It does not have to be either/or in the Middle East. Given the present mindset of Israelis and Palestinians, it would seem far more practical (and practicable) for a bi-national single state to be reached VIA a two-state stepping stone. In other words, two states, but only as a temporary measure. Of course there is no way of knowing or estimating how long this would take. But at least this takes into account how Israelis and Palestinians generally feel about each other right now...perhaps best characterized as a complete lack of trust.

Though a family farm company director, an interest still made me do an intensive study of power balance strategy towards the end of the Cold War.

I thus might say that the most informative statement since WW2 was the one by Henry Kissinger that to allow little new Israel to go militarily nuclear would not only upset the balance of power in the Middle East for years to come, but would surely cause a dangerous increase in bitterness and hatred from Arab nations over those years.

Making the situation worse from an academic point of view was Israel's treatment of Mordecai, who from a philosophical viewpoint, should go down in history as one with great courage enough to back statements as declared by Kissinger, as well as revealing the gutlessness of the time, not only shown by the UN but also by both the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

Certainly the pride that an old soldier like myself felt following the rhetoric from the new UN during the Korean War, is now buried in the shock and bitterness resulting from a world that has allowed America, just one nation to rule our globe and making such a mess of it by breaking laws that have also been proven from the trials and errors of both our religous and philosophical histories.

It is thus as Immanuel Kant declared:

From now on we cannot trust neither one nation nor even one man under God to rule this world in the future, but preferably a Federation of Nations.

From which of course grew the League of Nations and our present United Nations, but failed mostly by single strong nations like Britain, and later the US, letting single nation characters like Condoleeza Rice move in trying to preach the tone of global justice.

Yawn - Anthony monotonously repeats his one message again. He is right that some studies demonstrate that some leaders of some organisations are more hawkish than their public. He refuses to acknowledge that in relation to that public, he is more extreme than those leaders. Each of those surveys, like the surveys within Israel, repeatedly affirm the broad publics' preference and desire for an autonomous Palestinian state to coexist with Israel. This has been consistently the case since at least Rabin was prime minister. Lowenstein is part of this majority. For some reason he feels a need to use an extremely limited and dated conception of the ideology of Zionism which neatly supports his perspective. Zionism has never been univocal, as he conveniently maintains. Like most isms, it is a dynamic term that continues to change over time. A serious article demands that his legitimate voice, while a minority voice, is in serious dialogue with the other voices out there. The danger of the internet is that we selectively listen and read only to those voices that agree with ourselves. Anthony quotes these same voices incessently in every publication. Sadly, his argument remains one dimensional, saddled with an ideological agenda that prevents his intellect from grappling with the complexity that is real. The majority of Jews and Israelis (Jews and non-Jews) continue to prefer and desire an independent Palestinian state. All they demand in return is that Hamas, Hizbullah, Abbas, and those like Lowenstein want it too.

'Israel’s ongoing colonisation of the West Bank has made a contiguous and independent Palestinian impossible.'

'...its illegal West Bank settlements and blatantly stealing Palestinian land in the process.'

Hummmm. So in a single state presumably majority rule will prevail ... as it does in democracies ... and the single biggest crux preventing peace and understanding will be solved simply, overnight? Or will the illegal settements simply be removed?

In a two state solution ... well that won't happen until Israel reognises it must return this land to the original owners and remove the settlers.

Oh and what about the matter of he right of return?

If I had a son with this view I would be so disappointed. All the time and effort to raise a Jew in the world today and this is what comes out of it. I'll keep shaking my head until you get over it. Get over it.

All who are looking for the simple solution by the establishment of the state of Palestine under a jint government of the Hamas and PLO are entirely blind to the powerbrokers of the region and it is not Israel,strangely enough but Iran,Syria and the all-powerful Hisbollah who are the de facto rulers of Lebanon.The embryonic state of Palestine will always be the pawn in the game of power politics.It will have no measure of independence other than what the players agree to give it or better still to appear to give it.Hamas will always stand for the elimination of Israel because of the way in which the Americans manipulated the UN into bringing about the creation of the state of Israel which I still believe was a travesty of justice even though I hastily add that I detest and even hate the Hisbollah and the racist and bigoted Islamists in the region.As I do the Zionists who rule the USA today!

I see no hope of averting the prolonged agony of the middle East short of a thorough cleansing of the area.

socratease

Yet another article about a situation that neither the writer or any onliner can influence in any way.

Why not focus all that energy on something closer to home....preferably something that one can do something about?

Or are these endless gripes about Israel really the new anti-Jewishness transformed into a modern acceptable format?

Socratease, all I can say as a trained historian and political scientist that there is a strategic study called the Balance of Power which Henry Kissinger followed when he warned Richard Nixon not to stay silent about little Israel's pursuit to go militarily nuclear.

It was one of the main reasons the UN was formed during the Korean War, to have strong powers like America as just part of it, not as one large power illegally running the whole show which is not reccomended in Power Balance studies.

Which is the main reason we've got so much hatred and terrorism in the world today, besides our Western lust for oil.

If anyone needed reminding about the nature of the enemy Israel is fighting, this weeks' prisoner exchange was particularly instructive.

Witness the heroes’ return of Samir Kuntar, a Lebanese terrorist who rowed his boat to Israel to find and murder the first Jews he came across. He was convicted of murdering a policeman and a man and his four year old daughter. The slain man’s second daughter was smothered by her mother whilst hiding in the attic as Kuntar searched for them. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24041641-15084,00.html

Witness Hezbollah’s reaction to this exchange. They are proclaiming victory loudly and longly, and have suggested that they will increase their demands for the release of Gilad Shalit to 1000 militants being held in Israeli prisons. Hezbollah generally prefer to kill those Israelis captured, and in this sense Shilat’s case is unusual. However the value placed upon life is clearly discernible amongst this obscene mathematics.

Furthermore, it amply demonstrates that negotiating with Hezbollah or Hamas is a losing proposition for Israel. It merely encourages these groups in the view that their violence is working and that they should persist. There is clearly no interest in negotiating a conclusion to hostilities.

This is the fallacy which has dogged the left for many years. Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah want peace, they want victory. And unfortunately peace can’t be implemented unilaterally. When will the left wake up and see that the groups they support aren’t freedom fighter, they’re terrorists with no interest in the welfare of their people.

Bushbred,

I wonder if you can tell me exactly how Israel’s nuclear weapons have changed the situation in the Middle East? Considering that Israel has three times defeated combined Arab armies using only conventional weapons, how exactly have nuclear weapons shaped the power balance in the region? You can’t I’ll bet.

BTW, the UN wasn’t formed during the Korean war, it was 1945. UN forces actually fought the Korean war. As for you ridiculous claims that the US controls the UN, you should note that China and Russia recently vetoed a resolution for Darfur to help stop the slaughter.

Paul L wrote:

This is the fallacy which has dogged the left for many years. Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah want peace, they want victory. And unfortunately peace can’t be implemented unilaterally. When will the left wake up and see that the groups they support aren’t freedom fighter, they’re terrorists with no interest in the welfare of their people.

Paul: Tragically, you're quite right. The greatest disaster to befall the Palestinians (in my Leftist view) was their being conned into supporting Hamas. If I were a Palestinian robbed of his land and/or forced to be a second-class citizen, I would be resentful too, and in desperation I would be inclined to support a "can-do" organization like Hamas, irrespective of its ideology. Armed struggle, however
sacred to some, is no way to deal with the most powerful military force in the region.

Just adding to the important note by PLuralismisavirtue:

Zionism has never been univocal

Almost every Israeli, when faced with the question: "are you a zionist [Yes/No]? " would select the "Yes", but do they all mean the same?

When asked to further explain that "Yes", the most common answers would be along the lines:

I am a good person and citizen.
I love my country.
I help my neighbours.
I volunteer.
I pay my taxes.

Only a minority would mention anything to do with Jews, Arabs, territory or settlements.

The term "Zionism" has evolved, but the author comfortably enjoys using it for blaming the whole population of Israel and most Jews for the craziness of a few.

The fact is, that most of Israel's citizens are normal people who just want to get on with their lives, and while the same is true on the Arab side, the moderates there cannot have a voice and it is simply naive to assume that they are capable of achieving a stable democracy where everyone could just get on with their lives, including the ability to choose their religion (or no religion at all). Tragically, such a state would quickly fall prey to radical Islam, where life, if it continues at all, would never be the same.

One does not need to be a zionist, just an ordinary person with common sense that values their life, their freedom and their family, to understand that a one-state solution is suicidal.

Yuyutsu: It's CAMPAIGNING for a one-state solution that's suicidal. More important, it's a colossal waste of time and effort. Any so-called solution that does not take as its starting point the actual mindsets of the real people involved is simply pissing in the wind.

Paull, certainly the unchanging situation in the Middle East, is the one Henry Kissinger predicted, when he warned Richard Nixon about keeping silent about Israel's illegal adventure into atomic weaponry.

The political science term, Paull, is balance of power, which in no way, whatever, should little Israel have been allowed to upset it, causing so much hatred from muslims in the Middle east.

What astounds me is that these people who are pushing for a single state solution never seem to mention Hamas and their genocidal charter.

As far as I can tell, they either believe Hamas will magically disappear or they just don't care. Either way, this is not a remotely realistic analysis of the situation.

Please do tell Anthony, what will become of Hamas in your single state solution? Are they really the rightful governing body of your proposed single state, since it is clear to anyone with a brain that the Palestinians will be choosing the elected officials. This is not as democratic as many might think. If Australia was forced to combine with Indonesia, the Indonesians would rule this country as well.

This one state solution is a goal that Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world have been hijacking planes and detonating human bombs for, for decades. Mr Lowenstein would like to just hand over that which they have failed to take by force of arms for over 60 years.

Does he really think Israelis will acquiesce in this revolution of leftist ideology? That they will disregard the obvious fact that this idealistic gesture will leave them at the mercy of their current enemy. An enemy which it must be said, is not big on restraint, and whose prisoners are invariably returned dead.

There are very few examples of this type of conflict being settled by handing power to the weaker (and more radical) side and then expecting peaceful coexistence. The Former Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Darfur and even South Africa to some extent are examples of the inability of self proclaimed victims to live with their oppressors.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing

Most importantly of all, there are no examples in the Middle East of Muslim ruled countries treating their non-muslim minorities with anything approaching equality. In fact, in most of the region, minorities are persecuted heavily.

When you recognize all of this, suggestion that a one-state solution will secure the rights of all the people is clearly not founded upon any rational, factual understanding of the situation.

In other words, Bushbred, the Jews are to blame for still being alive: why can't they understand that their existence is disturbing the smooth and peaceful flow of cheap oil, then draw the necessary conclusions? can't they see that the only way to stop the Muslim hatred is to disappear? why haven't they stopped this hatred already?

The day China or Indonesia invades Australia's shores, will you still be so proud that we never adventured into nuclear weaponry, so little Australia did not upset the balance of power?

Paul L: I am (a) an unrepentant Leftie, and (b) a supporter of two states. But I also believe that as long as the Hamas Covenant remains binding, the chances of civilized negotiations are remote. The document actually quotes in several places from the notorious "Protocols of Zion", Hitler's and the Tsar's favorite bedtime reading. Many Lefties are unaware of the history of antisemitism, and these people cannot get their brain around the idea that the underdog can sometimes be a real dog. There can be no excuse for either playing down or ignoring the ideological factor, which of course operates on the Zionist side too.

From a political science angle, Israel broke a law, Yuyutsu, as Henry Kissinger intimated, just as every genuine political scientist should.

Well Bushbred, we were talking life-and-death matters here: how could a petty legal point compare at all?

Actually, I don't see any law broken here because Israel never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but even if you found some law against going nuclear, it would be just be a technical misdemeanor compared to the USA that actually used such weapons twice against Japan, of which the second tine was deemed by most historians to be unnecessary.

You mentioned the "unchanging situation in the Middle East":
doesn't this situation include the fact that Arabs occupy some 98% of it?
shouldn't they be happy about it then?
Doesn't this unchanging situation also include the fact that a significant portion of the Arabs have actively vowed to do whatsoever to eliminate the Jewish state, not only from the remaining (let's be generous) 2%, but not accepting its existence on even one square centimeter within the Middle East? This is not a result of nuclear weapons - it has been like this since Israel's inception in 1948.

In summary, the "unchanging situation" is that Israel still exists. I can see that it upsets you.

Yuyutsu,

What's this unchanging? Israel's borders certainly are not unchanging.

Bushbred,

I note with interest that you could not identify how Israel's possession of nuclear weapons has influenced events in the middle east. I am not surprised.

The only way Israel has upset the balance of power in the Middle east is by refusing to die, as the Arabs and many of the western left have long hoped for. Your understanding of these events is shallow and non analytical. It seems you are repeating arguments of tutors long gone, without any understanding of their basis.

I'll give you another chance. How has the balance of power changed since Israel became nuclear armed? How has Israel used its nukes in an offensive capacity to alter outcomes in the middle east?

Your contention that Israels acquisition of nukes was what caused Arab hatred is astoudingly naive. Its just not the case at all. Arabs hate Israel's very existence. They also hate the fat that the combined might of Arab arms was soundly defeated three times in 60 years. They hate the fact that Palestinians lost land and possessions. But more than anything they hate the Jews for showing them up in the own back yard, for being more successful economically, for being militarily strong, and for having the wrong religion.

Keith,

Where EXACTLY are Israel's borders changing?? Please be specific.

YoungSteve,

I am impressed. A leftie who has read the hamas charter and hasn't sought to excuse it or downplay it is rare. This foundation document is totally consistent with everything Hamas do.

I too used to be a leftie, I spent a number of years studying politics and sociology at UNI and they relentlessly pushed the leftist view of all things, which at the time I accepted as gospel.

I think the left has some valid principals but the philosophical underpinnings of socialist/communist doctrines are fatally flawed, based as they are upon an unrealistic understanding of the human condition

Keith, thank you for bringing the issue:

When survival is at stake, petty matters like legality and borders are made secondary.

I would love to see Israel back in its 1967 borders, but alas it is unrealistic, given that Israel's enemies would not accept Israel's existence in ANY borders.

While there are Arab moderates that accept Israel's existence, it is tragically in the nature of the Arab/Islamic world that extremists prevail as the moderates have no power to stop them.

Israel has tried several times to get rid of those extra territories, but to no avail. Arafat was offered those territories (about 97%, with other land as compensation for the remaining 3%) to have a Palestinian state on: he refused! Israel then withdrew completely and unilatelrally from the Gaza strip (and some West Bank settlements) - only to find those areas that it left being used as rocket launching pads into towns and villages within Israel itself.

Listen to what the convicted terrorist who was just released back to Leabnon after killing an Israel family in cold blood said: he will never stop fighting and killing, even after Lebanon receives its disputed lands, until Israel is totally annihilated. He is not a single crazyman, but has the backing of large and fully armed militias which nobody in the Arab world has the power and/or willingness to stop.

So long that such is the Arab/Islamic nature, Israel needs to do whatever it can to secure its borders, and that may include extending them with security buffer zones, if necessary even kicking out all hostile population from those zones. What I completely agree with you, and happy to condemn Israel for, is that, besides security, Israel should have no other interest or claim on those territories - these are military buffer zones needed for its protection, they should be kept as such and no Israeli civilian should be allowed there.

Yuyutsu, please get real about global laws. On the subject in the Uni' Humanies you'd be lucky to be getting 4 out of 10.

I might mention that if Israel has never gained permisssion from both Geneva and Hague Conventions to go militarily nuclear, she illegally still stands as a criminal state.

Of course, the great weakness in today's world, is today's largest power, America breaking similar laws herself, rendering the decisions of the United Nations pretty well useless - so coldly amusingly revealed as Condoleeza Rice takes pride of place

Look at that corrupt Israeli PM Olmert. While there are honest Jewish Israelis it is tragically in the nature of the Jewish/Israeli world that corruption and land stealing prevails as the honest ones have no power to stop them.

Now you can call me bigoted and racist Yuyutsu. But I've merely paraphrased your bigotry and racism.

And of course so long as Israel keeps menacing and stealing it's neighbours lands with weapons and corruption then Palestine needs to put in place security buffer zones on Israeli territory. Naturally it would have the same rights to kick out hostile populations. ie the same rights you claim for Israel? Pretty dumb arguments eh Yuyutsu?

Please produce the maps of what was offered to Arafat. If you cannot then you are dealing with rumour.

PaulL:

All the illegally established settlements and their 'thickenning', extensions and developments from 1967 to 2008. Specific enough?

And I am a rightwing Liberal (Australian variety) who has not only read Hamas Charter but also Hamas election manifesto. Have you? I doubt that you'd be interested as election manifestos are part of the democratic processes.

I guessed you'd moved from being leftie but I shouldn't have thought your move to extreme right wing fascism was at all appropriate.

Bushbred, I can only be proud to get 4 out of 10 on a subject I never studied: I'll be happy to get more detailed information, just for my curiosity, but as I said earlier, when your life and your family are at stake, it is better to live in a "criminal state" than to be politically-correct six foot under.

Nice word-play, Keith, but the corruption thing is just a red herring (since money was invented there always were people who loved it too much, and others who got promotions for catching them and putting them in jail... but how off-topic).

Yes, there are people who steal lands - I totally despise them.
However, most Jewish settlers bought their land in the occupied territories (in cash, from Arabs who love money too much) - I don't like them either, but we still need to get the facts straight.

Israel does not menace its neighbours, but they constantly menace Israel, which they did long before Israel acquired nuclear weapons.

Before discussing any "rights", we need to establish some common ground: do you or don't you agree that Israel has a right to live?

Let me break down this question - do you or don't you agree that Jews are entitled to:

1. stay alive
2. stay in their homes in Israel (within the 1967 borders, to be exact)
3. invite their relatives and other Jews who are oppressed in other countries to live with them
4. be safe from violent attacks and terrorism
5. have personal freedom
6. have cultural freedom
7. have religious freedom
8. speak their own language
9. celebrate the Sabbath as their weekly day of rest and the Jewish holidays as public holidays
10. live in a society that supports all the above

If you answered "NO", than all I can say is "let the guns do the talking"

If you answered "YES" to all questions, then my friend, you are a zionist, because that's all that Israel is really about! (the rest is just implementation details and other quirks, which I will be happy to discuss)

'However, most Jewish settlers bought their land in the occupied territories (in cash, from Arabs who love money too much) - I don't like them either, but we still need to get the facts straight.'

Score: Zero from 10.

Rubbish. Why do you perpretrate such utter lies? Most of the land was allocated or auctioned by the Israeli Government.

'Israel does not menace its neighbours ... '

Score: Zero from 10.

Rubbish. Just recently: 1. Occupation of Palestine. 2. Turning Gaza into a ghetto. 3. Invasion of Lebanon

Your rights are also supposed to be given to the Palestinina citizens of Israel... but they aren't. Israel is an aparthied state.
Shouldn't your rights extend to people in the occupied territories?

I've always supported the right for Israel to exist within secure borders. Ive never supported the fascist and racist regimes elected by the Jews of Israel. But you warmongers don't want peace want. Your comment about letting the guns do the talking just shows you want all the mideast and will use your weapons to achieve that end.

One might ask what is your reality? Are you on another planet.

Yuyutsu, having felt heartfelt sympathy for the Jewish families treated so inhumanly by the Nazis, I do feel I should offer an apology.

But having gained honours in general social science studies early in my retirement towards the end of the cold war, must say I stick by the recently discovered expresssion by former US Minister of state, Henry Kissinger -

that allowing little Israel to go militarily nuclear would not only greatly upset the existing middle east power balance, but dangerously add to the present Islamic resentment.

Keith,

No that just isn’t specific enough. Where is all the recent border changing through settlement expansion going on?

>> “I've always supported the right for Israel to exist within secure borders. Ive never supported the fascist and racist regimes elected by the Jews of Israel. But you warmongers don't want peace want”

Oh my god.

Tell me Keith, who is Israel to make peace with? Hamas? You speak of Hamas election manifesto as if it had ANYTHING to do with Hamas and their operations. It is a lie that was perpretated to make Hamas politically palatable to moderate Palestinians. Since their election they have reverted to type and all of their actions are entirely compatible with their Charter. Tell me are you honestly suggesting that Hamas charter is NOT representative of the organization. Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and attacks on the territory have been limited since then to chasing the incessant rockets which Hamas is shooting at Israel. It is a ghetto for that reason alone

Should they make peace with Hezbollah? The group whose invasion of Israel and kidnap/murder of Israeli soldiers precipitated the 2006 Lebanon war? Just look at Hezbollah’s reaction to the return of the disgusting murderer Samir Kuntar. Listen to the words he uses, including "We swear by God to continue on your same path and not to retreat until we achieve the same stature that God bestowed on you” that being martyrdom in battle against Israel.
http://www.mideastyouth.com/2008/07/15/in-prisoner-swap-samir-kunter-is-no-hero-to-the-arab-fight-for-justice/

The outpouring of joy for a man who deliberately and coldly smashed in the head of a four year old girl with his rifle butt shows the depth of the depravity of Hezbollah and its supporters.

You pretend that Israel can make peace with these people? You suggest that it is Israel which is racist and fascist, when it is only Israel where the two peoples live side by side.

You, who support these actual anti-democratic facist/racist organizations have the gall to suggest I don’t support democracy. You must be joking. Hamas and Hezbollah, democrats? What cave have you been hiding in?

Keith, your answer was partial and evading:

Yes, you support the right for Israel to exist within secure borders.
Well, thank you, but are you just playing with words?
What does "Israel" mean, is it just a name?
Perhaps you can accept a state called "Israel", but only once it lost all content?

For this reason, I specifically asked you not about the state of Israel (a mere instrument, not an end by itself), but about the rights of the Jewish people within it to maintain their Jewish culture.

If you accept Israel AS A JEWISH STATE, then indeed there should be no talk of guns.

I am all in favour that Arabs who wish to live peacefully within the Jewish state, respecting its Jewish nature, should be allowed to live there as equal citizens. I would like to support the rights of those Arabs that already live in Israel and I am terribly sorry and upset about the incidents when this has not been the case. I am, however, suspicious of why others would like to do the same - why would someone who is not Jewish want to migrate and live in a Jewish state? what's the big deal? Unfortunately, the most common answer is, the desire to destroy Israel and its Jewish nature from within - sorry, that's not acceptable.

I made it pretty clear in my previous posts that I am against territorial expansion. Sometimes there is no choice but temporarily go out of one's borders as a necessity for survival in a very hostile neighbourhood, but the moment this is no longer necessary, I would like to see Israel back within the 1967 borders. If/when the security threat is gone, I don't even see why Israel should include Arab towns and villages whose majority are not interested in living in the Jewish state - once security stops being an issue, I would let them choose to live under any state/regime they want.

Thanks, Bushbred:
Wasn't Kissinger a subtle diplomat? "ALLOWING little Israel...": nobody allowed Israel to go nuclear, so all is well and Israel remains!

yuyutsu, you still haven't got Kissinger's message, or rather a Third World War if Iran, possibly the world's strongest Islamic power rears up if attacked by Israel, especially if the rumour is true, that Iran already has live discarded Cold-War nuclear warheads.

Kissinger's message still stands as a warning what letting revengeful small powers go martially atomic might bring on?

Yuyutsu,

Lets be clear here. I have no objection to Jews being Jewish. I do object to Jews refusing others the basic human rights Jews expect.

Israel not only claims to be a Jewish state but also claims to extend basic human rights and equal treatment to all it's citizens. This latter point doesn't occur and in fact minority grouops within Israel are treated unfairly and differently to Jewish people.

I don't have a problem, it is the likes of you who with weasel word arguments try to deflect attention from these basic inequities and try to justify an apartheid Israeli state.

Your position on the Israeli land stealing are just more sniffling weasel words. Don't waste your whineing and grizzling on me. I'm not listening.

Paul L

Do you want settlement names and addresses? Don't be so bloody silly. I'm specific enough for all but fools. Don't waste my time with such stupidity.

'Tell me Keith, who is Israel to make peace with? Hamas?'

Well Paul it's already happened ... did you miss it or are you in denial?

I spoke of Hamas election manifesto as if it was an election manifesto. Your response simply re-enforces your ignorance of the democratic process.

'It is a ghetto for that reason alone'

Gaza is a ghetto because the Israelis are behaving like Nazis.

'Since their election they have reverted to type and all of their actions are entirely compatible with their Charter.'

Since Hamas's democratic election Israel invaded and threw half their democratically elected representative in jail, slaughtered others, denied their legitmacy and attempted to meddle by propping up the PLO fool (Now largely irrelevant) and his unelected Government.

Sheeeesh I wonder how you actually live in your world of denial. Such an attitude ensures events over take you often and ensure you remain perputually a self-fulfulling victim.

Keith try to tell the Jewish National Fund that they did not pay for Israeli land.

Suggest to up to 1 million Jewish Middle Eastern refugees that the Arabs paid them for their land which they left behind when they were "gently persuaded" that they were not wanted in their ancient homelands.

Consider the plight of the Baha'i and the Druze who found refuge in Israel after their treatment in Islamic lands.

Ponder on the decline of Christians in the ME.

Throughout the 19th century Jerusalem had a majority Jewish population, Bethlehem and the whole of Lebanon had majority Christian populations. The Christian majorities have largely disappeared, only the Jews have retained their lands in Jerusalem. Saudi Arabia bans Churches, could the Islamic republics perhaps be indulging in some form of ethnic cleansing?

Of course the Israel haters will not even discuss any of this. They are in denial of the existence of a particularly nasty Islamist streak. Even women on the left stupidly fail to realise that the treatment of women as inferior is something these fanatics want everywhere in the world. Even some gays are too silly to realise what the Islamists would do to them. The Israelis live with this reality, they know better.

Don't imagine for one minute that the disappearance of Israel would change the resolve of these fanatics. Attacks in Bali, London, Mumbai, New York, attempts on Glasgow airport had nothing to do with Jews or Israel. Finish off the Jews the we come for the gays, the atheists then those Muslims who differ from our hellish version of the faith. The Turks are better informed than most of you.

But of course Stalin, Hitler and Lenin were nice people too. The extreme left never learns.

Bushbred for someone who states with pride that they are a historian and political scientist your level of scholarship is sadly lacking.

Have you ever looked at a map and do you understand what the SIZE of Israel is?

Would you make similar noises if Australia was one third the size of Tasmania and apart for the seabord all other surrounding areas were populated by people bent on your destruction? Size matters. I know that is difficult for Australians to comprehend

Keith,

Yes settlement names is exactly what I’m challenging you to produce. Specifically those settlements which as you have stated are “expanding the borders of Israel”.

The ceasefire is a joke. Hamas missiles are still being lobbed into Israel from Gaza every day. Is that what you call an attempt to make peace? They’re taking some breathing space, that’s it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/world/middleeast/27mideast.html?ref=world
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0624/breaking52.html

It is you who is living in denial. Your support for the real Nazis, Hamas, has blinded you to any rational analysis of the situation.

Who calls for the murder of a whole race of people?
Who denies that the holocaust took place?
Who deliberately and coldly search out civilians for mass murder as the basis of their resistance?

Hamas!! Imagine if the Israelis had Hamas policies. Then there really would be another holocaust.

If the democratic process means to lie completely about your aims and ambitions then perhaps I did miss something. What value is Hamas’s election manifesto if it has no bearing on what Hamas intend to do and lies about who they are? It is only produced for the “useful idiots” of the left to give them a fairy tale to hold on to in the face of the brutal, genocidal and theocratic aims of Hamas.

I often wondered how ignorant and sheltered you need to be to believe that Hamas is even remotely democratic. Now I know. Hams are fundamentalist Muslims, they don’t believe in a secular system. How is it you don’t get that?

As for the Hamas politicians, Hamas had kidnapped an Israeli soldier, Israel had every right to retaliate by kidnapping Hamas members.

Secondly, Radovan Karadzic was democratically elected, I wonder whether you think that means he should be protected? The Hamas “politicians” (read militant commanders) aren’t protected from retaliation by Israel for their earlier terrorist attacks.

I’m not a victim of anything, I support the ONLY democracy in the Middle East. You support religious zealots who decapitate people and strap bombs to themselves so they can infiltrate civilian areas to unleash mass murder. You’re the victim here mate.

Bushbred,

There are two completely differrent issues here:
Israel (presumably) acquired nuclear weapons, but only for self-defence, and it already prevented many wars and its likely destruction. Even the peace with Egypt was likely a result of that.

Iran, on the other hand, especially under its current leader, is bent on conquering the world to enforce their version of Islam on everyone. Their nuclear ambitions are not specifically related to the Israeli-Arab conflict. They threaten the Suni-Arab countries just as well, and Europe, and in fact Australia as well. Once they acquire nuclear weapons they will hand them to terrorist groups (you know that Israel never did and will never do the same).

If you dare consider what it means, all of our major cities are situated by the ocean's shore, so just imagine a cargo container labeled "washing machines" arriving in Sydney's port and as it is opened by customs there is a FLASH and a split-second later Sydney is no more. You may ask "why us?" - perhaps becasue we were just used as a polite ulitmatum to the Americans, but for us it would be all over.

Regardless of what Israel does or does not, or even whether or not it exists, if Ahmadenijad remains in power, world-war III is inevitable.

Now Keith,
not many words are left: you are not willing to listen anyway.
Arabs who accept Israel as a Jewish state should be given all rights - and more.
Arabs (and others) who do not, and threaten Israel should receive no rights at all: as for them, let the guns do the talking.
You have no understanding on how generous Israel can be for those who accept it and let it live in peace, nor on the extent of how bitterly painful it will be for those who come to harm it.

Blogs for Perpetual Peace

I really do feel and appreciate your sentiments, Seneca, but from a tried and tested scientific point of view, the smalllest Middle East nation being the only one with a nuclear armoury did not and still does not bear well for the future of an already troubled Middle East, as Kissinger meant when he made the declaration.

Also from a historical viewpoint, it was a gutless UN, somewhat held back by America, which must bear the blame for not establishing a Multi-National permanent protection force for Israel.

Really find it hard to say because we have friends in America, but do blame US decisionmaking, or more rather a lack
of strategic common-sense regarding the whole problem.

Should we be thinking more of getting rid of Hamas and Hezbollah or the perceived NEED for such organisations to exist?

If those organisations ended tomorrow, would Israel just pack up and quietly go home and abandon all it's objectives?

Conversely, if Israel pulled down those walls and withdrew it's troops, would Hamas and Hezbollah disarm and become an IRA-type political party?

Neither side has a monopoly on atrocity or provocation and neither side is totally without blame.

If it was as obviously one-sided as most commentators make out, it would not have gone on for so long.

Whatever the're doing over there just isn't working. It's as if somebody actually wants this situation to continue indefinitely - if not the protagonists, then perhaps even a third party.

Wobbles: On re-reading the contributions to this chat, it seems as if most people here are more concerned about allocating blame, rather than suggesting ways out of the impasse. Each side treats the other as if it were one person who can be "taught a lesson"...all Palestinians are Hamas, all Israelis are greedy settlers, etc. At base it's a quarrel over land, irrespective of who got there first. The Palestinians are justifiably resentful at being robbed of their land, while Israelis, justifiably determined to see no repetition of the Holocaust, resent terror attacks and cannot understand Palestinian resentment. King Solomon, where are you when we need you?

wobbles

A problem is that the fundamentalists in the surrounding states believe with sincerity that their God given mission is to make everyone a follower of the Prophet Muhammed as they interpret his words. They also believe that they are entitled, indeed obliged, to kill anyone that gets in the way of that mission. Israel is therefore a sticking point, a non Islamic state right in the middle of their territory. They have already freed Lebanon from its Christian majority, but Israel grows in strength.

The fundamentalists are only a small minority in the Islamic world. Most Muslims are a decent moral bunch who we would all enjoy having as neighbours, but even a tiny minority amongst such a large religious group still numbers many times the population of Australia. Because of a failure of most middle eastern states to establish conditions where the populace at large can live comfortable lives free of poverty, this minority has a large leverage amongst discontented people throughout the region. Blaming Israel is a perfect way to distract their attention away from the leaders.

Is has nothing to do with Zionism or Jews, Israel is a thorn in the side of these people. It could have been Buddhists or Confucians, look at what happened to the Baha'i and Druze, or for that matter Christians in the area.

Recognise the real problem and remember that the majority in Israel are refugees from other ME countries.

Yes, Wobbles, the answer is unequivocal YES to your second question:

"If those organisations ended tomorrow, would Israel just pack up and quietly go home and abandon all it's objectives?"

This is exactly what Israel did when it signed a peace agreement with Egypt, this is what it will do once there is a credible peace with Syria, this is what Israel is currently offering Lebanon.

True, there are some lunatic Jewish settlers with crazy messianic agendas (believing that occupying land will hasten the coming of their messiah), but they are a minority and the objective of the vast majority of Israelis is just to live in peace. If not for the deadly terror attacks, Israel would have brought those settlers under control - the tragedy is that those terror attacks paralyse Israeli politics to the extent that it is unable to deal with the violent settlers.
Just yesterday the Israeli army attempted to remove caravans from an illegal settlement - one settler snatched a soldier's gun and shot 5 times in the air, while another attached a knife to a soldier's throat and took his helmet. Previously those settlers sabotaged army vehicles, wounded military officers and threatened their families.

With such an undecisive government, the *mighty* Israeli army is afraid of the settlers: Israel is simply too weak to deal with so many terrorists at once, but once the terrorists across the border are gone, it will be able to deal effectively with its inner ones.

Without those Muslim terrorists, the Palestinians could have had a happy flourishing state long ago, including both the West Bank and Gaza, a bridge between them and the refugee problem satisfactorily solved, but as "Logic" explained just above, this would go against the ineterests of Hezbollah and Hamas, who are secret-allies of the Jewish settlers: they cannot live without each other!

___________
Bushbred:
In theory I like your idea of a Multi-National permanent protection force for Israel, but in practice, what mother will accept her son to be killed for foreign interests? wouldn't they all flee at the first shot?

Thanks for the credit, Yuyutsu, and also agree that commonsense as it could be called, would be difficult to ensue.

Hope it is okay for me to use a heading from the logic of Immanuel Kant, late 18th century German preacher and philosopher who first coined the idea for a Federation of Nations, which actually did help to begin the League of Nations as well as the United Nations.

But unfortunately the inheritors did not stick to Kant's concluding message of warning that -

from this day on not one personage nor even one great nation must ever be trusted to ensue - what he called - Perpetual Peace.

Far better it be a Federation of Nations.

As Kant concluded.

Yoohooo boys,

The game has changed!

Bushbred is likely right to suggest the Iranians have coldwar nuclear warheads. Why else would they show the world they have the rockets capable of delivering them? As they did a couple of weeks ago.

I don't think the Iranians need to or will attack anyone with them. Like Israel the threat of having them is enough. I think they are smart enough to let the world see just how militarialy pigheaded Israel can be.

The tide to peace is underway in the region. Israel is negotiating with Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria. Israel by now, at US prodding, must realise it can no longer safely baulk at least to returning to it's '67 borders. .. and removing the occupation and the land those settlements are built on. All other issues are now absolutely irrelevant.

Young Steve,

The truth is that most Palestinians living in the territories are supporters of either Hamas or Fatah. If you have seen any footage of the territories you would know that the cult of death is pervasive. Photos of “Martyrs” are everywhere.

Support for Israel’s settlers runs about 10 to 15% of the population. Yutsu-Yutsu is bang with his analysis of the difficulties of Israel dealing with settlers, whilst the terrorists are continuing with their bombing campaign. Hamas can’t even stop firing missiles at Israel during a ceasefire, for gods sake.

Mahmoud Abbas and his bunch are Israels best chance of securing a lasting peace deal. Unfortunately, they are also a bunch of corrupt b@stards.

You say >> “The Palestinians are justifiably resentful at being robbed of their land”

But what about the Gazans? Why are they more militant than the occupied West Bank citizens? They had the chance to start building their country, instead they used the opportunity to better attack Israel. Israel’s crackdown on Gaza came AFTER the rocket and other terror attacks from that territory.

The problem is the Islamic extremism of Hamas. They are not interested in negotiated settlements. They believe they have God on their side, and they want to win it all.

I understand that some people might say Israels settlers are the same. I agree they are. But the settlers aren’t the gov’t in Israel. They don’t have a lot of support, and if the terror attacks stopped, the gov’t would have the ability to face these groups down.

Israel has done it before. They unilaterally pulled out of Gaza, leaving their settlements behind. If the attacks had stopped I have little doubt that Israel would have continued by withdrawing from all of the Palestinian areas of the West Bank as well as a number of the smaller settlements.

Israels experience with Gaza shows that it is not as simple as just withdrawing from the territories. All that will achieve is more Israeli casualties as new locations for rocket attacks and suicide bomber infiltration, will be found.

bushbred

The one problem with that argument about a a Federation of Nations is that small minorities can easily be outvoted. This already happens in the UN where Islamic states continually vote in a group against tiny Israel which has only one vote.

The same would happen with the Basques, the Kurds any group which lacks numbers.

Also how would each state choose its representatives. How many UN members have governments which are the choice of the people? How many existing states limit availability of information? Did Kant have a process for making sure that could be achieved? What sort of government did Kant's Prussia have?

logic, going by your OLO monica, you should have gained reason enough to know that Kant's Federation of Nations also included regionalism, each chosen nation thus acquiring support from smaller nations or tribal groups around them.

Such was much talked about during the Korean War when it was meant to keep a strong permanent force with its own permanent insignia.

Well chosen UN term leaders were also very important, but the most importance was not to let any nation become top dog, as it was with Britain with the League of Nations and is so very much too much so with the US right now.

Finally, surely your preference for Logic, should have you know that Kant's proposition was sound, especially as it was from philosophers like Kant and those before him that the term logic was formulated not as the best way, but the Right Way.

Regards, BB, WA.

Logic,

"A problem is that the fundamentalists in the surrounding states believe with sincerity that their God given mission is to make everyone a follower of the Prophet Muhammed..."

Same as fundamentalists of any religion. That's what they do.

What then of the additional belief among fundamentalist Jews that they are entitled to this land "because God gave it to them", despite all legal and moral challenges to the contrary? There can never be a peaceful resolution as long as that notion exists - only a total victory won by force or attrition.

It's also not surprising to hear rumours of Iranian WMD's starting to appear and now Israeli jets are alleged to be overflying Iraqi airspace. Interesting days ahead.

Wobbles,

No US president will allow a nuclear war.

No US president will allow the launch of US nuclear weapons in response to an attack on Israel where Israel is the initiator of any sort of an exchange.

I think we've seen the last of unfetterted Israeli attacks on it's neighbours.

The balance of power in the mid east has changed. I think seeing Israel negotiating with Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria is a sure indication the US have accepted the enevitable and have shoved Israel into embarking on a realistic peace process.

I think we'll see a genuine attempt at peace with departure from the disgraceful occupation and a dismantling of those provacative illegal settlements.

I think there is now a genuine chance for peace in the mid east. There is a very real threat to Israeli cities.
For years we've been subjected to the propaganda line that Israel is at the mercy of it's neighbours. When the reality is that either it's neighbours have peace treaties with Israel or they are completely impotent to assert any sort of military threat to an overpowering Israel. That is what has changed. The threat is now no longer an imagined threat but is very very real.

Hi logic,

Nice to see you contributing again.

Bushbred,

My experience in relation to Logic is as you've assumed ... and he's decent too.

Many thanks, Keith and Logic, with myself getting too flamin' old, along with a faulty computer, like to leave it to the likes of you.

Cheers, BB

Keith,

Seriously, don’t you understand the difference between wishing/hoping something is true, and actually believing it?

If Iran launches nukes, it will go up in SMOKE!! Israel itself has enough nukes to level the place five times over. And there is NO WAY, the US stands by while Israel is attacked by Iran. NONE.

Besides the US’s obligation to help protect democracies from the dictators and theocrats, it would be an intolerable change in the balance of power in the region. If Iran survived and won (if such a thing is possible) any attack on Israel, their next move would be to control the flow of oil in the gulf by standing over their Sunni neighbours. This would mean that a dictatorship/theocray worse than Hitler would control the global economy. It would start a nuclear arms race among the Sunni Arab nations, total catastrophe.

Nope if Iran was stupid enough to do anything like that it would be SMOKED.

>> “The balance of power in the mid east has changed. I think seeing Israel negotiating with Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria is a sure indication the US have accepted the enevitable and have shoved Israel into embarking on a realistic peace process. “

Again with the wishful thinking.Israel negotiates with Syria because peace with Syria would be in both those countries interests AND it drives a wedge between Iran and Syria, who used to be a tight anti-Israel coalition. They negotiated a ceasefire with Hamas because if Hamas are serious, Israel has always been ready for peace. Secondly, if Hamas break this ceasefire (lthough I can’t imagine what the rockets they are still firing at Israel are, if they aren’t breaking the ceasefire) Israel WILL go back into Gaza and retake control, especially of the rocket launch sites.

>> “I think there is now a genuine chance for peace in the mid east. There is a very real threat to Israeli cities. “

WTF? You are a dreamer. Israel’s cities have ALWAYS been under threat. Where have you been hiding?

I notice you couldn't say which settlements are expanding. Doh

Paul'l, it seems hard for you to get the message that many historians believe that because Iran's historical record does show that apart from nasty rhetoric, Iran has never attacked another country, she is far less likely to attack than other so-called peaceful countries we know so well.

To be sure we are not in love with Iran, but especially in America's case, it is mostly sour gapes over the US embassy being held captive and the ridiculous way Donald Rumsfeld was allowed to help Iraq in the long 1980's war against Iran.

a war Iraq lost incidently, and which many historians say was too much urged on by the US.

Maybe you should listen to historians a bit more, Paul'l.

Bushbred,
The US was actually helping both sides during the Iran-Iraq war, supplying Iraq with weapons (conventional and chemical), satellite intelligence and money while secretly encouraging Israel to ship Iran arms in the early 1980s, and then began directly supplying weapons to the Islamic Republic in 1985 as part of the Iran-Contra affair.

The US goal of the was to weaken and destabilise Iran and limit its ability to undermine U.S. clients in the Gulf, while creating opportunities for increased American leverage in both countries while building up the U.S.'s direct military presence.

The motive, was to extend the war and keep either side from winning easily or, as Henry Kissinger said, "too bad they can't both lose."

As for Israel supplying arms to Iran, they had done this previously when the Shah was in power as well as supplying the Death Squads in Guatemala, the Nicaraguan Contras and also carried on large-scale military trade and training with Apartheid South Africa in spite of a UN Trade Embargo.

(Continued..)

Here’s some of interesting quotes for those with short attention spans -

“If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it’s true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?” - David Ben-Gurion, a founder of the state of Israel, in 1956, to Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress.

“Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either…. There is not a single place in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”
And “There is not a single Jewish village in the land which was not built on the site of an Arab dwelling place - Moshe Dayan, the commander of Israel’s 1967 war against Egypt, Syria and Jordan.

“The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” - After the six-day war, Menachem Begin in a speech to the Israeli National Defense College.

Many thanks, wobbles, do not know whether you are also an historian, but we know for sure your above threads are spot on.

Certainly it so that only from prescribed academia where we should find historical truth -

and thus also justice - we hope?

Cheers - BB, Dockers' follower, WA.

Thanks for those quotes, Wobbles. The fact that you looked for and found them makes you either (a) a self-hating Jew or (b) a fuming antisemite. How dare you suggest that what's happening today is a result of what happened yesterday, and the day before that and before that and before that!

Young Steve, so you believe we don't need historians to clear the political air.

What'n blazes do we need,then? Another Hitler or Stalin.

BB-WA

Thanks for quoting those two bastards, Wobbles:
Ben Gurion had no second thoughts about contradicting himself - he could have said anything under the sun depending on what he wanted to get from the person he was speaking with. Himself, a "socialist" dictator, a softer version of Mugabe, believed in nothing but holding power. So here he suddenly poses as a bible-believer... get real!

Moshe Dayan - the famous archeology-thief, would also say whatever at the time was beneficial for his private archeological collection.

Both had plenty to feel guilty for, conveniently reflecting their personal misdeeds on their nation as a whole.

In sharp contrast, Menachem Begin was a dead-honest, true gentelman and man of honour. The fact, which he admitted, that there was no PROOF that Nasser was in fact going to attack Israel, does not mean that it was not likely, especially after he imposed a sea-blockade on Israel. Nobody can prove what Nasser had in mind, but Israel could not afford to risk it, so it attacked first. Egypt did attack Israel before, in 1948, and after, in 1973, unprovoked.

As for Israel serving hidden American interests, doing the dirty work for them, isn't Australia doing the same? we are slightly bigger in size and population, geographically isolated, not under an immediate attack and not facing international and UN sanctions, yet even we find it hard to refuse the Americans, lest we are swallowed by a bigger shark, so how could little Israel refuse?

It is too late and too naive for historians to clear the political air. We are way past that point. "What'n blazes do we need,then?" I'm afraid the only thing that can do the trick is a drastic reduction in human population. Of course, nobody will accept to be on the "reduced" side.

But come on, historians, you are welcome to try anyway: could you please start by removing contents of "the protocols of the elders of zion" from schoolbooks in the Gaza strip, where kids are taught to kill all Jews indiscriminately and receive military training from the age of 5?

Bushbred: Sorry, I was being heavily ironical, even sarcastic. Of course an understanding of history is vital to understanding what's going on today. People like Yuyutsu regard historical figures as "bastards" because they once said things he doesn't agree with. Or at least if those things are under the carpet, that's where they should stay. Yuyutsu's recipe is one for eternal conflict between Israel and its neighbours. His last para about the Protocols of Zion is the only one with which I agree. It's alarming and disgusting that this is still in use as a political weapon.

Also: do the purveyors of this antisemitic crap not understand what part it played in stoking the Holocaust, which in turn was a major factor in establishing the state of Israel in the first place?

Youngsteve,

You may not be aware of it, but records were discovered showing that your grandfather has been naughty, so therefore you ought to leave your home and jump off a cliff.

Plausible?

Sorry, I didn't mean it about your grandfather, but would that make you for a blink of a second want to leave your home and jump off a cliff?

I don't mind having an intellectual/historic discussion, for the pleasure of it in the comforts of Australia: but it would not change anything in the Middle-East.

BTW, you are wrong in thinking that my despising of Ben-Gurion and Dayan has anything to do with what they said. It is rather what they DID, but is not directly related to this discussion.

Anecdotically, Ben-Gurion claimed in 1918 that the Arab farmers of Palestine (as opposed to the Beduin nomads) are descendents of original Jews that stayed in Israel all centuries, but gradually converted to Islam from the 7th century on. He was hoping to convince those farmers to join the emerging Israeli nation, but shoved it under the carpet in 1929, following the Arab massacre of Jews in Hebron.

Does it help to know that Israelis and Palestinians are in fact the same nation? is it of any practical use? I am afraid not.

It's a fact that there are too many people in this world, far more than this earth can hold. Now look specifically at the 1.5 million Gazans (probably more now), squeezed in such a small area, with no jobs, living off UN food rations and breeding like there is no tomorrow: do they have anywhere to go? any economic prospects? any hope? Thus they fall prey to bizarre religious leaders that use them, selling them false hopes of both heaven (literally) and earth (throwing the Jews to the sea and taking their lands).

Suppose historians established clearly that global warming is a direct result of our western-wasteful lifestyle. Would you then invite a drowning Bangaladeshi family and share your home, food, water and everything with them? most likely not even your relatives, so why Israel?

Youngsteve,

I’m neither a “self-hating Jew” nor a “fuming anti-Semite”. Funny how people react when you wander too far from the prepared script. History isn’t a moving 3 year window and perspective is always important.

I’m at least prepared to see things from all sides and in this instance, both sides are to blame and both sides are the victims.

Those random quotes I used were some of very many more I could have used that show the difference between historical fact and current Public Relations and not at all difficult to find.

Although I’m quoting from the past, isn’t that what the Holocaust has become – a “get-out-of-jail-free” card that can be pulled out whenever required and used to justify anything?

There have been mass slaughters and persecutions of both Muslims and Christians in Srebrenica and Rwanda since then but nobody’s claiming special ongoing consideration for their descendants.

I feel nothing but sorrow, horror and shame for those who endured those camps but I don’t have much time for those who exploit the memory of the deaths of the innocent for their own short-term modern goals, just like those mindless drones who strap bombs to themselves for some misguided higher purpose. Likewise, those who deny it ever happened should seek professional help.

Also, the Protocols of Zion, (which some people on BOTH sides like to quote from) was a hoax and the State of Israel wasn’t directly established as a result of the Holocaust. Land was set aside as a safe-haven and Israel declared ITSELF to be a sovereign nation, after a very interesting campaign (which included the occassional terrorist act) most which seems to have been forgotten but is very relevant to what’s happening today.

Something I can’t resolve easily is that an Arab, whose family may have lived in what they regarded as their homeland for generations, cannot return there, but somebody else – from anywhere in the world but simply by having a Jewish mother - is automatically granted Israeli citizenship and free to “return home” at any time. Is there a special word for that?

Wobbles...I agree with you almost entirely. In future, I shall keep my sarcasm to myself (see my reply to Bushbred). Of course both sides are victims, and both see themselves as having a monopoly on victimhood. But, very generally, Jews are naturally unable to empathize with the sufferings of others such as Rwandan Tutsi or Moslems in Srebrenica. Their own experience is foregrounded, and the same applies to all other persecuted minorities. I am not speaking of individuals within those communities, please note. There are honorable exceptions everywhere.

wobbles

Just a couple of things. Even the most extreme of Jewish sects follow ancient Jewish principles that the deity is just as favourably disposed to people who are not Jewish as long as they are good. A good pagan is considered to be more acceptable in the afterlife than a bad Jew. Jews do not have a policy of requiring every one to be Jewish. That is why Israel allows Mosques, Churches, Baha'i Temples, but Saudi Arabia does not allow Churches.

The belief that one has the only true belief is confined to some sections of Christianity and Islam.

You seem to be unaware that the UN has a different definition for Palestinian refugees than others. Large numbers of Egyptians and others moved into Palestine during the 19th century as the Jewish settlers improved the land and created job opportunities, many of the refugees are not long term inhabitants at all and arrived after the European Jews.

And why quote two or three people in isolation and use this as proof. Try quoting Chaim Weizmann, arguably the true founder of Israel.

What is also ignored in all criticisms of Israel is the movement of populations in both directions, Muslims out of Israel and Jews, Christians, Baha'i Druze etc into Israel. The idea that Israel is a product of the holocausts is just not true. The Jewish homeland became a refuge for middle eastern non-Muslims as much as for European Jews.

To ignore this is to lack balance.

Logic,

Thanks for the comments and I must admit that I tend to agree.

My efforts were mainly to drag any debate back to the centre and balance out some of the more extreme comments at either end.
I hope I didn't over-compensate.

It's a complex area and deserves informed comment rather than emotional rhetoric - something I'm also prone to from time-to-time.

Logic...I have never said nor believed that Israel owes its existence solely, or even mainly, to the Holocaust. A number of factors brought the modern Jewish state into being, and the Holocaust was certainly one of them. But its importance or otherwise simply cannot be measured. How does one put a figure on the degree of sympathy the rest of the world felt after the war for Jewish suffering? All one can say is that, for all kinds or reasons, this sympathy would have been stronger in English-speaking countries, and much weaker in the Arab/Moslem world. But it is myopic to deny or play down the influence the Holocaust had on later history.