It may come as a surprise to most that many Jewish people, prior to WWII and the Nazi regime, had no real desire for a separate homeland –apart from a minority of Zionists. Most Jewish people were happy to live and settle in Europe or the U.S. as permanent residents. Whilst anti-Semitism was used as a cause for national unity in forming the state of Israel – it was largely the left of politics who supported its formation and invoked the sceptre of civil human rights.

Ironically, the ‘left’ of the political spectrum has done an about face, now citing the religious conviction of a sought after ‘holy’ land, emanating from Israel, as the main scourge. Their focus, however, shows a complete bias. To some degree, fanaticism certainly exists on both sides of the Gaza strip, but not of equal proportion.

The proclamation of the State of Israel could not have occurred in Uganda, as once suggested (about as likely as Tasmania); the current formation of Israel and its geographical location underpinned the formation of a U.N. declaration, and to paraphrase the sentiments expressed from one of the ugliest events in history, the motto was, briefly, “Never again!”. Colonialism or its extension has never been the real issue. Dispossessed Arabs have certainly fudged a boundary between black and white – as has the rightful invocation of the British terra nullius in Australia

If the West avoids its responsibility, through either appeasement or moral grandiosity, and does not give proper deference to the principle of ‘estoppel’ (i.e. keeping your word) we become the purveyors of a catastrophic outcome - the sovereign, secularly governed state, we sanctioned, will act according to our same principles.

I find the responses to my article to be particularly disappointing, negative and offering no hope to ending the conflict between Arabs and Jews other than the prospect of another war. That is a depressing thought.

I have suggested a way forward in the face of the obvious inability of Israel and the Palestinian Authority to reach the Quartet's two state solution - the last in a line of negotiations attempted since 1993. That is a fact that will not go away. So where to now?

My proposal involves offering

(i) massive international financial aid to compensate both Arabs and Jews who became victims of the 1948 War between six Arab armies and the newly declared Jewish State

(ii) to resettle and rehabilitate Arab refugees by their becoming citizens in the countries in which they currently reside.

(iii) dividing sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between Israel,Jordan and Egypt.

Criticise this proposal if you wish and I will try to answer your responses. If you do, I would hope you would also be able to advance a better solution that could also be discussed. Perhaps then there could be a constructive dialogue between us.

However going backwards - rather than forwards - may be a fertile ground for expressing your pro-Jewish or pro-Arab positions. It does nothing to advance a resolution of the 130 years old conflict between Jews and Arabs to a territory that was once called Palestine.

David Singer,

Let's examine your proposals, (you avoid the term "Palestinian" I notice).

(i) Why is it the responsibility of the international community to compensate (a) those Palestinian victims who were disposessed because of Israel's creation or (b)Jewish victims of anti-semitism in Arab countries?

(ii) Surely this is unrealistic , it explicitly denies the rights of Palestinian refugees in relation to Israel's injustice towards them by transfering the area of redress to their present countries of residence. Why should these countries grant them citizenship?

(iii) divide "sovereignty between Israel, Jordan and Egypt", this is a method of writing a people out of history, as if they never existed.

I wonder if there will ever be a "Sorry day" for Palestinians, not likely I'd wager.

Finally, I doubt if Israel is in much danger given its nuclear weapons and superpower protector.

Here's an alternative solution.

Set up a fund for public subscription with the aim of compensating and resettling in western democracies all new arrivals in the region. Let's nominate 1945 as the cut-off date for classification as new arrivals.

The region would then naturally and rightly return to the residents whose families have had continuous connection with the land for the past 1800 years.

Makes more sense to integrate peace loving liberal democrats into like-minded societies than trying to inject a few million peace loving liberal democrats into the midst of millions and millions of hostile, peace-hating despotic-prefering hordes.

David.. I think your proposal is probably one of the most creative and workable I've ever heard.

For Mac's benefit there is no such thing as a 'Palestinian' people. It's as much of a mixture as most places with Druze, Muslim Arab and Christian Arab, Samaritans (who's history goes back to the first exile of the northern 10 Israelite tribes around 722bc)

Then there is the issue of immigrant Arabs who came with the Muslim invasions...

Given all this, the idea of a split as David suggests is quite brilliant.

The sooner the sense of 'Palestinian Idenity' is erased from the pages of history the better off we will all be, including them.

Jordan would be reluctant though given the events of Black September and the attemped coup.
Egypt? unknown quantity.

The major sticking point with such a solution would be as it is now, the "status of Jerusalem".

It is there that the theological and the territorial intersect and violently so. The peace (or lack thereof) will always depend on that.

The idea of 'Palestinian connection to the land' is invalid.
Many of the immigrant Arabs/Muslims would have only been their for a much shorter time.

The Jews have occupied it for longer and with more meaningful history. The Romans took it from them, and historically they have as much right to take it back as the Romans did to take it from them.

It should never be forgotten that even our Western date traces itself to the events in Jerusalem long ago, which in turn connect us to the history and prophetic traditions of Israel the nation, the Kings, the Prophets, the Temple, Moses, The Law, the slavery in Egypt, the dramatic salvation, wanderings in the wilderness and so much more.

Polycarp,

According to your logic there are no such identities as an Australian, Greek or any other people, human history is a record of invasions and migrations, the fact that Jews lived in the area in the past in no way justifies the creation of Israel.Your statement that the Jews predated other ethnic groups in the area is rubbish, read some history. Many of the Palestinians probably have ancestors that arived in Neolithic times, the argument that Jews have some claim which is superior to the Palestinians is chauvinistic nonsense. What about those Jews who are descendants of Khazar converts, by your logic they would have no claim to "return". References to Bronze Age religious propaganda in support of 21st century policies are irrelevant to the discussion.