Foxy,

Again your list of sources are all calling for the capitulation of Israel, some more radical than others.

An "open" mind is open to more than one opinion.

From the partition plan in 1947 that was accepted by the Jews to 1976, every land expansion by Israel occurred after a concerted invasion by the Arab countries.

The 1947 Jerusalem Riots occurred following the vote in the UN General Assembly in favour of the 1947 UN Partition Plan on 29 November 1947.
The Arab Higher Committee declared a three-day strike and public protest to begin on 2 December 1947, in protest at the vote. Arabs marching to Zion Square on December 2 were stopped by the British, and the Arabs instead turned towards the commercial center of the City at Mamilla and Jaffa Road, burning many buildings and shops. Violence continued for two more days, with a number of Jewish neighborhoods being attacked.

It is clear who cast the first stone. The concern amongst Israel is that if they return to the 1948 borders, nothing will have changed except the borders.

If the Intefada were to cease, the actions of Israel to the palestinians would change from containment to communication.

If you have anything other than flowery words by AL et al as to what could possible be a viable solution I would be most grateful.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I'm not going to do your research for you Sir.
The whole idea is that you need to find things
out for yourself. The facts are there if you're
interested - but you're obviously not.
You dismiss my references as being "biased,"
while you cite "facts."

However, you're not alone. Palestinian pressure
groups are not nearly as well organised or
influential as the Zionist lobby in countries such
as Australia and the United States, inaccurate or
unbalanced reporting that damages the Palestinian
cause is much less likely to be the focus of
comment.

If you're really interested in learning another side
to the conflict - read Loewenstein's book, "My Israel
Conflict," it just may surprise you. (Don't pre-judge
something until you've actually read it - Loewenstein
cites all of his sources)

Shadow,
My sources are many.
I note you ignored my list of actual events that go back before 1947.
If one goes back to the beginning of the Jewish nationalism (sic), early to mid 1800's and ask.
'Who was it that campaigned for a home land (someone else's) on the grounds of some claim their god gave it to them?' A bit Francisco Pizarro-stein for mine.

The Zionist's schemed and even employed violence to ensure the annexation. A trifle, 'might is right', don't you think?

Sorry ol' mate, but if some religious lot took my/your family land. Land that they had lived on for 1800 years, based on some dodgy claim that their god gave it to them 5000 years ago, I think I/you would get a wee bit belligerent(and then some)!

There is a clear line of escalating conflict between Jew and Palestinian since then.

One could note a clear parallel principal with Australia's indigenous, Irish , Welsh, Scots. All of the above have had their cultural heritage accepted with varying degrees of recognition.

But as late as last week or so on OLO a group of latter day Jewish proselytizers were denying the Palestinians their nationalism. Their propaganda consisted of the usual half truths and lies. As I said then, check the history, this is a conflict of Jewish/Israeli making and sorry no sale we don't want it here.

I've also said Israel is a reality and should go back to the 1948 borders, pay compensation and get the UN to involved. However, we both know who wont accept that. I doubt that the *Palestinian people* would reject a sensible option.

I don't get the uproar.

Surely the murder of Mahmoud ah-Mabhouh will bring about peace in the middle east, I mean repeating the same action (murdering each other) over and over again works doesn't it?

What was it that Einstein said about doing the same thing and expecting a different result?

Examinator, how far back do you want to go? The diaspora?

In reality only a small proportion of either Israelis or palestinians were born before 1948 or even 1967, so the issue is dealing with the here and now.

As atrocities and war crimes have been committed by both sides, neither can claim a moral high ground. The single biggest problem with these intellectuals is that they try and view what is happenning through the glasses of a society at peace. I can't think of any conflict which has been completely clean by either side.

If Hamas's demands are completely unacceptable to Israel, then it is a waste of time trying to pursue. Similarily negotiations cannot occur until there is a cease fire, and the cycle of attacks, retailation and counter retaliation is not likely unless both sides are willing to pull back.

In the interim, high brow commentry on the issue by AL etc might as well be considering Roman times for its relevance.