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.