David Singer expresses some disappointment with the discussion, saying it's a bit negative and backward-looking (I stopped reading after a while, sorry if more good has happened and been acknowledged).
Singer says a 130-year problem needs to be resolved. I think the problem is a lot older than that.
1400 years ago (634-638) the Muslim (some call them Bedouin, see late version of the formation of Islam) armies invaded the area which the Romans called Palestine in 173.
They found a majority Christian and Jewish population. Through the process of invasion, occupation, massacre, enslavement and transportation (and flight), the majority original population has almost disappeared from the land, and an Arab and almost completely Muslim population has taken its place.
Regardless of whose god is invoked in this arguement, the Jews have a good right to call 'Patestine' their home, through being the aboriginal occupation (see the North) and through continuous occupation, including under extremely difficult conditions (dhimmi).
An Arab (and that's Muslim) majority Israel will be a return to the oppression of Muslims against Jews that has been Islam's sorry history all too often. That's why a Jewish Israel will never accept the right of return. The (mostly) Muslim Arabs can't accept that they have lost every war against Israel, and keep the former Arab inhabitants of Palestine a hostge to that incapacity. They have had some success in eliciting sympathy for these hostages.
The solution to this problem will only be found when the (mostly) Muslim Arabs understand that they cannot carry out their genocidal plans against the Jews. They may wish to fight a nuclear war before they accept this. They certainly seem happy perpetrating violence all along the way.

Mac:

Sorry you have nothing to contribute other than a continuation of the current conflict.

Keith:

1. Virtually no Arab or Jew will have to move from their homes under my proposal. Please understand what that means for the current and future generations of both the Arab and Jewish populations and their descendants. Surely these humanitarian outcomes are well worth pursuing instead of continuing the current political conflict.

2. The International Boundaries Commission would chair the negotiations between Jordan, Israel and Egypt. My opinion is really irrelevant.

3. Why do you think such negotiations would prejudice the existing peace treaties?

4. Negotiations with the representative of the Palestinian Arabs - the Palestinian Authority - are in my opinion completely at an impasse after 15 years of trying. What point is there continuing negotiations that have no possible chance of succeeding?

5.It is time for Israel to find other Arab negotiating partners. The last two Arab occupiers of the West Bank and Gaza seem ideally suited for that purpose - especially as they have peace agreements with Israel and adjoin the West Bank and Gaza respectively. Matchmaking is indeed an art. The mismatch between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is clearly there for all to see. The chemistry with Jordan and Egypt will be light years more favourable.

6.My proposal offers the hope that the Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza will acquire citizenship in a sovereign Arab country be it Egypt or Jordan. This is the best outcome in my opinion that can now be achieved in negotiations. The new Arab state envisioned by the Roadmap - the 22nd - is dead in the water.

7.The Palestinian Arabs negotiating stance has seen them lose the opportunity afforded by the Roadmap to acquire a state in the last part of Palestine not already allocated to Jordan or Israel. That is the reality unfortunately that we are faced with following the rejection of Israel's reported offer to cede the Palestinians 93.5% of the West Bank and Gaza plus an additional area from within Israel equivalent to the remaining 6.5%.

David Singer

No matter what the words what you are suggesting is tantamount to legitimising the theft by Israel of Palestinian land. And you think that won't be opposed ... as it is now.

You are sadly optimistic and woefully wrong.

The Palestinians will still exist you cannot simply ignore them.

Even with your proposals you are still endorsing the wrongs of land theft.

Your position is just more Israeli weasel words.

Keith, I think it's a bit simplistic to say that Reagan liberated Eastern Europe. Certainly the Reagan Administration's policies helped but Solidarity, the Velvet Revolution and the smashing of the Berlin Wall was done by the people themselves. The problem in the Middle-East is that we've had various agreements over the years made by governments eg: your example of Egypt and Israel and it has not resulted in real peace ie: it has left corrupt and repressive regimes in tact (even worse, created a new one - the Palestinian "Authority") and has done little to stem the oppression of Palestinians nor the theft of their land.

Maybe it is too late, but I still think the genuine democratisation of Middle-Eastern regimes where Jews, Muslims and others all had equal rights is a better option than just border fixing or population transfer. After all, in democratic Western Europe Catholics and Protestants now have equal rights in countries where such a thing was unheard of a few centuries ago (a short period in human history). In France, Protestants and Catholics live together in a state where it was simply not possible in the 16th and 17th Centuries.

That said, I know I'm being idealist but I think the notion of particular ethno-religious groups having their own state is a problem not a solution.

David, as a trained political historian, as well as scientist, all I can do is again point out the lesson lost during modern Middle East history, about forgetting to use historical insight to keep track on our foresight.

Balance of power also comes into the above, David, thus to match militarily nuclear Israel, Iran has every right to be the same.

And we might all be very surprised when Iran makes nary a move to attack Israel, as she has never attacked another nation since her Persian days.

Could go on about both America and Soviet Russia backing the Iraqi attack on Iran, with Iran losing nearly a million troops, but still won out without declaring war on anyone one else over it.

Cheers, BB, WA.

Keith,

You say >> “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.”

I see you continue to pretend that Hamas attacks on Israel are irrelevant, just as you ignore the fact that Israel had to defend its very existence three times against attacks by the same Arab League which is supposedly giving Israel assurances of security.

David Singer,

There is just NO WAY that the Palestinians will go for this. That much should be blatantly obvious. Neither will any international body give its agreement to the idea that the Palestinian people should have their future determined by others.

I tend to agree that there was no such thing as a Palestinian in 1948, at least not in the sense they are known now. However this identity has developed since then and is now as real as any other.

The conflict will only end when BOTH sides realise that they won't achieve any more by continuing to fight, and that it would be profitable to negotiate and even make certain concessions, in return for the chance to get on with life without having to look over the shoulder.

I never suggested Israel should remove all of its settlements, I accept that some of them will stay, in particular the very large settlements. But whether you call the 1967 Armistice lines borders or not, that is where agreement will stand or fall. The offer by Israel to hand over 93.5% of the west bank, as well as Israeli land to compensate for the remainder. Israel must go further however.

The process has stalled for the moment due to the dead-duck US president, however that will pass. Hamas needs to get real and become part of the negotiating process. They need to assure Israel that they are serious about respecting Israel’s right to exist. Until they can do that NO progress can be made