Jews have lived on the West Bank ( Judea and Samaria) since pre-Islamic times. The only time they were prohibited to do so was during Jordan's rule 1948-1967, which was also contrary to the Mandate for Palestine adopted by the UN, and which not only provided for the establishment of a Jewish state, but also encouraged close settlement by Jews on the land including Judea and Samaria.

Prominent Jurists such as Stephen Schwebel, formerly President of the International Court of Justice, notes that a country acting in self-defence may seize and occupy territory when necessary to protect itself. Schwebel also confirms that a state may require, as a condition for its withdrawl, security measures designed to ensure its citizens are not menaced again from that territory.
(American Journal of International Law, April 1970: pp.345-346)

Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, the Johnson’ Administration, stated that Resolution 242 gives Israel legal right to be in the West Bank. The resolution “allows Israel to administer the territors” it won in 1967 “until a just and lasting peace in the Middle East “is achieved.
(New Republic, October 21,1991: p.14)

Settlements (though seen by many as undesirable, myself included) have never been an obstacle to peace.

cont ...

From 1947-1967 when Jews were forbidden to live on the West Bank, Arabs refused to make peace with Israel.

From 1967-1977 when the Labour Party established a few strategic settlements in the territories, yet again Arabs were unwilling to negotiate peace with Israel.

In 1977, when the Likkud government, who were committed to establishing more settlements, Egyptian President Sadat signed a peace treaty with Israel. This also witnessed removal of settlements in Sinai as part of this agreement.

In 1978, Israel froze settlement building for 3 months, hoping other Arabs would join the Camp David peace process. But non did.

In 1994 when Jordan signed a peace agreement with Israel, settlements were not an issue.

Whilst Jewish settlements grew under the Labor goverment government between1992 and 1996, this did not prevent Palestinians signing the Oslo accord 1993, and Oslo 2 agreement.

In 2000 Ehud Barak offered to dismantle dozens of settlements, but the Palestinians still would not agree to ending the conflict.

In August 2005, Israel evacuated all settlements in the Gaza Strip and four in Northern Samaria, yet terror attacks continue.

These terrorities never legally belonged to either Joran, Egypt or the Palestinians, who were never the sovereign authority in any part of Palestine. Professor Rostow further states: “The Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there.”
(American Journal of International Law, 1990, vol.84: p.72)

As a matter of policy, Israel does not requesition private land for the establishment of settlements. When housing construction is allowed on private land, it has to be determined that it is not violating private rights, and that no settlements displace Arabs living in the territory.

The problem is, Danielle, the Jews, though religous, different to the Arabs, were also interested very much in Scientific Reasoning, as proven by the fact that over half the students attending the Great Library of Alexandria were Jews.

It was also Jewish intellect which introduced early capitalism to the West.

It is also the fact that the earlier kernel of the Middle East intelligentsia which had accepted Socratic Reasoning also accepted Islamic teachings, but the intelligentsia was eventually smothered by Islamic Mullahs as the West itself gained progress through the very intellect that Islam threw out.

As an Iranian female judge has mentioned, we do need to rediscover Hellenistic Reasoning, but we have been treated so harshly by the West, we prefer not to find it by means of the American Way.

As one who has made a strong study of such problems, would agree that the presence of an intellectually-minded Israel in just a tiny portion of the Middle East, will never be the way to find peace in a Middle East populated mostly by Islamic fundamentalists.

And certainly in this so-called enlightened day and age, we have no right to solve this problem with missile diplomacy - possibly nuclear.

Earthrise

Do you think if you call me a Zionist often enough it might actually become true? It seems so.

Your assertion that you rarely debate so called ‘Zionists’ is right on the money, since you have made no attempts to address any of the counterpoints I and others have made.

I have previously described your use of hyperbole in making your case, something it is clear you could not do in a reasoned manner. You chose not to defend this, for good reason. ‘Polemic’ is a much better term for what you are attempting in your posts, since by emotion and repetition you seek to hide the logical weaknesses of your case.

I will say again, though I have little hope it will get through, that I also believe Israel has no right to keep the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Once the Palestinians commit to peaceful means in order to achieve their objectives I would fully support the return of their land. So it is fairly clear that we are not all that far apart, although I know you can’t bring yourself to see this.

The problem with your argument that Israel needs to make the first move is that it will only be seen as a victory for Hamas and other terror organizations, strengthening their hand and undoubtedly encouraging them in their belief that they can drive ALL Jews from the Middle East. You know this yourself. All you have to do is read Hamas’s charter, or listen to Arab leaders like Ahmedinejad. They clearly and loudly say “ NO NEGOTIATION WITH ISRAEL, EVER” This isn’t a ‘Zionist fantasy’. After withdrawing from the Gaza Strip, did Palestinian violence reduce? NO it did not. If anything, there is more violence from that area.

Am I misquoting them or mistaking their aims? If I am, please provide me some evidence

Bushbred,

Instead of making more obtuse comments could you please explain what you mean when you say” However, without crippling Islamic nations such as Iran, and causing a billion more Islamic enemies throughout the world, a reborn Jewish Israel can never be a peaceful possibility”

Because it seems to me that you are suggesting that Iran will destroy Israel if the Americans don’t deal with them first. This is exactly the argument that the Neo-Cons are using at the moment. Surely you are aware of this.

It of course neglects Israel obvious ability to punch well above its weight in terms of military power. Any confrontation between Arab countries and Israel will be a contest of equals.

As a historian you are welcome to mull over what might have been although such speculation is, in my opinion, pointless. The Jews didn’t all migrate to the West. The problem is what we do now.

It’s fascinating that you cannot abide George Bush’s limited Christianity, yet you make no mention of the real theocrats, who are far more dangerous and totally undemocratic.

How exactly is it a problem that the Jews are interested in Scientific Reasoning? Or Capitalism?

How is an Islamic theocracy compatible with Hellenistic reasoning in the modern world?

Your attempt to link any US action in Iran with the defence of Israel, completely ignores the current actions of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards with their Iraqi proxies making direct attacks on US and Iraqi serviceman and civilians in Iraq. Nor does it acknowledge Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons which threatens far more than just Israeli interests in the Middle East. Most of Iran’s Arab neighbours are also rightly concerned by Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

It seems clear to me you deny Israel’s right to exist at all, whether behind the 1967 borders or not. How do you reconcile this stand with the League of Nations and UN resolutions in support of Israel’s right to exist? Or is democracy only valid when it supports your prejudices?

Paull, can you explain to us why you think that Israel has a right to exist whereas apparently you don't seem to think that the Palestinians have a right to have a country of their own.

David