THE DEPTH OF THE PROBLEM......

is seen and illustrated in this invterview.

Argue with these men.. look at what they say.. Specially the Israeli man about JERUSALEM..

Have I not said, repeatedly.. over and over and over....that the key to understanding this region.. peace/war everything.. is in..
Jerusalem.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212659742480&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

But hey... what would I know :)

EasyTimes

I am not going to debate Israel's legitimacy, or illegitimacy.

I am simply observing the following:

--Muslims will never concede the legitimacy of Israel. (Statement of fact)

--THEREFORE

--No meaningful peace deal is possible. (Logical inference)

--THEREFORE

--Your advice to the Israelis about what they should do to achieve peace is IRRELEVANT. (Stating the bloody obvious!)

PEACE IS NOT AVAILABLE.

Full stop!

Get it?

The best the Israelis can hope for is armed TEMPORARY non-belligerence.

I tend to agree with you that the Israeli political system is dysfunctional. It should be repaired for many reasons. But repairing Israeli politics will not bring about peace because peace is NOT POSSIBLE.

I am not sure what you mean by "privileging the status quo." No status quo ever lasts more than a few decades at most.

If by "status quo" you mean the existence of Israel as a Jewish State then I doubt Israelis will surrender that easily. For one, the largely secular Israelis would be no more prepared to risk shariah law than would most Australians.

In the longer term, as I have made clear, I doubt Israel will be able to survive as a Jewish enclave. But I also doubt it will die quietly. More likely Israel and her neighbours will have a radio-active end.

Posters may want to listen to "Talking to Terrorists" on the ABC's "The Spirit of Things" program. See:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/spiritofthings/stories/2008/2270131.htm

This may seem a little off beat but having read through these posts the only conclusion available is that if Israel is going to hold on to their nuclear weapons then probably the best thing for the Middle East is for Iran to get them too.

I'm not sure that Ahmadinejad is any crazier than any of the end time US politicians. In fact I have just read a book titled The Apocalypse of Ahmadinejad, by Mark Hitchcock loaned to me by a christian fundamentalist friend and in the last pages he compares the 'end times' of both faiths and there ain't a hell of a lot of difference. But what was really interesting was how Ahmadinejad was portrayed, linking him with Hitler etc. No mention was made of the Jews living in Iran and the fact that the Iranian constitution decrees that as a religious minority they have parliamentary representation.

From my other readings I can tell you Bush has scared me a hell of a lot more than Ahmadinejad. Remember both the US and Israel refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in the two gulf wars and probably as a result Saddam deferred from loading his Scuds with anything nasty. Iran would recognise the ‘blowback’ of a terrorist nuclear strike on Israel and I feel would do all they could to prevent that ever happening.

My contention therefore is that atomic bombs are by their very nature defensive weapons. As such it might just turn out that the way forward in the Middle East is for Iran to possess them. There certainly appears to be few other options presenting themselves.

Dear Paul,

I'm glad that you agree with Antony Loewenstein's summation that I gave in my previous post - and that you would support Palestine in their bid for a homeland - were they to stop attacking Israel.
Unfortunately, as I said earlier, I don't think that it's going to happen anytime soon.

As Loewenstein tells us in his book," One of the most powerful messages I heard over and over again during my travels around Israel and Palestine was that neither side thought the other cared about its stories or suffering. This made reconciliation next to impossible..."

I agree with Loewenstein when he says,"I support the state of Israel and believe in its existence...There must be a way for Israel to exist securely while allowing justice for the Palestinian people."

But how to do that is the million dollar question. As another poster said - we'll go round and round in circles because it appears that so far this problem does not have a solution.

Any thoughts?

Jerusalem is considered a Holy place to Jews, Christians, Muslims and non religious tourists with interest in ancient history.

Jerusalem 's simple solution is to become an independent city/ state like Monaco where people and tourists with different religious persuasions could have access to it.

I can't think of any other way to achieve real long term peace in this region. One religious group keeping it inspires everyone else to capture it too. It was happening for the last 2000 years and will keep happening unless we change direction.

Peace,

Fellow_Human,

Are you saying that were Israel to agree to make Jerusalem an independent city the Muslim world would be prepared to accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state?

Because if that's not what you're saying then what advantage is there to Israel in giving up Jerusalem?

And if that is what you're saying then I don’t believe you. What is more I don’t think you would believe you.

Foxy,

Here is the reality.

The elimination of the "Zionist entity" has become the focal point, I may almost say the obsession, of Muslims around the world. It is beyond the power of Israel to change that. Other than vanish there is literally nothing that Israel can do to assuage Muslims.

The consequence is that the Palestinians could not negotiate a lasting peace with Israel even if they wanted to. There will always be elements in the wider Muslim world egging them on to have one more go.

Lowenstein is wrong. Peace does not come when foes "feel each others' pain." It comes in one of two ways:

-- One side scores a knockout blow; or

--The parties to the conflict feel it's not worth carrying on the fight.

Israel cannot land a knockout blow and right now neither can the Muslims. But the Muslim side thinks, probably correctly, that time is on their side. So they are prepared to fight on.

That is why talks of peace or reconciliation are MOONSHINE.

That is why Fellow_Human's suggestion is besides the point.

Many Jews find it hard to let go of the MYTH of peace. They figure, probably correctly, that if conflict persists Israel will eventually succumb. If they live in the Diaspora they feel that continuing conflict will make it difficult for them to live with their neighbours. So they clutch at the straw of some sort of peace.

But bitter foes who feel they will eventually win do NOT make peace Foxy.

Learn to live with that.

Deal with it.