Bashdar, no other problem in the world today needs combined global attention more than the tension between the Israelies and Palestinians.

As one who in his retirement has done a deep study of the philosophy of Western history, with honours in political science and international relations, one is reminded so much of Immanuel Kant the great iberal Christian as well as the famous German philosopher.

The story of Kant was so much expressed by Konrad Adenauer, first Chancellor of post WW2 Germany, who supported so much the formation of the United Nations.

Kant, a supporter of the Enlightenment and the object of the French Revolution, became disgusted with Napoleon the 23 year old general who though virtually carrying the banner of liberty-equality and fraternity as he conquered most of Europe, became so carried away that he declared himself emperor.

It was when Kant declared - “that from now on in this world, not one man nor even one nation can be trusted to rule this world.” It was when Kant suggested the formation of a Federation of Nations as global watchkeepers, from which of course grew the post WW1 League of Nations, and later the United Nations.

Busbred Part Two

Now with all due respects to our now unipolar United States, after all it is run virtually by one personage and other under-personages who also have more mercenary ambitions, as for instance Dick Cheney, who was or still is a top oil executive, and even Condoleeza Rice who was or still is an oil executive.

No need to say any more about the present White House staff, but except to mention that from what one has read of Immanuel Kant, he would really point out that such mercenary dual interests, would certainly rule out the US as fit to command his Federation of Nations.

Also a small nation like Israel armed by the US with the most potent of weaponry, and with total US backing, would certainly not have Immanuel Kant's nor even Konrad Adenauer's favour.

In fact, it seems the US has visions of a type of a colonial-type Indian Dyarky or ersatz democracy over the whole Middle East, with US nuclear projectiles protecting the system.

In short, the Middle East problems need Kant’s Federation of Nations principle more than any global political problem before it.

It is so interesting that the above interpretation can be talked about in our Murdoch School of Humanities, but never much out in the street, and even among many of our onliners, who would call an aging myself a bleeding heart or fruitcake.

Cheers, Bashdar, keep on going for it, matey.

George C, WA - Bushbred

Bashdar,

For heavens sake get you facts right. The British Mandate over palestine was approved by the League of Nations in June 1922. The League did not exist in 1917, being created by the Versailles Peace Conference. A good article on the subject of the mandate appears in Wikipedia.

This conflict will never end as it is related to spiritual inheritance which is acted out by the 2 streams that originate from Issac and Ishmael according to the Bible. Both will claim sovereinity of the promised land. This is a battle in the heavenlies which is acted out on earth. Peace is tried through negotiation and is temporary as the roots of division are spiritual and not just physical. Therefore no change is possible or seen. It is an ideological battle and people are prepared to die for it. God help us all.

Jeshua.. HALELUJAH.. another person who recognizes the REAL root of the problem.

SOLUTION. (as previously stated)

1/ Defeat
2/ Deport
3/ Disperse
4/ Absorb.

This would equally apply to either the Jewish OR the Palestinian Arab Muslims.

LEARN FROM HISTORY.

1/ SHALMANEZER V 722BC(Assyrian).... followed this policy against Samaria and the 10 tribes (Northern Israel)

2/ NEBACHUDNEZER (Babylonian) 539BC followed the same policy against Judah, the remaining 2 tribes.

In BOTH CASES... the 'Jewish problem' (as they saw it) was solved.

3/ CYRUS the Persian (a member of the Greens and Democrats, and a card carrying member of the Socialist Alliance of the day) used the 'Restoration and Tolerance' approach and allowed the Jews to return to Judah.

OUTCOME 1.. "Immediate" CONFLICT with the Arabs of the day who had moved in to fill the vacuum left by the Jews. (refer books of Ezra and Nehemiah in old testament)Many are ancestors to the Palestinians of today.

OUTCOME 2.. Rise of Jewish nationalism.

3/ ROMAN EMPIRE faced a "Jewish Nationalism Problem" They used the same policy of the Assyrians and Babylonians.....

-defeat
-deportation
-dispersion
-absorption

of the Jews and this lasted from AD70/135 until 1948...not a bad run.

Now... 2006 we see the result of restoring the Jews to Israel.

So... 2 choices exist.

1/ Exile the Jews.
2/ Exile the Muslims (those in the refugee Camps)

Given the power of the IDF, I hardly think they will be exiled.
That leaves ONE....choice ..and I guarantee it will work :)

I repeat LEARN....from HISTORY.

The Difficulties inherent in the ongoing conflict in Lebanon are probably best encapsulated by the following statements by member organizations of the Lebanese Diaspora (particularly in Canada). The following statement was written by 14 separate such organizations, and lays the blame for the conflict, not on Israel, but on Damascus and Tehran, on 17 July 2006:

http://www.10452lccc.com/fpm.canada/diaspora17.7.06.htm*

Another statement by 13 Organisations (some may be represented twice), 13 July 2006:

http://www.10452lccc.com/fpm.canada/diaspora.engrelease13.7.06.htm*

An article by a Professor, Dr Joseph Hitti, detailing the prospects for achieving peace through this conflict (21 July 2006):

http://www.10452lccc.com/neal/hitti21.7.06.htm*

Another article by Dr Hitti (16 July 2006):

http://www.10452lccc.com/neal/hitti16.7.06.htm*

I assume that many of the posters on this forum may wish to visit this site, and examine for themselves the other side of Lebanese politics, which sadly has been virtually or even actually exiled over the past years. This is a Lebanese site, and contrary to what I expect will be charged, these people are not apologists for Israel.

However, those who actually wish to understand the current problem would be well advised to visit this site. I have read a great number of their articles, and on the whole I find them very useful and particularly enlightening. I suggest that a couple of the protagonists on this forum read very carefully the first & second articles by Dr Hitti, which deals with the vexed issue of the Sheba’a farms and their ownership.

However, as stated it is an independent Lebanese site, and at times can be very critical of Israel, I accept that, but overall this is an important resource, please treat it with respect. Also understand, before accusing them of bias, that 8 Canadian/Lebanese citizens were accidentally killed by the IAF the other day.

These people whilst not exactly pro-Israel, are vehemently anti-Hizbollah.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

* Please note that links to this site have a tendency to be deleted after being posted, these people are not on Syria/Iran/Hizbollah’s birthday card list. Their home page is: http://www.10452lccc.com/

Inshallah

2bob

Bashdar what on earth are you trying to say? Do you honestly think you can do justice to the history of either the Palestinians or the Jews in such a small piece? And what significance is there in introducing the Kurdish problems with Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria in your conclusion? What on earth do the Palestinians or the Jews either in history or today have to do with the Kurdish problem? Are you trying to compare the Jewish ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to make room for Israel with the Arab ethnic cleansing of Kurds? I find your comment in its totality utterly without merit or enlightenment of factual correctness. This is an extremely complex problem which unfortunately deals with such imponderables as religion, honor, pride as well as legalities, rights and justice. It has defied the solutions of countless statesmen and thinkers throughout the ages without the adding of a completely new, independently complex and totally irrelevant dimension into the mix!

From 1517 to 1831 "Palestine" was controlled/ruled by the Ottoman Turks.

(clearly the Arabs of the area did not 'like' this, or they would not have joined the British to defeat the Turks)

1831 to 1840 it was ruled by the Egyptians.

1841 saw the Ottoman Turks re-take the land. During THIS period, under TURKISH rule, the Jewish population grew from 12,000 to 85,000.

1914 Britain promises Independance to the Arabs(something they have never enjoyed) in exchange for helping them remove the Turks.

1916 Britain and France sign "Sykes Picot" agreement, dividing the land into spheres of influence (France gets Syria and Lebanon, Britain gets Jordan and Iraq) but Palestine was to be 'internationalised'. (whatever that means)

1917 Balfour declaration promises a 'Jewish Homeland in Palestine'

This does not mean it could not be 'independant' (just means a different population mix.)

BOTTOM LINE.

If anyone wishes to find a 'bad guy' in all of this, aim your darts at Britain (or the ROMANS who originally exiled the Jews)They clearly stuffed up on the diplomacy, and now we have large numbers of Jews following the promise made to them, and the Arabs 'trying' to achieve the promise made to them.

Unfortunately, history has not been kind to the Arabs in this matter.
So, Israel has not only established itself, but has succeeded in defending itself.

The British made a lot of historic stuff ups, and looking to the legalities of this, is futile in order to justify Arab independance of a contested region.

The British are neither God, nor particularly 'holy'. At the end of the day, the only final arbiter in this matter is the gun and the soldier.

WARN
DEFEAT
DEPORT
DISPERSE
ABSORB.

....PROBLEM SOLVED.

The crucial points -

1. Israel will continue to exist.

2. The outcome of 50-odd years of attempts to deny this has been poverty and misery for million of Palestinians, and many deaths.

3. Those attacking Israel are not primarily motivated by the well-being of the Palestinians.

4. The Israelis have at times offered significant concessions to achieve a settlement.

5. Too many non-Israelis refuse to countenance a reasonable settlement and/or misguidedly see advantage in maintaining tension.

6. Sadly, conflict will continue, Israel will continue to be attacked, and it will continue to defend itself. And innocents will continue to suffer.

BOAZ_David

I can only say that I agree completely with your analysis of the problem in Palestine, and agree that your proposed solution is the only one that would work. I would presume that you would agree with me that there is little likelihood of it being implemented, this side of a nuclear war (which may be only a few months away if GW decides to nuke Iran).

While we are discussing possible solutions, I would be interested in your opinion of another (equally unlikely) solution that I have seen on the internet. This would be that the population of Israel would be offered a large tract of land in Western Australia, in exchange for our muslim population, which would be moved to Palestine.

As someone who was educated in the early 1950's with the children of Jewish refugees that Australia accepted in 1938, I have always had a great respect and admiration for the abilities of the Jewish people.

With our resources, and their ability, I think such a solution would transform Australia.

"The population of Israel would be offered a large tract of land in Western Australia"
What, another re-run of that wild scheme from half a century ago, and to the same daunting landscape?
While we congratulate South Africa for ending aparthied, should we be contemplating the introduction of it here?
Does that offer come with a request "please bring your own water"?
My Jewish friends in Western Australia are established in suburban environments. They have been there for almost three generations, and are making highly beneficial contributions to Australian society from where they are.They are the equal of the most civilised people on earth, assisted in being that way by their position in Australian society.
To suggest that a Jewish enclave would be capable of enabling their society to be more compatible with this dry continent is to denigrate the work of Australia's world renowned scientific expertise in this field. Put a different way, it is a display of ignorance of such work.
To expand an Australian State's population five times its present numbers by importing an extra seven million people (Israel's numbers) sure is stretching things a bit. Especially when that state is presently incapable of adequately catering for its present numbers.
And importing among the newcomers some grossly uncivilised portions of the wild middle-eastern tribes will bring problems of its own.

Hi Plerds...

well, in purely practical terms, the transmigration of Israelis to Australia might be quite workable. I hardly think they would have much interest though.

Israel is a mix for sure, between those who genuinely believe the land is theirs by divine right (Have a Wiki at the term "Israel" and see the tribal allocations of land from the Old Testament, its quite specific) and those of a secular persuasion. Pretty much all Settlers are of the 'divine right' mob.

That reason alone would persuade me of the failure of such a course.
(though well intentioned and workable on the surface.)

Colinsett has pointed out some other angles on that proposal.

Regarding the problem itself as it currently stands. I'm dissappointed that the only thing many people can see is the micro focus.. like CNN..their coverage yesterday was on

-A family waiting for a lost loved one.
-a child hurt
-People fleeing.....

Little analysis of the CAUSE of the problem. Why did they not highlight, show on TV the references to Hezbollahs charter to destroy Israel ? Why not have an interview with a Hezbollah representative about THIS. Pose question to him that this might just be the reason Israel is hitting them so hard, and how much it RESEMBLES the Nazi approach to the Jews ..... that to me is news coverage.

BOAZ David,

I agree with you that migration of Israelis to Australia is unlikely, for the reasons you have stated. I did describe it as "equally unlikely".

Your comments on the media are very relevant, and again expose the fact that the media are only interested in promoting their own interests. That is why their analysis is shallow (as they try to appeal to the lowest common denominator), and big on emotional manipulation (focus on the negative all the time). Pictures of civilians, particularly children, killed or wounded are good copy, without any explanation of the circumstances if that would reduce the desired emotional impact.

The moral question that particularly annoys me is that no moral distinction is made between Hezbollah and Israel.

Hezbollah deliberately targets Israeli civilians, through suicide bombers and rocket attacks, and then conceals itself in lebanese civilian areas to make it difficult for Israel to attack it without causing civilian casualites.

Israel is attempting to destroy Hezbollah, but as far as I know the only civilians they target are connected with terrorist activities such as suicide bomber recruitment. Part of Hezbollah's tactic is to cause Israel to kill as many muslim children as possible to help win the propaganda war.

I believe the biggest issue for Australia in this whole affair is that when we were involved in the cold war against the communist bloc, there was one thing both sides had in common which was so basic that it was never mentioned.

That was that neither side wanted to die.

This led to the doctrine of mutual deterrence, and resulted in the cold war ending with relatively few casualties.

The current struggle is very different, with one side quite happy to die. The way the maniac currently running Iran is going, we may only be months away from nuclear war.

Spot on Plerds

War comes from Hezbollah which comes from Islam, which comes from Mohammed who came from SATAN in my view !

They are nothing more than a well organized Mafia. Even Mafia dons did much beneficial social work in their own areas, but they also murdered and pillaged.

The religious element of all this must never be forgotten.

I wonder how Muslims would react to a sign like this:

DEATH and HELL to Hezbollah
DEATH and HELL to Hamas
DEATH and HELL to all who support their Satanic actions
CURSED is any religion which opposes Israel (Gen 12:3)
CURSED is any man who mutilates and Tortures men in the name of Allah. (Mohammed did this)
CURSED is any man who molests children.

The terror detainees are due in the (Melb) Magistrates court next monday.

I am sick to death of the demonstrations like in UK which called for the beheading of those who 'Insult the Prophet' etc.

I'm guessing that it would be like whacking a hornets nest with a stick, but thats ok. Sometimes the real character of people can only be revealed when they are confronted with the reality of where they stand.

They need to know that there are those who are unafraid to speak the truth and know the limits of the RRT2001 :)

"War comes from Hezbollah which comes from Islam, which comes from Mohammed who came from SATAN in my view !"

"Sometimes the real character of people can only be revealed when they are confronted with the reality of where they stand."

Rest assured, you're not in any danger of that.