Mr. Singer wrote:

Missed opportunities by the Arabs to create a separate independent sovereign Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza have been squandered on at least six notable occasions in the past 62 years:

"during the 19 years between 1948-1967 that Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza - where not one Jew or Jewish town or village was located following the expulsion of all Jews living there as a consequence of the 1948 War of Independence;
during the 19 years between 1948-1967 that Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza - where not one Jew or Jewish town or village was located following the expulsion of all Jews living there as a consequence of the 1948 War of Independence;"

During that time the Palestine people were not given an opportunity to say they wanted a state. They did not miss an opportunity as they did not have an opportunity.

Like Mr. Pilger on the other side Mr. Singer is so partisan that he cannot recognise a genuine attempt at peace.

Singer seems to be unaware that sovereignty of the former Palestine+Transjordan _was_ divided by the United Nations in 1947.
(Here I use Palestine to refer to what is shown as Palestine in the Times Atlas of the World of the 1930s, namely the land west of the Jordan river. Singer seems to think "Palestine" includes present-day Jordan).

This partition allocated about half of Palestine to Israel (and, so far as I am aware, did not authorise expulsion or exclusion of the then inhabitants). Subsequently Israel occupied about half of the rest, and then in 1967 the remainder; it now seems to be trying to make this permanent.

The negotiations that pro-Israel advocates seem to want is over exactly how much land Israel should be allowed to take that isn't theirs. And what is the relevance of whether the non-Israel part of Palestine should be divided into one or more separate countries ?

He seems to assert that international law gives Israel/Jews the right to the entirety of Palestine. (Whether at this point he means to include Jordan as well is not stated). This is something I've never heard of before. As a lawyer he should be prepared to cite his grounds for saying so.

Here we have another arrogant asshole who, when an Arab says "I am a Palestinian" he says "no your not". Who gives this prick the right to decide what community certain people can belong to?
Why is it Jews and Arabs not Jews and Muslims? Is antimuslim the same as antisemetic?

Israel stole other peoples land and property when it was formed and they must pay for that. Either give it back or give just compensation. Whether the Arabs left under Jewish terrorism or whether their leaders advised them to leave it is still unconscionable that the Jews could then come along and say this house is empty so now it is mine. This is theft!

You give away yours, and the Jews, real agenda (naughty naughty) when you say "The Jews possess the entitlement in international law to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the West Bank under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine". This is what it really boils down to isnt it. The illegal and immoral goal of Eretz Israel. Stretching from the Mediterranean all the way to the Jordan river, and the genocide of all its current inhabitants. Just like the Jews did in Exodus.

This is why Israel, alone amongst every country in the whole world, refuses to say where its borders are. They even refuse to say where they would like them to be. Well they would wouldnt they. Cant have the rest of the world knowing about the Israelis desire for expansion and ethnic cleansing. Pity for you Jews that we can see the settlements and the wall and the jew only roads so we in the rest of the world are sort of waking up to the Israeli plot to steal the rest of the palestinains land

It has taken more than a century for the Jews to get this far in their plan and they fully expect and dont mind if it takes another century or two but they are determined to have back the land that they believe their magical superfriend in the sky gave them some 2000 odd years ago.

The scariest thing is that the Arabs just see the Jews as one more in a long line of crusaders come to oppress them and steal their land and are quite confident that given enough time they will kick them out and reclaim their holy places just like they did to numerous crusaders in the past. They also expect and dont mind the fact that it may take centuries of violence and bloodshed.

You godbotherers are sickos and the sooner religion is removed from this world the better. The ignorance and violence inherant to religious thinking has been destroying people for far too long now and we should all work towards ending it now. Let your god come down here and stop us if he disagrees. If he can!

"You godbotherers are sickos and the sooner religion is removed from this world the better."

Very true.

The thing is that the Muslims are told to be enemies of Christians, Jews and non-Muslims. That is why there is conflict between Muslims and the non-Muslims all over the world

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sr&ID=SR01102

As long as the Muslims insist the Koran to be god's word and calling Jews descendants of apes and monkeys, there can be no peace.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/009-friends-with-christians-jews.ht

Islam is a hate religion. Teaching its followers hate and having a doctrine of jihad, terrorising non-Muslims to become stooges of Saudi Arabia.

Critics of Singer are blind to the irreversible flow of history in situations of danger. After the 1967 war and the Yom Kippur war in 1973 a new historical sense and situation hardened in Israel both territorially and strategically that no Israeli statesman could abandon and could be forced to go back to the status quo ante without imperilling the existence of the Jewish State. That is why the only realistic resolution to the conflict lies in going forward from the reality of the present status quo and the reasonable Israeli concerns about their security to the creation of a two-state entity on two conditions, as Netanyahu in his last Sunday speech spelled out clearly. One, that the Palestinians unequivocally accept the legitimacy of the Jewish State in the form of a covenant, and two they agree that their state will be a demilitarized state that could not threaten Israel.

Regrettably however, President Obama in his Alice in wonderland Cairo speech hardly touched on this reasonable proposal of Israel as the most practical and feasible resolution of the conflict.

http://kotzabasis11.wordpress.com

# davidf
Between 1948-1967 there was ample time and opportunity to create a new Arab state between Jordan and Israel. Neither Jordan, Egypt, the Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza or the Arab League ever contemplated creating such a state for the 19 years that not one Jew lived there.

The expectation that such an additional Arab state - in addition to Jordan - can be created in 2009 in 100% of the West Bank and Gaza is pie in the sky.

#Jeremy

Actually Transjordan was the land that is today called Jordan - 77% of former Palestine. It was granted independence in 1946 - one year before the UN Partition Plan you refer to. The Partition Plan only dealt with the remaining 23% of Palestine which the Jews accepted but the Arabs rejected.

I am not asserting that international law gives the Jews the right to the entirety of Palestine. They at present have 17% and under my proposal would end up with approximately 20% and the Arabs with 80%.

# mikk

The West Bank presently belongs to no one - Jews or Arabs. It is no man's land. Israel has no borders - only armistice lines. Resolution 242 makes it clear these will not be the boundaries of Israel when sovereignty in the West Bank is finally decided.

Israel stands ready to negotiate on compensation but you must realise this is a two way street and Jews driven from Arab countries will need to be compensated as well.

Under my proposal no one needs to kick anyone out,no one needs to leave their current homes,no one needs to tell anyone what to believe or not to believe.

Please try and temper your language. It does you no credit.

#Philip Tang

Denigrating Islam will not bring about a resolution to the conflict between Arabs and Jews. Each group needs to recognise the others right to exist. The Moslems have 57 Islamic States world wide. It beggars belief they cannot accept the existence of one Jewish State on an area of land one third the size of Tasmania

David

The only thing I would say to you is that often fiction is stronger than reality. The realistic proposal of John Bolton's proposal of a three-state solution will not be accepted by those who have by now a strong 'fictional' attachment for a Palestinian state, that is, by the Palestinians themselves. That is why, in my opinion, the only practical feasible solution is a two-state solution, as I mentioned in my previous post, on the two conditions delineated by Netanyahu.

http://con.observationdeck.org

#Themistocles

Thank you for your thoughtful contributions.

Fiction will have to give way to reality in the end if the Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza are to have any sort of shared future with their Arab brethren as existed between 1948-1967. A return to the position then attaining is the optimum result that can be achieved.

The two state solution won't happen because the parties are incapable of reaching a mutually agreed settlement based on such a proposal. The last 16 years trying to reach such a settlement and getting absolutely nowhere indicate how far the disputants still remain apart.

The sooner the two state solution is abandoned and negotiations started between Israel, Jordan and Egypt to allocate sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza between those three states the sooner the prospects of a resolution of the 120 years old conflict between Jews and Arabs becomes a possibility

Dear David,

I would like to see a one state solution. I would like to see a state where there is separation of religion and state and also civil marriage. I would like to see a state where all people practice whatever religion they want, and whatever they want is absolutely no business of the government.

In Israel there is only one school where Arab children and Jewish children go to school together. That builds up hatreds as the racially segregated schools in the US did before they were abolished by court action.

I think it is impossible for a state to be both Jewish and Democratic. If Australia became a Christian state rather than a state where Christians are a majority I would become a second class citizen as I am a Jew. Since I would not accept a Christian state in Australia I cannot in good conscience accept a Jewish state in Israel.

The Holocaust was a tragedy. It added to that tragedy that some Jewish refugees before the war and some survivors of the Holocaust can find a home nowhere. Israel offered that home, but I can see no future but continued strife as long as there is an attempt to keep a Jewish state in a hostile area. Actually I think Israel can do it. However, it will be at the cost of being a garrison state - a militarised nation in what I think of as Jewish values will disappear.

The hatreds built up are difficult to contain, but I see little hope in two states or three states.

You wrote about the Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza having a shared future with their Arab brethren. I would like to see both Jews and Arabs have a future with each other. The Arabs are our brethren. We are their brethren.

"The West Bank presently belongs to no one - Jews or Arabs. It is no man's land."

What a load of rubbish. Tell that to the people who live there. Tell it to the settlers and their "facts on the ground". This truly shows your inhumanity and arrogance.

"Israel has no borders - only armistice lines."

Why does Israel have no borders? Because the borders they want would involve ethnic cleansing and more theft and they naturally dont want to admit this.

"Resolution 242 makes it clear these will not be the boundaries of Israel when sovereignty in the West Bank is finally decided."

It does not. Its actual words are "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;". Since before the conflict every one agrees the so called green line was Israels border the meaning of res 242 could not be more clear. Get out of the occupied territories and stay inside your recognised borders.

"Israel stands ready to negotiate on compensation but you must realise this is a two way street and Jews driven from Arab countries will need to be compensated as well."

Fair enough.

"Under my proposal no one needs to kick anyone out,no one needs to leave their current homes,no one needs to tell anyone what to believe or not to believe."

You seriously expect anyone to believe that after the Israeli record in the past 60 years? They are currently driving arabs out of jerusalem and demolishing their houses. Settlers regularly harrass palestinians and vandalise their farms and houses. Not to mention the military attacks, the checkpoints, the siege, the wall, the assassinations, house demolitions, bulldozers and the whole overpowered Israeli Political/religious/military complex.

I like David f's idea.

# davidf

The one state solution is an unattainable political goal that simply cannot ever be reached by negotiations.

There is more than one school in Israel that is attended by both Jews and Arabs. I do not know where you got your information from but it is wrong.

Israel is both Jewish and democratic and has been so since its creation.

Partition of the land and separation of the Arab and Jewish populations has been seen as the only solution since 1937. The Arabs have failed at every opportunity presented to them since then to resolve the conflict on that basis. That is their perfect right but it has brought them nothing but tragedy and suffering.

#mikk

The West Bank is "no man's land" because no one - Jews or Arabs - currently exercises legal sovereignty over the area.The last legally recognized sovereign owner was Great Britain as the Mandatory Authority under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.

Israel has no borders - only armistice lines - because the Arab League refused to negotiate final status agreements after the 1948 War and has refused to do so ever since. The Arab League is yet to recognize Israel although two of its members have - Jordan and Egypt.

Your interpretation of Resolution 242 does not accord with that of the drafters of the resolution. Israel is not required to withdraw from all the territory lost by the Arabs in the Six Day War - and will not do so as successive Israeli Prime Ministers have made abundantly clear.

I am glad we can agree on the compensation issue. That is real progress. Unfortunately I don't believe there is one Arab leader who would agree with us. Therein lies the problem.

I repeat - not one Arab or Jew will have to leave his home under my proposals. Drawing an internationally recognized border between Israel and Jordan will achieve the realistically attainable two state solution - Israel sovereign in about 20% of former Palestine and Jordan sovereign in about 80% of former Palestine.

Dear David,

I would not accept Australia becoming a Christian state. It would no longer be democratic. It cannot be both.

No matter how many times Israel is called both Jewish and democratic it remains nonsense to say it is both. A democratic state must make no distinctions among its citizens on the basis of religion and ethnicity except possibly to a limited degree to make up for past inequities.

When you say the one state solution is unattainable it means to me it is an alternative you are not willing to consider. It is possibly not feasible at this time, but it is a goal we can work for.

Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam is a cooperative village of Jews and Palestinian Arabs of Israeli citizenship. The village is situated equidistant from Jerusalem and Tel Aviv-Jaffa. My information is that the only primary or secondary school integrating Jewish and children is there. Where are the others?

#davidf

Sorry to disagree. Israel is both Jewish and democratic. Its 20% minority Arab population (1.2 million Arabs)enjoys the same voting rights, civil rights and freedom of expression and movement as the Jewish majority. Arab citizens occupy judicial and diplomatic office and are members of Israel's parliament. Arabic is an official language of Israel. In only one area to my knowledge is there a distinction - Arab citizens cannot do military service at the present time.

What is the point of working for a one state solution when that goal is not attainable? Israel is certainly not going to preside over its own demolition.

Neve Shalom is indeed one school with mixed Arab and Jewish students.

There are four others I am aware of with an enrolment of about 900 pupils operated by an organisation called Hand in Hand in Jerusalem,Galilee,Wadi Ara and Beersheva. There is also another - the Weizmann School in Jaffa - with a mixed enrolment of 350 students

Dear David,

I am glad to hear there are other schools besides Neve Shalom with a mixed student population.

Israel has many democratic attributes that the states around Israel do not have such as an independent judiciary and a free press.

However, we apparently define democracy in a different way. My definition includes forbidding of discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity or religion. By my definition Australia was not a democracy when the White Australia policy was on. It was not a democracy when it refused admittance to Jews fleeing the Nazi oppression apparently only because they were Jews. Under the Law of Return I who was not born in Israel and have no connection with it at this time can go to Israel and become a citizen while an Arab born in Haifa who fled Israel during the War of Independence cannot. The Knesset has conducted an inquiry into infrastructure and services such as garbage collection, roads and other services provided to communities and found that such services were not provided to Arab villages to an extent equal to that provided by Jewish villages.

Two Israelis who want to marry each other cannot marry in Israel unless clergy of the appropriate faiths approve. There is no civil marriage in Israel. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948 by the United Nations states.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Israel violates that democratic right.

The United States has a majority of white Protestants. However, last year they elected a black man as president and a Catholic as vice-president. Can you envision a non-Jew being president or prime minister of Israel? In discrimination against blacks and Catholics the United States was really not democratic. However, with that election they have gone further on the road to democracy.

Dear David,

You wrote: “What is the point of working for a one state solution when that goal is not attainable?” I think a one state solution is attainable. However, it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. I assume some Israelis agree with me. In the Knesset there has been discussion of a bill that would make advocacy of the end of Israel as a Jewish state subject to criminal sanction. There would not be discussion of such a law unless a significant number of Israelis supported that position.

I used to think Israel could be both Jewish and democratic. I no longer think so. I am against Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu or other states which are based on part of the population.

I have a high regard for the Jewish state. It has restored the dignity of an oppressed people. It has contributed greatly in science and the arts.

However, I also have a high regard for democracy, and I have made a choice for democracy

#davidf

I suggest your are confusing two concepts - democracy and discrimination.

On your definition no country could be described as being democratic since one can find examples of discrimination against minority groups on the grounds of ethnicity or religion in I believe all generally recognized democracies such as France, England, the USA or Australia.

What countries would you regard as being democratic?

You can push the one state solution to get rid of Israel or even the two state solution to create a new Arab State between Jordan and Israel but neither in my opinion can eventuate as the result of negotiations. The only possibly attainable solution by negotiations remains the allocation of sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza between Jordan, Israel and possibly Egypt.

We obviously have to agree to disagree. That is for me what democracy is all about. At least we can engage in a civil discussion free of fear about what we say, free of censorship and knowing we will not be picked up and incarcerated for what we say. Then we can all have a vote and opt for the argument that attracts us the most and accept that the result when announced has not been rigged. When you think of what is happening in Iran at present, we have much to be thankful for - as imperfect as our system might be seen by many to be deficient.

Dear David,
We disagree. We don’t agree to disagree.

I have not confused democracy and discrimination. In every country in the world I assume there is discrimination against minority groups. That is part of the human condition. Discrimination itself does not negate democracy.

However, when law sanctions the discrimination and the country makes distinctions among its citizens on the basis of ethnicity and religion then the discrimination negates democracy.

Lack of civil marriage, the discrimination of the law of return, inequity of social services as well as others I could cite are all examples of discrimination by the state of Israel.

My ancestors all came from Russia where the state sponsored discrimination against Jews on various grounds. In Iran and Syria the state also discriminates against Jews.

I have lived in Australia, the United States and the Netherlands. I am sure that some Australians, Americans and Dutch would discriminate against me because I am Jewish. However, the law of those countries does not discriminate against me because I am a Jew.
Considering the many places and times Jews have been discriminated against by the law of the country we were living in I do not think it is right for us to do it to others.

However, to keep a Jewish state the state must do it to others. Therefore, I do not support a Jewish state.

I am shocked that a Jew defends discrimination by government on the basis of ethnicity or religion. You have done that to defend Israel. I think Israel is bad for the Jews because it has caused a Jew to defend the indefensible. Discrimination by government on the basis of ethnicity or religion is indefensible. Yet support for Israel has put you in a position of sanctioning something that you would possibly think as wrong under other circumstances.

Does bad become good when Israel does it? Have we established a Jewish state to legitimise the wrong done to us by doing it to others?

how can u claim that the Jordanians and Palestanians r the same there r cultural, language, religious and ANCESTRAL differences and u dismiss these. u blame the Jordanians 4 wat has happened to the Palestanians. that they should have formed a palestanian state when it controled the west bank? how could they when they were trying 2 recover from war, the palestanian dispora by the Israeli profiteering which lead them 2 defend itself from the uprising of islamic palestanian radicals who sought 2 destroy Jordan. the Hamshimites have done more 2 try 2 find peace 4 all and support the Palestanians (than any other nation. u dare dismiss and degrade their achievements.
u want a 2 nation state: 1 Jewish and 1 palestanian at the expense of Jordan. the concept of a nation state is a modern, westen ideology. using ur idea of a nation would mean that modern Israel doesnt exist. 4 it was 'a product of a pen'. it was done bcause of WW2 and the need for Western imperalistic expansion in the middle east. u say that it followed UN guidleines? the UN is 1 of the most corrupt legal organisations in the world! it only helps who can benefit them!
u dismiss a 1 nation plan because it would mean that the Jews would have 2 change their stance and u dont want that u just want 1 side 2 change.
this 1 nation should include gaza and the west bank and all of modern Israel 4 thats wat there all fighting 4 not jordan! this should b a secular, multicultural state like any other with equal rights and opportunities.
u speak of compensation 4 all. its not realistic! what of the indigenous cultures of western colonies? Have they been compensated? wat form is this compensation in? land ... money will then whose land and money?
u dismiss facts and opinion that oppose and disprove ur points. u use the advantage of hindsight and ur comfortable spot on ur high horse in a comfortable Aus home.
u want peace at the expense of others.

# Mishi

In saying Jordanians and Palestinians are one and the same people I am relying on Arab spokesmen such as Yasser Arafat,King Hussein, Crown Prince Hassan, Farouk Kadoumi and Abu Iyad who said so on numerous occasions.

In saying that Jordan comprises 77% of the former territory of Palestine I am relying on the League of Nations which established the boundaries of Palestine in 1922 when it granted Great Britain the mandate to reconstitute the Jewish national Home in Palestine.

Redrawing the boundaries between Israel and Jordan (and possibly Egypt) to incorporate the Arab populated areas of the West Bank and Gaza within the newly created boundaries of Jordan (and possibly Egypt)and the Jewish populated areas of the West Bank within the newly created boundaries of Israel still remains the best solution to reuniting West Bank Arabs and Gazan Arabs with their brethren Arabs in Jordan (and possibly Egypt} and granting them self determination within those existing Arab states.

Under this proposal no one - either Arab or Jew - would be uprooted from his current home or business.

It is a compromise solution designed to end 120 years of conflict. I believe that until it is embraced by both Jews and Arabs the prospects of peace remain very bleak indeed.

In its broader meaning as a geographical term, Palestine can refer to an area that includes contemporary Israel and the Palestinian territories, parts of Jordan, and parts of Lebanon and Syria. In its narrow meaning, it can refer to the area within the boundaries of the former British Mandate of Palestine (1920-1948) west of the Jordan River; the Country, or State of Palestine, comprising territory in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; or to Proposals for a Palestinian state in line with the pre-1967 borders.

..................................................................................................

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia published between 1901-1906:

Palestine extends, from 31° to 33° 20"; N. latitude. Its southwest point (at Raphia = Tell Rifa;, southwest of Gaza) is about 34° 15"; E. longitude, and its northwest point (mouth of the Litani) is at 35° 15"; E. longitude, while the course of the Jordan reaches 35° 35"; to the east. The west-Jordan country has, consequently, a length of about 150 English miles from north to south, and a breadth of about 23 miles at the north and 80 miles at the south. The area of this region, as measured by the surveyors of the English Palestine Exploration Fund, is about 6,040 square miles. The east-Jordan district is now being surveyed by the German Palästina-Verein, and although the work is not yet completed, its area may be estimated at 4,000 square miles. This entire region, as stated above, was not occupied exclusively by the Israelites, for the plain along the coast in the south belonged to the Philistines, and that in the north to the Phenicians, while in the east-Jordan country the Israelitic possessions never extended farther than the Arnon (Wadi al-Mujib) in the south, nor did the Israelites ever settle in the most northerly and easterly portions of the plain of Bashan. To-day the number of inhabitants does not exceed 650,000. Palestine, and especially the Israelitic state, covered, therefore, a very small area, approximating that of the state of Vermont.

...............................................................................................................

To define Palestine as the British Mandate is a definition which is no longer relevant.

David Singer wrote:

"In saying Jordanians and Palestinians are one and the same people I am relying on Arab spokesmen such as Yasser Arafat, King Hussein, Crown Prince Hassan, Farouk Kadoumi and Abu Iyad who said so on numerous occasions."

The spokesmen were promoting a unity which isn't there. It was a political statement rather than an ethnic reality. It is not the way in which Palestinians refer to themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people

The first widespread use of "Palestinian" as an endonym to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by the local Arabic-speaking population of Palestine began prior to the outbreak of World War I [That was before the Mandate], and the first demand for national independence was issued by the Syrian-Palestinian Congress on 21 September 1921. After the creation of Israel, the exodus of 1948, and more so after the exodus of 1967, the term came to signify not only a place of origin, but the sense of a shared past and future in the form of a Palestinian nation-state.

Palestinian nationalism has risen in response to Jewish nationalism and did not encompass Jordan or Trans-Jordan as it was called before it became a state.

#davidf

Palestine as designated under the Mandate for Palestine is relevant today because of the provisions of Article 80 of the UN Charter and the PLO Covenant. Transjordan comprised 77% of Palestine until 1946 when it was granted independence by Great Britain but had been barred to Jewish settlement during the Mandate which was only permitted within the remaining 23% which is today called Israel,the West Bank and Gaza.

Reunification of the heavily populated Arab areas of the West Bank with Jordan would return those Arab residents to the position that attained between 1948-1967. This can come about by the simple expedient of redrawing the boundary between Jordan and Israel.

Your prognosis is a recipe for more war and suffering for both Arabs and Jews. You can argue ad infinitum that that there is a difference between a "Palestinian" and a Jordanian" and ignore what Arab leaders have themselves said.

Perhaps you might be more persuaded by Articles 1 and 2 of the PLO Charter which state:

Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

Jordan is part of that territorial unit. Reunifying it with the Arab populated areas of the West Bank accords with history, geography and demography and allocates sovereignty in the last remaining non-sovereign area of the Mandate between the Arabs and the Jews. It will result in the Arabs exercising sovereignty in about 80% of former Palestine and the Jews in about 20%.

It may not be the complete solution from the Arab or Jewish viewpoint but I believe it is the most attainable solution without resort to further wars.

Dear David,

Accepting the PLO Covenant defining Palestine as the Mandate is a recipe for future wars. The Covenant also defines that area as indivisible. Giving them 80% of an area they define as indivisible sets the stage for the next war where they will seek allies from the neighbouring Arab countries and try to incorporate the 20% remaining.

If we worry about defining who is a Palestinian and follow the logic of ethnic nationalism the next step is a war to bring the state together to have all Palestinians in the area called Palestine. If we follow the logic of a democratic state which makes no distinction among its citizens on the basis of ethnicity or religion we can have peace by having all who live together in however the area of Palestine is defined as equal under the law in a secular, democratic state.

The Arab leaders that you cited reject Jews in their state. Jewish leaders who want to keep a Jewish state must either make the Arabs who live in that state second-class citizens or force them out.

Both Arab nationalists and Jewish nationalists cannot accept a democratic state. States representing only part of their population are not democratic.

There will be turmoil and conflict in setting up a democratic, secular state. However, the end result will be more likely to bring peace than the separation of Arabs and Jews.

The record of partitioning countries in India, Vietnam, Korea and Germany is one of conflict. Partitioning Palestine will likely be no different.

South Africa is forming a democratic state aided by the fact that the Zulus and the Afrikaners were not allowed to split off and form separate states. Denial of self-determination gives democracy a chance.

One out of many, e pluribus unum, the slogan of the United States can be a recipe for peace in Palestine.

Democratic union offers more hope than partition into Arab and Jewish states.

#Davidf

And pigs might fly.

Dear David,

"Pigs might fly" is an answer when there is no answer.