A simplistic view but right on the money. I have puzzled a long time over where the so-called 'Palestinian Arabs' came from. Why wouldn't the Arab countries accept back the Arabs living in Israel at the time of its creation? No doubt that political reasons underpinned, and still underpin, this. Also, one needs to ask, what was Britain's role in all this? And the purpose for Britain's actions. But then you have a whole other story....

There is increasing evidence that Israel is being blamed for the woes of the middle east when in fact the blame lies elsewhere. It is even being touted that Israel is to blame for the rise in oil prices even though Israel is one of the few middle eastern countries that does not have oil. The fact that it even made the news in the outside world though is very telling. One needs to examine further the claims made against Israel. Unfortunately few do.

Bren Carlill,

Oh, I see the present state of misery of the Palestinians is all their fault,really?Your historical excursion is irrelevant to the an ethical analysis of the present situation, human history is a record of migrations,invasions and conquests. Many of the present Palestinian population could probably trace their ancestry to the Bronze Age inhabitants of the area.The murderous behaviour of some Palestinians doesn't negate their claims to their farms,houses and businesses. Why do the settlements expand? Claims as to ethnic/religious primacy as a justification for Israel's expansion are morally valueless. Finally, to deal with the anticipated riposte, I support Israel's right to exist and favour a two state solution.

Mac is absolutely right when he states that "human history is a record of migrations,invasions and conquests". The end of WWII presaged an extraordinary level of migration and ethnic cleansing in much of Europe (described in Tony Judt's book Postwar); amazingly and fortunately, this was conveniently forgotten thereby allowing the most extraordinary period of peace to break out in what had hitherto been a continent of heavy conflict.

The problem in the Middle East though is that, by the insistence of Palestinian refugees of their right to return, they are not allowing themselves (or being allowed to) move on. As Bren Carlill points out, the Jewish refugees from neighbouring countries lost their homes, their livelihoods and their histories when they were forced out by the Arabs, but rather than wallowing in misery and a sense of entitlement, they have built new lives for themselves in their new homes (including many in Israel).

The real villains are the neighbouring Arab countries who have kept the displaced Palestinians living in misery in refugee camps for over 60 years so as to use them as a propaganda tool in their desire to see the destruction of Israel.

The author says:

"The Palestinian refugee crisis occurred because of the actions of Palestinian and other Arab fighters. ... Instead of fighting, many fled well before the war reached them. They locked their front doors and left, expecting to return a couple of weeks later, once the land was free of Jews"

What contorted reasoning is this? Supposing they were to blame for the fact that they weren't in their homes for those two weeks. What stopped them returning to their homes? The cause of the refugee crisis now (and for the last 59 years) is that they haven't been allowed to return to their homes.

"to leave refugees suffering needlessly is immoral"

Indeed it is. And the primary responsibility to admit them lies with the country where their homes are, where they were living before the "crisis" was brought about.

AMAZING.. almost David Copperfield-ish from MAC.....

Mac says:

<<Your historical excursion is irrelevant to the an ethical analysis of the present situation>>

Hmmmmm...Palestinians are in a terrible state.. so..nothing to do with history..nah.

<<human history is a record of migrations,invasions and conquests.>>

Oh wait.. IT IS to do with history..and here MAC is saying that this kind of thing happens all the time.. and presumably therefore is 'par for the course.

Well said Mac.. so the invasion of the area in the 7th century by Omar and his hoardes...(and the subsequent dismantling of Christianity and Judaism)

and the Crusades in the 12th ish century.. and the invasion of the Israelis in 1948.... its all just par for the course..

So....obvious question... why so fixated now on the Palestinians?

On the one hand you say "This is life, this is how it works" and then you say "Oh but wait.. THIS poor invaded mob deserve special treatment.

Do you have any compassion for the many 10s of 1000s of Jews exiled from the surrounding Arab Countries?

It seems to me that:

1948... Jews exiled, hunted out of Arab lands.
1948... Arabs depart Palestine from areas occupied by invading Jews.

Seems like one equals the other to me.

The Jews who were driven/hunted out are doing fine... so why can the Palestinians not? aaah..THAT is the question.

If they resigned themselves to your good advice "history is the record of invasions migrations etc"...then why don't they just get on with what every OTHER group has had to do.. build new lives?

Perhaps you want to reverse history JUST for the Palestinians, but NOT for the Jews? What about we white pella's in Australia.. do you want to reverse it here too? of not, WHY not?

There was no such country called 'Australia' before 1770 when it was 'discovered' by Capt James Cook.
I feel sure the Indigenous inhabitants did not think it was lost .

The fact that they believed they owned it by virtue of their presence is recognised today by legal opinions such as the Mabo decision and the Land Rights process that is continuing where the claimants need to prove their attachment to the land

And so it was with the people who now call themselves 'Palestinians'

Your argument may be historically factual but it is nontheless spurious in the light of the human misery that is the daily lives of modern day middle eastern Arabs.

Bear in mind that until the 1948 decision of the UN, there was no such Country as Israel

If it wasn't for the strategic aspirations of the USA and their support for the Israeli presence including arming them with modern nuclear weapons, the matter would have been resolved by now.
The solution is not separate states. The solution is to be found in clipping the wings of the Zionists and paving the way for the people of the area; Jews and Arabs in establishing a secular state.

BOAZ David,

No,you have misunderstood, my reference to an "historical excursion" was the attempt to use the fact that, because some ethnic or religious group lived in an area in the past their "descendants" have a right "to return", this doctrine is chauvinistic nonsense and is the last refuge of those uncritical supporters of Israel.So, some Palestinians committed atrocities,or behaved treacherously, that does not transform an entire people into sub -human status and justify daily theft of their land.

The author builds an unassailable castle of facts that there were no Palestinian people as a NATIONAL entity. And it’s the intransigence of the Arab leadership, emanating from their Muslim pride that will not allow them to admit that the Arab Goliath was defeated by the contemporary David in three successive wars, that is the cause of the tragedy of the Palestinian people. The Jews are not the cause of the latter as they themselves are in the tragic condition of defending their existence as a people against the suicidal fanatic hordes of Islam.

http://kotzabasis2.wordpress.com

In response to Bren Carlill's argument that Zionist leaders accepted the UN Partition plan of 1947 but Palestinian Arab leaders didn't, it's worth noting that:

- the website www.palestineremembered.com, which details the issue of Palestinian Arab refugees, demonstrates that Zionist leaders only accepted the 1947 Partition Plan not as a final agreement but instead as a means to an end. The end being the eventual takeover of all of Palestine. You can find the information at www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story448.html

- In the aftermath of the 1947/1948 Arab-Israeli war, Israel ended up with 78 per cent of British-mandated Palestine. This was more than they were offered by the UN Partition Plan of 1947.

In response to Carlill's claim that Arab armies, and not Israel, are responsible for the Palestinian Arab refugee issue, I beg to differ. It was the Zionist terrorist organisations, such as Irgun Zvai Leumi, the Stern Gang and Haganah, who committed massacres and rapes of Palestinian Arabs that are responsible for the Palestinian Arab refugee exodus. Also, regardless of what caused the exodus, it doesn't justify stealing all of the Palestinian Arabs' property and not allowing them to return.

In regards to Bren Carlill's claim that Israel offered the Palestinian Arabs a state of their own in 2000 and 2001, if Carlill is referring to Ehud Barak's Camp David offer, then Carlill is lying.
According to Israel peace organisation Gush Shalom, Barak's proposal would have

- annexed 69 West Bank settlements, comprising ten per cent of the Occcupied Palestinian Territories, to Israel

- placed a further ten per cent of the Occupied Palestinian Territories under "temporary Israeli control" (read: under Israeli control indefinitely)

- cause the remaining Palestinian Arab areas to be briken up by Israeli bypas roads and checkpoints

- relinquish control of the Palestinian Arab land most essential for trade and tourism development to Israel.

In response to Carlill's claim that Israel has offered the Occupied Palestinian Territories back in return for peace, then what are the Israeli settlements for

"Bren Carlill is a writer and policy analyst at the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council" Probably enough said there, I guess, but I will add just a few points to refute Bren's apparent claim of universal Jewish moderation and fairness.

Jewish terrorists were very active prior to Israel's creation. Terrorism activities were carried out by Irgun, Hagannah and the Stern Gang, and included hanging two captured British soldiers.

Israelis are wont to make ridiculous claims that the Jews own Israel because God gave it to them. Should the Palestinians have to pay the price of Western guilt about WWII atrocities committed against Jews?

Twaddle.

This article (?) is no more than tired old SPIN based on SELECTIVE use of the facts that appears in pro Israel discussions and on web sites for years. (It is misleading and yes a myth)
I have no desire to enter into a pointless debate with such biased individuals.
I do however in feign hope suggest you start reading history from the start of the 20th century for perspective Lord Lloyd George, the Jewish Movement and their political motives for WW1.
Remember the land was not Terra Nullius.
What the people called themselves then is irrelevant. Dispossession, intimidation and land seizure by force by any other name still stinks. Many Palestinians still have deeds to land in Israel from the Brits.
Consider if the Africans decided to claim say WA on the grounds of the original owners were Black and they have a historic affinity with the Aborigines’ shamanism. Are you telling me “Australians” who were supplanted Anglo Saxon wouldn’t respond shall we say uncharitably at being dispossessed (even after 200 odd years)? Least of all in the name of some highly debatable “religious claim“, language and or cultural grounds!
Yes English invasion was immoral illegal but what counts now is what Australian do about it. Our shameful actions DON’T absolve Israel’s.
As for inhuman bit, please.
No one is seriously saying that the Jews should leave what was Israel pre 67 only that it stop its intransigence in seeking a real peace with the Arabs. Those that are in the word of an old wisdom “Israel made the bed it’s their job to smooth the wrinkles”. Its military actions were and are inflammatory, morally dubious and humanistically obscene.
In reality USA’s ego, Israel’s paranoia and 60 yrs of Palestinian resentment are driving the problem.
Group punishment doesn’t work the colosseum and gas chambers proved that.
PS don’t bother responding I won’t be reading it.
In the interest of total disclosure: My daughter is a practicing Jew….me I ‘m a Secular Humanist.

Rod

I am sure that Count Folke Bernadotte would have disagreed with the article right up to his old age, ah, that's right, he was assassinated in 1948 because he attempted to have a neutral stance on the issue.

This article is just another: 'a land without people waiting for a people without land' justification....

Maracas

>>” The fact that they believed they owned it by virtue of their presence is recognised today by legal opinions such as the Mabo decision and the Land Rights process”

What you have not acknowledged is that ownership is only granted over land which is not residentially occupied and there is further uncertainty over pastoral and mining leases. I think it is safe to assume that you aren’t going to give your backyard to the local descendants of the areas aborigines.

You are a hypocrite, or do you really believe, given your position on Israel, that you are not living on someone else’s land?

>>” Bear in mind that until the 1948 decision of the UN, there was no such Country as Israel”

Bear in mind that there was no country called Palestine either.

>>” If it wasn't for …the USA and their support …the matter would have been resolved by now.”

This is the most absurd nonsense. Do you think that Mig jets, AK47’s and t-54 tanks are Arab in origin? Who do you think armed the Arab armies? The Soviets poured in almost as much money as the Americans.

The Israelis didn’t have nukes until after the Six day war and have never threatened to use them so I wonder how it is you think they have made a difference? The only difference they have made is to prevent their neighbours from getting the idea that they could wipe out Israel at no cost to themselves. Indeed only recently Iran paraded their new shahab3 missiles draped in a banner reading “wipe Israel off the map”. The Shahab 3 is nuclear ready and can reach most of Western Europe and all of Israel

The matter would have been resolved? What you really mean is that all Jews would have been driven out of the Middle East.

I challenge you to read the Hamas charter. They call for no treaty/peace with the Jews and push for the total expulsion of all Jews from the Middle East. They believe that the Koran demands this of them as a sacred duty.

Fungus,

Palestine facts reports that the details were not disclosed formally, but according to media reports Barak's offer included:

• Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip
• The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal
• The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control
• Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control
• Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=8212
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2000/7/Trilateral%20Statement%20on%20the%20Middle%20East%20Peace%20Summ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

The Palestinians didn’t produce a counter offer. Their response was to launch the intifada, murdering men, women and children in restaurants and school buses by the hundreds.

The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit. Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority. Clinton wrote that Arafat once complimented Clinton by telling him, "You are a great man." Clinton responded, "I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you made me one.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

Alan Dershowitz said that the failure of the negotiations was due to "the refusal of the Palestinians and Arafat to give up the right of return. That was the sticking point. It wasn't Jerusalem. It wasn't borders. It was the right of return. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

Barak offered Arafat 91% of the West Bank, and all the Gaza Strip, with Palestinian control over Eastern Jerusalem as the capital of the new Palestinian state; in addition, all refugees could apply for compensation of property from an international fund. But before any gradual Israeli withdrawal, all Palestinian terrorist infrastructures must be dismantled. Arafat, however, refused. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

All but a couple of the very large (30,000+ people) settlements would have been dismantled and a one for one land swap of unoccupied Israeli land in compensation for these remaining settlements was an option.

Paul L

I said what I mean in my post.....Not what you think I meant.
I understand Land Rights. It was never about claiming anyones freehold land , residential or otherwise. It was about VACANT CROWN LAND.
Go back and read my post again and do try to comprehend what I said. Don't put your own interpretation on it. I never intimated driving out the jews. read my last line.

Your post was another zionist spin trying to defend the indefensible. As I said in my final sentence; the issue will be resolved by the Jews and Arabs WHO LIVE THERE.

The future of any democracy there relies on the establishment of a secular state with equal rights of Jews and Arabs.

The more a position is defended the less credible it appears and so it is with this cherry-picking effort. With any luck it'll get around a hundred responses.

Oh I DO wish someone would address the issue of the occupied territories.

FACTS... are annoying, when the disprove our own sentimentally held positions....

<<It was the Zionist terrorist organisations, such as Irgun Zvai Leumi, the Stern Gang and Haganah, who committed massacres and rapes of Palestinian Arabs that are responsible for the Palestinian Arab refugee exodus.>> FUNGUS.

But Fungy...

HEBRON MASSACRE of Jews by Arabs in 1929

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/hebron29.html

<<For some time, the 800 Jews in Hebron lived in peace with their tens of thousands of Arab neighbors. But on the night of August 23, 1929, the tension simmering within this cauldron of nationalities bubbled over, and for 3 days, Hebron turned into a city of terror and murder. By the time the massacres ended, 67 Jews lay dead and the survivors were relocated to Jerusalem, leaving Hebron barren of Jews for the first time in hundreds of years.>>

'balance' old son.

I honestly don't think either side can claim 'squeaky clean' or even mildly so, on a human level. They all share a fallen nature with us.

So, I don't see how we are in any way qualified to judge Israel when we ourselves live on 'stolen land'

Does this occur to Mac, Fungus and others?

If not..why not?

I'm absolutely certain that our efforts here will totally change the situation and bring in 'World Peace' within the next 10 minutes, but then, again..maybe I'm a dreamer :)

I guess it makes us feel better 'batting' for whoever we feel is the underdog... so maybe our efforts here are selfish?

maracas

"The future of any democracy there relies on the establishment of a secular state with equal rights of Jews and Arabs."

But with a few exceptions that is already there. In Israel the Arabs are equal, they have a right to vote, members of Parliament and a Cabinet Minister, they graduate from Israeli Universities, they even have been seen wearing head scarves when they receive their PhD. The Muslim Arabs may enter the IDF or have the right to refuse, as have some Jews. The Druze and I believe Christian Arabs have compulsory military service, that is their communities choice.

What more do you want from Israel? What countries do better? As a third generation Jewish Australian and an agnostic I find certain laws forced on me here are basically Christian and an annoyance, but nowhere is perfect. Where else in the ME are Jews and Christians given the same rights and opportunities as the Muslims? No criticism of Islam intended but what ME administrations have ever shown our idea of democracy other than Israel?

You will probably bring up the law of return, all the democracies have restricted immigration and preferential treatment, remember, the popularity of that view saved a government from losing an election in this country. Do you expect Israel to maintain higher standards than your own country, if so why?

According to Israeli writer Uri Avnery, in regards to Barak's offer at Camp David:

- The claim of Barak offering Arafat 92% of the West Bank "does not include the territories of East Jerusalem ... nor the Jordan valley ... Altogether, Palestinians believed that the real proposed annexation was closer to 20 per cent"

- "The settlement blocs that Barak wanted to annex to Israel are like daggers tearing into the flesh of the future Palestinian state, cutting it up into what could easily be turned into disconnected enclaves"

- The territory swaps proposed by Barak would be on a 9 to 1 balance in Israel's favour

- "The Arab parts of East Jerusalem with Barak agreed to transfer to Palestinian sovereignty were outlying suburbs while the central Arab neighbourhoods were accorded only 'functional authority' under Israeli autonomy"

- "Palestinians were granted only 'guardianship' over the compounds of the holy mosques, which meant that Israel would retain sovereignty

- Ehud Barak's offer, if accepted, would be the final settlment. Thus, no further concessions to Palestinian desires would be allowed thereafter.

In the same article, Uri Avnery says that Arafat

- agreed to change the Green Line via land swaps

- accepted the concept of settlement blocs

- ceded the Jewish neighbourhoods built on Arab land in East Jerusalem

- was willing to cede the Wailing Wall and the Jewish Quarter of the Jerusalem Old City, which were part of Arab land prior to 1967

- indicated readiness to reach a compromise on the Palestinian Arab refugee Right Of Return

http://gush-shalom.org/archives/barak.html

Journalist Robert Wright writes that Barak's Camp David offer would have prevented the Palestinians from having a military, sovereignty over its air space or freedom of movement on the ground, and that "Israel would be entitled to declare emergencies during which Palestinians couldn't cross the road".

www.slate.com/?id=2064500

In his book "Freedom Next Time", journalist John Pilger writes Barak's offer would have meant that Palestine "would have no direct acces to its international borders" and thousands of Israeli military orders would override Palestinian legislation.

Many commentators here seem to regard this forum as some sort of verbal ping-pong...pick a side and try to score points...why don't we try being constructive? After all, millions of people, on both sides of the conflict, are suffering, not least of which are the impoverished Palestinian Arabs.

Please consider this:

UNHCR has managed to help 50 million refugees to resettle their lives (STOP being refugees) since World War 2. These include millions of Jewish refugees from Europe and 850,000 from Arab lands (not 650,000 as Bren Carlill states - see UN document “Trends and Characteristics of International Migration since 1950 – Refugee Movements and Population Transfers” (UN Department for Economic and Social Affairs, Demographic Study No. 64 ST/ESA/Ser. A/64)).

Today, with a staff of around 6,300 people in more than 110 countries UNHCR continues to help 32.9 million refugees, with a budget of $1,668m pa ($50 per refugee per annum).

In the meantime, UNRWA, the special body exclusively for Palestinian refugees, with its unique definition of "refugee", is by far the largest UN operation in the Middle East, with over 28,000 staff, and a budget of $480m pa ($110 per refugee per annum). Yet even with an additional $7.4 billion of foreign aid pledged for 2008-2010 ($550 per refugee per annum), making a total of 13.2 times the aid of all other refugees in the world, UNRWA has managed to take 600,000 refugees in 1948, add all their descendents, and today has 4.5 million "refugees" on its registers.

Is this entirely Israel's fault?
Are the Arab nations really interested in helping their Palestinian brothers to build another Arab nation?
...or are they more interested in destroying the only Jewish one?

Interesting attempt at a constructive post

Maracas/mac/fungus

claims that UN General Assembly Resolution 194 passed in 1948 gives the Palestinians a “Right of Return” to Israel. This is yet another egregious example of the misinformation and outright lies that many freely peddle and unfortunately many more are either too gullible or too bigoted to question. In fact 194 was passed with the future security of Israel firmly in mind.

Let us quickly revise some of the Israeli security concerns. They started the day the state of Israel was formed. The first occurred after Israel, Egypt, and Transjordan signed a cease-fire in March 1949 and the admission of the state of Israel to the United Nations two months later on 11 May 1949. While Israeli soldiers had succeeded in occupying twenty percent more of British Mandated Palestine than the United Nations 1947 partition, Israel insisted on a comprehensive peace treaty with the Arab states.

The Arab states refused and so Israel refused to withdraw its position, and would not permit Arab refugees to return to their homes in Israel. For their part the Arab states refused diplomatic recognition of Israel

To understand why, in the coming decades, Israel, or indeed any member of the United Nations, might not give a fig what UNGA Resolutions say, we need to go back to the 1940s. Of course, notions of international law and particularly UN Resolutions pepper Antony Loewenstein’s ‘Israel Question.’ Ah yes, the UN General Assembly. In this phase of U.S. involvement in the Palestinian refugee issue the central institutional authority was the United Nations. In fact, in the early years the U.S. tried to be as even-handed, and even not involved, in the refugee issue.

The armistice agreement following the 1948 War based on UN Resolutions 194 set the parameters for the next 18 years. However 194 did not resolve issues of water-sharing among the parties nor the return of the refugees. The U.S., Britain and France, worried about their future influence and strategic interests in the region, sought to limit further conflict through a Tripartate Agreement that limited the sales of arms to either side

In this phase there was no official recognition of the unique identity of the Palestinians, even by the Arab world itself.

There was not even a Security Council Resolution. General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 11, 1948 called upon the Arab states and Israel to resolve all outstanding issues through negotiations either directly, or with the help of the Palestine Conciliation Commission established by this resolution.

The emphasized words demonstrate that the UN was not satisfied that the cease-fire "borders" were sufficient, and that some of the refugees would have to be resettled around the world like refugees in any conflict. Thus claims that Resolution 194 provides a universal "right of return" are wrong. The refugee issue was but one of many to be negotiated.

The Arabs, however, started a pattern that continued to thwart them for decades. They simply refused to compromise or negotiate.

As Hanan Ashrawi so tragically admitted:

"the rejection of the 1947 UN partition plan as “with the benefit of immaculate hindsight the worst plunder we made was not accepting the 1947 UN petition."

The Resolution was never a legal resolution bestowing “rights” on anybody.

Putting aside the fact that 194 does not mention the word “right,” or “Palestinians,” unlike Chapter 6 and 7 Resolutions of the Security Council, Chapter 4 Resolutions of the UN General Assembly were never designed to have the force of law.

The UNGA is empowered to refer to the Security Council, matters it thinks require a judicial decision; no such referral was ever made regarding 194. And even if it were, among other criticisms, the Israelis have always maintained that the refugees do not want “to live in peace with their neighbours.” And just quietly, I defy anybody to provide evidence to the contrary!

However, neither the Arab states nor Arab lobby/political groups thought that the refugees were a distinct entity to bargain on behalf of either.

One of the top handful of misdirections taken by the Palestinians are those western advocates who have expended so much puff and wind telling the refugees they have a “right of return.”

http://culturewarriorwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/arab-rejectionism-of-un-…

Anzac Harmony

The same old spurious argument, that the incompetence and bad faith of the Palestinian and Arab leadership,such as it is, somehow negate the rights of individuals to their land and liberties and justifies the continuous expansion of the settlements. The people of Palestine cannot be denied an existence, or be presented with the bill for the Holocaust. As long as Israel has overwhelming military superiority and remains America's favorite it will do pretty much as it pleases. We will probably live to see the last Palestinian.

You're a funny bugger mac!
I'll assume that you are of european descent or at least embracing western values.
You sit typing away at a machine developed as a result of centuries of our collective inventiveness brought about by our inability to co-exist comfortably with our neighbour states for any extended period of time. This inventiveness allowed the development of technology to threaten or force detente with those we presumed to be agin us. And you are comfortable with that, obviously, adopting a do-gooder attitude when it suits.
You presume to "tut-tut" Israel, a country whose peoples have pro-actively responded to ill-fated attempts, such attempts being freely advertised, to remove her from history.
Take your guilt trip privately and quietly. You'll probably gain more through contemplation and by not listening to the annoying voice in your head.
;-)

yes MAC.. you are indeed a funny bgr....

You said:

"somehow negate the rights of individuals to their land and liberties and justifies the continuous expansion of the settlements."

and..you SAID this from the comfort of your (wherever) in Australia (presumably) built on stolen land...

You overflow with sympathy for Palestinians a million miles away but say nothing of Indigenous Aussies who's land we inhabit.

Perhaps you 'are' indigenous? but I rather doubt it.

Even if you were, you might like to address every other squabble in history while ur at it, and take me back to the highlands of Scotland, and drive out the 'occupying' English etc etc.. ad nauseum.

Give us a break.. Israel is there.. there will never be a return.... it would be political and physical suicide for Israel..it just ain't gonna happen.

Palestinians can do what EVERY other displaced people has had to do.. build a new life. They will NEVER EVER EVER NEVER EVER get the old one back.. unless the Arabs succeed in anihilating all Jews.... is that clear enough?

Ur just wasting energy referring to the UN.. meaningless I'm afraid.

tRAKKA,

You resort to an ad hominem argument,perhaps you have nothing logical to contribute? I could say that those who justify Israel's outrages have some guilt to deal with themselves.Eh?

Maracas,

>>” The fact that they believed they owned it by virtue of their presence is recognized today by legal opinions such as the Mabo decision and the Land Rights process … And so it was with the people who now call themselves 'Palestinians'

Firstly, there is very little to validate the comparison of Aborigines to Palestinians. Secondly, under Mabo style legislation, non-Israeli Palestinians would have their claim to land extinguished.

You say >>”I understand Land Rights. It was never about claiming anyones freehold land residential or otherwise. It was about VACANT CROWN LAND

You are acknowledging that freehold land extinguishes Aboriginal entitlement to land. If this legislation was applied to the Palestinian situation, there would be no right of return for Palestinians who left or were expelled in 1948.

Where, then, do you get the justification for forcing the two countries to become one? This is something that the PLO and Hamas have been fighting for, for 60 years.

There are no Middle Eastern countries besides Israel where Jews are not persecuted, or non-existent. Hamas is committed to pushing all Jews out of Israel and the Middle East. Read the charter. http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

How do you think you could impose a civilian gov’t on the Palestinians once they had been given control over the region?

There is no good reason to make one country out of Palestine/Israel. The people don’t speak the same language, they don’t share a religion, they don’t share a culture and they have an historical enmity for one another, having fought for 60 years.

Israel is already a democracy where Arab citizens are represented in Parliament by their own leaders. Where else in the Middle East does this happen?

>>” If it wasn't for the strategic aspirations of the USA and their support for the Israeli presence including arming them with modern nuclear weapons, the matter would have been resolved by now.”

How? If you only answer one question answer this one. How would the matter have been resolved if Israel was weaker militarily?

BOAZ_David, yes, I am aware that numerous massacres occured both by and of Jews and Arabs in Palestine. My point was that it was the Zionist terror groups that caused the Palestinian Arab refugee exodus, not the actions of the Arab governments.

logic, Palestinian Arab Israelis are not treated equally under Israeli law. They are systematically discriminated against. Check out the websites www.arabhra.org, www.mossawa.org and www.adalah.org for information about this. You can also go to Minority Rights Group's page about the discrmination that Palestinian Arab Israelis face in Israel at www.minorityrights.org/?lid=5002

To the person who said that UN General Assembly Resolution 194 does not call for the right or return for Palestinian Arab refugees, well, I went onto the United Nations Information System On The Question Of Palestine's website and looked at Resolution 194. It clearly states that Palestinian Arab refugees have the right to return and to compensatin for property. You can find the resolution here:

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/a06f2943c226015c85256c40005d359c/c758572b78d1cdoo85256bcf0077e51a!OpenDocument

Maracas, "paving the way for the people of the area, the Jews and the Arabs in establishing a secular state"

I dont see the Arabs giving up their muslim religion or the Jews giving up their Jewish religion any time in the near future so how are they going to establish a secular state

Sharkfin.
The state, i.e. the Government becomes secular and it's citizens are free to practice their own religious belief as in Australia for example. The members of Government become elected on policies, not by their religious beliefs

fungus

That web site is very good, it also makes clear the problems Jews and other non-Muslims have in other ME countries. However it does not invalidate my statement that the Arabs have equality in law. The fact that educational opportunities are less for the Arabs is somewhat similar to the situation in Melbourne where children from the western suburbs are at an enormous educational disadvantaged to those from the higher socio-economic groups in the south and east. They are still equal in the sight of the law.

Also the web site points out that some groups of Jews have poorer opportunities than others. It is a simple fact of life that children of educated parents always have better chances than others, all societies have poverty traps, this a reality of life.

It is when socio- economic opportunities become mixed up with ethnicity that people feel it worst. Some ethnic groups in Israel are doing OK, the Baha'i would never go back to Iran. Same in Australia when some minorities do brilliantly, others fail. That is life, Karl Marx never produced a solution either.

The point is that a state can treat all groups with the same laws, and Israel does that. They have been no more successful that we have with the "perfect state". I would expect that a one state solution for Israel would be a disaster given the track record of most Islamic states and the Israeli Arabs know that as well as anyone else.

Blaming the Israelis for all their woes is not going to help the Palestinians, they have to realise their own short comings.

maracas

Most Israelis are already secular, and they do have religious freedom, including the right to be declared atheists, or march in gay rights parades. By the way are you suggesting that "Family First" is not a religious party, or that the DLP never was? Don't expect Israel to do any better than we have.

It is high time to dispel myths and treat Israel like any other democratic nation.

Palestine was partitioned. The jewish part of it is called israel, the arab/muslim part of it is called trans-jordan, or Jordan.
Israel was created by the UN. It was attacked on the very day. There has been no change in its attackers' attitude in the 60 years since. That is, it was attacked on the first day - and every day ever since. And now some people have the gall to paint it as the nasty one in the equation because the jews don't give up and scatter yet again.

If the jews are not at home in isreal, where are they at home? If the jews can't have their ancient country, why can arabs have anything outside Arabia, whence they burst out of in the 7-9th centuries?

What is proposed for the generations of jews born in israel? The same fate as for the generations of jews born in Egypt and Syria and Iran before 1948? Shouldd these jews also have a right of return? No-one is pushing for THAT!

An another thing. Israel is constantly reminded of its political, moral and legal responsibilities. But there is no-one among the palestinians or arabs or muslims who are ever called to take responsibilty for squanderig 60 years and untold treasure in aid and goodwill. There is an implicit lowering of expectations, often to near-zero, when talking about the palestinians. The jews were scattered in 70 ad by the Romans. Yet they have made extraordinary contributions to every field of human life. What have the Palastinians ever done for us? - to coin a phrase. Or for themselves, much more to the point. Nothing.

And no, I am not a joooo.

logic, Palestinian Arab Israelis are systematically discriminated against in Israel. It is not just a case of them being poorer and/or in the minority. It is a case of them being second-class citizens and treated as such.

To see what I mean, check out the following:

www.arabhra.org/HRA/SecondaryArticles/SecondaryArticlePage.aspx?SecondaryArticle=1499

www.adalah.org/eng/backgroundhistory.php

www.adalah.org/backgroundlegalsystem.php

www.assoc40/index_main.html

www.mossawacenter.org/default.php?lng=3&pg=1&dp=2&fl=2

www.birem.org/english/index.html

fungus

Just give me a list of Palestinian Arabic sites and tell me they are all true. They wouldn't be biased would they?

Did you know that a French court has upheld the right of a group to protest that TV shots allegedly showing a boy killed by Israeli gunfire are probably false? French 2 TV only showed part of the video, and nothing showing that he actually died. There will be further legal work on this, it will be interesting if it ever gets into the western press, the boy may well be still alive.

It's called Pallywood, the doctoring of material by Palestinian reporters and cameramen. Try reading China Post online it comes from Taiwan and shows no bias on the matter.

So, logic, are you going to instantly dismiss everything those websites say out of hand? Yes, they campaign for Palestinian Arab rights, but that doesn't mean what they say isn't true. If it is untrue, then debunk the claims. Do the sites contain lies? Statements sourced out of context? Elisions of key facts? If they do, point it out.

To suggest that nothing they say can be trusted is akin to saying that nothing Australia Tibet Council says about the human rights situation in Tibet can be trusted, or nothing that Australians for Native Title & Reconciliation says about the human rights situation facing indigenous Australians can be trusted.

If you want criticism of Israel's treatment of its Palestinian Arab citizens by organisations that are not Palestinian Arab, here are some links:

Rabbis for Human Rights on Bedouin Israelis:
http://rhr.israel.net/bedouin-rights

New Israel Fund on Palestinian Arab Israelis:
www.nif.org/issue-areas/israeli-arabs/

Pax Christi International's report on Palestinian Arab Israelis:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2424.shtml

And here are some Human Rights Watch reports:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/03/31/isrlpa18387.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/05/18/isrlpa18387.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/israel2/JILPfinal.pdf

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/08/12/isrlpa9228.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/08/11/isrlpa9225.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2002/06/07/isrlpa4026.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/12/05/isrlpa3399.htm

Fungus,

Against aborigines
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/race/criminal_justice.htm
http://www.survival-international.org/news/98
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/845400.stm
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/Social_Justice/croc/sub2.htm
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/adb/ll_adb.nsf/pages/adb_et68

against migrants
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/australia/
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jan1999/imm3-j26.shtml
http://www.agitprop.org.au/lefthistory/1994_fares_the_struggle_for_migrant_rights.php
http://www.greenleft.org.au/1995/173/12753
http://www.alphastandard.com.au/planetearth/un_committee_on_migrant_workers.htm

anti terror legislation
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/10/13/austra11863.htm
http://hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/australia/2005/

Here are a dozen Human Rights watch and other articles critical of Australia for discrimination against aborigines, migrants and anti-terror legislation. Does that make Australia a nation which “systematically discriminates” against its people?

If you look, you will find that the same type of articles can be found for every country on earth.

Israel enshrines protection of their arab/muslim citizens in law. Compare this with the situation in almost ANY other Middle Eastern country and you will see that Israel is a beacon of democracy and equality in that region. Not only are non muslims not protected under law in most Muslim countries in the middle east, they are actively discriminated against. To deny that Israel is vastly more open, democratic and fair than any of its neighbours is to deny the obvious and unassailable truth.

That Israel is not perfect is without question. But where is?

So, Paul.L, because other countries discriminate against certain people that makes it okay and acceptable for Israel to do so?

Yes, Israel's Palestinian Arab citizens are systematically discriminated against in Israel. And yes, it is completely unacceptable.

No Fungus,

It makes you a hypocrite for not dealing first and foremost, with the problems in your own country before looking about to criticise others.

Israel can at least say that lurking within the Arab community is an enemy that has not lost an opportunity to hurt Israel when the chance arose. Atrocities we can not comprehend, Israel faces regularly. What is our excuse?

Israel has much in common with the vast majority of liberal democracies across the Western world, and singling it out for attention, as you have done, is disproportionate and hypocritical.

In seeking to unmask Israel as the great Satan of the Middle East all you have done is show more clearly how much the West has in common with Israel. You have NO moral high ground upon which to stand.

I do not suggest Israel is perfect. Far from it. But it behooves us to consider the alternatives in the region, and in the rest of the western world, before making such a speedy judgement.

fungus

What it all says is that amongst the democratic countries there will always be some groups who will claim that they are discriminated against. It is very difficult, if not impossible to remove all sources of discontent, and some are structural within communities. Often the complainants themselves are unreasonable, and the Palestinians have been known to invent things in order to besmirch Israel.

Also the UN is very much a gerrymander with Islamic nations , many of them very small ganging up on Israel, which has only one vote.

What you can say is that Israel's HR record is amongst the better nations, while that of its chief and most vocal opponents (Iran, Syria Saudi Arabia etc) is amongst the worst.

Despite this the left single out Israel for criticism. Even gay groups carry mindless banners against Israel, which allows gay pride marches, and in favour of countries which kill gays. Stupid left wing women carry the banner against Israel which allows its Muslim women to obtain PhDs rather than against its opponents which deny women an education and proper human rights.

So, Paul.L, what you are saying is that I can't criticise Israel because of the plight of Aborigines and refugees in Australia? What rubbish. An Australian has every right to criticise Israel's human rights record, just like an Israeli has every right to criticise Australia's human rights reocrd. If a Russian criticises another country's human rights record, would you say to that person, "What about Russia's record in Chechnya?!" If an Indonesian criticises another country's human rights record, would you say to that person, "What about what Indonesia is doing in West Papua and Aceh?!" If a Turkish person criticses David Irving for denying the Nazi Holocaust, would you say to that person, "What about Turkey's denial of the Turkish genocide of Armenians?!"

Your implicaiton that I ignore and am apathetic about problems facing people in Australia is libellous. As a teenager I protested Pauline Hanson's visit to Adelaide (where I live), signed the Sorry book which is dedicated to the indigenous Australian Stolen Generation, and one time did charity collecting for Amnesty International. In my twenties I have attended rallies supporting the rights of refugees and for indigenous Australian rights and for indigenous/non-indigenous reconciliation, against the Iraq war and against Israel's actions in Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories. I have also done extensive voluntary work for The Salvation Army. Therefore, you owe me an apology.

Is that what you resort to when somebody criticises Israel? Libelling the person?

Also, the fact that Israeli citizens have it better than citizens of certain other countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Syria, neither negates nor mitigates Israel's human rights violations against its Gentile population. It's like saying that I shouldn't criticise somebody for committing an assault because somebody else committed a murder. They are both crimes. Some years ago I saw an interesting documentary film on television called "Scout's Honor". It was about the ban on homosexuals in the American Scouts and the controversy the ban has caused. Would you call the film-maker a hypocrite for not addressing the persecution of homosexuals in other countries in the film?

fungus

So you have done voluntary work for the Salvation Army. Yes I think that is good. But the alleged HR discrimination against gentiles in Israel is an exaggeration at best, trumped up at worst. As a Christian you ought to be aware of the true situation re Christians in Lebanon, a country which once had a Christian majority, but no longer. Talk to some Lebanese Christians, or Copts out of Egypt.

Stop believing the massive propaganda out of the Islamist world and from Saudi financed academics. Our journalists would rather criticise Israel than the Palestinian world, that is mush safer, Israel is not known for capturing or beheading journalists. TV material showed that when cameramen tried to show that most of Beirut was not damaged during the Israeli invasion, thugs with rifles stopped them from pointing the cameras anywhere where there was no damage. Hence the big lie that Israel had all but destroyed Beirut. We saw a succession of pictures showing the same buildings damaged again and again.

James Murdoch has publically stated that the European press is antisemitic and that is where our non Murdoch dailies get their reports. A Reuters cameraman was sacked for doctoring pictures, and that is the least of what happened.

The Salvation Army would have little chance of existing if the Islamists ever gained control of Christian nations.

Investigate the persecuted middle eastern minorities who found refuge in Israel, or the Darfurians who were accepted there. That doesn't sound like discrimination to me.

In the 1947-1948 Arab-Israeli war, approximately 750,000 Palestinian Arabs became refugees and were thus outside the soon-created nation of Israel. About 150,000 Palestinian Arabs remained inside Israel.

About 25% of these Palestinian Arab who remained inside Israel were displaced from their homes and villages, thus becoming Internally Displaced Persons and denied the right to return to their homes and villages. The Israeli army destroyed about 400 Palestinian Arab villages.

Israeli authorities have confiscated massive amounts of Palestinian Arab Israeli land, often to use it for building Jewish Israeli communities.

There are forty known Palestinian Arab Israeli villages which existed prior to Israel's creation and continue to exist today, yet are not recognised by the Israeli government. Thus, their residents do not get running water, sewage treatment, education services, health services, communication services or electricity, cannot get permits to build or expand houses or other buildings and are subjected to forced evacuations and house demolitions.

In 1948 the residents of the Palestinian Arab village of Kfar Bir'em were evicted from their village by Israeli authorites. They were told they could return in a fortnight. They are still waiting.

Numerous Israeli government services and benefits require citizens to have performed military service to receive them. However, Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims do not perform military service. Meanwhile, Jewish Yeshiva Israeli citizens do not perform military service either and yet receive the benefits.

Israeli government spending on education is less per Palestinian Arab Israeli child than it is per Jewish Israeli child.

The Israeli government has granted quasi-governmental status to the Jewish Agency, the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish National Fund, often assigning them projects supposedly on behalf of Israeli citizens, yet these organisations are established to service Jews only.

Israel's Nationality & Entry Into Israel Law (Temporary Order) bars Palestinians married to Israelis from living with their spouses in Israel.

Israeli zoning and budgetary allocations are discriminatory towards Palestinian Arab Israelis.

All of the above are examples of systematic discrimination against Palestinian Arab Israelis. All are human rights violations. All are unjustifiable.

fungus

Perhaps a lot of the information you are quoting is just not true, or has been distorted beyond reality. The pro-Palestinian groups are masters of that. The Iman of the Al Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem even preaches to his flock that the ancient temple was not where the archaeologists say that it was, that the temple mount was not even built by Jews. He was interviewed on a film about Jerusalem making these ridiculous statements.

Ancient Jewish communities were forced out of their homes, when Israel reclaimed them the Palestinians regarded that as theft of their land. This includes Jerusalem, in which according to both British and Turkish records all through the 19th century a majority of the population were Jewish.

The numbers of Jews displaced from their ancestral homes in ME lands by almost any reckoning exceeds the numbers of displaced Palestinians. Iraq once had quarter of a million Jews, whose ancestors arrived long before the arrival of Arabs in the area - there are none there now. Lebanon has no Jews left. Mahomet cleaned out the Jews from Medina, apparently none of this counts with the anti-Israeli crowd.

Fictitious accounts of Israel blocking electricity supply to Gaza, which they had not done, were accompanied by crude photographs of people walking down shopping streets with the shop windows brightly lit and the neon signs blazing away. A picture of a conference lit by candle light lost its point when the intelligent viewer noticed the curtains drawn and sunlight trying to come through.

But some people will believe anything that supports their prejudices.

Fungus,

>>”If an Indonesian criticises another country's human rights record, would you say to that person, "What about what Indonesia is doing in West Papua and Aceh?!"

Yes I would.

What is hypocritical about your approach is that you pretend that Israel is somehow worse than the average liberal democracy in its treatment of its various citizens. You make absolutely no allowance for the fact that Israel is AT WAR, and has been for 60 years.

Israeli Arabs are, on average (it is pointless to talk about the issue any other way) better off than their relatives in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria or Egypt.

You say >>” In 1948 the residents of the Palestinian Arab village of Kfar Bir'em were evicted from their village by Israeli authorites”

And Israelis were evicted from the Old City, The West Bank and the Gaza Strip after the Jordanian and Egyptian armies captured them in 1948.

I would like to see your evidence for these 40 villages which do not receive Israeli recognition, as I would for your contention that more money is spent on Israeli children for education than Arab children.

>>”Numerous Israeli government services and benefits require citizens to have performed military service to receive them.”

This is a flat out lie. “At present, the only official advantage from military service is the attaining of security clearance and serving in some types of government positions (in most cases, security-related), as well as some indirect benefits” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Defense_Forces

Further, It is only COMPULSORY military service which these groups are excused from. There is nothing to stop them enlisting and some do. Most do not because they don’t want to join the Israeli Army.

In recent years, there have been several initiatives to enable Israeli Arabs to volunteer for civilian National Service instead of to the IDF, completion of which would grant the same privileges as those granted to IDF veterans. However, this plan has gained strong resistance from Arab members of the parliament, and as a result, has not been implemented yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Defense_Forces

logic, do you always answer allegations of Israeli wrongs by dismissing the allegations as "Arab propaganda"? Because if you do, then I guess it would be futile to try to reason, debate or argue with you. Also, I recommend that you source your statements. You haven't sourced any of them so far.

Paul.L, you say that I am hypocritical and make out that Israel is worse than "other liberal democracies". This is the second false claim you've made about me in this thread. I haven't compared Israel's treatment of its Palestinian Arab citizens to anything. I haven't said it's better or worse than any other situation.

In regards to the forty unrecognised Palestinian Arab Israeli villages and Israel's budgetary and zoning discriminations, you can find all of those claims in sources I cited earlier. Same with the issue of the treatment of Palestinian Arab Israelis who don't serve the Israeli military.

In regards to the Wikipedia entries you cited about the same issue, I went onto them with interest. The problem with them is that they don't cite the sources about this issue. So it's impossible to verify the claims

The land was promised to both sides in return for support against the Turks in WWI. This led to the partition plan for the land, so as to give a portion to both sides (after the British having given King Abdullah some 60% of the land originally promised).

Only one side chose to hazard their ownership of half of the remainder on a gamble which would have seen them achieve ownership of the whole of the remainder through conquest (seen by them at that time as a legitimate way of transfering ownership of that particular land).

Here is the oft-cited and generally taken out of context Report of the Peel Royal Commission:

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/561c6ee353d740fb8525607d00581829/08e38a718201458b052565700072b358!OpenDocument

Here is a transcript of a radio broadcast which sheds some light on the 1948 conflict:

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/04d23e80853f829985256a71006de4b7!OpenDocument

The question of the Palestinian refugees arose primarily because of the deliberate move by the villager's in the area to vacate the area so as to allow freedom of access to the Glorious Armies of Arab Liberation, who were to drive the Jews into the sea and thus provide them with access to the vastly improved farmland at zero cost.

There was to be NO question of Jewish return to the land that they legally owned (as opposed to merely occupied as tennants which was the position of most Arabs in the area).

All the hand-wringing and revisionism fails to address the fact that the aim of the Arabs in the wars from 1948 to 1973 was conquest. That was the name of the game and to the victor the spoils.

fungus

I have made relatively few assertions. You are the one who has continually criticised Israel quoting some bodgy sources to support you. I will let you do your own research. I bet you won´t.

I am mainly trying to neutralise the anti-Israel message that you an7d Keith are putting forward. No other country, however bad has to face the barrage that you two (and some others)apply.

Fungus

>> “ In regards to the forty unrecognised Palestinian Arab Israeli villages … you can find all of those claims in sources I cited earlier. Same with .. Arab Israelis who don't serve the Israeli military.”

It’s your job, if you want us to accept something you say, to provide references for your claims. Further, I pointed out to you that you were wrong in suggesting that Israel bans Palestinian Arabs from serving in the defence forces. They can do so if they wish. I have no problem with giving preferential treatment to those who serve their country. Especially in a country a small as Israel, locked into ongoing war, service should have some benefits. In this country there are a lot of benefits to serving in the defence forces, which aren’t available to the general public.

>> “ Paul.L, you say that I am hypocritical and make out that Israel is worse than "other liberal democracies"”

I didn’t say you ‘said’ Israel was worse, I said you make that out by your behavior. The amount of OLO time you allocate to criticizing Israel would lead any normal person to believe you felt Israel was somehow worse. If I’m wrong and you really don’t think Israel is any worse than the rest of the western world, how do you explain the amount of time/space you devote to attacking it? Your last 10 posts have all been about Israel.

No-one defending Israel here on OLO believes it is perfect. I acknowledge that there are some things Israel could do better. However there are two qualifications to this. First, Israel is a country AT WAR, its very existence regularly threatened. Secondly, Israel’s enemies hide within/behind that portion of the community you claim are being discriminated against. These two factors make it much more difficult to recreate a model society in the manner you demand. And since few western countries, in the midst of their expanding wealth and peace/stability at home, can achieve this desired perfection, I find it somewhat unfair of you to single out Israel for this kind of criticism.

Paul.L, I did not say that Israel bans Palestinian Arabs Israelis from performing in the military. I said that Palestinian Arabs Israelis who do not perform in the military do not get the associated benefits, while Yeshiva Jewish Israelis who do not perform in the military do get them. Also, the Pax Christi International source that I cited earier actually says that, with the exception of Druze, Palestinian Arab Israelis "cannot perform military service".

You ask why my posts here have been about Israel. That's because this thread is about Israel.