Ted

Still waiting to hear your view on the return of the Palestinian's lands in the West Bank and East Jeresulem and the removal of those illegal settlements.

Too difficult?

Keith

I would also like to see the return of the Palestinian's lands in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the removal of those illegal settlements.

I would also like to see the Israelis freed from the threat of attacks and anhiilation. I should like to see the Palestinians accept Israel and both sides forge a friendship. I am quite aware that you share my my thoughts on this point.

While admitting that a purely military solution will not bring peace it does protect the Israelis from being killed. And that is the short term requirement.

Perhaps Nasrallah and Abbas are the ones you should ask about that. Barack tried but his offer was rejected by the Palestinians.

Regarding Jerusalem and in particular the Temple Mount, Jews Christians and Muslims regard it as part of their history, but to Jews it has the greatest historic significance. Under Arab control Jews were denied access. Given the barrage of anti-Jewish propoganda in the Arab press,(Zionists have been blamed for the French Revolution) it is not surprising that a degree of distrust is held by the Israelis.

Keith

Indeed Resolutions 194, 242, and 338 were perfectly reasonable when they were passed in 1949, 1967, and 1973. But dude, hullo, it is now 2006! The Islamists never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They flatly rejected each of these initiatives in the past.

Tragically, time has long ago moved on and 194, 242, and 338 are irrelevant to 2006. For you to suggest otherwise is antisemitic as it ignores the mistakes the Islamists have made in thinking they could vanquish the Israelis.

You would also do well know to be informed that the Pals have never and do not have a "right" to return to israel. Sadly, for them, they have screwed Israel, and the world, around for so many decades that they have played all their cards.

They should be thankful if Israel offers them anything at all.

Kang

You would do well to know that the paper by J. Mearsheimer and S. Walt was roundly trashed by scholars the world over. I read it and I am quite familiar with the historiography and main scholars on the issues raised in the paper. The paper was junk and so unscholarly that I cannot believe that Stephen Walt actually wrote it.

I am familiar with Walt's real scholarship on strategic slliances and I cannot believe that the sophomoric reasoning, selective reliance of mere newspaper analyses and the syntactically-challenge prose could be written by a Harvard/Chicago professor.

Then to bring embarrassment to Australia, we had Antony loewenstein publish a virtually plagiarise of the M&W paper. I am very curious as to what sort of agenda drives the publication pof such shoddy works.

Neocommie

Largely I agree with you but be careful about the use of the word anti-semitism. I have been jousting with Keith for a long time and he is definitely not racist.

News flash KEITH – the world does not revolve around you and there is no Santa. I’ve been away on business. Your solipsism never ceases to amaze.

As for the settlements, your reference to them seems invariably to be preceded by the adjective “illegal.” Not a turn of phrase that indicates a willingness to listen to alternative views, but I’ll give it a shot, nonetheless.

I am curious on what you base your determination of the settlements’ illegality. If you are going to cite the 4th Geneva Convention, save your breath. It doesn’t apply.

At the end of Israel’s war of independence, the Arab nations refused to make peace with Israel, despite being defeated on the battlefield. At most, they were willing to accept a cease fire, because a peace treaty presupposed recognition of Israel, something they were unprepared to contemplate.

Thus the ‘Green Line’ separating pre-67 Israel and the West Bank was never recognised as a bona fide international border. This is why the authors of UNSC resolution 242 commented later that the resolution was never intended to mandate a complete Israeli withdrawal to the Green Line.

And the Jordanian seizure of the West Bank from 1949 to 1967 was similarly never accepted by the international community, including the Arab world. Only Jordan’s UK patrons and Pakistan ever recognised King Abdullah’s annexation of the West Bank.

And thus it can be plausibly argued that the Israeli capture of the West Bank did not constitute the conquest of foreign territory, but rather it was a restoration of the territorial integrity of what had been the Mandate of Palestine. And thus, the 4th Geneva Convention would not apply.

Despite all this, I think that if any resolution is to be had, it will involve Israel’s withdrawal from most – and not all – of the West Bank. Whether this will involve of the creation of a Palestinian state in conjunction with Gaza, or ultimately the West Bank will confederate with Jordan, I don’t know.

(see next post)