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.