".......pressure grew for the international recognition of a Jewish state - in 1948 Israel came into being......" (Quote:Relda)

Just like that?? You surely have to acknowledge that 'Israel came in to being' is a highly contentious issue. The land was already populated!

".......recognizing Israel's right to exist.....".(Quote:Relda)

And Palestine's.

"......Those, who in their loathing burst their spleen fail to recognize the institution of a half-century old secular authority....." (Quote:Relda)

The land was populated FAR longer then that 'half-century' you refer to.

And one more thing Relda;- it does little good to denigrate the intelligence of those who do not agree with your point of view. It is highly debatable WHO in their loathing burst their spleen!!

And surely it is a clear indication of what is causing the ongoing problems;...........the total incapacity to see things from both sides.

Marilyn, I responded to your claim that "Israel was not attacked by all the might of arab armies at any time in history." I presented facts about 3 wars. You chose to ignore those facts. Instead you went off on a tangent about Australia's complicity in the Holocaust - thereby failing to respond to the relevant issues.

You then went on to ignore or twist basic facts relating to the Israeli-Palestinian situation. No mention of the Jews' historical connection to the land (BTW, your link to the Haaretz article presents the opinion of a single historian whose area is 20th century France and Europe, not ancient history), no mention of the 1917 Balfour Declaration in which the British declared their commitment to the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in what was then Palestine.

The situation that has unfolded over the last 60 years is a tragedy for both Israelis and Palestinians. Both sides have legitimate claims to the land. Both sides have made mistakes.

Your approach to this complex issue is either intellectually dishonest or astonishingly ignorant.

Ginx,
Yes surely, it is rather contentious Israel promptly emerged as a functioning state and turn out to be, from the first, an enduring parliamentary democracy. There was no king, nor prince, nor aristocracy and no bishop; there wasn't a political system. However, they did constitute a coherent social entity - they were linguistically, culturally, religiously, and historically distinct. Perhaps of repugnence to others but this did enable them to maintain a separate national, cultural, religious and social identity. Their transition into sovereign statehood occured only through a straightforward need to survive. After WWII, the world rightly bound itself to this acknowledgement.

An important but often unacknowledged assistance to the creation of a Jewish State was provided by the Arab countries. Most of the Jewish populations that lived in these countries were expelled - this increased significantly the pressure aiming at the formation of the Jewish State. About half of the Jewish population of Israel now are Jews from Arab countries and their descendants.

Yes, two sides of the story do reveal, Jews should stop dreaming of returning to Hebron, where a Jewish community had lived on and off, for centuries, until the 1929 massacre; and Palestinians should stop dreaming of returning to Haifa or Jaffa, where their fathers and forefathers had lived prior to the 1948 war. Only such a pragmatic approach may lead to compromise, facilitating the emergence of a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel. The Israeli authorities must accept the legitimacy of a Palestinian State, and the Palestinian authorities must accept the legitimacy of the Israeli State.

Certainly, the Palestinian refugee problem was the result of the 1948-49 Arab-Israeli war, which followed the proclamation of the State of Israel in May 1948. Moral consistency dictates, Jewish people should strongly empathise with such a dispossessed and suffering humanity. One might also add, however, the "right of return" is a convenient slogan used by certain Palestinian politicians who wish to destroy the particular character of Israel and turn it into a second Palestinian State. This objective is morally wrong and practically unattainable

On no other subject are the boundaries of objective reporting more finely drawn than Israel. For more than thirty-five years (at least), Palestinians have been denied a right of return to their homes, in breach of numerous United Nations resolutions and international law.

In demanding Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, the Security Council used words strikingly similar to those that demanded Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait in 1990. When Iraq did not comply, it was attacked by an American-led coalition and Kuwait was liberated.

When Israel has not complied, it has received increased western, principally American, economic and military support.

With honourable exceptions, events in Palestine are reporterd in the WEst in terms of two warring rivals, not as the oppression of an illegal occupier and the resistance of the occupied. The Israeli regime continues to set the international news agenda. Israelis are
'murdered by terrorists,' while Palestinians are 'left dead' after a
'clash with security forces.'

Distinction is rarely made between a huge, nuclear-armed military force with tanks, fighter jets and helicopter gunships, and crowds of youths with slingshots. (The suicide bombers are a relatively recent phenomenon, the product mostly of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, which left 17,500 dead).

The BBC refers to Israel's policy of assassination as 'targeted killing,' the euphemism used by Israeli spokesmen. It is rarely reported that of the hundreds killed and thousands wounded, 90 percent have been Palestinian civilians, 45 per cent have been under eighteen, and 60 per cent were shot while in their homes, schools, and workplaces.

JamesH, I think you'd be better linking to serious news sites if you want to be taken seriously. The al-Durra case is obviously problematic, but I'd prefer to look here:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1159193481133&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
or here http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/07/video07_ed3_.php
or even here http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/959836.html

None of these support your contention that this was a "media staged event", the argument is over the veracity of the original news report and whether it was IDF or Palestinian fire that killed the child.

Completely off topic I know, but its interesting to note that Melanie Phillips is a defender of the teaching of "Creation Science" in schools http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/000756.html And nice to see how reasoned and measured her tone is. "Illiberal secularist missionaries", "height of arrogance", "secularism has infested our National Curriculum" etc etc. I guess this shows what a credible source she is, eh?

Foxy,

Firstly, Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza and four settlements in the West Bank in 2005. How on earth you missed that I do not know. Israel’s reward was Hamas stepping up their rocket attacks on Israeli cities. Hamas has given Israel every indication that such concessions will only lead to renewed violence. Hamas treats these acts as acts of weakness and uses them to spur on their fighters towards their ultimate goal of one, Hamas led, Palestine, extinguishing Israel altogether.

Secondly you say “The suicide bombers are a relatively recent phenomenon, the product mostly of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon”

I am sure you are talking about the most recent war when Lebanese Hezbollah militia, strongly backed by the Iranian lunatics, staged incursions into Israel, rocketed Israeli cities and kidnapped Israeli soldiers. But suicide bombings were at their highest before this second Lebanon war and have declined ever since, which you would know if you bothered to check.

Thirdly the figure for Palestinian civilian casualties as a percentage of total deaths is under 50%. That number for Israelis is 70%. That is 70% of Israelis killed by Palestinians are civilians. Next time, quote a source for your outlandish figures rather than just making them up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Intifada_deaths.gif

Passy,

Anyone who uses the term Zionist as frequently and as broadly as you is an anti-semite. If the hat fits…

Why am I not surprised that you would pretend that Palestinians don’t really care about the “kill all the jews” paragraph in the Hamas charter. Institutional racism is an Arabic muslim birthright. Have a look at the Arabic textbooks the Saudis give to Arab countries for free. But you ‘think’ Palestinians aren’t interested in these things. I have read the Hamas Charter as I am sure many Palestinians have done. Who are you to suggest that they don’t really mean it?

Benny Morris ( a ‘New Historian’ himself) had this to say about Ilan Pape work “Pappe’s book was "truly appalling," subjugated history to political ideology, and "contained errors of a quantity and a quality that are not found in serious historiography”