“ICAHD's central purpose might sound noble.”

No it doesn’t. It’s just another crackpot Israeli fifth column.

Whether or not, as the idiot Halper claims, Israel calls Palestinians “Arabs” is a joke. Israel is defending itself from TERRORISTS, no matter what this crank wants them called. And, Arabs are the permanent enemies of Israel.

The article and the first post to the forum (especially) are outrageous in themselves.

More pertinently, it is a crime against humanity to demolish the houses as a punishment.

Terrorism, especially in the Middle East, is a matter of perspective and definition. State terrorism is still terrorism.

Israel was imposed on Palestine by terrorism and ethnic cleansing. This is in the historical record - nothing can change it.

Houses, property and businesses were mercilessly confiscated from Palestinians by violence and threats of violence. These are still in the hands of Israelis. The rightful owners of these places can't even visit their properties.

Before all this happened, Jews and Arabs (Christians, Muslims, etc) lived in harmony in Palestine.

The statement 'Israel has offered the Palestinians a state in more than 90 per cent of a contiguous West Bank, plus Gaza' is often trotted out by apologists for Israel. It is simply not true - it is propaganda.

Mahatma Gandhi: 'Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary... I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.'

Israel will eventually fully realise that violence begets violence.

Mahatma Gandhi: "Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs..."

You'll excuse me if I don't take advice from Ghandi.

It is said that it was not only hate that caused Hitler's pledge to get rid of the Jews but fear of the Jewish mental prowess.

And as business prowess can often mean political prowess, plus military prowess, one wonders what really makes up the present Israeli mentality for a future in the Middle East?

regards, BB, WA.

The well worn Israeli/Palestinian arguement trotted out once again. No matter what is spoken or written the fact remains that Israel is in very serious breach of various legitimate UN sanctions in its relationship with the Palestinian Arab peoples, amongst them wilful illegal destruction of Palestinian housing.(Particularly in East Jerusalem). One has only to to read Israeli history written by their nationals, (including various Zionist publications), to learn of their professed entitlement of the whole of the so called ancient Jewish biblical lands, which of course would include (amongst other land areas) the present Palestinian West Bank in its entirety. Its well beyond time that the United Nations bit their bullet & sorted the whole mess out before the warlike element in Israel engage in a quite possible future nuclear conflict with Iran.
This thorn in the worlds foot is a small insignificant nation of some 6-7 million people who should be living a life of peacefull pursuit instead of seemingly constantly engaging in explosive small conflicts with its neighbours.
As previously stated its well beyond time that the UN settle the matter permanently.

Jews, Chirstians and Muslims did not live in peace and harmony in the area that the Romans called Palestine. Muslim Bedioun tribes invaded the area in 634, and have occupied it since. They found a population which was majority Jewish and Christian: killed many of them in the invasion, deported to slavery a significant number of the rest, and only started leaving an occupied people in Palestine when the economy started to suffer for lack of a population.
The Muslim oppression of both Christians and jews is on the record. When the Zionists first came to Palestine, they were struck by how subservient the indigenous Jews were, and this was part of the reason they called themselves 'new' Jews: they were going to be assertive, and take their land back from their oppressor.
(By the way, the UN found that only 200,000 of the original 500,000 refugees from the 1948 war were found to be of Palestinian origin - the rest were in the area only for work, and could have gone home. But they were all classified as refugees, and 300,000 made up a Palestinian identity then and there.)
The Palestinian/ Arab Christians feel a true affinity with their Muslim neighbours, but are not nearly so strong about going back to an Israeli-controlled Palestine, nor subverting it.
It is in fact the Muslim Palestinians/ Arabs who are Israel's enemies, and their hatred goes back to the founding of their religion, and shows no signs of abating. Would establishing a Palestinian state in Gaza and West bank mean that relations between Israel and that state would be good? I don't think so. The Palestinian/ Arab insistence on their 'right' of return, for them and all their descendents, means a demographic change of Israel from a majority Jewish state to a majority Muslim state. From that point on, all protection for Jews in Israel will disappear. And from that point, Jews in Israel will start to disappear - sorry, be murdered in the street. And we can see just how effective the international community is in protecting people from genocidal enemies.

More and more desperate Weasel words defending the fascist Jewish state.

Camo

Your last two sentences describe he current conditions faced by Palestinians. And of course you'll still blindly and stupidly defend Israel's outrageous nazi like behaviour.

Just take a look at the racism of that Russian Jew in your cabinet.

All it's members were or are soldiers, we used to call such Governments ... Military Juntas.

"Palestinian houses have been demolished by Israel for security reasons" So all the demolitions and dispossessions are for 'security reasons', or because they did not have building permits,really? What authority issues the permits, let me guess....Israel perhaps? How convenient. So when Israeli 'settlers' replace the Palestinians Israel is more secure, of course.

"The majority of Israelis do not want control of the West Bank", then why are more 'settlers' building houses there?

If the author wants to discredit Professor Halper for supposedly telling lies, then he should desist from telling porkies of his own.

Houses demolished because they have no building permits? Oh, please ...

Even if Palestinians didn't have the proverbial eye-of-a-needle chance of obtaining a building permit, does this excuse also extend to the mosques, clinics, kindergartens, schools, roads, footpaths, water tanks, powerhouses, office buildings and libraries that have been demolished? They can't all lack building permits.

And do the thousands of Palestinian olive trees that have been 'demolished', many of which are several hundred years old, also lack building permits?

And if Professor Halper ‘denies’ Israel’s 'building permits' and ‘security reasons’ defences, then he is in good company – Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Fourth Geneva Convention, the United Nations and International Law all reject them, too.

And as for Professor Halper’s wording on the use of the words ‘Palestinian’, ‘Arabs’, ‘occupation’ and the political priority status of the ‘two-state solution’, I was also at the lecture … and heard enough to know that the author has taken the Professor’s wording woefully out of context. Halper was talking as a Jewish Israeli citizen about Jewish Israeli identity and the Jewish Israeli attitude to the Palestinians as being Arabs living in Israel rather than as a definitive culture occupying the historical land of Palestine. His overall argument was that there is nothing specifically Jewish about this attitude – that it’s a common historical attitude among colonialist cultures (sound familiar)?

The author prefers to overlook other words that Halper said … for example, that the American-born and raised professor felt such an historical connection to the land of Israel that he chose to move there over 30 years ago. If he despises Israel as much as the author indicates, then he could have left the place a long time ago. It’s because of his Israeli identity and his sense of connection to Israel, that he so passionately wants justice for its other ancient inhabitants

SJF, it's pretty clear that you were at the lecture, since all you've done is parrot back Halper's arguments.

I too was at the lecture, and Halper's use of the words "Palestinians", "Arabs" and "occupation" - or rather his argument that Israelis don't use those words - seemed to be meant to portray Israelis as oblivious idiots who ignore the Palestinians. But of course the problem, context or not, is that his statements are simply not true. Israeli politics and discourse are consumed by the Palestinian conflict, peace and the like. Same with Halper's ridiculous assertion that all Israelis and Israeli politicians frame the Arabs as their eternal enemies. What of the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and the Oslo Accords? What of Olmert's repeatedly calling for "painful concessions" for the sake of peace. If only the Palestinian camp had any articulating the need for painful concessions necessary to end the conflict.

As for your argument about the demolitions of mosques, libraries, etc., that too seems to be taken straight from Halper with no evidence to back it up. There were some mosques targeted during the recent Israeli action in Gaza, but even Hamas didn't protest much because they stored weapons there. That's a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and international law (as is using civilians as human shields), and under both it turns otherwise protected places, like mosques and hospitals, into legitimate military targets.

I'm also pretty sure that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Geneva Conventions, the UN and International law all also reject terrorism - meaning the intentional targeting of civilians - which is perpetrated by Hamas.

I'm also sure that under international law and the UN Charter, a country is lawfully entitled to respond in self-defence when its sovereign territory comes under attack. There is simply no other way to describe 10,000 Hamas rockets fired at pre-1967 Israeli towns, and so Israel has/had every right to respond as it did.

I deeply envy Leigh. Imagine being so certain that an entire ethnic group is terrorist that you can summarily dismiss any argument to the contrary.

To a small mind, the world is such a simple place.

keith,

When the Austrians elected a racist like that russian Jew, Israel withdrew its ambassador. Yet when Israel elects a right wing extremist to cabinet nothing happens. There never was a peace process - the Palestanians never had a partner for peace. But now, with the election of this new government, even the pretext will end.

The two state solution is dead. There will eventually be a one state solution with majority Palestanian rule, but this won't come about until much more blood has been spilled (Palestinian of course)/

Jack from Bicton, as the League of Nations was a failure while too much pressed or steered by Pax Britannica so the UN has proven a democratic failure under the beck and call of Pax Americana.

It is so interesting that though the Vietnamese drove out the arrogant Americans by armoured force, Vietnam since has partly copied the West forming its own kind of democracy.

Yet despite this lesson, Bicton Jack, we still have much to learn, including sharing much of the present worldly blame, as so much pointed out by the young Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.

Certainly one does not have to be a dinkum Christian to try to live by it.

Regards, BB, WA.