This article points to interesting parallels between the “creation myths” of Pakistan and Israel, out of broadly similar circumstances, and the harm these can do when perpetuated uncritically by future generations. Another thought-provoking piece from Irfan.

A fine article Irfan. Though Israel is not working to thwart any creation of a Palestinian State. The Palestinians themselves have refused over and over again any help or encouragement to form their own country unless that country had direct influence in Israeli national matters. The Palestinians under Arafat made the conditions of no compromise for the continuance of the State of Israel and was supported in this by neighbouring Arab Countries with monies and weapons, and who, by their treatment of Palestinian 'refugees' in their countries, care little for the Palestinians as a people.
Israel is a State. A functioning country contributing to the world markets and intellectual and technological advancement. What could be the State or country of Palestine is a barren, socially dormant limbo kept alive by it's Arab neighbours for the sole purpose of spawning martyrs to the Arab/Islamic cause. whatever that meant yesterday or may mean tomorrow. A willingness to compromise could have had a Palestine flourishing as Israel does(even in the face of a history of continuous terrorist attacks and outright warfare).

A fine and balanced piece, thanks. Pity the same can't be said about the post from Aqvarivs. It begins with a classic piece of doublespeak 'Though Israel is not working to thwart any creation of a Palestinian State'. Israel didn't even recognise the existence of the Palestinian people (a people without a land for a land without a people, remember?) unfortunately until Arafat's PLO began its terror campaign in the 1970's. But then this same PLO took the historic move of accepting Israel inside the pre-1967 border, a move ignored by Israel and her Zionist supporters. This is a massive concession, which sheds the light on Israel's true goal of annexing large parts of the West Bank. Coupled with the Arab League Peace plan, Israel's aggression is naked before the world. All it will take is for America's falling star to hit the ground, and Israel's grubby land grab will be history.

It is Israel's continuing occupation that threatens the very existence of Israel now, not Arab armies.

Earthrise, that is because there is no people named Palestinian. Palestine was a name given by the Romans to a tract of land partitioned from Judaea for reasons of government management. Those people, some Arab, others of minority religion, unwanted or unclaimed tribes and associations, who were pushed into that section of land by the formation of or defining of the Trans-Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Saudi-Arabia. The Arabs living in the area of Palestine did not take up the name of Palestine or consider themselves Palestinians until after the creation of Israel by the British from land taken from the land under British control following the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, namely Palestine. Palestine today is the remnant of that geography not of a people. Palestine was never a State and as such remains a geographical area until such time as those calling themselves today Palestinian create a State and it is recognised as such by the World and principally The United Nations. Arafat never wanted Statehood because with Statehood the 'Palestinians' would be restricted by international law and convention as to their behavior. Israel is a State recognised by the world (sans Arabia)and the United nations and is held to a higher standard of State behavior because of it. Your Palestinians are a Stateless people confined to a geographical unclaimed territory. They are not victims of Israel. They are victims of an non-cohesive tribalism unwilling to take up the responsibility of statehood.

Earthrise isn’t interested in FACTS, Aqvaris.

For instance he wouldn’t care that in 1970 Israel had already been brought to the brink of extinction twice by invading Arab armies. Israel wasn’t occupying any Palestinian land prior to 1967 by the way. They would face a third attack within three years.

The Israelis offered Arafat such a deal at Camp David in 2000. He refused it because the Palestinian terror organisations aren’t interested in a two state solution.

What is really amusing is your wishful thinking about Israel being forced to give up those parts of the west bank under its control. It would take an army to do that, or more likely a nuclear weapon. Is that something you would support Earthrise?

Maybe you are having your palm read, or you have a functioning crystal ball?

What we do know is that there is massive support for Hamas’s brand of Islamic theocracy. Support for Fatah is almost non existent. Earthrise might think he knows what Israel intends to do. He only need look at Hamas’s charter to see that they have absolutely no interest in ANY kind of deal with Israel, pre 1967 or otherwise They want the whole lot, or martyrdom. Nothing else.

Britain had no right to give what was Palestinian land to the Jews to set up the state of Israel. The Jews that first made up the state of Israel were Europeans and had no links of any kind to the land.

The English-speaking West has ganged up with Israel to get rid of the Palestinians from the land of their fathers, an ethnic cleansing. That the Palestinians do not want statehood is a statement made by the ethically and morally bankrupt.

The sad thing is that the Palestinians have turned what is essentially a political conflict into a religious one now that Hamas is representing them.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200708230026

Philip Tang and Earth wise

It would appear that the people given the Mandate to partition the area of so called Palestine had very right to do so, and out of it came a number of nation states.

http://www.answers.com/topic/israel-and-the-united-nations

It is rank hypocrisy to deny the existence of one of these, and not any of the others.

Philip Tang,

I think you have not correctly understood the historical process by which Israel came into being.

After the victory of WW1 the lands which had previously been Turkish or German ruled in the middle east came under Allied control. The League of Nations entrusted the mandate of Palestine to Britain with the express direction of creating a Jewish state. At that stage the mandate covered Palestine as we know it, plus Syria and Iraq.

“On September 30, 1947, Britain decided to terminate the British mandate of Palestine, later setting the withdrawal date of May 15, 1948. Subsequently, a majority of the UNITED NATIONS Special Committee on Palestine recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration, and on November 29, 1947 the UN General Assembly voted 33 to 13 in favor of the 1947 UN Partition Plan.”

No-one doubts that the Palestinians want statehood. The problem is that mostly they want a single state solution which, in the best of all possible outcomes, would mean the end of the Jewish state. You only have to glance through the Hamas charter to see that this is their goal.

Two states is the only realistic solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Those who disagree with this proposal are merely prolonging the already bloody conflict.

The theocratic state of Israel came to an end in about 600 BC (BCE) when the Babylonians captured Jerusalem and dispersed the Jews to various part of the empire. Israel ceased to be a nation both in history and according to the Jewish Scriptures (Deuteronomy 28:15, 64).

Fast forward to 1948, Britain as a colonial power then gave to the Zionists land stolen from the Palestinians by the Ottomans. (There would be no objection if Britain were to give part of the UK to the Zionists to form Israel). Almost 60 years of occupation still does not make it legitimate.

However, it is unrealistic to deny Israel the right to exist and the proposed two-state solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is workable and equitable only if Israel withdraw to its pre-1967 armistice lines.

The real situation today is that the Zionists are forcing the Palestinians out of their homeland by adopting hostile actions which deny them their rights even to make a living. The Palestinians are left with no choice but to support the (Islamists) Hamas. The Zionist and the US take the opportunity to label them as terrorists and the cycle goes on until the Palestinians are decimated

Philip.... you are confusing the Babylonians with the Assyrian treatment of the northern kingdom of Israel (rather than Judah).

The Assyrian policy was dispersement, the Babylonian only applied to Judah and did not involve dispersement, but kept the Jews in a ghetto, from which they returned to Jerusalem with Nehemiah and Ezra, and rebuilt the walls and temple.. to the annoyance of Sanballat and Tobiah and their mob(proto-palestinians).

If you read the book of Nehemiah and Ezra, you will find the tactics of Sanballat and Tobiah to be very educational and shed light on the same strategies of the Palestinians today.

Regarding the Jewish return in 48, the Settlers see this as fulfillment of Ezekiel 37 and if you want to know how they see the future, then just read on to the end of the book.....it does include a temple..... and that can only mean one thing in this world.... starts with A...ends with N

When histories are so intertwined, and different peoples have populated a given area, it's pretty much impossible to unravel the 'rights and wrongs' of it all. People just change the 'historical starting point' in order to justify their position. You chose 1948, but the Jews will choose AD70 when the Romans exiled them and destroyed the temple. Who is right ? well...that is the question isn't it...and that also explains the fighting.

From a purely human point of view, the Jews are 'forging' their own historical starting point right now.. why is that less valid than us being in Australia as a result of such a decision by the British ?

Jewish Scripture recorded (2 Kings 17:6-18) Israel being carried away leaving only Judah.

Theologically, both faiths, mainline Judaism and Christianity are agreed that the 1948 founding of the state of Israel is not supported in their Scriptures.

For Christianity, all the promises made to the Jews regarding the land were fulfilled (Joshua 21:43-45). The promise of the land in perpetuity is conditioned upon their faithfulness. Since they were not faithful, they lost it (Deut 28:63-64; Jos 23:13,15; 1 King 9:7; 2King 17:23; Jer 12:10-12). All promises made to Israel are fulfilled in the Church (Heb. 11:13-16). The rise of Christian Zionism and their militant support for the present state of Israel is a recent phenomenon based upon the erroneous teaching of pre-millenial dispensationalism.

http://valiantfortruth.tripod.com/whoownstheland.html

For Judaism, many orthodox Rabbis believe that the ingathering of the Jews to the Land has to be based upon a religious revival and turning back to God. The present state of Israel, founded by the Zionists is considered by the orthodox Jews as secular, ungodly and committing injustice against the Palestinians.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RjnvQHWyLE&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QfgvDXsDds&mode=related&search=

It is pointless for any sane person to quote subjective Biblical or Quranic history in order to make an EXCLUSIVE claim for their side to what is known as Palestine/Israel. This conflict is not a case of Right against Wrong, but Right against Right.
When the ancient Hebrews entered the "promised land", they proceeded to slaughter countless numbers of already existing inhabitants who refused to accept the legitimacy of the Hebrews' claim to the land. The Hebrews said they had permission from God to take the land. The American colonists said it was "Manifest Destiny" that they seize the riches of the New World. The Arabs were not native to Palestine until the Muslim invasions of the 7th Century AD. They claimed their conquest was the will of Allah. Isn't there a pattern here?
At what point does an ancestral claim to the land become illegitimate, if at all, when a given people have not been the majority in that land for centuries? Would it be legitimate for me to go back to Ireland NOW -- with gun in hand -- and demand that my ancestors' land be given back to me because it was stolen 350 years ago? I have been alive long enough to know that when enough people --possessed by enough concentrated fervor -- believe in something strongly enough, they will move hell and high water to set in motion the work necessary to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Irgun, Stern Gang and Palmach were guilty of atrocities. The Arabs were guilty of atrocities. The tragedies of history become entrenched over time. We cannot go back in time to undo them. They create new realities, sometimes evolving into a more just system, sometimes not. However, trying to overthrow those new realities, after a long passage of time, can simply create new injustices for the innocents on both sides living today. Unless ALL the JEWS and ALL the Arabs can PUBLICLY acknowledge the moral legitimacy of the others' pain, and their shared historical claim, there will never be compromise. And without mutual compromise, no peace.

Philip Tang

You are making the big mistake that modern Jewish settlement in Israel was started by Europeans. In fact there was continuous settlement of Jews in that land even after the Roman wars. The Romans only forbid Jews from Jerusalem and the regions around it.

The next group of Jews to arrive were those who were living in other lands within the Caliphate, plus Spain from which Jews were returning back into the Arab world after the expulsion by the Catholics. They were later on joined for the first time by Jews from Europe.

The land was largely wasted and Jews did a marvelous job of improving agriculture and making it more livable both for themselves and the small Arab populations who lived there.

With the arrival of more Jews from Europe came an influx of more Arabs from surrounding lands which was beneficial to both. Soon some areas including Jerusalem were predominately Jewish, and others largely Arab. The post WW2 period saw many more Jews in Israel, this time predominantly from Europe who improved the agriculture to standards where it could support greatly increased populations.

The English occupation saw massive hostility from both sides and with the UN partition a war between the Jews and the Arab populations, with the Arabs attempting destruction and the Jews fighting for land which they owned and which they had worked. The war saw movement both ways, Arabs from the Israel sector and Jews from ancient pre-Islamic Jewish communities such as Iraq, Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon etc. The numbers were similar although attention is only given to the Arabs.

These displaced Jews from the former Caliphate were accepted into Israel and form HALF OF ITS POPULATION, the Arabs were not accepted by the surrounding lands but given only temporary residence and trained to fight for an annihilation of the Jews, even those who had fled from Islamic lands.

Judging by the debate on this matter, it seems that the issue of 35,000 Jews leaving Czarist Russia for land purchased from the Arabs by the Jewish Agency from 1909 to found Tel Aviv in the dunes of Jaffa beach has been left out of the debate.

Up to the first world war Jewish colonisation of Palestine had the active support of Arab effendi and local landowners who sold their land to the Jewish Agency at outrageous prices. These people worked the land till they dropped and started to enjoy a standard of living that became the envy of their Arab neighbours as the land produced fruit and olives.
This relationship lasted through the first war up until the thirties when the british introduced legislation to prevent the Arabs from selling land to Jews.