Well said Greg. You raise a very good point about the double standards in Australia and also around the world.

Some may say, 'well d'uh Greg'

Hypocrisy is the new norm when it comes to the 'war on terror'

And whats with the reference to HRW? Havn't you spoken to the peoplpe on this forum Greg? They're nothing but a bunch of anti-American pinkos! Terrorists even! Get with it mate.

If Australia sends peace keepers to Lebanon then I would regard Australian citizens fighting with Hebollah or the Isreali Defence Forces as traitors, especially if they fire on Australian troops.

The neoconmen who took over governance of the USA and Israel are both the architects and the perpetrators of the War on Terror.

They are the golem which uses our children to fight in their struggle for resources. They rely on us to muddy the waters of truth with our constant, ignorant, harping obsession with ideology, religion and historical revisionism. Our idiocy is an essential ingredient, which we supply in the greatest abundance.

Here you may get a glimpse of the truth:

Seymour Hersch interviewed on Democracy Now

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/14/1358255

The involvement of my Prime Minister, Cabinet, ADF and Intelligence with this bikie gang is something to wonder about. I don't think our complicity has anything to do with pragmatism, realpolitik or ANZUS - none of that. No, it is the complicity of cowards. We go along - or else! The jackals take no prisoners.

So the foetid cowards plough on in their shabby roles, their pronouncements turning to ashes in their mouths. The faux opposition leader bellows like a bull-seal on a wet rock. The treasurer pretends that the books balance. The PM says, "Trust me". Read my eyebrows!

Mr Ruddock, I have you in my eye sir, and I shall keep you in my eye. I do so hope you read this sedition personally.

A fairer comparison would be to compare dual Australian citizens serving in the Lebonese army with those in the IDF. In that context the Australian Government hasn't favoured one over the other.

Don't let your hatred for the Israeli's lead you to assume all its opponents are better. Hizbollah are terrorists. They are no more redeemed by their hatred of Israel, than the Nazi's are redeemed by their anti-Semitism.

This is a valid point and it should be pointed out that there is an imbalance in the reporting and points of view of this war. We would demand of our leaders to be fair and honest and if they are going to do this then they must also look at the other side of the coin. Personally I don't think Australians should join any other army or terrorist organisation no matter who they think is right or wrong, if they want to participate it should be as part of an Australian contingent if one is sent. If you want to actively engage in the activities of other nations then you should be a permanent member of their society, not just an add on member when it is convenient. A new approach is needed to resolve this conflict and this is where Australia and its citizens should be directing it resources.

Empty words:

Israel has not acted without regard for the conventions of war.
Israel has never targeted civilians, but Hezbullah did just that.
There have been some accidents where civilians who were told to leave but either refused or were not allowed by the enemy to stay away from terrorist installations, and of whose presence in particular locations Israel was unaware, were sadly killed.
As in any war, Israel had to destroy infrastructure to prevent enemy reinforcements.

Hence this article serves no genuine purpose other than being a part of a smear campaign under the assumption that if lies are repeated long enough they will somehow become true.

I think that it needs to be remembered that Israel has the 4th largest army in the world (there must be a reason why this is the case), they use overwhelming force to attack their enemies (not just subdue them) and have been accused numerous times of commiting acts of violence against citizens. This is not a smear campaign. I do not agree with what is going on over there but Israel fits the definition of bully so neatly that it is really hard to believe that they are always the victim. Just look at the fundamental information in an objective way. Hezbollah are stupid for taking them on openly but you cannot say with conviction that Israel are not taking advantage of the situation and really laying the boot into Lebanon.

Good point - why is it everybody says, "not our problem" when it comes to strife in areas like sudan, but are keen to take up arms when it's Israel or the middle east? oil of course contributes to the latter, but as for the former, I can only ascribe it to a strong jewish lobby worldwide.

Take note here - I am not siding with hezbollah, simply saying that if we're going to use the 'not our problem' approach in certain circumstances, this is an excellent one.

Chris Shaw,

Thanks for the excellent link. I found Seymour Hersch's account of his meeting with the Syrian President particuarly interesting. I also found it interesting how Rummy supposedly is going the way of Robert McNamara. The whole administration needs to take a few lessons from McNamara, whose number one rule for diplomacy was to empathise with your enemy.

But they won't, and neither will the close mided bigots on this forum that are completley incapable of seeing both sides, or imagining a better way.

No, Greg, this is not a fair point at all.

It is not illegal under Australian law for an Australian to fight for the armed services of another nation. It won't revoke your Australian citizenship, unless those forces engage Australian forces.
It is illegal under Australian law to join Hezbollah or any other proscribed terrorist organization.

So, as someone above pointed out, it would be better to describe this situation as the similarity between an Aussie/Lebanese person fighting for the Lebanese army and an Aussie/Israeli fighting for the Israeli army. Howard did not warn Aussie/Lebanese people against joining the Lebanese army, which is legal, but from joining the terrorist Hezbollah, which is illegal.

Seems like a perfectly fair warning to me.

Daniel M,

Yes, there is a reason for Israel's large army, actually quite a bizzare one: they want to live - funny, isn't it?

Israel is surrounded by hostile countries who wished to kill its people even before its inception, mostly still want the same, and unprovoked launched several conventional wars against it as well as numerous terrorist attacks. Why do those Jewish clowns refuse to die?

Propaganda being part of the ongoing war, no wonder that Israel is accused of any crime under the sun by a chorus of some billion Moslems.

Israel is now eagerly awaiting the Lebanese army and the international force to take over the land which it never wanted, but I can say with confidence that Israel does indeed take advantage of the situation - after all, isn't it monstrous that they are still alive?

It is a pity that certain of our contributors could take more of a balanced view of Middle East problems, looking back through history to realise that much of America's interests as well as Britain's is still to do with imperialist-style hegemon and contraband.

Furthermore, the anger from the otherside or the Muslim-side, is typically anti-colonial, failing to admit that certain aspects of colonialism have been part of human progress, yet justifiably according to most social scientists, ready to fight to the death to defend areas in which they have lived long enough to call their homelands.

So looking well back through history, us American led Westerners, which certainly includes nuclearly-armed Israel, are probably not much different than the Roman Empire, maybe having thoughts of the total elimination of a nuisance peoples, as the Romans finally did to Carthage in North Africa, and not having the ability to pulverise from the air like the Israelis, slew or enslaved all the citizens, and what they could not burn of Carthage, pulled the rest to pieces brick by brick.

As much as we might like to get rid of what some of us term nuisance peoples because of their beliefs, any one using sound reasoning must realise the impossibility of finding a balance without a United Nations, which unfortunately both warring sides have advocated the destruction of.

Great points Greig.

What of those Audstralians in the IDF engaged in the illegal occupation of Palestine, the Golan Heights, Gaza (Yep still occupied) Shaba Farms, The West Bank and East Jerseulem. The occupation is controlled not by Israel's parliament but by the IDF. How should the Australian Government view them and their activities?

One other question needs exploring. Where would the loyality of these people lie if Australia happened to go to war against their organisation or Army?

I'd suggest membership of any terror organisation or another sovereign nation's armed forces should automatically revoke citizenship of Australia.

Yutusu

'There have been some accidents where civilians who were told to leave but either refused or were not allowed by the enemy to stay away from terrorist installations, and of whose presence in particular locations Israel was unaware, were sadly killed.'

Qana was not an accident. The IDF admitted knowing there were no terrorists present. It was a civilian building. The Geneva convention is incident specific and the dropping of leaflets does not exempt the officers involved from ensuring they adhered to the provisions of the GC. The key provisions: they must have satisfied themselves the civilain structure was either being used for military activity AT THE TIME, or the structure was of a strategic import. Should the later apply it was the officers' responsibility to ensure no civilians were present BEFORE they issued orders for attack.

Their precision bomb killed women and children who were sheltering in that civilian structure. Unless the officers involved can show how they ensured no civilians were present it was a war crime.

Hezbollah is guilty of several war crimes, targeting of civilians was only one. In assessing such an issue if you wish a comparison with Israel you must also take into account not only frequency but also potency for killing or maiming. I don't think you'd really want to go down that track. Precision guided bombs against inaccurate terror rockets is only one example of imbalance.

Amazing you accept the lies of the Israeli's! They operate on exactly the principle you cite.

I like the way the Israelis used their superior weapons technology in targetting terrorists hiding under bridges, at Beirut Airport, in Hospitals, in ambulances and driving in unmarked cars and in relief convoys.

Those red crosses on a white background must just be too tempting not to be used for target practice.

That fighter pilot who scored a direct hit on children playing in a creek next to a refugee settlement was particularly skilled at spotting Hezbollah members.

Likewise, those people killed on the beach before all this started must have secretly been terrorists as well.

It reminds me of the Israeli sniper that shot that man and his young son in Palestine a few years ago. Unfortunately (for him) it was all captured on film.

Imagine what damage they could do if they just fired indiscriminately at civilians.

I believe that at least 22 US Congressmen hold dual Israeli citizenship so I have little doubt there are several Australians fighting for Israel right now.
If any Australians choose to fight for ANY other country and are later convicted of War Crimes, will our government bail them out or do a "David Hicks" on them?

Seymour Hersh is the most respected and awarded journalist in the world over a 40 year career and he has belled the cat in the New Yorker this week.

Israel, the US and Blair plotted this proxy war months before two soldiers were taken as sort of a practice run to see if they could take out Iran.

That is not only utterly amoral it is a war crime on a mammoth scale inflicted deliberately on innocent men, women and children to teach a different government a lesson.

The only parallel I can think of in recent times is blowing up Afghanistan because some Saudi's blew up the WTC, or then there is Iraq blown up for no reason at all for some reason known or unknown to the imbecile Rumsfeld and here in Australia where our own government locked up refugees from Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan because they were to discourage others.

That is all amoral and illegal - off to the Hague with the lot of the scum.

As for Hezbollah - this brand name Hezbollah has nothing at all to do with the "terrorism" the old PLO did when they were trying to kick the Israelis out of Lebanon the last couple of times.

They are just Lebanese citizens - I wonder how many times the stupid and blind have to be told that simple point.

They are no different to the French resistance trying to kick out the nazis and while Israel insists on occupying the Shebaa farms they will exist to kick them out.

We would do the exact same thing if Indonesia invaded us and took our land, water and resources.

Enough with the terrorist group already. I advise everyone to watch "IN the Shadow of the Palms" by Wayne Janess-Coles and see how the Iraqi civilians felt about us terrorists in the west plotting to blow them up without cause.

No empathy at all in this country any more.

Greg, I share your distaste for the Australian Goverment's double standards when it comes to Israel and its foes. However, I have to take issue with: "Despite the fact that Hezb. has some very unsavoury attitudes and that its actions against the Israeli people have, over the years been so callous and brutal as to justify the tag 'terrorist organisation', some of the conduct of the IDF in its current Lebanon foray have amounted to human rights abuses." I make the following points:

a)No liberation organisation has spotlessly clean hands, including Mandela's ANC, or views that always cleave to the letter of the UDHR. However, for Hezbollah to be blithely dismissed as you have done with the label "terrorist organisation", citing alleged unspecified "actions against the Israeli people", is far too broadbrush an approach to shed any light on the issue.

b)"SOME of the conduct of the IDF"? An army that expelled 85% of the Palestinian population in 48-49, invaded Egypt in 1956, invaded (and occupied) the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in 1967 (and maintains a brutal occupation of same to the present, committing war crimes on a virtually daily basis), and has invaded and occupied Lebanon several times over, cannot by any reasonable standard be viewed as somehow in balance with the crimes of Hezbollah. The IDF's mountain of war crimes broke the scale ages ago.

For once I agree with Greg Barns, which is rare as I find his articles quite abhorrent. Israel was created by a terrorist invasion, and continues to survive only on the fear it inflicts with it's constant terrorist attacks against just about everyone around. The damage done to the zionist occupied land, by those seeking justice and the return of their property, is like a drop from a tap. Compared to the flood of debauchery and barbaric mayhem, the Jewish terrorists of god create around them.

Anyone who fights for another country and who's a citizen of this country, except by military exchange, should be stripped of their citizenships. It make no difference who your fighting for, you are either Australian or something else and we only want Australians in this country. I'm all for getting David hicks back, from the despotic clutches of that other terrorist faction of god. If our laws said because he was fighting for another country he should lose citizenship, I'd support it. But not retrospectively.

I believe both factional terrorists have lost this conflict, not only in a military sense, but logistically, morally, ethically and world support. The USA and Israel, look like bunch of barbaric thugs, as usual. Hizzbollah, looks stupid, because it's foolishness will in the end, lose it support within Lebanon and else where.

We should petition the government, to ban all those who fight for anyone else and eliminate dual citizenships in this country. Then offer all from the 3 god factions, the chance to prove their support for their god in his promised lands, in the manner their accustomed to and presently using. It's about time they proved their dedication and support for their god and faction. Or is their belief in god, just an excuse and their only prepared to yell from the back, instead of making the sacrifice for their god.

Any takers, I'm not holding my breath, just laughing at you all heading under the bed with your fearless dedication. Come one, Gods on your side, he'll protect you, where's your faith.

Aaaah.. mr Str_LIES :)

let's deconstruct.

1/ a)No liberation organisation has spotlessly clean hands....

Amennnn brutha.. testify ! Ur right. The Israeli liberation movement, to re-claim land that they were disposessed from in AD70-135 is indeed not without blemish. You say the Israelis disposessed 85% of the Palestinians....ok..the ROMANs disposessed more like 95% of the Jews. Now.. "WE ARE BA-ACK" (putting words into the Israeli mouths) "We return, to reclaim the ONLY land that was ever truly 'our's by divine mandate". and if you don't like "Divine Mandate" then perhaps "MIGHT" will do ? which of course is the basis of EVERY..repeat EVERY other state in the world..... once more just for effect.. E_V_E_R_Y modern state was 'founded' by 'might' and REMAINS by 'might'.

Take Australia. You know the story.... but today, would be 'upsetters' are on trial, are incarcerated... backed up by the ultimate sanction of the firearm on the hips of our police. Or our Armed forces.

So.. Liberation....shliberation.. they take what comes. If they win.. well and good for them. But if they fail.. then its the rough end of the stick of life for them/us/whoever. Firing squad (Indonesia/Thailand) Indefinite Internment without trial (Singapore/Malaysia etc) Singapore is the closest state I know of which jails journalists simply for the IDEAS behind their sentences.
Even if vailed and only implied.

2/ "Some of the conduct of the IDF".....

Better still, lets look at conduct of THE PLO

LOOK AT THIS ! (every gut wrenching image)
http://www.truelebanon.bravehost.com/pics/dampics.html

...of what the PLO did to innocent Christians of DAMOUR... why ? revenge is often claimed for an attack on Karantina refugee camp (aka Palestinian Military support base) but that is unlikely, more likely is the simple fact that it was smack bang on the main highway back to Israel from Beiruit. i.e. STRATEGIC value.

Jesus said "Seek first the kingdom of God, and its righteousness"

Who let the dog out?

Daniel M: “…Israel has the 4th largest army in the world…”

Actually, it is the 28th largest. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces

Or by another measure, the 31st: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops

Or by another measure, the 15th: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Considering that Greg Barns thinks Australia is a racist backwater (see http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3993 ), his question should not be whether Australians should be warned about serving in the IDF, but whether Israelis should be warned about serving in the Australian military.

Keith: “One other question needs exploring. Where would the loyality of these people lie if Australia happened to go to war against their organisation or Army?”

The only way Australia or another liberal democracy would ever go to war against Israel is if the values of one or the other had radically changed, and then the choice would presumably be obvious.

Wobbles: “I believe that at least 22 US Congressmen hold dual Israeli citizenship….”

Your belief is based on what? Can you name them?

Wobbles: “…so I have little doubt there are several Australians fighting for Israel right now.”

And the connection between US Congressmen supposedly holding Israeli citizenship and Australians fighting for Israel is...?

I am sorry wobbles but all of the "incidents" you have mentioned have been disputed by some quite reputable agencies who have used properly based analysis.

There is no certainty that any of these deaths were caused by Israel. Given reports of four day old bodies of children being shown to press photographers after Qana (the bodies and the rescuers were suprisingly clean for those leaving a collapsed bomb damaged building!) and video material showing gunmen entering and driving off in an ambulance (since when does the Red Cross carry kalyshnikovs?) it may well be simply Hezbollah and Hamas propaganda.

There is no doubt that innocent Lebanese have been killed by Israeli forces but literally thousands of rockets were launched at Israel from amongst civilian villages. The UN aid chief made this criticism accusing Hezbollah of cowardly hiding benind civilians.

If Israel had used the same approach against Hezbollah as the Allies used against the Nazis they would have completely fire bombed complete villages in a way we have not seen. And Hezbollah attacked Israel with the the same ferocity, but far less competence. that the Nazis used against Israel.

Logic you really are disgusting piece of work aren't you? The rescuers got to Qana within hours of knowing about it but before they got here babies smothered to death next to their buried mothers and none of the journalists who attended had a skerrick of doubt that the massacre was new. Why on earth are you so full of hate that you presume to be so revolting.

Were the BBC, CNN, ABC, SMH, AGE, Guardian and every single paper on the planet all misguided about the massacre do you think? What about the UN, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch?

As for flattening villages and towns - that is precisely and exactly what Israel did in places like Bint Jbeil, which was a town not related to Hezbollah but rather rich US tourists, Nabatiyeh is hardly standing, 60 bridges are gone, 600 km of roads are unuseable, 7,100 homes are totally demolished - and so far the aid agencies have not been able to get to the real deep south of Lebanon where thousands were stranded.

Israel smashed everything - absolutely everything because they planned and plotted a dirty little invasion and land grab and lost.

Some of you people make me sick.

Keith, regarding Qana:

True, the IDF did not know about terrorists in that particular building. What it knew, and it was filmed, is that terrorists used to launch rockets at Israeli towns from this village, then park their launchers inside this group of buildings. Also, Israel had no idea about the presence of civilians there. Giving you the benefit of doubt since Israel was unable to prove it definitively, there are indications that Hezbullah placed a bus-load of invalid Lebanese children in that shelter as a deliberate trap for Israel.

By-the-way, most bombs dropped by the Israeli air-force are not precision bombs: those simply cost too much and are reserved only for special operations.

Marilyn,

An Israeli invasion of Lebanon is only what you wish for in your wet dreams, turning Israeli soldiers into lame sitting ducks. No Madam, Israel will never again repeat this mistake. Just because Lebanon does not belong to Iran, does not mean that it belongs to Israel. Lebanon belongs to the Lebanese people and they better take more responsibility over their country and protect it from terrorist Iranian elements next time. Israel has not fallen into your trap, it is already withdrawing now and should be completely out of there in about 10 days.

All you "progressive" intellectuals: you really care nothing about the Arabs, the Lebanese or the Palestinians (or aborigines or American-Indians for that matter), they are just pawns for you, you rather see them all flattened provided that Israel is flattened as well (fortunately you did not succeed). You do not really care at all about the middle-east, but mis-directing your early frustration with authority (parents/teachers), you just use it as a battlefield to promote your post-modern hate and destructiveness against the Judeo-Christian social order.

Sganot,
My belief in the nature of dual citizenship of some US Senators is based on information I have read. I can name most of them but I see no point in attempting to satisfy your scepticism. Check for yourself at the Solomon Project and cross-reference each sitting member with their personal details. Meanwhile, here are some of the names of Jewish members of the first Bush Administration to get you started – Wolfowitz, Perle, Fleischer, Bolten, Melman, Lefkowitz, Frum, Blakeman, Zakheim, Libby, Goldman, Gersten, Abrams, Weinberg, Feith, Chertoff, Kurtzer, Sobel, Bernstein, Brinker, Lavin, Weiser, Sembler, Silverstein. Some of these may hold dual citizenship as some did during the Clinton years.
The issue of dual citizenship is only a minor one in the US. The main problem there relates to whether they should vote in foreign elections.

Of course there is no direct link between this and the prospect of Australians fighting for foreign governments. It was to highlight inconsistencies related to spending taxpayers money evacuating dual Australian-Lebanese citizens, abandoning Hicks and the silence about the soldier killed in Lebanon.

Logic,
What incidents are in dispute? The bridges? The roads? The airport? I forgot to mention the fuel depots and electricity substations but those images must also have been faked.

I’ve seen video of rescue workers retrieving bodies from many independent sources. Somehow the prospect of mysterious agents rushing between recently bombed sites and quickly burying bodies in the ruins only to be retrieved and continuously recycled for the media is a bit of a stretch –even for a well worn sceptic like me. I think the coparative death tolls speak for themselves.
I remember the Israeli sniper incident in Palestine vividly. In fact it was this that caused me to research and critically reassess my previous beliefs about what was really happening over there. This dispute didn’t just start a few weeks ago – it’s been going on for about 24 years.

Marilyn,
I think a simple land grab is a little short-sighted. I think Seymour Hersh has summarised the bigger picture very well on this link -

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/14/1358255#transcript

Yuyutsu,

Thanks for the wake-up call!

All this time I thought I was caring about truth, injustice and the oppressed and thinking about whether a matter was simply right or wrong - when in fact I was just an unwilling pawn in a scheme to subvert and overthrow the Judeo-Christian Social Order.

I suddenly feel smarter, more important and superior – is that what’s supposed to happen?

There is a strange phenomenon in the minds of Yu and others about arab people. There are 200,000 arabs from Lebanon or of Lebanese extraction alone here in Australia and I have never heard of a plague of them pushing their children in front of buses or leaving them in their homes as they burn to the ground or abandoning them at police stations or schools.

Ditto for Palestinians, Iraqis, Iranians and thousands of others. Have I missed some crime wave that Yu is aware of?

There is something disgusting about the Qana story being used by some to claim that Lebanese people are untermenschen. The video they used was two days old and showed nothing at all. When the independent investigators arrived all they found was a simple house with 28 bodies buried in the basement where they had been hiding for 2 weeks. Too sick and poor to move, with disabled and old they were forced to stay but if they had run Israel would have blown them to bits as they promised.

Say what you want Yu, the Israelis behaved like brainless savages and should be and must be condemned for their actions.

Just as we here must be condemned for out treatment of a Jewish family recently when we tried to deny them refugee status after they had fled Russia simply because we tried to say they should have gone to Israel.

And we should be condemned for bombing Iraq and Afghanistan without putting in rebuilding resources or giving safe refuge to the refugees we helped to create.

When the spin doctors try to paint people as being so vile they would torture their own children for political gain they should remember Bush, Blair and Howard claiming the Afghans did it so we bombed their weddings, claimed the Iraqis did it so we bombed their weddings.

Give me a break - arabs love their children too.

Sganot

So there's a definate chance then?

Keith

Yutusu

Do yourself a favour and actually read the Geneva Convention. If you did, you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself with such patently silly statements.

Yep they saved their most expensive bombs for attacks on civilians. They were impotent against anyone who could or did fight back.

The personal bile you spewed at forthright thinkers and activitists shows your contempt for open society and democracy. Is that common among you Israelis?

I much prefer the Western heritage of the mixture of the Hebrew and the Greek...rather than the purely semetic Christian-Judeo heritage.
That attitude will stump you and probably result in you calling me anti-semetic or something else as obscure...eh?

Wobbles

...correction it's been going on for 58 years.

To really get these blokes going cite UN resolution 149 at them.

I'll believe it wasn't a land grab when Israel retreats to it's pre '67 borders...on all fronts...and honours UN resolution 149.

Keith

Greg Barns seems to be taking a strong interest in the following subjects:

1/ "Balanced" approach to the war, and close scrutiny of the involvement of any Australians fighting for "Israel". (Hold this thought it gets MUCH better)

2/ Speaks regularly against 'racism' and 'intolerance'

3/ Defence Muslim rights (it seems to me)

"And Prime Minister John Howard told the media on July 28 that he “would have a very negative attitude towards" Lebanese-Australian dual nationals who join Hezbollah. Like Mr Ruddock, he too warned of the grave consequences under anti-terror laws of such an action."

THIS IS THE GOOD BIT.

What I wonder, is whether mr BARNS has an ulterior motive in all this ?
Why.. why would he be so defensive of Lebanese Australians ? Why does he not defend 'Ordinary' Australians, and seek to further our cultural interests.....?

Could it POSSIBLY be.... that HE is one of the DEFENSE ATTOURNEYS FOR THE 13 TERRORISM SUSPECTS ON COMITTAL HEARING NOW ? many of whom are ethnic Lebanese ?

Could it be, that Greg is seeking to 'massage' public opinion and potential jurors in the interests of his clients ?

These are just 'questions' of course....How could I say he IS doing that......?

How do I know he was at the committal hearing ? I SAW HIM THERE today with the defense team ! and confirmed his identity with security personell.

Is it right that a defense attourney not disclose his personal interest in such a case when writing for OLO ?

Specially when (unless some other arrangment has been made) he may be milking the PUBLIC purse of LEGAL AID which is 'you and me'.......

Yes.. "murkey".. very murkey indeed.

All this does is prove that Jewish people will always be loyal to Israel and nobody else. This is THE reason to see them not worthy of being in Australia.

Yuyutsu said that Israel had not fired upon civilians but Hezbollah had.

Mate, you are so full of crapola I have to think you need the barber everyday to cut back the growth.

Israel attacked civilians, killing babies, attacking an ambulance, attacking a refugee camp, etc.

Then again, keep up your lies for it only shows how much Israel can NOT be trusted and must be left with sticks stones to defend itself.

"Logic you really are disgusting piece of work aren't you?"

Marilyn you condemn yourself with you bile and your insults. Who could take you seriously after that outburst?

And wobbles Yuyutsu did not criticise Arabs. It's only your hatred that makes you misreads his comments.

And there was the UN Aid chief who said some nasty things, not about Muslims, not about Arabs but about Hezbollah. His other statement about Israeli nastiness appeared on SBS and ABC news and made headlines in the Age, but surprise, surprise his even stronger criticisms of Hezbollah only appeared in The Age and only in a small article in the middle of the paper. Who controls the press?

Doubts about Hezbollah propoganda are perfectly reasonable. It is strange that questioning of them and their motives raises so much anger.

"Methinks they doth protest too much."

Rache, congratulations:

while you were blind, you could not do much. Now that you are aware and feel smarter, more important and superior, you can begin channeling it into more constructive projects.

Marylin,

A Hezbullah rocket killed two israeli-Arab children as they were playing outside. Nasrallah apologized, but their father replied "why apologize? you did the right thing". About Qana, it may be difficult to sacrifice your own children, but how easier to use children of other parents or orphans... Yes, as a general rule Arabs love their children too, but there are exceptions, and the Iranians behind Hezbullah are not even Arab.

Why should the Lebanese who live in Australia be criminals? they are after all those who left that hell because they appreciate life and sanity. They are very welcome.

Keith,

I've got nothing against your cultural preferences. Please don't deny others their own preferences and don't spew your frustrations at people far away that have nothing to do with your issues. Better work out those dynamics here, in your own country, preferrably within your own family. I'm not calling you any names other than a person who looks for his lost coin under the lamp-post because it was too dark where he lost it.

logic,

Marilyn has your number and that of the rest of your chums in the Zionist cheer squad. With consummate chutzpah you assert: "There is no certainty that any of these deaths were caused by Israel."

When your ubermenschen exploited a border incident to launch a blitzkrieg against Lebanon, civilian deaths on both sides of the border became inevitable. Your contribution to Israeli war crimes, by either flatly denying Israel's responsibility for them or justifying them, is totally disgusting and condemns you as a human being.

Hang on, how many rockets where fired from Beirut into Israel, or from Beirut airport and water front. How many missiles came from Northern Lebanon. None, they were all fired from Southern Lebanon close to Israel.

Where are the photo's and video's of the destroyed missile launches in the towns and cities of Lebanon. Israel says it's killed hundreds of Hizzbollah fighters, yet not one photo has appeared of a dead armed fighter or missile launcher. No armed prisoners, just dead civilians and destroyed towns.

Considering Hizzbollah was able to launch more and more missiles every day, it appears all Israel did was murder civilians, destroy entire towns, roads and infrastructure. My meagre understanding of military strategy is the object is to gain a material benefit, from all manoeuvres. It appears the invincible Israel military, has only achieved devastation and the death of civilians.

Don't get me wrong, I think all monotheists are brain dead and lacking any form of sanity, but I support their right to kill themselves. I'd just prefer, if all monotheists would go fight their wars in their holy lands and leave sane people alone.

Those living in this country identifying themselves as being predominantly loyal to another country, or an ideology, placing itself above our countries independence from ideological and monotheistic control, aren't worthy of being Australians.

It's about time zionists and other monotheists (their brothers and sisters in calamity), of different debaucheries, provide proof of their righteous claims of how much they destroy and how many they kill, to make a better world for all.

I'm happy to be corrected in my understanding of reality.

Wobbles, first it was "at least 22 US Congressmen". Now it’s "some US Senators". (Do you understand that the terms are not synonymous?) Then you give a list of Jewish members of the Bush Administration, apparently lifted from some anti-Semitic website. Some may hold dual citizenship? Perhaps. But they could likewise be citizens of Australia or Guatemala, for all we know. Interesting that you failed to mention James Wolfensohn and Martin Indyk, both of whom served in Bush's first administration and are of Australian origin. (No, they’re not Israeli citizens.)

You haven't demonstrated that any of these people are Israeli citizens, and none are Senators or Congressmen! You have no real reason to believe that "at least 22 US Congressmen" are Israeli citizens; you simply made it up.

In fact, there are currently 26 Jews in the US House of Representatives and 11 in the Senate. I don’t think any are Israeli citizens. In a recent election campaign, the loyalty of one Congressman was questioned based on the false allegation that he is an Israeli citizen and served in the IDF. The charge was widely recognized as carrying anti-Semitic overtones, even by the Congressman's opponent, who lost the election.

And Wobbles, there is no problem for US citizens who hold dual citizenship to vote in non-US elections.

Wobbles: "...It was to highlight inconsistencies…"

I don't follow. How does your false allegation that 22 US Congressmen hold Israeli citizenship highlight "inconsistencies" related to Australia?

Keith, yes, there is a "definite chance". So what? There is also a chance that Australia will fight a war against New Zealand, which would put a whole lot of people in a similar bind. Is that cause for concern? Or that Australia will go to war against the USA. Should journalist Fawaz Turki (who has appeared on this site) and Nicole Kidman (who hasn't) be worried? Or against the UK, which might be a problem for your shared monarch. It's been estimated that 20-25% of Australians have dual citizenship (see http://livinginharmonyaustralia.blogspot.com/ ). Do you question the loyalty of them all?

Just as the IRA are a self appointed bunch of blood thirsty terrorists and an organisation completely separate and distinct to the Irish Government, So too Hezbollah are a self appointed bunch of blood thirsty terrorists and an organisation completely separate and distinct to the Lebanese Government.

To make a single point of difference, the government of Israel was appointed by democratic process and acts as the authority of a sovereign nation where as Hezbollah has not been appointed under democratic process and does not act as the authority of a sovereign nation (the Lebanese government having, thus far, not expired).

The double standard which Barnes, in his usual inept way, pretends to observe in others merely illustrates the workings of a malevolent and manipulative mind, by pretending that, chalk is cheese and the duly elected government of Israel acts with no more authority than an unelected and prohibited terrorist organisation.

There is no double standard anymore than chalk is cheese and Barnes a Bard.

There is just the piffle of the impotent, for the like mindless to agree with.

Oh on the matter of dual citizenship, my understanding was, with regard to USA, dual citizenship was not allowed. To become a US citizen, one is required to pledge allegiance to the USA & Co and renounce all other citizenships (I recall Rupert Murdoch having some problems in this area). This is a different to say, UK and Australia, both of which recognises “dual citizenship”.

ETHNIC CLEASNING.....on a massive scale is the ONLY solution to the Hezbollah presence and threat......

Why ?

Simple. When a verbose spokesman for Hezbollah says:

"We will fight for 'our land' forever against the agressor... our children, parents, grandparents.. we will all fight the aggressors and protect our land"

errr.. duh.. mate.. YOU ATTACKED ISREAL......

We can now identify this 'we attack but its your fault' mentality which is endemic and recurring among the Arab Muslims in that area, it is a terminal disease.

I PREDICT..... (through simple common sense :)

1/ Hezbollah will not only not disarm, it will RE-ARM with more and better weapons and a more radicalized population.

2/ Ultimately it will begin harassing the UN force which will pull out or just slink off to a corner of irrelevance somewhere.

3/ Hezbollah (and HAMAS) will continue to use any means available to 'remove the zionist entity' from the "Islamic Waqf" of Palestine.

4/ Ethnic cleansing as I've outlined will not happen. (world opinion)

5/ The conflict will continue to simmer until Iran goes Nuclear when it will suddenly surge onto the front burner.

From this point on.... the timing and chronology are speculative.

6/ Israel will begin to rebuild its Temple.... ?

7/ War (with Islam) will follow Israel will be defeated.

8/ The temple will be defiled, Islam will be set up as 'The mouthpiece of God' (the False prophet referred to in Revelation)

9/ Tribulation.....

10/ Armageggon

11/ Christ returns.

30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. (Mat 24:30) lets remember ..."Jesus" himself said this.

12/ Judgement. 'Sheep' or 'Goats'.

New heaven, New Earth...

In your case the judgment will be: goose.

Col Rouge, the US allows dual citizenship, and millions of Americans are also citizens of other countries.

You are right that to become a naturalized US citizen, one must renounce other citizenships. But as the Wikipedia notes (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization ), "whether this renunciation actually causes loss of the person's original nationalities will again depend on the laws of the countries involved."

The oath for new US citizens includes renunciatory language, but this is not enforced. The US does not require that one communicate this renunciation to the relevant governments. Even if the other countries are aware that one has renounced one's citizenship, some ignore the renunciation when it is done as a condition for US citizenship, and some honor the renunciation but make it easy to reinstate one's citizenship after it has been renounced.

All this relates to people who become US citizens, not to US citizens who acquire additional citizenships. In the latter case, the US basically ignores whatever additional citizenships one has. It doesn't prohibit dual citizenship, but makes no special provisions and gives no special treatment to dual citizens.

My case is typical: The United States considers me an American citizen, and does not care one way or another that Israel considers me an Israeli citizen. Likewise, Israel considers me an Israeli citizen, and does not care one way or another that the United States considers me an American citizen.

Re the examples I gave, Nicole Kidman is a US citizen by jus soli, because she was born in the US, and an Australian citizen by jus sanguinis, because her parents are Australian.

James Wolfensohn and Martin Indyk are likely only US citizens, because when they acquired US citizenship, this act was grounds for Australia revoking their Australian citizenship. (Australian law has since changed.) The same is presumably true of Rupert Murdoch. Re Fawaz Turki, this site says that he "grew up in a Palestinian refugee camp in Beirut", "spent his youth in Australia", "made the US his residence for the last 32 years", and "is a dual citizen of both the United States and Australia".

Dear Strewth

In my last post I was making the 'ultimate' point u know....

In the end...it doesn't matter if ur Arab, Jew, Westerner, Greek etc...
what matters is whether our names are in the Book of Life.

The determinant of our names being in that Book, is, whether we live in covenant relationship with God. Such covenant relationship is through Christ, via repentance and faith in Christ and the Gospel.

No matter what angles I present on the Palestinian/Israel situation, this is the utlimate solution. (and to all human conflict) Having a citizenship in Heaven is the best approach to human existance. But we don't want to be so heavenly minded that we are of no earthly use...right ?

I had an interesting conversation with some bloke at 'Resistance' Melbourne yesterday, and discovered that they urge a ONE (secular) state solution, which surprised me. He said they campaign for the right of return, but not to a 'Palestinian' state, to a 'single' state where all have the same rights etc.

Well intentioned but quite naive. Demography and history would 'trainwreck' such an approach.

Your passion for 'justice' is noble, admirable and commendable. But its one sided, and it's 'time-bomb' nature does not make it appealing to those with a sound knowledge of history and human nature.

I enjoy our 'combat' with words, but I feel my last post is closer to how things will pan out. I think we are indeed witnessing the gravest and most exciting events of history in our own time.

My heart does go out to people like you, because you are so focused on things which are good for 'passion and debate' but not very workable in real life. There was a song a few decades ago "Jesus is the answer...for the world today" by Andre Crouch...simplistic yes, but true non the less.

cheers from the goose...
*honk* :)

Bamboozled,

You're our resident mad mullah, a cheer leader for ethnic cleansing and racial superiority (with a 'religious' veneer). Your grotesque religious ideology of Christian Zionism is nothing less than a disease of the mind.

Still, you do manage to perform at least one useful service: as one who constantly covers for Zionist exclusivism, ethnic cleansing and occupation, you expose the ugliness of their 'cause' wonderfully. That none of the Zionist tribe on OLO, to my knowledge, have ever disassociated themselves from your perverted views speaks volumes for how they really think.

Keep on rantin'

Strewth,

Israel was under savage attacks since its inception (in fact, even earlier). Having so many enemies, it needs every friend that comes along to help and cannot afford to be choosy.

In Israel's earlier days, Israel's few supporters happened to include the Soviet Union, South Africa, Iran (under the Shah), and Uganda (under Idi Amin) - and now, the USA. This does not mean that Israel supports Communism, Appartheid, corrupt and brutal dictatorships, or the American way: Israel simply did, does and will continue doing whatever is necessary to assure its survival in its hostile environment. Actually in this regard, Australia is no different!

I believe that the your attacks on Israel, and that of your fellows in OLO, are mis-directed: you do not truly know the real Israel and the information you receive about it is twisted by Arab/Islamic propaganda; you wish to lash at the USA (for reasons totally unrelated to the Middle-East), but since they are too strong, you instead blindly hit the ones they support.

Neither I nor Israel support "Zionist exclusivism, ethnic cleansing and occupation". Those Arabs who genuinely accepted the Jewish state live there happily as equal and respected citizens.

Yuyu,

About the kindest thing I could say to you is: you've got sand in your hair.

And here's some more twisted "Arab/Islamic propaganda" for you from noted Arab Muslim, Yitzhak Laor. It's from today's edition of that notorious, twisted Arab/Muslim propaganda rag, the Australian Financial Review: "The truth...is that Israel must always be allowed to do as it likes even if this involves scorching its supremacy into Arab bodies. This supremacy is beyond discussion and it is simple to the point of madness. We have the right to abduct. You don't. We have the right to arrest. You don't. You are terrorists. We are virtuous. We have sovereignty. You don't. We can ruin you. You cannot ruin us, even when you retaliate, because we are tied to the most powerful nation on earth."

There are none so blind as will not see.

So Yutusu

You support a return to the pre'67 borders? How about the implementation of UN resolution 149?

good on you, that is courageous.

So yutusu

You statement,

'Neither I nor Israel support "Zionist exclusivism, ethnic cleansing and occupation'

was a really stupid statement.

Israel doesn't support occupation? Pigs a...!

Arn't the West Bank, East Jerseulem, Golan, and Shaba Farms occupied?

I can't blame nations wanting to wipe out Israel. I don't remember having to fight Arabs in WWII but Imperialist Japan and the Third Reich.

If someone were to come in to your neighbourhood, push all of you out, force you live in third world conditions as they feasted like Kings, wouldn't you fight back?

I sure would.

Why arn't "Australian" Jews who support Israel not subject to the same restrictions as "Australian" Muslims who support Hezbollah, Greg Barns?

Too easy. Israelis a recognised country and a member of the United Nations. Hezbollah is a private army of mercenaries and religous fanatics who have no right to wage a war of aggression upon a UN state. Hezbollah has no more recognition as "a state" than does the Ku Klux Klan, the Red Brigades, or the Mafia.

Sometimes I think that I am talking to a bunch of retarded children.

Strewth,

Kind words are a luxury: better be verbally abused than physically dead.

I support Israel's survival, as the only Jewish state in the world.
I support Israel doing whatsoever is necessary to defend itself (whether the rest of the world likes it or not).
I do not support actions by Israel that hurt others and are committed for any purpose other than self-defence (such as allowing civilians to settle in occupied territory).

I support Israel's military supremacy.
I support Israel's moral supremacy, and I am saddened when it gets dented. Despite those dents - which I like seeing fixed, Israel is still far more morally superior than its terrorist opponents.

Keith,

Thanks, but why "courageous"? these were my views ever since:

I support Israel returning to its pre-67 borders as soon as it is safe to do so, so once returned, the occupied territories will not be used for launching further and deadlier attacks on the Jewish state. Until then, a long road is ahead: efforts must be made step-by-step to escape this entaglement.

I cannot give justice to the complex refugee issue in 350 words.
As a brief rule, individuals who genuinely accept Israel as a Jewish state and are genuinely affiliated with this land (as opposed to those whose only interest in Israel is to destroy it from within), should be able to live there. Others not, and a financial-compensation needs to be worked out on a case-by-case basis (to include Jewish refugees and properties in Arab countries).

Most Israelis do not support occupation - Israel was trapped into occupying lands that its majority does not want, but unable to leave for security reasons.

Spider,

"If someone were to come in to your neighbourhood, push all of you out": that's exactly what Arabs tried to do to the Jews, who defended themselves and won! Those who did not attack Jews in cold blood, remained on their land as Israeli citizens.

Strewth: "That none of the Zionist tribe on OLO, to my knowledge, have ever disassociated themselves from your perverted views speaks volumes for how they really think."

You're not paying attention. In http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4648#46958 , I said I don't support ethnic cleansing. And you're again trying to play the same old game of "if you didn't denounce it, you must support it." Shall I assume you agree with everything you haven't denounced?

Keith, you are confused; there is no "res. 149" relevant to the conflict. Surely you mean Res. 194. Like other GA resolutions, it is only a recommendation. Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen voted against it. Some of its provisions have been implemented in full, and some ignored by all parties.

Spider: "If someone were to come in to your neighbourhood, push all of you out, force you live in third world conditions as they feasted like Kings, wouldn't you fight back?"

We did. We won. We're back.

Yuyu,

"Israel's survival"? What are you talking about here? Holocaust Mark 2 or regime change? In neither case has there ever been a realistic prospect of either from 1948-2006. The Palestinians, however, HAVE BEEN wiped off the map as a nation and ARE BEING ethnically cleansed on a daily basis. Your tribe's survival is not and has never been in doubt in Palestine. Your real, as opposed to your professed, concern is solely that your tribe, having ethnically cleansed and continuing to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians, remain topdog. Your claim to moral supremacy in this butchery is a sick joke.

sganot,

You are a total hypocrite. You say "I don't support ethnic cleansing" and then argue that the implementation of UNGA res 194 is only a "recommendation" - as if that gives your tribe the right to ignore it. And without even bothering to read your latest apologetics I can guarantee that you had no problem whatever with your tribe's ethnic cleansing of south Lebanon.

Sganot ”Col Rouge, the US allows dual citizenship, and millions of Americans are also citizens of other countries.

You are right that to become a naturalized US citizen, one must renounce other citizenships.”

I am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me, either way, your suggestion,

“US allows dual citizenship”

and

“to become a naturalized US citizen, one must renounce other citizenships”

are self contradictory.

I am comfortable with what my belief is, as I suggested “to become a naturalized US citizen, one must renounce other citizenships.”

Strewth,

I am not talking of a regime-change: Israel is a democracy, so its regime have changed several times already.

Israel today is under threat of holocaust more than ever: Iran is building nuclear weapons and the moment they have them, they will unquestionably launch them at Israel. This is why Israel developed the best anti-missile missiles in the world, the 'Chetz', but with nukes, even one getting through is enough to finish Israel. It is also possible that they will hand such weapons to Hezbullah, to detonate on the ground, which is one big reason why none of them should be able to get any close to Israel's border.

On its other front, Israel is preventing a holocaust daily. Hamas and similar terrorist groups vowed to kill all the Jews, which they proved again and again by suicide bombers attacking civilians and daily launching of hand-made rockets on Israeli towns near Gaza. Israel does not wait till they become successful, till they obtain professional missiles instead of their improvised ones, but cleanse them while they are small and destroys their bomb factories: not the poor Palestinians as such, just the terrorists (although despite reasonable care, unavoidably some civilans can also be hurt in process).

Yes, Israel should remain topdog, for the sole reason that as an underdog it would not survive one day, while its enemies had no problem surviving as underdogs for many years.

By imagining, inventing and claiming that my (or Israel's) real concerns, WHICH WERE NEVER OTHERWISE, are different than what I (or Israel) profess, you only show your own guilty conscience. Mine is clear.

Let me re-state...for the record... so that there are no illusions as to where I stand....

I SUPPORT ETHNIC CLEANSING. as being the most compassionate means of solving the endemic conflict between competing groups of people.

I do NOT support achieving that cleansing by other than a gradual, step by step approach, with military intervention being the last resort.

Being the VICTIM of ethnic (or perhaps more accurately 'class') cleansing, (from the Scottish Highlands) through my ancestors I have to say that given the climate here, I'm pretty happy with the result.

GET OVER IT..... human history is the history of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Sad, but true.

THE RULE IS....."Rule, or be Ruled" that IS how life works.

If we are the recipients of benevolant rule, so much the better.

Conflict arises out of 2 major issues

1/ Ethnic Pride "We are 'better' than them' (I am ITALIAN Australian Rather than 'AUSTRALIAN of Italian Ancestry)

2/ COMPETITION FOR RESOURCES.

So, the only other solution to competition for resources is to remove the 'us/them' factor. This can occur when opposing parties embrace the same religious foundation, but even THEN... it will not solve the problem completely because it will come back to ethnicity, extended family, Clan, tribe etc...

"The only 'race' is the human race" is laughably naive though a noble ideal.

Emphasizing or even facilitating 'difference' (such as with Multi-culturalism) is a recipe for conflict, possibly even murky war

Yuyu,

Deluded as ever. Totally self defeating and destructive. And so typical of Zionism. EVERY non-Jew is INNATELY anti-Semitic, therefore we cannot live side-by-side with non-Jews. We must have our own little ghetto (albeit with moveable borders) and when we steamroll any non-Jews who happen to be in our way, their natural, human tendency to resist is...a further demonstration of anti-Semitism! You're incapable of seeing anything circular, self-fulfilling here? Silly question! Of course not. "Israel is preventing a holocaust daily"...by committing a holocaust daily! Sheer madness.

Bamboozled:

"Emphasizing or even facilitating 'difference' (such as with Multi-culturalism) is a recipe for conflict, possibly even murky war."

Does this mean that you and your long suffering spouse are now at each other's throats?

Boaz David
Your ideas of ethnic cleansing sicken me.

Answer these or drop your incessant insane ranting about your final solution.

If I agreed with you (WHICH I DON"T)that ethnic cleansing is reasonable and would work...and being the practical chappie that I am ...wouldn't it make more sense and be easier to cleanse the minority party from the Mid East? And that isn't the Palestinians. Why wouldn't you be in favour of such a move?

Yutsu

You support the illegal occupations just like Israel. No amount of word manipulation on your part will alter that fact.

Tell me why exactly the situation would be any different from today if the borders were formalised at the pre '67 ones? I'd suggest there would be a workable peace as the terror merchants on both sides lost community support.

Take a look at the situation between Israel and Jordan and Israel and Egypt before you answer. They have all had their adherents and desciples of violence and extermination...and still do...including Israel.

Strewth,

1) Let's avoid name-calling.

2) UNGA res. 194 is a recommendation; all tribes have the same right to ignore it, and that's mostly what's happened. As usual, each tribe selectively supports the parts of 194 it likes, but no one seems interested in the resolution as a whole.

3) If you think there was ethnic cleansing in 1948, Res. 194 wouldn't change that. And one need not support ethnic cleansing to oppose Res. 194, or oppose ethnic cleansing to support Res. 194, for a whole variety of reasons.

4) "without even bothering to read... I can guarantee that you had no problem whatever..." You don't know how I feel about the war because I haven't told you. This business of "I know what you think without you telling me" is astounding. I couldn't write a better caricature of stereotypical thinking, prejudice, and bigotry if I tried.

5) There has been no ethnic cleansing in south Lebanon.

Col. Rouge,

As I explained above, there is no contradiction between allowing dual citizenship and demanding that new American citizens renounce their previous citizenships. Even if these renunciations were effective in preventing dual citizenship of these new Americans (which they're not), people who were already American citizens could still acquire additional citizenships, and some people qualify for both American and foreign citizenship at birth.

Dear Keith

I've actually stated in other places that to remove the Jewish population would be just as effective in ending the conflict. No question about that.

I do indeed have theological reasons for not suggesting it happen, but it would certainly be workable. When I say theological reasons, its not that I believe that the ultimate outcome in terms of 'final things' is dependent on human activity, i.e. We can 'help God' No, on the contrary, I believe it is inevitable that the Jewish state will remain, and grow but only up to the point of near Armageddon, when it appears by one view of last days interpretation that Israel will in fact be defeated in the short term prior to Christs return.

Let me just say, that on the day you see (if u do) the Al Aksa Mosque and Dome of the Rock being demolished to make way for a new Jewish Temple, be sure that the end is not far off.

At the moment, the likelihood of such a thing happening is maybe 5% as a wild guess as to how many Israelis would support it.

But then, the idea that there would even 'be' an Israel in 1940 must have looked the same.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm talking about human solutions which work, irrespective of the short term suffering. It happened to the Jews many times. (Assyrian, Babylonian and Roman) So, on a human level, I believe in the 'workability' of Ethnic cleansing.

I walked along side the protest march in Melbourne yesterday, with people screaming "Israel Israel blah blah blah"(blah= war criminal, aggressor, evil etc) there were about 100 all up. There were 2 elements. Socialist left advocating a Single Secular state for all. (never will happen) and the Palestinians who would prefer Israel OUT 100%. Quite a sad lot really... but symptomatic of the complexity of the situation.
They were stunned for words when I mentioned we are standing on 'ethnically cleansed/stolen land' having that convo in Swanston Street.

If the Palestinian's could be persuaded to leave voluntarily, with compensatory inducements of a financial sort, would this still be repugnant to everyone?

Would this solve the problem?

Although Strewth and others have savaged David Boaz for even suggesting ethnic cleansing, no appears to be offering any better ideas to resolve this without endless genocidal violence.

Deserved or not, there's no doubt the Palestinian's are feeling the 'stick', could the international community not resolve this by showing them the carrot and offering them a way out of their dilemma?

Strewth,

I did not expect so much irrational nonsense for you. What has this got to do with Jews and non-Jews? Israel has a significant non-Jewish population, which is not a problem. The reality is so much simpler: a country is attacked - so that country defends itself. Period.

Keith,

First a technical point: Israel's occupation is not illegal. It is bad - even for Israel itself, but not illegal: what is illegal is the settlement of Israeli civilians in those areas.

I wish it was possible to just wave some magic wand and all the occupation will go in a puff of smoke, but I realize that real life is not that easy.

If Israel were to leave the West Bank at once, right now, [besides an internal civil war] it will face constant rocket fire on its centre, including anti-aircraft missiles on civil planes in its international airport. Yes, there may be an official cease-fire, but as it happened many times before, Arafat said "Oh, sorry, but it's not us, it's Hamas" and later Hamas said "Oh, it's not us, its Islamic Jihad" and next, the Islamic Jihad will say "Oh, it's not us, its the Revolutionary Mickey-Mouse".

Jordan and Egypt are stable countries with a firm regime that can impose discipline on wayward elements. The Palestinians are not. This is why occupation cannot end in one day and step-by-step confidence-building measures are needed.

And yes, Israel also has a hard time with its unruly fanatic settlers. Olmert was recently voted in on the agenda of taking steps to remove them, but now with pressure mounting after the war in Lebanon, he says that due to the expenses of that war and the need to rehabilitate the North, Israel has no funds left to finance the removal of those settlers. This is very sad (how about a small donation, Keith).

Bamboozled,

Are you too a hypocrite? You wrote on Sunday 20: "Emphasizing or even facilitating 'difference' (such as with Multi-culturalism) is a recipe for conflict, possibly even murky war." Yet you earlier informed us that your long-suffering spouse hails from Borneo. Please explain.

sganot,

1) If the shoe fits...

2) UNGA res. 194 of 1948, enshrining the principle of repatriation and compensation for the 750,000+ Palestinian refugees ethnically cleansed from the 80% of Palestine overrun by Zionist forces in 1948, was watered down in the final draft by the US, which voted for the emasculated version but failed to support its implementation because Truman had fallen captive to the nascent US Zionist lobby. In other words, an early example of the US as dishonest broker in the ME conflict, paving the way for the agony we've seen ever since. As for your misleading assertion that "no one seems interested in the res. as a whole", the vast majority of UN member states have reaffirmed it over 40 times since it was passed.

3) What a feast of weasel words from a master. If "you think there was ethnic cleansing in 48"! Heaven's, who would think such a thing of God's Chosen Ones? Nah, 85% of Palestine's population at the time was inexplicably seized with a desire to go on holiday beyond its borders, right?

4) See 5)

5) "There has been no ethnic cleansing in south Lebanon". Why of course, 25% of Lebanon's population were also inexplicably seized with a desire to go on a holiday in the opposite direction, right? Seems that whenever the Zionistas arrive, the neigbours are always consumed with holiday fever!

Kalin's question is clumsily framed. Let me help him out: My tribe wants exclusive possession of Palestine, so do you reckon it'd be kosher to bribe the Palestinians into going on a permanent holiday? Cause unless they do my tribe will have no choice but to dish them out "endless genocidal violence". Doesn't that make things clearer, Mr K?

Strewth,

Your whining sarcasm is on point, but unhelpful. Sure, part of the motivation to leave is the distress of caused by Israel’s presence, but that’s a reality that isn’t going to change anytime soon. Any solution therefore has to deal with this reality.

As I see it, possible futures for the Palestinians:

A) Israel and the Jews go away and Palestinians are allowed to set up their own continuous state in the region - Attractive as that may be to the Palestinians, it doesn’t seem achievable in the foreseeable future. A completely unrealistic option.

B) The Israeli’s learn to trust and accept the Palestinians so both peoples can be fully integrated into one society and nation state - Ideal as this sounds, it just isn’t practical given the history of bloodshed? An unrealistic option.

C) The Two state solution. This is the status quo approach of all diplomatic efforts since Israel’s creation and it hasn’t worked yet. Whilst an eventual peace between these rivals is in principle feasible, almost 60 years of conflict indicates the hoped for result is far off and the Palestinians have generations of suffering ahead of them. This shouldn’t be acceptable for anyone.

D) The eventual resettlement and absorption of Palestinians into other nations. Sad as that may be for those who dream of a nation for the Palestinians, if done ‘humanely’ and with adequate compensation, it appears to be a realistic option and would offer the Palestinians and their descendants much better life prospects than they have today.

If anyone else has other plausible outcomes, please come forward as I’d really like to hear them.

Looking at the above, it seems plain that D, with financial or other compensation, is the best outcome the Palestinians can realistically hope for.

Strewth and others obviously find this later alternative repulsive, but I haven’t yet heard any remotely practical outcome which would offer more hope to the Palestinian people. Please enlighten us if there is one. Anyone?

Go Kalin,

Bamboozled was the first Zionist on OLO to advocate ethnically cleansing the Palestinians. You're the second. I've actually been calling on our Zionistas to disassociate themselves from this most troubling practice, so far without result. But now I can see that the more honest among you are emerging from the closet, so to speak, and showing us your true face. Can I take this opportunity therefore to congratulate you & Bamboozled for being up front about what you REALLY stand for? Any more REAL Zionistas putting up their hands?

Well well Yutusu

You prove my point.

You seem to think the dictatorships in Egypt and Jordan are the reason for the peace between them and Israel.

How do you account for the situation between Syria and Israel?

Why wouldn't a democracy in Palestine create a peace? As a democrat I believe democracy results in peacefulness. Why don't you?

Simple answer, since you support and excuse dictatorships, you have faith in and believe in systems other than democracy. And such is life in Israel with it's constant propaganda and suppression of individuals.

Mate even if no one has outlawed occupations of nearly 40 years duration then that needs to change and certainly no Western Liberal democrat can support an occupation that is so morally repugnant to decency. But then again you are one of those Judea Christian fundamentalists. The west rejected that path yonks ago. We mix the Greek traditions and the Hebrew traditions.

Our way results in unity and peace yours continues division and war.

Kalin,

When talking about "absorption of Palestinians into other nations", we must remember that those called "Palestinians" are anyway not a separate nation, but simply Arabs who happen to live or used to live in the area of Palestine. Before 1948, most of them aspired to belong to Syria and the rest, to Egypt. Their separate identity as a nation was only invented in 1964 by the Arab league for the sake of propaganda, and should Israel ever be destroyed, their purpose been achieved, the next day they would disappear without distinctions into the greater Arab nation.

While it is true that the way those so-called "Palestinians" behave, supporting terror and teaching their children in every school-book to hate and kill Jews, they do not deserve a land of their own, yet I support them having it anyway for the following reasons:

1. The territories occupied in 1967 are corrupting Israel morally and blemish it in public world opinion.

2. Those territories give rise and support fanatic settlers who attribute those lands with mystical qualities, based on which they attempt to bring about a fundamentalist revolution in Israel. Once those territories are no longer held by Israel, their mystical claims will be refuted and their threat greatly diminished.

3. The occupied territories are Arab and the "Palestinians" are also Arab. No other Arab country is willing to take that cursed land, and they at least claim interest in it (I believe they lie) - so let them have it.

4. It is easier to demand an established state, which at least has responsibilities and something to lose, to keep its cease-fire agreements (I don't dare even mention "peace") than to deal with sporadic hit-and-run organizations that care nothing about the civilians around them.

5. Perhaps Strewth will never believe me, but I truly do not support ethnic cleansing of any sort.

Your "D" solution is unrealistic: Arabs will never surrender their "Palestinian" weapon. Without it, they will find it hard to explain to the rest of the world why they want Israel destroyed.

I therefore vote for option C.

Keith:just-finished-my-350-words-so-will-answer-you-tomorrow

Strewth:

1)I suggest debating the issues, not trading insults. Name-calling lowers the level of dialogue and serves no constructive purpose.

2)Res. 194 refers to all refugees created by the conflict, not just Palestinian refugees; talks about other issues, as well; and whether you feel it was emasculated is irrelevant.

Not only do you and I have problems with 194, but so do Palestinians. For example, it demands free access to holy places where the PA prevents Jewish prayer, and calls for the internationalization and demilitarization of some areas now claimed by or under PA control (including the suggested capital of Palestine). Palestinians generally oppose its recommendations re refugees when those refugees are Jews. Palestinians want an unconditional right of return for Palestinian refugees, while the resolution lists conditions: that return be limited to those who wish to live at peace with their neighbors, that their return not be immediate but only "at the earliest practicable date"; and that there be an option of compensating refugees for lost property. Perhaps most significant, the resolution only refers to the refugees themselves, not their descendents.

There is no contradiction between UN members having "reaffirmed" the resolution and not being interested in implementing it.

Here is more food for thought about 194: http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/2654.htm

3)85% of Palestine's population at the time" did not become refugees, and if there was ethnic cleansing, it was in both directions. And what I wrote earlier stands: Res. 194 wouldn't change what happened in 1948; and one need not support ethnic cleansing to oppose Res. 194, or oppose ethnic cleansing to support Res. 194.

4)"See 5" is a non sequitur.

5)The temporary flight of refugees from the conflict zone was in both directions--Lebanese civilians went north; Israeli civilians south. It was not "ethnic cleansing."

6)“I've actually been calling on our Zionistas to disassociate themselves from this most troubling practice, so far without result.” Not true. When we say we oppose ethnic cleansing, you pretend not to hear, and then claim that those in favor are “more honest”, “showing us your true face”, etc. It’s a classic prejudiced, paranoid response.

Keith, sorry for the delay:

Isn't Australia also "a firm regime that can impose discipline on wayward elements"? now is Australia a dictatorship?

Isn't the USA a democracy? and is it peaceful?

Where did you get this strange idea as if Israel suppress individuals? are you aware of the extreme diversity of views there? are you aware that Israeli Arabs have their own political parties and speak openly in Parliament against the state of Israel. An Arab-Israeli legislator recently called on terrorists to kidnap Israeli soldiers: the attorney-general ruled that even this was not sufficient to strip him of his citizenship and parliament-membership. That could not happen even in Australia - if that's not democracy, what is?

About Syria: the Golan Heights are an extreme strategical vantage point. It is very difficult to trust a regime that proved untrustworthy in the past, have 10000's missiles with chemical warheads directed at you, befriends Iran that openly declares its intention to annihilate Israel, and arms its terrorists, to take positions over a kilometer almost vertically straight above your head.

Another problem: unlike the West-Bank and Gaza, Israel formally annexed the Golan Heights and its formerly-Syrian residents are now happily Israeli citizens, their children were born Israelis and don't want to return to a 3rd-world dictatorship.

"you are one of those Judea Christian fundamentalists": you make me laugh!

The only thing repugnant about the israeli occupation is the settlers. Until those fundies arrived and began to harass the local population, no other occupation in history was more humane. The local (occupied) population was happy and content. Their conditions, safety and freedoms were never better, far better than what they previously had under Jordan and later under Arafat and Hamas. They moved freely, entered Israel to find work, and Israelis were shopping without fear in Gaza, Ramallah and Hebron and went on holiday to Jericho. With an open and safe border, both Israel and the occupied Arabs enjoyed a massive surge in tourism.

The key for peace is the removal of fundamentalists from both sides... but I don't know how it can be done.

sganot:

1) The naked propagandist dresses himself up as a debater & advocate of "dialogue"? Don't pee on our legs and tell us it's raining.

2) Oh yes, the "Jewish" refugees of 1948 Palestine! Benny, Benny, back to the drawing board, mate! It's gotta be 'The Birth of the Palestinian & JEWISH Refugee Problem Revisited' from now on. Sganot, does the Ministry for Hasbara over there pay you by the word or by the sheer ingenuity of your obfuscations? The chutzpah of those Palestinians! After we've gone to the time and trouble of ethnically cleansing them, they actually expect to return to their homes and lands UNCONDITIONALLY? Oi. And they still don't know the meaning of "at the earliest practicable date" after 58 years? What to do with such people, Sganot?

3) Really? You don't like 85%? Do you have a problem then with the fact that what WAS a huge majority in 80% of pre 1948 Palestine was reduced to a small minority afterwards? "And if there was ethnic cleansing"? Can't make up your mind? Now, you oppose 194 I take it? The Palestinians just upped stakes and went on a holiday, yes? Let's say they want to come back home, and that they're prepared to sit for that Living at Peace with Their Neighbours Test, OK? What then might be your objection(s) to their return?

5) That nice man Mr Regev who pops up on our TV screens every night and is surely senior to you in the hasbara stakes was quoted in Haaretz of 12/8/06 telling us that Israel wished to hand over to the Lebanese army "a cleaner south Lebanon." Now if he doesn't have a problem with cleaning out such places why should you?

6) And yours, as usual, is the classic Zionist propagandist smokescreen response.

Strewth,

I am not a fan of removing the Palestinians, am not convinced it would work, and agree that it is repulsive. Nevertheless, the status quo is also repulsive, and after 60 years of failed pursuit of a two state solution, other alternatives ought to be considered.

It is also self evident, that many Palestinians are already refugees for most practical purposes, but have no place to go. There is nothing morally abhorrent in recognising this and giving them a place to go.

Why disregard any option which might offer the people of Palestine a chance to give their children a better life. How could just considering this be so repulsive to anyone who really cares about the people of Palestine?

I'd love to discuss other proposals for resolving this problem, but whilst I see a lot of blame and malice on this issue, I hardly ever hear proposals for realistic solutions. Are there any others? Strewth?

Kalin,

Is it really so hard? Let's make it easy for you. Here's a hypothetical: I turf you and your family out of your house, move my family in, and blaze away at you if you dare approach. Now tell me what steps you're going to take to win your home back. Will you, for example, be asking the government to find you alternative accomodation?

Yuytsu,

It seems that every time I read stuff from people like you, I begin to think that we should've left the Nazi's alone...join up with em instead.

Why did we bother anyway? All we have done is give it away to people who we fought against. Oh, and save then repay us by demanding we bow to them when in reality, Israel should be bowing to us.

Strewth,

OK, I'll answer your question.

If I and my family are turfed out on the street by anyone, sure, I'm going to try damned hard to get my home back. However, after 60 or so years of trying, I'm going to look at my grown children, and their grown children and their grand children and see they are still homeless waiting for a justice that isn't coming. Sure I'm still going to hate those that threw me out, but I'm also going to be ashamed that I spent so much time and energy stubbornly pursuing an unachievable goal.

If I'm then offered a chance to take my family to a new place where I have a prospect of building them a new home, then I would do it in a heartbeat.

No, I'm not going to suddenly forgive those who drove me out, but my family's future is worth far more than my pride, justice or land. This is the unhappy choice all displaced people have to make.

Now Strewth, please answer my question (see above)?

Kalin, you were trapped: you gave a good answer to Strewth's bad question!

Unless you both just wanted to wonder off-topic discussing abstract moral questions, the case of a family just being kicked out of their home on a bright spring day has no resemblance to what happened in Israel.

What happened in 1948 is that Arab militants told the local villagers that they must leave home for about 2 weeks while they use their village to launch attacks and finish-off the Jews, then, so the villagers were told, they could return and earn the homes of the Jews as well. Some obeyed happily, others in fear (because those militants were not-so-nice to their women and girls). Unfortunately for them, those militants lost. Those Arabs who did not lend their homes to the militants (with a very few regrettable exceptions), still live there as Israeli citizens.

But why should I bother you again with facts?
as honest Spider implied, when it comes to killing Jews, no excuses are needed.

Spider,

Your views are simply disgusting.

Yoyo,

Your creative writing skills never cease to amaze, but trying to pass them off as fact is blatant dishonesty. As a tunnel-visioned Zionist zealot, however, you're obviously unaware of this. Until you're capable of transcending your tribal consciousness and racism, you will remain an emotionally stunted human being.

Kalin,

What an inspiration you are! It's better to live on your knees than die on your feet. Your children must be so proud.

Strewth,

I would choose a better life for my children over being an ‘inspiration.’ I assume you have no children to love.

Yuyutsu,

Your comments are noted but the reasons for the Palestinians' predicament are not relevant to discussing a practical way out for them. Strewth’s analogy between the Palestinians and an evicted family, whether based in fact or fiction, is a fair reflection of how many see the situation which is why I thought it worthwhile answering his question.

In raising the idea of relocating the Palestinians I was merely putting forward an idea for discussion. Strewth assumes I am Zionist for looking outside the present ‘two state’ box, but he’s wrong. I would be just as happy to consider other viable options, but I haven’t heard any. The present approach has not worked in 60 years so Strewth is a bit short sighted in refusing to discuss alternatives. Perhaps the cons do outweigh the pros, but until the matter is debated by intelligent people with a diversity of perspectives it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.

Relocating the Palestinians requires resolution of the following issues:

1) How do you compensate the Palestinians sufficiently to make them go voluntarily?
2) Who bears the cost of this compensation?
3) Where would they go?

These are not easy questions but I think they could be answered if the powers that be were to try. The answer to 1) and 2) perhaps lies in the money and effort spent over the last 60 years by all parties. The same parties making a similar effort expended in this different way, might well be sufficient to provide attractive options for the Palestinians. The answer to 3) might be that cashed up refugees are a lot more attractive than impoverished refugees.

It’s just an idea.

Also, I am interested in your assertion “Arabs will never surrender their Palestinian weapon. Without it, they will find it hard to explain to the rest of the world why they want Israel destroyed.” If not the plight of the Palestinians, why do you believe the Arabs want Israel destroyed?

Kalin,

You've exposed yourself as a fraud. Nowhere do you consider Israeli culpability for the near 60 year plight of the Palestinian refugees. Nowhere do you assign responsibility for a just resolution of this never-ending obscenity to those responsible - the Israelis and their American backers. Nowhere do you expect the offenders to give on this. Nowhere do you display the slightest concern for the violated rights of the Palestinian people, whether refugees or under occupation. You are fooling no one with your pretense at disinterested discussion. Your agenda is simply to get the Israelis off the hook. At best you are a blow-in apologist for Israel, at worst one of their dedicated band of Zionist spindoctors. Either way, you're operating in a moral vacuum. Like every group of refugees on this planet, the Palestinian refugees have an absolute right as per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and every standard of international law to return to their homes and lands. That right has no use-by date.

Kalin,

Not all Arabs want Israel destroyed: most do not.
But given that a significant percentage does, that in most Arab countries, killing Jews is still taught in every school-book (even as examples in arithmetic) and that due to the violent and undemocratic nature of Islamic society, the extremists rise to power while the moderates keep silent in order to keep their heads attached to their necks, the sane majority view matters not.

Extremist Islam cannot accept the presence of independent infidels in any land ever previously conquered by Moslems (it can still accept infidels under the Dhimmi, subordinate and humiliated, state): how more so in the holy-land and after the crusader-trauma. It is presumably a religious tenet, but in fact, behind the religious excuse is a plain macho "honour/shame" issue.

Obviously the "Palestinians" are just an excuse, because Arabs used to massacre Jews long before the creation of Israel and the Palestinian problem. Had they been the real problem, Israel would have happily given them whatever they want and solved the issue long ago.

Have you noticed that Hamas and Islamic-Jihad concentrate their utmost terrorism efforts just before Israel is about to make concessions to Palestinians? While claiming the opposite, they will do everything in their power to prevent the welfare of ordinary Palestinians. Their worst two nightmares are that the Palestinians become happy and prosperous, and that Israel would no longer be considered a villain. If that happens, they will no longer be needed and will have to go and lose their power.

Where there will be will, a solution shall be found!

Strewth,

If you can only have one of the following, which do you choose?

1) Destruction of Israel; or
2) Peace and happiness for the Palestinian people.

It isn’t a hard question.

When you attack me instead of my proposition, you do nothing to further your cause and my proposition remains untarnished. Whether I am a Muslim, Jew or Nazi, the merit of what I say is in my words, not my character (about which you know almost nothing). For the record though, I am none of the above, but if I fit into any ideological box, then it would be that of Liberal Democracy, a cornerstone of which is free and open dialogue. I sense this is something you do not much care for.

Yuyutsu,

I too have the impression much of the Arab/Islamic world is more concerned with destroying Israel than with helping the Palestinians, as is suggested by the willingness of the Arab/Islamic world to provide military aid in preference to civil aid. I have, however, always been puzzled as to why. I struggle to believe it is some vague “honour/shame” issue, or simple anti-Semitism, but concede I can think of no other likely reason.

Strewth’s rhetoric does seem to be an example of how hatred for Israel, often exceeds concerns for the Palestinians, and he is likely not even an Arab. I am puzzled.

Any thoughts on how this can be addressed beyond simply enduring it?

Kalin,

I am afraid that I don't know of any quick fix.
If you ever visit the middle-east, one thing you ought to bring with you is patience, patience, and more patience.
Step by step, slowly slowly, a long series of gradual confidence-building concessions is needed, many of them more symbolic than substantial.

But here are some raw ideas:

Understanding that the root-cause of the conflict is an honour/shame issue, a good idea is to help the Arabs to feel like "men". Don't deny them victories, sing praises to their heroic achievements even if it was just killing a mosquito at night, and if you cannot afford giving them anything of yours - take something from them and allow them to win it back... with Arab men, how it looks is more important than how it is.

Perhaps Israel could even symbolically ask their permission to stay, then thank them profusely for their permission and generosity (not that they would otherwise leave...). Then both sides could slaughter two innocent lambs (what wrong have they done?!) and arrange a "sulcha" (making-up ceremony).

Another important point is that Israel must remain strong, even after a formal peace treaty: this will help the Arab moderates, who really want to stay out of the conflict, find a good pretext for not attacking Israel. However, to prevent their humiliation, let them believe that they are not facing Israel, but rather the USA which is behind it (whether true or not), and even better, the whole world: after all, there is nothing shameful about not being able to defeat a super-power.

Yoyo,

Before you get carried away by your creepy racist fantasies about Arab men, meditate on the following analysis by an insider:

"It is equally clear to the Israelis and the Americans that unlike the bold Hezbollah, the IDF soldier has lost his will to fight. The IDF is a spoiled, confused and tired army that specializes solely in terrorising civilian populations while being engaged in constant tactical withdrawal. It is not trained to win wars any more. Instead, its tank battalions are mainly engaged in the daily shelling of schools and hospitals. Its Air force uses the best american fighter planes to flatten neighborhoods and shoot deadly rockets at cars in the streets of Gaza. Its command units are expert in abducting democratically elected middle-aged Palestinian politicians. The IDF is basically a heavy army specializing in merciless regional bullying. Yet, it cannot win a war, and as such it has nothing to offer the American empire."

I hope you found it as illuminating as I did.

Strewth,

The only true words in the above are in the last half-sentence:
well and good, the IDF indeed exists only to defend Israel - not to serve the interests of the American empire.

But Shhhhh... whoever wrote this paragraph seems to be desperate to demonstrate that he won - let's not break his illusion so feelings of humiliation will not stand between him and making peace with Israel.

Yoyo,

It was written by ex-Israeli, Gilad Atzmon. You can read the piece and stacks more such illuminating essays on counterpunch.com. But then, you're happy in your own little fantasy world, aren't you?

Strewth,

Being ex-Israeli does not guarantee that what you say is true.

I looked at this site: all I could find of Mr. Atzmon is an article from 2004. This site seems to belong to some disgruntled Americans who discuss American issues in opposition to their current regime: they probably hate Israel only because the current American government is pro-Israel: either way, I could not care less about that silly empire.

And Gilad is completely wrong. I suppose being an "Ex Israeli" makes im an "insider" so by that logic. Every other israeli citizen (the vast majority of whom have served in the army btw) is an "insider"and therefore there words carry just as much "sway" so when they talk about the lengths their government goes to prevent civilian deaths. My friend watched one of his good friend sin his unit die because after seeing someone who they knew was a terrorist, they had to creep up on him to confirm that he had weapons before being able to fire. He opened fire on them first, killing him.

I suppose Timothy Mcveigh had great insight into America, seeing as he was a "Former American"

oh and btw strewth, Hezbollah is anti semetic (and anti american) they killed 115 and injured over 400 people in the Jewish embassy and a jewish community center in Buenos Aries. They killed 241 Americans in Lebanon, and killed 63 when attacking the american embassy.

“If they go from Sheba'a, we will not stop fighting them. Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine...[Jews] can go back to Germany or wherever they came from.”

— Hezbollah spokesperson Hassan Ezzedin
New Yorker, October 14, 2002

“If they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”

— Hezbollah leader Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah
Lebanon Daily Star, October 23, 2002

Strewth,

Could you share a little about yourself? Would love to know what makes a person like you tick.

Yuyutsu,

I have read before about the 'honour/shame' issue in Arab cultures that can cause problems when Westerners and Arabs negotiate (think I read this in an old artcle from the CIA website) but I remain unconvinced this alone accounts for the stubborn Palestinian unwillingness to negotiate on a realistic basis. Patience and face saving concessions are a major part of all negotiations, whether they involve Arabs, Westerners, Asians, etc.

My best guess as to why the Palestinians seem unable to negotiate cohesively with the Israelis is they are constantly hijacked by foreign interests, whose alignment with the Palestinians extends only to their shared hatred for Israel. Unless the Palestinians can separate themselves from these 'allied' influences, a peaceful two state solution appears unachievable.

Strewth:

1) You want to engage in name-calling instead of dialogue, that's your business. Have a nice life.

2) Most of your response is further non sequitur...

Refugees have no absolute, unconditional right to return to their former homes and lands -- not in Res. 194 and not in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Art. 13 of the UDHR says "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." From this, one might posit that Palestinians who left Palestine have a right to return to Palestine. Not their descendents, but the people who actually left; not to the exact homes they left behind (which in most cases no longer exist), but to their country; not to Israel, but to Palestine. If the Palestinians had accepted Res. 181 in 1947, this would have been possible. If they had negotiated a final status agreement along the lines suggested by Barak and Clinton, it would have been possible. And perhaps it's still not too late for the Palestinians, though most who left in 1948 are no longer alive. If a Palestinian state is established in Gaza and the West Bank, this too could enable Palestinian refugees to exercise the non-absolute rights laid out in the UDHR.

3) The total population of Palestine in 1948 was about 2 million -- 1.35 million Arabs and 650,000 Jews. The UN estimates there were 711,000 Arab refugees from the 1948 conflict; add a few thousand Jews who were forced out of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Conclusion: Approximaetly 35% of Palestine's population at the time became refugees.

5) A "cleaner south Lebanon" is one without armed Hizbullah guerrillas violating Lebanese sovereignty and attacking their Israeli neighbors. Now it is the job of the UN and the Lebanese army to get rid of them, and this isn't ethnic cleansing.

6) More non sequitur...

It is puzzling that one can find a stack of "ex-Israelis" “refuseniks IDF reps”,“non-conformist Jews” etc -both inside & outside Israel- who openly & vocally criticize Israeli policy or practices.

But no LIVING examples of parallel individuals/groups from the other side.

Now why might that be so?

Kalin, I must agree with you.

Yo yo & friends took exception to my earlier quote from ex-Israeli, Gilad Atzmon. Perhaps they'd like to compare it with the following quote from an Israeli reservist: "Oded blamed the Palestinian intifada for his unit's insufficient training. 'For the last 6 years we were engaged in stupid policing missions in the West Bank...Checkpoints, hunting stone-throwing Palestinian children, that kind of stuff. The result was that we were not ready to confront real fighters like Hezbollah." (The Sunday Times, Humbling of the supertroops shatters Israeli army morale, 27/8/06)

Shooting up journalists (as in Gaza the other day), destroying homes, picking off Palestinian kids, mindless shelling and dropping bombs from on high - all in a day's 'work' for the 'mighty' Israel 'Defence' Forces.

sganot: Let's cut to the chase. Is it your belief that Palestinian refugees, born in pre 48 Israel (& their children & grandchildren), must waive their right of return to their homeland, but Jews born anywhere in the world have a right to return because their ancestors supposedly lived there thousands of years ago? If so, let's hear your justification for such a belief.

Strewth: "Is it your belief that Palestinian refugees... must waive their right of return..."

No. They have no internationally recognized unconditional "right of return" to waive. As per the UDHR, the people who actually left (not their descendents) have a right to return to their country.

This, like all rights, is not absolute and must be balanced against other, sometimes competing and even more basic rights, such as life and security (UDHR Art. 3) and nationality (Art. 15). Unfortunately, the PLO has a long history of, and is ideologically committed to, violating the basic human rights of Israelis and Jews. As a result, many Palestinian refugees have not been able to fulfill certain less essential rights, such as that of Art. 13.

Further, their country, as far as they are concerned, is not "pre-48 Israel" (an anachronistic term) but rather "Palestine", and return to the West Bank or Gaza would satisfy this right. ("Refugees" already in the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem never left their homeland, so their Art. 13 rights were not violated.)

Strewth: "but Jews ... have a right to return ... "

No. Jews also have no internationally recognized unconditional "right of return". Art. 13 means that pre-48 Palestinian Jews and post-48 Israelis have a right to leave any country (including Palestine/Israel) and return to Palestine/Israel. It doesn't give Diaspora Jews a right to "return" to the country (let alone the actual property and houses) that their ancestors left, whether 2 or 2000 years ago.

Israel's Law of Return, like similar laws encouraging the repatriation of ethnic Armenian, Bulgarian, Chinese, Greek, Hispanic, Irish, German, etc. peoples to their homelands, is simply a local law concerning immigration, and is not directly about the fulfillment of some internationally recognized unconditional human right (though it has given millions of Jews access to human rights that were previously violated).

If the Palestinians acquire sovereign independence as was offered to them more than once, they too will be able to enact a "law of return", and of course many talk about doing just that.

sganot:

Let's keep it simple: What qualifies one to take advantage of Israel's Law of Return?

Strewth, quoting from the text of the Law of Return (see http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/return.htm ), it applies to:

Every Jew who has expressed his desire to settle in Israel, unless the Minister of Interior is satisfied that the applicant:

(1) is engaged in an activity directed against the Jewish people; or
(2) is likely to endanger public health or the security of the State.
(3) is a person with a criminal past, likely to endanger public welfare.

The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh (i.e., immigrant under the Law of Return) under the Nationality Law, 5712-1952, as well as the rights of an oleh under any other enactment, are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion.

For the purposes of this Law, "Jew" means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.

sganot,

Keeping it simple - just answer Yes or No:

Person 1 (+ children, grandchildren, spouse etc); simply by virtue of having a Jewish mother can settle in Israel with full citizenship rights. Correct?

Person 2 (+ children, grandchildren, etc); Does not have a Jewish mother, but was a citizen of pre-48 Palestine, now Israel, until becoming a refugee in 48. Cannot settle with full citizenship rights in Israel. Correct?

Strewth,

Please note exceptions 1+2 of the Law of Return as noted by Sganot: Person 1 usually complies while Person 2 usually fails the test.

Another condition of the Law of Return is that one in fact desires to settle in Israel, just as it is a condition for Australian citizenship to intend to live in Australia.

Most of those Arabs called "Palestinians" have no such desire. Their separate "nationhood" is a late invention (Arab league, 1964) for the sole purpose of being used as a propaganda weapon against Israel. In 1948 they desired to be part of Syria, most of them still prefer to be allowed to become citizens of the countries in which they were born and currently reside, and if they were expelled to Israel, they would certainly not like to settle there as Israelis, but to overturn the country from within and change it into something else and have its existing citizens killed, expelled or at least live as Dhimmis.

I support that those few innocent Arabs with genuine affiliation to the land of Israel, who wish to come as individuals (rather than as a nation) and are happy to respect the integrity and laws of the Jewish state, should be allowed to return - and in fact, such private arrangements were already quietly arranged over the years, so not many remain in this category.

Strewth,

1) Yes (correct)

2) No (not correct)

sganot,

How is 2) not correct?

Strewth,

2 is incorrect because:

*Person2 could be a child, grandchild, or spouse of a Jew; a spouse of a child or grandchild of a Jew; or converted to Judaism.

*Person2 could acquire citizenship by naturalization.

*Some Palestinian refugees have acquired Israeli citizenship through family reunification or by marrying an Israeli.

*"+ children, grandchildren, etc" wouldn't necessarily apply in all of the above cases.

Worth mentioning:

a) Although Israel is a democracy and its citizens enjoy equal rights (with the caveat that equality is always an imperfectly attained ideal), it is also the Jewish state, expressing the self-determination of the Jewish people; facilitating the development of a vibrant Hebrew culture; sheltering persecuted Jews, etc. Just as the immigration laws of many democracies (Armenia, Finland, Germany, Greece, India, Ireland, Spain, etc.), give preference to people of a particular ethnic group associated with the state, Israel's LOR gives preference to Jews.

b) The logic of Res. 181, which, if not for the Arab occupations of the WB&Gaza, could have given rise to Jewish and Arab states living side by side in peace, was that Jews and Arabs in Palestine would each fulfill their national aspirations in only part of their historic homeland. This is the logic behind the two-state solution, Oslo accords, establishment of the Palestinian Authority, Geneva draft peace agreement, etc. In this framework, it would make no sense for Israel to have a LOR for both Jews and Palestinians; and presumably also for Palestine to have a LOR for both Palestinians and Jews.

c) At Lausanne in 1949, Israel offered to let 100-200,000 Palestinian refugees return as part of a peace agreement. The Arab delegations refused to discuss peace or even to deal with the Israeli delegation, so the idea was dropped.

d) Palestinian Arabs have been in a violent and even existential conflict with Israel since 1948, and with Palestine's Jews for at least twice as long. Thus, even if Israel had no LOR, one would expect it to block the immigration of Palestinian Arabs. Why take in people who are determined to destroy the state?

sganot,

So the key to returning to Israel is either to have a biological connection with a Jew, be married to a Jew or become a Jew by conversion?

I am curious.

On the maternal side of my family, I am a direct descendent of a Jewish woman - Great Grandmother. We even continue to prepare fish and chicken according to Jewish recipes, handed down mother to daughter.

Anyway, does this mean I could live in Israel? Even though I am not religious?

Scout,

If your grandmother was also Jewish, then there is no doubt: you can migrate to Israel and become an Israeli citizen on your first day there.

If your great-grandmother was Jewish and your grandmother did not deliberately convert to another religion (suppose she just drifted away and lived a secular life, but was not baptised or attended church either), then you are eligible, that is, so long as you yourself have not deliberately converted to another religion: it even does not matter whether your parents converted, but if they did and you were born to another religion, then you are still eligible on behalf of your grandmother. Your current non-religious lifestyle is irrelevant to the LOR, and indeed most Israelis do not consider themselves "religious".

Scout,

I mostly concur with Yuyutsu, but I'm not sure how a grandmother's hypothetical conversion would affect you.

From a Jewish religious perspective, even if your mother's mother had converted to another religion, she and your mother and you would remain Jews.

In terms of Israeli law, conversion would make Grandma ineligible under the LOR (but she might still be permitted to become an Israeli citizen -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Rufeisen ), but I don't see how this would affect your or your mother's rights, unless you practiced Grandma's religion, and thus were also a sort of "convert" away from Judaism.

"Grandma converted" is similar to the situation of the Falash Mura, a group of ~20,000 Ethiopians whose Jewish ancestors converted to Christianity ~100-200 years ago. The Israeli government has ruled that they are eligible for immigration under the LOR, and has started bringing them to Israel. A number of factors may be relevant in this case -- that the original conversions were under duress, that the group remained endogamous, and that they no longer practice Christianity and wish to return to Judaism.

Strewth,

Maybe something like that, but your formulation is overly simple (everyone has a biological connection to everyone else), and puts the cart before the horse.

Consider this: Armenia's Declaration of Independence declares that "Armenians living abroad are entitled to the citizenship of the Republic of Armenia" and its constitution states that "individuals of Armenian origin shall acquire citizenship of the Republic of Armenia through a simplified procedure".

Would you say that the key to acquiring Armenian citizenship through a simplified procedure is to be of Armenian origin? Perhaps, but it sounds rather awkward. It's simpler and more straightforward to say that if you are of Armenian origin, you're entitled to Armenian citizenship through a simplified procedure. Quite similar to Israel's LOR.

Also, your formulation ignores that the LOR is only one avenue to Israeli citizenship. We also have a "regular" naturalization procedure that does not depend on one's Judaism or relationship to a Jew. True, non-LOR immigration isn't called "return" but this is just semantics.

sganot,

At last, "maybe something like that." Convince us that this isn't racism enshrined in law, aka apartheid.

Strewth,

Apartheid is the segragation and inferior treatment of those who are already residents of a given country. It has nothing to do with the question of who is allowed to live in that given country to begin with.

About racism, Sganot for example has just mentioned the "Falash Mura": those Ethiopians are totally black, but their skin-colour makes no difference at all. Also, with racism one cannot do a thing to change it: one always dies in the same race that s/he was born - but not so with nationality.

The Law-of-Return simply recognizes that all Jews are former Israeli citizens, and are therefore entitled to request their resumption of citizenship, which just like in Australia, is easier to get than a brand-new citizenship.

Instead of going round and round, I also have two Yes-No questions for you:

Do you accept that Jews are a nation?
Do you accept that Jews are entitled to have an independent state of their own (please ignore for now the issue of location and borders, just assuming that wherever it is, they outright own the land of that state)?

Strewth,

1)The burden of proof is on you to convince us that it is racism. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that…

2)Jews are not a “race” (really an artificial construct and hang-up of the West that hardly plays a role in this conflict).

3)Israel is the Jewish homeland, and its LOR gives immigration privileges to Jews and their close relatives. It discriminates on the basis of nationality, not race. In fact, all law and policy everywhere controlling immigration and citizenship discriminates, often on the basis of nationality. Lex sanguinis is a well accepted basis for citizenship.

International law permits such discrimination if it isn’t against any particular nationality (the LOR isn’t). From the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: “Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as affecting in any way the legal provisions of States Parties concerning nationality, citizenship or naturalization, provided that such provisions do not discriminate against any particular nationality.”

The list of states whose immigration/citizenship laws discriminate in favor of a particular ethnic group is very long. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis

Is it “racism enshrined in law” or what you incorrectly call “apartheid” when all these other countries do it, or only when Israel does it?

Yuyutsu,

While I agree with the thrust of many of your arguments, a few corrections are in order:

1)The LOR does not define “who is allowed to live in” Israel. It simply eases the immigration of Jews and their close relatives. Israeli law does not exclude anyone on the basis of nationality, race, religion, etc.

2)To say that “all Jews are former Israeli citizens” and that the LOR lets them “request their resumption of citizenship” sounds anachronistic and overly figurative to me. It is enough to say that the LOR gives Jews a right to Israeli citizenship.

3)I look forward to Strewth’s answers to your questions, but I would word the second question differently, eliminating “just assuming that wherever it is, they outright own the land of that state”. This part introduces unnecessary confusion and ambiguity. Sovereignty and land ownership are completely different issues.

Sganot,

I agree with your comments, it is just that you seem to be a lawyer and I am not, so I just write in plain human terms...

I personally believe that a reasonable group of people that own and live on a contiguous piece of land should be allowed to declare themselves an independent state if they so wish - how much more so a nation that existed for thousands of years. What I tried to do in my question to Strewth is to isolate the principle of Israel's right to exist from the current Israeli-Arab conflict, in order to determine what exactly it actually is that drives Strewth so bitterly against Israel.

Yuyutsu & sganot

Thank you for your replies.

This family history is a bit ancient. I would probably have difficulty proving my Jewish heritage; my great grandmother was from a wealthy family, ran off with the coachman (my great grandfather) was subsequently ostracised by her family. Then my grandmother, who was born in England ran off with a rather spunky Aussie soldier in WW1, and was, ironically, disowned by her (coachman) father. As for religion, my grandfather was baptist, but more in a social sense than a formally religious sense.

I assume that my great grandmother simply followed the religion of her husband, so formal Judaism was lost along the way. I know this really has nothing to do with the murky world of war, but appreciate the info.

I still believe in a two state system for Israel and Palestine and believe that it is more about power (economic & oil) that is the true obstacle to peace in the M.E., than religion. Religion is just being used as both the catalyst and excuse - as always.

sganot,

Simple: Israel's Law of Return, which accords Jews (and their families) with no real connection to Palestine/Israel the exclusive privilege, based on their ethno-religious background, of settling in Palestine/Israel, while denying same to non-Jewish Palestinians (and their families) with real connections to Palestine/Israel, enshrines the principle of discrimination based on ethno-religious criteria. The latter is racism. Its translation into law makes it a form of apartheid.

c'mon Stewth, tell us a little about yourself? Age? What you do for a living? Why you're so bitter and angry?

I and others have tried to answer your questions, but you give back so little.

OK, Strewth, you tried to make your case for racism, but I'm not convinced. How about you, Yuyutsu? Kalin? Scout?

"No real connection"? It's our homeland, for goodness sake. It's the cradle of our civilization, center of our culture and religion, and the only Jewish state on earth. I suppose we have no real connection in the sense that the Thai people have "no real connection" to Thailand; the Greeks "no real connection" to Greece, and the Egyptians no "real connection" to Egypt.

"Exclusive privilege"? No, as I already explained numerous times, one can settle in Israel and acquire Israeli citizenship outside the framework of the LOR.

"Denying same to non-Jewish Palestinians"? The LOR doesn't deny any particular ethnic group anything.

"Discrimination based on ethno-religious criteria": Discussion of how Judaism does or doesn't fit the "religious" label will have to wait for another time, but discrimination based on ethnic/national criteria is very much the rule in immigration and citizenship/naturalization law, and quite legal. States, and in particular nation states, have a legitimate, compelling interest to maintain their particular national/cultural character.

"The latter is racism." No, discrimination based on race would be racism. Discrimination based on nationality is nationalism.

"Its translation into law makes it a form of apartheid." Apparently, you don't know what racism or apartheid mean. Not all discrimination is illegal (law by definition discriminates between people), not all discrimination is racism, and not all racism is apartheid.

Here's a good article about this issue: http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110008836

Now, let's go back to keeping it simple:

1) Do you accept that Jews are a nation?

2) Do you accept that Jews are entitled to an independent state of their own (ignoring specifics about location and borders)?

3) Are immigration laws like the LOR “racism enshrined in law” when all these other countries do it, or only when Israel does it?

sganot,

For you to be "convinced" would be tantamount to you leaving the bubble you live in, breaking out of your comfort zone. You're a beneficiary of Israeli apartheid and you'll be damned if you'll give up the privileges. I understand.

"Discrimination based on ethnic/national criteria is very much the rule in immigration and citizenship/naturalization law, and quite legal."

I'm afraid a certain Mr Ben-Gurion would disagree with you there: "The Law of Return differs from immigration laws which determine the conditions under which the state will accept immigrants, and their type. Such laws exist in many countries and they change from time to time according to internal and external changes. The LOR has nothing to do with immigration laws. It is the law of perpetuity of Jewish history; this law asserts the principle of sovereignty by force of which the state of Israel was established. It is the historical right of any Jew, wherever he may be, to return and settle in Israel..." Knesset, 3/7/50

"States...have a legitimate, compelling interest to maintain their particular national/cultural character."

Australia used to agree with you - until it grew up. It had a White Australia Policy designed primarily to keep out Asians. It was eventually scrapped as discriminatory on the grounds of race. Israel has, in its LOR, in effect, a Jewish Israel Policy which continues to discriminate on the grounds of ethno-religious criteria. Its discrimination is directed not against non-Jews in general, but criminally AGAINST the indigenous people of Israel/Palestine expelled en masse in 1948 by Zionist forces.

As I've pointed out: racism + law = apartheid.

Sganot, there is nothing really for me to add - you stated it all very well.

So far Strewth did not even answer my first question, should it mean that he does not except the existence of the Jewish nation? that would explain why he goes round-and-round about religion and ethnicity, no matter how many times we refute that these are the criteria - I understand that some people just do not like the idea of a nation at all - good on them, they can live without it, but what about "live and let live"?

Strewth,

Let's go back to keeping it simple:

1) Do you accept that Jews are a nation?

2) Do you accept that Jews are entitled to an independent state of their own (ignoring specifics about location and borders)?

3) Are immigration laws like the LOR “racism enshrined in law” when all these other countries do it, or only when Israel does it?

Strewth, I think you know where I stand and I know where you stand. We don't agree, we won't agree, and that's fine. I am very comfortable disagreeing with your opinions, which amount to a negation of the identity of an entire people. At this point, it is fair to consider you an anti-Semite. I know, you'll complain that whenever people "criticize Israel", they are unfairly labelled anti-Semitic. And maybe you tell us "some of my best friends are Jewish". But you wish to deny to the Jewish people the same rights that you demand for yourself and claim for others. That sort of hypocritcal double standard is anti-Semitic.

You're right if you think that trying to convince the other is pointless. I am certainly not here to convince you of anything. I only responded that the burden of proof is on you to convince us because of your command that I "convince us..."

For the record, I don't live in a bubble; I live in Israel. I've lived here for 22 years, and I trust my own personal experience more than I trust what you've read in some anti-Israel websites and books.

BTW, if you think that Australia's immigration and citizenship policies are not discriminatory, you are fooling yourself; of course they are discriminatory.

---

Yuyutsu,

"..should it mean that he does not except the existence of the Jewish nation?"

Yes, I think one can safely assume that. Thankfully, it hardly matters at all what Strewth thinks. The Jewish nation exists, and Israel is a sovereign, independent, and democratic Jewish state.

Now, Yuyutsu, how about telling us something about yourself?

sganot,

I know very well where you stand: on the side of tribalism, ethnic separatism and exclusivism, apartheid and never-ending war. History, as the precedent of apartheid South Africa has shown, is not on your side. Circling the waggons, praising the Lord and passing the ammo is pure 19th century. The world has moved on, sganot. So should Israel.

Re your questions:

1) No, "Jews" are not a "nation", but Israel is. The problem is that it was founded on the expulsion, exclusion, dispossession and occupation of another people and, until this ongoing obscenity is rectified, it will never gain what it most desires - legitimacy. When (for it is only a matter of time) Israel becomes a secular, democratic bi-national state of ALL of its citizens, those within its borders and those so far excluded, it will then gain the legitimacy it craves. If this means that it will cease to be a 'Jewish state', that's fine by me. I hold no brief for anachronistic, sectarian states, be they Jewish, Christian or Islamic.

2) I don't buy the Zionist concept of Israel as the state of an abstract entity known as 'the Jewish people'. American Jews have a state of their own called the USA. Likewise Australian Jews have a state of their own called Australia. Israeli Jews have a state of their own called Israel. Having said that, Israeli Jews have no right to pretend that it is exclusively theirs at the expense of those who were ethnically cleansed in 1948. Israel is the home of 2 peoples: its current Israeli population and its exiled Palestinian population.

3) See the Ben-Gurion quote.

Incidentally, your accusations of anti-Semitism, trotted out when all else fails, do not work anymore and simply indicate the bullying, delusional nature of your outlook.

Strewth,

I stand corrected for my loose definition that "Jews are a nation": not all Jews are Jewish nationals, but there is a Jewish nation, and while Jews can indeed prefer to be American or Australian, they are still all FORMER Jewish nationals and as such have an easier path to resume their Jewish nationality (quite distinct from the Jewish religion).

The ancient Jewish nation lives and has recently re-acquired [part of] its ancient homeland. It does not require anybody´s permission to exist. Legitimacy is nice to have, but survival is far more important!

A bi-national state cannot work, it is a synonym for destruction. We have all seen what happened in Ruwanda and Yugoslavia and what´s happening now in Iraq. Of course you will not miss a beat (or perhaps even get a thrill) when the sheep are forced to live with the wolves, but the Jewish nation is not that stupid to allow this to happen.

There is of course no problem about Arabs continuing to live in Israel as a minority: with full respect and 100% equality and human rights as inidividuals, familes and communities - but as a nation they already have plenty of other Arab countries while Israel is the only Jewish state.

As I explained in detail many times, no "disposession", or "ethnic cleansing" ever took place in Israel. The land was re-purchased by the Jewish nation for full price (in fact, it was usually paid for in full up to 4 times: to the landlords; the farmers; the nomad Beduins; and the authorities). It is not even the "disposessed" (that were happy to take the money) who cry as if it was still theirs, but rather Arab leaders who care nothing about those poor refugees (which they disposessed themselves) and force them to cry for the camera.

Mistakes can happen (on both sides) and I am happy to discuss how to correct them, but mistakes are not the rule: the rule is that the nation of Israel is back on its land and is there to stay, whether you like it or not.

[Deleted for obscenity]

Sganot, Yuyutsu,

Your patience with Strewth is admirable, but pointless.

Although I see Strewth condemning Israel for it’s racism, it’s plain to me he is more likely to be a racist than either of you. The way he denies any merit in any position contrary to his own, and his regular use of insults instead of argument, show him to have the exact kind of narrow mind which is the root of all irrational prejudice.

Sadly, Strewth is a common example of people’s willingness to ‘think’ with their emotions rather than their minds. The human tragedy, as Strewth demonstrates, is that even education cannot reliably overcome this human failing.

What most offends me about Strewth, and others like him, however, is the way in which his one-eyed bias induces even his opponents to respond in kind, further crippling the scope for sensible discussion.
For example:

Strewth, {this bit was what got my last post axed so I'll edit it myself this time}!

Kalin,

You've been a naughty boy now, haven't you? I hope mummy's made you wash your mouth out with soap.

Oh, and what most offends me about you, and others like you, is that you don't know the difference between 'it's' and 'its'. If only you'd stop wasting time in class and pay attention to the teacher.

Strewth,

I wanted to reply earlier, but was on a wonderful vacation in the North (for pics, see http://community.webshots.com/user/sganot3 )

1) We Jews know who and what we are; we don’t need you to tell us. Yes, we’re a nation. Your decision that we’re not seems to rely on confusion between the terms “nation” and “state”. If you need to brush up on the concept, I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation as a good place to start.

2) I don’t understand how “see the Ben-Gurion quote” answers my question. The quote shows that Ben-Gurion supported the LOR and didn’t consider it “racist”. From your answer, all I can gather is that you agree with Ben-Gurion. Do you?

3) If you were to say “I just don’t think the ‘Chinese’ constitute a nation, and I hold no brief for the anachronistic, sectarian states ‘Chinese states’ in China and Taiwan. The people called Chinese today have no real connection to China, and I don’t buy the concept of China as the state of an abstract entity known as ‘the Chinese people’”, I’d have to consider you anti-Chinese – even if you claimed not to be. And if you said that Palestinians don’t constitute a nation and should be satisfied with citizenship in other countries rather than having a state of their own, you’d rightly be considered anti-Palestinian. You may love Chinese or Palestinian people as individuals, but if you negate their group identities and dismiss their political aspirations and claims, you put yourself in opposition to them. You, Strewth, do this with Jews, and yes, it does make you anti-Jewish, AKA anti-Semitic. Don’t get me wrong; yours is not the worst form of anti-Semitism in the world. You haven’t said that we are the source of all wars, or that we control the world’s finances, or that we should all be killed. Nevertheless, it is anti-Semitism.

continued...

Strewth (continued),

4) Not only do you unfairly and irrationally criticize Israel, but you compare it unfavorably to Australia! Even if one were to accept your ridiculous argument that Palestinian Arabs have some exclusive claim on “indigenousness” in Israel/Palestine, ~20% of Israelis are Palestinians; only ~1-2% of Australians are aboriginals. Your country was founded on near-total “expulsion, exclusion, dispossession and occupation of another people”, and you are throwing around accusations of the same about my country, which wasn’t.

5) Re the shameful White Australia policy, it is worth mentioning that it was in force until 1973, and elements of it continued until 1982! Israeli immigration policies never included any sort of racial discrimination.

6) Lest one think that discrimination completely ended when the White Australia policy was dismantled, let’s look at current immigration policy: According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Australia , the Australian migration program discriminates in favor of the skilled and those who are sponsored by a family member who is “an Australian citizen, permanent resident, or eligible New Zealand citizen aged 18 years or over who lives in Australia”. Why all this discrimination!? By contrast, Israel’s LOR does not discriminate against the unskilled, and gives no advantage to people who are “sponsored” by family. Even if one were to accept that sponsorship by an Australian adult family member is reasonable grounds for discriminatory favoritism, what is New Zealand doing in there? Now notice that there are other special rules for New Zealanders – yet more discrimination. And the same website mentions various other sorts of discrimination in the area of immigration, as well.

Sganot,

Thanks for sharing your pics with us.

I doubt that even putting a human face on yourself will influence Strewth one jot though.

Also I don’t see the comparisons with Australia and it’s problems with the indigenous population as a good basis for comparison. When the English came to Australia, the indigenous people were just about the most primitive people on the face of the earth, living in very small tribal communities as stone age hunter gatherers, who hadn’t yet invented the bow and arrow. Understandably, in the context of the late 18th Century, the settlers that found them did not regard them highly, and regrettably treated them more like pests than fellow human beings. This is such a different situation to what happened with the creation of modern Israel and the displacement of the Palestinians, that drawing parallels seems far fetched.

Now, if you don’t mind, some questions: What's the mood in Israel now that the most recent round of fighting is over? Do Israeli's feel cheated of victory, defeated, or has the absence of Hizbullah rocket attacks in recent weeks make it seem the conflict was worthwhile? What of the still missing soldiers, is there much outcry over this? Where to from here?

Oh no, make a statement like I did above and people knee jerk with the timing of the roman saluting ankle clicking German Nazi's of the Third Reich.

OI! It was a figure of speech. Get over it!