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.