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 ..