Keith supported the Iraq invasion. What was his concern for the Iraqi people? At best his judgement is wanting. His knowledge of ME peoples, politics, economics, religions, loyalties, tribal structures, mores etc. etc. is non-existent.

Israel/Palestinian politics, indeed international law, is completely beyond him.

Despite all evidence available, Keith repeatedly confirms he doesn’t understand international law; what constitutes an internationally recognised border, what constitutes an armistice line; indeed, what has occurred ... or, what is actually happening. Keith has no comprehension at all of these issues; not even at the most elemental level.

Keith has proven it is mentally impossible for someone like him to move beyond his level of “confirmation bias”.

Israel’s future and decisions are Israel’s alone.

The Palestinian people's future and decisions is theirs alone.

People of good-will wish them well.

Lev,

Israel does not occupy Gaza at present so please spare me the "they invaded the following year" line.

As for your contining calls for a secular, single-state solution, I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's highly unworkable in the short term. Your calls for equal rights for all groups are admirable but unrealistic. Do you honestly believe that a future Palestinian majority in a single-state would agree to protect the rights of the Jewish minority? I'd suggest that after 60 years of fighting the Israelis the Palestinians might feel like it was their turn to do a little bullying. In short, it would probably lead to the extermination of the Jewish population.

Keith,

"I had a good old laugh since you never ever acknowledge openly the problem with peace is Israel's resolve to continue it's occupation, supression and land stealing settlements."

Is that the same Israel that resolved to GIVE UP land in order to make peace with Egypt and Jordan? The fact is that Israel has and will return occupied territories in return for a GUARANTEE OF SECURITY from its neighbours - eg. Egypt and Jordan. Put simply, land in exchange for a guarantee of non-aggession. Israel will NOT give up land if doing so would mean that it faces an increased threat. It tried unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and got rockets in return.

Like you, I support the return of the West Bank to the Palestinians. However, you are naive in the extreme if you think that simply handing back the West Bank NOW would suddenly lead to peace. It would simply turn the West Bank into a launching pad for attacks on Israel, like Gaza is now. Hamas and other groups want all of Israel, not just the West Bank and Gaza. Until they give up that ambition and accept Israel there will be no peace.

Danielle,

As I suspected, you do not have even one fact against anything I have stated. You had the opportunity to disprove any of the factual propositions I stated, and you demonstrably failed to do so.

Instead you continue the racist assertion that hafrada is the necessary policy to keep the Jews and Muslims separated, with the latter dominating the former.

Contrary to these claims history does tell us that Jews and Muslims are quite capable of living in the same region; especially in secular democratic states. Every system of government, every law, every regulation is a form of social engineering; it's a matter of choosing the right one.

Spy,

Israel does not occupy Gaza in the same way that prison guards to do not occupy a prisoner's cell. They determine what goes in and out and they can invade anytime they want to. Again not one of the facts I have stated has shown to be incorrect.

Do I think that a single state should be introduced tomorrow? No, of course not. There is a transitional programme. It involves universalising human rights throughout the territories, gradually ending the legal codes that differentiate between ethno-religous groups. It means ending the programme of 'collective punishment' for individual transgressions.

Spy says:

"As for your continuing calls for a secular, single-state solution, I've said it before and I'll say it again - it's highly unworkable in the short term. Your calls for equal rights for all groups are admirable but unrealistic. Do you honestly believe that a future Palestinian majority in a single-state would agree to protect the rights of the Jewish minority? I'd suggest that after 60 years of fighting the Israelis the Palestinians might feel like it was their turn to do a little bullying. In short, it would probably lead to the extermination of the Jewish population."

I support a democratic and secular Palestine for all who want to live there. Why would Palestinians kill Jews? If the idea of a single state solution catches fire among the Palestinian and Jewish people, then that will not happen. I agree this idea of a single state is not going to happen in the short term, but then again when we look at seemingly entrenched positions and realities in history the truth appears to be that "all that is solid melts into air".

My own view is that this unifying idea of a democratic and secular Palestine will come out of workers' struggles in the region against their own dictatorships and bosses. (Such struggles could see a move beyond the medievalism of the various religions in the area and to a socialist alternative. And no, I am not advocating stalinism, which was the defeat of socialism.)

The apartheid regime in South Africa (a regime with eerie echoes in Israel/Palestine) represssed the majority for almost fifty years before it fell. There was no mass slaughter in reprisal.

Finally it was always predictable, but those of us who want to treat this subject seriously and who disagree with the legitimacy of Israel are inevitably branded anti-semitic. Oppositon to the ideology of Zionism is not anti-semitic. To call us anti-semites is an alternative to rational discussion and argument, something many on the Israeli or pro-Israeli right wish to avoid.

Danielle,

'The Palestinian people's future and decisions is theirs alone.'

Then how come their decision to elect an Hamas government wasn't successful.

Then how come the Palestiniasn people don't have their own state?

Then how come Israeli's are occupying their lands?

Then how come Israeli's are stealing their land.

Now who is suffering from an ability to 'move beyond (his) a level of “confirmation bias”.'

If you weren't so blatantly stupid I'd feel sorry for you.

Spy,

You see the problem now don't you?

The Israelis were forced into an agreement with Jordan and Egypt but no such situation exists with the Palestinians. So it becomes logical, after offers of security in exchange for a return to the pre-'67 borders that Israel is not doing anything to encourage trust and a settlement to the problem. Add to that, that even while peace negotiations are in process the Israelis continue to expand their illegal settlements on the West Bank and well, ... only a blind Ehud couldn't see whose actions show they are resolved to be against peace.

I fail to understand why you show trust in Jordan and Egypt to continue a peace but do not trust the Palestinians to undertake the same. Can you please explain why an unoccupied free Palestinian state wouldn't behave exactly as the free unoccupied Egyptians or Jordanians.

Falling back to the excuse of the threat to Israeli security, while accepting the workability of an enduring peace with Egypt and Jordan, implies you think an independant Palestinian state would be successful in invading and destroying Israel.

That spy would be patently beyond reality...don't you think?

Lev wrote:

"They determine what goes in and out and they can invade anytime they want to"

Yes, there are aspects which Israel continues to exercise control over. There are genuine security reasons for controlling a border with a neighbouring territory. These controls are tightened and loosened depending on the security situation. Links between the two have continued since the settlements were dismantled and the IDF was withdrawn. Israel continues to provide many basic necessities for Gaza - eg electricity - ironically, the same things Israel provides are then used to mount attacks against it.

Keith wrote:

"I fail to understand why you show trust in Jordan and Egypt to continue a peace but do not trust the Palestinians to undertake the same. Can you please explain why an unoccupied free Palestinian state wouldn't behave exactly as the free unoccupied Egyptians or Jordanians."

Yes, I'll explain. The Palestinians have Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa and other militant groups that are committed to Israel's destruction. Their goals have been stated on this forum and elsewhere many times before. They want more than Gaza and the West Bank, they want all of Israel. For them the occupation is not the issue. The issue is the presence of Jews and the state of Israel in the region.

Hamas et al would use an independent Palestinian state as a launching pad for attacks on Israel. This is exactly what they did with Gaza and what would happen with the West Bank if Israel withdrew now.

"implies you think an independant Palestinian state would be successful in invading and destroying Israel"

No, with their current capabilities militant groups lack the firepower to destroy Israel so I don't think this. But they would certainly have the ability to damage Israel and cause significant casualties.

Should Israel expose itself to this situation by withdrawing from the West Bank NOW? No. If militant groups recognise Israel and disarm then it's a different story. Israel will give land in return for security guarantees but no such guarantees exist at the moment.