I don't like theocracies and I don't like atomic bombs.

But I am wondering whether Iran having nuclear capacity to the same extent as Israel has, would produce the balance of power in the region apparently necessary for mutual respect.

Singer is a Zionist stooge!

RobP:

Not every Gazan will want to leave. A large number would probably want to stay for a variety of reasons and aid should not be denied to those making that choice.

I don't think the host countries should be limited to the 21 Arab countries or even the other 36 Moslem countries. I do not see why countries such as Australia,France or USA should not be forthcoming to help in any such program. Gazans would be received in the same manner as refugees or migrants are currently received by host countries at present.

Refugees fleeing areas of conflict have often been faced with the same dilemma about their ability to return after hostilities have ended. I don’t know of any guarantees of return that have ever been given in similar circumstances. If the UN is unable to come up with any form of guarantee then this might be a factor in many Gazans not wanting to leave. However I have no doubt that many would consider the safety and welfare of their families more important than the absence of any such guarantees.

Is doing nothing to end the confinement of the Gazans a better option than giving them an opportunity to get out to a safe haven under a less than perfect plan that cannot guarantee their return? That is the question the UN needs to urgently address.

David

The Gaza strip would be a strategic gain for Israel and it is difficult to believe that the continued destruction of this region is any more than a land grab, than Israel defending itself. Particularly when the military power used by Israel is overwhelmingly to anything launched by Hamas.

With this in mind I ask:

If all civilians leave the Gaza strip (supposing they want to leave their homes and there are countries who will take them), what do you consider that Israel would do then?

The UN does not have a good track record in the middle east, some might ask if they are part of the problem or part of the solution?

When the British Mandate of Palestine ended on May 15, 1948, The UN was left to manage Jerusalem as a protectorate for all denominations. A day after the Brits left, King Abdullah I of Jordan, with an army comprising Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Palestine, approximately 500,000 troops attacked and captured Jerusalem and what is now Palestinian territory, kicking out the UN. There was no state of Israel at that time although there was by the Armistice of 1949.

That attack by the Arab Liberation Army resulted in 10,000 Jews and 800,000 Palestinians Being displaced as refugees. No wonder the Palestinians refer to this as "al Nakba" the great catastrophy.

Article VIII of the 1949 UN Armistice agreement, signed by Jordan provided for Iraeli access to Jerusalem, the Jordanians renaged on that agreement for 19 years until the six day war.

In 1967, the UN controlled a buffer zone in Egypt to "protect" the Israeli southern border. The Egyptians marched through the UN in 1967 with 10,000 tanks and 100,000 troops.

With that track record I'm not sure I would trust the UN with my national security. Would you?

Good on you Sydney, as an aged ex-farmer and sportsman believing in a fair deal, I have attempted to use my late acquired political science degree to still use middle-road reasoning.

Further, as a rough bush possible Christian, I feel it is the Sermon on the Mount that does help us to use the middle way.

But what has become all-important regarding Middle East problems, is for us white Westeners and mostly so-called Christians, but to make an official global offer to Share the Blame in particular for Middle East problems since the end of WW1.