to say that Israel has not also violated International law

I am not at all happy with the way Israel is prosecuting its defence at the moment and there I could find myself often agreeing with you but at least there are demonstrations against the Israeli goverment actions in Israel itself. I would like to see a similar action in Gaza but am not sure that public demonstrations for peace with Israel are very accepted there.

Strewth (continued),

-93% refers to land controlled by the state, not privately owned -- land on which both Jews and Arabs live, work, farm, etc.

-Re Judenrein Apartheid Palestine, "who knows what might be possible" isn't good enough. If the Palestinians wanted a binational state where all are equal, they could have it right now. They could start by legalizing Jewish land ownership throughout PA territories.

-What USCOP says about the 90,000 [not 105,000] Bedouins isn't clear, but the meaning may be that, while considered citizens of the Arab state, they can seasonly migrate across the border. If so, they'd have no political impact on the Jewish majority.

In any case, after the report was released, changes to the partition plan (such as the reassignment of Jaffa) reduced the Arab population of the Jewish state by ~180,000.

-From the UNSCOP report: "Arabs and Jews residing in the City of Jerusalem who have signed a notice of intention to become citizens, the Arabs of the Arab State and the Jews of the Jewish State, shall be entitled to vote in the Arab and Jewish States, respectively."

Most Jewish Jerusalemites are not ultra-Orthodox, a smaller proportion was in 1948, and most ultra-Orthodox Jews vote. Whether they'd vote for Ben-Gurion's or another party is irrelevant.

-The immigrants are important in this discussion because Israel was founded not only for its current residents in 1948, but also to end the statelessness, persecution, and oppression suffered by millions of Jews abroad.

-Strewth: "As the Mayor of Jerusalem wrote to France's chief rabbi in 1899: 'In the name of God, leave Palestine in peace.' "

Al-Khalidi also wrote to the rabbi: "God knows, historically it is indeed your own country!"

What happened to Jews who took Al-Khalidi's advice, stayed in France, and left Palestine in peace? Over a quarter of them -- about 77,000 people, including 8,000 children under age 13 -- were deported to places like Auschwitz. Of these, around 97% were murdered.

One more thing: I couldn't care less if you think that Israel was a bad idea.

KANG

Ashkenazi Jews, -you (and_Koestler) are probably correct. No argument there. The most that can be safely said is that if they follow Judaism, they are 'Jews' in the biblical sense of embracing the covenant just as Jesus and King David's line include 'Ruth' in their ancestry, and Ruth was a 'Moabite' but she said "I want to worship the God of Israel"... That's how it works.

COHENS LEVI'S.. on this matter, I advise you to research this yourself. I would agree with you on any other 'Jewish' name, but not those ones. I'll await :)

SUNISLE your a difficult sheep to pen u know... running this way and that. I showed my understanding of 'your' solution to the Middle East QUITE APART from any reference whatsoever to Biblical points, and gave you the opportunity to fine tune/correct it.. even gave it in point form, yet all you can do is abuse me and rave on about 'some old book' (which was not mentioned in my point form of your plan.)

How about correcting any wrongly stated points, and adding others that I missed in that list, so we can actually have 2 way COMMUNICATION.

You mention 'International Law'..... and most importantly, FACTS.

The problem with this, is demonstrated by the encounter between Strewn and Sganot,

STREWN "fact" Rabbi of Jerusalem says "Leave Palestine alone"

SGANOT "fact" Same Rabbi also said "Its our land"

So, when it comes to this kind of thing, 'selective' use of 'facts' is done to support ones viewpoint.

You only see a massive Israeli invasion, but you are blind to 1000 Rockets shot at Israel over the past 2 yrs or so.
The idea that the Palestinians are 'defending' themselves is ludicrous, rediculous and without credibility at all, why ? Because it would be impossible to defend themselves against the IDF if it "chose" to run them all into the sea.

The current exercise is just a grasping for limelight and publicity and attention, given that Iraq has sidelined them.

SUNISLE....last word "Can you PLEASE correct,add to or subtract from my point list " ?

Sganot & Logic the points you raise are very enlightening.
They demonstrate very clearly – The emperor has no clothes.
Keep it up

Hello all,

My 2 cents.

Some of the postings have been very interesting, but I find it incomprehensible how some posters take such a one eyed view on this subject. Both the Israelis and Palestinians have committed horrible atrocities in the course of this conflict and yet the number of posters who seem in complete denial regarding their own side’s improprieties or who simply rationalise them is incredible.

My imprecise understanding:

* it was the Jews who first used terrorist bombing tactics in the middle east, against the British to encourage their departure and protest British restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine, but it was the Palestinians (and/or their Islamic supporters) who have since 'refined' it into its present appalling civilian targeting form;

* it was the newly formed Israeli army which first encouraged the 'Arab' population to leave the region with terror tactics during the 1948 conflict, but it was the neighbouring Arab countries who started that conflict and the ones that followed;

* it is the Israelis who have killed more Palestinians than visa versa, but it is the Palestinian affiliated terrorist groups who clearly have entrenched policies of deliberately targeting civilians ahead of the Israeli military.

Clearly both sides in this conflict have engaged in deplorable behaviour, and no useful dialogue is possible unless both sides acknowledge this.

Surely anyone can understand why Palestinians are seething with resentment and anger at their situation. They are trapped in squalid ghettos with few prospects of a better life. Similarly, anyone ought to understand why the Israelis, subject to recurring bombings of buses, markets, wedding functions and night clubs, feel a similar seething hatred.

Their hatred of each other is completely understandable and whether history, theology, or even reason, can justify the actions of one SIDE or another, it cannot justify the atrocities inflicted on the vast majority of innocent INDIVIDUALs on both sides. Which side is right is a waste of time. The important question is how to end the conflict, not ideally, but practically.

A dead child is a tragedy regardless of its parentage.

SUNISLE please ignore this post, and make a response to my point list of my understanding of your 'position' and then, please provide if u don't mind a brief summary of 'actual' expected outcomes.

Kalan, I think

a) it's way past time we stopped referring to all those who use violence against 'us' as 'Terrorists',
b) Realized that it is just a convenient term to allow us to avoid the actual reality "Islamic Extremism/orthodoxy", which is not very Oil Diplomacy friendly these days.

The simple fact of history and life is... that most entrenched regimes will not, without a damn good kick in the balls, give up wealth, privilege and income streams based on the oppression of others.

The English Anglicans who assumed ownership of most Irish land after Cromwell in the 1600s. Hence the IRA in the 1900s and kaboom.
The terrorists in my view were on both sides. Its just that one was using 'the Law' based on previous violence , while the other used violence 'today' to address the injustice of the violence of the 1600s.

English reliance on the Opium trade,

(the British Crown in cahoots with the Sasoon family, which happened to be Jewish) resented the Chinese desire to rid themselves of this socially debilitating drug foisted on them in the interests of Revenue for the Crown, and fought a war to put the uppity chinese back in their place. (My my how things are different NOW)

The American war of Independance......from England. (Taxes without representation etc)

Indian uprising.

The English had pretty much EVERY bit of manufacturing and supply tied up in 'English' hands to the total exclusion of the Indians.

As far as I'm cocnerned the Palestinians are simply fighting for what they see as an injustice. Well, go for it I say, the main problem is, that given the choice living peacefully in altered circumstances (loss of original land) and fighting one of the largest armed forces in the world, (and be trampled in the dust each time they do) they choose the unwinnable. Ok.. they can also live with that choice.

Hi All,

Firstly, I completely agree with Kalin's openining comment on all those posters above who are claiming that it's all Israels fault or it's all the Palestinians fault; Wake up! Playing the blame game is not going to get us anywhere but further away from a solution and certainly has no place in any reasoned debate.

Secondly, the original article by Colin Anderson (remember him?), was pointing out a perceived bias in the Australian press of the conflict. I tend to agree with his point.

As Australia has become more and more "US-centric" particularly in our support of the US position on almost everything in global politics, so has our media and reporting become less and less Australian/independent (No small thanks to Rupert among others). This may be difficult to see for many of those living in Australia, however having been resident in several overseas countries over the last 15 years myself, it really stands out like a sore thumb!

I don't think any sane person can disagree that having an unbiased and accurate source of information via the fourth estate is essential in allowing people to make informed decisions and opinions. The current situation in the US, where the largely corporate controlled media always reports from the Israeli perspective, has contributed in no small way to the ongoing conflict. Especially in a post 9-11 America, the constant branding of all Palestinians as terrorists has taken away any domestic pressure that could've been brought to bear on the current adminstration to use its considerable influence in the region to bring about a peaceful, equitable and long lasting solution.

Some interesting reading for those who are interested in the origins of the current conflict and the origins of some of the US media bias.

http://tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=100409

I have read some of Sandy Tolan's articles before and highly recommend his latest book "The Lemon Tree : An Arab, a Jew, and the Heart of the Middle East".
About Sandy Tolan;
"He directs the Project on International Reporting at the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California-Berkeley, where he was an I.F. Stone Fellow. He has produced dozens of documentaries for National Public Radio, reported from the Middle East since 1994, and from more than two dozen countries over the last 25 years. He has also served as an oral history consultant to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial" Museum.

Kalin,

You have I think summed up the situation fairly well. I might take issue with you on some points but overall I agree. Of course each side consists of huge numbers of human beings. Many Israelis have marched in opposition to hardline policies, and many Palestinians have shown disagreement with the Hamas position. The trouble is that when sides start hurting each other the moderates are never heard. After the Nazi bombing of London the English started to hate the Germans hence the dreadful bombing of Dresden.

kang

Koestler's theory on the descendency of the Ashkenazi Jews I understand never had any currency amongst historians. He is a popular author like Dan Brown and shouild not be taken seriously. Do a Google on Jews DNA. Extensive DNA analysis revealed that Ashkenazi Jews were not related to the Kazars so that should put that idea to rest.

What the analysis did show is a common lineage on the male side of most Jews to other semitic groups. But not necessarily to any biblical Aaron. It also showed extensive intermarriage of Jews to nations where they lived, ie Russia Georgia etc.

Interesting but it has no bearing on the matter. The Jews arrived in Isael many from Arab countries and many from Europe. A small number have claims that they were there before the Arabs and therefore are the indiginous people of the area. They dominated some areas, many were desparate for survival and many of the Arabs were very territorial as is normal for human beings.

The matter was handled appallingly by all sides and we now have the mess we see now.

Taiwan Teacher’s_link.
Small letters “The way the Left sees things” BIAS!

BALANCE inCAPITALS.. “The other side of the coin” (ADDED by me)

QUOTE
Under the pretext of forcing the release of a single soldier "kidnapped by terrorists" (or, if you prefer, "captured by the resistance"), Israel has done the following:

1/_seized members of a democratically elected government; [WHICH IS COMMITTED TO DESTROYING ISRAEL according to its own charter]

2/_bombed its interior ministry, [WHERE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL IS PLANNED]

3/_Bombed the prime minister's offices, [AS ABOVE]

4/_a school [BEING USED BY MILITANTS TO PLAN ATTACKS]

5/_threatened another sovereign state (Syria) with a menacing overflight; [THE HAMAS BOSS IS THERE]

6/_Dropped leaflets from the air, warning of harm to the civilian population if it does not "follow all orders of the IDF" [YES, ITS CALLED FAIR WARNING – “We” warned Dresden?]

7/_Loosed nocturnal "sound bombs" under orders from the Israeli prime minister to "make sure no one sleeps at night in Gaza" [A STATEofWAR EXISTS!]

8/_Fired missiles into residential areas, [WHERE MILITANTS DELIBERATELY WORK]

9/_Killing children; [ALLOWED UNDER ISLAMIC JIHAD_LAW as long as unintended.]

10/_Demolished a power station that was the sole generator of electricity and running water for hundreds of thousands of Gazans. [WAR is UGLY]

ENDQUOTE.

Abbas condemns the Rockets and Tunnels and kidnapping, BUT FAILS TO ARREST the Militants. The rocket attacks are ACTS OF WAR.
This continnnnual cycle of Palestinians ‘condemning’ themselves for attacks on Israel but NOT DOING anything to stop it, is laughable. We all know the government is either intimidated by the gunmen, or USING them.

Simple Question. -If militants did NOT kidnap the soldier NO Rockets were fired at Israel, WOULD they IDF be where they are now ?

Answer: “NO” they would be back at their bases but..... when Israel got sick of rockets and the kidnapping/attack which was the last straw -they acted. What’s the point of shooting lame rockets at an enemy who could wipe the floor with your scalp at any time it chooses ? Can only be PROPOGANDA reasons. Blame Al_Aksa/Hamas etc for the ensuing deaths.

The Israelis wouldn't be attacking Gaza now or have bombed the power station, if it weren't for Hamas kidnapping Corporal Shalit. True.

Hamas's kidnapping is a justifiable response to Israel's shelling of Gaza, resulting in the massacre of the Ghalia family. True.

Israel wouldn't have been shelling Gaza if it weren't for the Palestinian rocket attacks. Probably true.

Palestinians wouldn't have been firing rockets if Israel would address some of its other human rights issues, such as the indefinite captivity of many Palestinians, including many teenagers, without trial. Maybe true

Israel wouldn't have locked up these people if they weren't involved in insurgent activity. Probably true.

The Palestinian insurgency wouldn't be happening if Israel hadn't driven these people into such a crowded and marginal situation in the first place (beginning with the 1948 conflict). True.

Israel wouldn't have had to treat Palestinians like dangerous enemies if it weren't for the hostility and military aggression of the Palestinians and the surrounding Islamic nations. True.

Neither the Palestinians nor the neighbouring Arab nations would have been so hostile if the Jews hadn't come to Palestine to revive the ancient Jewish state of Israel. True.

Jews wouldn't have come to Palestine in numbers sufficient to form a viable Israel if it weren't for the Nazi Regime and the holocaust. Probably true.

The Holocaust perhaps wouldn't have happened if the British and French had stomped on Hitler at the outset before Germany became a near insurmountable military power. Probably True.

Britain and France would have been stronger had they not been so gutted by World War One.
Maybe True.

Etc, etc,

The further back you go the murkier it gets, but the point is that justifying an atrocity by reference to the other side’s last atrocity is a futile exercise. In a conflict as old as this one the chain of madness, human failure and atrocity is so long that whatever moral high ground one side may once have held has since been covered in blood.

What is the point of arguing which SIDE is more guilty?

Continued.

More fundamentally, the slaughter of innocent individuals by reference to the 'crimes' of nations is ludicrous. All collective terms for people (such as Israel, Palestine) are fictions of convenience. The are simply ideas which have been given an artifical life for reasons of social and political convenience. Like all generalisations, they are often misleading when dealing with in the specific.

When we say Israel or Palestine did this or that, we must always keep in mind we are attributing intelligent and blameworthy behaviour to a fiction. Neither Palestine nor Israel have a mind capable of moral decisions or suffering.

Collectives don't inflict attrocities, people do.

Collectives don't suffer atrocities, people do.

Imagine a maimed little five year old boy - both his legs torn off by ordinance. Do you sympathise with him more or less depending on who his parents are? If your answer is yes, then you are part of the problem not the solution.

The bad guys aren't Israelis or Palestinians, they are the people who perpetuate the hatred.

Well done Kalin.

Shorbe, Nokia's annual turnover is ~$40b. Israel has no oil, and its GDP is $129b. Comoros, Djibouti, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Mauritania, and Palestine (all members of the Arab League) produce virtually no oil, and have a combined GDP of ~$187b.

----
Kalin, Kang, Logic, Taiwan Teacher, et al.,

I concur with Logic re Kalin's messages. They include much truth and wisdom, and though I might disagree with a few details, that’s hardly important. I recommend that people interested in reducing the hatred and violence get involved in supporting one of the numerous groups that promote peaceful coexistence, such as Children of Abraham (http://www.sonsofabraham.net/ ), the Encounter organization (http://www.salam-shalom.net/ ) whose online forum (still temporarily down) I mentioned earlier, and the Abraham Fund (http://www.abrahamfund.org ).

I also agree with much of what has already been said by others re Khazars. The Khazar legend is based on a historical Jewish kingdom, but it isn't clear that they contributed much to the Ashkenazi genetic pool. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars : "although Khazars might have been absorbed into the Jewish population it is unlikely that they formed a large percentage of the ancestors of modern Ashkenazim." The article goes on to say that Koestler's theory is not supported by mainstream researchers, and is widely discredited.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi#Origins_of_Ashkenazim , "there is a consensus of cultural, linguistic, and genetic evidence that the Ashkenazi Jewish population originated in the Middle East."

Overwhelming evidence shows that Ashkenazi and Sefardi Jews tend to be most similar to each other (more closely related than either is to surrounding populations of non-Jews), and that both groups are closely related to Syrians, Palestinians, Lebanese, Kurds, and Druze. Interestingly, one study indicates that Sefardi Jews are more closely related to Europeans than Ashkenazi Jews, and concludes that "Ashkenazim are not closely related to their Central and Eastern European neighbors or to any group outside the Middle East or Near East."

Those who wish to pursue this topic may be interested in the following:
http://www.cryptojews.com/Comparing_DNA.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8935325&dopt=Abstract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron
http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt161g.htm
http://www.med.nyu.edu/genetics/research/jewish_origins.html
http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.asp?rid=540
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Owens_King_99.html
http://jewniverse.ru/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t882.html
http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html
http://www.barzan.com/kevin_brook.htm

(Continued below…)

(Continued from above)

The genetic and historic research is of course intriguing, but the real question is why any of this should matter to the Israeli- Palestinian and wider Arab-Israeli conflicts. It shouldn’t matter whether genetic evidence points to Jewish origins in Antarctica or Palestinian origins in Australia. We’re both here now, and there really are only two choices: long-term, peaceful coexistence or one side pushing out the other.

Kang: “…since being able to prove that you are ‘Jewish’ “

Jewish status is not determined by genetics. The results of these genetic studies of Jewish origins are interesting, but they have no direct bearing on how either Jewish religious law (halacha) or the secular law of the State of Israel determine who is a Jew.

Kang: “gives you the right to migrate to someone else's land…”

No, Kang, it gives you the right to migrate to your own land, that is, to the Jewish homeland. To call Israel “someone else’s land” seems unwarranted on historic, legal, and other grounds.

And this is the same right that Armenia, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Liberia, Poland, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, etc., give to members of some “preferred” ethnic group. It is very typical to give priority to potential immigrants who share a national, ethnic or historic identity or bond with the country or with the majority of its people.

Kang: “and exclusive rights to own it…”

Land ownership in Israel is not exclusive to Jews.

The events in Lebanon demonstrate clearly the necessity of not releasing prisoners in exchange for captured soldiers. The obvious 'arab'(simplification I know) reaction to which would be the continued attacks on Israeli positions & patrols in order to kidnap, or take prisoner of war, more israeli civilians & soldiers.

Obviously what Israel must do is capture 10,000s of prisoners from both Lebanon and Gaza to exchange for their three.

Interesting to note, Israel has stated that if the latest two hostages are not returned (not prisoner's of war, they have not advised Israel of their whereabouts or provided them with access to the Red Cross/Crescent/Mogen David), then Israel will turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years.

People fail to understand Israel's position, they are entitled to invade Lebanon & Gaza under International Law, having established cause for doing so. They are not conducting punitive raids as an occupying power, but are involved in an invasion. The rules/laws pertaining to armed conflict apply very differently to these two categories. Occupying powers cannot justify using unrestricted artillery & arial bombardment on built up areas, whereas a lawful invader can. Proportionality of response is necessary in a occupation, whereas it is not in an invasion. Occupation is basically a police action, whereas an invasion is war.

Excessive collateral damage in a police action is a crime, in an invasion it is inevitable and lawful. Both HAMAS & HEZBOLLAH must be very careful not to allow the problem to increase any further, but I bet it does.

Inshallah

2bob

Very WELL DONE Kalin...and Sganot also, considerable research has been done there !

At LAST we are starting to see some wood instead of trees.

Kalin, in regard to the Jewish mindset, you didn't go far enough back to portray it such that others can gain an appreciation of it re the land.

It is impossible to appreciate this, unless we know the events leading up to the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD70ish.
Do we not wonder why the Jewish diaspora has remained to cohesive over 2000 years ?

Why did Masada happen ? What motivated the Jews to be so staunch ?
What about Bar Kokhba's revolt in 135, the Macabeean wars pre Christ.
Why is it that TORAH is a feature of Jewish life in all parts of the world in the diaspora ?

ONE REASON and ONE reason ALONE.

Genesis 13:14

The LORD said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, "Lift up your eyes from where you are and look north and south, east and west. 15 All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring [a] forever. 16 I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. 17 Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you."

OK.. this explains the Jewish connection to the land.

The availability of this promise, depended on OBEDIENCE to the Law and covenant. So, it is reasonable to say that Jews NOT living in obedience to their covenant calling have no right (other than 'might') to the land.

Christians are in reality divided as to whether this applies to today.
Jesus was/is the fulfillment of the covenant, the Law etc, so in our view (some) there is no need for the land anymore. To unconverted religious Jews, they would see it in terms of the original promise.
Non religious Jews would more likely see it in terms of survival and nationalism.

PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS.

having now tossed around some rather radical ideas, and the debate arriving at the more balanced point as reflected in Kalins good post, we can now look at real solutions.

1/ Dispersion and Absorption for displaced Muslim Arabs.

This would not really need to involve the whole Muslim population. The primary sources of militancy come from the refugee camps of Ramallah (where the Arabs of Lydda and Ramla were driven) and from other camps in Gaza and West bank. These are the prime candidates for re-settlement (willing or not) and absorption in other countries (Muslim/Arab)

The remainder would be required to committ to:
a) Submission to Israeli rule
b) Loyalty to the Israeli State.

This would be in the form of a ‘treaty’ which Muslims are very familiar with in terms of their own history and Mohammed’s example. Muslims understand that the breaking of a treaty is a death wish, so it should be effective. Specially after the first few executions for those who break it.
(as the 700-900 Jews of Banu Qurayza were executed by Mohamed for this reason)

2/ Return of Exiled Arabs to previous locations within Israel ?

This is unfortunately not even on the ladder of possible solutions, but without it, things will never change from generation to generation, so this leaves solution 1 above as the only viable one.

Approaches such as Strewths, are designed and calculated to achieve just one goal, supremacy and dominance of Muslims in Palestine and the removal of Jews. He/She is irrelevant.

DEMOGRAPHY While the overall fertility rate of Palestinian Muslim Arabs in Jordan,Gaza and West bank is actually DEcreasing, importantly, the fertility rate among REFUGEES is ‘increasing’. Gaza is notable in this regard. So, the highest growth in population of Muslims is among those who nourish the ‘hate Israel’ industry.

http://www.iussp.org/Brazil2001/s60/S62_02_khawaja.pdf

While exiled Arab Muslims remain in the vicinity of their previous homes, -dreaming of peace is to live in fantasyland. (20 miles from Ramallah to Lydda I think)

UN mandated Jerusalem? In the light of history, just a pipe dream.

.

As previous attempts to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict have been totally unsuccessful, how about trying some extreme remedies? Such as removing Jerusalem from the equation by making it an independant city state like the Vatican, administered as a holy city by a Jewish, Christian & Islamic triumvirate. Such as the international community forcing Israel to comply with UN resolutions and retreat to its internationally recognized borders and remove its west bank settlements. Such as arming the Palestinians on a par with Israel so they can have a mini cold war across their border – with luck neither of them would dare attack. Such as telling the Palestinians that if they want to breed like rabbits they will have to put up with living like rabbits.

Candide

Er... umph.

What has happened to Strewth? I miss him. I hope he is well.

Candide,

Your premise seems to be, how can we take a bad situation and make it worse.

1) Making Jerusalem independent -- not a new suggestion. It was part of the never-implemented 1947 partition plan. A "Jewish, Christian & Islamic triumvirate", if each side is equal, unfairly reduces Jewish and magnifies Muslim and especially Christian power in proportion to their actual numbers. City residents would probably prefer that, while the city remain open and united, the Jewish parts be administered by Israel and the Arab parts by Palestine. The real difficulty is with the Old City, in particular the holy places. An international, multireligious regime over the Temple Mount is worth considering.

2) It would only be fair to force all parties to comply with UN resolutions, not just Israel. And there is no international border between Israel and the West Bank, just an armistice line.

3) To arm the Palestinians on a par with Israel is a recipe for disaster, and would not result in a "cold war" stalemate. This suggestion ignores the existence of multiple, well-armed and aggressive Arab states, Iran, and groups like Hizbullah; ignores differences between the Arabs and Israelis in land size, natural resources, population size, political culture, etc; and pretends that the aims of the two sides are comparable. Just one example: Israel needs and apparently has strategic weapons to deter attacks from distant Arab and Muslim countries (such as Iran), but such weapons are useless in the Israeli-Palestinian arena.

4) Living like rabbits? What does this mean? Candide, on both sides we are people, not animals, and ought not be subject to outside "experimentation". As I indicated before, as far as international armed conflicts go, ours is hardly the most bloody, so what make you think your intervention would be welcome? If anything, outside "help" has only exaserbated the problems here. No externally imposed solution can replace what is really needed -- for the sides to sit down in direct negotations and make peace.

Sganot,
" ‘Living like rabbits’ ? What does this mean? Candide, on both sides we are people, not animals, and ought not be subject to outside 'experimentation'"

While I agree with 99% of what you've posted, I think your criticism of Candide in the above & the allusion to animal experimentation is a little unfair.She/he made a valid point.

Population growth (with all it's implications) has contributed to the problem(s) both in the Israel/Palestine conflict & further north in Lebanon & it will have a major bearing on how these problems are viewed by the rest of the world and resolved in the future.

Additionally, cultures/countries have to take on board the lesson that they cannot go forth & multiply –without thought or plan for the future - & the rest of the world will pickup the tab .

Clueless in Gaza
Colin Andersen's fatuous article ignores the simplest and most obvious truth: the entire world in the end belongs to Allah and the Muslims. And Israel, a sovereign state run by Jews, is a particular affront, not only for where it is, but because the traditionally despised Jews were in charge of that sliver of land.
The Arab war against Israel is a "religious" war if we consider Islam to be a religion. It is promoted by, springs from, the tenets, attitudes, and atmospherics, of Islam. Local and non-local Muslims know this. And the Israelis, of course, prefer not to recognize that it is so, because such recognition would also lead them to conclude, inexorably, that there is no end to this war, and that negotiations are merely occasions for Arab duplicity, as Mohammed ("War is deception") demonstrated in his own treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya. Muslim Arabs, local ("Palestinians") and non-local, understand perfectly why Israel must be exterminated. They differ on the instruments through which this may best be achieved, and on the amount of time it will take -- the Rapid Jihadists of Hamas, and Hezbollah, and the Slow Jihadists of Abbas's PLO. But the understanding of what the end result must be, is shared by all of them.
It's disturbing that people who know nothing of the Mandate for Palestine or the longer demographic history of that area, nonetheless make pronouncements without this knowledge. How many know, for example, that about 90% of the land was land owned by no one except, possibly, the Ottoman rulers, and that their title passed to the British as mandatory authority, to be held in trust for the intended successor government, that of the Jewish National Home? That loaded word "occupied" (as in "occupied Arab lands" -- a phrase that says the case is closed, and we can all go home), or "occupation," which are terms that evoke goose-stepping Germans marching into Paris, and clearly suggest that the "occupier" has no valid title, no claim, to the land he is occupying. CONTINUED.

But Israel does possess a title far superior to that of the local Arabs, many of them descendants of the Egyptians and Iraqis and others who flooded in during the Mandatory period -- even though the place was supposed to be the one small sliver in the entire Middle East, that Jews would have to reconstruct their commonwealth and not to be treated, as they were everywhere, as dhimmis.
Israel’s operation in Gaza comes less than a year after its unilateral retreat, when about 8,000 Jews were expelled from communities some of them had lived in for decades. This would mean “disengagement“ from their enemies — the Palestinians would have Gaza to themselves and violence would be thwarted by the security fence. Israel would be better off without Gaza than with it. But the surrender of Gaza didn’t appease Hamas and Fatah. Instead, it convinced them that Israelis were weak, that terrorism worked. In the following months, the Palestinian war against Israel continued without letup. All that changed was the frontline — with the Jewish settlements and soldiers gone, it moved up to the border, making it easier than ever for attacks to penetrate Israel. The security fence has been no panacea. Towns in southern Israel have been bombarded by hundreds of rockets fired over the fence.
Israel, along with Kashmir, Chechnya, Southern Thailand, Sudan, Philippines etc, and soon-to-be Somalia/Ethiopia, are examples of the lesser jihads, which, in aggregate, make up the global (greater) jihad.
The global jihad is an ideological problem, not a racial one. The race card is skillfully used by the dhimmi Left to blunt criticism of jihad activity: they know that the worst thing one can be in the Western public eye today is a racist.

If we could all cut the crap out now maybe we could look at what is happening today and try and force some sort of resolution for the people living today in the hopelessness of Gaza and now Beirut which is being illegally bombed to bits.

1. Blowing up infrastructure in the Gaza is a war crime and Israel need to be condemned loudly - except Bush and Howard and Blair, the trio of lying killers back Israel and the rest of the world just want peace. The question here is what did the 1.3 million civilians of the Gaza do to deserve this brutality? Did they blow up Israel? It is over 45degrees every day, how do they chill their children's food, the milk and the water to prevent disease? The hospitals have little electricity and medicine, how do they treat the hundreds of injured?

2. Beirut civilians - blowing up the civilian infrastructure was a war crime, killing over 75 civilians is a war crime, blowing up the bridges and roads, bombing ordinary people to punish someone else who walks free is a war crime.

3. Bombing Haifa is a war crime by the Lebanese. The people of Haifa did not bomb Beirut.

Does anyone else see how futile it all is? We sit here in our armchairs playing armchair warriors and it is the people of three nations that are suffering mightily.

We have to convince that moron Bush and the two poodles that Israel is just plain wrong on this one - soldiers are part of a war machine, the power supply, the roads, the airports and other structures are not.

Except I guess with the shocking war crimes committed by the moron Bush and his two poodles in Iraq the high moral ground is somewhere on the bottom of the oceans.

Marilyn,

1) You wish to "force some sort of resolution" to the conflict. Care to share with us what resolution, and how you'd force it, except, well, with force?

2) Blowing up infrastructure is not necessarily a war crime. Customary law includes infrastructure, energy, and communications facilities among legitimate targets. The Additional Geneva Protocol I, Article 52, defines a legitimate military target as one "which by [its] nature, location, purpose, or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage". Legitimate infrastructure targets include lines and means of communication, command, and control -— railway lines, roads, bridges, tunnels, and canals —- that are of fundamental military importance.

3) You say "we sit here in our armchairs playing armchair warriors..." It appears that I am the only one here to whom this doesn't apply. Are you within range of Hizbullah missiles? Have Palestinian suicide bombers attempted to infiltrate into your city? Is your community making plans to host refugees from the war zone? Do you wonder if you'll be called upon in the next day or two to defend your country from further attack?

Dear Sganot
you are an Israeli in Israel? Good. At least we can obtain first hand experience and the case argued from an Israeli perspective.

SkidMarx has a very interesting point, regarding who 'owned' the majority of the land. I wonder if any study has been done to see just how much was technically 'owned' by Arabs, and how much was 'Caliph Land' similiar to what we call 'Crown Land' ?

While it is possible to argue from the end of the Ottoman Empire and British Mandate as a reasonable starting point, and then to argue that the displacement of some Arab communities was strategically desirable to form a viable new Nation called 'Israel', -this is in reality no different from the common concept of "Compulsory Acqusition" by government of private land for the public good.

As far as I can see, the real bone of contention among displaced Arabs, is not that they had to move, (because many people groups have been forced to move by the momentum of history) but that they had to move and their land be taken by 'Jews'. No only 'non muslims' but that pesky group of Jews who Mohammed had to obliterate from the Arabian peninsula with genocide and war.

This may well be the more crucial issue, which of course connects back to the Religious argument. Would they be fighting against fellow muslims if the Caliph said "You must move so we can settle such and such a tribe there, because they helped us in a major battle against the infidels." I doubt it.. they would say "Allah permits it".... no ?

I would think that by now, you can see that no matter how well argued you case, you will eventually end up at this point. Islam. The sooner Israelis recognize this, and draw up 'final_solution' plans, which DO include mass deportations etc, the better.

I've suggested as much to the Jerusalem Post via reader feedback.
I can safely predict that if you do not move Shia Muslims from Lebanon and Palestinians from Gaza/WB you will never solve this problem.

MARILYN

clearly you're a compassionate person, but the more I read of your posts, the clearer it becomes that if you were driving the agenda's of international relations, no problem would ever be resolved.

You never blame the real source for the suffering. Hezbollah and Hamas kidnapped soldiers..... a calculated sowing. Now reaping.


You are politically naive in the extreme. No insult meant, but its clear. You see symptoms not diseases. The Middle east is historically connected to the rise of Islam and Christianity, and the ups and downs of the Jews. Here in far off meat pie land, it is unimaginable to think that such places and histories can be subject to 'international law'. It makes good PR but does not solve running sores.

Have you not noticed how the UN to which you appeal so readily is controlled by the self interest of the security council members ?

If the Russians or Chinese don't like something, they VETO it, same as with the Yanks. This is why I see no point in referring to international law. If Iran got Nukes, I'd give it one week before Israel obliterated Tehran. Ahmedinajad sees visions and dreams dreams.. has a messianic complex... you think he cares about I.L.?

The idea of 'Proportionate Response' is again extremely naive.
Militarily it is totally irresponsible. If an individual comes at you and is going to hang a king hit on you, and you stop him with a decent side kick, thats proportionate, and if he stays down, you don't do any more, but if the tries to get up, you STOMP him, and keep on stomping until he submits.

Proportionality works when there is a law to which we are all agreed to. It does NOT work in such cases as fighting Muslims who always appeal to the 'highest law'...that of Allah. (in their view)
It is a biblical concept.. "Eye for an eye" was in reality to LIMIT the response of individuals against each other, not to 'facilitate' revenge. An eye for an eye is justice, and eye plus a leg is not.

Sganot: Where were we?
1)"93% refers to land controlled by the state...on which both Jews and Arabs live, work, farm". Really? 93% of Green Line Israel is under the control of the Israel Lands Authority/JNF. 7% is privately owned, with Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel owning probably as little as 2%. The incorporation of the JNF's Constitution & Articles of Association, containing the offending apartheid distinction between Jews and non-Jews, into a number of Israeli laws ensures that 93% of Israel is off limits for non-Jews. Not a bad state of affairs for an immigrant community that owned only around 6% of Palestine in 1947-48.
2)"Legalizing Jewish land ownership throughout PA territories": alleged "ownership" of occupied land by civilians (Israeli colonists) belonging to the occupying power (Israel) is a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention. Surely you're not advocating that the PA follow Israel's example in violating the Geneva Conventions?
3) Bedouins "can migrate across the border" & so would "have no political impact on the [alleged] Jewish majority": The UNSCOP report points out that these potential citizens of the proposed Jewish state were "cultivators and stock owners who seek grazing further afield in dry seasons (in the Neqeb or Beersheba sub-district)." Both the Neqeb & Beersheba are in the proposed Jewish state.
4)My figure for the pre-war population of Jaffa is 70,000. Explain yours.
5)"Israel was founded not only for its current residents in 1948, but also to end the statelessness, persecution and oppression suffered by millions of Jews abroad." There are several problems with this: a) Israel's foundation was achieved by ethnically cleansing the indigenous Palestinian Arab population in 1948; b) The majority of the world's Jews were not "stateless" in 48 (while the majority pf Palestinians now are and have been for decades); c) The "persecution" of European Jewry was well and truly over by 1948, with most Jewish DP's preferring resettlement elsewhere than in Palestine; d) Solving the problem of European anti-Semitic persecution of Jews by persecuting a non-European people such as the Palestinian Arabs in turn is nothing short of an obscenity.
To be continued:

Sganot:
6) Re al-Khalidi, no one would dispute Judaism's spiritual attachment to Palestine. The POLITICAL ambitions of political Zionism, however, were/are a different matter. Even if you pretend that the two are the same, the founder of political Zionism, Herzl, knew what al-Khalidi was on about, ie that political Zionism constituted an existential threat to the Palestinian people, and assured him that "We will search and, believe me, we will find elsewhere what we need." And if political Zionism had taken up the British offer to set up a Jewish state in Uganda, the Ugandans would today be paying the price. Again, re the fate of France's Jews at the hands of the Nazis, the need for a refuge at the time does not logically mean that it has to be at the expense of another people or that it has to be Palestine. Indeed, Britain or the US would have been the preferred destinations of ALL Europeans who felt threatened by the Nazis.

I recently read David Grossman's Maariv editorial (11/6). You're exactly the kind of person he had in mind when he wrote it: "The view of the girl from the Gaza beach, whose life was torn to pieces in front of our eyes, must wake us up from a years-long hypnotic slumber. Instead of worrying about 'the damage to Israel's image', instead of immediately starting to formulate the automatic, cliche counter-arguments, we should take a good look at our handiwork. It is long overdue for us to notice the slippery slope down which we are sliding and to start asking which deep abyss lies ahead." How relevant now that your heroes are slaughtering not only defenceless Palestinians, but now defenceless Lebanese.

Strewth

The killing of defenceless people is appalling. But defenceless Jews are also being killed. You seem to imply that all of the Arab people being killed are defenceless. What are the bombs and rockets being fired on Israel?? Are those firing them really defenceless?

The question we should be asking is how can we get an end to the carnage? And don´t require the Jews to go. Complete generations of Israeli born Jews are there. There is no precedent for asking such people to leave. Look at Ireland, Fiji, Taiwan, Australia, Egypt (originally Copts), Canada, USA, Wales, ancient Britania, France (both originally Celts) in short almost the whole world. Get a life and move on like everyone else.

David,

Your solution to remove the Palestinians from Gaza/WB and the Shia from Lebanon - where do you propose Israel put them? Aside from the moral repugance of such 'ethnic cleansing,' wouldn't it simply shift the Palestinian and their allies' resistance to a new base of operations?

Sganot,

Please tell me why/how this military action is likely to achieve anything more than previous military actions. Whilst I understand the Israeli action can be rationalised as provoked, won't the killing of so many civillians and the imposition of such hardship on the general Lebanese/Palestinian's (by destroying so much civil infrastructure) simply perpeturate the hatred and thus create/ increase your 'motivated' enemies numbers (ie those actually inclined to join up with HB, Hamas and/or other terrorist organisations)?

Marilyn and Strewth,

You two seem solidly aligned with the Palestinian side so I'll put my question to both of you: Even accepting your position that Israel should never have been created, after almost 60 years, what realistic practical solutions can you propose?

BOAZ_David: "you are an Israeli in Israel?" Yes.

Strewth,

- SkidMarx wrote that ~90% of Israeli land was owned by the state since Ottoman times. I understand that ~70% was state-owned, 9% owned by Jews, 3% by Arabs who became Israeli citizens, and 18% by Arabs who fled during the war. If, as you claim, Arabs own 2/7 and Jews 5/7 of private land here, Jews own less, not more, than their "fair share".

-Re Jewish land ownership in PA territories, I don’t mean settlements. They are not PA-controlled land! It a capital offense for a Palestinian to sell a Jew land in PA territory, and they’ve even tried to extend this to Jerusalem and within the Green Line. Why the offending apartheid distinction between Arab and Jew in Palestinian law?

-Most of the Negev was in the proposed Jewish state, but Beersheba wasn’t.

-Jaffa wasn't the only place where the plan changed. See Simha Flapan's "The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities", p. 83.

- Israel wasn't created by "ethnically cleansing...." because it would have had a substantial Jewish majority without any Palestinian refugee flight. BTW, the "cleansing" was mutual. People on both sides fled and were expelled from the areas captured and controlled by the other. 100% of Jews living in areas of Palestine that fell under Arab rule were forced out.

-It makes no difference if the majority of Jews were or were not stateless in 1948. A very significant portion were stateless refugees from Europe, and many others lived as oppressed minorities with few or no rights. The Jewish people as a whole was stateless and its homeland occupied. Israeli independence was intended in part as an answer to this situation. BTW, it isn't clear that most Palestinians are stateless, either. More than a million are Israeli citizens; close to 3 million are Jordanian citizens; many more are citizens of other countries; and now the Palestinian Authority provides many of the functions of citizenship (though not nearly enough) for Palestinians in the territories.

continued...

Hi Kalin

"Please tell me why/how this military action is likely to achieve anything more than previous military actions. Whilst I understand the Israeli action can be rationalised as provoked, won't the killing of so many civillians and the imposition of such hardship on the general Lebanese/Palestinian's (by destroying so much civil infrastructure) simply perpeturate the hatred and thus create/ increase your 'motivated' enemies numbers (ie those actually inclined to join up with HB, Hamas and/or other terrorist organisations)?"

I thought this needed repeating.

It does seem a bit silly to embitter so many people and expect to live a peaceful life. How do we explain this? The Jews have a long and chequered history. I'm almost tempted to believe in the god who kept telling them to improve. They don't seem to learn from their history. Perhaps they want/need perpetual conflict. They are certainly going the right way about it.

Strewth (continued),

-The persecution of European Jewry was not over by 1948. For many, it continued another forty years. And where would you expect survivors of the Holocaust to live? In their destroyed towns and villages? In homes taken by neighbors who handed Jews to the Nazis or looked the other way? Yes, after the Holocaust, a few survivors did try to return to their former homes -- and some of these returnees were subsequently murdered by anti-Semitic neighbors.

It was crystal clear then, even if it isn't to you now, that most would have to be resettled on "someone else's land" -- that of native Americans, Africans, aboriginal Australians, etc. -- or in the one place on earth to which they actually have a recognized national claim, the one place that is their homeland, where they are indigenous and not temporary dwellers, guests, colonial settlers, etc. You apparently think that the very presence of Jews somehow "persecutes" Palestinians, and that it would have been better for Jews to "persecute" other people and "pollute" other lands with their presence, rather than simply going home. If you consider Jewish self-determination and independence in our homeland to be persecution, too bad. The international community disagrees, and more importantly, we disagree.

You say that if a Jewish state wasn’t in Palestine, it could be elsewhere, on someone else’s land, instead of our own. How would that be better?

Re Britain and the US: 1) Their doors were shut for most; 2) Now you are speaking in the name of all “Europeans” (presumably meaning Jews from Europe). How dare you? What do you know about their desires and preferences?

And now you can read David Grossman’s mind? David Grossman is an Israeli Jew and a Zionist, like me. His father was born in Poland, so maybe you’d expect Grossman to move there. Don’t hold your breath.

And now you claim to know who my heroes are? Did your heroes slaughter the eight killed in Haifa, the little boy and grandmother in Meron, etc?

---

Stan1, your words speak volumes about you. Get professional help.

Sganot,

As someone who is actually in the region, can you share with us what it is like to be in Israel at thist time?

How do Palestinians within Israel fair?

Stay safe.

Stan/Strewth/assorted congenital defects,

Please understand what is going on before you attempt to jump on everybody with your anti-semetic hysteria. As usual it appears that the neighbours of Israel have mistaken restraint for weakness. It appears that Hizbollah was so overconfident of Israel's inability / refusal to respond with any sting, that they offered a ceasefire within hours of the attack on the farms. There is a limit on even a democracies ability to turn away from provocation, and it has been reached and breached. Even the 'doves' are now fully behind the upcoming invasion, as they were always going to be, as they feel stupid/misled for having supported a pullout of both Gaza & Lebanon.

Hitting Haifa was probably the seminal moment in this conflict, which will now deepen, as no Israeli is likely to support leaving the terrorists in the position to shell large tracts of their country at will. Therefore it is rather irrelevant what the international community decides to do, Israel is a democracy, and as such, unless the government or opposition can promise to prevent such attacks they will not succeed at the next elections. As Hizbollah cannot be trusted, there is no option but to obliterate them.

This has only today become deadly serious.

Inshallah

2bob

Dear Kalin.
thanx for asking a question rather than jumping on me wholesale like some un-named contributors do :)

Actually, I don't feel "Israel" should relocate the Palestinians from the Camps, I feel the world community should. Mainly the Arab world.
Bringing them to a democratic country like Australia will just add to our own problems as they seek to maintain the momentum of their struggle at our social expense.

I don't find it morally or ethically repugnant to re-settle people in other countries of compatable culture. Good grief.. we have millions of people currently in many diverse camps who would 'die for' an opportunity to start building new lives in some peaceful land. You only have to meet some from Southern Sudan who have come here (culturally compatable.. nominal Christian background) to see how its not the end of the world to leave you old country for a new one.

Why Palestinians have such an attachment to 'their' land is something you might like to research ?

I suggest Southern Syria, Parts of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran (for the Hezbollah mob, being Shia) Turkey and parts of North Africa, say Libya (they have some money to help re-settle)

We (and most western countries) could take small groups BUT...on conditions of loyalty and a total turning away from any activity of protest or fund raising for terrorism related to the situation in Israel. (failure to comply would = deportation)

Keep up the good work.

Sganot:
1)"SkidMarx wrote": Oh well, that settles it, doesn't it? Are you suggesting a bricks-&-mortar version of 'There were no such things as Palestinians in 48'? Therefore, no Pal homes/lands/businesses etc. Therefore no Israeli Custodian of Absentee Property to steal said imaginary homes etc, estimated by the JNF at around 88% of pre-67 Israel? After which said imaginary homes etc (the ones not blown up by Israeli forces, that is) did NOT come under the control of the ILA/JNF? Nah - all belonged to the Ottomans as esteemed scholar, SkidMarx has revealed.
2)The hasbara is wearing thin. So now Pals in Occupied Territories are not only to sit back as Israeli colonists/army confiscate Pal land, but are also expected to fork over the crumbs left by Is colonists/army to other Israelis. You're peeing on our legs again.
3)Never underestimate The Lobby: Weizmann persuaded Truman to include Beersheba in the proposed Jewish state 19/11/47.
4)"Israel wasn't created by ethnic cleansing because it'd have a substantial Jewish majority without Pal refugee flight": As in 'Money's not everything, but it sure helps'! Why then did Israel baulk at their return in 48-9 and subsequently? "100% of Jews...under Arab rule forced out". Yeah, all 10,000 of them, as compared with 750,000 Palestinians, 85% of the population of Palestine.
5)The Zionist movement's only interest in European (or any other Jews) has always been as raw material for a Jewish state in Palestine. As your guru, Ben-Gurion himself admitted: "If I knew that it was possible to save all the children in Germany by transporting them to England, but only half of them by transporting them to Palestine, I would choose the second - because we face not only the reckoning of these children, but the historical reckoning of the Jewish people." Like any ideology, Zionism places ideological abstractions (such as 'the Jewish people') before real people. Even today, despite their exposure to Zionist indoctrination, the majority of Jews sensibly choose to remain OUTSIDE the Jewish ghetto of Israel.

David,

Yes, I noticed you do get jumped on quite a bit. I think that's because you sometimes rely on religious arguments and you sometimes put forward cut and dried answers to complex problems. Religious arguments sound preachy and are usually offensive to those who are not religiously inclined and the later just seem condescending.

To your credit, however, you are the only person in the entire thread who has put forward any remotely viable proposal to permanently resolve the problem. Even in the form outlined in your last post, it is no doubt repugnant to many and has significant practical issues, but I haven't noticed any remotely viable alternatives from anyone else (please jump in anyone with a viable alternative). I'm interested in realistic solutions not the rhetoric of hatred which so permeates this issue.

My own take is that the Palestinians, as well as being victims of Zionist ambitions, have become pawns of their Arab/Islamic neighbours. In 1948 the neighbouring Islamic countries declared war on the new Jewish state and this attack was largely justified as being necessary to protect the Palestinians. The massive displacement of Palestinians, which then occurred, was largely a result of this failed Arab aggression.

Unfortunately, while the neighbouring Islamic nations were prepared to go to war for their Palestinian cousins, that's where their compassion apparently ends. They refused, and continue to refuse, significant numbers of Palestinians as refugees and the ghetto enclaves of the West Bank and Gaza, are partly a result of this.

(continued)

Clearly, the Palestinians have been put between a rock and a hard place - Israel is the rock, but the so-called 'allies' of the Palestinians are the 'hard place.' This indicates to me that the Islamic nations are not hostile to Israel simply out of their sympathy to the Palestinians, but for other reasons.

This remains the chief practical problem with any resettlement solution. Though the rest of the Islamic world is big enough to accommodate the Palestinians, they seem completely unwilling to do so. For religious and political reasons, some Islamic nations (and/or pan national Islamic groups) see the constant aggravation of Israel and the West as desirable (quite apart from the plight of the Palestinians). That being the case, the Palestinians represent a useful tool for some Islamic nations to inflict pain on the Israeli's and distress to the West, while avoiding culpability. That so much of the aid from the Islamic world appears to primarily consist of arms, or support for terrorist organisations, speaks volumes. They need only supply arms and the Palestinians, blind to their manipulation, represent an endless supply of willing cannon fodder.

Any thoughts on how such issues can be overcome? What would it take to persuade the Arab/Islamic world to take on the task of re-settling the Palestinians and what would it take to persuade the Palestinians to go willingly - financial incentives? I can't imagine that most of them wouldn't jump at the chance of a better life elsewhere.

Kalin, you raise excellent questions; the answers deserve more space than I have. We can discuss them at length offline ( sganot@gmail.com ).

Short answer to question 1: Yes, while defending ourselves, we must be careful to avoid as much as possible killing innocent civilians.

Re what it’s like here now, obviously it's been hardest for those killed and injured, their families, and those who have lost homes and businesses in the attacks. The horrors of war are plain and obvious, and affect civilians on both sides of the border. For about a million people in Israel's north, it's very difficult, particularly for the elderly, disabled, and young children who cannot get to bomb shelters quickly and have the greatest difficulty staying in them for long periods. Many have fled or sent their children south.

Palestinians in Israel suffer like the rest of us. One of the soldiers killed in the original Hizbullah attack was Wassim Nazal, from the Druze community. Many towns that have been hit are predominantly or completely Arab -- Acre, Talal, Julis, Abu Snan, Kafr Yassif, Sakhnin, Peki'in, etc.

The violence has many side effects we don't necessarily think about – economic ruin to the region, fruit rotting on trees because no one can pick it, animals uncared for because their owners fled, etc. But the country is unified about the need to end the terrorist attacks from Lebanon and Gaza, despite the temporary hardship this causes. Again, I'd be happy to discuss this at greater length offline.

---

2bob, thanks for your support, but you are wrong about Israeli doves feeling stupid/misled for having supported withdrawal from Gaza & Lebanon. Most of us continue to believe that those policies were correct. See for example http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/737833.html

---

Strewth,

-I disagreed with SkidMarx's figure. Aren't you paying attention?

"…that settles it" , "no such things as Palestinians", and everything else in your first paragraph is surreal and bears no relation to my views, the historical record, or the current situation. Be more rational and we can talk about it.

(Continued…)

Strewth (continued...)

-About the draconian "apartheid" nature of Palestinian property law: In Australia, you can sell your house to a Jew, an Arab -- pretty much whomever you please. I can do the same in Israel. But in Palestinian-ruled territory, selling to a Jew (whether Israeli or not) is punishable by death. Don't bother trying to understand this or explain it away; anti-Semitism defies rational explanation.

-The proposed change to the UNSCOP plan would have excluded the Negev from Israel, not included Beersheba in it. Weizmann met Truman on 19/11/47 and persuaded him to support leaving UNSCOP's original recommendation unchanged. Res. 181, passed 10 days later, makes clear that the Jewish state's "Beersheba area" was "including the Negeb" but "excluding the town of Beersheba…."

-We agree that most Arabs fled or were forced out of areas that fell under Jewish rule, and all Jews fled or were forced out of areas that fell under Arab rule. We disagree about the numbers. Perhaps we'd also agree that hundreds of thousands of Jews fled or were forced out of Arab and Muslim countries, and most of them found refuge in Israel.

-Do you have a source for Ben-Gurion's quote, other than the Nazi websites where I see it featured? Do you know when and in what context it was said, and why?

Strewth, correcting your numerous and repeated errors and arguing about what happened 50-100 years ago is getting boring. I get it: You're not a big fan of Ben-Gurion or certain (real or imagined) aspects of Israeli law or the very fact of Israeli sovereignty. Too bad. If I tried, surely I could be offended by something Simón Bolívar or Lachlan Macquarie said in 1815; no one ever consulted with me about how people came to own land in South America or Australia; and gosh, who said Colombia and Australia should be independent states in the first place?

Bottom line: Israel is not negotiable, and we Israelis owe you no explanation for our national existence, just as you owe us nothing for yours in whatever country you call home.

Sganot:
1) "SkidMarx wrote that - 90% of Israel's land was owned by the state since Ottoman times." Oh, that's agreement, is it?
2) My "surreal" para bears on your attitude of exclusive entitlement to your homeland, your failure to acknowledge that, until the Palestinian refugees are accorded their right to return, it is stolen land presided over by a regime based on expulsion (of the original inhabitants), apartheid legislation (affecting those who escaped ethnic cleansing) and occupation (of the rest). On the off chance that you're not a professional purveyor of Israeli hasbara, I recommend you read "wingnutter" Davis' 'Apartheid Israel' with an open mind.
3) You can make veiled accusations of anti-Semitism all you like, but remember, you're cheapening the coin.
4) "We agree that...all Jews fled or were forced out of areas that fell under Arab control." Do we? You'd better cite the areas first.
5) Re Jewish Arabs, I don't agree they "fled or were forced out of Arab countries." That's spinning a very complex issue, which, as I've already indicated, has nothing to do with the immediate events of 48-49.
6) Ben-Gurion: Tom Segev - The Seventh Million p28
7) Australia, inlike Israel, acknowledges its colonial origins and the place of its indigenous people. Whatever their level of socio-economic disadvantage, they are not living as stateless refugees beyond its borders, but as equal citizens with non-indigenous Australians. Nor are they subjected to occupation or carpet bombing.
8) "We Israelis owe you no explanation": Sorry, but the rest of the world can't help but notice here a yawning chasm between the way you portray yourselves and treat others and the reality paraded before us in our newspapers and on television. If you don't want to explain yourselves to the rest of us, give the attention-grabbing behaviour and the bull doo doo a rest.

Sganot,

I do value your opinion, however, the following article in Ha'aretz supports the view that the 'Dove's' did not properly think out the disengagement from Lebanon:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/739500.html

Whilst the J'Post had this to say:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886020519&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

althought they did point out that some 600 protestor's took place in an anti-war rally in Tel Aviv (may have been more effective if they protested in Safed?):

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886029321&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

But, this article does point out that the left is unable to present a concerted front.

Note however, that I did; and to an extent do; believe, that HAMAS presents as a better partner for peace than the corrupt and self interested PLO derivitives. But, this belief has been tested by their willingness to continue to support the 'armed struggle' which benefits neither themselves (or their constituency), nor Israel.

Perhaps the current violence may bring them to a more realistic view of the world, particularly with regard to the world of difference between 'Ambition & Ability', which they appear to be confusing at present.

Alekhem shalom,

Aharoni

Inshallah

2 bob

Ok..time to get Strewths views on something he has said little about.

STREWTH... you mention 'right of return' for exiles.

1/ Would you expand on exactly what is to happen to the Israelies now living in the acquired land ? Given that at various points in the emmigration process, Jews 'owned' as little as 6% of the land, do you wish to now 'deport/disperse' them ?

2/ Do you really think that a much larger population of Arab Muslims will contribute to long term stability and peace withIN Israel ?

3/ Do you have any reservations about the prospects for peace between the 2 communities given that when Ariel Sharon simply 'visited' the Temple Mount, it resulted in an inta fada ? How much more when the Mosque is removed and the Temple re-built (which is an Orthodox Jewish goal)?

4/ What would you "do" with the Orthodox Jews if they achieve a political and religious position which would enable them to carry out this goal ?

5/ Don't you think a better (more workable) solution is to provide alternative land outside Israel for the internally displaced Arab Muslims ?

6/ Is you cry against the 'aparthied state' of Israel not just an indirect grab for total power ? Somewhat like when Absolom asked King Solomon (His brother) for the hand in marraige of Abishag the Shunamite, he was in fact asking for the kingdom... you will have to research that one urself :)

LASTLY.. why are u so coy about the Jews expelled/driven out of Arab countries ? Why is this suddenly a 'complex issue' when the Issue of the Palestinian Muslims is so 'straightforward' (not a quote, just emphasis)

I await.

Strewth:

1) SkidMarx wrote ~90%; my figure: ~70%. That’s disagreement.

2) Your writing without connection to reality seems a result of relying on people like Davis. Oh well...

3) Palestinian property law is anti-Semitic, violations bring draconian punishment, and if Israel had anything like this, you’d call it “apartheid”. Is that veiled?

4) Throughout Palestine, wherever Jewish communities fell under Arab control, the residents were driven out. The “cleansing” was 100%, for example in Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter, Kfar Etzion, Massuot Yitzchak, Ein Tzurim, Kfar Darom, and Beit Haarava. Invading Arab armies also drove Jews out of other areas, such as Yad Mordechai and Nitzanim, but these expulsions proved temporary, as the areas were liberated by Israel later in the war.

5) The flight of Jewish refugees from Arab countries was “complex”. So? Likewise the flight of Arab refugees from Israel. Regardless, it happened. Why say you “don’t agree”?

6) Segev is a secondary source, and you haven’t given a date or context for the quote. What does Segev say about the choices Jews in Palestine were facing, the policies Ben-Gurion was promoting when he made the statement, and alternative positions other Zionists supported? Also, what was Teveth’s interpretation of the remark?

7) A meaningful discussion comparing Australia and Israel is difficult because I see Zionist immigration as the return of an indigenous people to its homeland, while you view it as a colonial movement. We can agree to disagree about that.

Putting that aside, indigenous Australians were decimated by European diseases (perhaps that didn’t happen here because Jews and Palestinians have nearly identical genes and thus immune systems), dispossessed, and massacred. Entire communities were wiped out, and the population reduced to 10% of its previous numbers.

Indigenous Australians only got the vote in the mid-1960s, and included in counts for electoral representation since 1967. (Jews and Arabs always had equal voting rights in Israel.) Since then, Australia has slowly removed most of the remaining framework of legal discrimination, stopped the practice of removing indigenous children from their families, and taken small steps to restore some land to Indigenous Australians.

(continued...)

Strewth (continued from above…),

But of course the vast majority of land and the best land remain in the hands of colonists and their descendents, who also enjoy enormous advantages in terms of health, education, employment, etc. Australia acknowledges “the place of its indigenous people”? I suppose, but that place is on the bottom rung of society.

Indigenous Australians are not subject to occupation? For goodness sake, the entire continent is “occupied”, as are the Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Christmas Island, Cocos Islands, Coral Sea Islands, Heard Island and McDonald Islands, Norfolk Island, and the Australian Antarctic Territory.

Aboriginal Australians aren’t subject to carpet bombing? Neither are Jews or Palestinians in Israel/Palestine. (Apparently you don’t know what “carpet bombing” means.)

BTW, indigenous Australians living abroad for whatever reason have no “right of return” to Australia. And despite the recent acceptance of a few traditional land claims, there is no blanket “right of return” for the descendents of indigenous Australians who were dispossessed of their lands and displaced by colonists (which of course includes the vast majority of indigenous Australians today).

8) Yes, we Israelis owe you no explanation -- and no apology -- for our national existence.

---

2bob, shalom aleichem,

The Haaretz article is an opinion piece by a veteran senior Likud politician. He isn’t a dove, and opposed the withdrawal from Lebanon (2000) and Gaza (2005). The Jerusalem Post article quotes the opinions of rabbis who likewise were against the withdrawals, and now say “we told you so.” Whether they are right or wrong, I see no evidence that recent events have drastically changed the support of Israeli doves for the previous withdrawals. I’m sure there must be some shift of opinion on the margins. But do most previous supporters of those withdrawals now feel stupid/misled? I don’t see it.

Sganot,

I cannot fault your analysis of the first two articles, and don't seek to try. But, the third states that large sections of the left are divided over the need for this action. Which to me, given the semi-recent, still vivid, experience of many Israeli's of the previous years in Lebanon, I would have expected to give rise to a far larger, more vocal opposition than is reported to date. Although it is stated that the '82 demonstrations started small, this is a rather invalid analysis for mine, in '82 the ordinary israeli, whilst prone to disagree with political opinion and actions (LOL), where not likely to demonstrate all that quickly. The difference now, is that many israeli's now accept that people have a right to protest, whatever they damn well feel like protesting.

This analysis suggests that the initial reaction is far less than one would have expected, although I suspect that the bombardment of Haifa is responsible for much of this. I also suspect that many, like myself in fact, hoped that HAMAS would grow into a responsible neighbour, after the withdrawal, after all the Haganah and Irgun (to an extent) did. Oh well, trust is hard eh? Perhaps this is simply teething trouble, and they will mature yet.

Inshallah

2bob

Sganot:
1)"Writing without connection to reality": an apt description of Zionist spin docs such as yourself.
2)Re para 3, hasbara site, CAMERA, details Pal Prop Law banning sale of land to 'occupiers'. Occupation=crime against humanity. Occupiers=criminals. Banning land sales to such is apartheid? Choice contextualising quote from 'There's a system for turning Palestinian property into Israel's state land', Akiva Eldar, Haaretz 27/12/05: "Ehud Barak likes to compare...Israel to a villa in a jungle. It would be interesting to know whether he means that the areas of the settlements in the territories are a legal veranda of the villa or part of the jungle. Right under the noses...of prime ministers, chiefs of staff & GOCs of the Central Command...Israel has imposed the law of the jungle on those territories. The Civil Admin, with the blessing of the State Prosecutor's Office, has been a key partner in a system of real estate deals, of which the description 'dubious' would be complimentary. Building companies owned & managed by settler leaders & land dealers acquire lands from Palestinian crooks & transfer them to the Custodian of Government Property in the ILA. The custodian 'converts' the lands to 'state lands', leases them back to settler associations that then sell them to building companies. In this way it has been ensured that the Palestinians (under the law in the territories, the onus of proof is on them) never demand their lands back." You can look up the rest. From the confiscation of refugee lands in 48-49 to the present, it's a trail of hanky panky and your job is to cover it up by concocting 'Palestinian apartheid'.
3)Re para 4 and "100% ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter...Beit Haarava." Dan Kurzman, Genesis 48 writes glowing accounts of how the militarised colonists of the Etzion Bloc (inc Kafr Etzion, Massuot Yitzhak & Ein Tzurim) who routinely fired on the Arab Legion were taken, after capture, by "kind" Arab legionaires to prison in Trans-Jordan. Ditto for the Zionist forces in the Jewish Quarter. TBC

Sganot: Continued:-
He makes no mention of of the fate of Kafr Darom (also armed to the teeth) and Beit Haarava is not even in his index. There is no sense whatever in K's account that this was ethnic cleansing. As usual, you're clutching at straws.
4)Re para 5: Yes, complex, basically a covert uprooting by Zionist forces in the wake of their theft of Palestine and the ethnic cleansing (the real thing: planned, deliberate, with massacres!) and mass expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians. Try this on for size: "In spite of our constant reports that the situation in Iraq was exaggerated and artificially enflamed from without, the State Department urged us to intervene with the government to facilitate an air-lift that the Zionists were organising to 'rescue' Iraqi Jews...Although the Iraqi police later provided our embassy with evidence to show that the synagogue and the library bombings, as well as the anti-Jewish and anti-American leaflet campaign, had been the work of an underground Zionist organization, most of the world believed reports that Arab terrorism had motivated the flight of Iraqi Jews, whom the Zionists had 'rescued' really just in order to increase the Israeli Jewish population..." (pp.48-9, 'Ropes of Sand' by CIA agent, Wilbur Crane Eveland).
5) Segev cited a Hebrew work by Natan Michael Gelber.
6)Para 7: Re "return of an indigenous people to its homeland", yours is an ideological, faith-based delusion. "Jews & Pals have nearly identical genes": really? Mizrahim maybe, but not Ashkenazim. Indigenous Australians & the vote: And when did Israel's 'Arabs' finally emerge from military rule? "Jews & Arabs always had equal voting rights in Israel": What?! "ALWAYS"? Since 1948? Australia's "remaining framework of legal discrimination": Evidence, please. "Removing indigenous children": When is Israel going to come to terms with the removal of Mizrahi children from their families? Aust's "land remains in the hands of colonists and their descendents": There is no LEGAL impediment (as there is in Israel re Israeli Arabs) to A's indigenes buying/leasing land here. Occupation? Hello? Military rule. Carpet bombing: I don't think Gazans would appreciate your fine distinction. TBC

2bob,

Yes, given Israel’s past in Lebanon, the quiet on the Left is notable. But support for the current action doesn’t necessarily translate into feelings of regret about previous withdrawals. You need to show real evidence. You can’t just project your own feelings or extrapolate that if people support re-entry into Lebanon and Gaza, they must feel stupid/misled about the previous exits.

Also, you exaggerate the number who thought Hamas would become a responsible neighbor. Israeli unilateralism grew out of the opposite feeling – that for the foreseeable future, the prospect of finding a responsible peace partner in either Fatah or Hamas is hopeless.

Strewth,

-Please avoid ad hominem attacks.

-Re PA property law, you keep returning to the settlements. They aren’t relevant because they aren’t PA-controlled. Eldar raises important issues about shady land deals, and also includes some factual and logical mistakes, but this is beside the point. The PA law isn’t about shady land deals or about settlements. The crime is selling land to a Jew. If you still don’t get it, you probably never will.

-Occupation isn’t a crime against humanity; it isn’t a crime at all. In fact, the first context in which “crimes against humanity” were legally defined and prosecuted was in occupied Germany. Large parts of the Geneva Conventions govern occupation, which would be odd if it were a “crime”, let alone a “crime against humanity”! You may find the following educational:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/crimes-against-humanity.html
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/occuption-territory.html

-You can make ethnic cleansing seem as pretty as you please, and smear the victims by referring to them as “militarized colonists”, “Zionist forces”, etc. You’re not fooling anyone. The fact is that every Jew living in the parts of Palestine that fell under Arab rule was either killed or forcibly removed. Does Kurzman have glowing accounts about how 133 defenders of Kfar Etzion finally surrendered, and the “kind” Legionnaires proceeded to murder 129 of them. (Of course there were some kind Legionnaires -- of the four survivors, three were saved by a few brave Arab soldiers who protected them.)

Strewth,

- Kfar Darom was “armed to the teeth”? Evidence, please. And why would that be relevant? Regardless of arms, it didn’t survive the Egyptian siege. As in every other case of Jewish communities in Arab-occupied Palestine, the residents were forced out. And because K doesn’t mention it, it didn’t happen? Educate yourself.

-Was the Farhoud against Iraqi Jewry carried out by “Zionists”?

-Segev’s “The Seventh Million” never mentions Natan-Michael Gelber or quotes anything by him. Apparently you’ve lifted the quote from some anti-Zionist propaganda piece that sloppily misattributed it. No wonder you don’t know anything about the context or interpretation that Segev gives. Good try, and thanks for playing.

- Yes, return of an indigenous people to its homeland, and this isn’t about “faith”.

-My message beginning “Shorbe” includes a bunch of info and links re Jewish genetics. Educate yourself. Numerous studies have found evidence of a very close genetic relationship between Ashkenazi and Sefardi Jews, Palestinian Arabs, Syrians, Lebanese, Kurds, etc. In fact, there is some evidence that Ashkenazi Jews are actually more closely related to Palestinian Arabs and other Middle Easterners than Sefardi Jews, though the two Jewish groups are closest to each other, and both are closer to other Middle Eastern and Eastern Mediterranean populations than to Northern and Eastern Europeans.

-Arab Israeli villages in the Galilee were subject to military rule until 1966, but Arab and Jewish Israelis, unlike indigenous Australians, always had the right to vote. Yes, since 1948.

-My information about Australia mainly comes from Wikipedia articles such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aborigine , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generation , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Australia

-Despite your attempts to say otherwise, both Arabs and Jews can buy and lease land in Israel.

-Yes occupation. Hello.

-This land has seen frightful bombing, not just in Gaza as you indicate but also in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Beersheba, Haifa, etc. Just yesterday, Rosh Hanikra, Tiberas, Carmiel, Safed, Nahariya, Kiryat Shmona, the western Galilee and the Upper Galilee were all bombed. Still, it isn’t carpet bombing. And yes, the distinction is important.

Clearly, the Palestinians have been put between a rock and a hard place - Israel is the rock, but the so-called 'allies' of the Palestinians are the 'hard place.' This indicates to me that the Islamic nations are not hostile to Israel simply out of their sympathy to the Palestinians, but for other reasons.

This remains the chief practical problem with any resettlement solution. Though the rest of the Islamic world is big enough to accommodate the Palestinians, they seem completely unwilling to do so. For religious and political reasons, some Islamic nations (and/or pan national Islamic groups) see the constant aggravation of Israel and the West as desirable (quite apart from the plight of the Palestinians). That being the case, the Palestinians represent a useful tool for some Islamic nations to inflict pain on the Israeli's and distress to the West, while avoiding culpability. That so much of the aid from the Islamic world appears to primarily consist of arms, or support for terrorist organisations, speaks volumes. They need only supply arms and the Palestinians, blind to their manipulation, represent an endless supply of willing cannon fodder.

Any thoughts on how such issues can be overcome? What would it take to persuade the Arab/Islamic world to take on the task of re-settling the Palestinians and what would it take to persuade the Palestinians to go willingly - financial incentives? I can't imagine that most of them wouldn't jump at the chance of a better life elsewhere.

Sganot,

Do you believe that the lack of response by the left is more than simply a symptom of the ‘normal’ reaction of Israeli’s in war?

In response to your response to stupid/misled, the point that I was trying to make, unsuccessfully it appears, is not that I believe, nor that I think any reasonable person in Israel believes that disengagement should not have occurred, but rather that it was carried out without regard to the effect of such disengagement upon the Hizbollah supporters, especially with regard to how they would view it. On my reading, the implementation of UN Resolution 425 [http://10452lccc.com/eliasenglish/youarenotwelcomed.htm], required that the Lebanese Army should take over responsibility of the South Lebanon, in addition to disarming Hizbollah (Sorry my links keep getting lost, dunno why? Perhaps I should stop citing Lebanese (anti-Syrian) Dissident’s).

Given that the disengagement was designed to implement this resolution, and demonstrated Israel’s willingness to comply with it, how precisely should one feel at the abysmal failure of Lebanon to comply with its part?

For the remainder of the argument on this article, particularly with regard to the legality of the current situation, and the apportionment of blame under International Law it is necessary to examine the International Law in question. For any who are interested I refer you to my post here: [http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4706#48573].

For a very good general discussion on the problem facing the majority of Lebanese, those who do not support Hizbollah & Syria, please see: http://10452lccc.com/eliasenglish/questioned_credibility.htm

Inshallah

2bob

• Kalin ..."Clearly, the Palestinians have been put between a rock and a hard place"..."This indicates to me that the Islamic nations are not hostile to Israel simply out of their sympathy to the Palestinians, but for other reasons"... Warranting thus to explore anomalous phenomenon, where Jew-cuckoo-nest incubated world rulers seem-to-toe the line obligated by the elders-of-zion. Whilst the majority of the population they-preside-over, being emphatically opposed-to. For the simple reason, because world-leaders are never chosen from the prevailing genome of the populous, they dare-to-allege, to-represent.

However a vision-impaired dill-flock (within the blind-led-blind guide-lines) haven't got any-clue a propos Jew-rulers practiced any kind-of-religions (concocted by Jews anyway). Bearing in-mind that since time immemorial Jew aristocracy within the rule 'by-the-best' impersonated myriad of ethnic-groups via its vastly incubated ari-stock-race sly look-a-likes.

Commonly termed as Western, Eastern, Asian, Oriental, Middle-Eastern, Dutch, Portuguese, French, English, German, American, Aussie, Italian, Irish, Iranian, Spanish, Polish, Czech, Russian, Hungarian, Rumanian, Indian, African, Afghani, Arab (add-any-omitted).

Within the broad-kaleidoscope of religions to-pose as Christians, Catholics, Chaldean Christians, Protestants, Anglicans, Lutherans, Evangelic (Hill-Song), Greek (Russian) Orthodox, Hindus, Muslims (and so forth) in-a-variety of faith wraps to-suit application.

Take-a-deep-breath as difficulty is expected for novices while trying to-associate the particular ethnic-group-people's-image with their rulers or preachers likeness. When not much-in-common was to-be found in transplanted reflections. Derived solely of the-Jew-cuckoo frequented nests. Prominently practised within the terrain of bloody conquests in the aftermath Roman/Spanish crusades. Where even remainder of the scorched-nests were-Jew-cuckoo cross-pollinated.

Well, as-a-challenge for dedicated observer with the propensity in deciphering facial depictions (once-having sufficiently trained-eye), may I suggest to-employ one's acuity to-detect quite a unique kind-of-features. Not-meant for-any derogatory manners acrimony, under racist exploits. In fact our Jew characteristics are fairly redeeming for devoted observer. Don't expect for it to occur overnight, but it eventually to-happen.

For starters, one to-commence observation of non-caucasian rulers or preachers, who amazingly to-be found quite distinct from the populous, they ought-to-represent. Then one to-progress into-scrutiny (obvious to-lesser extent) the caucasian rulers or preachers, embodying as-norm our Jew reflections.

Pardon

Sganot:
Continued: "Indig. Australians living abroad...have no right of return to Australia": You're being ridiculous. As Aust. citz they can come and go as they like. They don't need the UN to take up their cause with a 'right to return' resolution. Recognition of native title depends on production of evidence of an ongoing relationship with the land in question, given the 200 year+ nature of the dispossession. Which is more than Israel accords Palestinian refugees who can produce title deeds to homes and lands. Hypocrite!
1) So you believe your own spin? Then you're definitely not a professional spin doctor then, and I unreservedly apologise for suggesting it. The only explanation left is that you're deluded.
2)In my point 2) I was referring to Pal Prop Law - can't you read?
3)Some occupations (such as that of Germany/Japan after the war) are of course not crimes against humanity. But Israel's occupation certainly satisfies the requirement for "acts of murderous persecution". Or are you of the opinion that it's been an enriching & fulfilling experience for the Palestinians?
4)Weren't they colonists? Weren't they armed? Didn't they receive reinforcements? Weren't they part & parcel of winning contol of the land from its people? Killed after surrendering...by Glubb's Legionaires? Not that I can ascertain in Kurzman or Glubb, but of course you'd know better, so sources please.
5) The 41 Iraqi Farhud engineered by Zionists? No, but their role (plus the expulsion of the Palestinians in 48) was crucial in the exodus of Iraqi Jews in the 50's.
6) My citation for the Ben-Gurion quote comes from Michael Neumann's 'The Case against Israel' (Educate yourself - read it!) Here's his footnote: "87 Cited in SEGEV, The Seventh Million p 28. Segev, in turn, cites a Hebrew work by Natan Michael Gelber"
7) Your fantasy about being an indigenous inhabitant of Palestine is only shared by doctrinaire Zionists & Christian nutballs like our friend, Bamboozled.
8)Re genetics see 'The Origin of Palestinians and their Genetic Relatedness with other Mediterranean Populations' by Arnaiz-Villena and colleagues. TBC

It shows that Pals are closer to Sephardic Jews than either population is to Ashkenazi Jews. This is confirmed by Israeli scientists, Amar et al.
9)Yes, you're correct re Israeli Arabs voting, but they were not allowed to form their own parties until the lifting of military rule.
10) I'm getting tired of your claim that Israeli Arabs can buy and lease ILA land in Israel, ie 93% of Israel. As of typing, has the Israeli Arab family of Qaadan been able to build a house in Jews-only Qatzir after all that time spent in the courts? Have the internally displaced Arab Israeli villagers of Birim & Iqrit managed to get back their villages? If not, why not?
11)Is Australia under military occupation? If so, I hadn't noticed.
12)The current mayhem in northern Israel and the WHOLE of Lebanon has been caused by Israel's disproportionate response to Hizbollah's capture of 2 Israeli soldiers. If they'd been swapped for Pals/Lebs similarly snatched, there'd be no such mayhem. Your govt doesn't give a damn about those soldiers or Israeli civilians in northern Israel. It's bent on regime change - in Gaza & in Lebanon - and then onto Damascus & Tehran.

Strewth,

1)Israeli citizens living abroad can return to Israel, just as Australian citizens abroad can return to Australia. I’m not talking about that. You seem to demand something else: That Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens have a right of immigrate to Israel. But the descendents of aboriginal Australians who live abroad and lack Australian citizenship have no such right.

2)Pal. property law doesn’t ban the sale of land to “occupiers” as you claimed; it bans the sale of land to Jews.

3)There are other choices besides “crime against humanity” and “enriching and fulfilling experience”. If you think Israeli occupation is a crime against humanity, we disagree.

4)Re Kfar Darom: Colonists? No. Armed? Certainly. Reinforcements? I have no idea. Winning control of the land from its people? No. And these questions are irrelevant to the conversation; regardless of the answers, it was ethnic cleansing. Yes, despite Glubb’s denials, the defenders of Kfar Etzion were massacred after surrendering. The event is widely known and documented. See the sources listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kfar_Etzion_massacre Re the Legionnaires, see the paragraph beginning “The role of the Arab Legion in the massacre is still debated…” But this too is irrelevant. Whether committed by the Arab Legion or “irregulars”, it is still ethnic cleansing.

5) Why would the exodus of Palestinians in 1948 play a “crucial” role in the exodus of Iraqi Jews in 1948-51? As for the role of what you called “covert Zionist campaigns”, the jury is still out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Jews states that “the true identity and objective of the masterminds behind the bombings has been the subject of controversy” and “historians have generally argued against the idea of a conspiracy to increase Jewish registration”, and, quoting Philip Mendes: “Historian Moshe Gat argues that there was little direct connection between the bombings and exodus…”

6) I am right and Neumann is wrong about Segev’s source. And apparently he gives none of the context that Segev provides, since you don’t seem to know it. Not surprising. Misquoting, misattributing, quoting out of context – I warned you about relying on people like Davis; Neumann is like Davis.

(continued)

Strewth (continued),

7) You are wrong about this “indigenous” stuff, and you’d know this if you read “The Origin of Palestinians…”, which reports that “archaeologic and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites…The genetic identity of Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Jews who now lives [sic] in Israel has already been reported. Babylonian and Roman-induced Diaspora, drove Jews to many parts of Europe, Africa and Asia, which occurred in 587 BC and 70 AD, respectively. Jews started to come back to Palestine during the 19th and 20th centuries. However, religion and close communities have kept Jews relatively isolated from the inhabitants of the countries that hosted them during this long period of time.”

8) “The Origin of Palestinians…” doesn’t refer to “Sephardic Jews”, but rather uses the terms “Ashkenazi”, “Moroccan”, and “Non-Ashkenazi” for groups of Jews included in the study. It finds that “Ashkenazi Jews, Iranians, Cretans, Armenians, Turks and non-Ashkenazi Jews are the populations closest to the Palestinians”. Some of the genetic evidence (HLA-DR-DQ) shows that the group closest to Palestinians is indeed Ashkenazi Jews. HLA-DRB1 and HLA-DRB1-DQB1 show non-Ashkenazi and Moroccan Jews somewhat closer. See Table 3 in the article. The article does NOT conclude that Pals are closer to Sefaradim than either is to Ashkenazim.

BTW, what makes you say this was confirmed by Amar, et al? Can you quote the relevant data from Amar’s study?

9) I don’t know if you’re right about Arab parties being banned under military rule. Could be, although Arab MKs were active in Arab parties associated with the mainstream parties, and in the Communist Party.

10) Yes, Arab Israelis can buy and lease ILA land (that’s not what the Qaadan and Birim & Iqrit cases are about). Here is an ILA report illustrating this fact: http://www.mmi.gov.il/static/HanhalaPirsumim/Beduin_information.pdf

11) Neither Australia nor Israel are under military occupation. Australia was founded by foreigners who occupied and colonized the continent, and whose descendents continue to run the country; an indigenous population founded Israel.

12) We disagree about the causes and purposes of the current violence in Israel and Lebanon.

Strewth,

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750005.html

Kalin, Kang, Logic, Taiwan Teacher, Strewth, et al.,

A few times, I mentioned a great place for those who wish to discuss the Jewish-Palestinian relationship; conflict; past, present, and future, etc., and have difficulty limiting themselves to a few 350-word messages every few days:

The Jewish Palestinian Encounter ( http://www.salam-shalom.net/salam-shalom/salamforum1.html ) is a forum of Jews, Palestinians, and others discussing issues of common concern. The site was temporarily down, but is now back online.

Ahlan wasahlan and bruchim habaim!