Methinks the real dead ducks are the views of Australian propagandists who write things about Israel that Israelis would scoff and laugh at. Mr Singer, your views represent the kind of fundamentalist fringe that has no place in the real world. You obviously oppose any realistic peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Instead, you expect all Palestinians to move to Jordan so that wacky unwashed settlers can create "Eretz Israel". G-d help us all if your plan is ever adopted by the Obama administration. Somehow, I think it won't be given that sensible moderate Zionists like Rahm Emanuel have the ear to the new President.

...'turn the Jews into a minority population in their own state'..?
some sort of joke perhaps? The only claim that 'the Jews' have to Palestine is some highly doubtful self fulfilling prophecy teased out of a babble of pseudo religio/history found within their own writings, and gleefully seized upon by right wing christain fundamentalists as heralding the return of Christ.
If there ever was a new testament Christ, he certainly wont be back, and the very western 'raison d'etre' of modern Israel simply collapses into a heap of blood soaked dust and rubble. The sufferings of the Palestinian people is a blot on the conscience of the western democracies.

You're right we can't forceably move 500,000 Jews out of the stolen lands... there is an alternative.

Transfer the soverignity of those stolen lands over to the new Palestinian state. Have the any 'settlers/landstealers' renounce Israeli citizenship and accept Palestinian citizenship. Erect a Palestinian security fence to prevent futher Israeli settler terrorism. The new Palestinian state could initiate economic and land reform in their soverign territory. They could create Palestinian Land Courts to return or allocate privately owned and abandoned land to Palestinian citizens ... only.

Those actions wouldn't be novel for this region but we'd be guaranteed to see a peaceful exodus of people who wished to remained Israeli and live in the Israeli homeland.

Perfect ... it's a wonder someone hasn't thought of it before.

I've never eaten sweet and sour Duck ... pork or beef, but not kosher, yep. They are very tasty, widely available and ... uhmmm ... cosmopolitan.

Peter Singer has an interesting point - if the respective road map(s) had been published widely in the popular press at the time the negotiations were going on, then everyone would know what was offered and what was rejected. (My apologies if the various maps have been published, but I think they have ony been seen in specialist books, outside of the negotiating rooms.)
Personlly, I think the Muslim Arabs only want peace on their terms - that is, Israel is to no longer be a Jewish state. This is the reason that the right of return is insisted on (often under the euphamism, 'a just resolution of all outstanding issues') and why the mostly Muslim palestinians are held hostage in refugee camps by Muslim countries, who refuse them entry, permanent residency and citizenship. That the palestinians cooperate in their imprisonment is testimony to the strength of this anti-Semitism abroad in the Muslim world. (The Christian palestinians, as far as I've seen, don't want a Muslim-dominated Israel: after all, they live in a Muslim-dominated environment already.)
Israel has every right to refuse to be anything but a secular Jewish state, and so the right of return has to be refused. Only once Israel's Muslim neighbours can live with this will there be peace. But that means Muslims accepting that another piece of the world is not ruled by their fascist regime. It took them a long time to come to terms with losing Spain, Eastern Europe, the Balkans, Greece, Armenia. But these could be said to be on the periphery of the Muslim world: Israel is near it's centre.
I won't hold my breath, as it's likely to take many years. It's been 60 years so far.

Irfan:

No one - Jew or Arab - need leave his current house if the West Bank is divided between Jordan and Israel. Is this clear enough?

GYM-FISH

It is always easy to be abusive with an anonymous post. The Palestinians Arabs could have had their state in 1937, 1947, between 1948-1967, 1993, 2000 and between 2003-2007. The problem is they want it all. That is their prerogative to struggle for. It seems rather pointless and futile.

Keith,

Your solution is certainly one the Palestinian Authority could do well to look at. You should seek out their views. They would have to revoke certain provisions of the PLO Charter but nothing is impossible if the will is there to achieve it. Again this is not the expressed outcome Abbas is seeking. He wants a Jew free West Bank.

So David, you are opposed to the 2-state solution. That places you on the far-Right fringe of Israeli politics. Why should anyone, Israeli or Australian, take your "solution" seriously?

Irfan:

I am not opposed to the two state solution. What I maintain is that it will not happen because:

1. The Arabs want 100% of the West Bank and Gaza
2. The Arabs want 500000 Jews kicked out of the West Bank
3. The Arabs want the right to return to Israel

They are perfectly entitled to make these demands.But Israel is perfectly entitled to reject them.

Result - no two state solution is possible.

These Arab demands have remained unchanged and unmodified since 1967 and there is no indication they will be altered. You don't have to be an Einstein to conclude that the two state solution is a dead duck.

Further from *David's* comments, the militant Israelies will not as a matter of "security" policy tolerate hostiles or even potential hostiles on their border.

For the sake of public opinion and the cameras they will play the game of "peace talks" but that is all they are, a game only.

Where is the evidence for this U may ask, well, history to date suggets that every time a peaceful solution comes close, one hostile from one side or the other will commit an attrocity and suddenly old wounds are re-opened, old prejudices inflamed and in rapid time all cards for peace are off the table. Thus, my view is that if the prospect of peace is allowed to be ruined over and over by the hostile minority, then the so called "peace" overtures of the political establishment are duplicitous.

As spoken of recently, way back in '97 *Shimon Peres* said
"Someone must pay the price."

My view is, why should the Palestinian population as a whole be made to suffer? Rather, if it was up to me, I would disable the joint Israeli/Hamas defence grid (the civilian non combatants) and offer them something like an EU passport with temporary "holiday houses" in other places, well away from the combat zone and military line of control. They need not relinquish their claims to their land of course, but neither should they have to suffer in so doing.

The Arabians, some of whom are also Muslims, are blessed with more than enough wealth to be able to do this.

Then, if some want to smash on with Israel, then do so without risking the children, women and oldies.

But U must know, the hard line Israelies are well off the leash and the "real" Jews will not be able to control them. If it came to a time when there were only willing combatants left in Gaza and the West Bank, my bet would be that they will kill U all.

Sometimes it is necessary to lose the battle in order to win the war.

...Adam...

"No one - Jew or Arab - need leave his current house if the West Bank is divided between Jordan and Israel. Is this clear enough?" (David Singer)

1. Then what about those who WANT to leave their current house?

The quoted number of 500,000 includes residents of Jewish suburbs of east-Jerusalem, not just hard-core settlers. About half of those (250,000) are on the wrong side of the border only for economic reasons, being lured there by cheap-housing offered by previous governments. They will eagerly return to Israel once given the financial incentive. Are you proposing to simply forget them there?

Then again, what about the Palestinians who want to leave and go to Arab countries but are not allowed to?

2. Nobody wants the west bank, it is good for no-one.

Jordan could receive full control of the west-bank any day if they wanted, but they rejected the offer because, understandably, they are not stupid and don't need a subversive Palestinian majority in their country.

Israel is suffering from the occupation which corrupts it from the inside. Once there is no conflict, thus no security needs, why should it keep holding those toxic places for even one minute longer?

The Palestinians don't want this land either, they say they do for the camera, but never mean it, they rejected it several times when offered, because they don't want to have the responsibility that comes with having a proper state.

The only ones that seem to want this place are the lunatics - both the Jewish settlers and Hamas: perhaps they should be given control there so they decimate each other until none is left.

Dream On

Your suggestion to issue non-civilian combatants the chance to temporarily leave Gaza is a sound one. The West wrings its hands at the humanitarian crisis in Gaza but hesitates to take any action to evacuate the threatened population or demand that Hamas allows them to leave and seek safer havens. Holding them hostage to the conflict raises not one comment of concern.

Yuyutsu

1. Anyone - Jew or Arab - wanting to leave his current home in the West Bank should be free do so. Jews can certainly live in Israel.The future of the Arab residents is somewhat less clear because as you say the Arab states are reluctant to accept them. An international drive to offer citizenship to departing West Bank Arabs would probably allow their resettlement without too much trauma.

2. The West Bank is the biblical heartland of the Jewish people. It was called Judea and Samaria until the name "West Bank" began to be used in 1950 after Jordan drove out the Jews then living there and attempted to annex it following the Arab invasion of Palestine in 1948 It is no man's land at present in that neither Jews nor Arabs exercise internationally recognised sovereignty. I think your assessment that no one wants it is wide of the mark.

3. Equating Jews living in the West Bank with Hamas is wide of the mark.
I don't know of these Jewish residents - or any Jews - proclaiming their rights in the same blunt direct way as Hamas does:

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day."

David,

No doubt that Jewish settlers are allowed to go back to Israel and then... sleep in the streets? The question is whether you agree that the Israeli government that pushed about half of them into the occupied territories (including east Jerusalem) with economic incentives, ought to compensate them with alternate housing.

I had no intention of making a general comparison between the [other half of the] settlers and Hamas. Of course they have differences, but they do have one thing in common: they are both interested in this piece of land. This land is harmful for Israel, harmful to Jordan, unwanted by most Palestinians, but nevertheless those two fanatic groups want it, for whatever irrational reasons of their own, so I was suggesting to let them have it in common, thus allowing them to finish each other off there and relieve the middle-east and the world of their presence.

Yuyutsu

Israel has offered to introduce a compensation package to enable 70000 Jews to leave the sparsely Jewish populated areas of the West Bank thus allowing the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state in about 93.5% of the West Bank.

A land swap offered by Israel equivalent to the other 6.5% would allow the remaining 430000 Jews to stay in their current homes in the West Bank.

The Palestinian Authority (PA)reportedly will not have a bar of this proposal. It wants all 500000 Jews removed and is resisting a land swap.

The parties are presently stalemated and it will take a miracle for the PA to change its negotiating position on these two dealbreakers.

Hanging out for 100% when you have been offered the equivalent of 100% is bizarre Arab bazaar bargaining taken to its most ridiculous extreme. That is their prerogative but it makes absolutely no sense at all. It is reminiscent of scores of lost opportunities that have eluded the Arabs of Palestine since 1937.

Why every square metre of the West Bank now needs to be transformed into a 22nd Arab State is a real mystery. There has never been an independent Arab State located there.

When the Arabs conquered and occupied it between 1948-1967 and drove out the Jews living there they never once thought of creating a state for its exclusively Arab population. Instead it was used as a giant refugee concentration camp with its occupants dependent on UNWRA handouts. It became the frontline to launch terrorist attacks into Israel and as a launching pad to attack Israel in 1967.

In view of the PA's intransigent position, maybe Israel should offer to compensate 70000 Arabs living in close proximity to heavily populated Jewish areas in the West Bank to leave.

This would enable them to emigrate to willing host countries where they could begin a new life freed of the irrational policies of the PA that are causing them personal suffering on a daily basis.

David,

Offering to compensate 70,000 settlers is very cheap because those hard-core settlers that live deep inside the west bank will refuse the money and fight with teeth and nails, so Israel will not be able to take them out no matter what agreements it makes!

My question to you was not about those hopeless 70,000, it was about the poor 250,000 Israelis (mainly in eastern Jerusalem) that were forced to become occupier-settlers only for economic reasons and are not happy about it: would you or won't you agree that the state of Israel ought to compensate them so they can afford alternate housing within Israel?

You wrote: "A land swap offered by Israel equivalent to the other 6.5% would allow the remaining 430000 Jews to stay in their current homes in the West Bank."

- What kind of a favour, "allowing" people to do something they don't want and live in a place they hate: can't Israel be more compassionate towards its own citizens?

As for those 6.5%, Why insist on an "equivalent" when you can close a deal by offering the real thing? could that be because those 6.5% are not truly equivalent? perhaps not as fertile as the original 6.5%, perhaps not as continuous? or perhaps not as holy?

Strange, why should Israel "compensate" 70,000 Palestinians which it hasn't wronged in the first place (as it did to its own citizens)?

Here is a simple peace offer Israel could make:

1. Israel withdraws from the west-bank (perhaps in stages to the extent necessary for security reasons).
2. Israel provides alternate housing to all its citizens that live beyond its border who want it.
3. Israelis that choose to remain in the west bank, do so at their own risk: from then on it is considered an internal matter of the PA in which Israel does not interfere.

Keeping its own land; getting rid of the land which is the source of all its troubles (internal and international); doing justice to its good citizens; getting rid of its troublesome elements: What could be better for Israel?

Yuyutsu

Your proposal is not very original - parroting the Arab League demand for the last 41 years that the West Bank become Jew free and the Arabs get back every square metre they lost when they engaged Israel in the Six Day War.

Maintaining this kind of intransigence will ensure no progress towards ending the Arab-Jewish conflict. Until the Arabs moderate these claims you can kiss any peace agreement goodbye.

I still believe the only solution to progressing an end to the conflict involves Israel and Jordan dividing sovereignty of the West Bank between them.

David,

You still did not answer my question about providing alternate housing to those Jews who do not want to remain settlers, but are stuck in the west-bank because they have no other dwelling.

You believe that "the only solution to progressing an end to the conflict involves Israel and Jordan dividing sovereignty of the West Bank between them.":

Indeed, among all possible solutions, this is the only solution acceptable to you, but it is a very terrible solution that will mark the end of both Israel and Jordan as we know them now.

Never mind, the Jordanian king is intelligent enough to never accept this solution, so unless you want Israel to divide sovereignty between itself and itself, this is a mere fig-leaf, but just suppose...

Shortly after your solution is implemented, both countries will be undermined and overtaken by their fanatic extermists - Jewish and Muslim respectively, turning both into versions of Iran or Afghanistan where ordinary reasonable people, especially women, find it very hard to live. The conflict, also, will subsequently resume.

For reasons you have not yet disclosed, you simply want Israel to hold on to at least some of its occupied territories, and so far, unless you clarify your reasons, it seems to have nothing to do with security (at least you did not mention it) and everything to do with religious ideology. It seems that you do not have Israel's well-being in mind, but rather the well-being of something else that you wish to turn her into.