Yes, to be sure little Israel with its inborn mental aptitude and science has helped greatly with the greening of Arabian deserts. But much has been spoilt by us illegally letting her go militarily atomic, her wonderful aptitudes not now contributing, but ready to backfire, as surely they will if she tries to increase the unspeakable terrors that atomic warfare can give.

Because Iran might already have atomic warheads secretly purchased from certain other nations, as well as possessing the rockets to deliver them, maybe such knowledge might naturally create the balance of atomic power that certain political scientists are recommending to ward off a Middle East conflagration begun by whom could be termed an over-cocky little Israel.

John

You write beautifully of peace, reconciliation and forgiveness. Sadly your contribution will bring only condemnation and hate from the religious zealots among us in this forum.

I hope you can stand the landslide of abuse you and your ideas are about to receive. I hope you are able to more manfully handle this deluge than I. I descended into a verbal abuse match with these people. It wasn't worth it...for sadly I became as angry as they.

I can tolerate disagreement on the issue. What I don't get is this obnoxious notion that Israel has it within its power to unilaterally make peace with the Palestineans if only it chooses to. It flies in the face of reality, and mischeviously so, in my opinion.

Israel has offered them at one time or another virtually everything they asked for and the Palestineans rejected it. At Camp David in July 2000 Arafat was offered 97 per cent of the occupied territories captured in the 1967 war and he gave peace the finger.

There is a battle going on in Palestine between those who want perpetual war with Israel (and their backers in the Arab world) and those genuinely interested in peace. Until that is resolved, there can never be a Palestinean state.

It won't happen in my lifetime.

Isaiah has this to say : Is 55:1-3

"Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters;
and you who have no money, come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost.
2 Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy?
3 Give ear and come to me; hear me, that your soul may live.

Revelation says:

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away,
.... He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

COMMENT:
How nice it would be, if such 'peace' could be accomplished by natural, unregenerate humans.
Sadly, history shows this is unlikely.

The peace shown above, depends on one factor. The Messiah and his return. Jesus said "Without me, you can do nothing"...
How many tries and re-tries have sought 'peace' but unfortunately, one persons peace is another's oppression.

There are 2 walls in Israel/Palestine.

WALL 1 is the physical wall being constructed around Israel.
WALL 2 is the one between all the people there (on both sides), and Christ.

Paul says.(Ephesians2)
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins...

But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ.

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,....

Please note those words HE HIMSELF is our peace. I point to Christ, as the only realistic solution to the problem raised in the article.

Here is a map of the West Bank. If you are serious in you 97% claim you should be able to detail exactly where that 3% was to be carved off from Palestine.

I for the life of me cannot find any map anywhere showing what Israel proposed in 2000. Please help me out.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/maps/settle2002.jpg
(The map can be enlarged by clicking on it and then hitting the appropriate button.)

Both parties and many independant observers hold conflicting opinions about what offers were made and rejected at Camp David in 2000. I have no doubt the propaganda merchants from both sides would tend to manipulate whatever happened to suit their own purposes. However one fact remains, it is apparent no final offer was made by Barak to Arafat. There is no evidence of a final offer and no map nor written evidence appears to be in existance detailling such an offer. And surely it would be reasonable not to accept such a general proposal without seeing the detail of any proposed annexations.

A lovely attitude. But you have not mentioned a few things. Israel is not only about Arabs and European Jews. It is also about Middle Eastern Jews, who moved into the area under the Caliphate. Their movement accelerated with increasing Islamicization of their ancestral homes. It is also home to many other religious minorities from Islamic lands - Christians, Druze, Samaritans, Baha'i who found a place in a democracy which gave them freedom and allowed them a vote and a place in Parliament.

This is all ignored in the popular press although the total numbers are large. Also ignored is treatment of Infidels in the Arab theocracies.

For peace to occur this needs extensive discussion.

Keith
you seem to be unaware or deliberately ignoring the work of Dennis Ross around the Camp David period.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50830,00.html

ROSS: The ideas were presented on December 23 by the president, and they basically said the following: On borders, there would be about a 5 percent annexation in the West Bank for the Israelis and a 2 percent swap. So there would be a net 97 percent of the territory that would go to the Palestinians.

On Jerusalem, the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capitol of the Palestinian state.

On the issue of refugees, there would be a right of return for the refugees to their own state, not to Israel, but there would also be a fund of $30 billion internationally that would be put together for either compensation or to cover repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation costs.

COMMENT: I note with interest the term 'Arab Neighborhoods' being the Capital. Unless I'm wrong, they are using this term to exclude the Temple Mount from the inclusion in that Capital.

So, I can only repeat what I've been saying all along, i.e. that little piece of real estate is the key to the whole situation.
When you consider that based on the events surrounding the history of the Mount. Jewish to the fall of Jerusalem, Christian since Christ and Islamic since the illegal Muslim invasion, now.. in limbo but not without the passions of over a billion Muslims and a few Million Jews and many millions of Christians at work in deciding it's future.

Does it occur to you that Arafat may have rejected the offer of 97% BECAUSE of that small (big) detail ? Its just tooooo symbolic mate.

30 BILLION for compensation, resettlement, rehabilitation ? Sounds pretty good to me and is WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING as the most compassionate outcome. Glad I'm not alone in that.

You persistently ignore Logics mention of Jewish refugees from Arab lands.
Have you or a family member recently married a Palestinian ?

John, only wish there were more like you, mate. The Middle East needs it so much - wisdom and understanding - what we term in the bush just plain common sense.
Personally I find it better if I try to mix faith with reason, which seems to get rid of that obsession which can come with too much faith.
It is so interesting that reason was first introduced into Christian faith by Islamic scholars during the Middle Ages.
These scholars who had accepted Islam were from Middle East families whom earlier had accepted what some call Socratic Reasoning, but actually a mixture of ancient Greek learning brought into Egypt by the troops of Alexander the Great, the Great Library of Alexandria being the result of the so-called conquest. Of course, it was well before Islam came into being.
It is also so interesting that a great many of the scholars studying at the Library were from Jewish families. It has even been suggested that the young Jesus might have also spent time there while his family was in Egypt.
Indeed, many Schools of Humanities teach that it was the modification of reason with faith by both Muslims and Christians which went on to produce the Renaissance, then the Age of Reason which was followed by the Age of Enlightenment and onto our present democracies .
Unfortunately, it is believed that it was the strength or pressure of Western Germanic Christianity that caused Islam to retreat back into the so-called safety of total faith.
Finally, it is so ironic that it was the synthesis of faith and reason held by very early Middle East Muslims that helped spurt Western modern progress.

David

The question I asked was for a map of what Barak proposed to Arafat at Camp David.

I don't really see the need for any reference to your irrelevant fundy drivel.

And I see grn hasn't responed so I must assume he's really having a reconsideration of his view. And that's reasoned and reasonable.

Your attitudes which are typical of those held by many on both sides and is the cause of most of the problem. Your divisions, your prejudices, and your hate.

Bushbred

Your history is quite accurate with regard to learning and scholastic endeavour during the rise of Islam and the arab Empire. The point at which Islam changed was after the end of the Caliphates around 1100AD. They were based in present day Iraq and were the site of much of the power of the former Persian empire. Islam after their demise returned to Saudia Arabia and became almost totally fundamentalist in nature. It is no coincidence rthe Arab Empire went into decline at exactly the same time. Today we are seeing a movement within Islam away from that fundamentalism especially in those branches of Islam not based exclusively in the mid east.

Heartfelt Thanks, Keith. After extensive study in my retirement, eventually gained a degree after time in Sri-Lanka based on the beginning of the Tea Economy in which Tamils had to be imported from India to clear the hill slopes so suitable for such agriculture, to which the the Sri Lankan buddhists strongly objected.

Some very tough fighting, the East India Company finally taking over with their own standing army. Guess corporate empiricism is really nothing new, by the looks.

Went on to get a post-grad in electives based on both historical geography on WA and macro-economics to add to my degree.

Did interfere with my love of golf, Keith, and would you believe have only recently just finished 13 years of taking groups on Philosophical Topics with the Mandurah U3A.

But as my wife used to say, it has kept me away from the bar.

Sadly my wife died only a few months ago.

Like to keep in touch, Keith, reckon we might be both somewhat on that fascinating wavelength, The Search for Enquiry.

Keith..how in the world do you get 'irrelevant fundy drivel' from a post about Dennis Ross and Camp David ?

You didn't ask for a map, you asked for 'something in writing' about what was offered, and I proveded that. I have seen maps and here are some.

http://www.mideastweb.org/precdmap.htm
another
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/rossmap2.html
another
http://www.iris.org.il/camp_david.htm

Then there is this palestinian document
http://www.palestineinformation.org/barak.pdf

They mention their 'generous offer' and claim "We only want '22%' of 'historic' Palestine". but if you look at the map its looks more like 50% of the major area not including the desolate Sinai region.

Looking at all this, it is apparent that neither side wished to concede much.

According to the Palestinian document regarding secret talks at Taba (if secret, how come they know ?)
-Sovereignty of Islamic Shrines in Jerusalem to Palestinians.
-Israel waives control of Jordan Valley.
-Palestinians cede some settlement territory.
-They were open to Israeli control of the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall in the Old City of East Jerusalem. For the first time, detailed discussion on refugee return began.

errr..ok. Though it sounds more like a Palestinian wish list.

a)How far do you think 'refugee return' would get ?
b)How do you think the Orthodox and Settler Jews would react to Islamic control of Temple mount ?
c)Then...there is Hamas and its Islamic Waqf.

Keith, you seem very entrenched in "Israel bad/Palestinians good" mode.
So, have you or a family member recently married a Muslim ?

Boaz, admittedly your arguments to protect a small nation like Israel against the Palestine Arabs and their Islamic backers, could be logical enough.

What has nullified the logic, however, is the US not only selling fighter bombers to her on the never-never, but also American influence once again allowing her to possess the latest in nuclear military technology, which includes atomic warheads with deep penetration capability.

Also the fact that Israel has become a close ally of the US through so-called spiritual connections with the American ultra-religous right, makes it hard for social scientists to have sympathy for her.

Yes, Boaz, it has become a fight not for a justice predicated by reason but one ufortunately predicated too much by religion.

http://www.mideastweb.org/precdmap.htm
Yep that was the map I was hoping you'd reference. Thankyou David.

http://www.iris.org.il/camp_david2.htm
oops David you've made a blunder. Why have you given us an alternative of the same proposal? And it is quite different too

So which was the offer presented to Arafat?

Yep the first one. This was the only offer made to Arafat at Camp David. No bloody wonder he rejected it and was supremely suspicious of any further offers. This offer was downright offensive and disgraceful. No Jerusalem, a five part Palestine and huge areas allocated 'temporarily' to Israel. Would they have to be re-negotiated later? What were their status in the interim? Occupied Territories? Would there be further settlements? How long would they be temporary? Forty years? Nobody was saying anything. That included Barak and Clinton. What the map doesn't show are the underground water distributions.

Given those facts how can you describe Arafat's rejection as anything other than reasonable. Why do you continue the propaganda that Palestine was offered 97% of it's own territory and rejection of the above offer meant Palestine rejected peace?

There was no other offer...David any claims to the contrary are bulldust.

David I don't think Israel bad and Palestine good. I just think all lies are bad. I don't think you quite see your support for the Israeli lies in that light.

I think people should really think about it and realise that there are
some problems that simply do not have a solution.

We can go msd searching for nonexistant solutions.

Why should the rest of us spend our time on other peoples problems
when we have our own unsolvables.

Dear Keith
Ok..I take your points about the nature of the Palestine which would have resulted from Arafat accepting Baraks proposal. Yes.. looking at the map it seems very discontiguous.. separated, divided.. so, in a way, it brings me to the deeper underlying point. 'The reality' of the situation.

But before addressing that, I wan to ask you what lies behind your mention of 'what..no Jerusalem' ? In your mind, why is Jerusalem so important ? Its just another city right ? Why should it goto the Palestinians ? I'd value your reasons for this.

Now, back to the 'reality'. Looking at the map and the 'temporary' Israeli zones and the 'ceded to Israel' zones, clearly Israel wants to 'surround' the Palestinians. I can't say 'why' but I'd guess its strategic. They also want to keep them divided, probably for the same reasons.

The man in the street Israeli, can philosophize about how nice it would be to have peace and be friends with the average Arab Muslim, but those where it counts, who have experienced the suddenness of the attacks on Israel from virtually ALL the surrounding countries, and have in their personal memeries just how horrific and touch and go it was for a while..... for them, I think the need to have clear and unmistakable strategic advantage is an unspoken, but strongly held view.

I would love the Islamic Lion to lay down with the Israeli Lamb, and all of them beat the Merkeva's and Rocket launchers into plowshears, but sadly, I cannot see it happening based on human intervention and enterprise.

Brushy should see this too with his vast knowledge of history. He can spot the ugly dog ok, but giving it a makeover..hmm thats another story :)

What a great article John. The sore that is Israel is increasingly obliterating and diminishing past Jewish history. It is becoming increasingly difficult to rationalize away Israeli's government actions.

It must be hard that a place that holds a minority of your people, more than half of all Jews live outside of Israel, shapes the perception of Jewishness for the rest of the world.

I recently spoke with a former Arab Muslim resident of Jerusalem who migrated here to peaceful Australia. His take is that ordinary people of which ever flavour just want to live decent lives, but he feels that the ongoing conflict is too valuable financially for Israel and Palestine to give up. Israel's economy would collapse.

I thought that was an interesting viewpoint. I'd only seen it from a ethnic/cultural point of view. Israel cannot afford to allow too many Arabs within her borders and remain Jewish, yet democratic. Isn't the notion of a Jewish nation central to preserving Jewish culture for all Jewish people?

Keith,

1) Where is the “landslide of abuse” that you predicted?

2) The best online maps I’ve seen of the various final status offers are at http://www.fmep.org/maps/redeployment_final_status.html What Palestinian, Israeli, and third party critics of Arafat’s behavior at Camp David and subsequent negotiations most condemn him for is not that he rejected this or that offer, as of course was his right, but that he made no offers of his own. To this day, there have been multiple Israeli and American peace plans, and no Palestinian proposals whatsoever. This cannot be called negotiating in good faith.

Bazz,

It is true that some problems have no solution. But whether or not one thinks that the Arab-Israeli conflict is such a problem, it could get better and it could get worse. One way or another, it must be managed to minimize suffering and maximize opportunities for improvement.

I agree that all of us should concentrate first and foremost on local problems before offering what may be inappropriate or unwanted advise to the rest of the world. Think global, act local. But we really are a global village, so what you do in Australia (if that is where you are) certainly affects me in Israel, and vice versa. Regarding the degree to which it helps for relatively uninvolved third parties in distant places to get involved, I agree that is debatable. On the one hand, some relative “outsiders” have made tremendous contributions to my part of the world. On the other, hand, some have done plenty of damage. In the end, it isn’t where you are from that matters, but whether your “help” is constructive or destructive.

Yvonne, we disagree about Israel and Jewish history, and that’s fine.

Neither Israel nor the Palestinian territories benefit financially from the conflict. Quite the opposite – it is a huge economic drain.

Also, the demographic and cultural issues you mention in your last paragraph seem completely unrelated to the rest of your message. I don’t understand your point.

Steve

Those maps are not of any final proposal from Camp David. There just wasn't one. Arafat had rejected those maps previously. Even David Boaz indicates he accepts Arafat couldn't settle for those conditions. It has been the Wests and Israel's widely published position Arafat was condemned for rejecting Israel's peace offers.

Why don't you accept the Arab League put forward a proposal for peace in 2002? You know the one Olmert is now accepting as a basis for renewed discussion. The one everyone else now recognises as basically a just solution for the Palestinians.

David your question re Jerusalem could be asked of the Israelis.

Bushbred kennelly@st.net.au

Keith :) now you know why I asked you that question.

cheers

.....and...as I've said many times. THAT .. is the key to the whole conflict.

Believe it...or not.

yvonne

So you recently spoke with a former Arab Muslim resident of Jerusalem who migrated here to peaceful Australia. I often speak with an eighth generation Jewish Israeli who also migrated here to peaceful Australia. She is angered with the idea that her family should be expected by the Islamic countries to leave for somewhere else. Where? Back to the Arab countries which they left because of discrimination and in many cases persecution? And what about the true indigenes of Israel, the descendants of the Jews who never left the ancient land?

Does it require a brain transplant to get it into the thick skulls of many of you that nearly half of Israel's population are from families who left other middle eastern lands to obtain freedom. And this includes some Christians, Baha'i and other non-Muslim faiths.

Perhaps you deliberately ignore this because it requires a rethink. After all We don't want truth to get in the way of a good story!

I’m fascinated by sganot’s authorative take on my view on Jewish history.

Perhaps you didn’t like the issue I raised in the last paragraph, which made you dismiss it. The truth is that everything that is happening on that piece of land, including the issues John raised, and which I might add, affects this entire global village, are precisely because Jewish people want a homeland which is amongst a greater majority who are not Jewish. We're discussing a Jewish nation here. Not just a democratic nation.

I’m sympathetic to the wish of a Jewish homeland. But it is disingenuous to suggest that the territory settled was not occupied by a people who also have a claim. Here in Australia we have come away from the historical rationalization of ‘an empty land waiting to be settled by productive people’.

As to the conflict not being financially beneficial. I’d never thought of the possibility of it creating an industry of its own. Maybe the rest of the world then just needs to wait until one side runs out of cash. The cost of armaments, building walls and settlements being what they are, that shouldn’t take too long.

Logic, though your pen name, your argument has no bearing on logic. Should an 8th generation Jewish person have more rights to live where grandparents lived than a non-Jewish person?

Keith,

You asked for maps of "what Israel proposed in 2000." The FMEP site includes such maps.

You later erroneously claimed you had requested maps of "what Barak proposed to Arafat at Camp David".

In any case, David linked to a number of maps interpreting what was offered prior to and during Camp David. So did I. If you want more, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit#Maps

The following are probably most relevant:
http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/rossmap2.html

True, the offers proposed to and rejected by Arafat at Camp David were characterized as coming from Clinton, not Barak. It's a semantic argument, and does not support your revisionist claim that no "final proposal" was discussed. The Palestinians themselves dispute your assertion.

Keith: "Even David Boaz indicates he accepts Arafat couldn't settle for those conditions."

That Arafat rejected this or that plan is not at issue, and doesn't excuse the lack of a Palestinian counteroffer.

Keith: "It has been the Wests and Israel's widely published position... "

A meaningless statement. "The West and Israel" don't speak as one about this or anything. Individuals are entitled to their opinions. Many people relevant to this issue -- Israelis, Palestinians, Americans, and others -- condemned Arafat for refusing to negotiate. Some also criticized his rejection of the specific offers presented, and it is their right to do so.

Keith: “Why don't you accept the Arab League put forward a proposal for peace in 2002? You know the one Olmert is now accepting as a basis for renewed discussion. The one everyone else now recognises as basically a just solution for the Palestinians.”

1) I already explained my objections to specific parts of the proposal. But like Olmert, and indeed like Sharon, I think it has positive aspects, and is worth discussing further.

2) Not everyone recognizes it as “a just solution for the Palestinians”. The Palestinian government does not accept this. Neither does the Israeli government. And when you get right down to it, the Quartet doesn’t either. In fact, if the Arab League thought it was going to be implemented as is, many member states would likewise object.

yvonne

You still miss the point. Perhaps you don't want to accept it. Jews and Christians and others forced out of Muslim lands have the same right to live in the middle east as Muslims. They cannot go back to their homelands because of the incredible anti Dhimmi bias, that is why they had to leave.

There is a conflict in rights here between the Muslim Middle Easterners who want their homes back and the Jewish Middle Easterners who want their rightful freedoms. The Islamic states are practicing a restriction on religious freedom which is unacceptable in the modern world.

You write "We're discussing a Jewish nation here. Not just a democratic nation." So it is OK to have a Muslim nation or a Christian nation but not a Jewish nation. And an 8th generation Jewish person has the same rights rights to live where their (great great great great great) grandparents lived as a non-Jewish person. The problem is that the Muslims denied them their rights.

And your view that the situation in Israel is the threat to the world shows a complete misunderstanding of Islamic fundamentalism. There is a powerful minority in the area which would not stop at Israel. What was the Bali bombing about? Have you forgotten that already?

Unfortunately they control the world's major oil reserves. I expect that you drive a car, buy plastic products and imported goods brought here on oil fired ships. They could create havoc in their wishes to make us all Muslims.

Israel has been made a focus, it is not the real issue. The world made such a mistake once before with a dictatorial movement.

Logic

I doubt anyone would accept a comparison between Arab countries and Nazi Germany. Maybe the dictatorships in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria have some common aspects but none are occupying, laying claim to or stealing other country's territory, as Nazi Germany did.
But you are tending toward racism when you make in the same breath representations about dictatorial movements, all Arab people, all Arab Governments, and terrorists minorites without specifying exactly which you think is dictatorial or like Nazi Germany.

Steve

Show me the map of Barak's claimed final proposal. I am well aware of all the others Arafat rejected.

God you are so authoratitive and a stand-over merchant in showing you can decide what the Arab world wants and doesn't want. How do you know they are not serious about the 2002 peace offer? Why can't you accept it as genuine? Surely it has got to be as genuine as those biased and blatantly provocative Israeli proposals that would have seen the creation of a bantu-stan Palestine and much of the remaining Palestinian land available to be stolen by the Israelis. Did they really think Arafat or any Palestinian would tolerate the suggestion they weren't entitled to large tracts of their own and would have to negotiate them away?

Absolutely stupendous arrogance.

And you seem to be clinging grimly and rather bravely to the attitudes that allowed those disgracedful proposals to be regarded as reasonable. The ionly real objection anyone has is over the resettlement of refugees. That is surely open to negotiation. Borders aren't.

It's time to drop the prejudices and change your attitudes Steve. The rest of the world are changing.

Keith I was taken by your comment;
“but none are occupying, laying claim to or stealing other country's territory, as Nazi Germany did”

I think your forgetting :
-That a large chunk of Kurdish lands have been ‘re-settled’ with Iraqi Arabs- in recent times ( including the most oil rich areas).
- The Berber in north Africa have lost land & status to invading Arabs ( & continue to suffer)
-The Turkmen minorities are increasingly loosing land & identity to the majority Arabs
-The original inhabitants of Egypt were not the Arabs who currently dominate the country
- The Jewish tribes that inhabited the Saudi peninsula in pre-Islamic times have now been extinguished & their lands stolen.

Just because trendy left wing academics & journalists in the west don’t want to talk about it, & the Arab media are not allowed to talk about it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen…

Though you are right in one respect -the Arabification of minorities through the Middle East is not the same as Nazi Germanys invasions -it’s been far more enduring & extensive

keith

Shows how superficially you read these posts!

I never referred to all Arab people and Governments as being terrorists or anything of the sort. I simply referred to the way the world ignored the Nazi threat to its cost and that so many people are now ignoring the entirely different but also dangerous threat of Islamic fundamentalism. This movement also worries Muslims, and the Indonesians have expressed their concerns.

Lebanon, once a majority Christian country is now, due to pressure on Christians, predominantly Muslim. Many people think that the same is intended for Israel. Having pushed nearly a million Jews out of their ancestral homes these refugees are understandably concerned that there is now a threat to take over Israel and push them out of there.

My point is that it is morally bankrupt to criticise the loss of homeland to Muslims and not show equal concern for Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims.

Regarding the influx of European Jews this was accompanied by the introduction of modern agriculture enabling the land to support the extra population, putting no additional ecological strain on the area, in fact extensive planting of forests has improved the environment.

If Israel had not been there do you really think that the Palestinians with their present agricultural techniques could have supported their rapidly expanding numbers, or that the Shia and Sunni would not have been killing each other? The Arab world has to modernize or die, this has nothing to do with Israel which occupies such a tiny proportion of the available land.

Sounds harsh, but it is reality, something which has never been a strong point in the tax payer funded sheltered workshop of the academic left.

Yvonne: "I’m fascinated by sganot’s authorative take on my view on Jewish history."

Authoritative take? I just said we disagree.

Yvonne: "Perhaps you didn’t like the issue I raised in the last paragraph, which made you dismiss it."

I didn't dismiss anything. As I said, the last paragraph just seemed unrelated to what you wrote earlier, and I didn't understand what point you were trying to make. I still don't.

Yvonne: "...everything that is happening on that piece of land... are precisely because Jewish people want a homeland which is amongst a greater majority who are not Jewish."

I disagree.

1) Not everything has one particular cause.

2) The Jewish people have a homeland, and it has a Jewish majority. It would be surrounded by non-Jews regardless of where it is located. So what? Even the Chinese homeland is surrounded by an area where "a greater majority" is non-Chinese.

Yvonne: "We're discussing a Jewish nation here. Not just a democratic nation."

Israel is a Jewish state and a democracy. There is no contradiction – many democracies have particular national/cultural/historical/linguistic/religious/etc. identities. "Jewish nation" is a different term, not synonymous with the State of Israel, and includes Jews everywhere.

Yvonne: "it is disingenuous to suggest that the territory settled was not occupied by a people who also have a claim."

I never said otherwise.

Yvonne: "Here in Australia we have come away from the historical rationalization of ‘an empty land waiting to be settled by productive people’."

Very nice, but Australia remains on the map, with a population descended mostly from European immigrants. And many Palestinians also seem to want to occupy Israel, as if it were an empty land, unoccupied by others.

Yvonne: "Maybe the rest of the world then just needs to wait until one side runs out of cash."

This idea might only work in some theoretical situation where the two sides were isolated from the rest of the world. But they're not, and they really cannot be.

Happy Passover and Good Easter to all who celebrate.

Keith, cc: Logic, Horus

1) When Syria demands the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, it lays claim to Israeli territory.

2) Syria is not occupying, laying claim to or stealing other country's territory? Ask the Lebanese.

3) Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria all have border disputes with neighboring countries.

4) None of the above makes them comparable to Nazi Germany.

5) Your message to me is little more than personal insult and a restatement of questions already answered. Like Arafat and everyone else, you and I are entitled to our opinions about Israeli and American peace proposals. Same thing with the Arab League’s plan. We all have our views about what is disgraceful and what is reasonable. I’ve already explained my specific objections to the Arab League plan.

Is it serious? If the Arab League accepts Israel’s offer to meet, discuss it, and start negotiations, that might be an indication of seriousness. As a “take it or leave it” offer, it isn’t serious, and will end up in the dustbin of history.

In the past, Arab states that wanted to make peace and to compromise on various maximalist demands had difficulty doing so alone. Likewise, some Palestinians (at times including Arafat) have indicated that while they desired various compromises, their Arab and/or Muslim brothers prevented such steps. Thus, a group framework such as the Arab League could provide the support that each Arab leader needs to make peace. I hope so. But the Arab League cannot force an agreement that either Israel or the Palestinians reject.

Keith: “The ionly real objection anyone has is over the resettlement of refugees. That is surely open to negotiation. Borders aren't.”

You don’t know (in both cases). The Arab League says neither is negotiable. The Oslo agreements demand a negotiated solution regarding both. The fact is that in previous negotiations, both sides were open to border adjustments and variations from the Green Line. Israel says that the solution to the Palestinian refugee problem must be found in a Palestinian state and/or the host countries, not in Israel – a position I support.

'Israel says that the solution to the Palestinian refugee problem must be found in a Palestinian state and/or the host countries, not in Israel – a position I support.'


Fair enough Steve but your Israel seems to want to extend it's borders somewhat into Palestinian territory. And you've claimed you don't support that. And now we see you starting to show signs of supporting David Boaz' ethnic cleansing resettlements.

However while I tend to agree that the refugees need not return to their former family homes some acknowledgement of the cause of their predicament, as well as recompense is vital. Sure the same should apply to Israeli refugees from Arab countries. However in the later case any compensation should include an estimation of any benefit they have received in the way of land grants etc from any former Israeli Arab assets.

Eh, Logic, you seem to insist that the Israelies are really a peaceful lot with no ambitions in the Middle East.

Yet most political philosophers and also global historians, do ask this question?

Do the Israelies believe that illegally arming themselves with atomic artillery, and building underground bunkers devoted to improving the artillery, besides allowing the Americans to sell them the latest in strike bombers on the never never. Is this the real recipe for peace in the Middle East?

Reckon in the long run with no other ME country to match Israel's nuclear missiles, it's the sure recipe for an unholy disaster.

Certainly what the Middle East needs is some sort of logical power balance, whether achieved by a rebuilt United Nations or for the US to perform its true unipolar role by acting as a buffer against a little Israel much too ready to fire.

Keith.... I'm confused.

You condemn my 'compensate/resettle' proposals then you come out with this:

"However while I tend to agree that the refugees need not return to their former family homes some acknowledgement of the cause of their predicament, as well as recompense is vital"

So, why are we arguing about this issue ? It's basically what I'm saying for crying out loud.

-Need not return to former homes. TICK
-Acknowledgement of their cause. TICK
-Recompense. TICK

The only thing I add is 'relocate' along with the rest of your points. If you leave them in the Camps, they will simply be kept on the boil by the radicals who I'm sure seek to infuence them.

I repeat it for all posters benefits. "Ethnic Cleansing" is not a bad thing in the bigger historical picture, as long as it is accompanied by resettlement compensation.
Most of us or our ancestors were 'ethnically cleansed' withOUT compensation, and gee.. life is pretty good for this decendant of ethnically cleansed Scottish Highlanders.

I had a visit from the Courier supervisor the other day, a Pom, and asked him if anyone in UK is conscious of the shades of ethnicity between Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans etc.. and among the English population "no", but it does remain among the Welsh and Scotts BECAUSE they were never integrated into the main blended English population.

So, Palestinian Arabs can be sent anywhere and blended, and while they might dissappear as 'Palestinian Arabs' they will not dissappear as human beings and that is the important point.

keith

"Sure the same should apply to Israeli refugees from Arab countries. However in the later case any compensation should include an estimation of any benefit they have received in the way of land grants etc from any former Israeli Arab assets."

I am glad you are acknowledging my point about refugees from Arab countries, but surely the compensation for them should also include the benefits that the Arab countries received form their assets.

Bushbred

Please show me where I insisted that the Israelis are really a peaceful lot with no ambitions in the Middle East.

And how is it illegal for Israel to build atomic artillery, assuming it has?

Where are the results on your survey that most political philosophers and also global historians, do ask this question? What was the methodology that you used?

Forgive me for asking but what is a political philosopher?

No Logic

I have always maintained the right of Jewish refugees to compensation.

The Jewish refugees would have had the benefit from deserted Arab property in Israel. Very few refugee Palestinians, since they were mostly confined to camps or to other Palestinian territory, would have been able to benefit from abandoned Jewish property in other Arab countries.

Before you ask.

No! Israel needs to take that matter up with the other Arab countries and must not attempt to involve the Palestinians in the wrongs of other nations. Israel should address it's admission and the compensation to the refugees it displaced.

David
We are on a different course. The reasons we are arguing about this issue are the following:

'"Relocate"' X
Camps for the young men, their women and children X
Deportation of Palestinians to other countries X
Dispersion of PalestiniansX
'"Ethnic Cleansing" is not a bad thing' X
Final solution X

ps David, I agree with you. You are confused.

keith

You know as well as I do that the other Arab countries will not compensate the Palestinians via Israel for land they stole from the Jews. If they had, the present problem would not exist.

The West has placed a lot of money in the hands of the Palestinians but the money has been misspent and often misappropriated. Fanatics have made it impossible to develop a modern society in these areas.

The half of Israeli society which is descended from ancient middle eastern societies (Christians, Jews Druze etc and also some Muslims) is for obvious reasons not inclined to return to a society where Muslims are in control, that is why they are not racing to endorse the Saudi proposal

Logic

It is illogical to blame the Palestinian refugees for the actions of other Arab countries. That is the consequence of your statement. That's unfair. It's like saying the world or others should atone for the attrocities committed in Nazi Germany.

Your comment re Aid to, your generalised and non specific, Palestinians is racist.

It would be more appropriate to say some of the aid given by the west to assist Palestinians in camps and in the occupied territory, who haven't had the right to govern themselves for much of the past 40 years, has sometimes been misspent by some Palestinians and some has been misappropriated by some palestinians.

To characterise all Palestinians as you have as spendthrift and fraudlent is in this case a generalised racist attack on Palestinians.

Why don't you address your inbred prejudice before you open your mouth and spread this type of generalised derogratory hatred.

Dear keith
I'm so glad that you disagree so vehemently with Mohammad prophet of Islam.

What you should do, is look 'closely' at the little connections I usually make between such approaches and the growth of Islam.

I esPECially make that connection in regard to the treatment of Jews, and how they in turn are expected to treat Muslims.

One thing you don't seem to give sufficient weight to in all this, is that the political/religious underpinning of the Palestinian Muslims is EXACTLY the points I raised and it is how Mohammad, prophet of Islam treated Jews and other conquered peoples, but primarily it was Jews who suffered loss, humiliation and death at his hands.

-Males killed
-Females and children enslaved.

The Banu Qurayza and Khaybar are just 2 examples.

So, the Palestnians are often whining about history etc, and their 'claim' to the land. Well, I say use the same approach to them, as they have in their minds for the Jews. You doubt they have this approach in mind for the Jews ?

One thing..and one thing alone (though there are many) should open blind eyes about this, and that is the name of the Hezbollah Missile named KHAYBAR II ... now.. I wonder why in the heck they would suddenly come up with such an ancient name ? *scratches head*....OHHH.. I know.. because the want to do the same thing as Mohammad did to the Jews at Khaybar.

Now Keith, if I was a Jew in Israel, I would be utterly galvanized by that missile name, it would convince me beyond any shadow of a doubt that my survival depends on the actual removal of the threat.
....and we haven't even mentioned the Hamas Charter.

I've been more generous than Mohammad. I simply called for the Palestinians in the camps to be dispersed and removed and compensated. Mohammad would kill them without mercy.
Remember..they are
1/ Muslims.
2/ They look to Mohammad's example.
3/ Lepoards don't change their spots

Keith

In no way did I blame the Palestinian refugees for the actions of other Arab countries. That was a reply to your earlier comments, as I said you don't read things properly.

When I pointed out that aid to the Palestinians was being wasted you accused me of racism. When you criticize Israel of stealing land that to you is apparently not racist. Why is it racist to accuse a Palestinian group of one thing but not racist if you accuse the Israelis of something? Accusations of racism are a stock in trade for the anti Israel brigade. Their other dirty trick is to accuse anyone who criticizes Israel's enemies of shouting anti-antisemitism. It just won't wash with me.

Nor did I accuse all Palestinians of anything. Another piece of trickery, stop it, by doing this you playing the fool, which I know you are not.

You blame Palestinian misuse of funds on their lacking “the right to govern themselves for much of the past 40 years”. The Jews lacked this right for over 2000 years!

I no more characterised all Palestinians as spendthrift and fraudulent than you characterized all Israelis as land thieves.

Re prejudice I think the main problem may well be with yourself.

Steve: “Israel says that the solution to the Palestinian refugee problem must be found in a Palestinian state and/or the host countries...”

Keith: “Fair enough Steve”

Indeed, but this contradicts the Arab interpretation of Resolution 193 -- the Arab League plan’s solution to the refugee problem. Now maybe you understand that not everyone sees the Arab League plan as a just solution.

Keith: “but your Israel seems to want to extend it's borders somewhat into Palestinian territory. And you've claimed you don't support that.”

I don’t know exactly what you mean, so I can’t say if Israel wants to do this, or whether I support it. If you mean minor border adjustments and territorial exchanges in the framework of a peace treaty, so that for example Israel will maintain sovereignty in Jerusalem’s Jewish neighborhoods, I support it.

Keith: “And now we see you starting to show signs of supporting David Boaz' ethnic cleansing resettlements.”

I have no idea what you are talking about. You must have misunderstood, because I do not support ethnic cleansing.

Keith: “...I tend to agree that the refugees need not return to their former family homes”

The Arab interpretation of Resolution 193 disagrees with you. You have a serious disagreement with the Arab League plan, just as I do.

Keith: “some acknowledgement of the cause of their predicament, as well as recompense is vital.”

Arabs and Israelis tend to disagree about the cause of their predicament, but perhaps some agreed formula acknowledging suffering on both sides could be negotiated. A generous financial package as compensation for land left behind in 1948 and to help resettle refugees in the new State of Palestine are part of all peace proposals.

Keith: “Sure the same should apply to Israeli refugees from Arab countries. However in the later case any compensation should include an estimation of any benefit they have received in the way of land grants etc from any former Israeli Arab assets.”

Discounting of compensation could work both ways, since Palestinians were sometimes settled in homes left behind by Jews fleeing Damascus, Baghdad, Hebron, etc.

Bushbred,

1) You don’t know if Israel has “atomic artillery”.

2) What makes you think that Israel’s alleged nuclear weapons are illegal?

3) It isn’t clear what you mean about “underground bunkers”.

4) It makes no sense to punish Israel for “allowing the Americans to sell them” anything. If the US broke some law, punish the US.

5) What should be done about the fact that Australia allowed the Americans to sell them strike bombers?

Logic

The difference is the Israeli government officially sanctions and promotes the sale and settlement of stolen lands to Jewish Israelis only. That I criticise and it's legitimate not racist.

When you refered to Palestinians it was as a group. You specified no individuals nor any body representing them. You labelled all Palestinians as spendthrift and fraudulent. That's racism.

This is the first I've heard the phrase anti anti-semitism.
I blame the Israeli government for the occupation that has suppressed the Palestinians for 40 years for all sorts of dysfunction within Palestinian society.

We Australians don't use our weapons to attack our neighbour, to occupy and steal their land or suppress them. I wouldn't be a proud Australian if we did and I'd do my utmost to prevent such barbarism.

Steve

The indications are the Arab league and member nations are prepared to negotiate on this point of resettlement and right of return.

Take a look at the proposals at Camp David from Barak and tell me that the claims by Israel are only 'minor border adjustments and territorial exchanges' and also that Israel doesn't try to claim soverignity over the illegal settlemments .

I think we'd have to share a wry laugh or two if you do...

David Boaz started out his ethnic cleansing campaign with the innocuouus suggestion the Palestinians should be found places for resettlement in other Arab countries. He expanded it to include the resettlement of all Palestinians with talk of camps and forced deportations etc... I was having a dry little 'dig'. Sorry to offend. I have greater respect for you than that.

I think the world has come to a greater awareness of the cause of the Palestinian and indeed the Israeli predicament. We are all too aware of where this could lead with a nuclear armed Iran.

I'd agree with a discounting both ways and it wouldn't be to difficult to set up a system to check claims. It should only apply to Jewish refugees in Israel and Palestinian refugees in other countries.

Bushbred: You are welcome to drop me a line. kennelly@st.net.au

keith

Anti antisemitism was a typo, you make many yourself, stop being picky. You can now reread my statement with comprehension.

On your first point about selling land, if it is true, I agree.

Once again I did not label all Palestinians as spendthrift and fraudulent. If you read that into my comment that is wrong. If my expression was at fault I apologise. Please do not tread this ground again.

If I read your statement correctly you blame the Israeli government for all sorts of dysfunction within Palestinian society. That is a long bow, I would be inclined to lay more blame on the Turks, the Mufti of Jerusalem, and the Jordanian King for not developing a functional society in the first place.

Finally your last analogy is poor. When Japan took Papua and then attacked us from there we fought them with weapons. The allies then occupied Japan and we occupied New Guinea. After the defeat neither New Guinea or Japan continued to fire rockets at us, sent suicide bombers or threatened publicly to wipe us out so we made peace with them.

How can the Palestinians expect Israel to ignore continuous attacks and threats on the lives of its citizens? Do you think somehow the Israelis, Jews, Christians etc are going to somehow disappear or agree to let the Muslims become a majority in a united Palestine? I don't think 3 million or more people whose forebears fled Arab states because of religious intolerance will be enthusiastic about such an arrangement however righteous it may sound?

Keith, you might not like my 'dispersion and resettlement' option, but I assure you history is on my side. "It works". All the other options seem to have one major snag, and it involves 2 points.

1/ You say "stolen land" in reference to the land taken by Israel for settlements etc. But how many times has it been point out to you that Israel was attacked, it responded, and in my view has a legitimate claim to territory as the outcome of its victory over invaders.
That view is on purely human grounds, not theological.

2/ You seem to believe that you can:
a) Not allow the Palestinians a right of return to former homes...
b) leave them as a cohesive sub community.
c) Solve the problem.

Again, history is on my side in saying "No, sorry, this is not working and it won't work"

CONTRAST the foreign policies of 2 ancient Empires

1/ ASSYRIAN. They took the tribes of the northern kingdom of "Israel" and dispersed them throughout the empire. Do you see any of them today ? Nope.. unless you look really closely at the dim and distant oral traditions of some Afghan tribes and various others where you can see a mild connection to Hebrew life.

2/ BABYLONIAN. They also invaded Judah, took the population captive, BUT.. allowed them to remain as a cohesive sub community among the people of Babylon. When the Persians under Cyrus took over, a recognizable community was able to return to Judah and rebuild the nation.

So, clearly, I am right, and you are wrong :) (don't you love this)

Now.. unless you can show me some example from history where your policy actually worked, I remain steadfast in my 'ethnic cleansing/dispersion' (with re-settlement compensation) position.

FINALLY, I think you are not giving sufficient weight to the theological driving forces among the Palestinians, but we've covered that ground already numerous times

Keith: "The indications are the Arab league and member nations are prepared to negotiate on this point of resettlement and right of return."

I see no evidence for your claim. What indications?

Keith: "Take a look at the proposals at Camp David from Barak"

You just told us that Barak made no proposals. So which is it?

Keith: "and tell me that the claims by Israel are only 'minor border adjustments and territorial exchanges'"

They are. And you need not limit yourself to Camp David. Take a look at everything that has been discussed since then, and also at the unofficial peace plans (Beilin-Abu Mazen, Geneva, Nusseibeh-Ayalon, etc.). As we've discussed ad nauseum, they ALL have this in common -- no return to the exact pre-1967 lines, but variations from those lines that are quite minor geographically but of tremendous significance demographically, politically, historically, etc.

Keith: "and also that Israel doesn't try to claim soverignity over the illegal settlemments"

Regarding the future, in all the peace plans and offers we've discussed, the vast majority of settlements would be placed under Palestinian sovereignty. A few that would end up under Israeli sovereignty. This or any other mutually agreed compromise regarding the disputed territory is completely legitimate. And this would normalize the status of the few annexed Israeli settlements, making questions about their former legality irrelevant.

Regarding the present, Israeli civil jurisdiction has only been extended to East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. One can make a strong argument that this is tantamount to a claim of sovereignty. But there is no reason to consider Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, or Jewish villages in the Golan, to be "illegal".

Furthermore, the Golan is by no means "Palestinian territory". Re East Jeruaslem, both sides make claims to some or all of it, and while some could end up under Palestinian sovereignty, there is no reason to consider it unambiguously "Palestinian territory" and not "Israeli territory" today.

Keith: "I think we'd have to share a wry laugh or two if you do..."

What makes you laugh is not my problem.

Reckon most of you would do well to work more like detectives.

By illegally becoming the only Middle East power to adopt nuclear artillery, Israel has caused other powers to be of the same mind, especially Iran, and possibly Saudi-Arabia.

Most of you would do well to do studies in power politics, which incidently is a science which many Phd's spend a lifetime learning.

Indeed, most of you are far from scientific
because you seem too arrogant.

Bushbred, you didn't answer any of the questions I asked you or relate at all to what I wrote you earlier. Now you are going on again about "nuclear artillary". What makes you think that Israel’s alleged nuclear weapons are illegal?

By the way, I have a degree in political science.

Your reference to the so-called "illegality" of Israeli nuclear weapons don't take into account that Israel never signed the non-proliferation treaty. Not very scientific of you. Also, your ramblings about underground bunkers, which make no sense at all.

As for arrogance, a great example is your criticism of Israel for "allowing the Americans to sell them" strike bombers. It just makes no sense, and you never did say what should be done about the fact that Australia allowed the Americans to sell them strike bombers.

I must say that your criticism of "arrogance" sounds unfortunately like we Middle Easterners are just too uppity for you. We don't know our rightful place, which seems to be well behind England, the US, and other remnants of the British Empire, such as Australia. You seem quite happy to claim rights and privileges for yourself (like self-defense, for example) that you are unwilling to allow those troublesome, pushy Jews in Israel. I don't know if this is your attitude, but what we hear from many one-sided critics of Israel is that, when you get right down to it, the "source of all evil" in the Middle East is the pesky, trouble-making Jews' wish to maintain sovereignty in their homeland. Why couldn't they remain an eternally exiled people?

By the way, there is no necessary contradiction between science and arrogance. Some of the most arrogant people I know are quite "scientific", including some with Ph.D's in political science.

You are still talking round corners, SGANOT, why don't you get straight to the point.

Also what is this about Israel being allowed to go militarily
atomic because she had not joined any global law that could prevent her?

Such a statement would not get you much more than
a Zero in any political science class.

What do you think Mordecai made such a protest for, because under international law he knew he was right.

Most social scientists had a great deal of sympathy for Israel originally, and sadly, we can blame America for letting her become so arrogant and lawbreaking. In fact, Israel was so
much looking forward to the US taking over Iraq, so she could induce what was left of the Iraqis to agree to the new state of Israel.

The point is, SGANOT, with us it is mostly trying to get rid of neo-colonial intrusion in the Middle East, as well as to stick up for a bit of decency and international

fair play, of course.

Bushbred, re “global law”: There is no such "global law". Personally, I think there should be. No one should have nuclear weapons. No one should weapons at all. If it were up to me, they wouldn't. In the meantime, there is no such law. And if Israel has nuclear weapons, it is not because the United States "allowed" this. If anything, you should blame France.

Nothing Vaanunu did was in defense of any international law. Specifically what international law is broken when a country supposedly "violates" the terms of a treaty it hasn’t signed?

You can blame America or whomever you want for whatever you want. You are now dealing in false generalities (Israel is “arrogant” and “lawbreaking”) instead of facts. The alleged violation of a treaty one never signed isn’t a good example of “lawbreaking”.

Re Iraq:

-Again, meaningless, false generalities. Unlike Australia, Israel didn’t participate in the invasion of Iraq.

-If Israel looked forward to Saddam’s defeat, it cannot be blamed. Saddam threatened to destroy Israel (not Australia or the US) countless times, and Israel (not Australia or the US) was the victim of multiple unprovoked Iraqi attacks, the latest in 1991 when Saddam launched more than 40 ballistic missiles at Israel.

-Given your concern about nuclear proliferation, you should thank Israel for destroying Saddam’s nuclear capacity in 1981.

-Israel does not require Iraqi agreement. Recognition and peaceful relations would be wonderful, but we’ve done without these for almost 60 years; if necessary, we can continue to do so. And Israel is not a “new state” in regional terms. All local states achieved independence after WWI, most around the same time as Israel. In many cases, this was only nominal independence, with a significant colonial presence continuing for many years.

Re colonialism:

-If you truly oppose imperialism and colonialism, you can’t support continued Arab efforts to conquer and colonize Israel;

- Some introspection is in order. You enjoy the spoils of colonial efforts that stole an entire continent, and live under the protection of America’s nuclear umbrella. And don’t forgot those strike bombers you let America sell you....

Sganot, you are too damned sure of yourself, so sure, in fact, very much like the Israelis themselves, one wonders whether you have some connection.

What you want, in fact, for the Middle East, will never happen, because I will say again, such policies are based on colonial greed, the very thing the Bush regime first tried on Iraq, but they are now trying to change.

Nothing much to do with global democracy, but it was simply colonial-style regime change, which the British tried for a long time in India, but Mahatma Gandhi thought otherwise.

Nelson Mandela showed the way also more recently in South Africa. As with Gandhi they achieved it without hardly firing a shot.

Could recommend you get onto Google and ask for John Locke, an English philosopher whose doctrine has been used both by Britain and America.

However, while Britain stayed true, the US broke the code by allowing its President too much latent power in the Constitution which is causing much of the problem now in Iraq.

Most university political science studies are or were until recently based on the theories of John Locke, which are said to be based on decency and fair play, rather than on religion. Locke also wrote a treatise on the Reasonableness of true Christianity.

Bushbred,

1) I'm an Israeli. I thought you knew that.

2) I'm sorry that you think I sound too sure of myself, but I cannot apologize for my knowledge and opinions. The 350-word limit here tends to encourage bluntness. Correcting others' mistakes can sound rude and arrogant, but there is a tremendous amount of hostility toward Israel based on ignorance, misunderstanding, double standards, and often the purposeful spreading of lies. (No, I am not accusing you of the latter.) If you want, we can have a more friendly, relaxed, and in-depth conversation offline. Email me at sganot@gmail.com

3) What do you know about what I want for the Middle East, and what makes you think it is based on “colonial greed”?

4) I’ve studied John Locke. Not sure what he has to do with our conversation, but “most university political science studies” are NOT “based on [his] theories”. He is an important classical political philosopher, but political science is much broader than just one man.

Locke’s treatise on the Reasonableness of Christianity is interesting, but I remain a non-Christian :)

The following may be of interest: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2096/is_1_56/ai_n16462582/pg_1

5) I haven’t discussed the situation in Iraq at all. I only pointed out a few reasons why most Israelis (like most Iraqis, actually) are happy to see Saddam’s regime go, and pointed out that your country, not Israel, participated in the invasion.

6) I’m not sure what US presidential power has to do with the topic at hand. Israel’s system of government is parliamentary, like Britain’s and Australia's. We also have a president who is mainly a figurehead, like your Queen. But our system is more democratic than yours. (For example, the head-of-state is not a monarch who inherits the position, but is elected by the parliament.)

7) Finally, it is fitting to note that today is Memorial Day in Israel, commemorating the sacrifice of 22,305 men and women killed in the establishment and defense of Israel. At sundown, the country will transition from deep mourning to joyous celebration as we mark 59 years of independence. CHAG SAMEACH to those who celebrate!

As a retired wheat and sheep farmer, Sganot, have had plenty to do with your people, and generally found them good to get on with, even though it is part of their historical makeup to drive a hard bargain as regards buying our wool proceeds and so-forth.

Have now been retired over 32 years, two gradsons now running the growing farmlands with me and second eldest son, also retired, sharing directorship.

As I was only poorly educated originally, was surprised how well I did in the military forces, easily showing more understanding than college boys.

While my now deceased wife became a popular artist, I managed to receive honours studying Third World problems in Sri-Lanka. Also studied global power balance initiatives towards the end of the Cold War.

Anyhow, glad to make your personal acquaintance through OLO, Sganot, and I must close by saying I have great admiration for Jewish intellect, which indeed may need to be held back somewhat, as many social scientists are either scared or wary of it - especially as regards certain influences in the White House.

Bushbred,

I am sorry for your recent loss. May your wife’s memory and your family’s love comfort you in this difficult time.

You sound like a good, hard-working, and honest person who has much to be proud of. But like many good people, perhaps as a result of your education or a function of when and where you were raised, you have inherited attitudes about Jews incorporating certain stereotypes that may appear complimentary, but that are offensive nonetheless. No, it is not in our nature to “drive a hard bargain”, and as far as I know, we have no “inborn mental aptitude” for anything in particular

“Jewish intellect” is very controversial. You say that “many social scientists are either scared or wary of it”. I wouldn’t quite put it that way. But the whole subject is fraught with difficulty and scientifically questionable. Most importantly, it approaches the dangerous territory of racism and eugenics. If one believes that a group is intellectually or otherwise superior, it is a short step to believing that the same group, or others, is actually inferior. Add a belief in biological determinism, and society’s response could be monstrous, as history shows.

For more on this, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence_%28Controversies%29 .

Finally, if I understand your reference to “certain influences in the White House”, this seems to be based on A) ignorance and B) irrational fear (perhaps combined with traditional anti-Semitic beliefs about “Jewish power”).

A) Ignorance because Jews make up a tiny percentage of US citizens, and overwhelmingly support the Democrats. By far the vast majority of Republicans, Bush supporters, conservatives, so-called “neo-conservatives”, etc., are non-Jews. And compared to the general population, Jews are significantly over-represented among early and vociferous critics of the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq.

B) Irrational fear because, let's say, for the sake of argument, that you’re right. Assume that Jews are innately more intelligent than others, and are disproportionately influential in the White House. How would it be a bad thing? Wouldn't you want Bush's advisors to be smart? I certainly would.

Finally, Happy ANZAC Day!
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1177514486024&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I guess what it is mostly about SGANOT, is respect. My wish as I get older, is that we may all live together in peace, while respecting our differences.

As a strong student of philosophy and history, I was very struck when I read that most of the students who attended the Great Library of Alexandria in Egypt were Jews, and as a student of Greek philosophy, I wondered if Golden Greek Scientific Reasoning might be a way of getting us all together, but still paying respect to each other's beliefs.

One wonders whether it was the intentions of the Jews who did attend the Great Library, especially as reason was being taught there as a balance to faith.

To be sure there is a much deep-seated interest in such a point of view among academics, knowing that the early Moslem converts in the more intellectual areas of the Middle East did have according to historians, quite a wonderful mixture of a belief in Allah coupled with a strong knowledge of Socratic Reasoning as some call it.

In fact, it is said that the rise of reason had a double-edge, bringing progress to the West with the help of Muslim scholars, yet forcing Islam away from an early respect for reason, down into its own Dark Age.

Bushbred,

We're certainly on the same side when it comes to our desire for all to live together in peace, while respecting our differences.

And yes, to the extent that science can serve as a kind of "universal language", recognizing the same laws and describing the same phenomena not only in different countries on Earth, but even in different locations throughout the Universe, it has the potential to serve as a basis for cross-cultural communication. But this has to be combined with recognition of some sort of basic universal morality. Science alone won't make people get along together.

Which, if you think about it, is sort of another way of saying "making the deserts bloom is not enough".