David

I don't find your position at all shocking. What I find amusing is that you don't propose what should replace them.

A 30 year peace is pretty lasting ... at least for the middle east and especially since it is also a peace maintained by parties you indicated you thought impossible to live in opeace.

If you don't want peace then what do you want ... ongoing conflict? Or do you niavely expect the destruction of the governments of Zionist Israel and the Arab and Persian dictatiorshipos of the mid east to simply result in peace?

Bushbred,
The original tragic mistake was that no Western or European nation would or perhaps could allow for the Jewish refugee just as now, little allowance is made for the Palestinian refugee. Both are tragic and we haven’t properly learnt from the first lesson.

Israel is, as with many others and rightly or wrongly, a sovereign state under UN sanction. Morally, nuclear weaponry is reprehensible. The ‘authoritive permission’ you cite, of whether Iran, Israel, Pakistan or the U.S. etc. can have these WMD’s, will be insufficient. This is because, currently, there is no universally recognized force, superior to all, with sufficient moral authority. Until this occurs, we continue along tragically and dangerously raise the stakes.

mac,
I can quite agree, the "Jewish problem" was solved by creating a "Palestinian problem". Truman did not consider that the placing of 100,000 displaced Jews to Palestine would also the mean the placing of weapons in the hands of radical Zionists and the eventual displacement of 900,000 Palestinians.

The Arabs also wanted to establish a single state in all Palestine, but they had not the wherewithal to establish such a state in the half granted to the them. The Jews would certainly have risen against this state, with effects little different than those that resulted.

Truman's support for a Jewish state remained cautious and conditional. He was especially irritated by the torrent of support for a Jewish state from Zionists, and became more so as time went on. But had the tables been reversed and the "single state for all" as proposed by the Arabs, led by Nazi collaborator Haj Amin el Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, was followed, there would have been be no Jewish survival. Husseini had told the British his plan for solving the 'Jewish Problem' in Palestine was the same as the one adopted by Nazis in Europe. Some may cynically say, “Well, problem solved” and yes, there would no longer be a Jewish/Arab conflict. Remaining in force, however, would be the Nazi ideology and the nuclear bomb.

Mac and Paul L:

Israel will not be returning to the 1967 armistice lines. You both wrongly refer to them as "borders" which they never were.This is a very important distinction since it highlights the status of the West Bank and Gaza as "no man's land". To return to those armistice lines would involve uprooting 500000 Jews which is simply not going to occur. The Palestinian Authority has reportedly rejected Israel's offer of an equal area of land from within Israel to compensate for the retention of the West Bank land it retains.

Keith:

You need to emerge from your cocoon and concentrate on the current situation.Shooting the messanger and ignoring the message is really a waste of time. To me it indicates you have no real criticism to offer regarding my proposal.

Graham Y:

Thank you for your support.

Bushbred:

Your concerns are the very reasons why it is necessary to get negotiations started between Israel, Jordan and Egypt as soon as possible.

Keith:

Please elaborate on your thoughts about the peace treaties between Israel and Jordan and Israel and Egypt as I am not sure what you are trying to say.

I am proposing that the West Bank and Gaza be divided between Jordan, Israel and Egypt in direct negotiations between them. Virtually no one - Arab or Jew - will have to leave his existing home.

I am not calling for the destruction of any existing States. I am saying the creation of another Arab State between Israel, Jordan and Egypt is dead after 15 years of unsuccessful negotiations to create it. It is now time to divide the West Bank and Gaza between three existing States to try and defuse the conflict and end the suffering of Arabs and Jews.

Let us all stick to discussing my proposal or coming up with any other suggestions that can be critically analysed without abuse directed at those who make them. Leave the past behind, deal with the present situation as it exists and how the future should proceed.

David Singer,

Israel has no qualms in uprooting Palestinians it appears, how many Palestinians equal one "settler"? Where will Israel's borders end, at the Euphrates? Your automatic assumption of the moral high ground is insupportable, given the evidence and would be treated with disdain in any other context. "No man's land" indeed, where have we heard this before, 18th century England perhaps. It's pointless continuing the discussion since you insist on begging the question--which is understandable of course.

Keith, we had peace (if that's what you want to call it) in Eastern Europe between 1945 and 1989. It was disrupted by East Germans in 1953, Poles and Hungarians in 1956, and Czechs in 1968. The Russians had to move in to restore the peace. And as we know, virtually everyone ruined the peace arrangements in Eastern Europe come the late 1980s.

In other words, there is no real peace where violent oppression exists. This includes places like Jordan, Israel and Egypt. However, I do have one important proviso. Like the people of Eastern Europe prior to 1990, the people of Middle-Eastern regimes must make their own arrangements and fight for democracy themselves.

It's a cliche but I think true: democracies tend not to go to war with each other. That's why I think it is not enough for real democrats in the Palestinian movement to focus on Israel (as they have often historically done) but broaden their tactics and strategy.

David Singer,

You are not offering much that is new.

The borders of the new state would still have to be drawn. So the questions are posed.

Where do you propose they be?

1. At todays illegal course.

2. At the 67' borders.

3 At the 48 original UN mandated borders.

How do you propose removing the illegal settlements?

From my coccoon I have seen Hamas and Israel approach peace, I have seen the Arab League give guarantees for the existance of Israel. I see those illegal settlements, Israeli's expansion and the illegal occupation and repression of Palestinians as the impediments to peace today.

What you are proposing is giving Israel, Jordan and Egypt responsibility for accepting the decisions of your proposed International Boundaries Commission.

My question is why jepodise the existing peace between these three nations?

Why can't your IBC mediate with Israel and Palestine for removal of the illegal settlements and a return to the '67 boundaries. You might recall this is the proposal from the Arab League of which both Egypt and Jordan are members, and which both have endorsed.

In your proposal you do discuss the removal of the occupation or the lifting the repression? Are they to be allowed to stay until Israel decides they go or should they be gone before negotiations take place?

I don't agree involving Jordan and Egypt and dividing up and proposing to give up Palestinian lands will solve anything. The illegal settlements, Israel's expansion, the occupation, the repression and the stealing of Jersulem will just not be accepted by any Arab.

It's wrong to exclude the Palestinian people from invilvement in determining their affairs.

David JS

Name the conflict between Jordan and Israel and Egypt and Israel since the time of Sadat.

The Cold War and the occupation of Eastern Europe was ended by Ronnie Reagan. I never saw the period from 1945 till then as at all peaceful.

I know there is no peace in the countries we are discussing. That was not my claim.

My claim is that there is a long lasting peace between them.