Your question is "Does Israel deserve our support"? YES. Without a doubt. The one-eyed view of this article is beneath contempt. What exactly has Israel done? !) The granting of land recognised as a traditional right long denied them was mandated by a group of other nations and was not dependent on Israel alone. 2) Israel has done little more than defend itself from a group of larger hostile countries surrounding it who vowed from the first day to 'drive them into the sea' - thus murdering them. It can hardly be wondered at that they are pre-emptive now in their defence. The whole question of 'Palestinian suffering' could do with a lot more investigative examination - things are not always what they seem on the surface. Palestinians are not entirely the innocents they would like to have the rest of the world believe. It would behove anyone writing on this to give more balanced views.

Now let me get this right, with a little paraphrasing: "Modern Aborigines in Australia are not the people of ancient Gwondana and hold no title deeds to modern Australia". Huh?

If the Palestinian rockets are so harmless, why do they bother shooting them at Israel?

Of course Israel deserves support. We are fools if we do not support Israel. There is a God-Mandate to support Israel or perish. The land is their God-given inheritance regardless of what you/we choose to believe and your/our lack of acceptance of this doesn't change the facts. Israel will be Israel for the Jews......ALWAYS! It doesn't get any simpler than that. Now if you want to get into politics about the poor mistreated Palestinians.....well, they need to turn to their fellow muslims for help...the "people" no one wants...especialy their own.

It's irrelevant whether or not modern Jews are descendants of the ancient population, even if they were , they still would not have a claim on Palestine after centuries of living somewhere else. The use of ancestry as a justification for a colonial adventure is chauvinistic drivel, I'll bet many Palestinians are descendants of the area's Bronze Age population anyway.

There is an old adage that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

And another that says that "The friend of my enemy is my enemy".

As the islamic extremists that we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq have determined if possible to destroy Australia, and are the declared enemy of Israel, it therefore follows that Israel is our ally and that the palestinians are our enemy.

As with most of the Posts, a resounding YES. One wonders just what Doctorate Ghada Karmi has. She is certainly good at DOCTORING the Truth. I quote "This narrow strip bordering the Mediterranean is the most over crowded patch on earth". The facts -
Gaza with a population of 1.5 million has an area of 360km2 which gives a density of 3823 per sq. km.
Hong Kong with a pop. of 7 million, an area of 1099 km2, has a density of 6407 per sq. km.
Singapore with a pop. of 4.48 million has an area of 704 km2 and a density, slightly lower than Hong Kong, of 6369 per sq. km.
Others have dealt with other aspects of the article but the following deserves our attention - "On April 27, 1950, the Arab National Committee of Haifa stated in a memorandum to the Arab States: 'The removal of the Arab inhabitants[in 1948] was voluntary and was carried out at our request... The Arab delegation proudly asked for the evacuation of the Arabs and their removal to the neighbouring Arab countries.' It should also be noted that the estimated 550,000 Arab refugees of 1948 include tens of thousands who moved into what became Israel in the years just before its establishment"
Just recently Abu Mazen(Mahmoud Abbas) told the Washington Post that it is "my right" to return to his birthplace in Safed(Tzfat), but how I will use this right is up to me and to the refugees and to the agreement which will take place between us."
What he doesn't tell is that the 1948 battle for Tfzat began after the Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, who was living at the time in Lebanon, planned to move to Tfzat after the British departure and declare the establishment of an Arab-Palestinian state with Tfzat as its first capital.
One can only imagine the contents of the Edwards Said Memorial Lecture at The University of Adelaide, and what she will be saying at other venues around Australia. Get your facts straight Dr Karmi!!

I read somewhere a long time ago that the Arabs arrived in the area of
Palestine around the year 200 or so, after the Jews had been driven
out by the Romans.

It said that they came from an area to the North East of the Middle East.
That would put it into either Persia or Southern Russia I think.
Maybe someone on here knows tha answer.

But Arabs are not people!

Sir Robin John Maxwell-Hyslop (Conservative) recorded in Hansard (Commons, 18 October 1973), a visit to the Knesset:

'After lunch, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee spoke with great intemperance about the Arabs. When he drew a breath, I was constrained to say, 'Dr Hacohen, I am profoundly shocked that you should preach of other human beings in terms similar to those in which (Nazi) Julius Streicher spoke of the Jews. Have you learned nothing?' I shall remember his reply to my dying day. He smote the table with both hands and said, 'But they are not human beings, they are not people, they are Arabs.'

This is how the Zionist state thinks: Arabs are not people. It doesn't matter if you bulldoze their houses and kill their children. THEY ARE NOT HUMAN BEINGS. THEY ARE NOT PEOPLE. THEY ARE ARABS.

@articdog
"[D]rive them into the sea". Can you find a original source for that claim? You may discover that its a little difficult.

@gchslh
You do realise that merely expressing one theological perspective is countered by any other theological perspective. For example;

http://www.nkuk.org/

@plerdsus
Some people make decisions on principles... Others have no sense of moral reasoning at all.

@fairgo
Ghada Karmi is a doctor of medicine. She was born in a Palestinian family in Jerusalem. She is an associate fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, and a visiting professor at London Metropolitan University.

Yes, Karmi should have said "one of the most overcrowded" rather than "the most overcrowded". You get a kewpie doll. Now go play with it.

@mac: You are quite correct. There is no genetic difference between Semitic Palestinians and Semitic Jews. Of course, mentioning this fact can lead to censorship, as the Human Immunology journal discovered.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,605806,00.html

Could say that the wandering Jews, as so much called, had every right, especially after their treatment in Nazi Germany to join their few brethren in Israel.

The more modern worry, however, is to have allowed the Jews to have become, with two hundred nukes at the ready, per favour of the US, virtually a super-state, their inborn mental talents in politics, economics animal and plant husbandry, etc, proving how the Jewish people have been an asset to the advancement of any country that accepts them as equals.

From a philosophical point of therefore, it is understandable that the Middle East Muslims, could be now existing in a kind of tremorous fear that the future could be against them.

It is believed that for the good of the future, us in the Western world should be humble enough not to take sides here.

We must take a causal backward look, and realise that the pride we felt in how a reborn Israel was showing the seemingly less intelligent Arabs what reality was all about, was not good for the future of the Middle East.

No need to say much more, except to suggest that the blame does lie with a weak United Nations, too much under the spell of the old colonial imperialism - and elitism - which we thought was on the way out after WW2.

Regards - BB, WA.

Israel deserves support simply pragmatically: if it is “washed off the Earth”, the next would have been any of non-Muslim countries.

Due to the atrocities on both sides, I would say neither Israel nor the Palestinians derserve our support until they can play together in their tiny sand patch

In these never-ending articles about Israel and the Palestinians, has it ever occurred to anyone that the people who are least supportive of their fellow Muslims are the Muslims of the rest of the world?

Other than to sell them arms,of course.

Had Middle Eastern countries resettled their brethren, just as Israel resettled some 700,000 Jews who had lived in the Middle East prior to 1948, then there would be no problem now.

"Modern Jews in Europe are not the people of ancient Judea and hold no title deeds to modern Palestine. Yet that is their claim for being there".

No, it isn't. And it couldn't be. Not even God can give people a sovereignty entitlement that can be handed from one generation to the next for ever, independently of conquest, invasion, settlement or international mandate.

As I understand it, the claim of Israelis to parts of Palestine comes from a UN mandate.

In any case, there comes a time when people gain entitlement to their share in running a country from simply having been there for long enough.

How long is long enough? I'd love to see some reasoned argument about that.
And some reasoned argument about the residual rights of conquored peoples and first peoples. There is not much in the literature that makes sense.

Hear hear, ozibub, a UN Mandate is the source of the title to the lands.

Let's return to the lands and borders set out in that original mandate.

That'd solve everything...or are you being mischeiveously provactive?

http://www.friendsofpalestine.org.au/images/Palestine%20Map%20Big.jpg

Four Maps show the trend over 40 years. From Left to right, original Jewish land holdings, '47 UN mandated borders, borders after the '67 war, Barak's proposed borders revealed by Clinton at the failed Camp David summit...the proposal Arafat rejected.

LEV... good to see you are well read....

But not as informed perhaps as you could be..

The only claim 'Israelites' or..Jews have to the land is:

1/ Internationally agreed mandate ?
or
2/ They are there...they have the firepower.. now they are like all other nations.
or
3/ There are enough Jews of biological connection to the Jews of old.. such that they represent a viable covenant community, and if they are living in obedience TO that covenant.. (apart from the fact the the Messiah has come and thus superceded/fulfilled that particular covenant) then..they, and all proselytes.. 'God fearers' have a divine right to be there based on the Abrahamic covenant.

So.. a Jew or Godfearer/proselyte who is obedient to G-d has a divine right to inhabit and subdue the land. (in strict Biblical terms.. looking only at the Old Testament)

Christians see the return to the land similiarly to how the settlers see it.. as fulfulment of prophecy. (Ezekiel 37 and following)

I don't think the issue is one of 'support'.. except for those who may believe Israel is 'right' and 'threatened'.. for me.. its about unfolding history of salvation, and what will be.....will be.

I'll mention it again.. for the (broken) record :)

1/ Watch Jerusalem... specially the Temple Mount
2/ It all comes back to that...in the long run.
3/ The future of the world.. will centre on events there.

Whatever the history, as one who is outside this conflict I can only judge from the actions of those involved. Wealthy Israel is overwhelmingly the stronger in terms of fire power, military might and powerful allies. It retaliates for one death with overwhelming fire power, the killing of many and the destruction of the homes of impoverished people. Far from cowing Palestinians into submission these reprisals strengthen Arab extremism and breed a stubborn resistance which swell the ranks of terrorist "martyrs". After fifty years of such counter-productive strategies clearly Israel needs to think again. I know there is intelligent opposition within Israel which urges more constructive engagement with the Palestinians. Israel will deserve our support when it shows signs of doing this.

Patricia,

I think both Israel and Fatah/PLO are both realising that they are going to have to negotiate a settlement to have any hope for a sound future.

Palestinians must renounce violence and recognize Israels right to exist. Israel must then withdraw from all Palestinian territories and compensate those who have lost their homes.

One problem is the significant support for Hamas and Hezbollah, who are committed to Israel’s destruction and the creation of a single Arab state in the Holy lands. This is not merely my opinion; this is in writing in the Hamas charter.

I will not deny that there are radical Israelis who believe that all of Palestine should belong to the Jews. These people are in a small minority in Israel, most Israelis recognize that there needs to be a fair, Two-State, solution.

There are many difficulties. In places, what started as strategic settlements to bulwark against the Jordanian military have grown into modern towns with large populations. Places like Maale Aduminum and Modi'in Illit just over the green line on the Palestinian side of the border, are large municipalities where upwards of 35000 people live. The Israeli gov’t is naturally going to have trouble selling the abandonment of these towns after so much has been invested in them.

Perhaps a one for one land swap would be the sensible answer.

If you have a look at the statistics since the second intifada 1000 Israelis and 4000 Palestinians have lost their lives directly to the violence. The idea that the Israelis are grossly over punishing the Palestinians is propaganda. The Palestinians would do more damage if they had modern weapons and training at their disposal.

But there is plenty of blame to spread around.

Supporting Iranian nuclear weapons won’t help the Palestinians. If anything it is likely to make their plight more intractable since Israel would have to guard against the possibility of a terrorist bomb. That would mean more fences, more checkpoints and more fighting.

So does Israel deserve our support? Well they certainly don’t deserve our criticism any more than do the Palestinans.

"Palestinians" are for the most part descendants of immigrants from Lebanon and Syria who went to work for the Jews, when wages at home were a fraction of those paid for farmwork by Jews.

“Of course.
The Jews were granted the right to rule Palestine under the same conditions as the British mandate. The rights granted were the same as any Christian colonial power had for the last ~800 years.
Obviously, a Jewish state could not have been established in Europe. More than a millennium of genocide, pogroms, and discrimination, proved they weren't wanted in Europe and turning them into colonial rulers would solve several problems. 1. End the European Jewish problem, 2. Continue the colonial-settler tradition. and 3. Punish the uppity undermench.

Remember the two world wars were fought to defend British, Dutch, Belgian, Portuguese, US and French colonialism. In 1948, it was still working. Israel was established to rule as all European masters were, i.e., absolute power of life and death over the undermench and total control over all real and personal property.
In the 21st century, this sounds kind of brutal, but at least the Palestinians, as the Iraqis have been allowed to flee. Tasmanians weren't.”

israel deserves your support for precisely the same reasons that the boer regime in south africa deserved your support. if you had no trouble with apartheid, if you had no trouble with minorities ruling majorities, if you have no trouble with terrorism as long as the terrorists have american approval, then support israel.

but eventually international pressure changed people's minds about the legality of apartheid, even finally the americans were forced to admit the boer regime was intolerable, brutal racists. at the end, only israel supported them. what a surprise. but the zionists recognized the parallels between themselves and the boers, even if you don't, so no real surprise.

i hope someday a similar result is obtained in palestine: a secular state where jews, muslims, christians, and atheists can live together peacefully. but the zionist state of israel is a crime, and must be dissolved. the alternative is unending war.

Demos

I have commonly attached the titles Supressor, Land Thief, and Military Adventurist to the Israeli Government. I had never found clear evidence of it being purely a racist regime.

However on reading a speech delivered by Former Aussie Diplomat Ross Burns to The Australain Friends of Palestine, in Adelaide, (March 2007) he made an allegation the Israeli Ambassador to Australia in a media interview said the following

"‘we are basically the white race’; ‘we are like sisters in Asia … (and should) enhance our position in the countries neighbouring Australia’."

Now I don't think we should support a country that holds such racist views, if indeed the Israeli Government supports such a statement by it's Ambassador.

I question whether we should accept the Ambassadors view of our relationship with Asia.

I think we should conside whether it worthwhile to support a country that is prepared to ride on our backs to peddle it's influence or more likely disruption into our region. Especially while that country suppresses people who hold tangible and common religious beliefs with our largest and nearest neighbour and indeed large elements of the populations of many of our trading partners in our region.

As for Israel being a part of Asia, well with such displayed logic we are probably still part of the mother country.

NAIVITY in the EXTREME....

Demos :) "but eventually international pressure changed people's minds about the legality of apartheid"

Mate.... you are comparing a small dot on an "i" in a big word..of a HUGE historical essay of life..with an ELEPHANT of long standing, enduring, faith based History.....

Considering what the Israelites have been through..beginning from 400 yrs of slavery in Egypt where they are reminded EVERY year of the G-d who saved them from this at what festival ? ....yep..its PASSOVER..

Aparthied..international law.. do not even amount to a speck of dust on the robust history of Israel.

PATRICIA WA... if you judge people by their actions.. why are you still in WA and not off back in England, Scotland or Wales somewhere in deep heartfelt penitence for being a part of the 'stealing' mob who took aboriginal land ? (unless you are inidgenous)

Why do you not ask this also:

1/ If Israel HAS the firepower to obliterate the Palestinians in Gaza say... yet they "don't"..and these pests continually provoke them.. hurl rockets at them.... WHY? ... 'That'...is also 'behavior'...and 'actions'..... They could....but don't.

2/ Do you remember the image which is probably one of the REASONS you speak about 'actions' -of young "Mohammad" who was allegedly gunned down by the 'evil Israelis' while crouching with his dad behind a tub at a wall? Well do you know that there is compelling evidence that the whole incident was a STAGED PROPOGANDA event by Palestinians ?

"While Israeli army officials initially apologized for al-Dura’s death, a subsequent Israel Defense Force investigation found that its soldiers could not possibly have struck the boy from their positions at Netzarim Junction, an ongoing flashpoint for violence between Israeli troops and Palestinian militants."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xKLssIYD8M&mode=related&search=
Make sure you see PART 2 also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQxr_ET4G3o&mode=related&search=
Look at the details

I think that history will record the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 as one of the worst political blunders of that century - and that's saying something. To foist the collective guilt of the West over its anti-Semitism upon the Palestinian people by giving their territory away to foreign Jews, set in train the inevitable violence and repression that characterises what passes for civil life in Israel today.

Those who seek to justify this most momentous of world political blunders by reference to books of mythology, prophecies and so on, place themselves firmly in the same deranged camp as the Zionists who are responsible for this ongoing travesty. Those who seek to justify Israeli crimes against humanity in more pragmatic or secular terms reveal themselves as neo-conservatives, racists or simply ignorant bastards who blindly accept Zionist ideology.

The basket-case State of Israel does not "deserve our support". Our "support" is what perpetuates the immoral conflict in Palestine, and the sooner the West leaves the Zionists to their inevitable doom the better.

I am not going to try and deconstruct Karmi's lies, distortions and half-truths. I shall leave that to others more knowledgeable about the history of the region.

I am in a peculiar position. On balance my sympathies are with the Israelis but I confess to being a "Zio-sceptic." That is, I doubt the Zionist enterprise can succeed.

The greatest danger to Israel comes from growing Muslim political power in Europe. Take France as an example. The Muslim population of France is probably of the order of 10%. But if we consider the under-20 demographic the proportion that is Muslim rises to about 25%. In many cities more than half the schoolchildren are Muslims. All those younger French Muslims will be voting within a few years.

The next president of France, whoever he may be, will need at least some of the Muslim vote to get elected.

Similar comments apply to other European nations such as Netherlands and Germany. Parties that want to gain power will have to compete for the Muslim vote.

What will Muslims want in return for their vote?

One thing that unites Muslims is antipathy to Israel. They could demand a reduction of trade ties, a ban on overflight rights for aircraft going to or from Israel or baning people with Israelis stamps in their passports from entering the EU. All this would deal devastating blows to the Israeli economy and morale. Israel may find itself an isolated Jewish enclave stuck at the Eastern end of the Mediterranean.

To put it bluntly, I do not see how a Jewish State can survive in a region so dominated by Islam.

I have tried to discuss this with Jews. They generally dismiss me as either a crank or an antisemite. Nonetheless I cannot think of a greater danger facing Israel than the growing Muslim European vote.

Stephany, any chance of some references to support this claim:

>>The Muslim population of France is probably of the order of 10%. But if we consider the under-20 demographic the proportion that is Muslim rises to about 25%.<<

Presently some 26.4% of French people are under 20.

There are 63.7m people in France, therefore 16.8m are under 20

If 25% of these are Muslim, then there are 4.2m of them

So, if we accept your figure of 10% (which is at the high end of any estimates, by the way) then two thirds of French Muslims are under 20.

I very much doubt that this is the case.

If I didn't know you better, I'd say you were scaremongering.

One of my posts was removed because my use of the word holocaust was too gratuitous. It was too - fair cop!

I would like to share my story though.

When I was a kid we were pretty poor. War to me was just food rationing, and holes in the streets where houses used to be. I was spared the misery, fear and suffering that war and armed conflict visits upon the innocent.

One precious summer, our family scraped enough money together to go to Skegness for a few days. I was 8 years old and had never seen or touched the sea before. Along the beachfront, tucked among the entertainments was a Holocaust museum. I spent ages staring at the black and white pictures and the pathetic scraps and remnants on display. I visited it every day of the holiday.

I don't think they used the word holocaust then. It's probably a more modern term. When I pressed my mother for details, she would only say, "Never again, love". NeverAgainLove pretty well said it all. I understood that alright.

We had a copy of "The Scourge of the Swastika", by Lord Russell - so when we got home, I read that thing from cover to cover. I was a precocious reader even at that age, although with what comprehension I can't remember from this distance in time.

Although a childhood lesson, it was the plight of the Jewish people that served as my first introduction to human suffering. It has no doubt been a benchmark, both consciously and unconsciously ever since. I am sure I still use it as a benchmark for suffering masses everywhere, no matter their race or creed.

But I much prefer my mother's term. What's in a name? I can't help but think that had we had used NeverAgainLove instead of that word Holocaust, things might have panned out a little differently in the Middle East.

NeverAgainLove....!

Not anymore than any other nation!

I am sick to death of "poor" Israel and what Jews went though during the Nazi regime, honestly! The Russians lost many,many more people and you don't read or hear all the stories on a near daily basis!

Too, I know a few Jews and the are good people, just like any other group, good ,bad and the rest!

Jews control much of the worlds finances and much power in the USA, good on them, but don't expect me to feel any different to them because of all the "promotion" of Judism. Just people not "special" or the "chosen" few, just other Muts" like us all, in the scheme of things!

DEMOS, you are absolutely correct. Over time the region of Palestine will become secular. More people both in Israel and the surrounding lands (especially Lebanon) are increasing realising that conflicting religious laws and the strange religious/racial regulations are the main cause of the conflict.

However there are those, on both sides, who seek with violence to impose their theology - Hamas' desire to establish an "Islamic state" is one example. On the other side, there are those who take the biblical claim of "from the Brook of the Nile to the Euphrates" quite literally. Here is their land claim of what Israel should rule:

http://www.ahavat-israel.com/eretz/eimages/futurmap.gif

For the record, I fall into a camp which is best described as secular Zionism (along with Hannah Arendt and Noam Chomsky). The region of Palestine *is* the historical homeland of the Jewish faith.

Of course people of that religion should be allowed to settle there; and anywhere else for that matter. But there is a very important distinction between an open religious homeland and an exclusive religious State. The State of Israel (which is surely a wicked insult to Judiac orthodox interpretation) must be dismantled.

continues...

C J Morgan, my years of study tell me to try and take the middle-road regarding the present Palestinian problem between Israelies and Arabs as it stands.

However, I certainly agree with you that the main blame, unfortunately lies with big power authority.

Sadly, it is towards Pax America where we now must point the finger, a nation proven by its rhetoric before the shock of 9/11, that the 21st Century was to be America's own.

Certainly not fit language for a nation that is now unipolar, proving that the United Nations headquarters should now be shifted to someplace totally neutral, the UN itself not dominated by one single power, as Immanuel Kant gave voice to way back near the end of the 1700s regarding a necessary multi-polar world governing body to preserve Perpetual Peace, never a unipolar entity.

An article of faith to regard the Israel state as right and legitimate and deserving of our support? Not bloody likely! The murdering swine that have dished out a never ending litany of vileness to the legitimate occupiers of Palestine, and their fellow traveller bible bashing right wing christian zionists, deserve the utmost condemnation from those of us who value life above religious dogma and abhore mindless sectarian violence and brutality. The wave of justifiable sympathy for the Jewish people that followed the revelations of Nazi atrocities has long been used up.
Unfortunately, condemnation is all that we can offer - there seems little liklehood that the Palestinian cause will devlop real political legs in australia - we are too busy providing oblique zionist support by invading Iraq to be bothered with details such as genocide in Palestine.

... from prior post.

Israel can be changed to "a light unto the nations", a region with Hebrew and Arabic as official languages, a region where there is no law on matters of religious belief, rather than the current situation where "the 2,000-year struggle for Jewish survival comes down to a state of settlements, run by an amoral clique of corrupt lawbreakers who are deaf both to their citizens and to their enemies" (Avrham Burg, A failed Israeli society is collapsing: The end of Zionism?, International Herald Tribune, Saturday, September 6, 2003. Avrham Burg was speaker of the Knesset from 1999 to 2003.)

Ultimately people must not betray their common humanity to sectional interests - including their own sectional interests. They must be able to apply a sense of universality to all situations. One of these, a basic feature to any modern person, is to support the separation of church and state. Another, a basic feature to any democratic person, is to support equal rights to all people regardless of colour, ethnicity or creed. To the extent that Israel does not support the separation of church and state and to the extent that Israel does not grant equal rights to all people under its jurisdiction, is the extent that Israel is not a secular, democratic state. Rather it is one based on 'hafrada', or in the language of the Afrikaans, 'apartheid'.

cf., Uzi Ornan, Apartheid Laws in Israel - The Art of The Obfuscatory Formulation, Ha'aretz, 17 May 1991: "By studying them one cannot fail to reach a conclusion, which cannot but be embarrassing to many of us: namely, that Israel is an Apartheid state, and the Apartheid not only manifests itself socially, but that it is also embedded in the legal system.

Desmond Tutu, Apartheid in the Holy Land, Monday April 29, 2002
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,706911,00.html

You're an angry one GYM-FISH.
Israel exists today by UN mandate by God Mandate.
If you knew your bible you would know the Jewish history and that will never leave that part of the world even when Christ gets back. They will never leave their land again or be displaced.
They have their army, one of the finest, and they have God as their Protector.
The Phillistines will just have to wear it, as will each one of us.

There is a bit of a myth surrounding the history of the establishment of the state of Israel.

One would think that the world magnanimously gave them some barren, empty land to call their own.

The original post-WW2 plan was to simply partition British-controlled Palestine into two states – one Jewish and one Palestinian - to provide a safe haven for refugees, with the city of Jerusalem to be controlled by the UN.

Israel later declared ITSELF to be a sovereign nation after the British withdrew from Palestine and after a series of terrorist attacks – by Israel against US interests - later occurred in an attempt to break down relations between the US and Egypt.

A series of wars and further seizures and occupations of territory were undertaken on the premise that they were in self-defence and refusals to abide by numerous UN resolutions to withdraw have followed ever since.

I thinks it’s time they stopped playing the perennial victim of some sort of everlasting persecution and exploiting the deaths of millions sixty-odd years ago and faced up to their own responsibilities to live within the constraints of International Law.

Today, they are technically a Failed State and would find it difficult to even exist without the external support of other nations. They employ numerous international political lobby groups and historically have proven to be as much an aggressor as a victim.

While it’s true they are in the midst of hostile neighbours, they should acknowledge that they must share much of the blame for that hostility.

I'm waiting for the day that Scientologists produce a document that says that thousands of years ago, Xenu granted them and all their decendants - all the Real Estate in downtown New York.

A precedent exists.

Lev, your pair of posts says everything that needs saying on the subject.

Wobbles.

Your background is a little flawed. The Balfour Declaration which was drawn up in 1917 set out how the Ottoman Empire was to be divided after the war. Parts of Palestine were set aside for the Jews to form a homeland.

In 1922, the LEAGUE OF NATIONS granted Great Britain a mandate over Palestine for the express purpose of "placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home"

By the beginning of the Second World War there were nearly a million Jews living in and around Palestine.

The newly-created UNITED NATIONS approved Resolution 181 on 29/11/1947, allocating just over half the land for a Jewish state and most of the rest for an Arab country. The Jewish community accepted the UN Partition Plan, but the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee rejected it.

The State of Israel was proclaimed on 14/5/1948, one day before the expiry of the British Mandate of Palestine. Not long after, five Arab countries – Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq – attacked Israel, launching the 1st Arab-Israeli War.

After the ceasefire Jordan annexed the West Bank including parts of Jerusalem and Egypt took the Gaza strip. Neither of these Arab countries attempted to create a Palestinian state. Indeed they actively worked against such an outcome.

Significant upheaval accompanied the war with many hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fleeing Israel. Similar numbers of Jews were also forced out of Arab countries in the Middle East and settled in Israel.

In 1967, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria massed troops close to Israeli borders, expelled UN peacekeepers and blocked Israel's access to the Red Sea. Thus began the Six-Day War, during which Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights. The 1949 Green Line became the administrative boundary between Israel and the occupied territories.

On October 6, 1973, Yom Kippur, the Egyptian and Syrian armies again launched a surprise attack against Israel. The war ended on October 26 with Israel successfully repelling Egyptian and Syrian forces but suffering great losses.

Con’t

This article of 8 October below is interesting and pertinent. World conflict is not a contest obviously but sympathisers with the 'cause' tend to not to display any perspective.

If the Palestinians and their 'supporters' had permanently laid down (or never picked up) their various agendas along with their guns and instead acted just a little like the strong, gentle, peaceful, patient Buddhists of Burma, for example, the world would truly have respect both for their predicament and for them.

Arab-Israeli Fatalities Rank 49th
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4990

And those who cast the first stone should consider their ways.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071007/ap_on_re_mi_ea/palestinians_christian_killed

Ro

Pipes article is fundamentally flawed when he classes Israel as a Liberal Democracy. It simply isn't, it's a religious state, that hangs onto the homilies in a book whose origin is subject to some debate and theorising.

And really I find attempting to diminish the effects of an aggressive 40 year occupation and political killings by measuring the number of deaths is a frightening way of attempting to justifing supporting Israel.

It also logically leads to the question should we support Israel because it has only killed a few Palestinians?

So was it Hamas or the historically meddling destabilising Israeli's who killed Rami Khader Ayyad

"Pipes article is fundamentally flawed when he classes Israel as a Liberal Democracy. It simply isn't, it's a religious state, that hangs onto the homilies in a book whose origin is subject to some debate and theorising."

Israel is a secular parliamentary democracy - it is simply mendacious to suggest otherwise. Religion obviously plays a large role in shaping Israeli national identity and culture. But this is no different to the role Christianity plays in Western countries (well, maybe not so much ultra-secular Australia). For example, Ireland has long been considered a Catholic country, but nobody is asserting a Papal theocracy exists stealthily on the Emerald Isle.

You may be interested to know that Israel's population is around 20% Arab and 16.5% Muslim. This so-called 'demographic time bomb' is understandably causing some trepidation in the Jewish state.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2002/11/27/edcook_ed3__0.php

Paull, your statement earlier - "Any support of Iranian nuclear weapons won't help the Palestine Arabs," could sound like a threat not only to Iran, but also to the well-discussed Balance of Power theories in University Schools of Humanities?, which I was engaged in during the Cold War

Dresdener,

Israel is specifically marked as a Jewish state; it is expressed as such in the Declaration of Independence. An Irish equivalent would be "The Roman Catholic State of Ireland" or perhaps more appropriately "A Protestant State for a Protestant People", to use the slogan advocated by the Orange faction in Northern Ireland. The laws and regulations of the Israeli state engage in a peculiar ethno-religious discrimination with over 130 different "nationalities" with differing rights in formal law and practise. Anyone who doubts that Israel is a religous state should reconsider their position with an understanding of Israel citizenship, property, land expropriation, taxation and military service laws e.g.,

Apartheid Laws in Israel - The Art of The Obfuscatory Formulation
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2000w42/msg00028.htm

One may also cite the operations of the Israel Land Administration, which controls 93% of the useful land of Israel and the Jewish National Fund which holds 14% of the total land, but where 70-80% of the population lives. The JNF nominates 10 of the 22 directors of the ILA. I wonder how people would react to the "Catholic National Fund" owning the land of 75% of the population of Ireland. Would they suggest that this is non-secular?

Whilst Israel has the institutional appearance of a liberal democracy and certainly a relatively free press, one must be aware that it does engage in large-scale ethno-religious discrimination and exclusion both in a formal sense and "on the ground". Until these laws and practises are ended, comparisons with Israel and apartheid hold a great deal of legitimacy.

I thought the point was how the Arab-Israeli conflict is constantly shoved in our faces whilst other events of world-shattering importance have occurred, not the least of which occur today in Africa.

These are ancient places inhabited by so many peoples. We know the the Ottoman Empire breakup post-WWI created new nation-states and that Israel is not one jot less legitimate a country than Iraq, Syria or Kuwait, all created in 1920.

Egypt too was Christian before the Muslims took over, everyone accepts Eqypt today don’t they? And how could Syria’s army occupy its foreign neighbour Lebanon for 20 long years and not be the actual occupation that was on our TV every night?

I grew up here like anyone listening to the news and the latest bombings or hijackings by the PLO/Arafat and people wondered, could they ever live together and be peaceful? If not, why not? If England and Germany could lay down arms forever, why not the smaller much less powerful Arab states with one tiny state of Israel? What makes them so different and so important?

We hear media bang on and on all the time about the so-called ‘Muslim world' or 'Islamic nation’ so why not a ‘Jewish world’ or 1 single, paltry ‘Jewish state’? What about a ‘Christian country’? or the ‘Christian world’? Where are they? If Israel is a Jewish state then that surely that’s logical since Jews have been present in the area for 3700 years.

I thought Israel had a fully functioning democratic system too, not run by religious leaders but led by politicians elected through voting. Doesn't Israel have Arab muslim citizens and even Arab parliamentarians?

What is good for the goose should be good for the gander shouldn't it? (and it is apparently good for 55 or so “Islamic” states to exist today eg. The OIC) . Will the Islamic world ever share the earth (or the headlines) with the rest of us or not? It doesn’t seem like it historically as the Arab-Israeli nationalist causes are repeatedly used to manipulate our global perspective and thus distort our judgement.

Lev

How can you criticize Israel for being a apartheid state, yet ignore the theocracy in Iran, or the many, many other Islamic states where they actively discriminate and suppress Christians and Jews.

The fact is there is ONE country on Earth where the state religion is Judaism. There are many Arab countries which are defined by their religion. If you are going to criticise all of them then you are standing on some reasonably firm ground. Otherwise you are discriminating yourself.

Israel’s politicians are elected, like in every other liberal democracy, by the people themselves. The separation between church and state is manifest. Religious leaders have no powers to enact laws etc. The separation between Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary is as marked as in any other liberal democracy.

Secular Zionism has long been the dominant force in Israeli politics. To compare Israel with Iran is laughable. There is just no real comparison at all. Israel is far better described as a state of Jews, than a Jewish state. The emphasis is more on the Jews as a people, than as a religious grouping.

Israel is far and away the front runner in the Middle East, in terms of implementing liberal democracy. So if you want to pretend Israel is an apartheid state, maybe you could try fixing all of the Islamic states first, as they are far worse. To suggest that Israel is the only country trying to protect its national character is a total loss of perspective Lev.

Ros

Ive just realised you have already posted what I wanted to get across, no doubt more persuasively and succintly.

FASCINATING STUFF...

CJ says:
To foist the collective guilt of the West over its anti-Semitism upon the Palestinian people by giving their territory away to “foreign” Jews

GYM FISH says:
The murdering swine
legitimate occupiers of Palestine
those of us who value life above religious dogma and abhore mindless sectarian violence and brutality.

LEV says:

Ultimately people must not betray their common humanity to sectional interests -

HAMAS says (Part 3 article 11 Hamas Charter)

Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection. Who can presume to speak for all Islamic Generations to the Day of Resurrection? This is the status [of the land] in Islamic Shari’a, and it is similar to all lands conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection.

Notice the words:

-CONQUEST 'by Islam” (Gym fish.. any comment here ?)
-BY FORCE
-for MUSLIMS

Well golly gosh.. I tawt I saw a racist/religious fundamentalist Islamic/Arab puddy tat !

But no.. tats not possible, because 'Muslims are always the 'oppressed' and “Islam” is the 'religion of peace'.

And the 10s of 1000s of Jews who fled from the Arab nations in fear for their lives to Israel were just 'imaginary'.

Come on you mob.. a bit of balance eh.

I guess as long as you 'forcibly conquered' a land a few hundred years ago.. makes it different from conquering, raping..pillaging it yesterday ?.. Thanx Gym Fish for that lesson in life.

Paul,

It is crazy, almost insane, to suggest that criticism of Israel means that one "ignore[s] the theocracy in Iran, or the many, many other Islamic states". One certainly does *not* imply the other. If we were take this path almost every nation in the world (bar one, of course) would be immune to criticism on the grounds that there is a nation with worse record. If you care to read previous posts in this forum on the matter you will find that I *do* condemn any form of religious imposition; Judiac, Christian, Muslim or otherwise.

As I had already mentioned, Israel does have the formal institutions of a liberal democracy, and a very good press. They do have a separation of powers. But to suggest, as you do, that there is a strict separation of Church and State displays significant ignorance of the Israeli legal system and its practise. There have also been attempts to *require* that candidates support the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank and that Israel must be a Jewish State - orthodox Jews can be banned from nominating for the Knesset! (c.f., Israeli Central Elections Committee, Knesset Elections Law (e.g., http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2618889.stm)). The suggest, under these circumstances, that "secular Zionism" is the dominant form in the Israeli state is to be in a parallel reality.

With regards to changes, one's energy is best spent in arguing for changes where they can have an influence. There is rather little we can do (short of war), for example, about the politics of the highly isolationist state of North Korea, despite its appalling record. However, there is a great deal we can do about influencing Israeli policy. We are close to the United States - and the U.S. spends a third of its foreign aid budget on Israel despite the fact it hardly is a "developing country" (http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm). Perhaps if some of this money was redirected to improving the living conditions and life of the Palestinians there would be less violence.

Anyway... I get to hear Dr. Karmi's presentation tonight. Thanks for the discussion.

I envy you Lev, Dr Karmi isn't coming to Brisbane, and I can't m ake it south.

Paul

Israel isn't a Liberal Democracy. It simply doesn't display the characteristics inherent in Liberal Democracies. It isn't tolerant and doesn't seek to implement or expand freedom. It doesn't outlaw or act against racisl discrimination within it's borders.

Can you tell us why in Israeli newspapers many AD's for employment carry words demanding any applicant have military service? Can you tell us why Palestinians in Israel are not allowed to have their spouse live with them in Israel if the spouse is a Palestinian from the occupied territories? Are there similar restrictions on other races?

Forty year occupation merely for the sake of 'security' is not a trait of Western Liberal Democracies. In cases where the modern Western Democracies have got together and invaded, to rid of evil, they invariably attempt to instil into the occupied nations the tolerance and freedoms associatesd with their Liberal Democratic natures. They attempt to improve not only the conditions of the inhabitants but aspire to implement governing systems that will ensure a flourishing of democracy, freedom and trade and affluence.

One point you raise is why isn't there an equivalent criticism of the Muslim countries. In southeast Asia Muslim countries are probably more akin to Western Liberal Democracies, than Israel, and in the Middle East they don't try to be nor claim to be Liberal Democracies. They are what they are, Muslim theocracies or dictatorships. In the West they are often criticised for how they ignore or abuse human rights.

But you see Israel claims to be a Liberal Democracy and hence the criticism of Israel is apparently stonger because it is not only an abuser of human rights but also obviously so hypocritical. So it's all relative if both types of states are abusers of Human Rights which is going to cop more abuse? The one that pretends it isn't and snubs it's nose at condemnation and carries on regardless or the one that merely snubs it's nose at condemnation and carries on regardless.

Simple logic.

Aren't we talking about the decendents fo Esau and Isaac? In other words brother and sister still murdering each other over land and ruining life for everyone else on the planet into the bargain?

Do these people realise they a re killing their own families?

The supremacy game is never good - it leads to so much trouble. Only developing the ability to share resources gives people the ability to put life before inanimate possessions. This is the lesson God wishes people to learn.

K£vin, you're not allowed to suggest that!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,605806,00.html

"Journal axes gene research on Jews and Palestinians

A keynote research paper showing that Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians are genetically almost identical has been pulled from a leading journal.

Academics who have already received copies of Human Immunology have been urged to rip out the offending pages and throw them away."

Dr. Karmi's presentation last night was very good. She basically explained why a two-state solution is no longer viable. There was about 1 hour for the presentation and the same again for questions.

I noticed there were a handful of young pro-Israeli people who asked a couple of obvious - and I must say fairly unsophisticated - questions (e.g., "But what about suicide bombers?", "Why didn't Arafat sign the 2000 Camp David Summit"). Oddly enough they were scattered throughout the lecture theatre during the presentation, but were all talking together on the tram home.

Lev,

I had a look at the BBC article you supplied (I generally don’t have a lot of time for the BBC as they are one of the most left wing media institutions in the western world). It seems the decision made by the electoral commission was close, 22-19 and the electoral commission is made up of members of the Knesset. The BBC article makes NO mention of requiring support for the occupation. Ami Bishara was banned because he had made public comments supporting the Palestinian resistance. I think Aussies would have a hard time understanding why we should allow some one to stand for our parliament who supported resistance to our troops and gov’t.

But this is a political decision and the electorate will hold the gov’t responsible if they feel they have overstepped their remit. This is totally a secular brand of Zionism. Religious leaders were not involved in this process at all.;

I agree with the theme of your post, Israel could probably do better. The reason I take issue with your posts is that there are many loony lefters out there who think Israel is as bad, or worse, than Hamas/PLO, North Korea, Iran, China, Burma, Sudan and Zimbabwe. To suggest such is to really live in a parallel reality. The continued criticism of Israel certainly gives the less knowledgeable leftists the idea that Israel is the worst offender.

If any of our so called modern western liberal democracies found themselves in Israel’s position, surrounded by enemies and constantly under attack I don’t believe they could maintain their democratic nature very long.

There are two sets of victims and two perpetrators in the Arab Israeli conflict. Those who criticize Israel whilst ignoring Hamas or Hezbollah (who are both less democratic and more racist) are aggravating the loss of perspective which seems to plague the left when it comes to this conflict

Lev,

You appear to have taken the spin that Antonia Arnaiz-Villena’s paper was pulled because Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians are genetically almost identical. Why shouldn’t they be?

Scientists have known for a long time that genetic tests using mtDNA and Y-DNA show that European Jews (let alone ME Jews), have a significant Eastern Mediterranean element - Y-DNA haplogroups J and E, typical of the Middle East, which manifests itself in close relationship with Kurdish, Armenian, Palestinian Arab, Lebanese, Syrian, and Anatolian Turkish peoples. This knowledge has been widely known and accepted. Nothing new here ...

Incidentally, mtDNA travels mother to daughter, and due to its relatively slow mutation rate scientists believe they can potentially trace female descent some 20,000 years back - well before the Israelites, Hebrews, Habiru/Hapiru whatever ...

Regarding Antonia Arnaiz-Villena’s paper: “Being Jewish Doesn’t Mean You’re Different”

Screams about Arnaiz-Villena’s paper have been heard as far afield as: Al-Ahram weekly on-line, Jerusalem Post, The Chronicle, in Nature, in newspapers: The Observer, etc. Arnaiz-Villena himself has been inundated with emails.

M. Lapelerie, Architecture et Fonction des Macromolécules Biologiques, Université de Provence Université de la Méditerranée submitted a paper to Yale University regarding the reasons why Arnaiz-Villena’s (along with other scientists’) paper was pulled.

Whilst Antonio Arnaiz-Villena committed no scientific misconduct in his paper, he ventured into historical and political areas of which he had no expertise whatsoever. He made some accurate statements, but also some very innacurate - such as the origins of the first Israeli-Arab War; then there were pieces taken out of context, or misunderstood - or expressions poorly chosen, as Arnaiz-Villena himself admits

Paul,

Supporting the resistance means opposing the occupation. Unlike in Israel, Australia allow candidates who support getting our troops out of Iraq and we also allow candidates who argue it is legitimate for the Iraqi's to resist our criminal occupation of their land.

The particular instance is largely secular in nature, however if you check the Knesset law (specifically the 1985 ammendments) on the matter you will discover that all candidates must accept that the proposition that Israel is a Jewish state. That is not a secular matter.

Israel, as Dr. Karmi pointed out last night, would not have enemies if it according equal rights to people of different religions, if it ended the occupation of West Bank and Gaza - as required under international law and countless UN resolutions, and if it allowed a right of return for the Palestinian people.

The tragedy is that certain Israelis will never agree to those conditions, so fundamentalist in their thinking that they believe they have rights from the Brook of the Nile to the Euphrates, the land of the Hittites (southern Turkey!) etc etc

And what do you think the result of this project will be? It will be endless war and violence. It simply will not end until Palestine ceases to be a special State for any religion.

Danielle,

Thank you for the science lesson in subject I am already quite familiar with. I suggest you reread the Guardian article. Especially the last paragraphs. Really, what is the difference?

Lev

Bishara's support for the armed resistance is not the same as merely opposing the occupation.

Yes we have politicians who do not support our ongoing war in Iraq. I don’t know of any who support attacks on our troops. If you know of one I would like to know it.

You said “all candidates must accept that the proposition that Israel is a Jewish state.”

This is not a religious requirement. Many Israelis see the Jews as a people bound by a common history and culture and are not religious in the least.

When the Islamic states of the Middle East become multiculturally sensitive and give over to liberal democracy and the rule of law we can talk about Jews, Christians and Muslims living together peacefully. In the meantime trying to force Israelis into a single state with Palestinians, who will dominate any gov’t which is democratically elected is an attempt to destroy Israel by stealth.

Why stop at Palestine, why should we have any countries? Why shouldn’t we just have one world gov’t? That’s the road your logic for a single state in Palestine takes you down.

The only reason you will find any Palestinians supporting the idea of a one state solution is because it means that the Palestinian Authority will run the state. If they thought they might be governed by Jews they would never agree. A one state solution is Hamas’ plan.

You, of course, would be aware of the large number of UN resolutions Hamas, Fatah and the PA are in breach of. Perhaps if they were to rectify that it might also go a long way towards solving the conflict.

I agree there are Jews who are rigid in their belief that all of Palestine is theirs. But the polling figures consistently show that that the majority of Israelis accept there must be a land-for-peace settlement.

You would also be aware of Hamas charter which states that Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations which is indivisible and can never be negotiated away.

Lev

Countries identify themselves/or are identified ... as Christian, Muslim etc.

Israel, a Jewish state, is secular.

In Senate Committee hansard, the identity of Australia as Christian appears in over 350 documents, the latest 16 July 2007:

All Israelis enjoy the same legal rights - the vote, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. Arabic, like Hebrew, is an official language.

The Knessett - 10% Arab membership. Arab posts: Diplomatic, Supreme Court, University, Ministerial, and top military positions.

The sole legal distinction between Arabs and other Israelis is that they are not required to serve in the army. However, Arabs can enlist - the first few months of this year saw them enlisting in record numbers. Bedouins have always served in paratroop units. At their own request, compulsory military sevice has been applied to the Druze and Circassian communities. Druze make up the majority of Border Police.

Right of Return: Israel's population is 7 million, Jews being 76%. If Israel took in 4.3 million Palestinian refugees, where would they live? Also Jews would be a minority in their own country.

The United Nations EXPRESSLY RULED THIS OUT in deciding on a partition of Palestine.

Current peace talks are based on UN Resolution 242, in which Palestinians are not mentioned, but only alluded to in clause 2, 2nd article which calls for “a just settlement to the refugee problem” - the generic “refugee” can just as well be applied to the 800,000 Jewish refugees expelled from Arab lands.

Respected Palestinian leaders and intellectuals, such as Sari Nusseibeh acknowledge that it is a mistake to insist millions of refugees return to Israel, they should be resettled in a future Palestinian state.

“but not in a way that would undermine the existence of the State of Israel as a predominantly Jewish state. Otherwise, what does a two-state solution mean?”
(Associated Press, October 22, 2001)

Ben Gurion said more than 50 yrs ago that in the context of a peace settlement, Israel should accept some refugees. Ironically, the Palestinian leadership has demonstrated little interest in taking refugees in the eventuality of a Palestinian state.

Paul

The reasoning behind the banning and your statement shows why Israel isn't a Liberal Democracy.

'I think Aussies would have a hard time understanding why we should allow some one to stand for our parliament who supported resistance to our troops and gov’t.'

So wrong, similar happens and has happened at numerous times in the history of our Liberal Democracy. We here all understand why we allow a plethora of views and allow anyone access to stand for office in our political system.

There are also many people like me, ie liberal and not leftie, who think the actions of Israel wrong. I don't need yo compare Israels misdeeds with the misdeeds of others to identify Israels wrongs.

It's the likes of the Israeli propagandists who continuasllly use that mechanism to defend Israels occupation, suppression and abuse of the Palestinians. A perfect example is in your last paragraph.

'There are two sets of victims and two perpetrators in the Arab Israeli conflict. Those who criticize Israel whilst ignoring Hamas or Hezbollah (who are both less democratic and more racist) are aggravating the loss of perspective which seems to plague the left when it comes to this conflict'

The Western Liberal democracies have often gone to war to defend it's freedoms. The difference between what Israel is doing and what the western Liberal Democracies is that after the conclusion of the wars we in the Liberal Democracies export our values of freedom, democracy, affluence and tolerance to the conquered nations...and we help rebuild them. Israel could do that but it doesn't do that.

'But the polling figures consistently show that that the majority of Israelis accept there must be a land-for-peace settlement.'

If Israel was a liberal democracy this desire would be reflected in elections and parliaments. Why hasn't that manifested itself in the Israeli Parliament and Government?

Danielle, make sure you protect that messenger. Don't go quoting Gurion in a discussion about Palestines borders. You'd only inflame emotions given his desire for the Zionists Greater Israel.

Paul,

What sort of opposition to the occupation you propose?. Harsh language? That might work with some occupiers, such as the British in India, but to the Israeli military that would be the equivalent of attempting non-violent resistance to Ceau&#351;escu's government.

If you are looking for examples of candidates who accept military resistance to the Australian invasion of Iraq as legitimate you could probably start with members of the Socialist Alliance. I rather suspect that you will also across all political parties.

Whether or not many Israelis (or others) consider Jews "bound by a common history and culture" other than their religion is a testable proposition. I ask you then to show either a genetic cline by which all Jews can be identified, or a common set of shared symbolic values that independent of religious values.

I suggest to you that such identifiers do not exist; a Ugandan Jew, a American Jew and an Arabic Jew are as different as a Ugandan Christian, an American Christian and an Arabic Christian. As you have already stated: "The fact is there is ONE country on Earth where the state religion is Judaism."

I see no need to go over the "but the Islamic states are worse" argument, which is the same sort of argument used in the past by supporters of South African apartheid. My response to that is the same as I have already given. As for states themselves, you are correct, but you do not go far enough. In the long run we need to abolish *all* states, but that is another matter. What is important in the current context is not whether there are one, two or even thirteen states in Palestine but the *content* of those states. The same applies to any other state or proposed state; obviously including Hamas' suggestion.

I am interested in your claims of the "large number of UN resolutions" that Hamas, Fatah and the PA are in breach of. Perhaps you could cite them. Here is the full list. I suggest you read them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel

Danielle,

It is true that countries identify themselves as having a dominant religion. But secular nations specify themselves as such in their Constitution or "Basic Laws". Australia does this in s116 of the Constitution. Israel does not; it is expressly a Jewish state and one cannot be a candidate for the Knesset if they wish to change this.

It is a demonstrable falsehood to claim that all Israeli's have the same legal rights. They do not have the same rights to land. They do not have the same rights under the law of entry. They do not have the same rights to acquire citizenship. They do not even have the same marriage laws. As you correctly recognise, yes there is also discrimination in the military service law. So any claim of equality is either through ignorance or a deliberate lie; I certainly hope you are engaging in the former.

I do not see the reason for your concern about being a religious minority in a secular state. Many people happily live with a minority religion, as I do now. What's the problem? If the state is secular in a practical day-to-day manner no religion has legal power over another.

Nota bene: I am, of course, very pleased that Arabic is now an official language of Israel from the Supreme Court ruling of 2000. This is a step in the right direction which will undoubtably be of great assistance to Mizrahi and Yemenite Jews and all other Arabs.

Ultimately the question is this; will Israeli attempt cleanse all non-Jews from the territory it rules or will it become a genuinely secular country? I know which option I prefer and which is feasible; which I support a "one state" solution; a two-state option is no longer preferable or feasible.

Lev

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

Latest report from the the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights
http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2007/news/54-2007.html

Palestinians have been fleeing both the West Bank and Gaza due to terror and killings by Palestinian against Palestinian.

The exodus has been so bad the Palestinian Authority's mufti issued this Fatwa in June this year (2007)

"No Permission to Emigrate from Palestine"

"There has been much talk in Palestine about emigration, especially among the young people, due to the difficult security and economic situation. This is being done in search of a better life abroad. Many are continuing to rush to the gates of the embassies and consulates of the Western nations with requests for visas in order to reside permanently in those countries.

"We hereby declare that emigration from the blessed lands is not permitted according to religious law. The people living in these areas must remain in their homes and must not leave them to conquerors. Those who abide by this ruling will perform an honorable deed and will support the Aksa Mosque."

Tens of thousands have left or are trying to emigrate.

Middle Eastern journalist, Kaled Abu Toameh, stated that the Center for Opinion Polls and Survey Studies at An-Najah University in Nablus reported that 92% of respondents feel insecure because of the growing lawlessness in the PA-run areas.

Palestinian sources report that 80,000 people have departed the territories since the Palestinian War began in September 2000.

The PA Foreign Ministry confirmed 10,000 Palestinians have filed requests, and been approved to emigrate from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip since the beginning of 2007 ...

and:

"At least 45,000 emigration applications are being reviewed by different countries." The majority being the US, EU and Canada

PALESTINIANS HAVE ALSO MOVED TO ISRAEL because they would rather live in a democracy than a theocratic mobocracy.
(Larry Derfner, “Jerusalem Undivided” U.S.News & World Report, June 3, 2007).

Lev you said “? That might work with some occupiers, such as the British in India, but to the Israeli military that would be the equivalent of attempting non-violent resistance to Ceau&#351;escu's government.”

That is absolute rubbish. The British were far less sensitive to their enemies. Think Islamic extremists beheaded and buried in pig fat so they couldn’t go to heaven. The British have a long history of putting down insurrections in India and elsewhere using very bloody tactics.

To even mention Ceausescu suggests you are really struggling. He killed 4000 protesters in a single week. Israel has the military ability to expel all Palestinians from inside its borders. It does not do this because that would not be politically acceptable. So to compare Israel to Ceausecu's Romania is an ABSOLUTE loss of perspective.

You say “What sort of opposition to the occupation you propose?.” I don’t support any opposition to the occupation that is violent. And I would not accept that anyone could serve as a MP and support the enemies of our country in their armed struggle against us. The Socialist alliance are a bunch of absolute idiots who seem not to have noticed the cataclysmic failure of global socialism, nor understood its devastating toll on the people who had to suffer it.

The PA are in breach of their requirements under the OSLO Accords to stop terrorists from arming, recruiting, financing and engaging in attacks against Israel.

To bring South Africa into the debate is ridiculous. Neither the Palestinians, nor the Jews want to live together in the same state if the other is governing.

I don’t need to show that a link exists between all Jews. It is enough that they believe that one exists. No one would deny Australian aborigines from different tribes (some of which were as different as chalk and cheese) are part of a greater whole.

In any case, to continually maintain that Israel should abide by standards which its neighbours ignore is discrimination. Either you hold all parties to the same standards or you don’t have a leg to stand on.

Paul,

Nobody in the Liberal Democracies expects the same standards of Israel and it's neighbours while Israel claims to be a Liberal Democracy. Just as every liberal democrat expects higher standards from the Western Liberal Democracies simply because that's what makes them Liberal Democracies. Their values, their philosophical base demand those higher standards.

If Israel seeks to align itself with the Western Liberal Democracies and continues to attempt to claim, as you do, such a brotherly link then it, and you, should be able to take on the same values otherwise you are simply trying to pull the Western Liberal Democracies down to the same morally sinful level as the Israeli behaviour. Israel and you should also be able to accept criticism and re-assess it's actions towards it's neighbours. That's what Liberal Democrats accept and expect. Why can't Israel measure up? Why don't you expect Israel to measure up?

If you don't support opposition to the occupation...er...does that mean you support the occupation and the activities ascocciated with it?

I have for some time now accepted only and supported a two-state solution. I have not considered any other option. With a realisation there are other prefered options such as a single state I will now, as a true liberal democrat, undertake some examination of other proposals and make an independant decision on those. If you have any opinion on the single state option or any other option (Other than a continuation of the current fiasco) I would appreciate hearing it. Same with you Dannielle.

POLARIZATION and INTRACTABLE POSITIONS.

Here is part of a transcript from a CNN story "God's Jewish Warriors"

ETZION (through translator): We said that, with explosives, we would destroy the Dome of the Rock.

AMANPOUR: The Dome of the Rock is Islam's third holiest site, a 1,300-year-old shrine towering over this enormous outcropping of limestone. Sitting nearby on a throne-like chair, Jerusalem's top Muslim cleric told us why the rock is so important.

SHEIK MUHAMMAD HUSSEIN, GRAND MUFTI OF JERUSALEM (through translator): We consider this to be the spot where the Prophet Mohammed began his ascent to heaven.

AMANPOUR: But Jews also revere this spot as the site of their ancient temple, which Etzion believes must be rebuilt for the redemption, the coming of the messiah.

ETZION (through translator): There is no redemption without the temple. Redemption without the temple is like trying to revive someone without a heart.

AMANPOUR: Etzion and his co-conspirators believed blowing up the Dome of the Rock would undo the peace with Egypt and make room for the Jewish temple.

With 600 pounds of explosives diverted from army stockpiles, they had more than enough.

HUSSEIN (through translator): Damaging the holy shrine would lead to repercussions, the scale of which I can't even imagine.

COMMENT:
As I've said so many times. Peace.. boils down to Jerusalem..and the Temple. But given the rather entrenched positions above.... it is difficult to see how there would ever be peace.
Am I missing something here?

LEV... you support a 1 state solution.... ? good grief.

I'm wondering what your view is of the rather militant Fatah and Hamas in view of such a proposal.

A one state situation would give an Arab Majority in a very short time!

NOW... if you total up the following: (2006)

-Gaza
-WestBank
-Israel
-Golan Heights

there are 49.3 % Arabs and 50.3% Jews.

http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org/populationpalestine.html#graph6

Given Hamas unambiguous statement in their Charter that Palestine is an 'Islamic Waqf' from the day it was conquered by force until the day of resurrection.....

I can only conclude that you are blissfully naive or an outright seditious support of radical Islam. I will do the same for you as you did for the other poster "assume you are the former"

But I don't know what fantasyland you are living in.. I'll bet it isn't Israel.. and specially not a hotly contested section.. like Sderot... where the missiles are flowing freely.

Ask yourself this- "If that is how they act in weakness..how would they act in strength"? (Palestinians)

Do you honestly believe that your 'one state' secular democracy would last any longer than a snowflake in the fires of hell ?

If so...then I seriously question your grasp on reality, history and human nature.

Keith,

Research the full meaning of Liberal Democracy. Start with Lewis Namier...

Liberal Democracies have the right to protect themselves in times of war, threat, risks of terrorism, even sabre rattling ... they do so. Name one that doesn’t.

Britain - a Liberal Democracy - has made a fine art of “targetted killings” ... well outside its borders - in fact, on the other side of the world. The US also ...

Israel has made only one “targetted killing” - and this action was interrogated and debated in their Supreme Court.

Liberal Democratic Germany brought in Turkish workers as cheap labour to re-build their country after the war. Their descendents, born on Geman soil, are still classified as “guest workers”.

Research “gaols” in Liberal Democratic France.

There is no ‘open door’ policy in any country regarding entry and residence.

The meanest intelligence understands that Israel has to be particularly cautious. They cannot afford to let in terrorists who also may undertake false marriages to enter the country. Reunification of families was common until 2000; this has now been revoked for obvious reasons.

An Australian friend married a 58 yr old American bio-chemist. His here depended upon him getting a job, which because of his age he couldn’t obtain. Also, due to visa requirements, he had to go offshore at regular intervals, then re-apply, it cost them thousands. They now live in the US.

Israel as a democracy, would be utterly derelict in its duty to its people - Jews, Arabs, Christians and others alike, if it didn’t do everything in its power to protect them.

A one-state solution ... the current mass emigration of Palestinians ...

Read why:

Palestinian Centre for Human Rights
http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2007/news/54-2007.html

You want this for the whole area ...!

Hamas swore “to bring Sharia law to every house.” No allowance there for Christian, Jews, Buddhists, Druze, "Bai'hi, Gypsies, or any other religion; ... let alone atheists ...

Incidentally, as a Liberal Democracy, why don’t we legitimise same sex marriages - other Liberal Democracies do ... what about indigenous rights ...

Keith,

If you can name any Australian parliamentarians who have supported those who wish to harm us, by all means let me know. The very idea that such a person should be able to represent the citizens of the country in which he is standing for election is ABSURD.

You said “we allow a plethora of views and allow anyone access to stand for office in our political system.”
We don’t actually allow anyone to stand at all. Section 44 of the Constitution sets out restrictions on who can be a candidate for Federal parliament

44. Any person who -
(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power…

(ii.) Is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer: or

,shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

You said “I don't need yo compare Israels misdeeds with the misdeeds of others to identify Israels wrongs.

What’s funny then Keith is why you feel the need to invoke Israel when we discuss Irans nuclear ambitions. You seem unable to bring yourself to discuss Iran without bringing Israel’s supposed faults into the discussion. But according to your logic Israel’s transgressions are irrelevant to such a thread.

If you were honest Keith you would admit that you hold Israel to a far higher standard than you expect from the Islamic countries of the region.

Your comparison between Israel and western liberal democracies is specious. In Japan and Germany we ruled for years after the countries had surrendered. Israel is in the midst of a war. I would expect Israel to help Palestine rebuild only after they desist in attacking Israel.

Keith I am amazed you are calling anyone a messenger of the Israelis considering the similarity of your posts to the rhetoric published by the PA.

Danielle,

Two thumbs up. Keep up the good work.

Danielle,

I am not sure what your Wikipedia link is supposed to illustrate. That some states have an official religion? That the myth that Jews are a somehow a people independent of their religion is magically confirmed?

There is a between England having an Anglican state religion and Israel having an official Judiac religion. In England one is not required to walk around with ID cards declaring what religious group they are a member of. One does not face discrimination in the provision of land, in marriage, in citizenship, in right of entry etc on the basis of religion. You have not addressed these points.

Further I have no idea why you keep on bringing up the refugee question and their poor treatment within Gaza. Are you trying to tell me that "the blacks" are not running the bantustans appropriately? That they could improve their government's policies? Does this somehow mean that the apartheid system should be immune to criticism?

Yes you are right about same sex marriages and indigenous rights. Australia is not immune to criticism either.

Paul,

I note you have decided that no proof is needed to show that a common link exists among all Jews that is independent of their
religion. By doing so you have shown that you are beyond reason.

I also recommend that you ask some indigenous elders on the
relationship between their different tribes; they have a strong cline equivalence (lesser with Torres St Islanders), but they are of different cultures and very different traditional laws.

Significant failures are recognised on both sides for the Oslo accords.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords

You asserted that there are "large number of UN resolutions" that Hamas, Fatah and the PA are in breach of. Once again I ask you to cite them. Here's the list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel

I should point out, for the nth time, that I do hold all States to the same standards. I have already recommended that you read previous posts on this forum on that matter.

David,

A one-state solution is both desirable and feasible. Dr. Karmi's book "Married To Another Man; Israel's Dilemma In Palestine" goes into detail why this is so. Basically a two-state solution is no longer feasible simply there's nowhere to put it! Essentially however it comes down to the content of the state; in a democratic and secular regime which has no laws which favour one ethno-religious group over another any religion to consider it their homeland. You could have one state with these features or thirteen. It doesn't matter; however in the current geography only one state is possible and Israel has made it so. As Ariel Sharon has said of the West Bank:

"We'll make a pastrami sandwich of them," he boasted to a British journalist at Israel's National Press Club. "Yes, we'll insert a strip of Jewish settlements in between the Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlements right across the West Bank, so that in 25 years' time, neither the United Nations nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040510/careyshatz

Here's what it looks like...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Westbankjan06.jpg

I also suggest that you reconsider your figures in consideration of the number of Jewish Arabs; and perhaps, if you like, you may even wish to redo them in terms of "Semitic people" and "Non-Semitic people". Perhaps then you will understand why many consider the new state of Israel to simply be an American-European Crusader state.

Dannielle,

Of course Liberal Democracies can and defend their freedoms but they don’t subjugate entire populations for indefinite and excessive periods. I think you are missing the point by trying to suggest Israel’s occupation is akin to defending liberal democratic freedoms.

Your discussion of immigration is irrelevant to the topic. The Palestinians are not immigrants.

Of course there are differences between liberal democracies. That’s part and parcel and shortcomings are apparent but the difference between us and Israel is that here people are encouraged to stand up for their beliefs and differences and change those things that are intolerant. As often happens ... when majorities decide.
Gay marriage is openly discussed and the community as a whole has decided not to endorse such a liberalisation of the right to marriage, just as we don’t endorse marriage between minors. It is a right restricted to adult opposite sex partners. Comparing that to a 40 year illegal occupation is er...wrong.

Why do you try to justify one wrong by pointing to another?

That link you posted was about fighting between two governments one democratically elected by the Palestinian people and the other supported and endorsed by Israel. If the meddling by outsiders was taken out of the equation would there be any conflict? It is a shoddy argument to claim that would be representative of behaviour in a single state.

But you’ve told me nothing of the one state solution. So what is the one state solution and are you against it? If so why?

Paul L

Without research I can’t point to who has supported those who would do us harm. I recall anti-stuff during the Vietnam war, there was dissention during the Korean war, WW1 and WW2, and there's currently dissention over our involvement in Iraq. But the point is anybody with extreme views can run for parliament. I know my Grandfather was against NZ’s involvement in the ‘European’ World War 1, was anti-conscription, went to jail for belting ‘deputised policemen’ during protests and was unsuccessful in running for a seat in the NZ Parliament at the time.

Your references to our laws don’t support your view that anyone who supports people who want to harm us cannot run for parliament.

I’ve already stated that if one claims to be a Liberal Democracy then it must have higher standards than those who don’t make such a claim. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Yes if Israel wants to be a Liberal Democracy then it must apply and expect to have applied the standards common to Liberal Democracies. To want an exception is illogical.

What is odd though is that there are only two mid-east nations outside Israel that have tried democracy…and Israel invaded both after their elections.

The comparison I made between Israel and Western Democracies behaviour in undertaking legitimate occupation has greater depth than your comparison. Yours is based on length of time only, and that is specious, while mine emphasises many other relevant factors. Additionally the occupation began after the ’67 war. To suggest a state of war exists between Israel and an unrecognised state leaves open the legitimacy of Israel being overrun at any future time. And none of us wish that.

I support self-determination for the Palestinians. I arrived at that position after extensive research and a very wide reading that has led to an understanding of what makes us Liberal Democrats. My position is consistent with many great Liberal Democrats…eg Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington

Refer the end of this article for the relevant quotes http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5358

How about addressing my earlier questions.

Keith,

You are purposefully obfuscating the issue. There is a great deal of difference between opposing gov’t policy and supporting some external organizations’ armed insurrection against your own gov’t. That is considered treason and under section 44 that makes you ineligible to stand as an MP or Senator. Your point was that anyone could be an MP. I have shown you that this is absolutely not true.

I will say again that your comparison between Israel and the West is false. The west occupied countries which had SURRENDERED( Germany Japan). They had signed documents and laid down their arms. There is no comparison at all with Israel.

Once the Palestinians stop their violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist I will support their self determination as well.

Your contention that Israel is not liberal enough to call itself a liberal Democracy is nothing but window dressing if you can’t hold the rest of the region to that standard.

The idea that Israel should share gov’t of ‘One Palestine’ with Hamas is laughable. Or would you actually expect Hamas’ ‘One Palestine’ to behave like it was a liberal democracy. How long do you think before the ’ One Palestine’ gov’t starts behaving like Mugabe? It all there in the charter. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf forever. Hamas do not wish to share Palestine with the hated Jews and they have no intention of doing so, regardless.

Liberal democracy is virtually non existent in the Middle East. Anyone who comes even close should not be receiving the lions share of the criticism being meted out.

Which questions would you like me to answer. “ Why do you twist things?”
Do you seriously think I am going to engage in a debate on terms like that? I might just as easily ask you the same. If you can’t provide any evidence I am not going to chase around trying to justify anything

Just heard lately that Cheney and Bush are determined to attack Iran before Bush goes out.

Report says that Israel will be given some false pretext to make the first strike.

Goodness me Mister Bush, so Cheney's got to you at last.

Yep, reckon he'd be closer to it than silly you.

But what a way for our top dog unipolar power to celebrate exit Mr Bush.

No wonder Mr Putin's playin' up again. Good thing if he got China on his side and made fools of the lot of 'em, including the Israelis.

Cheers - BB

Paul.L

Thank you ... much appreciated.

Keith,

As the land under dispute is only 7%, Palestinians could set up a state on the remaining 93% ... why haven’t they? Disputed territory would then be easily negotiated.

You don’t really believe a one-state solution would lead to a secular democracy ... !!?? Look at what the Palestians are doing to each other now.

What if Australia’s right to exist denied and we were under constant siege ...?

.. add Locke and Rousseau ... read our Constitution

Sharon did a full U-turn; he started removing Jewish settlers from occupied territories ...

“Emmigration” of Palestinians, NOT “immigration” ... Either you don’t read OLO properly, or ...

Re-read Paul ... He couldn’t be clearer.

Lev,

“They do not have the same rights to land. They do not have the same rights under the law of entry. They do not have the same rights to acquire citizenship. They do not even have the same marriage laws. “

WRONG on all counts ...

Marriage in Israel

There is no civil marriage in Israel. Israel accepts Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Druze etc. religious courts and procedures as to such personal issues.

“As you correctly recognise, yes there is also discrimination in the military service law. “

Lev, Are you being deliberately obtuse ...

This is due to sensitivity to how an Arab might feel fighting another Arab. However, they can enlist ... and increasingly do so.

Rights to Land

Middle East Quarterly
http://www.meforum.org/article/370

The land-owning situation in Israel today: 80.4% is owned by the government, 13.1% is privately owned by the JNF - this 93-5% is administered by ILA. The other 6.5% is evenly divided between Arab and Jewish owners.

The ILA administered 93.5 % land is unavailable for private ownership. Being sold neither to Jews nor to Arabs, it is leased out. Israeli Arabs have equal access as Israeli Jews to this state-owned land (four-fifths of the entire country). About half of the land Arabs cultivate is directly leased to them through the ILA.

cont ..

Residential land: ILA sometimes offers Israeli Arabs more favorable terms than it does to Israeli Jews. ILA charged the equivalent of $24,000 for a capital lease on a quarter of an acre near Beersheva -Bedouin families in the nearby Rahat paid only $150 for the same amount of land.

Private lands. There are no restrictions on the purchase of private land in Israel. Israeli Arabs - even non-citizens, (including Arab foreigners) - may freely purchase it. The Israeli authorities have placed no obstacles in the way of such purchases.

The Palestinian Authority is encouraging purchases of land in Israeli territory by wealthy Palestinians. Palestinian figures tied to the real estate business, and living mainly in London, look to purchase homes and lands in Jerusalem through agents and lawyers who live mainly in Ramallah.

Residency in Israel:

Under Right of Return, Jews can gain residency in Israel. This is similar to the “Grandparent Stamp” available to Australians who had a grandparent born in Britain - including Eire (Ireland). A “Grandparent Stamp” gives the holder automatic residency status in Britain.

This law (in its entirety) makes no distinction between Jews or Arabs, etc.
Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order), 5763 - 2003  

Section 2, article 7:

7.  The spouse of a person who is an Israeli citizen or has applied for Israel citizenship and meets or is exempt from the requirements of Section 5(a) may obtain Israel citizenship by naturalization even if he or she does not meet the requirements of Section 5(a).”

“ .. permanent residence in Israel are currently given for purposes of family unification, to residents of the region in cases where their spouses are permanent residents of Israel.”..

“It should be mentioned that granting of citizenship pursuant to the Citizenship Law, or giving a permit for permanent residency in Israel pursuant to the Entry into Israel Law, to a foreign resident within the context of family unification is a gradual process.”

OBVIOUSLY with the risk of terrorism, Israel has to be ultra-careful. Australia would do the same.

Danielle,

1) Disputed Territory.

Israel has never recognised Palestinian statehood; all neighbouring nations and the Palestinians recognise Israel. Where is this magical Palestinian state going to appear? The PA lands are discontiguous; a two-state solution is now impractical.

2) Current Activity

Also a response to David's comment. The current situation is only a result of being denied statehood for the past six decades. Hamas and Hezbollah are a direct result of the dispossession of Palestinian lands and the twenty year occupation of Lebanon.

In a secular, democratic state that doesn't engage in apartheid or invade its neighbours, these organisations would disappear.

3) Rights to Land and Colonists

As you have correctly noted, some 90% of the land in Israel is under control of the ILA and the JNF. The JNF also controls half the ILA board and puts its interests first. It is illegal for the JNF to lease land to non-Jews.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1703245,00.html

Remember Hebron?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/861228.html

So it is clear, by your own admission, that there is not the same rights to land. You lose that point, too.

4) Law of Entry

You claim that Jews and non-Jews have the same rights under the law of entry. Yet a non-Jew born in Palestine and whose family has lived there for their ten generations has less rights under the law of entry than a Jew in Ripponlea whose family for ten generations has never seen the place.

I am rather disturbed however that you've attempted to cover up the distinction between 'citizen' and 'nationality' in Israel and the different rights that are accorded on the basis of nationality.

So this Jew, Arab, Georgian and Samaritan go to court...
http://www.pcdc.edu.ps/no_israeli_nationality.htm

In any case you lose that point as well.

5) Marriage Law

Congratulations on confirming my statement that "They do not even have the same marriage laws".

That one was pretty easy, but it makes it three to nil, and this game is over.

‘Namier held very right-wing views, and has been called the most reactionary British historian of his generation.’
‘…and made little secret of his belief that the best form of government was that of a grubby self-interested elite.’

From wikipedia.
My starting point the Greek historians and philosophers and later liberals, JS Mill and the founders fathers of the US. I can’t see the Israeli population lining up behind Locke and Rousseau would be on the other side of that wall…

I’d prefer my reading rather than basing my entire understanding of Liberal Democracy on the opinions of some obscure 18th century English elitist twit and long irrelevant others.

I am in the process of evaluating the one state solution. You still haven’t given me any information. I can see you are against it, but not why.

‘Settlements are built on less than 3 percent of the area of the West Bank. However, due to the extensive network of settler roads and restrictions on Palestinians accessing their own land, Israeli settlements dominate more than 40 percent of the West Bank.

The route of Israel’s Wall has been designed to annex 56 settlements to Israel, incorporating 76 percent of the settler population currently living in the West Bank (including settlements in East Jerusalem).’

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article7

Only 7% … rubbish… read this … and it shows the facts you are ignoring.

But why should the Palestinians have to negotiate for their own land anyway. That implies they’ll have no option but to give some of it up. And that is patently morally wrong.

Paul is confusing and you haven’t read my posts. I won’t get into a semantic argument over the position of the dispossessed owners of Palestine. That’s just inflammatory.

Danielle Australia is a Liberal Democracy. We wouldn’t sink to the levels of behaviour exhibited by Israel. There would be uproar if we did and the Government behaving in such a manner would be chucked out. That can’t happen in Israel because it is a Military Parliamentary System where realistically any possible Government alternatives are dominated by former soldiers and their attitudes.

No I am not deliberately obfuscating the issue. But clearly your obvious skewed understanding and lack of accurate phraseology is hindering an intelligent discussion of the rights and responsibilities of Liberal Democrats within their system.

The word attainted is interesting and it refers to the conviction for attainder…which is of course ‘the legal consequence of judgment of death or outlawry for treason or felony, involving the loss of all civil rights.’
In Liberal Democracies many things are considered treasonable but treason has to be proven in the courts before any sanctions are applied. Do you not understand that?

Let me explain this I will write slowly. I don’t expect countries that don’t profess to be liberal democracies to aspire to the standards accepted by liberal democracies. Are you having so great a difficulty understanding the reasoning behind that point? So… er … I’ve never claimed I should judge non liberal regimes and liberal democracies equally. To do so would only be a farce. And just for the public record I abhor any state that abrogates any human rights anywhere.

Show me where in this thread I asked. “Why do you twist things?”
(That was in response to the lies about the Camp David offer by Ehud Barak…in another thread.)

But please do address these questions:

1. ‘Israel and you should also be able to accept criticism and re-assess its actions towards its neighbours. That's what Liberal Democrats accept and expect. Why can't Israel measure up? Why don't you expect Israel to measure up?’

2. ‘If you have any opinion on the single state option or any other option (Other than a continuation of the current fiasco) I would appreciate hearing it’.

3. ‘If you don't support opposition to the occupation...er...does that mean you support the occupation and the activities associated with it?’

So now tell me is your only objection to a one state solution the existence of Hamas and their adherence to their charter?

Lev,

You state you are a doctoral student ...

You reveal no rigour in research, nor ability in critical thinking; ... indeed, seem to have grave problems with comprehension and understanding facts....

You do not check your “evidence,” resources, nor authors; validate them.

You obviously do not research, compare, date and validate secondary sources... Forget about primary material ...

No evidence of post-grad. ability here ... not even under-grad.

Re your reference: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1703245,00.html

The report was written by Chris McGreal . This says it all.

Chris McGreal excludes, misrepresents, and fabricates the views of those whose message is not consonant with his polemic ... this includes anti-apartheid activists.

Arab Media Watch - a pro-Arab site - also slams McGreal for his fabrications and distortions:

COMPLAIN TO CHRIS MCGREAL & THE GUARDIAN
http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/Articles/ActionAlerts/tabid/74/newsid397/36/COMPLAIN-TO-CHRIS-MCGREAL--THE-GUARDIAN/Default.aspx

COMPLAIN TO THE GUARDIAN
http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/Articles/ActionAlerts/tabid/74/newsid397/58/Default.aspx

RE-READ: the VERY WELL REFERENCED “Can Arabs by Land in Israel?”
http://www.meforum.org/article/370

read
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6282#92733

The site you provide is for Palestinian propoganda
http://www.pcdc.edu.ps/
Palestinian Curriculum Develpment Center

Keith

You completely misunderstood Namier - no surprises there ... check wikipedia for both “Liberal Democracy” and “Democracy” - bite size pieces to be sure, but should be adequate for you .. .

Observation: you support the Iraq war ...

You state: “Locke and Rousseau ... some obscure 18th century English elitist twit and long irrelevant other” ...

Israel, indeed, accepts criticism, not only from others, but also from within. Their press/media ranks among #1 in the world for freedom of speech (Freedom House)

Because Israel is constantly under siege, its politicians don’t have the luxury of time, like ours, to navel gaze and ponder. Emergency, necessarily leads to hastiness.

You know I believe in a two-state solution - NOW. You agreed.

However,

Nonie Darwish, Al-Arabiya TV (March 23, 2007)

“We should begin to view the Palestinian Arab cause in a different manner. For 58 yeas we have been fighting Israel... Enough, we must resolve this problem, because it hinders the progess of the Arab peoples ... we must be just and grant them security. There are five million of them, and we are 1.2 [billion] Muslims. What are we afraid of - five million Jews? We must welcome them so they can live in our midst ... we must stop the terrorism in Israel, and we must not encourage Hamas to say it wants to annihilate Israel. Ahmadinejad is not even an Arab - what does he have to do with Israel?”

Rashid Khalidi, director of the Middle East Institute stated:

“It is time that Palestinian leaders looked at their own weaknesses instead of blaming everything on Zionism, imperialism, and other outside forces.”

Raji Sourani, director of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza, said:

“ ... officials with the mind-set of a banana republic are causing tremendous damage to the Palestinian cause.”

Territory
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6282#92733

I am not going to repeat my posts ad nauseum. Read Paul’s hereunder; also on this site.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6282#92733
also
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6426#96094

We now have Batman and “boy wonder” Robbin ...

Lev,

You seem to treat the issue of the Palestinians and Israel as a game. It is not. Perhaps you believe in Hamas’ program of teaching kindergarten children the joys of being suicide bombers and martyrs for Allah. This is unspeakably obscene.

I will answer your other statements, albeit dishonest, late

Danielle,

It is indeed true that I am a doctoral candidate in Social Theory and author of some forty papers, professional presentations and other such material. I also hold an honours degree in Politics, Philosophy and Sociology. I shall let my peers decide whether I engage in sufficient critical thinking and checking of secondary sources.

- Your complaints about Chris McGreal are unsubstantiated. You write-off the messenger without even attempting to address the message. The first two links were complaints about him being biased *against* the rise of anti-Jewish feelings in Europe, which has nothing to do with his comments concerning Israeli land discrimination. The third link does not address the incredible influence the JNF has over the ILA or the common practise of declaring Palestinian land as "non-residential" and thus suitable for redevelopment. Even in its pathetic mealy way the article admits that land ownership in Israel is discriminatory. The example of Hebron is the policy in practise. I shall let you read in your own time how Israel confiscated lands from the Palestinians in the past through the Absentees Property Law,. Emergency Regulations (Requisition of Property) Law and how, by the mid-1950s, 1/3 of Israel's Jewish population has taken over houses and lands from Palestinian refugees.

- You complain that the site I reference is "Palestinian propaganda". Again, this is a case of writing off the messenger without consideration of the message. The article itself is from Ha'aretz and concerns itself with the difference between "citizenship" and "nationality" in Israel. You do not address these facts.

- Finally, you also attempt to make a claim of fact: "Their [Israel's] press/media ranks among #1 in the world for freedom of speech (Freedom House)". For someone who is allegedly so concerned with checking sources and so forth, it must be pointed out that you have been hoisted on your own petard. Israel currently ranks 59th in press freedom according to Freedom House, holding equal position with Greece, Fiji and Ghana.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=271&year=2006,
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=204&year=2005,
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=203&year=2004,
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=197&year=2003

Dear Ghada,

it is indeed heart-wrenching to read the accounts of atrocities commited in Gaza, Israel and the West Bank. Palestian people are suffering and it is our collective shame that this has gone on so long unresolved.

But I wonder if taking an anti-Israeli stance on the issue is actually doing the Palestinian people any good. No doubt Israelis like people everywhere long for peace and security and are not some blood-thirsty nation intent on inflicting maximum damage on the Palestinians. While the army may be guilty of crimes and pushing for those responsible to be made accountable is just, demonising Israel or engaging in a theoretical polemic on whether or not it deserves to exist, is, I think, totally counterproductive for your cause.

If a solution is to be found, polarising speech and attitudes have to be left behind by both sides. How can we persist in our biases and beat our chests proudly and indignantly complaining about someone's else wrongs, while our own conscience is far from clean? Surely before peace, there must be forgiveness, there must be a humble acceptance of our own grave faults, there must be wisdom. We cannot bring peace while spreading words that encourage division and ultimately hatred. Why don't we start right now?

Danielle,

I supported the Iraqi war. Er yes … so what is the relevance in a discussion on whether Israel as an aggressive non Liberal Democracy deserves the support of freedom loving Western Liberal Democracies?

‘You state:“Locke and Rousseau ... some obscure 18th century English elitist twit and long irrelevant other” ...’
No, that is only part of what I stated and by omitting any explanatory comment you are deliberately misrepresenting my words and views.

Israel may accept some criticism but it hasn’t acted to alter many of the things for which it is most harshly criticised.

Israel isn’t under any sort of siege; it is occupying and stealing it’s neighbours lands. That’s quite a jump you make. But I do agree Israel is besieged by its own leaders militarist mindsets. Its controlling politicians are all former soldiers. They were all indoctrinated by the military during their forced conscription.

So you support a two state solution. Great news, do you realise you are at odds with the actions of your government. But honestly do you support such set at ’67 borders?

I fail to see any relevance to the current discussion of any the posts you referenced.

And the reference to batman and wonder boy robin is too bloody obscure to cause anyone any offence. Like to try again?

I do recall you offering a piece of advice … ‘don’t shoot the messenger’…wasn’t it? Nice to see you ignore your own counsel…it’s the most appropriate response to almost all your positions…and shall be my response to your posts in future.

Re: Chris McGreal’s report

Read:

Benjamin Pogrund’s “Apartheid? Israel is a democracy in which Arabs vote”
http://www.mideastweb.org/israel_apartheid.htm

McGreal ignores the following signed by several prominent South African anti-Apartheid activists, including Bob Hepple and Joel Joffe:

“we reject this parallel [between Israel and apartheid]. Israel may adopt policies with which we disagree, but the institutions of social democratic Israel do not bear comparison with the authoritarian and racist structures of apartheid South Africa. To equate this with Israel distorts the historical record.”

McGreal claimed: “influential Likud MP Uzi Cohen” supported expelling Palestinians from Israel. BUT there has never been a Knesset member named Uzi Cohen.
http://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/mkDetails_eng.asp?letter=C&view=0

Allegations about Sharon are lifted from an article in Al-Ahram by Khaled Amayreh, Hamas supporter/“journalist” in Hebron.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/672/re1.htm

Report by Human Rights Lawyer Justus Reid Weiner “Illegal Construction in Jerusalem”
http://www.jcpa.org/jlmbldg.htm

... and on it goes ...

Read

Committee for Accuracy in Middle Eastern Reporting in America
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=6&x_article=1083
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=6&x_article=1082
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=6&x_article=1080
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=6&x_article=706
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=6&x_article=707

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_McGreal

So this Jew, Arab, Georgian and Samaritan go to court
http://www.pcdc.edu.ps/no_israeli_nationality.htm
source:
Groups Petitions Court for Israeli Nationality (2003-12-29) - similarly affects Jewish groups
http://middleeastinfo.org/article3804.html

Freedom of the Press in Israel
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=251&year=2006

Israel IPolitical Rights and Civil Liberties
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&country=7199&year=2007

Abstracts:

Israel is an electoral democracy. Although no formal constitution, a series of basic laws have the force of constitutional principles. All citizens (... including Arab) are extended full political rights.

Press freedom is respected, and enjoys a vibrant and independent media landscape. All Israeli newspapers are privately owned and freely criticize government policy.

An independent judiciary and an active civil society protect the free media.

cont...

In 2004, the Supreme Court denied a government appeal aimed at upholding a ban on granting press credentials to Palestinians on security grounds.

While basic laws and Declaration of Independence designate Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state,” freedom of religion is respected. Christian, Muslim, and Baha’i communities have jurisdiction over their own members in matters of marriage, burial, and divorce.

Matriculation is universally available, with identical education for Jews and Arabs (in Arabic). Israel’s universities are open to all based on merit. Universities have always been centers for dissent and criticism of the government.

Freedoms of assembly and association are respected ... an active civil society, including NGO’s ... demonstrations are widely permitted.

Workers may join unions of their choice; have the right to strike and bargain collectively.

Every state-run company must have at least one Arab Israeli on its board of directors.

12 members of the Knesset are Arab Israeli, most representing majority-Arab political parties. Arab population votes heavily for Arab-oriented parties, the left-leaning and centrist Zionist parties also have strong support from the Arab community.

Arab members of the Knesset occasionally voice support for anti-Israel factions in Palestinian territories and abroad, including Hamas and Hezbollah. This is sometimes the subject of investigation by the attorney general, but rarely have been grounds for sanction.

The corruption watchdog, the Movement for Quality Government (also offering protection for whistleblowers),was recently recognized by Transparency International with an Integrity Award.

The state protects personal autonomy.

The Law of Citizenship, passed in 2003, bars citizenship to Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza who marry Arab Israelis, but is not retroactive. (A security measure, the law is reviewed regularly.)

All Israeli citizens (Jew, Muslim, Christian ...) enjoy full political rights, equal rights under the law, the vote, can stand for election to the Knesset, hold senior positions, have an Israeli passport .. effectively Israeli “nationality”.

Australian naturalization requires swearing of allegiance to the queen and Australia.

Like every country, Israel is not a utopia, there are social inequalities - (what countries don't have them) - but these are not due to Israeli policy

Whilst there are obviously differences between South Africa and the current status of Israel, the fundamental aspects are the same. Both are colonialist projects. Both are based on programmes of exclusion and separation. Both have engaged in territorial segregation and restrictions on freedom of movement, enforced by ID cards and based on religious-ethnic criteria. Both effectively have Bantustans, with military and economic control ultimately in the hands of the colonial power.

Pogrund's article - and Hepple and Joffe's comments - essentially says that "Israel is not identical to South Africa", but we already knew that. On the other side, prominent anti-apartheid campaigners, such as Bishop Desmond Tutu and former US President Jimmy Carter recognise the system as such as does John Dugard, a South African professor of international law and a Judge on the International Court of Justice. Even members of the Israeli Knesset:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961344738&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The fact that Chris McGreal's report attracted opposition doesn't make it wrong. The fact he used the name Uzi Cohen, rather than Uzi Landau is relatively trivial in the scheme of things.

What is remarkable throughout this discussion is (a) you seem utterly incapable of admitting any errors and (b) you don't offer any feasible solutions to current situation. Perhaps instead of defending the current failed system you could instead direct your energies to improving it; "a light unto the nations". Make it better; a place where all can live and where people are treated according to the individual character; not with collective punishment or collective advantage or by their religion or ethnicity.

As it has been suggested just lately that Israel will be used by Cheney and Bush to make the initial attack on Iran, will US' faithful alley our Aussie JH be all for it, and what should global opinion be?

It seems so incredible after the virtual failure of the US illegal occupation of Iraq, that Cheney and Bush are now determined to attack Iran.

An attack on Iran, a nation much larger than Iraq, of nearly 80 million could be devastating not only for the population, but also by the fact that Iran now holds not only the world’s largest single supply of oil, but also the world’s highest quality oil - indeed said to be part of the gain for US corporates.

It could be said that the reported visit of Vladimir Putin to Tehran to discuss further nuclear construction could be welcome news to the point there-on, that it might help divert US warlike intentions against Iran.

In Realpolitik, there is a saying that an unpopular move by an outside power to befriend a power that was accused in the same locality of being a danger, can often prevent local war against that power.

In fact, the move by Putin could also create interest from China as well as India, and because the anger from the US is towards an important Islamic state, we could hope it will also spread to Malaysia and Indonesia.

Indeed, it could even be said that the very presence of little Israel in the Middle-East with its US-supplied nuclear warheads now continually ranged on Tehran, could certainly not be regarded by these nations with glee.

BB Part Two

It is said in reports, furthermore, that the growing confrontation between the US and Iran has been much revved up by a ridiculous big power rivalry about Iran gaining through problems that the US is having over its lack of success in Iraq, with not only after four years getting badly bogged down, but also the Americans being made fools of much earlier with the US embassy staff in Iran held prisoners for over a year after the ousting of the puppet Shah. Then in 1982 America still angry, had Donald Rumsfeld help to arrange the Iraqi attack on Iran, which still ended with Iran winning the campaign after eight terrible years.

It has now got to the stage as formerly in Vietnam that America has to sell itself even more dangerously and globally unpopularly as it did when it brought in Cambodia, but still only making things worse.

Certainly the Neo-Con brag about America out to prove ownership of the Twenty First Century is proving damned expensive

Keith,

Your comparisons of Israel with other western democracies are shallow and don’t bear scrutiny. Witness the behaviour of liberal democrat Britain in dealing with a guerrilla war on their doorstep. Internment, Diplock courts, shoot to kill policies and paramilitary police were among the many, some would say draconian, measures invoked in the attempt to maintain security in Northern Ireland.

Witness the French in Algeria and Indochina during their divestment of Empire period, torture was commonplace.

Your attempt to contrast Israel’s occupation of the West Bank with the Allies occupation of Germany and Japan is either cynical or ignorant.

To suggest that Israel is not under siege is an incredible statement that is totally at odds with the actual evidence. Rockets are fired into Israel everyday by the dozen. Major suicide attacks occur on a regular basis. A total of 2135 terrorist attacks occurred in 2006 according to the Israelis.

The newly evacuated Gaza Strip has been used as a forward staging post for Hamas’s rocket attacks on Israel. It is clear any more concessions from the Israelis will only encourage more terrorism in the belief that only a weak Israel would concede anything.

I wonder if you consider the Northern Europeans who do their obligatory military service to be indoctrinated. What a silly statement. Israelis usually vote for their Generals because a) they have served in combat – a feat prized in societies with mass participation in the services and b) because ex-military personnel have an advantage in dealing with armed conflict.

Lev

I see you have a trumpet and you’re not afraid to blow it. I think it’s remarkable that you would criticise anyone for not offering any feasible solutions to current situation. The case you make is virtually the same as Hamas’s. A one state solution is not a realistic option although it is hardly surprising that a Marxist analysis might define things differently.

Once the Palestinians desist in their attacks on Israel, a two-state solution with pre 1967 borders is the sensible choice. The one-state proponents are apologists for Hamas and the other extremist Islamic organisations.

Paul,

It is clear that you have comprehended a single word of anything that has been written here.

The proposal is not for a single state solution simply because it is one state. The proposal is for a single, democratic and secular state where people are treated as individuals in respect to the law and not as an ethnicity or religion or anything like that deserving collective advantage or collective punishment for that status.

I know it's cruel to pick on those who are obviously brain damaged, but the fact you could not discern that from all that has been written is the clearest indication that mentally you're on par with a soggy cardboard box.

Lev,

I peg you for a socialist, or ... Doesn’t worry me ... but provides an idea from where you’re coming.

Read the links ... then defend McGreal. You cite “$“ Carter ...!

Are you stating that Israel is Totalitarian ... or ... a Colonialist power...

I lived in a colonial country, Malaya, for 7 years during the communist emergency.

There is no similarity whatsover between colonialism and Israel.

Ironically, the blue-print for Malaya’s sovereign independence had been decided immediately after WWII, but could not implemented until the Emergency was officially over in 1960.

To secure their communist utopia - the end, apparently, justified whatever means.

Europeans were targeted; we lost many friends. At 14 yrs I knew how to handle arms and grenades - I had to. I was instructed: “shoot first, ask questions later”.

However, I understood communist attitudes towards British colonialism better than I could accept the attrocities meted to their own people.

To instil fear and compliance amongst the locals - to harbour, feed, fund, and provide information ... Communist terrorists used the carrot and the stick, but found the stick much more effective. They killed and victimized at will; ambushed buses and cars, machine-gunning the occupants - never mind children inside .. and no Europeans.

At 16 yrs I knelt amongst the immediate aftermath of grenades lobbed into a cinema packed full of local families and their children, many toddlers - (no Europeans). The dead were fortunate. Fragmentation grenades in confined spaces are lethal - one can kill everything within 5 metres, while injuring those within a radius of 15 metres. From then I hated terrorists of all stripes with a passion. There is a vast difference between terrorists and freedom fighters.

Brits were merciless in fighting them - no limit was placed on their eradication. Brits erected razor wire fences, used tanks, bombers, targetted killings - the full gamut of warfare.

Everyone had ID cards ... Malay, Chinese, Indian, Eruopean ... so ... ?

Checkpoints were frequent for everyone - cars were searched - under bonnets, boots, underneath, even parcels and handbags.

cont ...

For those tempted to run a checkpoint, no matter who, the order was “shoot to kill” - terrorists could hijack vehicles.

The Palestinian Authority is weak from within. Hamas hijacked the Riyadah talks ...

You choose to ignore that Palestinians are fleeing because of indiscriminate murdering and torture carried out by terrorist groups.

Palestinian terrorists have achieved what Israel never did, ... nor wished to.

How do you think the parents of small children feel, seeing them indoctrinated as suicide-bomb martyrs via electronic media and schools ... they daren’t protest ...

Hamas don’t care about Palestinians - their rights, nor welfare, nor an independent Palestinian state. But, they, like you, want the whole area a “single-state”.

Are you brain-numbingly naive to think libertarian or social democracy could be introduced into this area of the world. Islam is utterly antithetic to it.

Or, do you think it should be “imposed” - if so, how? The pen (Palestinians control all media) or the sword... or what ...

A theoretical utopia (?), but a practical impossibility. Whilst upholding the right of the individual, completely denies human psychology; read Nietzsche.

Hamas is an agent for totalitarianism of this Middle Eastern area ... and has Iranian fingerprints all over it.

Iran supports Hamas ... also Hizbollah, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban - all terrorist organisations.

Bruce Riedel states:

“Al-Qaeda wants to play a larger role in the Palestinian conflict. Whilst critical of Hamas’ participation in electoral politics, Al-Qaeda is very supportive of the Hamas coup in Gaza”.
(The Return of the Knights: al-Qaeda and the Fruits of Middle East Disorder)

Israel is undeniably a democracy. It was the first country to offer citizenship to Bosnian Muslim refugees; and the only country to offer it to a manifest of Vietnamese boat-people whom all other countries had rejected.

In physical terms, what would be achieved by a “single-state”? Israel is tiny, at its narrowest point 9 miles across.

Israel’s right to exist ...

The UN, the Arab League, Turkey, EU, Britain, US and Russia ... and albeit “double-speak” Arafat, gave the nod to this.

You’re out-voted.

Lev

Is it clear I have comprehended or clear I have not comprehended?? Even after your 40 odd papers you could still do with a little proofreading.

Living in your Pollyanna world where everyone is nice to everybody else and there are no bad guys must be great.

I suppose you can name many conflicts where the two parties have decided to lay down arms and live together sharing power happily after 50 years of war? More to the point, do you actually believe that Hamas etc would want to be part of your fantasy world? My point although you have determinedly failed to see it, is that the one state solution is the Palestinians preferred model for a REASON. Their useful idiots in the west are deliberately pushing the idea of a one state solution which seems reasonable and fair to a cursory examination, yet will be dominated by Palestinians in practise.

PHD in wishful thinking if you ask me. By the way, you’re not the only one with a degree and I wouldn’t be making it public that I was a graduate of the social sciences. Parasite is a word that springs readily to mind. Toilet and paper are two more.

In any case there is NO WAY the Israelis are going to go for it. And anyone who has HALF A BRAIN knows it. So for someone who is criticising others for lack of real, workable solutions you are looking mighty silly, Professor.

Paul

Pray tell me why my 'comparisons of Israel with other western democracies are shallow and don’t bear scrutiny'.

To cite the Irish and British conflict doesn't support anything other than my comparison. That situation has been long resolved according to the ways of free liberal democracies. The rights and obligations of all individuals in Ulster have been recognised and structures to ensure the continuation of that has been put in place...Or haven't you noticed that?

The French...really ... are they still colonialists?

You should realise the Western Liberal Democracies have abandoned those practises and have grown from those experiences.

The point of comparison between Germany, Japan and the West and Israel and Palestine is occupation...why introduce irrelevancies?

You just cannot or refuse to make the link between the occupation to resistance. Most clear thinkers accept attacks on Israel would cease if the proposal of the Arab League was applied. That specifically guarantees Israel's security in return for the two state solution, which you claim to support. But I suspect you like the Israeli Government baulk at the '67 borders expectation.

Yep I agree the Northern European Socialists are indoctrinated.

Yep good to see you acknowledge and agree Israel is a society dominated by the military and their attitudes. That's a good start Paul. Don't you ever wonder how Israeli society would be if it was dominated by liberal democrates and their unique values?

Danielle,

By definition, Israel is a currently colonialist state. It's has extended its territory beyond international law, it establishes settler colonies and rules over an indigenous population.

From your personal experiences you should know that some indigenous people use terrorism to fight occupations. If you had learned from the experience you would realise that with ending the colonial rule, you end the terrorism.

Paul,

The most obvious of a conflict that lead to peace example bears remarkable similarity; South Africa. I also note that both you and Danielle have a very similar attitude towards Arab Muslims as pro-apartheid supporters had towards blacks: "They can't be trusted", "They're not interested in peace", "They can't govern themselves", "We'll be taken over" etc.

Whilst currently a minority of Palestinians and Israelis support the one democratic and secular state option, it has two great strengths: Firstly, it is morally the right thing to do. Secondly, because it is feasible.

It is risible to suggest that a discontigious Palestinian mini-state could be set up in the 1967 borders - will Israel dismantle the illegal apartheid wall? Will they give up their closed military areas? Because these are *pre-conditions* for an independent state.

Yes, the proposal for one secular and democratic state is a minority one - but one with wide support. From the Orthodox Jews it is supported by Natueri Karta and the Satmar Hasidim groups. In Switzerland a group founded by a Palestinian lawyer has several hundred members, both Jews and Palestinians. In Jersualem there is Rabbis For Peace and the Emil Touma Institute. The Right of Return Coalition (Al-Awda) support the solution. There are groups advocating the position in the UK and the US, with the Greens adopting it in their platform. Even Qadhafi, with Libya just elected to the Security Council, supports the idea on the grounds "no other concept is capable of resolving the problem".

The strength is in its diversity, its practicality and in its rightness. Perhaps its success will not come quickly, but it will come. 'Hafrada' will end in Palestine as it did in South Africa.

Lev

You say” you would realise that with ending the colonial rule, you end the terrorism.”

This is bullsh@t. Look at India/Pakistan, Algeria, Zimababwe and there are many other examples of nations which have had increased terrorism after the end of colonial rule.

To continue with your Apartheid fantasy, are you comparing Hamas with ANC/Nelson Mandela?
Really?
Do you think the ANC were teaching their children about the glory of martyrdom? Were they bombing children’s school buses and firing rockets indiscriminately into villages? Were they pronouncing their desire to drive their enemies into the sea? Did the ANC’s allies wage three wars of extermination against the state?

The whole apartheid nonsense is a flimsy construct and intellectually dishonest. It's a case of trying to make the facts fit the theory and it's typical of the soft left, who are big on symbolism and appearances and usually short on substance.

Arabs living in Israel have virtually the same rights under the law as other Israelis. This is in stark contrast to South Africa. See the Prohibition of Mixed marriage act, the bantu education act and the reservation of special amenities act and others. Arabs have the same rights to vote and stand for the Knesset as other Israelis, this also is in direct contrast with the South African experience. Arabs make up 20% of students in universities in Israel. Mixed education was banned in South Africa. Even Nelson Mandela said he could not conceive of an Israeli withdrawal ‘if Arab states do not recognize Israel within secure borders.

Whilst there is SOME discrimination in Israel there is a very big difference between discrimination and Apartheid. It is amazing you are not as quick to label Muslims nations which commit discrimination as Apartheid regimes.

Your attempt to brand us racists is a standard tactic of the left and contributes to the intellectually stunted phenomena that is POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

The Palestinian state suggested by the UN was always a discontiguos state. That’s the way the borders were drawn up. Once the terrorism stops there will be no need for a security fence.

Paul,

- One one hand you condemn the British in India for their brutality and on the other you claim that terrorism increased in India after independence! Which is it to be? Or are you of the opinion that States cannot commit terrorism? You also seem to be neglecting the 1965-1979 war in Rhodesia, to which contemporary terrorism pales into insignificance.

- There has been no suggestion that Hamas and the ANC are equivalent. Nevertheless the ANC, through Umkhonto we Sizwe, engaged in terrorist and military action; most notably the 1982 attack on the Koeberg nuclear power plant and the Church Street bombing in 1983, and the 1986 car-bombing of Magoo's Bar in Durban. So yes, the ANC *did* engage in terrorism. But nowhere as great as the terrorism of apartheid.

- Arabs in Israel proper have less rights as has been pointed out numerous times and to which you have finally agreed. Significantly more so however, which you have carefully avoided, is the Occupied Terrorities which are effectively Israel's bantustans. Sure, Israel proper isn't as bad as South Africa; I stated that previously. But the motivating ideology is the same, and for many on the receiving end so is the practise. Does this look like hafrada?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Southafricaracialdemographics1979.png

- Once again you raise the risible furphy of suggesting that because some Muslim nations are engaging in some discriminatory practises then for some reason that special mention must be made of it in this discussion. Surely such debates would be better in a thread that's actually *about* Muslim nations? Perhaps you should write an article on the subject, and have it published here.

Lev

A possible solution to the settlemets in a two state solution would be to simply give soverignity over the settlements to the new Palestinian state, with all members of course having the the right to citizenship in the new Palestinian state. And of course that wall just needs be torn down, the land returned and reparations made to those who's homes were destroyed in its construction.

Bit simple but the obvious usually is.

ISRAEL DOES NOT DESERVE ANY SUPPORT WHILE SHE HAS LOADED NUKES CONTINUALLY POINTED AT IRAN, A COUNTRY WHICH HAS NEVER ATTACKED ANOTHER COUNTRT IN THE LAST 1000 YEARS.

Danielle, reading your arguments, one can easily see you are well-educated or well read.

But to call John Locke, who is one of the most admired philosophers of Western history, a twit, tells me your educational background could be of an exclusive nature, and certainly not truly Western.

Fact is, if you were Western educated, you would also know that apart from the mistake of the present Presidential prerogative, the US Constitution also is based on Lockean political theory, as also the American settlers' revolution against the home country was based on Lockean law.

So just be careful, Dannielle, especially about calling any Western philosopher a twit, whatever your obvious ability to press a point?

Regards, BB, WA.

Bushbred,

I never called Locke a "twit";

In fact, I recommended to Keith that he read Locke and Rousseau ... the "twit" was returned in a muddled response from Keith.

Lev,

Is it not possible to condemn the British for heavy handedness and at the same time suggest that terrorism got worse after colonial rule ended? Surely you are aware of the millions who perished during the partition of India.

“Modern terrorism pales in comparison to the Rhodesian war’? that’s ABSURD. There is no 9/11 in the history of Zimbabwe, there is no Karachi.
I was not neglecting that war at all; I was merely refuting your fanciful claim that the end of colonialism meant the end of terrorism.

The typical leftist myth that suicide bombers are the product of western oppression has also been shattered forever. Middle class Arab/Muslim boys who have never been poor or oppressed make up the majority of suicide bombers today. Militant Islam is at war the westernised or western supporting Muslim nations and it is only incidentally about us, much to the chagrin of the black armband gang.

I absolutely agree states can commit acts of terrorism. Mugabe’s Zimbabwe is a great exponent. Iran and Syria are also well represented.

If you cannot compare Hamas/PLO with the ANC then your apartheid argument falls over. The Israelis face a legitimate threat to their security every day from Hamas etc. Until the question of security is resolved Israel is right to refuse to pull back from their defensive positions.

Once the Palestinians can provide a real guarantee of peace, Israel must withdraw. But Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza shows why security must come first. Hamas moved in and used it as a forward base to better attack Israeli. Unilateral withdrawal is a lose-lose situation for Israel. Meanwhile Israel still bears the primary responsibility of protecting its own citizens.

By the way, Hamas’s public statements that all of Palestine belongs to the Muslims and that they intend to drive out all the Jews, makes it unclear who is actually South Africa in this morality play.

What is risible, lev, is your unwillingness to hold the other nations of the middle east to the same standards you insist Israel must abide by. You could start with the Palestinians

Bushbred,

Considering the blood curdling rhetoric coming from the Iranians, your pretence that the Iranians have never attacked another country rings rather hollow.

Iran’s numerous threats to destroy Israel give the Israelis every right to make the Iranians aware of the likely consequences of any attack. Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons serves only to underline the true intentions of the theocratic regime.

In any case, Iran is currently engaged in proxy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and no one can suggest that they were attacked first in those conflicts.

Your continued support for dictatorships and tyrants mark you as an anti-democrat. Clearly the ends justify the means for you. Your hope that Putin and Hu Jintao will conspire to challenge the US for global supremacy, show you are willing to accept the aggrandisement of these dictatorial powers. There is little doubt that this will inevitably lead to the consolidation of these dictatorships and the consequent oppression of billions of people.

PS. If you read the posts more closely you would note that Danielle was paraphrasing an earlier post regarding Locke to point out its absurdity.

Bushbred,

I refered to Namier as an elitist twit. Not Locke.

This was in response to Danielle suggesting I should base my understanding of Western Liberal traditions on a reading of him.

Danielle could have cleared up this minor misunderstanding without the need for attempting a deception or personal attack.

However her usual behaviour is to launch underhand personal attacks when her ideas or positions are challengered or when she is simply shown to be wrong.

A reading of my posts at the time show these quite clearly

Lev,

Have your really thought through your ideas of libertarian and social democracy as applied in the Palestinian area. You ignore the realities of time and place. By doing so, you demonstrate a pretentiousness and cognitive bankruptcy in its most ludicrous form. Are you one of those narcissistic liberals, so intent on appearing so open-minded, that you either ignore the horrors that Palestinians are inflicting on each other, or see them as somehow authentic.

An Arab intellectual remarked that the high priests of political correctness choose to ignore the plight of his people and in doing so, relegate them to the position they had as “the white man’s burden”.

George Ibrahim stated: “The average Palestinian is not a terorrist; but they are being exploited and sacrificed by terrorist organisations, organisations from which Israel has every right to defend itself.”

Do you really think feminist and gay rights (which are a positive feature in Israel)could be introduced if Hamas takes control.
Israel is a completely modern State; Hamas are traditional. No amount of social engineering will change this.

Read:

The Betrayal of Liberalism
How the Disciples of Freedom and Equality Helped Foster the Illiberal Politics of Coercion and Control by Hilton Kramer & Roger Kimball (Ivan R. Dee: Chicago, 1999)

You need to be educated. Freedom fighters never target their own. Malays hated the communists, who were certainly not freedom fighters. They were terrorists, and no amount of “window-dressing” changes this. Your tacit approval of terrorism. Is this relative morality, or moral bankruptcy.

Sir Gerald Templar (a colonialist) drew up the blue-print for Malay Independence prior to the communist emergency. Only after the communists were put down, could it be implemented. Every colonial officer answerable to Whitehall was dischared, and was then contracted by the new Malay government. There wasn’t a hiccup in the change-over ... administration continued exactly as before. In fact, Malay nationals didn’t assume administrative positions until 1970’s.

One of my colleagues had a very large rubber stamp “BU . L SH . T” which he hovered over his students’ papers; I thought it most inappropriate ..

Danielle,

It appears that both yourself and Paul are incapable of reading and increasingly so. Perhaps your emotion is clouding your reason. No I do not think that feminist [sic] and gay rights can be introduced if Hamas takes control; I do not want Hamas to take control. I do not know where you get this idea from.

Paul,

At last it comes clear; you have a hatred of Islam. We at least we know to ignore you from now on.

Regards,

More Realpolitik needed?

Paul, you should know by now that I do not support Putin and Hu Jintao to rule the world. But at the same time I do not support Cheney and Bush in their rhetoric on Iran, which behind the threats is not so much the defense of global democracy, but a chance for the US to get its own back on Iran. Further, as I mentioned there is also Iran’s valuable oil deposits Cheney surely has his mind on.

That is the reason as a philosopher, Paul, I refuse to take sides and would rather employ methods where for example, potential enemies like Russia and China can be used to produce a period of peace, part of which could be to allow Iran to go martially nuclear under supervision to match Israel, as happened between India and Pakistan.
There are rumours, in fact, that Iran might already have atomic warheads supplied illegally from outside to fit its long-range rockets, somewhat similar to what happened when Pakistan was offered secret info’ on its nuclear technology.

After I graduated way back in the late 1980s Paul, I was advised to think the way I do right now, not to take sides, and not even to go into politics, but to not only learn how wars can be caused by over-harshness on a defeated nation, as when Maynard Keynes predicted the rise of a German tyrant after Versailles, and also near the end of WW2, during the Bretton Woods Agreement before he died he helped draw up a plan not only to end colonialism but also an outline towards the later very beneficial and democratic Marshall Plan.

More to Come - BB, WA.

BB - Part Two

Certainly if alive right now, it is believed Keynes would be taking the same view as many social philosophers, who today in their Power Balance teachings declare that Israel in today’s Middle East with its array of nuclear missiles at the ready backed by a unipolar US, virtually holds undemocratic sway over the whole Middle East.

What makes it worse is America’s Secretary of State’s Condoleeza Rice’s privilege to move into the Middle East post-haste ahead, whenever the voice of the UN is needed particularly regarding the Israeli-Arab problem.

As I have also reported previously, true democracy in this world will not be achieved by blasting with missiles, as the Americans did with Baghdad, not like the British with its gunboat diplomacy on 19th century China, but more like the UN should be using it as a democratic backstop, the UN shifted from New York - New York to some little place truly neutral like Belgium or Switzerland, with Condy staying back in the White House because the lady’s not a true UN Rep’.

PS. Looks like it was Keith , not Danielle, I should blame for calling my favourite philosopher John Locke a twit. Too much literary confusion through a lack of inverted commas and such?

Cheers - BB

Bushbred

I never called Locke a twit. Looks very much like Danielle's propaganda has led to a 'major' misunderstanding.

Keith

Utmost apologies, Keith, for the inferr-ment - but I guess after this case, other contributors' radical little clips, could be used by others to stir things up even more?

Certainly hope it blows over?

Cheers, mate.

Best Regards, BB - WA.

I understand Bushbred and accept the honest misunderstanding. I've stopped debating Danielle. It's just to hard to be continually abused, misread and have words stuffed in my mouth. On top of all I just cannot deal with the hypocrisy and the continual part application of real standards or the selective moralising.

No real discussion of the eventual solving of the problem is possible with such attitudes. I fear the eventual situation will be a mid east utterly uninhabitable or mostly destroyed by nuclear attacks and their consequences... if such intransiant attitudes persist. The bright side ... all this blaming and abuse of others will probably end.

Thanks, Keith, and like you I wonder about Danielle, who like Paull does support Israel. Yet keep on doing what you've been doing, mate, it's so much needed.

What the future of the Middle East will be with an Israel with a brace of nuclear warheads eternally at the ready is the real worry?

One wonders what Dick Cheney means when he predicts that if something is not done about a future nuclear Iran we could have a WW3?

Yet one could well believe that Cheney still with his mind naturally on oil as well as a capitulated Iran in the name of an American peace, could well be the one who begins it.

As I mentioned in my earlier thread, let's have some Bismarkian Realpolitik and have our so-called natural enemies come in and prevent it, like Russia and China?

Nothing new in history, actually...

Regards, BB, WA.

Hello all - sorry for any duplication, but I got too angry reading a few to read any more.
Current archeology points to those who became the northern Israelites being the original occupatants of (northern) Israel, so indigenous can be ascribed to them.
The whole of the peoples who became the jews occupied the land they called Judea in around 1200BC and have been there, in varying numbers, ever since.
When the Islamic armies came to the area in around 635 AD, they found majority christian and Jewish populations. Most of these peoples were either killed in the Muslim invasion, enslaved and removed from the area during the Muslim occupation, or allowed to remain under repressive Sharia laws. Many of this last group chose to convert to Islam to escape the repression. Many Jews (and christians) left the area to escape the Muslim persecution. (Some of their descendents now wish to return to their traditional homeland.) And so formerly majority populations are now very small minorities in their historic homelands.
During the 1400 years of Islamic history, peoples have been conquered, and some have released themselves from the Islamic occupation. From southern France, Spain, to Romania and India, Greece and (now half of) Cypress, Islamic rule has been removed so that non-Muslims don't have to continue to live under repressive Sharia law.
Why can people not see the fight to liberate Israel in the same light? The Jews do not wish to live under Islamic oppression, any more than they wish to leave themselves open to another christian holocaust.
The creation of the state of Israel is a project of national liberation. If it looks bad, that's because it is a war. It will remain a war unless and until Islam acknowledges that it occupied Palestine by force, and has no 'divine' right to rule it. Islam is now being repelled from Palestine by force, by those who do have right to rule it.
And do all the Jews who were expelled from Muslim countries in the late 1940s deserve to be allowed back?

Camo,

Nice to see sound words of reason.

Whilst some OLO writers consider that the UN mandated Israel is somehow illegal, they conveniently disregard the fact that many Arab states were drawn up arbitrarily with a pen and ruler by colonial interests.

Iraq’s borders include a some of Persia stolen from Iran, along with pieces of Kurdish territory ... and people wonder why Iraq is in such a parlous state.

Sudan includes not only some of the old Egyptian empire, but also Christian and Animistic blackAfrica.

Morocco includes a former French and Spanish colony.

Lebanon - a French invention.

None of these states existed under any Islamic ruler who preceded colonial powers.

Jordan, Kuwait, the emirates and more were also created for colonial interests - should they too be dismantled? There has been more conflict beween and within Arab states, than there has been with Israel.

There were seven Arab states in 1948; by 1972 these had grown into a bloc of 18.

Palestinians living in Arab countries are treated with contempt, living in appalling circumstances, with none of the rights Arabs have in Israel. Indeed, they have no rights at all. Most have now been born on Arab soil. Why are they not considered nationals of the states of their birth?

Those OLO writers, upholders of the single state solution deliberately ignore the fact that the situation in the Palestinian territories is so fraught by Palestinian killing killing Palestinian, that average Palestinians, who can afford to, are democratically thinking with their feet - and in droves (some even going to Israel); so much so, the Muslim religious leader, Sheikh Hamad Al-Bitawi, very undemocratically, issued a fatwa against Arabs leaving Palestinian territories - (except temporarily for education)

However, these writers believe they have the answers to the problem. Looks good seeing it in print ... and they can applaud themselves that they are logical human beings.

cont ...

Lev,

I am rather surprised that you fell back on the patriachal old chestnut that because I am a woman: “ Perhaps your emotion is clouding your reason.” I am sure you didn’t mean Paul.

Whilst your are tip-toeing through the tulips, strumming your ukulele and singing the theme of libertarian democracy “Play nicely children,” - which I am sure can’t be heard above the gunfire between the Palestinian groups - you ignore the fact that this form of democracy could only be implemented in this region by a heavy-handed totalitarian government with a massive, very expensive bureaucracy, interferring in every part of peoples’ lives.

Israel should remain as it is. There is absolutely no benefit to any party for a single state. The two state solution is the right solution.

Cameo,

The "original inhabitants" issue is pretty irrelavant. The question is whether the current state of Israel and its practises deserve our support. In my opinion it does not; it is simply not good enough. This is not to suggest, as some have claimed - and you have implied - that other Arab or Islamic states do receive our support. (On that matter, of course Jews expelled from Muslim countries in the late 1940s deserve to be allowed back - universal rights are universally applicable)

Danielle,

I made the claim because you do allow your emotions to clould your reason. It has nothing to you with your gender, it's just how you are.

If you support Israel as it is at the moment; with it's religious laws, with is land laws, with its invasions and occupied territory - then you are a supporter of apartheid, which also was generous enough to provide its "inferiors" a second state - bantustans - of their own.

Lev,

No OLO writer has stated they approved of Jewish settlements in Palestinian areas. Quite the contrary. Palestine is no Bantustan - and none would wish it to be.

You are obviously caught up in the latest fashionable university cause, which periodically blow across campuses.

“Apartheid”, “Bantustan”, “Cantons”, “Colonialists” - Quite emotive and exciting catchcries!

You are in good company with White supremacist David Duke, Holocaust denier Paul Grubach, Hendrik Verwoerd (former prime minister of South Africa and the architect of South Africa's apartheid policies) and Idi Amin Dada (former President of Uganda)

Regarding your ref: - Apartheid Laws in Israel - “The Art of The Obfuscatory Formulation”, it was written in 1991 by Uzi Ornan, supporter of the Cannanite movement, which his brother founded ...

Israeli citizens experience prejudices amongst its many minorities, as do all multi-racial, multi-ethnic democracies, but Israel’s laws try to eradicate – not endorse – prejudices. For example, sincere efforts are made to instill humanitarian and egalitarian attitudes in children. Affirmative action ensures every orgnisation/business has at least one Arab member. Many businesses are Jew/Muslim jointly owned.

Arab representatives in the Knesset, who continuously call for dismantling the Jewish state, support the Hezbollah, etc., enjoy more freedom than many Western democracies give their internal Oppositions.

Jamal Zahalka, an Israeli-Arab member of the Knesset, argued that the West Bank and Gaza Strip separated into "cantons," with Palestinians required to carry permits to travel between them. Azmi Bishara, another Arab member of the Knesset, argued that the Palestinian situation had been caused by "colonialist apartheid." Not only are these Arabs active members of the Knesset, but they are expressing, without fear of censure or restrictions, complete freedom of speech.

Israel's Arabs largely identify with the Palestinians. But Israel hasn't jailed or curtailed their freedoms en masse (since 1966 when Israel lifted its state of martial law).

In 2004's “The Trouble with Islam Today”, Muslim feminist Irshad Manji argues that any allegation of apartheid is ludicrous. How can there be with Arab political parties; Arab-Muslim legislators having veto powers; and Arab parties having won overturned disqualifications.

cont ...

She cites Arabs, like Emile Habibi, being awarded prestigious prizes; a free Arab press; Arabs living and studying alongside Jews; and Palestinans commuting from the West Bank being entitled to state benefits and legal protections.

Has it eluded you that Israel has been either at war or under siege? As I write, it is under rocket attack. ID cards are mandatory at such times.

Israel’s “borders” and fence adhere strictly to Resolution 242 and international law , read my OLO (doubtless you won’t...)
5/9/07
6/9/07
10/9/07
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6282&page=0#93167

In 2004, Israel's foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, confirmed that the barrier is not a border but a temporary defensive measure designed to protect Israeli civilians from terrorist infiltration and attack, and can be dismantled when appropriate.The Supreme Court of Israel ruled that the barrier is defensive and accepted the government's position that the route is based on security considerations.

Importantly, the West Bank barrier has reduced incidents of terrorism by 90% from 2002 to 2005.

All countries provide special benefits to returned service personnel; even Australia - cheaper loans, housing, free university education, medical, the earlier soldier-settler program. A well-known organisation only employed veterans as male staff.

In 2004, Jean-Christophe Rufin, former vice-president of Médecins Sans Frontières and president of Action Against Hunger, argued that the term apartheid is inaccurate, dangerous, and used as a rhetorical device.

Though disagreeing with Israel's policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Ian Buruma, Professor of Democracy, Human Rights & Journalism at Bard College, New York, finds the comparison:

"intellectually lazy, morally questionable, and possibly even mendacious."

In 2003, South Africa's minister for home affairs Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi:

"The Israeli regime is not apartheid. It is a unique case of democracy".

Fred Taub, the President of Boycott Watch:

"[t]he assertion ... that Israel is practicing apartheid is not only false, but may be considered libelous”

Lee Bollinger, President of Columbia University said that the analogy of Israel to South Africa at the time of apartheid:

"is both grotesque and offensive"

Love your work Danielle.

Its just so easy for lev and others to throw about vague and innapropriate analogies. Its the first refuge of someone who is having trouble trying to get their point across. It has great propaganda value but sheds VERY little light on the subject.

Danielle,

What OLO writers approve or disapprove is irrelevant in this matter. They do not dictate the behaviour of the State of Israel.

I am not caught up in this cause at all; my primary foreign affairs interest is East Timor and the democratisation of Indonesia. Indeed, this debate has reach "argumentum ad nauseam" to me.

The descriptive terms have accuracy in terms of the implementation and practise. Your claims of association are quite false of course, and quite typcial among those who like to claim those who are critical of Israel are axiomatically anti-Jewish. On the contrary, I am theologically closest to Judiasm than any other mainstream religion. It would be more accurate to describe my company as being Hannah Arendt, Noam Chomsky and Uri Davids.

Engaging in the rhetorical tactic of appeal to authority can have some justification. However quoting Irshad Manji, Jean-Christophe Rufin, Ian Buruma etc however is largely irrelavant. They are not experts in apartheid; Buthelezi is particularly bad example as he largely supported apartheid regime.

You are doubtless aware of the comments from those of greater expertise in the matter which I have already cited, or you could look up the Wikipedia article from which you've received all your quotations.

Likewise, I am utterly uninterested in on whether or not Uzi Ornan is a member of the Cannanite movement, as you should be as well. It is the facts of his argument that matter. Once again you are trying to attack the messanger rather than the message. Numerous examples have been given of how Israel's laws and practise endorse hafrada, which you have either ignored or actually confirmed. In other words, you've lost the debate on the basis of the facts presented but are intellectually and perhaps morally incapable of recoginsing this.

The examples you gave of Jamal Zahlka and Azmi Bishara are criticising practises of the occupation. Please give an example of an Arab member of the Knesset who has continiously called for the dismantling of the Jewish state. Go on - I bet you can't.

Lev,

You rely on information from the “Guardian” - recognised as gutter press. Google “Guardian” + royal family and see the headlines and salacious reporting. Princess Margaret has an illegitmate son!? The Bulletin caters to the lowest common denominator of readership. As for Chris McGreal,... and citing “$” Carter? Read what Iranian intellectuals and dissidents say of this man. You provided a site which mirrored the Palestinian Curriculum Development Center - Palestinian propoganda; ... who runs it?

The Knesset member Bishara organized an illegal delegation to visit Syria in 2002, at a time when Israel and Syria were officially at war; also called on Arab states to fight Israel.
I conclude that this would be treasonable in any country. Israeli law grants immunity concerning political attitudes and political activities to all members of the Knesset, without any distinction between political affiliations, for life.Bishara did jeopardise his immunity. But great debate amongst legal scholars and others in Israel ensued. The fact that such debate is open and lawful, indicates the extent of freedom allowed.

Uri Davis. It is to Israel’s credit that others like him can form organisations enjoying freedom of speech in Israel. I doubt very much if Australian individuals, or organisations, who wanted the destruction of Australia’s nationhood, incorporating it with, for example, Indonesia would be tolerated. They would come immediately under security suspicion.

cont ...

We have yet to see affirnative action introduced with our indigenous people - such as requiring every public organisation to have an indigenous person on the board of directors. I am sure, an excellent case for apartheid could be made for the way in which we administer our own aborigines.

Your rationale for the marriage laws in Israel, beggar belief. Australia also accepts marriages from different groups. France, on the other hand, do not accept any of these marriages as legal. Only civil marriages are legitimate, thus, those wanting a religious marriage have to have a civil marriage first.

Religious states? The Vatican has influenced laws about marriage, divorce, abortions, and contraception in countries such as Italy and Ireland.

Uzi Ornan. If you had proper academic training in research of primary materials, you would know that you cannot use them in isolation from the context, time, place, and cicumstances in which they were written, nor from the background of, influences on, nor intentions of the writer. There are at least eight distinct , very different schools and methodologies of histriography which need to be applied in any humanities research. This also applies to secondary material. We have witnessed how primary material can be selectively used to build a false argument. Extra methodologies and, indeed, disciplines are needed for research into earlier periods.

I am intrigued about your involvment in bringing democracy to Indonesia. Extremely ambitious and, might I say, somewhat presumptive.

Some years ago, one of my sons intent on working for third world countries, also incorporating “third world economics” within his Politics undergrad , and post-grad. degree, found that third world countries do not like to think of themselves as having third world economies. A WHO administrater reported that massive funding to one such country resulted in a state-of-the-art library - a showcase to the west. Unfortunately, very few in this particular country were even literate.

This same son wrote a thesis on Indonesia and its economy - the consequence - he was banned from ever entering the country.

Danielle,

It is quite clear that you are not prepared to discuss this matter on the basis of facts. My academic training does alert me to contextual biases but unlike the postmodernists I adopt propositions on their content alone. It is the facts that matter. Not their religious afffiliations, their skin colour, or their voting habits.

Evidentally you prefer to discriminate. We see this throughout your comments; rather than address a proposition, you condemn the source, or the individual, or their membership. A shameful array of argumentum ad hominem and argumentum ad populum is all you are capable of - along with a heap of "Well if Israel is bad then country X is bad too", to whit the aphorism "Two wrongs don't make a right" is the appropriate response.

Yes, a case has been made for Australian apartheid. Saudi Arabia and Iran certainly fall into the category as well with the dhimmi status. But that is not the topic here, and nor does it excuse Israel when it also engages in comparable evil which you never condemn, only condone.

Lev,

Religion and race do influence reasearch by providing new insights either unknown before, or having been interpreted wrongly. These facts, too, have to be verified where-ever possible from as many sources as possible.

Validity of a person’s scholarship is supremely important; their findings are always open to challenge - but a challenge must be worthy and supportable. Chomsky was held in high regard in academia, but is increasingly being challenged and found wanting. His linguistics particularly are proving to be badly flawed.

Veracity of evidence is vital and always needs forensic analysis. Because an opinion appeals to a person’s views, it cannot be accepted as fact. Many scholars have held a strong opinion which has been destroyed by rigorous research - and they acknowledge it.

Doesn’t thesis, antithesis, synthesis ring a bell?

It doesn’t matter to you if your information comes from shonky places such as sensationalist media , poor scholarship (even no scholarship), hidden agendas, or prejudice. As long as the information fits your viewpoint, then it must be right ...

When you go rabbiting on about “marriage laws” being prejudicial in Israel, or benefits for returned soldiers, it is justifiable to point out that the same protocols are practiced in modern democracies elsewhere - and no-one gives a damn - let alone protests. Exacty then, what is your point?

Jewish Land: Prior to WWI, land was purchased from absentee landlords living in Cairo, Damascus and Beirut. 80% of Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads and Bedouin. Jews avoided where fellahin, working for rich Arab landlords, might be displaced. From prior WWI and 1944 onwards, land purchased was largely uncultivated, malarial swamps, or arid, or semi-arid, and without tenants - and often at inflated prices $1000 - $1,100 per acre ( rich black soil in Iowa, $110 per acre).

A few refs:

John Hope Simpson Report on Immigration, Land Settlement and Development (1930)

Report on Agricultural Development and Land Settlement in Palestine by Lewis French (1931), Supplementary Report, 1932, and further material submitted to the Palestinian Royal Çommission.

Palestinian Royal Commission Report (the Peel Report) (1937)

cont ...

“Land ownership in Palestine 1880-1948” (Jerusalem: Academic Committee on the Middle East), (1976).

Transjordan’s King Abdallah in his “My Memoirs Completed” (London, Longman, 1978), pp.88-89:

“It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping”.

OLO writers have provided details of UN resolutions, international law, and other solid, verifyable facts from informed, disinterested sources. But, these don’t mean a thing do they? Just ignore them. What exact facts have you cited to support your claims?

No-one has said Israel is perfect. There are problems, especially social ones, and there will continue to be problems as long as Israel is under siege, and in danger of having to fight a war. Being under constant threat, NECESSSARILY creates a different climate. I witnessed 7 years ot it during the communist emergency in Malaya. It wasn’t fun, fair, or even equitable, for anyone - including Europeans. At least give the Israeli government credit for what it has achieved and provides under such difficult circumstances and with the need for national security.

Others and myself support the idea that settlers be removed from Palestinian territory ... A survey taken in the Palestinian territory found that the majority wanted a separate state and peace with Israel. Both sides long for it ... Palestinians are under daily fear from warring factions. The latter is what needs to be addressed.

A one state solution would mean expansion of what is occurring in the Palestinian territory now.

My opinion was that whilst you are strong on hyerbole, ignore facts, and reality - (the current humanitarian disaster above) -your heart was in the right place, and you had passion. But after your last OLO, it is obvious that you will be vunerable to any charlatan, petty dictator, or other social calamity, that says the right words in the right sequence. Never mind what his/her hidden agenda may be. It is the words that count. Right ... ?!

Danielle,

Once again your comments suggest parody. Are you a troll?

Chomsky's theories of generative and transformative grammar and automata theory have largely stood the test of time. There is an interesting possible counter-example of the Pirahã, however current indications is that the difference is conceptual rather grammatical which accords to Chomsky's theories.

I am not sure what you are trying to illustrate with Jewish purchase of land of Palestine. From the very start of this discussion I made it quite clear that the region of Palestine is a Jewish homeland (as it is also for Muslims and Christians), which would mean that Jews are fully entitled to purchase land and live in Palestine.

Paul claimed in an earlier discussion that Hamas, Fatah and the PA were in breach of a "large number of UN resolution". When I asked him to cite them, he could not. Here is the list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel

As pointed out previously:

"It is a demonstrable falsehood to claim that all Israeli's have the same legal rights. They do not have the same rights to land. They do not have the same rights under the law of entry. They do not have the same rights to acquire citizenship. They do not even have the same marriage laws. As you correctly recognise, yes there is also discrimination in the military service law. So any claim of equality is either through ignorance or a deliberate lie; I certainly hope you are engaging in the former."

Everything mentioned above is a confirmed fact, which even you have agreed with - however you don't seem to consider these facts to be evidence of discrimination. Which leads to ...

Having read your posts in detail, I am convinced of a third option to either ignorance or wilful lying; that you look at discrimination and sincerely believe that it is fair. You seem to suffer from neurological cognitive dissonance. It is quite possible that you cannot even recognise discrimination. In which case, discussing the matter with you is quite pointless.

Poor, poor Lev,

Regarding Chomsky, seek an academic linguist about current research before you rush into print. Peter Gordon’s Pirahã research...! Way, way down on the scale of dismantling Chomsky’s theories. TGG (or is it now ML), whilst not entirely a fraud is definitely inept linguistics - a kind of Dr Feel-Good approach - yet Chomsky has been said to write in ways “"to create a kind of pseudo-academic smog" - hardly expected from any linguist. MT are having problems with his theories.

Chomsky, made the following comment - undoubtedly heartening to those studying languages.

“I've met: Foucault (we even have a several-hour discussion, which is in print, and spent quite a few hours in very pleasant conversation, on real issues, and using language that was perfectly comprehensible --- he speaking French, me English)”
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html

Multilingual speakers, especially those who speak traditional Asian languages,
find him flawed. By his hypothesis, the Chinese would not comply with the attributes of being human.

Chomsky ignores language physiolology, culture, linguistic history, even language teachers - indeed the physicality that accompanies some languages. He is the ultimate minimalist.

Chomsky’s “UG” is hardly new. Roger Bacon:

`Grammatica una et eadem est secundum substantiam in omnibus linguis, licet accidentaliter varietur.'

[Grammar is one and the same following substance in all languages, although it may vary in its specifics]

... even further back, Aristotle:

As writing, so also is speech not the same for all races of men. But the mental affections themselves, of which these words are primarily signs, are the same for the whole of mankind....With these points, however, I have dealt in my treatise concerning the soul...—On Interpretation, I (Peri Hermeneias, translated by Harold P. Cooke)

Chomsky compares with medieval churchmen, whose logic was based on their faith and superstition ... and who condemned Galileo.

cont ...

Widen your research to advances in cognitive psychology. anthropological linguistics, and neuroscience. Visit Lakoff, Saussure, Hjelmslev, Uldall, Bloomfield, and Mounin. Check journals such as ATA Chronicle, LACUS papers, and definitely science.

The hypothesis underlying Kenneth E Iverson’s, (APL programming language) Turing award lecture, "Notation as a tool of thought”, was based on that of Sapir-Whorf.

The uproar about Chomsky’s support of Faurisson, the Holocaust denier, was less about freedom of speech, than writing the preface for one of his books. I don’t think it is his linguist theories that attract you - it is about Chomsky being anti-Israel, nicely fitting your agenda.

The composition of the UN. Where are the UN resolutions about the Darfur conflict or Somalia ... or constant rocket attacks into Israel? Doubtless you won’t see the significance.

You determinedly resist the current issue of Palestinian problems. These would be central to any proposal of dismantling Israel and making the whole area one.

You comment: “I am theologically closest to Judiasm than any other mainstream religion.” Surely this isn’t meant to be a tentative aside to add credibility to your views? I am neither a Zionist, an Israeli, nor even a Jew.

Don’t delve into neurscience without understanding it. I think you were scratching for the term “confirmation bias”. It has been repeatedly confirmed I don’t suffer from it at all. But do become familiar with this pathology, as many, many are going to identify you as a classic study.

Paul’s scholarship is formidable, with his “steel-trap” mind, and relentless logic, you wouldn’t win any debate against him. He wouldn’t hesitate to bounce me ...

I sincerely hope your postgrad work involves technology; you certainly would be pushing it to pass on any studies involving humanities.

You have identified me as an emotional, lying, amoral troll, with neurological problems, and given to parody. Obviously I am too dotty and deluded to enter into any debate ... even with those of the meanest intelligence. It must make you feel so kind as to have deigned to respond to my OLO at all ...

Our discussion ends.

Danielle,

I find it rather amusing that, rather like the other issue, you confirm Chomsky's models whilst claiming to dispute them.

The article on postmodernism is excellent, and of course an opinion shared by others, not the least being physicist Alan Sokal. This is quite unlike Jurgen Habermas, who at least - in 1972! - sought to explore postmodernism as a theory of future social formations, which is how the word literally means and should be applied. Whilst personally I find contemporary postmodernism on occassion poetic, and useful - in the same sense that the structuralists were useful - what usually falls under the criteria of postmodernism is "fashionable nonsense".

You claim that "Multilingual speakers, especially those who speak traditional Asian languages, find him flawed". This assertion is easily falsified; I am personally quite competent in one of these languages (Tetum) and have no problems with the models of generative grammar, The fact that the now 50 year old model has spawned a variety of subdisciplines, such as phase structure grammar, lexical functional grammar and combinatory categorical grammar is clearly indication of a successful and continuing research programme. You are possibly unaware of the fact that Chomsky is taught significantly in computer science and more recently in music theory as well. Indeed, since the 1960s, Chomsky model has been completely dominant in the field of linguistics; not beyond criticism or elaboration to be sure, but undeniably dominant. To deny this is to live in a parallel reality.

Where are the UN resolutions on Dafur? They exist if you bother to do your research; including Resolution 1706 which called for 17,300 peacekeepers. Perhaps a good model for the Levant, n'est-ce pas? Where are the UN resolutions on Somalia? Again I implore you to do your research. They exist - specifically 1724 and 1725 - with the latter including peacekeeping missions. Keep in mind that the UN only deals with disputes between nations, not within nations.

Resist Palestinian problems? Not at all. I am quite critical of the existing factional infighting and lawlessness, which is not unusual for social groups in similar circumstances. I am not particularly fond of any of the main political organisations in the PNA, although I have some preference for Hizb al-Sha'b al-Filastini and Al-Ittihad al-Dimuqrati al-Filastini. As I have previously commented in this thread I recognise the desire for a single, secular and democratic state is a minority position - but one which is a necessity.

The Levant is a Jewish homeland; but it is also an Arab homeland, and site of significance for Muslims and Jews. Unless all people live with equal rights and without legal distinction in this space it will be a place of eternal conflict.

For the record, my honours degree is in Politics, Philosophy and Sociology and my doctorate is in Social Theory. I am employed as a systems administrator for the most powerful clustered computers in the state. My interests do cross multiple disciplines; I have no trouble according formal pragmatics to matters of scientific truth, social just and aesthetic beauty.

Thanks for your kind words, Danielle, and good luck in your conversation with Lev and others.
Lev, I think the appelation 'Indigenous' does matter, because part of the authority vested in modern states is their basis in an occupation, of which continuous occupation is the strongest form. This is certainly the case with the Palestinians, who claim their continuous occupation of the area which the Romans called 'Palestine' (after the Philistines, of whom there were none in the area at the time). But continuous isn't really the case for the Muslims in the area - after all, Islam was only invented around the 6th to 8th century AD, so their occupation can't have predated this. And to repeat, who did the invading Islamic armies find in Palestine? A population the majority of whom were Christian and Jewish, both of whom have maintained a presence in the area.
Why do Palestinians languishing in refugee camps and as foreigners in all but Jordan, the only Islamic country to offer Palestinians citizenship? It is the formal policy of all other Islamic countries to use the Palestinians expelled from Israel, and their descendents, as bargaining chips with the world against Israel. "See how much they suffer, expelled most brutally from their land?" it goes. The creation of the state of Israel was a war of national liberation, and so of course the former oppressors (and that's the whole population, who supported the oppression) had to be removed for the new state to have a chance.
The Palestinians are being held hostage to the Islamic desire to destroy Israel by any means possible. The Islamic countries insist on the right of return for these people and their descendents, knowing full well that, by doing so, Muslims would soon, if not immediately, outnumber Jews in Israel, and so the oppression of former times can be re-asserted.
And if you think the international community will protect the Jews (and Christians) against that, how successful are they in protecting minorities in Islamic countries right now? Even In Palestine? Heard about the expulsion of Christians from Palestinian Bethlehem lately?

Lev,

Tetum, like Bahassa, is virtually a pigin language.

Bahassa is spoken in both Indonesia and Malaysia. Bahassa was called Bazaar Malay, and was used by different races to communicate and trade with one another. I, too, spoke fluent Bazaar Malay. It was easy and simple to learn. Don’t bother to inform me that Bahassa is the official language. I know.

Bazaar Malay was very different from that spoken by the Malay elites, who spoke the beautiful, pure, and literary Rajah Malay, which was extremely difficult for Westerners to learn, let alone master.

“Chomsky, made the following comment - undoubtedly heartening to those studying languages.”

This was certainly no endorcement of Chomsky. I shouldn’t have descended to sarcasm. Without the vocal inflection you didn’t know what I meant ...

However, unlike you, I am sure others did. Even those with no knowledge of Chomsky would understand exactly what I was saying.

“The hypothesis underlying Kenneth E Iverson’s, (APL programming language) Turing award lecture, "Notation as a tool of thought”, was based on that of Sapir-Whorf.”

Iverson created APL ...

UN resolutions on Dafur and Somalia - a total of three! Prior to Egypt’s attack on Israel, Egypt successfully requested that UN peacekeepers be removed. Israel only has to sneeze and a plethora of UN resolutions are handed down. What about the constant rocket attacks from Gaza? In parts of Israel, school desks are made of metal, it being safer for students (including Arabs and others) to seek safety under these desks than attempt to run to underground shelters.

Despite the majority on both sides wanting a two state solution, you decide a single, secular and democratic state “is a necessity”. Hardly democratic ... sounds like the words of a tin-pot dictator. Good for banners. Incidentally, this is not an endorcement.

cont ...

The Weismann-Faisal agreement of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference agreed to a Jewish homeland, being signed by both Emir Faisal , son of Sherif Hussein, leader of the Arab revolt against the Turks, also Keeper of the Holy Places, and Chaim Weismann and other Zionists? This agreement acknowledged:

“racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people” ... and ... “the surest means of working out the consumation of their national aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration of the development of the Arab states and Palestine (a Jewish state).”

In fulfilment of the Balfour Declaration, the agreement called upon measures to:

“encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale ... as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land ...”

Emir Faisal saw the Zionist movement a companion to the Arab nationalist movement.

Writing to Harvard law professor and future Supreme Court Justice Feliz Frankfurter on March 3, 1919, Faisal stated:

The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement ... We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home.... We are working together for a reformed and revised Near East and our two movements complete one another ... And there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be a real success without the other.”

This agreement was conditioned upon British wartime promises of Arab independence, which, tragically, were not kept.

The fact that the leader of the Arab nationalist movement and the Zionist movement reached such a close understanding, indicates that Jewish and Arab aspirations are not mutually exclusive.

I am impressed with your qualifications.

Lev, guess what I mean ...?!

Camo,

When adressing Lev, don’t write in complex sentences with any subtext beneath. Better to stick to monosyllabic words, the simplest of sentences and devoid of any expression.

Paul,

If you are still reading this OLO, and haven’t moved off due to tedium, thank you for your support.

Camo,

In case you haven't realised Muslim is not an culture, it is a religion. The indigenous people of Palestine are Semites; Jews, Christians, Muslims, pagans, atheists, whatever. As previously pointed out the genetic differences between Semitic Jews (iirc less than 10% of Israel and the occupied territories) is nil with the other Semites.

Whilst I gave no support to those neighbouring Arab nations who refuse citizenship to Palestinian refugees, that does not condone the refusual of Israel to allow these people the right to return to their homeland. As I have previously pointed out a Jew living in Ripponlea whose family has not lived in Israel for fifty generations has greater Right of Return than Dr. Karmi herself who was born in Jerusalem. If you cannot see how this is morally repugnant, I feel very sorry for you.

As for your final point, apart from your religious bigotry and selective anti-Semitism, I would point out there have been suggestions for UN Peacekeepers to occupy the region, a position I would thoroughly support, especially if it meant the original borders are restored and Israel finally recognised the legitimacy of a Palestinian state; why is it, we may ask that every single Arab nation and the PNA have recognised the legitimacy of Israel but *not* the other way around?

Of course, if this is done it wouldn't surpise me if Israel started attacking UN Peacekeepers. After all, they seem quite willing to shell UN refugee camps.

http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/occupation/robert_fisk_qana.html

Danielle,

I thought you said you'd ended the discussion. Guess you can't even lie straight in bed either.

You are thinking of Tetum-Praca, or "town Tetum" which does include a great deal of Portuguese loanwords as opposed to Tetum-Terik and other dialects thereof; it is however, neither a Creole or a pidgin language. Please look up what those terms actually mean, you might learn something.

I also find it necessary to mention that Bahasa has only one 's'; and that Bazaar Malay (aka Pasir Malay, Low Malay etc) is merely a derivative dialect of high regional variation. I am a little surprised you even made these basic mistakes for one who was allegedly fluent.

As for the UN Security Council resolutions, I also recommend that you check what the UN Security Council can actually pass resolutions for. It is not surprising that there seems to be a great deal directed towards a country which criminally occupies the land of others and is prone to invading their neighbours. The situations in Somalia and Dafur do not represent fifty years of disregard of international law.

Your random quotes, as usual, are grasping at straws and of marginal utility. Using the Weismann-Faisal is particularly amusing, because it was agreement for a Jewish homeland in Palestine; which is exactly what the "single state" solution argues for! Congratulations; you now support a single state solution!

Yes, the majority on both sides wanting a two state solution, and that may very well preceed a single-state solution, especially when it is realised when the Palestinian state of the Gaza strip and the "pastrami" of the West Bank is not viable..

You can be impressed with my qualifications when you've achieved a similar standard. ;-)

Danielle,

It is pointless arguing with Lev, he isn’t the type to be convinced by a better argument. He actually believes in dismantling all states and I suppose, one world gov’t. There is simply no place in policy discussions for such fantasy. It makes a LOT of sense to learn that Lev is a sociologist. I myself studied the social sciences for a couple of years before becoming an engineer. They are the MOST out of touch people you will ever meet. The whole PC movement was a social sciences initiative.

An equitable and peaceful solution to the conflict in Israel/Palestine will not emerge without compromise on both sides. However I am extremely doubtful the militant Palestinian groups are capable of any real comprise.

I am yet to see ANY evidence that Hamas would be capable of living peacefully, side by side with the Israelis, no matter what the solution. Certainly their ‘manifesto’ would seem to rule this out.

Many of the leftist supporters of the (Hamas backed) one state solution simply wouldn’t care if all the Israelis were driven out of a unified Palestine. Witness the complete lack of interest from the left as the white farmers were driven out of Zimbabwe.

The last refuge of a floundering leftie is to label you a racist. Lev actually labelled me fairly quickly, which surprised me. I thought he had a little more class. I was also amazed that he pulled you up for spelling errors, if in fact they actually were errors, when his posts are riddled with them.

Anyway, I have enjoyed reading your posts and strongly encourage you to continue.

Thank you for your kind words.

Paul,

Thank you yet again. As you say, it is impossible to engage in any rational discusion with Lev. His extreme immaturity and lack of reality beggars belief. I suspect he wears “superman” pyjamas to bed.

But far worst of all, he is a self-important bore, a bully and a braggard (unfoundedly so) - unforgiveable sins.

I am taking your advice and not responding to him in future. However, I have one last parting comment to him ...

Lev,

I am not at all impressed with your qualifications; many here have better.

You have an honours degree ... repeat ... an honours degree ...

In academia, Sociology, also known as “underwater knitting”, is identified as a “soft” discipline that requires no academic rigour, research skills nor forensic analysis; not even mental challenge. A colleague assumed a position at another university. She observed that members from that particular department were so feral, unpleasant, and aggressive, that they even fought over control of the tea-trolley. You demonstrably fall into this pathology.

I would suggest you show your OLO comments to your supervisor/s and get feedback ... assuming, of course, you have a supervisor or supervisors. You should definitely show these to an academic linguist if you are relying on your knowledge of this subject in any way.

Philosophers should be read in the original language where possible. German philosophy, particularly, needs to be read in the original; philosophical subtlies of meaning do not translate correctly into English.

Having no knowledge about computers, I asked my elderst son (who not only taught computer science at tertiary level, but also is a boffin in cutting edge technology in this field), what a systems administrator does.

I remain unimpressed with your qualifications

Paul,

Au contraire, the *only* thing I am convinced by is the better argument. I cannot be bribed, I cannot be bullied, and appeals to my nationality, my religion or whatever have no effect. The only validity of propositions I accept in this situation is the moral rightness of a law, and the effeciency of social system. To claim there is no place in policy discussions for world governance is certainly to miss the point, and in particular in this case. This is a topic that concerns universal human rights, international borders, multilateral agreements, international criminal law.

Suggesting racism in a person is not axiomatically an attack of aggresssion; it also have thereapeutic value; I noted you have a very similar attitude towards Arab Muslims as pro-apartheid supporters had towards blacks. I can only suggest you consider that proposition and consider what you have written in that context.

Dannielle,

It is rather tragic that when confronted with grounded reasons and empirical evidence you have had to resort to ad hominen responses and most extraordinarily irrelevant anaecdotes. Whilst you attack sociology (but not philosophy and politics, of course), it is most relevant here. The systematic study of social institutions, cultural norms, their contradictions and the results are requsite for any just solution in the Middle-East.

Perhaps the my comment on your relative feelings towards my qualifications was too subtle. To make it clearer; you can be impressed or unimpressed with them when you have reached a similar standard.

Good luck.

Paul,

I am wryly amused that, Lev, an adult - presumably - has resorted with the schoolyard challenge: "I'll show you mine, you show me yours."

Unlike you, and others OLO, who do not resort to such childish, indeed, distasteful behaviour - Lev has subjected readers to "his" ... ad nauseum. An embarrasment to all.

By his insisting on a comparison - the irony is not lost - Lev has demonstrated that his qualifications are not only anaemic, but also wanting, and inadequate.

As evidenced, we are not prepared to vent our own academic achievements needlessly, and in inappropriate ways. There is no place for this here ...

Whilst a curtain should be discreetly drawn over Lev's "show 'n' tell" - not exactly an embarrassment of riches - undoubtedly, he will respond, yet further confirming what we already know ...

Danielle,

It was not I who raised the issue of academic qualifications. That was you, on October 16. On November 14 you wanted to know the general faculty. So don't be such a princess when you get answers.

Other readers will go through this thread and they will read how you have either (a) confirmed that legal discrimination is widespread, not only the occupied territories but also the State of Israel itself and (b) that in lieu of providing criticism of facts you engage in ad hominen responses.

Hello Lev -
It's hard to distinguish between religion and culture when talking about Islam. Even Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently said she was Muslim, when she has rejected all the major tenets of the belief system of Islam - she is a product of the Islamic cultures in which she has lived, and so can call herself a Muslim.
Islam was invented at the time when forming a community meant claiming to belong to a deity - hence the cross-over between the religious and political sphere. A community must decide on its nature to establish its identity, and must choose how much it wants to enforce those decisions. Islam chose to enforce the decisions pretty hard - death to apostates, for example. Some other religions have made the similar choices, but the gradual secularisation of the last few centuries has cured all but Islam of its desire for political control.
It's this desire for political control that irks me, as it does the minority groups that have survived Islam's oppression for 1400 years.
Many things will seem morally repugnant in a war, but allowing the former oppressors to re-establish their oppression is certainly one I wish to avoid. And if all Muslim countries recognise Israel, how many of them insist on the right of return for the former oppressors of the jews (and others) in Palestine?

Hi Camo,

I disagree that it is particularly difficult to differentiate between religion and culture, and certainly the people of the various Malay cultures would disagree strongly.

There is certainly no surprise that a person could reject the major tenets of a faith and still be a member. Many Christians certainly fall into that category; as do many Jews. Why not Muslims? Sure to a fundamentalist the would be considered heretics of some brand or another, but that's just the nature of theological reasoning.

All this however, is quite moot. The total separation of religious edicts from civil laws the provision of equal rights (not "equal but different" or "equal but separate") for all nationalities etc is requisite for any modern state. Many fall below that threshold and in a manner of degrees; whenever an opportunity arises to support these just changes it should be supported.

All the best,

Lev

Hello Lev - Christianity has undergone both disestablishment and secularisation in the western world. So Christians might well be expected to have separated their religion from their expectation of political power.
Jews have had a much harder time - never having much control over the parcel of land they thought they owned. Scattered by the Romans as punishment for a series of uprisings, blamed by some of the gospel writers/ editors for killing their Jesus, and after scorning a new demand for prophethood from an Arabian named Muhammed, Jews find themselves scattered at the mercy of all the dominant groups they live amongst. Fighting back against all of this has been a cultural more than a religious phenomenon, but of course the creation of the state of Israel has attracted the religious at least as much as the secular.
As far as I can see, Islam hasn't reached any similar conclusion from its experience, particularly its experience of defeat. Nor has it gone through a process of disestablishment - Sharia is important, sometimes central, in all the various Muslim states around the world, regardless of whether these governments are Monarchies, Republics or Theocracies.
Christianity and Judaism have settled for political influence, resigned to being one group amongst many in the state in which they find themselves. Islam, by contrast, still seeks political control, even though that control is often neglected (and Indonesia is a good example). But every now and then, even in such states, Islam's claim to political control fires anew - the Achenese are finding this out now, much to the dismay of many of them.
A question remains - by what means do those Muslims who do not want any particular version of the Sharia forced on them resist the pressure from those who do wish to impose it? Desiring to live under Sharia is of principle importance in Muslim culture and theology: claiming to not want to live under Sharia law can bring a death sentence.
I do not wish to live under such a system, and support those others who do not wish to.

Lev, on one of your other points, and very pertinent to the conversation: many modern states fail the equality/ non-discriminatory test. None moreso than most of the various Islamic states in the Middle East, and particularly those which support the palestinians against Israel. As does the state envisaged by both Hammas and the PLO. The vision they project of a secular Palestine protecting the rights of all its inhabitants is a lie, to go by their statements made when they are amongst themselves. And how successful is the international community in protecting the rights of oppressed minorities in those countries supporting the palestinians? How successful do you think that same international community will be protecting Jews (and Christians) in an Islamic Palestine?
The project to establish a secular, jewish state in the homeland of the jews is a project worth supporting. It is a war, of national liberation, first against the nominally christian powers, now against the Islamic powers. The nominally christian powers have been conned into supporting the palestinians (with the exception of the US) and with the extent of Muslim immigration into Europe, may well find that policy very hard to reverse. Will the jews be sacrificed again? Will you find that abhorant?

Camo,

I have already stated my opinion on this matter on a number of times and your comments do not proffer any convincing arguments to the criteria established. i.e.,

The total separation of religious edicts from civil laws the provision of equal rights (not "equal but different" or "equal but separate") for all nationalities etc is requisite for any modern state. Many fall below that threshold and in a manner of degrees; whenever an opportunity arises to support these just changes it should be supported.

Naturally enough "failed states" includes the various states that impose Sharia law, the proposed unitary state by Hamas in Palestine, and to a lesser extent, the Jewish state of Israel. This has already been stated numerous times.

As I have already pointed out "The project to establish a secular, jewish state in the homeland of the jews" contains an explicit contradiction. You simply cannot have a Jewish state that is secular; you can however have a Jewish homeland in a secular state.

Whilst this remains a minority position in both Israel and in the occupied territories, it is the most consistent proposition and the only proposition that has the capacity to gain international acceptance from all others. Dr. Karmi erudite comments of the matter indicate the possibility of peace and unity.

Regards,

Lev

Lev,

You say >> “Whilst this remains a minority position in both Israel and in the occupied territories, it is the most consistent proposition and the only proposition that has the capacity to gain international acceptance from all others”

You fully acknowledge that the one state solution is highly unpopular with BOTH Israelis and Palestinians, so HOW on earth can you suggest it as a solution? The only way the situation will be resolved is by negotiation and that requires the consent of both parties. If neither party is interested in your proposal it is DEAD IN THE WATER.

BTW No-one else would care about the details of an Israeli-Palestinian settlement if both sides could agree on a solution. No international agreement is required, and they certainly don’t have to satisfy you and Dr Karmi.

Your ridiculous argument that you push for change where change has most likelihood of success means that 95% of the time you will be criticizing Israel, since the reforms you hope for have ABSOLUTELY no chance of being implemented in the Islamic states. For me this is a highly skewed idea and flies in the face of any semblance of equity or fairness. Surely our efforts at improving rights for citizens should be focused on those who are most abused. Your focus on those who aren’t as badly off, but are easier to help is a cop out of the highest order.

You say >> “The total separation of religious edicts from civil laws the provision of equal rights (not "equal but different" or "equal but separate") for all nationalities etc is requisite for any modern state.”

Can you tell me Lev why you are restricting your requirements to ‘modern states’? Shouldn’t all states be held to the same standard? Third world dictatorships included?

You surely must also recognize that the herd, seeing you always criticize Israel and never the Islamic dictatorships, will get the idea that Israel is a bigger human rights violator than Hamas or Syria or Saudi when that is clearly not the case.

Paul,

Just because a proposition has minority support that doesn't mean that either (a) it is wrong or (b) it is not viable. I am certain that with your knowledge of history you could think of a few instances where this has been the case.

As for your fairly tedious claim of skewing, perhaps you ought to consider the possibility - as I have suggested already - that the project of a Jewish homeland is very dear to me and I want it to succeed? The fact that I pay attention to it is because it is the most advanced nation in the region, the one with the best chance of
success and importantly, one whose policies we can influence.

Still, once again I suggest you write an article about Islamic states and get it published here; then I shall respond on that topic. As for you comment that I criticise only Israel and not the Islamic dictatorships, that is a falsehood even on the comments in this thread.

As for being requisite for any modern state, of course I would prefer all states to be modern. My point is that a state is being deceitful if it claims to be modern yet engages in discriminatory practises.

Lev - "you can have a jewish homeland in a secular state". Are you envisaging a ghetto-style homeland, modelled after the Amish in Pensilvania and elsewhere? Or are you envisaging a country where Jews do not find thenselves at the mercy of any dominent group? Even recently in Australia Jews were spoken about publicly in conspiratorial tones, and there was no public repudiation.
Jews are probably present in all secular states, but the impetus for a homeland knows only one focus - their traditional homeland.
And what has been going on in their traditional homeland for 1400 years?
My support for a state in Palestine which does not discriminate against Jews rests on the understanding of Islam's attitude towards Jews - that of murderous discrimination, most of the time, for the last 1400 years. Those building the present Jewish state had to remove the former government, and its supporting population, and succesfully oppose the establishment of the type of government envisaged by the neighbouring Muslim countries, to succeed.
In these circumstances, a state which discriminates in favour of Jews, and against their former oppressors, in this place overwhelmingly Muslims, was the only option available.
And until Islam accepts that it has no right to discriminate against Jews, Christians or anyone else, a homeland for Jews in their traditional homeland has to discriminate against Muslims. Returning the favour, until Islam's desire for oppressing has been removed. Permanently. In this case, Israel is a state which accepts all religions, including Islam, but refuses to allow any one religion to dictate laws - one can, for instance, buy pork in Israel quite openly, much to the annoyance of the ultra religious. It refuses, of course, Islam's demand for Sharia to be enforced. It is only a contradiction in that not all Jews are religious - some are athiests, but that hasn't stopped their oppressors from mass murder. In Israel, Jews should be the dominant group, to safeguard the interests of Jews against their former oppressors.
And have you heard about the expulsion of Christians from Islamic-controlled Bethlehem currently going on?

Camo,

I envisage a secular, democratic state where people of a particular religion can describe as 'home'. If a section of the religion want to live like the Amish, well good for them.

It is a matter of extraordinary historical inaccuracy to describe Islam's attitude towards Jews as being "murderous discrimination, most of the time, for the last 1400 years".

Your claim that Israel is a state which refuses to allow any one religion to dictate laws is demonstrably false, as this thread has already shown. As a trivial example, one cannot even have a civil marriage in Israel.

(nota bene: A person who claims that they are Jewish and an atheist is engaging in a contradiction; at best they should claim they have Jewish heritage and that they are an atheist).

Bethlehem? It seems to be more a matter of emigration and birth-rates than systematic expulsion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethlehem#Recent_events

Lev - thanks for the link to the wikipedia site, although you failed to mention that even that story talked more about some Muslim's effortd to impose sharia on the christians in Bethlehem, and use houses of christians to attack Israel from, as being prominent the reasons for christian emigration. I haven't had the opportunity to check my source for the reasons for the christian emigration from Palestinian-controlled Bethlehem, but when I find it, I'll let you know.
As to 'murderous intolerance for much of the last 1400 years', I'll stand by that claim. Just as some christian (and some athiest) writers in Europe in the 14th to 17 th centuries used Islam as a literary vehicle to expose abuses by the christian church, so Jews used Islam as a vehicle to expose and comment on antisemitism in Europe over much the same time. Both invented an Islam tolerant to their religion, and more tolerant than christian Europe.
Both were inventions, as can be shown by their almost complete lack of knowledge about Islam in the very pieces they wrote.
These impressions of a tolerant Islam have, although, been much more persistent than the actual articles, books and pamphlets have proved to be. But they are inventions - a writer's device used to throw light onto an otherwise featurless outlook.
Some Muslim rulers have at times been tolerant of, and even interested in, other religions, but this has been the exception, not the rule. The Muslim mobs have generally been worse, and have frequently forced rulers to be more intolerant then they might otherwise have liked.
Most Muslims are better than their religion would have them be, on most issues most of the time. This is just as well, as Islam as it is found in the Koran and the Hadith is a chaotic, puritanical fascism. The question remains: by what means do those Muslims who do not want anyone's particular view of Sharia forced upon them resist that force?

Camo,

You continue to claim, for example, that Islam had a 'murderous intolerance for much of the last 1400 years' against Jewish people. This is demonstrably untrue. I can only suggest that you start with The Jews of Islam (1984) by Middle-East historian Bernard Lewis. For a more specific context you could look at María Rosa Menocal's The Ornament of the World (2003) which explores "the golden age of Judiasm" under the Andulsian Caliphate, a period which saw the Islamic polymath Ibn-Rushd, also called "the father of secularism" and the Jewish polymath Moses Maimonides.

This is not to suggest that dhimmitude was a walk in the park. It does not suggest that Muslim pograms against Jews did not occur; 1066 in Granada stands out, as does 1465 in Fez. But even the most basic comparison with Christianity at the time (consider England 1189-90, west, central Europe 1348 and the tens of thousands massacred by Christian mobs in Spain in 1391) clearly indicates that the rule under the cross was often, indeed usually, worse than rule under the crescent.

You ask "by what means do those Muslims who do not want anyone's particular view of Sharia forced upon them resist that force?" There are many methods. The obvious one which is always applicable is through violent conflict. But more subtle means include interpretation of law; Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) can be quite subtle, inclusive and diverse - after it it was the Muslims of the Ottoman Empire who gave the Jews of Spain a haven after the persecution under the fundamentalist Muslims and their expulsion by the fundamentalist Christians.

Again, all of this history is quite moot, indeed quite useless for the discussion. The topic is not what happened in 1066 in Grenada or 1189 in York and London. The topic is whether all people are deserving of universal human rights regardless of nationality or religion. To the extent that any government does not is the extent that it should be opposed.

Lev - I notice you haven't returned to your wikipedia link article, yet it does talk about what is happening today, in Muslim-controlled Bethlehem, and which is indicative of Muslim relations with both christians and jews. Dhimmitude not a cake-walk? Dhimmitude is institutional inferiority, frequently abrogated by those who imposed it, condoning theft, assault and death.
And how effective have those Palestinians in Bethlehem, who do not want the christians to be forced to live under a religious ergime they have chosen to avoid, been in helping their christian neighbours in living the way they choose?
And the historical record is not moot - if Muslims have one thing, it is long memories. Events 1400 years ago are frequently referred to, both by populace and rulers alike, to justify or condemn present acts and attitudes. And this attitude is projected into the future - I'm told that the moderates in Hammas think it will take 500 years to overcome Israel, and be done mostly by immigration and demographics (now there's something we've heard before). That's why the right of return is so important, as both Israelis and Palestinians know what the result would be.
In a pefect world there would be no discrimination - a banal saying, but something that appears necessary to say. Because it was the far-from-perfect situation in which the Jews found themselves which drove them to found for themselves a homeland, which meant creating a state in which they dominated. Once Muslims accept that they do not have a right to dominate Palestine and those who live there, there won't be a need for a state dominated by Jews. But until that time, there is a need.
But in a perfect world the successors of the prophet may not have chosen to interpret a saying of muhammad as referring to Jerusalem, when it was far from clear what Muhammad was referring to.

Camo,

The passing comment in the Wikipedia article does not refer to any specific instance, and certainly not to any systematic attempt. Religious zealots appear everywhere and they harass people who are not the same as them; they can be condemned as a group regardless of what religion they belong to.

Yes, I am quite aware of the rules of dhimmi. I am also aware of Mishpatim rules for slavery. Both have no place in a liberal and democratic society.

It seems clear that you are prepared engage in collective discrimination against persons because of their nominal religion. In this matter you are on the same moral standard as the people you condemn.

Lev - I don't mind being on the same moral plane, because I'm aware of which side of the actual war I'm on.
To create a homeland for themselves, the Jews needed to create a country, and the only place was their traditional homeland. To do so, they had to oppose the major European powers (Britain sent Spitfires and pilots to Egypt to fight Israel - so much for Europe creating Israel of their WW2 guilt...) and the Muslim countries of the area, 5 of which declared war on Israel the day after it declared its existance.
The European countries are resigned to Israel's existance, even if they have been fooled into supporting the Palestinians. The Muslims, political elites and the mob (currently called the Arab street) remain oppose to Israel. As even Ayaan has said, "We prayed for the destruction of the Jews 5 times a day." And why do so many violent 'celebrations' of Muslims throughout the world include a call to the effect that Israel should be destroyed. And we could mention the current President of Iran here.
Unless and until Islam recognises that it has no right to rule the Jews in their traditional homeland, Israel will remain at war with Islam. It is a war of national liberation, against a former oppressor and its supporting population.
If you don't think this is 'compelling' would you mind responding to it directly?

Camo,

The fact that you are among those who consider this a religious war makes you part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Jews can have a homeland without having a state that is Jewish. Islam has no right to rule anyone without their consent.

These are basic requirements for democratic and secular state.

Lev,

>> Jews can have a homeland without having a state that is Jewish. Islam has no right to rule anyone without their consent

Can you not see the contradiction there Lev? It’s ok for Islam to rule someone with their consent? Is that what you’re saying? It’s OK for Muslim’s to have religious states. It’s not OK for the Jews.

Criticizing Israel for being a religious state in the Middle East is like singling out a politician for breaking a promise. Not only is it not news, it is highly unfair.

It is a neat but flawed argument that it’s ok to single out Israel because Israel is a democratic country and therefore should be held to higher standards. We should expect all states to be held to the same standard, regardless of their form of gov’t or religion

Paul,

If a person wishes to live under the rules of a particular religion that is entirely up to them. I made no such claim that it was OK for Muslim's to have religious states, or any other religion.

Criticism of Israel for imposing religious laws or engaging in ethno-religious discrimination is as justified as criticism of any state for doing the same. Indeed, at risk of repeating myself, Israel is far more secular than many of its neighbours in this regard.

However one inescapable truth is that it continues to occupy and fails to recognise the legal right of Palestinians to establish their own state, even though the Palestinian authorities and all neighbouring states have done the same to Israel. That remains a significant barrier to peace in the levant.

Lev - the problem is not that I think this is a religious war. The problem is that Islam regards Israel as an illegal state, and the recognition Muslim states afford Israel is conditional upon the right of return of Palestinians (overwhlemingly Muslim) displaced from Palestine. The strength of this can be seen by their holding the Palestinian population hostage in refugee camps, instead of granting them citizenship and letting them get on with their lives (Jordan being the exception, but then more Palestinians die in Jordan than in Israel most years).
To repeat, both the PLO and Hammas intend to impose sharia upon Israel when they can - that is, when they form a majority inside Israel. You know what this will mean for both christians and Jews (and others who aren't Muslim).
You can look at the experience of Jews and christians in Muslim countries right now. Is this an Israel you would prefer?

Camo,

It is nonsense to say that Islam regards Israel as an illegal state, because there is no authoritive organisation "Islam" which can make such a claim. However, every single State around Israel and the PLO (for the past 15 years) recognises the legal right of Israel to exist under UN security council resolution 242 and 338. Israel however constantly fails to recognise the legal right of Palestine to exist and is in consistent transgression of UN resolutions on the matter.

Hamas do wish to establish a Muslim state, and in that regard I utterly oppose them. I do, however, support their right to engage in military resistance against the criminal occupation of Palestine. Contrary to what you claim, the PLO certainly do not want to impose sharia upon Israel; they have always been a secular-nationalist body . This is very basic knowledge and I consider it remarkable to comment on these matters when you are evidently ignorant of these simple facts; it is simply beyond chutzpah to do so.

I do not want anyone, anywhere, to live under any racial or religious edicts enshrined in the laws of a State. As I already stated on November 30; "I envisage a secular, democratic state where people of a [should be 'any] particular religion can describe as 'home'". How often do I have to repeat this before it sinks in?

Lev - as far as I am aware, all the Muslim countries in the Middle East demand that the Palestinians displaced in the creation of Israel (and after each of the subsequent wars), and their descendents, be granted the right to return to Palestine, now Israel. This is the Muslims countries' interpretation of 'a just solution to the question of refugees' in the resolutions you point to, and overwhlemingly the interpretation adopted around the world - part of the con I have written about.
Two questions, then. Firstly, how long will it take for these refugees, and their descendents, overwhelmingly Muslim, to outnumber Jews in Israel?
Secondly, how safe do you think it would be to be a jew in a majority-Muslim Israel?
This is a pair of questions pertinent to your stated desire for a homeland for all people of all religions. (Sorry to paraphrase you - do clarify if necessary.)
As to my statements regarding the PLO, you can look to their behaviour in Lebanon, where they were so destabilising in their attempt to "Arabise" Lebanon (their code for Islamicise) they were kicked out.

I couldn't care less if Muslims outnumber Jews in Palestine or Israel. As long as it is a secular and democratic nation, the actually religion that its inhabitants choose simply doesn't matter; it'll be a private matter.

Lev,

Religion going to be a private affair in the middle east. Really? In what parallel reality are you living?

I know the one state solution fits your utopian fantasies but do you really believe it is a 'workable' solution?

Paul,

If you don't want to even try to establish a secular state you're ensured of failure.

The PLO was a secular-nationalist body, and there are plenty of secular-national citizens and residents of Israel. Don't write these people off.

Lev
>> If you don't want to even try to establish a secular state you're ensured of failure.The PLO was a secular-nationalist body, and there are plenty of secular-national citizens and residents of Israel. Don't write these people off.

The clear trend in Palestine and the rest of the middle east is that support is moving away from the secular organizations towards the rigidly Islamic. It is not realistic to argue that this has been caused by Bush’s unilateralism. It preceded that and will outlive his presidency as well.

The idea that religious states fail but secular states don’t is not realistic either. Generally political organizations that are familiar survive better than those that are not.

There is every chance of peace in a two state solution if both sides are willing to negotiate. Especially since the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians want their own state. States that have majority support will always last longer than those without.

The MAJOR failing of the ONE state solution is that only the Islamic extremists want it. What chances does such a one sided solution have of keeping the peace?

Paul,

You claim: "The MAJOR failing of the ONE state solution is that only the Islamic extremists want it."

Why do you make such demonstrably false statements, when a modicum of research proves otherwise?

Is Dr. Karmi a Islamic extremist? Am I an Islamic extremist? Is New York University's Tony Judt an Islamic extremist? Virginia Tilley (author of "The One-State Solution")? Ali Abunimah (author of "One Country")? The Israeli journalists Haim Hanegbi and Daniel Gavron? Former Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei? Meron Benvenisti, the former deputy mayor of Jerusalem?

If I may also repeat from my post of October 19, which you seem to have forgotten.

"... the proposal for one secular and democratic state is a minority one - but one with wide support. From the Orthodox Jews it is supported by Natueri Karta and the Satmar Hasidim groups. In Switzerland a group founded by a Palestinian lawyer has several hundred members, both Jews and Palestinians. In Jersualem there is Rabbis For Peace and the Emil Touma Institute. The Right of Return Coalition (Al-Awda) support the solution. There are groups advocating the position in the UK and the US, with the Greens adopting it in their platform. Even Qadhafi, with Libya just elected to the Security Council, supports the idea on the grounds "no other concept is capable of resolving the problem".

Please point out the Islamic extremists in the following list:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9134.shtml

Are all these people Islamic extremists as well?

I think you've made a very, very silly claim and it's time to wipe some egg from your face.

Lev - you might not care if Jews are outnumbered by Muslims in Israel but, I imagine that if such a result were to come to pass, your lack of caring may soon be replaced by something else. And your lack of caring is not going to protect those whose safety you seem rather blase about. A short question: what if those Muslims who came to dominate Israel were of the Hammas variety, rather than the PLO variety?
I agree with Paul that religion seems to be becoming more, not less, important in the region, and that Islam's inability to separate politics from religion makes this shift a political problem.
Even the Zoroastrians of Iran suffer under religious persecution, and they were supposed to be protected by dhimma too.

Camo, I have already mention numerous times in this thread that a precondition for a single-state is a secular and democratic political system. I do not support the sort of state that Hamas proposes. Please stop making me repeat myself, it just makes you look like you haven't done your research.

Lev

I'm so sorry. When I suggested that of the tens of millions of Jews and Palestinians only the Islamic extremists supported a one state solution I forgot to name the HANDFUL of cranks who aren't Islamic extremists.

I wasn't suggesting that Dr Karmi was an Islamic extremist. I wasn't counting her at all since I didn't have space to acknowledge every CRANK idea or group. Its just as valid to suggest that there are non Islamic extremists who want a one state solution because it will be easier for the aliens to visit. There is a holder of every bizarre idea somewhere. In the same vein you could deny that Australia has a “two party” democratic system, because OF COURSE that would be neglecting the What Women Want Party.

What you are neglecting to address is the fact that the “optimal” solution is almost never able to be implemented. The theoretically appropriate solution, in practice is totally absurd.

And that is where your solution fails. Without widespread support for a one state solution in BOTH Israel and Palestine it will NEVER work. What's worse is that you write off a workable solution which might be acceptable to the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians because it doesn’t fit your neat, utopian outlook.

Egg on my face? Coming from someone with a slim grip on reality that’s an interesting accusation.

Paul,

As per a previous post it is evident that it will never be implemented whilst people with a Cassandra-complex like yourself doom it to failure. You claim something is the "right theory", but refuse to even try it in practise - rather like a peasant who refused to adopt basic mathematics to measure their plots of land, favouring measuring sticks instead.

The reality is that the "one, secular, democratic state" idea is growing in popularity both in Israel and in Palestine and at a very rapid pace. If you were more aware of current events in the region you would know this. You would know that many of the leading Palestinian and Israeli intellectuals now support the idea and that it is advocated in their newspapers and journals. You would know that this year, the UN special envoy , Alvaro de Soto, from a leaked document acknowledged the widespread support that it now commands among Palestianians, Israeli Arabs, and among the Jewish left. You would be aware of Ehud Barak's comments on the matter: "... that [a] single state will have to be in the spirit of the 21st century: democratic, secular, one-man, one-vote. One-man, one-vote? Remind you of something? Yes. South Africa. And that's no accident. It's precisely their intention."

Former Israeli Prime Minister's discussing the option. Heads of state supporting it. Supported by leading academics, authors, religious figures and political activists across the two communities and internationally. It's a growing proposition; because good theory can, with the right will, lead to good practise..

As a result of your comments, I have just joined The Association for One Democratic State in Palestine - Israel.

PS: I think that egg is poached. ;-)

Its seems to me that it is those with a “pollyanna” complex are standing in the way of real progress.

I didn’t realize that keeping up to date with the “communist quaterly” and the “marxist weekly” meant you had your finger on the pulse on middle east issues.

>> You claim something is the "right theory", but refuse to even try it in practice

I’m not refusing to try it in practice. I’m suggesting to you that virtually no one concerned wants to try it in practice. What you call leading Israeli and Palestinian intellectuals; are they in fact doyens of the left? Ie irrelevant?

A germ could be considered to grow at a very fast pace if it increased by a cubic factor over a certain period. If there were only two to start with however, they’ve only increased their number by 6.

I am well aware of the support for a one state solution among Palestinians and Israeli arabs. If you honestly think it’s because they want to share power and live happily with the Jews then “Pollyanna” isn’t even close to being an accurate description.

You have totally misrepresented Ehud Baraks comments. He was talking about the failure of South Africa and the use, by the ANC, of the one man one vote concept to effectively dominate the political process.

>> demographic trends will redefine the Arab-Jewish population balance … by 2020 the balance is likely to be 60-40 in favour of the Arabs.
http://www.one-democratic-state.org/articles/khalidi.html

Do you honestly believe the Palestinians and Israeli-Arabs would support a one man one vote concept if it was the Jews who had superior numbers?

>>, I have just joined The Association for One Democratic State in Palestine - Israel

You think the egg is poached? I can see that you have finally let your fantasies take flight. Good for you. I wonder if you’re joining the “lets all hold hands and have puppies and then all the mean people will go away” party? I’m sue its membership is growing as well.

Once again Paul you collapse into the ethnic generalisation that "Palestinians are evil and can't be trusted". People used to say that about the blacks in South Africa as well; and even the Jews in Europe.

Lev,

Give it a rest.

Who won the recent Palestinian Authority legislative elections by a landslide? Could that be Hamas?

What is Hamas's policy towards Israel? Certainly not peace.

I don't think the Palestinians are evil. What I find absolutely incredible is the idea that after 50 years of conflict the two sides can live together under the effective control of the Palestinians. However it is hardly surprising that many Palestinians aren't averse to the idea.

I'm not surprised that soft lefters like you and Dr Karmi support the idea. Mao had a special place reserved for his 'useful idiots' of the western left. Seems Hamas has their own

Paul,

As already explained to you in this discussion, Hamas was formed as a direct result of the continuing military occupation of Gaza by Israel, and the latter's constant failure to recognise a Palestinian state or to abide by UN Security Council Resolutions of the same.

Anyone who has the capacity to understand another person's situation would understand why an organisation like Hamas would arise under the circumstances of this occupation. Those who lack the cognitive ability and can only understand their own sectional interests of course just one get this.

Let me rephrase what you just posted, with some substitution

"I don't think the blacks are evil. What I find absolutely incredible is the idea that after 50 years of conflict the two sides can live together under the effective control of the African National Congress. However it is hardly surprising that many blacks aren't averse to the idea."

One day the penny might drop.

PS: "Useful idiots" was purported to have been said by Lenin, not Mao. It receives mention in "They Never Said It: A Book of Fake
Quotes, Misquotes and Misleading Attributions". Once again, you're just making things up for pejorative purposes.

Lev,

Here was me thinking we were exchanging opinions.

>> As already explained to you in this discussion,

I found it astounding that you believe you have the wherewithawal to explain anything to anyone. You don’t explain anything to me. You don’t have the knowledge or the understanding. The best you can hope for is a rather ‘airy fairy’ rationalization of your bizarre and frankly ridiculous ideas. Your naïve suggestion that Hamas is merely an instrument for opposing the “occupation” misses the point entirely. Hamas is an end in itself. The reimposition of Sharia Law and the return of the Caliphate are real goals. Not a response to anything Israel has done. This is a phenomena which can be seen across the Islamic world.

The tired old leftist explanations are trotted out again. The formation of Al Qaeda is in response to imperialist aggression and the ensuing poverty and dispossession? Bullsh!t. Middle class boys who have never known want are becoming human bombs for Al Qaeda.

Hamas is part of a global movement in Islam towards rigid orthodoxy. The war against the west is only the preliminary step . It’s the catalyst for bringing the faithful back to the fold. Al Qaeda provoked the war with the west for exactly that reason.

Let me rephrase my own quote substituting Serbs and Kosovars, or Mugabe/Zanu PF and Rhodesians. Why not try Indonesians and East Timorese.

The reasons for the regular comparisons with South Africa are obvious and self serving. They don’t hold water.

As regards the “Useful idiots” all I can say is, if the shoe fits …

"I found it astounding that you believe you have the wherewithawal to explain anything to anyone."

I do expect them to remember things that have already been discussed.

"The best you can hope for is a rather ‘airy fairy’ rationalization of your bizarre and frankly ridiculous ideas."

Like universal human rights and the basic principles for establishing a democratic and secular social system? You can call them what you like. Frankly, you don't matter.

"Your naïve suggestion that Hamas is merely an instrument for opposing the “occupation” misses the point entirely."

No, the point is, as already explained, that Hamas will become a tiny minority if the conditions that gave rise to their existence were removed. Just like the rise of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan and all that follows. Bad foreign policy, bad funding decisions and bad results.

"The reasons for the regular comparisons with South Africa are obvious and self serving. They don’t hold water."

Except for the fact of hafrada.

"As regards the “Useful idiots” all I can say is, if the shoe fits …"

We once again discover your inability to acknowledge a mistake. That's the real idiocy.

Lev - if by research you mean that I don't read and remember all of your postings, then at least on the second count you are right. But I think I can sympathetically present your opinion:

You believe the most moral solution to the fact that (the mostly Jewish) Israelis and (the mostly Muslim) Palestinians wish to live in the same place is for them to live in the same secular nation. You also think that this solution is gaining support, but that a lack of support doesn't make it wrong, only more distant. If a secular state is established, and both Israelis and Palestinians allowed to live in it, then support for the ultra-religious of Palestinian (and Israeli) factions will diminish if not disappear. In the meantime, actions should be taken to support the secularisation of Israel (and the Palestinian Authority).

I think it is a very brave hope to say that with the secularisation of a state that Jews and Muslims, by far the majority religions in the proposed state, are supposed to live in, would mean that support for the ultra-religious of each religion would reduce.
It would seem there are enough Jews who wish to have a Jewish nation, as a refuge against the antisemitism Jews have experienced for 2000 years, at the hands of both christian, secular and Islamic nations.
It would also seem that there are quite enough Muslims who will never accept a Jewish state anywhere, but especially in the heart of an area they say should be ruled under their system. The insistance by the Muslim states on the right of return, along with the keeping of the Palestinians hostage in refugee camps, is proof enough of this.
It's only when Islam accepts that it doesn't have a right to dominate, and then Islamise, a Jewish homeland in the Middle East, that Israel will not be at war.

Camo,

I am amazed that you continue the claim "It's only when Islam accepts that it doesn't have a right to dominate, and then Islamise, a Jewish homeland in the Middle East, that Israel will not be at war."

Was it not pointed out to you just a few posts prior that it is a matter of trivial fact there is no authoritive organisation "Islam" which can make such a claim one way or another?

You set impossible criteria for the Muslims to reach and use it to justify Israel's transgressions of international law. Using your reasoning, the other nations of the Middle East should remain in conflict with Israel until "Jews accept that the do not have a right to etablish a border from the brook of the Nile, to the land of the Hittites to the banks of the Euphrates".

http://www.ahavat-israel.com/eretz/eimages/futurmap.gif

Lev - you ask for an authoritive Muslim organisation knowing, of course, that there is none. The Koran, and the hadith, however, remain as about as authoritative as you can get for Muslims, the former still believed as the literal word of God and the latter a hair's-breadth away.
So when the Koran states that all the world was originally Muslim, and that all governments have strayed from the path and need to be brought back, no-one need fear, should they? And when Koran and Hadith state that those states which succumbed to the Muslim armies at one point or other remain as "fawq" (sorry if my spelling is out) that is, booty for the Muslims and forever under their rule, none of those countries which have thrown off their Muslim oppressors need fear, should they? And of course Israel doesn't fall into either of these categories, does it?
One will hardly need any Islamic authority to reiterate this. Indeed, watch one trying to deny it. Watch the political elites of any Islamic country, and the Muslim mob, react to any attempt to allow Israel to remain a Jewish state, and refuse to re-submit to the Islamic rule the people of the region suffered for 1400 years.
Similarly, there is no Jewish which authoritatively states how big or small Israel should be, as you well know. The difference here is that there is no authoritative text upon which Jews attempt to rely upon to justify any claim. The area covered briefly by Solomon is not, as far as I know, used by any but the most right-wing to justify the Nile to Euphratese claim, and nowhere in authoritative Jewish texts does it say that these boundaries must be returned to. The number of jews who insist on such borders is vanishingly small, as far as I know.
By contrast, the number of Muslims who will tell you that Sharia should be the source of law in all of Palestine, and insist on the right of return of displaced palestinians and there descendents, is vast.

I hope all readers and posters on OLO, and on this thread in particular, have a good year ahead.

Camo and Paul,

The idea of a secular state as Lev proposes, whilst it sounds a "utopia" (albeit of sorts) could only be implemented with a draconian, totalitarian government and much bloodshed. Lev, himself, does not come across as at all peaceful to those who oppose his views. Undoubtedly he would argue that the "means (whatever these entail) justifies the ends". To him, peoples and their beliefs are mere cyphers. Perhaps Lev is looking with nostagic eyes to Communist Russia.

Even in so-called secular western states, the church has great influence in matters such as bio-ethics, and indeed elsewhere; ... and as we see, significant days in the Christian calendar are recognised with public holidays.

Is it possible to have a secular state with a Muslim populace ... ? Even in colonial administrated Malaya, public offices and utilites accommodated the special needs of Ramadan with working hours adapted to the onerus requirements of this fast. And Ramadan is the "benign" face of Islam ...

Both you and Paul present cogent and forceful reasons as to why a one-state solution would not work. Only those with the meanest intelligence could not see the inate logic of both your arguments.

Ultimately, however, Lev's opinions and those of his disparate and strange bedfellows, (which those of a cynical nature, might see as self-interested grand-standing) count for nought. Neither Israelis nor Palestinians want a one-state solution.

Thank you, Camo, for your kind wishes for 2008, and I add mine to yours, that Paul, and other OLO readers and posters have a very enjoyable festive season and a fulfilling year.

Camo,

It was you, not I, who has made appeals to "Islam" in a generic sense. It was I who pointed out this would require require an representative organisation on such a basis. Regardless of what Muslims may feel about the Koran, which is subject to significantly wider variation that you appear to be aware of, the fact still remains that you have made a requirement for peace that is unachievable. In other words, you're just not interested in a peaceful or just resolution.

Danille,

Apart from you're own imagination there is no evidence that a secular state would require a "draconian, totalitarian government and much bloodshed" for implementation. None whatsoever. As usual, you're just making it up as you go along; and for that reason you will remain irrelevant in public discourse for years to come.

Lev

>> No, the point is, as already explained, that Hamas will become a tiny minority if the conditions that gave rise to their existence were removed. Just like the rise of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan and all that follows. Bad foreign policy, bad funding decisions and bad results

A couple of points.

Just because you have written something down doesn’t make it a fact. I haven’t forgotten that you have previously argued that Hamas will become a tiny minority once the occupation goes away. I just don’t accept the logic.

It seems you are naïve enough to be suggesting that once the “occupation” goes away the support for the extremists will wane. Please explain then, the Taliban in Afghanistan. How is it that the Afghans got a more extreme gov’t after the end of the occupation?

Finally, I’ve got to add that if all of us are as irrelevant as you say, then what does that say about you for continuing this discourse.

Paul,

As already explained - and will be confirmed if you bother to research it - Hamas' existence was entirely predicated on the military occupation of Gaza and the failure of Israel to allow the formation of a Palestinian state. This should be indisputable.

I have not suggested that extremism simply disappears with occupation; I have specifically said that Hamas will disappear with the ending of the Israeli occupation.

Lev is ignorant of Hamas' charter: Whilst Hamas wants the obliteration of Israel, it also intends Sharia law to be honoured in every household: "Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day"

In the last couple of weeks, two NGOs appealed to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louis Arbour on the possible conflict between the 1948 Universal Declaration for Human Rights and the 1990 Cairo Declaration for Human Rights in Islam — with shari’a law as “the only source of reference” (articles 24 and 25).

Article 22 states: "Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah."

Their Appeal for a legal ruling was prompted by the message of the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, posted on the OIC website on Human Rights Day (December 10). It stated that the OIC was “considering the establishment of [an] independent permanent body to promote Human Rights in the [56] Member States in accordance with the provisions of the OIC Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam and to elaborate an OIC Islamic Charter on Human Rights.”

Danielle,

Contrary to your unsubstantiated claims, I am thoroughly aware of Hamas' charter, including the proposal to establish an Islamic state. Indeed, it was my second post in this thread (Oct 9) this I pointed this out. I may as well mention that I am also well aware of the Cairo Declaration and the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the differences between them. If you're going to contribute, please at least attempt to provide something that is new, interesting and relevant.

Lev,

You state: "... you will remain irrelevant in public discourse for years to come ... "

I found this extremely amusing as it is not my intention to influence public debate in any way. I have no doubts that people are intelligent enough to find out facts and draw conclusions for themselves. Everything I have stated can be verified - indeed much of it is online. What is not online, can be verified in archival material, which all universities would store.

I am not at all surprised that you cannot see the significance of the current appeal before the UNHC on Human Rights regarding the Cairo Declaration for Human Rights. I am even less surprised that you would not see the significance of this, indeed, of the OIC itself, for any secular Palestinian state.

You deny that there would be bloodshed in establishing a Palestinian secular state! How very naive - you forget the early days of secular, communist Russia. Look at what is happening in the Palestinian territories now. Israel is not the cause of Palestinian killing Palestinian. Lust for power is.

The Palestinians want their own separate state - and doubtless would want to administer it their own way - without meddling interference and pontification from outsiders. People of goodwill recognise this and wish them well. It is outrageous that outsiders start dictating how the internal affairs of states should be administered.

Many people support dissidents who are fighting against oppressive regimes. However, they do not tell these dissidents how their countries should be run. This is the nature of respect for self-determination of peoples, and of democracy.

Danielle,

Your interest in being influential in public debate is already evident in this thread. Your numerous errors and particularly your love of wild tangents are already recorded in this thread.

As yet another example, you now claim that I "deny that there would be bloodshed in establishing a Palestinian secular state!" and attempt to draw a correlation with communist Russia, because we all know that the conditions in the Slavic kingdom some four score years ago are identical to the occupied Palestinian territories today.

Perhaps you would care to cite where I have made such a claim? You won't be able to because it doesn't exist; you have simply engaging in a falsehood and if you have a modicum of moral decency and intellectual honesty you would admit this.

You also suggest that it is "outrageous that outsiders start dictating how the internal affairs of states should be administered". This is the sort of argument I expect from the Chinese government or the Uzbeki government. Unfortunately for such states, universal human rights transcends these borders, and yes, advocates will engage in this "outrage". As for self-determination, a modicum of research will show you that this is normally accorded to nations - not states. You appear to having trouble distinguishing between the two.

Lev,

You state: “there is no evidence that a secular state would require a ‘draconian, totalitarian government and much bloodshed’ for implementation. None whatsoever.”

You avert your eyes to what is currently occurring in the Palestinian territory. You can’t ignore this, nor glibbly pass it over as due to Israel. When Israel departed the Gaza strip, the terrorism - not only against Israel, but also among the Palestinians themselves - increased dramatically.

And yes, human rights do transcend borders. You don’t give credit to the many dissidents, intellectuals and writers who are exposing the horrors of their regimes, and seeking change. Those who write to governments asking for clemency for such dissidents (gaoled, even on death row), know that it does great damage to accuse these governments of human rights abuses.

Change must come from within. Palestinians want a state of their own - but a secular state ...? ... a secular one-state solution? Neither the Palestinians nor Israelis want this. But then people like you “know” what is “best” ... You believe change should be imposed from outside. You do not spell out “how,” of course. Lots of rhetoric, no substance. Curiously, where are you and your ilk placed in all of this?

When you are confronted with facts, your accusations of “making things up” ... (which may have served you as a bully in primary school), does not constitute adult debate. Indeed, I am sure others here also see it pointless engaging in discussion with you. You manifestly demonstrate such tunnel vision as to be completely oblivious to the wider issues.

Lev

Oh my god. I’ll leave Danielle to reply to your incredible arrogance, although the idea of you imagining yourself influencing public policy has me rolling on the floor laughing.

I’m not going to argue about Hamas’s formation. But the idea that Hamas future can be charted merely by recourse to its formation is a fundamentally flawed proposition. How is it you can’t grasp something so basic. It is childish and naïve to suggest that Hamas was born of the occupation and therefore will die in its absence.

>>I have specifically said that Hamas will disappear with the ending of the Israeli occupation.

Well I’m sure Hamas are quaking in their boots now that Leviathan Lev has passed this pronouncement on their fate.

Merry Christmas Danielle.
Paul

Danielle,

You quoted me: “there is no evidence that a secular state would require a ‘draconian, totalitarian government and much bloodshed’ for implementation.” This is different to your claim that I that I "deny that there would be bloodshed in establishing a Palestinian secular state!". Do you understand the difference? "Much bloodshed" and no bloodshed are very different.

Now you claim that I "You don’t give credit to the many dissidents, intellectuals and writers who are exposing the horrors of their regimes, and seeking change." Which is another a falsehood. I first joined Amnesty International twenty-five years ago and was very active against the governments of South Africa and Indonesia over human rights abuses.

What you call bullying (wipe your tears, princess) I call making a person justify their claims when shown to be demonstrably untrue. I am quite accepting of people who make mistakes but I don't like those who persist in presenting a falsehood as truth when it is pointed out to them.

Let's have a look at some of your comments.

"Israel, a Jewish state, is secular."

You can't work out the contradiction there, can you?

"The sole legal distinction between Arabs and other Israelis is that they are not required to serve in the army."

Apart from the differing rights to land, differing rights under the law of entry, differing citizenship acquisition rights, and different marriage laws - all of which you actually acknowledged and but claimed that they weren't really different legal distinctions.

"Their [Israel's] press/media ranks among #1 in the world for freedom of speech (Freedom House)".

When it actually ranked equal 59th in equal place with Greece, Fiji and Ghana, which you could never bring yourself to admit.

I'm only part-way through your posts in October, but this is enough for now.

Doubtless you can respond with countless links which do not address simply statements of fact in a pathetic attempt to cover up your own incompetence. Rather than address a proposition, you have continiously condemn the source, or the individual, or their membership to creeds or organisations.

Lev,

Freedom House have three categories of Freedom of the Press : “free”, “partly free”, and “not free”. Freedom House categorise Israel as having a “free” press - not “partly free”. See:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=362

How do you categorise “free”? ... Do you say a woman is xth pregnant.

Israel is a Jewish state, Western Europe is Christian ... etc. Australia identifies itself as a Christian country, as does the US. This application has been explained ad nauseum.

Legal distinctions between Arabs and other Israelis.

Apart from equal voting rights, equal rights to public welfare and services, equal rights to education at all levels, representation in the Knesset, both Hebrew and Arabic official languages, etc, etc, the rights to land are the same for both. The land leased by the Israeli government to all citizens is that owned by the government; and which was purchased from Arab landholders many years ago. Israel was administered on the Kibbutzim principle in its formation.

I still can’t understand your problem regarding marriage. Religious marriages, whatever the religion, are recognised in Israel; as we do in Australia. Israel has civil divorce for those who wish it, irrespective of religion. Admittedly, there is no civil marriage for anyone, not even for Jews. If a couple wish to get a civil marriage, they go offshore; however, this marriage is then recognised in Israel.

The law regarding entry rights are periodically evaluated according to the current threats to Israel. No person would expect their country to do otherwise. When Australia was at war, we had internment camps and very strict laws regarding entry; indeed what about our current asylum seekers? Israel has offered asylum to others; they were the first country to offer asylum to Muslims in the Balkan war. Palestinians who left their territories due to the current bloodshed occurring there have been accepted into Israel.

cont ...

I correct my the previous message, I intended to write:

“Legal distinctions between Jews and non-Jews”.

If mainstream Arabs want to be called up en bloc, they can request this, like other groups. Individually, they can volunteer for military service; have increasingly done so - and are accepted.

A member of Amnesty? You are aware an outsider can’t accuse a country of human rights abuses; you have to tread carefully. Other organisations spell this out, perhaps, more clearly, such as International PEN; IFEX COMMUNIQUE. Free Iran is administered by Iranians.

You really believe that ideologies can be imposed on a country from without ... or should be? History discredits this viewpoint.

You are computer literate - use this skill to research facts. It is odd you don’t want links. Everything I have stated is either online or in university archival material.

You state: “you have continiously (sic) condemn the source, or the individual, or their membership to creeds or organisations.”

I don’t condemn members of creeds. However, sources, individuals and/or organisations/creeds have to be open and accountable. To adopt whatever statement an individual or organisation makes, without checking their credibility, integrity, analysis of their background and history, their platform and agenda, is a recipe for disaster. In simplist terms, it could mean supporting dracula when calls are made for blood donations to the blood bank.

It is also academic research 101.

I am sure everyone here OLO (whether they agree with me or not) would agree on this principle. You don’t blindly follow “catch-cries” however appealing they seem, without investigation.

The one wise statement you made, was:

“What OLO writers approve or disapprove is irrelevant in this matter. They do not dictate the behaviour of the State of Israel. I am not caught up in this cause at all ...”

Paul,
A Happy Christmas to you and yours, and a great 2008. Thank you very much for your kind wishes and support. Trying to explain simple details to Lev is like trying to push a peanut up-hill with one’s nose ..

Paul,

Just for the record, I have irregular correspondence and a personal reference from a President and a Nobel Prize winner. The last time I wrote to said President, I recommended sweeping changes to their tax policy; within six months it was implemented in entirety, unique in the world. I also am in regular more correspondence with Federal and State Ministers and have worked for a large number of members of parliament and needless to say have engaged in the various appropriate policy committees.

Thus, it is true that I have a modicum of influence in these matters.

Hamas' existence is predicated on the situation that Palestinians find themselves in. Change the situation and Hamas' political support will likewise change. This stands in stark contradiction to Israel who, as we engage in this discussion, are engaging in military strikes in occupied Gaza. Do you think these actions will increase or reduce Hamas' support (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2231974,00.html)

Danielle,

This might help you; "pregnancy" is a binary condition. When judging press freedom, Freedom House aggregates a number of propositions into a continuum. Temperature also uses a contiuum, but is analogue state.

When you claim that Freedom House says that Israel is #1 in the world for press freedom and it is actually equal 59th, that it an errror on your part. When you refuse to admit that error, that is a lie.

Western Europe is not a state entity and Australia is a Christian state. It has a majority Christian population, but that does not make it a Christian state. Do you understand the difference? Israel, according do Basic Law, is a Jewish state and candidates cannot even stand for Parliament if they seek to change this.

I don't know how many times it must be pointed out to you but the rights to land are not the same. Both the prohibitions on the JNF, their land acquisition mthods, and the control they have over the ILA are surely evidence. The practical effects are well known (http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2005-12/08mouammar.cfm - I do like links - when they're relevant to a proposition!)

You are almost there with marriage, perhaps you will eventually admit that there are legal distinctions! Try it Danielle: write it down, heck say it to a mirror: "There are legal distinctions between Jews and non-Jews in Israel and the Occupied Territories" - it will be your first step in becoming a better person.

"You are aware an outsider can’t accuse a country of human rights abuses; you have to tread carefully."

WTF? One can certainly accuse and 'read carefully'!

"I don’t condemn members of creeds."

How did you write off Uzi Ornan's excellent on article, "The Art of Obfuscatory Formulation"? "it was written in 1991 by Uzi Ornan, supporter of the Cannanite movement.." As if that mattered!

Why do you persist with these lies?

Lev,

Freedom House states “free press”

The yellow press “Guardian” is not a credible paper.

Readers can judge for themselves about Uzi Oman and the Canaanite Movement if they go to wikipedia.

“... For a nation to genuinely arise in Palestine ... the youth must uncouple from Judaism, and form a Hebrew nation with its own unique identity. The birthplace and geographical coordinates of this nation is the Fertile Crescent...”

The ideas become even more strange ... the original Hebrew tongue ...?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanites_(movement)

By implication, ‘”uncoupling” would also mean Islam, which the Hebrew nation predated.

The article your cited by Uzi Oman was written in 1991, seventeen years ago ...

You write absolute tosh about Hamas. Why do they kill fellow Muslims? Why are their fellow Muslims trying to leave in droves? I can only surmise that you are engaging in some sort of bizarre political correctness to justify their murdering.

Christians and local violence?
Nablus' Christian community has decreased from 3,000 in the 1960s to 700; those remaining have gone underground. Four churches were firebombed 16 months ago (Christian Science Monitor)

Read:
“Israel, the hope of the Muslim World - Middle East News” from Asia Times Online
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK20Ak01.html

Regarding: zmag.org - what a singularly strange article ... A quote:

“Despite the expulsions, military occupations, curfews, unemployment, and all the ancillary hardships imposed by the Zionists to drive them out, there are now 5.3 million Palestinians to 5.2 million Jews, in the lands of Mandate Palestine”

Israel exists on 17% of the original mandate for Palestine. OLO writers have stated that Jewish settlements should be removed back from the Green Line.

As to the particular documents zmag provided from “Forward”, the “Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs” and “Haaretz” to “verify” their “facts”, when indeed checked, responded with: “page not found”.

The IMFA is an excellent source for information about Israel; problems are not understated; and facts are provided.
http://www.mfa.gov.il

cont ....

Condemn inumane regimes, yes! But go to these countries and condemn them, or write to these regimes in the same tempra ...?

Members of PEN international who write directly to presidents, supreme leaders, heads of judiciary, and other noteables, seeking clemency for dissidents, (and indeed other victims of “justice”), do not condemn these regimes in damning language (as much as one would like to), but express serious concern, ask details of the charges, and, if it be solely because the person exercised free expression, raise the issue of human rights and ask for their release.

The definition of “diplomacy” is telling someone to go to hell in such a way, that they look forward to the trip.

Do you think you can eradicate Iran’s horrific policies and abuses, such as the legal execution of little girls of 9 yrs old and of 12 yr old boys ( presuming of course you don’t agree with it)? I can provide you with personal addresses of Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, His Excellency Ayatollah Sayed 'Ali Khamenei; Head of the Judiciary, His Excellency Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroud; Minister of Intelligence Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejeie; and of the President, His Excellency Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I am sure they will give your condemnations their mortified and serious consideration. I have addresses of a whole raft of such people ...

As a member of Amnesty many years ago, I recall we were warned that writing-members could well be banned from entering certain countries. Apparently, certain regimes kept names ... One of my sons was banned from ever entering Indonesia. His crime: writing a thesis about their economy.

Again:

The only intelligent statement you made:

“What OLO writers approve or disapprove is irrelevant in this matter. They do not dictate the behaviour of the State of Israel. I am not caught up in this cause at all ...”

You are very free with calling people liars. This, or other childish and petulant name-calling is your bullying attempt to stifle adult debate. On the basis of your statement above ...? (Tactfully, I didn’t complete your statement ...)

Lev,
Freedom houses 1996 report considers Israel’s press “free”. That is its highest category. Israel’s neighbours almost all fall into the lowest category, “not free”, yet you spend almost all of your time online criticising Israel. Your justification for this is just pathetic.

>> Western Europe is not a state entity and Australia is a Christian state. It has a majority Christian population, but that does not make it a Christian state.

WTF? So is it a Christian state or not? Have you made a mistake or are you lying?

>> Hamas' existence is predicated on the situation that Palestinians find themselves in. Change the situation and Hamas' political support will likewise change.

The supreme arrogance that leads you to state your opinion as if it were fact is astounding. The only evidence you have ever offered to support your bizarre proposition is that Hamas came into existence because of the “occupation” and therefore will wither without it. Yet Gaza is no longer occupied. Has this lead to a drop in support for Hamas? The whole proposition is naive and based on the simplistic idea that if the situation which breeds an organisation disappears, the organisation itself will disappear. Continuing to pretend otherwise marks you as a liar by your own dubious logic.

If you are as important as you suggest, (BTW please provide details or keep the big noting to yourself) how do you find the time for your fatuous rants on OLO?

Lev,

I resent having to repeat myself to someone supposedly computer literate; I provided, and again provide, Freedomhouse’s website for their Country Report: go to: (2007) & (Israel)
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&country=7199&year=2007

It states:

Israel (2007)
Population: 7,200,000
Capital: Jerusalem
Political Rights Score: 1
Civil Liberties Score: 2
Status: Free

Scroll for Israel’s policies; read this. Undoubtedly you won’t when you find facts at complete variance with those you hold so dear.

Electoral Democracies
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=368&year=2007

Israel is listed here as an electoral democracy with no rating attached. No democracies are rated.

Freedom of the Press 2007 Survey Release
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=362

Charts and Graphs pdf
Israel is listed as a Free press, ranked #1 (Middle East & North Africa) with a rating of 29 - accounted by: - Legal Environment: 6, Political Environment: 13, Economic Environment: 10, Total Score: 29.

Australia is listed as a Free press, ranked # 39, with a rating of 21- (Legal Environment: 6, Political Environment: 9, Economic Environment: 6 Total Score: 21)

Overview Essay:
"... of 195 countries and territories assessed, 74 countries (38%) were rated Free (press); ... only 18% of the world’s population live in areas that have a Free press."

Draft Report pdf.
Israel (abstract): “Press freedom is generally respected in Israel, and the country features a vibrant media landscape. Journalists are occasionally subject to official restrictions, but an independent judiciary and an active civil society adequately protect the free media. ... A wide variety of newspapers, reflecting a broad range of political viewpoints and religious outlooks, is available... A diverse selection of broadcast media is also available... Internet access is widespread and available to approximate 50 percent, and it is not restricted by the government.”

Israel is not listed as #59 under any category. You patently have a serious problem with comprehension, are gullible, and not the sharpest knife in the drawer. It now appears that you deliberately falsify facts. Even I didn’t think you would do this. I have wasted time ... However, it is entirely my fault. I should have checked your statement before.

cont ...

Lev your write:

“Just for the record, I have irregular correspondence and a personal reference from a President and a Nobel Prize winner. The last time I wrote to said President, I recommended sweeping changes to their tax policy; within six months it was implemented in entirety, unique in the world. I also am in regular more correspondence with Federal and State Ministers and have worked for a large number of members of parliament and needless to say have engaged in the various appropriate policy committees.

Thus, it is true that I have a modicum of influence in these matters.”

Paul is entirely correct.

Unless you state the name of this president, and/or country, and the unique tax policies introduced - it is discounted as fact. You must admit, any “odd bod” can make unsubstantiated claims, and do so, on a whole range of issues.

If what you state is true, your billet et deux will have been recorded, drawn up into policy, presented to the House (whatever), and held in their governmental archives. Such material would substantiate you claims. You have no reason to feel "coy", unless you are supporting some undesirable. A number of OLO writers are activists, with information websites.

I am sure that the Australian government would publicly wish to acknowledge your contribution to international relations.

About your statement of regular correspondence to Federal and State Ministers, this is not questioned. Many politicians are inundated with correspondence (along with some unspeakable objects) on a range of issues. It is the nature of the correspondence that matters.

To be frank, your final comments:

“... have worked for a large number of members of parliament .....policy committees” is completely meaningless.

This could be anything - from cleaning offices to photocopying agendas.

If you are more forthcoming, I for one, would have no problem believing you.

Danielle,

It is a flaw of mine that I find people like yourself so fascinating. Why is it, when presented with clear and unambigious evidence, that Israel does not rank #1 for freedom of speech that you cannot bring yourself to admit that you got it wrong. Being in the first category is not the same as being #1 or even amongst the first. It isn't hard; just admit you got it wrong.

Why is that that you continue to attack, ad hominen, Uzi Oman's spiritual association (which I find myself having a great deal of sympathy with), rather than approaching the content of his propositions?

Why do you clutch as such straws such as an old link in an article when there is excellent archiving resources available?

Never mind; these questions are purely rhetorical and I do not expect you to answer them. How you expect to develop as a human being without allowing yourself to be capable of error is beyond me. But I'm sure you know, as you have all the answers, for all eternity.

Paul,

It is ridiculous speculation on your part to suggest that I "spend almost all of [my] time online criticising Israel". You have no idea what I spend almost all my time online doing. Believe me, this thread makes up well, virtually nothing.

With regard to my comment on Australia and Christianity, yes, I made a typo as the following sentence made clear. "It [Australia] has a majority Christian population, but that does not make it a Christian
state."

Danielle and Paul,

From 1997 to 2002 I worked for several members of the Victorian Parliament, concluding as a statewide officer for the Parliamentary Labor Party, leading to an opposition shadow minister to describe me as "a massively influential factional powerbroker" (somewhat of an exaggeration on his part) and Hansard notes me as an electorate officer for the Premier.

(cf., Hansard May 28, 2002)

From 2002 to 2003 I worked under Dr. Jose Ramos-Horta, Nobel Prize winner and now President of Timor-Leste.

Comments by Dr. José Ramos-Horta
http://www.levlafayette.com/ramos-horta.php

In 2006, in my capacity as President of Prosper Australia (formally known as the Henry George League), I recommended that he end all taxation on capital and labour and derive public income from natural resources alone. I also recommended that he put the suggestion to his economic advisors. I was pleased to discover then:

Ramos-Horta pushes for tax free Timor
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/30/1966522.htm

Anyway, this has been fun but I'll enter no more correspondence on this thread. It has gone way off-topic and I confess to me far more impressed by Dr. Karmi's presentation than those presented by your good selves. Have a happy new year.

Surely, Lev doesn’t expect anyone to indulge in any childish game of semantics, especially, as citations have been made directly from Freedom House ... and I couldn't even locate Israel #59.

Comments by Dr. José Ramos-Horta
http://www.levlafayette.com/ramos-horta.php

Certainly an apt reference to provide for someone setting up an efficient IT systems operation.

Ramos-Horta pushes for tax free Timor. (Does not support Lev's personal claim)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/30/1966522.htm

An online search found quite a number of “Lev Lafayette”; even “Dr Lev Lafayette”. He should receive congratulations ... The following article written by Lev in 2005, warns against the ugly face of Christian fundamentalism emerging in Australia - which, incidentally, I agree with. But fundamentalism does not emerge in a vacuum. Para#12 particularly of Lev’s article will not be lost on OLO readers.

"The decision by Labor came under significant criticism by parties such as the Greens and was the source of a great deal of internal division and loss of support within the party, which has hitherto been previously the source of significant reform for secular law reform." UHH OH ...
http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2005/72/lafayette.html

Apart from the “slip” in Lev’s article, I would suggest he ask non-Christians whether they consider Australia a Christian country. As another OLO writer wrote on a different topic, Australia inherited Christian culure, literature, arts, etc and traditions. Our laws are based on precedent, English Christian law; customary law is Christian, Our Head of State, to whom allegiance is given, is head of the Church of England. When Christianity has come in contact with non-Christian cultures, there has been, on occasion, an exchange even an adoption, but other cultures have never influenced Christiantiy in any way. Perhaps Lev is a proponent of the removal from academic curricula of any sign of “dead white males.”

cont ...

Just a couple of points in case Lev might be sneaking a peek. The laws in Israel have changed considerably since Uzi Oman burst into print (I question whether his facts were correct); I am certainly not going to research issues of that time ago when they are not relevant for today. Things move very quickly in that part of the world. A new law has just been passed in Israel further liberalising land-ownership for ALL.

If those of Lev's ilk are really concerned with the real policies and happenings of the Middle East, they should keep abreast of current events, and not seek out dubious and bizarre sources which conform to what they think things are ... or would like them to be ... to justify some unpleasant aspect in their personalities. There’s enough material available that can be verified on a number of different levels.

I am sure everyone, who might be still reading this OLO - if they have left because of tedium, I certainly would not blame them - will be offering great sighs of relief that this is now finished.