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