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.