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