A lame duck President initiates a UN resolution that condemns Israel from settling land captured from Jordan in 1967 that Jordan captured in 1948 Make a two state settlement impossible.

Obama's legacy will be unrealistic expectations conflict and misery.

Poor Obama, he should have learned by now
that in order to be a friend of Israel
you must learn to be silent. No criticism
will be tolerated. As journalist
Antony Loewenstein is finding out:

http://www.antonyloewenstein.com/category/israel

well the one good thing about Obamas complete incompetence and treachery is that it led to Trump being elected. Trump has already pledged his allegiance to Israel rather than terrorist.

Haaretz Israel News published six reasons Trump would be
a disaster for US Jews, Israel, and the Middle East:

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.700648

yeah Foxy and the Fairfax/abc wrote daily about how good Ruud/Gillard were. Now we know they were as bad if not worse than Whitlam.

Dear runner,

You need to research your facts regarding the
media. You may actually learn something.

Foxy,

I get it, you don't like Trump or Israel, but try and keep on topic.

Peace is only going to come about with compromise on both sides. The base demand that Israel relinquish all land captured in 1967 is never going to happen, and the latest UN resolution is only hindering any chance of a resolution.

Trump who opposed this stupid resolution, is limited in how he can respond, however, he could rectify most of the damage by recognising the legitimacy of Israel's ownership of Jerusalem, the Golen Heights and most of the west bank.

Sorry Shadow Minister; there is never going to be an agreement for a
two state solution. It requires a compromise and Arabs are genetically
unable to make compromises.

The whole argument seems upside down. It is not the Jews that are
occupiers, it is the Arabs that are occupiers.
It really is as simple as that.
The Arabs invaded the area from Arabia. They are now doing to Europe
what they did to Assyria, Judea and Mesopotamia all that time ago.
The "West" or "Rome" tried to fix the problem at various times after 1000 AD.
That was known as the crusades and the "West" has tried again more recently.

If there is an exchange of territories to make two states some Israelis will find their homes outside of Israel. That will be ethnic cleansing as it will probably be Israeli Arabs whose homes will be pushed out of Israel and the settlements will be incorporated into Israel. That stinks. Obama is spot on. The settlements should not have built in the first place. I support my president and think he is right in this instance. I know that the territory was conquered from Jordan, and that the Palestinians could have had a state between 1948 and 1967 if Jordan had been willing. Nevertheless the territory was conquered and permanent settlements in conquered territory regardless of the status of that territory are forbidden under Geneva 4. The settlements are illegal and should be evacuated. The US has vetoed such resolutions before and did not this time. I think the US was wrong before and right this time. Whether the Palestinians would have Jews in their territory or were willing to negotiate or whether unfair resolutions against Israel have been made in the past or whether Israel is united in opposing the resolution is irrelevant. There should be no settlements. Doing what is right and just is not and should not be called treachery.

I posted this elsewhere so my apologies for those being inflicted
with my thoughts again.

I have become more affirmed in my belief that we should abandon the
Middle East to its own devices.
We, the western non moslem countries, have intervened numerous time to
try to bring some order to the area. It was done to suit our interests
as well for humanitarian reasons.
The Yazadis and the victims of ISIS in recent times brought us in.
All those lives and resources were spent for no result.

People often charge that it is all about oil. Well no matter what we
do the Middle East will always beg to sell us oil.
They cannot survive without the sales of oil.

They will never stop the war between themselves as they both wish to
conquer Rome and do not want to share the spoils. Currently the Sunnis
appear to be the keenest to invade Europe.
We really have nothing to gain by getting involved in further conflict
in the area. Just let them get on with it as there is simply nothing
we can do about it.

Currently the war between Shia (Iran, Syria, Iraq, Hezbollah) and
Sunni (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Eremites) is well under way and the war
in Yemen and Syria is just in the warm up phase. There are signs
that an invasion of Bahrain and the eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia
by Iran is on the cards and a wrong word somewhere could start it.

While they fight among themselves they will use up the manpower and
wealth they might otherwise apply against the west.
The only time we might have to act is if Pakistan
deploys a nuclear weapon into the Middle East.

All in all our best course is to let them get on with it.
It is inevitable.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You don't get it.

I do not dislike either Trump or Israel.
Do not put words into my mouth.

The current Israeli thinking is inevitably
leading to disaster. Now is the time for
the US to take a stand and Obama has done the
right thing. Israel does not have the right
to keep on stealing the homes and land of the
Palestinians. It does not have the right to
act unilaterally, it does not have the right
to wreck havoc and destroy the prospects for a
peaceful solution. Israel has been calling the
shots since 1967, always without Palestinian
consultation, and clearly believes that the USA will
support it no matter what it continues to do.
Israel thinks that the international community will
once again place a higher value on Israel's vision of
its historic destiny than on the humanity of the
Palestinians.

They just may get a surprise.

Obama did the right thing - albeit for the wrong reasons.

If words could be effective in bringing Israel back within its own borders then I would jump for joy, but it is naive to the extreme to believe so: when even North Korea doesn't give a damn and does absolutely whatever it wants, how more so Israel which is so much stronger!

What Obama actually did through his personal rebuke of Netanyahu, is to trigger the beginning of the end for the UN.

Israel is about to leave the UN, which would make it a golden opportunity for Trump to do the same, followed by Putin (who doesn't like criticism either), then others. Trump will stop funding the UN and will order it out of the USA (by giving no American visas to statesmen and UN staff to visit New-York). The UN is likely to remain with about half its members and probably head-quartered in Brazil. This will also isolate the "global warming" cult and I must thank Obama for that.

Sadly, I really don't know what, other than divine intervention, can now cause Israel to come back to its senses and leave the cursed territories that it took in 1967. At the moment, Israel is so controlled by Jewish extremists that it even creates a rift with moderate Jews outside Israel and legislates against their religious rights.

While Jews should be able to live anywhere within their historical homeland, it must be clearly understood that the state of Israel is a secular body which is not identical with "the Jewish people" and has no such mystical attributes, that on the one hand, many Jews are not represented by Israel and on the other, the civil entity of Israel includes many non-Jewish citizens as well. Those Jews who wish to live outside Israel's legitimate borders, should well be able to do so and even create their own Jewish state(s) if so inclined, but they should not burden Israel with their national ambitions.

yep the exit from the UN would be another nail in the coffin for the unelected marxist who have tried to brainwash, manipulate and intimidate people into their crude ideologies and dogmas. The sooner Trump exits this demonic institution the better. The gw scam will also unfold and thinking people will rejoice.

Israel will not take any notice of Obama or the U. N.

Obama's twin slaps in the face of racist Israel are a rare positive gesture after eight years of administering America for the Wall Street banksters. The UN resolution, freed from the US veto, gives a glimpse of what the world thinks of racism and the illegitimate enclave state of Israel based on it.

Foxy,

If you don't dislike Trump or Israel, why are all your posts on Trump and Israel so negative? Actions speak louder than words.

Secondly, your version of events is seriously flawed. Israel has always been prepared to trade land for peace, it is the Arabs that have always instigated the wars.

Prior to 1947, there was a solution that the international community wanted to implement which included Jerusalem as an internationally monitored enclave with access to both Jews and Arabs, and the Jews accepted. However, the Arabs refused and launched an all out offensive. After nearly a year of fighting, a ceasefire was established (never a peace treaty) and this was recognised as the state of Israel. Even though none of the Arab states recognised Israel or its boundaries.

In 1967 Egyptian President Nasser organised a rearmament of the Arab states for a massive offensive against Israel preceded by cross border guerrilla attacks, Shelling from the Golan heights, massing of troops and armour on Israel's border and the blockade of Haifa (an act of war). In 6 days the vastly outnumbered Israelis thrashed the combined Arab forces and captured buffer zones from Syria, Jordan and Egypt in the Golan Heights, the West Bank and the Sinai.

In 1973 Egypt and Syria tried again with an initially successful surprise attack, but after initial advances, the overwhelming Syrian tank force was wiped out, and so too the massive Egyptian invasion force, and Israel occupied both sides of the Suez and territory deep within Syria.

Egypt finally made a peace treaty and recognised the right of Israel to exist, and in turn Israel gave back not only the most recently captured territory, but the entire Sinai peninsula won in 1967. However, Syria still refused a peace treaty, and forever lost the Golan heights.

In 1993 The Oslo Accords were signed, and Israel pulled the military and settlers out of Gaza, and some West bank areas and helped establish an independent Palestinian Authority.

Claims that Israel is not prepared to negotiate land for peace are a lie.

Dear SM,

«Israel has always been prepared to trade land for peace»

Very true and so are your examples, but the size of the land that Israel is prepared to trade has shrunk significantly in recent years as its demography changed.

The Arabs may well be idiots who are unable to take an excellent offer when they receive it, but this does not help Israel to save itself from itself.

Or perhaps, after all, the Arabs are not such idiots as they seem, but rather apply a clever long-term strategy that will cause Israel to implode by itself once its merits are exhausted and it no longer retains a moral justification to exist.

All proposed solutions leaving any of Palestine occupied by foreign invaders are manifestly unjust.

Poland provides a just historical model. One Poland, all Polish territory restored to Poland, all foreign invader-occupiers bundled out.

There were a couple of decades of German whining over it and especially the Oder-Niesse line, but a world fed up with German aggression for Lebensraum-for-Germans sensibly didn't listen and the occupiers had to settle in their own homeland.

The German occupation and sense of ownership of Poland was driven by the same race supremacism as the foreign racist occupation of Palestine and maintained as in Palestine, by tanks, guns, warships and warplanes and not by right.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I don't think that I am being negative at all.
I'm simply stating the situation as it exists.
I support the right of Israelis to live in peace
and security, but not at the expense of the
Palestinians. Why do we constantly hear about
Israel's need for "security," as though that
justifies erecting walls, checkpoints, and
barriers? Why is the world told to believe that
the Palestinians should only accept peace on
Israel's terms?

Antony Loewenstein summed things up rather well
in his book, "My Israel Question.":

"Sooner or later, Israel and the Palestinians
will have to meet face-to-face, listen to
each other's grievances and negotiate with honesty.
Only then - and on the condition that both Israel
and the Palestinian state achieve safety and
security - will this conflict be resolved. Neither
side has a monopoly on suffering, but only one
party has the power to end the occupation and to
recognise that Israel and Palestine are historically
destined to share the same homeland."

Foxy, why have the Iraelis erected walls ?

In response to Foxy, yes of course they must have the right to live in peace and security. Back in their own homelands. And eligible for immigration to free world countries as equals with everyone else if their homelands reject or oppress them. Not as armed overlords in Palestine.

Dear Bazz,

The government cares little about violation of
international law, and the human rights and
welfare of the Palestinians. They simply want them
to live elsewhere. The Kadima vision is of a
concrete wall, with Jews on one side and as many
Arabs as possible on the other.

I suggest that if you can get hold of a copy of
Antony Loewenstein's book, "My Israel Question,"
it's worth a read and mny things will become clear.

Dear Foxy,

«The Kadima vision is of a concrete wall, with Jews on one side and as many Arabs as possible on the other.»

This is an excellent vision indeed - don't you like it?

A strong and tall concrete wall standing precisely on Israel's pre-1967 borders, protecting ALL Israelis (Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze, whatever, including yourself when you come to visit) from violence and terror coming from the idiots on the other side.

Foxy,

The only way that your version of events or that of Antony Loewenstein can hold any validity is with a huge dose of selective amnesia.

From 1948 to 1967 the two state solution could have been easily implemented. All it would have required would have been Jordan to relinquish the territory it had captured in the west bank and east Jerusalem, and for the Arab countries to recognise Israel and its right to exist.

However, the Arabs were openly set on genocide, and to make it worse confiscated all the land and property of the millions of Jews living in middle east who then moved to Israel.

The ones with the power to bring peace are the Iranians, the Syrians, the Jordanians etc who can stop sponsoring Hezbollah and Hamas attacking Israel and bring the Gazans out of misery.

Israel is a multiracial, multi faith, secular state, however Palestinians want an Arab State of Muslim faith in the ideology of Hesbolar. They do not want any other race or religion.

Compare Israel it is a prosperous, humanitarian secular State leading the world in science and innovation. If you have visited the Middle East you will recognize these facts.

Foxy, you did not answer my question.
Why did the Israelis build the wall ?

This whole argument is redundant.
The Arabs will NEVER accept that Israel can exist.
They repeat that often enough that you have to believe they mean it.
In any case they are unable to make a compromise.
The Koran does not allow any compromise on the Jews, except to gain
a temporary advantage.

So perhaps my suggestion that we just ignore the middle east and let
the Sunnis & Shias fight it out and if needs be help Israel build a
better wall.
Can anyone here suggest a better solution ?
With no compromise available, what do you suggest Foxy ?

Dear Bazz,

«The Arabs will NEVER accept that Israel can exist.»

Agreed - so what?

Who are those stupid Arabs that Israel must dance to their flute?
Israel destroys itself by holding those cursed territories:
peace or no peace, Israel should do what's best for itself,
Israel should save itself from that curse while the Arabs may bark all the way to their graves.

Yuyutsu,
«The Arabs will NEVER accept that Israel can exist.»

Agreed - so what?

Now the diplomats have to stop pretending that there can be an agreed
settlement. Israel's territory should be what they can enforce build
their wall where they want but no one other than the Israelis and the
Arabs will by force decide where the wall is built.

That done we all stand back and watch what happens in the Middle East.
I think the possibility of an agreement was lost long ago.
Hamas have insisted that the Jews be driven into the sea. They simply
say that the Jews have no place in the Middle East.
The rest of the Palestinians demand that Jerusalem be handed to the
Moslems.
The Koran is at the centre of the problem.
In one part it says that any land that at any time in the past was
occupied by Moslems remains Moslem land forever.
So 600 years after the Romans drove the Jews out the Moslems
moved in and that means Jerusalem must be handed to the Moslems.
Simple isn't it ? Well yes if you believe the Koran but the moslems
don't count you if you don't.

Eeerrr Yuyutsu said;
Who are those stupid Arabs that Israel must dance to their flute?

Hmm, well eerr you touched the truth of the matter there.
It is the basis of the whole problem of the Middle East.
It would take 100s of years to fix it.

Dear Bazz,

«It is the basis of the whole problem of the Middle East.»

What problem are you talking about?

There are of course many problems - in Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Saudi-Arabia, to name a few, but I don't think you were referring to those.

Israel has a problem, a problem of its own creation - the corrupting effect of the ongoing occupation of the land it took in 1967. This is an internal problem and was not caused by Arabs, Muslims or the Koran.

Surely Israel had to rout its stupid attackers in 1967, which it easily did and surely it had to go beyond its borders to achieve this - but it did not need to stay there afterwards, certainly not for 49 years. The Arabs, otherwise weak and helpless as far as open warfare is concerned, were somehow able to trap Israel in its own arrogance, making it bleed internally and allow their originally-superior moral strength to deteriorate and rust over. If Israel does not rid itself of that poisoned fruit (and if the rest of the world fails to induce Israel to vomit it), then the Arabs need do nothing but wait patiently for Israel to decay and crumble by itself.

Waiting for the Arabs to agree was of course the biggest mistake - why should they when time is on their side?

---

Dear Josephus,

I agree with Netanyahu that Jews should be able to live anywhere and not be ethnically-cleansed. What Netanyahu omitted, however, is that this need not imply that everywhere where Jews live must belong to the state of Israel. If those Jews who wish to live in the West Bank are prevented by the so-called "Palestinians", then they should create their own Jewish state there and defend themselves rather than burden Israel with the need to guard them there. I wonder whether they would then allow non-Jews to live within their new state or gain any access to water, but that would no longer be Israel's business or problem.

Yuyutsu said;
What problem are you talking about?

I was referring to their inbreeding by way of cousin marriage.
It has been a very long standing problem for perhaps a 1000 years
before Mohammed came on the scene. It is encouraged in Islam.
There is much information on this genome problem which all Arab
populations suffer.
It is something that no one wants to talk about but it has reduced
their natural level of intelligence below that of other populations.
It also appears as behaviour problems one of which is often a
difficulty in accepting change or compromise.

It is a very brutal fact but cousin marriage is so wide spread that
if the practise was stopped now it would take some hundreds of years
to repair their genome.
I suggest you google Arab cousin marriage. The worse affected country
appears to be Pakistan with IQs commonly around 70.
It was a common problem in European Royalty until medical knowledge caught up.
Funny thing they took no notice of horse breeders.

Dear Josephus,

Netanyahu said that Jews and Arabs should live together in peace. One way to do that would be to have one state between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. That state would be neither Arab, Jewish, Christian nor Muslim. It would have an integrated public school system with Jews, Muslims and Christians attending the same schools as is not the present case in Israel. It would have civil marriage instead of having to have the permission of clergy to marry as is the present case in Israel. It would have a democratic government with separation of religion and state as is not the present case in Israel.

Dear David,

The question is, are you sincerely motivated by the desire for peace, or are the Middle-Eastern wars only a pretext to shove Western anti-religious culture down the throats of the people who live in those countries.

The larger the state - the less freedom its inhabitants have to live according to their own values. The smaller the states - the more competition there is between states over individual freedoms as there is more opportunity for those who are unhappy with the regime to migrate to a place that better suits them.

The heart and soul of Judaism is the Sabbath. The ultimate peace for a Jew is to be able to rest once a week on this day and Jews deserve to have one place in the world where they enjoy the safety that no one will ever expect them to work, answer the phone or attend court or any other civil function on this sacred day. Nothing is comparable with the peace, labelled "a taste of heaven", one can experience when walking around in certain areas of Israel on the Sabbath, seeing only families walking calmly in the streets with practically no cars or other traffic as well as the complete freedom from electronic devices.

As for education, the right to nourish one's children with wholesome traditions and to protect them from the corrupting effects of secular/Western influence, should not be reserved only for the rich who can afford to pay twice for their children's education.

While peace between Jews and Arabs is desirable, it is not the be-all and end-all: there are more important matters and values at stake.

David f,
I am afraid that what you would like to see is unacceptable to the Arabs.
Hamas has made it very clear that they want a Palestinian state with
no Israel and no Jews.
The PLA's Pres Abbas has said that their state must include all the
present Israeli territory, especially including Jerusalem.
These demands are minimum conditions.
Sounds like Abbas may be more flexible but Jerusalem was a minimum condition.
It is bit like if you shoot yourself we can come to an agreement !

Bazz,
"It is a very brutal fact but cousin marriage is so wide spread that
if the practise was stopped now it would take some hundreds of years
to repair their genome."
False!

Although widespread cousin marriage reduces genetic fitness and leads to more problematic genetic conditions being expressed (as there's a higher incidence of people carrying two copies of a single gene rather than two different ones) this does not mean there are more abnormalities in the population's gene pool. Indeed there's actually likely to be fewer, because those traits are expressed more so there is more opportunity for Darwinian selection to occur.

If your parents are closely related, it will probably adversely affect you, but it won't adversely affect your offspring at all unless their other parent is closely related to you.

Aiden, that is not what the comment by the geneticist said.
The genes that are the problem are so widespread through the population
that the risk is still there even if you don't marry a relation.
That is why she said it would take many generations to repair.
Now, I am no expert by any means, but from memory it was in the report
to the House of Commons by the Midlands Health Service.

If it was not there it may have been in a paper by a Danish doctor.
Apparently the Danes have done a lot of work on this.

Oh yeah that's right the Israel Firsters thread.
Here I was thinking Obama's last act of treachery would be all his pardons, including whether or not he will pardon Hillary Clinton...

As of December 20, 2016, President Barack Obama has exercised his constitutional power to grant executive clemency—that is, "pardon, commutation of sentence, remission of fine or restitution, and reprieve"—to 1,324 individuals convicted of federal crimes.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/311883-pardon-the-interruption-clinton-allegation-may-force

- But no of course, it's always all about Israel.
Ok, I'll play along...

So Israel says New Zealand UN resolution was an 'Act of War'.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/israel-warned-new-zealand-that-un-resolution-was-declaration-of-war-report-20161227-gtiogk.html

Israel would never try to influence the politics of other nations would they? No.
Of course they do, it's just that saying so is considered what's that stupid word 'Anti-Semitic'.
You know Jews have other silly words that only Jews use, like self-hating Jew...
They're mostly Anti-Semitic against their own kind, it's kind of funny, oh but everyone else is 'racist' and needs a good stern talking down to;
Given Jewish marriages are only recognised along established bloodlines and they try to preach to everyone else about equality Israel really has to be the biggest joke ever played on mankind...

The blind leading the blind, what a joke.
Dumb and Dumber.

Of course everything in the world must at its heart come down to Israel v's Muslims, one is not permitted to say 'I'm aussie, screw the lot of youse'

Bazz,

I can think of three possible explanations:

1) You misunderstood or misremembered what he said.

2) He wasn't really a geneticist; he was just a racist (that's certainly the case if he actually claimed that Arabs were genetically incapable of compromise).

3) Though the problem may be exacerbated by widespread cousin marriage, the actual cause is unrelated.

It seems that people are dumb enough to think that if the muslims were to turn Israel back into a wasteland like everywere else they live that they would not then turn their attention to the West. To stuck in their Jew hatred to see any commonsense. The muslims would be as satisfied as our own Indigenous have shown themselves with a sorry from Rudd.

encouraging tweet from Mr Trump

'We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but not anymore.

The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!

President-Elect
Donald J. Trump

finally a US President willing to call out Obama's/Clintons sucking up to terrorist and destroying their won country.

Dear Yuyutsu,

There are many varieties of Jews and many degrees of religious observance among them. In Israel some Jews revere the Sabbath and seek to enjoin observance by those Jews who don’t revere the Sabbath. In the United States where there is a great degree of separation of church and state the Sabbath observant Jews are free to live in enclaves, and those Jews who feel differently do not have to live in those enclaves. The western idea of separation and religion does not force their ideas down other people’s throats. Religious people are free to be as observant as they would like to be, but they are not free to force their ideas of observance down other people’s throats. Observant Jews such as the Hasidic Satmar and the Neturei Karta prefer to live in the US rather than in Israel. They may be as observant as they like since they are not under the control of a state which mandates religious practices but are not free to impose their practices on others.

If one is a Jew who wishes to practice his or her religion in the way they choose it is generally better to live in a country which has separation of religion and state rather than in Israel where those Jews in the government specify the way other Jews should practice Judaism.

I don’t agree that it is a wholesome tradition to keep children in ignorance or that western/secular education is corrupting. It seems to me to deny children access to the scientific attitude inherent in the western/secular tradition in favour of belief in Biblical myths is most unwholesome.

Loewenstein has made a career out of Israel-bashing. There will never be a balanced view from him. Really, there is no point in discussing the U.S/ U.N view of what Israel should or should not do - Israel will continue doing what it does, as its PM made clear today. And, Israel does what it does purely in the interests of its defence. Nobody can blame a country for that, particularly when that country is the only democracy in a sea of democracy- hating Islamic extremism. Israel is the only country on the Middle East like ourselves; and we should be supporting it. Anybody who thinks that a cessation of Israeli occupation of disputed - yes, disputed - territory will satisfy the Palestinians and their crazy friends is seriously deluded. Some posters really have a very dim idea of who their friends are, and who their enemies are.

Israel is not a nation. It's merely a foreign enclave created and held by armed violence against the nation on whose land it rests. It has no constitution, the nearest approach being its "Law of return" which is an open statement of its racist foundation. It can't adopt a constitution as to do so would define its borders and as a ceaselessly expansionist entity projecting its military power over the land in which it has its growing toehold it can't do so.

It owes its continued existence to massive subsidies from the USA, subsidies which in an always-at-risk cyclic quid pro quo funds the continuation of these subsidies and the shaky diplomatic support of the politicians it has purchased.

"Before June 4, 1967, Jews were forbidden from praying at the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest site. They were forbidden to attend classes at the Hebrew University at Mt. Scopus, which had been opened in 1925 and was supported by Albert Einstein. Jews could not seek medical care at the Hadassah Hospital on Mt. Scopus, which had treated Jews and Arabs alike since 1918. Jews could not live in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, where their forbearers had built homes and synagogues for thousands of years. These Judenrein prohibitions were enacted by Jordan, which had captured by military force these Jewish areas during Israel’s War of Independence, in 1948, and had illegally occupied the entire West Bank, which the United Nations had set aside for an Arab state. When the Jordanian government occupied these historic Jewish sites, they destroyed all the remnants of Judaism, including synagogues, schools, and cemeteries, whose headstones they used for urinals. Between 1948 and 1967 the UN did not offer a single resolution condemning this Jordanian occupation and cultural devastation.

When Israel retook these areas in a defensive war that Jordan started by shelling civilian homes in West Jerusalem, and opened them up as places where Jews could pray, study, receive medical treatment, and live.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« A lame duck President initiates a UN resolution that condemns Israel … »
.

My impression is that the Obama administration would probably not have changed its veto policy on UN resolutions condemning Israel for illegally setting up permanent settlements on conquered Palestine territory if Trump had shown a more even hand on the Arab/Israeli relationship throughout the presidential campaign.

I think there are signs of that attitude also in Obama’s determination to retaliate to Russia’s illegal incursions into the US electoral process.

Your criticism of Obama would have been perfectly justified if he had simply washed his hands on both issues knowing that it was no longer his problem and that the new president would be delighted if he did just that.

The Israelis, by the way, are not stupid – nor are the Russians. They will both have understood that Trump can be a very dangerous ally – especially when he tries to help them in his customary bull in a china shop manner.

Perhaps they will manage to herd him into a paddock somewhere and brand him - or do whatever farmers do to calm down bulls theses days.

We'll have to wait and see.

.

Banjo,

So you have the impression that Obama is a petulant idiot?

Reversing 30yrs of American diplomatic policy to thumb your nose at the incoming president is stupid mainly because the new president, especially one whose party also controls the congress, the senate, and the majority of state governors, can easily more than reverse the consequences of the UN vote.

As I said before, the US recognising Israel's new borders would put a complete spanner in the Palestinian and BDS causes, as would sanctions on any country or company that implements BDS etc.

"Israel is not a nation"? A serious drug problem or just plain stupidity in that statement!

Oh Julian you offend your namesake.
The US cannot reverse the UN resolution. If the US moved a rescission
motion it would fail because Russia would veto it.
So as Shadow Minister said the only path left to Trump is to recognise
the existing real borders. The US moving its embassy to Jerusalem
would make a very clear statement. It might also prompt other counties
to follow suit.

The unrealistic Islamic belief that Jerusalem has always been an
Islamic city and was never Jewish seems to say the least weird.
However they have a UNESCO decision that is just the truth !
According to UNESCO we should now refer to Jerusalem by its Arabic name.
I did see it but cannot remember what it was. It was indeed forgetful.

As we are now operating in Alice's Wonderland perhaps we could reach
a compromise (ha ha ha) with the Arabs and call it Atlantis.

Never the less forget the Middle East, they are just not worth worrying about.

Dear David,

I agree that forcing others how to practice their religion is a problem, which Israel has. Jews should rather discover the wonder and beauty of the Sabbath on their own terms. However, rather than throwing the baby with the bath-water, chucking everyone into a mega-state (the ultimate example being the Soviet-Union) where their voices are unheard, my preference is to shrink states to the sizes of single communities of similar values, which then have no authority over those living outside.

You say that observant Jews such as the Hasidic Satmar and the Neturei Karta prefer to live in the US rather than in Israel. Could you please explain why, because as much as I know about Israel I know very little about the US. Are American laws so liberal that religious freedom trumps (as should) all local and national interests? Some European countries for example forbid Kosher slaughter: are similar laws truly impossible in the USA? Is it impossible for example for Jews to be called for jury-duty on the Sabbath or on Jewish holidays? Doesn't Jonathan Pollard, an observant Jew, still have to wear an electronic bracelet even on the Sabbath, even on Yom-Kippur? This couldn't happen where observant Jews enjoy full autonomy.

But could there be other reasons for observant Jews to prefer America? Perhaps due to the conscription in Israel? Perhaps because Jewish law requires more of Jews who live in Israel? Keeping Shmita for example (not cultivating the land every 7th year; and not eating anything that was owned/cultivated by Jews during those years) or not leaving Israel without a very good reason? Perhaps because it's considered an arrogant rejection of God's judgement to return to Israel before the Messiah arrives?

Now if the reason is that observant American Jews have more freedom-of-religion rights than in Israel, then the question arises why they cannot enjoy similar freedoms within Israel; or better still, have their own independence in their enclaves. I believe that every group of people is entitled to self-determination on their own land if so they wish, regardless how small it is.

(continued...)

(...continued)

Regarding education, I agree that the scientific attitude is inherent in the western/secular tradition - and this is just one of the dangers of exposing children to that culture.

The scientific attitude is known to ruin children's innocence, tempting them (and adults too) to wilfully try to "progress" and improve their material situation as if life was about that, to try to manipulate and conquer the world outside instead of working inwardly to conquer one's own animal nature. Judaism on the other hand, teaches that this world is merely just a corridor (http://torah.org/torah-portion/perceptions-5772-kisavo/).

[As Jesus explained,] One cannot simultaneously serve two masters.

Dear Julian,

As you said, Israel has no constitution. The reason is that the people of Israel are too diverse to agree on one.

Israel owes its continued existence to its enemies, including people like yourself - otherwise, without the external existential danger, it would have disintegrated long ago. Without agreed positive causes, only the fear of Arab violence and anti-Semites like yourself brought it together to begin with and keep holding it together ever since.

---

Dear Banjo,

«the US recognising Israel's new borders would put a complete spanner in the Palestinian and BDS causes, as would sanctions on any country or company that implements BDS etc.»

Yes, it may indeed hurt the so-called "Palestinians" and their friends, but first and foremost it would hurt Israel.

There is a limit to the philosophy of "Bigger is Better". Israel is suffering and is being morally decimated ever since it swallowed the poison of the 1967 territories. Recognising Israel's "new borders" is like encouraging your overweight friend to eat more.

---

Dear Ttbn,

When Julian writes that "Israel is not a nation", I read it as a compliment. Since nationhood is a negative feature, I wish Julian's words were true.

---

Dear Bazz,

«The US cannot reverse the UN resolution.»

Oh yes, it can - by closing down the UN, then nothing that was said there remains relevant!

Bazz, it must have been someone else, not I, who suggested the USA should or could reverse a UN resolution. The US stood aside from vetoing the resolution so for once the UN was able to express the world revulsion for racist Israel.

And ttbn, it is not druggie ignorance to note that Israel is not a nation. It's Palestinian territory held by force and no more a nation than Rhodesia was when it was held by the British (and even Britain came to reject its "nation" pretension and label it treason in the end).

It is not Palestinian terrority, Julian: it is disputed territory. Palestinians have no homeland, and Palestine does not exist. So-called Palestinians a no more than a bunch of stateless trouble-makers who were kicked out of Syria. Some long dead idiot came up with a name for them and called a plot of dirt "Palestine". They don't own it, and they have no more right to it than does Israel, which, however, has the strength and knowhow to occupy the land to protect itself from these raving Islamic nutters and murderers. If ever there was a people needing to be wiped out in the name of world peace for democracy, it is your "Palestinians". My scoring: 100% for democratic Israel. 0% for Islamists wanting to destroy democracy, including that of many Arab/Muslim Israelis who enjoy the full benefits of Israeli democracy. Do I have a single scintilla of 'compassion' for your Palestinians? No! I side with people like me. You can side with people who would slit your throat in a flash, if you wish; but you cannot expect to be thought of as natural human being. The idea of people whose forebears have fought and died for democracy siding with Islamist scum is total anamatha to me. But,perhaps you are not one of those people.

Julian, it was a crack about Julius Caesar but I don't remember the context.
Anyway not to worry, do you believe that Jerusalem has always been
Islamic and never Jewish ?
Do you believe there was never a Jewish nation living in that area ?
That the Dead Sea Scrolls were written by Immans ?

Dear Yuyutsu,

I think I will have to be satisfied that we are so far apart in our views that we cannot have a useful dialogue. I think that any religion is just bathwater and does not contain a baby. I think the union of religion and nationalism is more toxic than nationalism by itself, and there should be no Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist states. Self-determination or a nation formed on some religious, ethnic or racial paradigm makes those who live within such a state but not within the paradigm second-class citizens. I think Jonathan Pollard is scum who should only have left prison in a coffin. We disagree profoundly.

Dear David,

To have different views is normal, nothing wrong about it: I for example believe that science is just bathwater and does not contain a baby, but this is not the issue at hand.

The question is whether we are willing to RESPECT others who have totally different views or whether we try to force our own paradigm over them.

Given a group of people who value science and exclusively own a contiguous plot of land - perhaps a suburban block or a large farm and suppose they want to live independently based on their scientific principles, then I fully support their independence regardless whether that plot of land happens to be in what is now Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Israel, Palestine, Australia or America. I think they would be wasting their time, but I would bleed to allow them to have what they want.

But would you similarly support a group of people who value religion instead?

We agree that nationalism is evil, yet you consider religion an aggravating factor, claiming that nations based on religion (note that I never brought ethnicity or race into this discussion) are even worse because they are more likely to create second-class citizens. I, however, identify the size of the state as the main aggravating factor. My point is that the smaller the nation, the less area it takes, the less likely it is to include people who disagree with the prevailing paradigm. Even in case of disagreement, people can simply move to the next street or to the next valley. Mega-states such as the USA, China, Russia and Australia, spanning a whole continent, are bound to oppress more of their inhabitants who fundamentally disagree with their paradigm: and for those oppressed, it is so impractical to migrate to a more agreeable place, or to form their own.

Our personal opinion about the acts of Jonathan Pollard is besides the issue: the point I was making was that if they can force one Jew to break the Sabbath, no matter what their reason is, then what prevents them from doing the same to others?

Dear Yuyutsu,

Another area of disagreement between us that you mentioned in your post is your contention that small states are less oppressive than large states. The rulers of Guatemala and El Salvador, the small states in central America, murdered many of their citizens. They were terrorist states as oppressive as the terrorist megastates.

Jonathan Pollard applied for and accepted parole with the restrictions of that status. He could have refused parole and kept the Sabbath in prison. Like choosing to spy for a foreign power against his country he is a criminal who made his choices.

I find it unacceptable for a group either on scientific or religious grounds to set up an enclave in their country where they would no longer be subject to its laws.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« … the new president, especially one whose party also controls the congress, the senate, and the majority of state governors, can easily more than reverse the consequences of the UN vote »
.

Not so easily, Shadow Minister. It is not as simple as that.

The US vote abstention is not so much a political condemnation as it is a moral condemnation of Israel’s illegal behavior. Coming from its staunchest and most powerful ally, it should have responded in a much more respectful tone. The US has no obligation to Israel. Quite the contrary, it is the reverse that is true.

But all this is the domain of the symbolic, not the praxis – for the time being.

If the Netanyahu government continues to overreact negatively, as it has up until now, it will end up doing itself far more harm than the UN vote ever could.

Trump will soon have the opportunity to prove that he can achieve what the Obama administration and their predecessors have never been capable of achieving so far as Israel and the Palestiniens are concerned.

Personally, I have an open mind on the question. Who knows, if a "lame duck President" can't do it, perhaps a "wild bull President" can.

If neither of them can, than we'll just have to wait for the next animal that comes sniffing around the farm yard looking for something to chew on, won't we ?

.

Hey ttbn,
You and I agree on many issues, so I'm hoping I can put the following Israel questions / criticism across without offence.
And I'm kind of sorry to catch you out in this delimma of sorts; and direct these questions at you, but I like to question the pro's and con's of things...
Please don't take offense, you don't even have to reply if you don't want to.

So firstly, I know you are against the idea of indigenous treaties / recognition etc.
You're against the idea that the traditional owners of this nation be recognised or given any kind of real authority within Australia am I right?
For numerous reasons I'd agree with you, for instance that there should not be diffenent classes of people with different laws.

But you, as well as some other forum members are anti-indigenous but pro-Israel, and this creates a dilemma of sorts...

Is it not the basis that being traditional owners / inhabitors of the land that Israel uses to justify it's creation and existence?
So I'm arguing firstly that the two seperate beliefs you hold dont seem to be congruent.
It's not ok in the case of indigenous but it is ok in the case of Israel?

Now put that first argument to the side, because the real truth is more complicated.

DNA evidence confirms that the vast majority of people who identify as Jews in Israel are Ashkenazi who decent from Khazaria, and are not at all related to any of the traditional hebrew tribes spoken about in the bible.
Now not to denigrate, but the people of Khazaria were in fact phallus-worshipping warlike folk who converted to Judaism around 800AD.
(I'm not making it up; don't shoot the messenger - look it up.)
[TBC]

[Cont.]
And so if we want to get really technical, the truth is that the people who now identify as the Jews of Israel don't really have any connection to the land of Israel other than the fact their distant Khazarian relatives took up the Jewish religion in 800AD right?
(And you said there is no such thing as Palestine which is incorrect as there are references to it from very early AD and through the Middle ages)

And so anyway the question now becomes 'Does ones taking up of anothers religion give an entitlement to traditional lands?'

And so....
Lets say I take up the religion of 'Ra' the sun god.
Am I now able to claim a connection to the traditional owners of Egypt and claim native title and ownership of the lands of Egypt demanding that all others leave?
What if I take up the religion of the Vikings and worship 'Odin', can I claim Norway?
What about if I take up Mayan? Do I get parts of South America and Mexico?

This brings up a new can of worms about religions.
What say I do convert to 'Mayan'.
Am I allowed to paint people blue and decapitate them on the top of my pyramid, rolling their severed heads down the pyramid steps and throwing their corpes over the side?
Can I do this whilst claiming religious impunity?

At what point is one not reasonably allowed to say in regards to a particular religion 'Your religious beliefs are a danger to yourself and the people around you and should be outlawed'?
So many questions, so little answers...

The essential genetic descendants of the tribes of Israel wish to have a homeland the same as the relatives of Mario. Israel is a secular State not a religious State and accommodates any person who is willing to live peaceably within the State. I have relatives living in Israel who live by the laws of the State. Israel has been welcoming Christians as well as Jews from Iraq and Syria. They even welcome homosexuals escaping the laws of Muslim countries.

Arab countries vow the death of every Jew and are wiling to murder any person who lives in Israel. The Arab State of Palestine trains their children from six to hate and desire the death of every Israeli and learn how to kill with a knife. That is why we have 12 - 14 year old's Palestinians attempting to murder persons in Israel. Israel gets a bad reputation if its guards shoot the teenager. Palestinians Muslims are fed hate and they do not accept Western values.

Banjo,

So the mass murder of its citizens and the theft of aid to buy weapons, etc by Hamas goes unmentioned, but the construction of settlements in the disputed territories is a moral issue.

I think your moral compass is more than a little off.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I think we have previously ascertained you are not Jewish. It has therefore intrigued me why you choose to personally suppress the fact that UN resolution after resolution has shown that the vast majority of the world including Australia have rightly concluded that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal, against international law and contravene the Geneva convention.

It has always seemed to me that you have signed up for an ideology and signed away your willingness to think for yourself. It doesn't appear rational.

Just because for a brief moment in Australia's history we have a rightwing government who is keen to co-opt many of the US' policies shouldn't take away from all those occasions when both sides of Australian politics recognised the injustice of the Israeli settlements and their impediment to a peaceful solution.

Be an individual mate. You might find it rewarding.

On this occasion Prime Minister Turnbull and Foreign minster Bishop have both slammed Obama and Kerry for their betrayal of Israel. NO Australia does not support the USA and the UN on this decision. Yet the facts correct on Australia's position.

Dear Josepheus,

What facts are 'correct on this occasion'?

Banjo,

As there were no demarcated permanent border lines in the 1949 armistice, at the demand of the Arabs, to which pre 1967 lines does the UN resolution refer?

With modern warfare and the proven treachery of the Arab states, the as yet unsettled pre 1967 were insufficient to protect Israel from attack.

"The armistice agreements were intended to serve only as interim agreements until replaced by permanent peace treaties. However, no peace treaties were actually signed until decades later.

The armistice agreements were clear (at Arab insistence) that they were not creating permanent borders. The Egyptian-Israeli agreement stated "The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question."

The Jordanian-Israeli agreement stated: "... no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims, and positions of either Party hereto in the peaceful settlement of the Palestine questions, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations", "The Armistice Demarcation Lines are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto." (Art. VI.9) As the Armistice Demarcation Lines were technically not borders, the Arabs considered that Israel was restricted in its rights to develop the DMZ and exploitation of the water resources.

In the Knesset then Foreign Minister and future Prime Minister Moshe Sharett called the armistice lines "provisional boundaries" and the old international borders which the armistice lines, except with Jordan, were based on, "natural boundaries".

After the 1967 Six Day War several Israeli leaders argued against turning the Armistice Demarcation Lines into permanent borders on the grounds of Israeli security:

Prime Minister Golda Meir said the pre-1967 borders were so dangerous that it "would be treasonable" for an Israeli leader to accept them (New York Times, December 23, 1969).
Prime Minister Menachem Begin described a proposal for a retreat to the pre-1967 borders as "national suicide for Israel.""

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« So the mass murder of its citizens and the theft of aid to buy weapons, etc by Hamas goes unmentioned … »
.

That was not the topic you posted here for discussion. I was commenting on the topic you proposed regarding “a lame duck President” and the UN Security Council Resolution 2334 (which makes no mention of Hamas).

Perhaps you might like to set up a new discussion on Hamas. I have no problem with that.

In the meantime, I take this opportunity of wishing you and all on this forum a happy New Year.

.

According to the following:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/blogs/jay-elwes/the-un-israels-best-friend-resolution-netanyahu

The UN resolution is favoured by most Israelis.

david The article posted is what most Arabs want in a one State, which includes Palestine.

Dear David,

When people are unhappy with the regime, they should be able to split off and form their own smaller state on their own land. Had they been able to do so in Guatemala and El-Salvador, then they wouldn't have been murdered. Apparently those two countries were also still too big. Why would even two people with no love between them be forced to live under each other's rule in the first place?

You say that Jonathan Pollard is a poor example because he had the option to remain in prison. As I know very little about the USA, I asked you and I'll ask again: would Jonathan be able to follow the Jewish law while in American prison? Would he for example be lighting Hanukkah candles these days if he stayed there? In any case, we know that Jonathan was in very poor health and nearly died in prison where he couldn't receive proper treatment, whereas now his health is significantly improving. According to Jewish law, in matters of life-and-death, staying alive takes precedence over observing the Sabbath, hence the choice to remain in prison was not really available to Pollard.

I know that in Israel, every prison has a section for observant Jews where they keep strict Jewish law and pray and study Torah the whole day. This is probably only possible in a Jewish state, just as probably only a Sikh state would allow even its prisoners to keep their ceremonial daggers (for security they could enclose the daggers in welded metal boxes so prisoners could not take them out).

You say: «I find it unacceptable for a group either on scientific or religious grounds to set up an enclave in their country where they would no longer be subject to its laws.»

Doesn't sound very enlightened to me: Suppose there's a village in Iran where none believes in Islam and all want to live by Western/scientific values and norms - would you tell them "sorry guys, you live in Iran and so you must remain, follow its Islamic laws and obey its supreme spiritual leader"?

.

Dear Josephus,

.

You wrote :

« On this occasion Prime Minister Turnbull and Foreign minster Bishop have both slammed Obama and Kerry for their betrayal of Israel. NO Australia does not support the USA … »
.

We are totally dependent on the ANZUS treaty for our security in this unstable world of conflict and super-power struggle. We cannot afford the luxury of not supporting the USA. That would be suicidal. Australia ranks 23rd among the world’s military powers in 2016. We are no match for our potential agresssors :

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

That seems to me to be the logic behind Malcolm Turnbull’s decision to follow the incoming president, Trump, rather than the outgoing president, Obama. I don’t see loyalty to Israel as a deciding factor.

If we don’t toe the line with Trump, he has made it crystal clear that he will not defend us. He declared on 27 April 2016 :

« America First will be the major and overriding theme of my administration … Our allies must contribute toward the financial, political and human costs of our tremendous security burden … The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense – and, if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves » :

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/trump-foreign-policy-15960?page=show
.

That’s the sort of language that made Bishop and Turnbull snap to attention with their thumbs along the seams of their trousers, in my view.



.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You ask :

« As there were no demarcated permanent border lines in the 1949 armistice, at the demand of the Arabs, to which pre 1967 lines does the UN resolution refer ? »
.

The Resolution does not refer to “pre1967 border lines”. It refers to “Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem” :

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2334(2016)

.

Trump thunders: "Our allies must contribute toward the financial, political and human costs of our tremendous security burden … The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense – and, if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves"

LNP governments have attached Australia to every act of Yank colonial aggression from the rape of Vietnam onward and paid in blood and treasure to do so. Not one of these murder rampages has been for the defence of Australia. The military enemy we do confront is Indonesia and there's no way the Yanks would lend a hand (to us) in the event of an Indo attack. It is high time to review our military policy and tell the Yanks next time: "Yer on yer own, sport.

Maybe we'll have to wait for a patriotic non-LNP government to carry through such a review.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You apparently want a nation to be other than a nation. A citizen of any nation cannot freely decide to break a nation's laws whether in a group or singly. If a citizen considers a law to be unjust and the injustice is not trivial civil disobedience is called for. Thoreau wrote an essay on that subject after he was put in jail for his protest against paying taxes for the Mexican War and to support slavery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)

Martin Luther King jr and Gandhi followed that example. Gandhi protested against the Salt Tax in India and King protested against segregation. they were both put in prison as expected. Eventually their views prevailed, India became independent, and segregation was declared against the law in the US. In the case of Pollard his spying for a foreign power against his country was simply a traitorous act, and he should not have been let out of prison. In prison he could light Hannukah candles and get kosher meals. He could not get adequate medical treatment. His suffering was his fault and the fault of the Israeli government. If Israel had been a proper ally they would have informed the US when Pollard offered to spy for them. The US would have sacked Pollard, and he could have gone to Israel. Pollard chose to spy and should have accepted the penalties due to his criminal act. Jails are not always great places for medical treatment. His parole required breaking the Sabbath. To preserve his miserable life a little longer he accepted parole.

continued

continued

The US government allows some leeway to those whose religious principles conflict with civil law. The Amish believe that the community should provide for its members, and Amish who remain in their communities do not have to be involved in the Social Security system. Jehovah's Witnesses do not have to salute the flag as most school children do as JWs consider it an act of idolatry. Observant Jewish prisoners get kosher meals. Some Indian tribes are recognised as independent nations by the US government. Some have been able to set up casinos on their land and get an income thereby even though gambling may be illegal in the surrounding areas.

in cases like Iran and Saudi Arabia which have state religions and demand observance to those religions people do not have those options. Whether it is enlightened or not a nation generally requires obedience to its laws. Those who don't wish to obey its laws don't have many options. Prison, bribery or escape are some of them.

There are not many instances of peaceful splitting of a nation. The breakup of the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia show that it is possible in some cases.

Banjo,

My point is that the borders in 1949 included territory captured by both sides incl East Jerusalem captured by Jordan, who contrary to the international community denied Jews access to their most holy site of the original temple built 3000 yrs ago, demolished synagogues and expelled Jews from East Jerusalem.

The conquest of territory in 1967 occurred only after Israel's Arab neighbors started another war to "drive the Jews into the ocean". So instead of the mass genocide that they planned, they got their arses kicked. And while Jews were elated to get access to their holiest site, they could have exacted revenge by demolishing the mosque built on the temple mount and excluded Muslims, but they never did.

Returning East Jerusalem would as the Arabs have admitted lead to the expulsion of Jews, the demolition of their holy places and the exclusion of jews from worshipping. This will never be allowed to happen in any peace treaty.

Secondly as the loss of territory was 50 years ago, the point is how far back in time does one go? Does Russia return the Crimea, half of Poland and half of Finland?

A two state solution will require sacrifices from both sides. Israel will need to give more than it has presently for the self managed areas and the Palestinians will have to accept that Israel will not recede to the 1949 armistice line.

Dear SM,

«A two state solution will require sacrifices from both sides.»

Solutions are always in response to a problem.
In this case, what problem are you trying to solve?
Is there any agreement on what the problem is?

«Jews were elated to get access to their holiest site»

Jews still have no access to their holiest site.
The place was desecrated by the Romans and Jews may not enter there without specific purification ceremonies, requiring the use of a red cow. Work is still in progress to create a genetically-modified cow whose all hairs are red without exception.

Meanwhile, an external protective wall of that temple has become a place of nationalistic pilgrimage and pride and is being used to worship Israel's military might rather than God. Soldiers with weapons conduct there their military swearing-in and other parades, but the bible tells that wars and worship are incompatible: In 2-Chronicles, 22:8, King David tells his son: "But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight."

Also meanwhile, the Jews have already transcended the primitive animal-sacrifice that was conducted in that temple and replaced it with prayer, which several Rabbis in fact admit to be superior, even if animal-sacrifice was somehow available again.

Yes, Jordan didn't behave nicely towards the Jews, but in denying them access to that place of pride and false-worship they in fact did Israel a great favour - and so have the UN and Obama recently.

The "problem" thus, has nothing to do with Palestinians and everything to do with the militaristic pride and arrogance that Israel created for itself in 1967 - and to heal itself, Israel must forego all the fruits of that war.

Given however that 1) The Palestinians cannot be trusted; 2) The Jewish settlers are too fierce, one possible solution is to relieve Israel by letting the settlers create their own second Jewish state in Eastern-Jerusalem and the West-Bank.

Y,

What a pile of dung!!

Jews now have access to the wailing wall (temple mount) to which they were denied prior to 1967. Israel is being held to levels of tolerance and fair play that the Arabs are not.

Maybe Israel should follow the example of the Palestinians and demolish the Al Aqsa mosque and rebuild the temple.

P.S. There are red cattle today.

Dear David,

«You apparently want a nation to be other than a nation.»

If nations are defined to behave as they now do, then certainly so.

Given a behaviour that is clearly unacceptable in the school-yard, what gives adults a right to do the same?

Children are taught (well I hope they still are): "If someone doesn't want to play with you then you must leave them alone. You may try to enlist their cooperation, but a 'No' is a 'No'".

People should relate on a voluntary basis and excluding obvious cases of self-defence, on that basis alone. It's simply not right for someone to include you in their group/project without your consent, even if the name of their game is "let's build this country". Your being born where you happen to be, doesn't constitute your consent. They may offer and entice you to join, but the final decision should always be yours. Even when joining, you should agree on reasonable exit conditions such as "no hitting. If you hit me, then the game is over".

It's... elementary!

Regarding Pollard, I think Israel is to blame for shamefully deserting him, rather than recognise and support him as its agent. The fact is that Israel hasn't been a "proper ally", that it placed its own interests ahead, which is OK, except that they failed to own it.

Your description of the USA is a mixed bag: on the one hand, the Amish and Indian tribes are allowed freedoms that we in Australia or Israel could only dream of. OTOH, the fact that children are required to salute a flag to begin with is shuddering.

Sure, some places are more unjust than others, yet it is our moral duty to condemn the forced-grouping of people wherever, whenever and to whatever extent that it occurs.

Splitting of nations is not always necessary: sometimes all you need is the knowledge that if people are significantly unhappy then they can leave at any time. This may be sufficient to create the necessary respect towards those who hold different values, so that actual splitting doesn't happen.

Dear SM,

As for the dung, there goes the German proverb: Das Leben ist wie eine Hühnerleiter, man kommt vor lauter Dreck nicht weiter!
(Life is a chicken-ladder: so much muck that one cannot get ahead)

But I wonder whether you made any effort to read what I wrote:

As you say, Israel is held to higher standards than the Arabs - Lucky for them!
As you say, prior to 1967 Jews had no access to the wailing wall - Lucky for them!
As you say, Jews now have access to the wailing wall - Disastrous for Israel!

If some Jews are foolish enough to want to access the wailing wall, demolish Al Aqsa and rebuild their mountain-top mega-slaughterhouse so that Jerusalem smells like a big barbecue, then let them go ahead, let them fulfil their wishes, only leave the state of Israel out of it. Muslims already have about 50 states, so why can't the Jews have two?!

Dear Yuyutsu,

If a man decides to betray his country by spying for a foreign power, is caught and sentenced to prison the foreign power has absolutely no obligation to do anything for that scum. Pollard knew the risks involved in his actions but possibly didn't expect to be caught and brought to account. He pled guilty because he apparently had no defense for his acts. If the Israelis had caught an Israeli who was spying for the United States they might have exchanged that agent for Pollard. As it was Pollard made his bed and has been released to live in his own country which he betrayed.

One solution for living with someone with whom you don't agree is to learn to get along even though you don't agree. I don't always agree with my wife or my children, but I wouldn't considering separating from them.

For those that read their Bible will know The temple Mount will be split in two by a massive explosion which should usher in a new Millennium of Peace, written about 2,000 years ago.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« My point is that the borders in 1949 included territory captured by both sides incl East Jerusalem captured by Jordan … The conquest of territory in 1967 occurred only after Israel's Arab neighbors started another war to "drive the Jews into the ocean" … Secondly as the loss of territory was 50 years ago, the point is how far back in time does one go? »
.

As far as we can, in my opinion. But that does not mean we have to reinstate things exactly as they were.

We must look at the facts, all the facts, to get a proper understanding. We then have to look at today’s context and decide what is appropriate now. It is unlikely that reinstating the past exactly as it was, is appropriate now.

You conclude :

« A two state solution will require sacrifices from both sides … »

Sacrifices are made on the warfront. There are no sacrifices at the negotiation table. There are just objectives and priorities. It’s a game of chess in which each negotiator tempts his opponent with the possibility of eliminating what he (the opponent) sees as a major threat or inconvenience, in exchange for something that allows him (the negotiator) to attain his objectives. It’s a trade-off in which each opponent gains from the exchange. No gain, no exchange.

Negotiate means trade. If it is not “voluntary and independent”, it is not negotiation. Both sides must end up victors for the result to be perennial – though nothing is eternal.
.

My knowledge of the Jewish/Palestinian conflict is too superficial for me to be able to express an intelligent opinion on the subject. I’ll have to leave it at that.

The key words, in my mind, are “voluntary and independent”. I suspect we’ll have to wait another couple of thousands of generations before we are able to free our minds of all the superstition and religion that blocks our brains, in order to have a proper game of chess and obtain anything resembling a “perennial solution”.

.

Shadow Minister,
On the other thread you opposed indigenous treaties and/or recognition but you support Israel.
Do you support Israel on the basis of being the traditional biblical owners/inhabitants of the land - given to them by God or if not on what basis?
If you support Israel on the basis of being traditional inhabitants then why do you not support the same measure for our indigenous, the traditional owners of this nation?

Josephus,
You commented earlier "The essential genetic descendants of the tribes of Israel wish to have a homeland the same as the relatives of Mario. Israel is a secular State not a religious State and accommodates any person who is willing to live peaceably within the State."

Is there any evidence proving lineage that these people are the genetic descendants of the tribes of Israel?
Otherwise, I contend they're not.

http://www.texemarrs.com/042013/jews_not_descendants_of_abraham.htm

Quote "Those living today who profess to be 'Jews' are not of the ancient Israelites, and they are not the seed of Abraham. In fact, the new DNA research shows that the Palestinians actually have more Israelite blood than do the 'Jews!' "

Also if Israel is founded on the basis of being a 'homeland for the ancient tribes of Israel' how can it do so and NOT be a religious state?

And finally if you support Israel on the basis of being a homeland for the genetic descendants of the tribes of Israel then do you also support recognition and treaties with the indigenous in order to restore their rights to this land?

Everyone should consider this hypocrisy because everyone who supports one and not the other is totally caught out on it.

How many people here support Israels 'right', but not the 'right' of our indigenous?

Now I'm not making any preconceptions about why some may hold this position; but I want to note that it could be implied that those people that do might be racist towards people of a different skin colour.

Banjo,

To put things in perspective, the entire state of Israel incl the west bank, Gaza and the Golen heights is less than 1/3rd of the size of Tasmania in which nearly 12m people live of which 6m are Jewish.

The history of Israel, in short, has been the continual attacks from Arabs worldwide intent on wiping out the Jewish population. Israel's lack of trust is founded on nearly a century of experience, and Israel is not going to give up strategic land without ironclad guarantees that the Arabs refuse to give.

AC,

If you read my posts, I objected to a treaty in Aus because it is essentially yet another pointless piece of gesture politics that will deliver exactly zero benefits to either party.

There are plenty of historical information linking the Jews to Israel. Citing one man's anti semetic blog is not going to convince anyone, and I get more than a hint of racism in your post.

The most gutsiest think I have ever heard any politician say. However who knows, he may yet become a victim of weaponised medicine for showing such courage.

Perhaps a vaccine or perhaps a cancer attack as per what seems to have happened to Bob Marley.

Suspicious Deaths
http://suspiciousdeaths.blogspot.com.au/

Armchair Critic asks:

"How many people here support Israel's 'right', but not the 'right' of our indigenous?"

Our indigenous have lived here unbroken for millennia. The British usurpers, like the foreign usurpers in Palestine, had no right to barge in and impose their rule and overlordship.

People born here or accepted here by those born here have the right to live here as equals but not as ethnic overlords. Establishing individual equality in law of inhabitants who share birthright is still a work in progress.

This not mirrored in Palestine in which people not born there are being imported on criteria that nobody could sustain an argument is other than racist and claiming a right to ethnic overlordship on grounds which nobody either could sustain a claim of being other than specifically race-based which means racist.

The blatantly racist claim of genetic-based overlordship is set out in the usurpers' "Law of return" and in the day to day behaviour of their racist "state" in just the same way as Hun overlordship in Poland was set out in the occupiers' "laws" and with just the same "justification".

EJ,

There are more Israelis born in Israel than Palestinians.

Dear David,

If the Israeli diplomats who happily paid for Pollard's information were that innocent, why have they fled back to Israel the moment Pollard was suspected? And the payment for the information - did it come from their own pockets or from the government of Israel?

I wish you and your family much happiness together.
Relating and living together is often not easy, but should be commended so long as it is entered into voluntary.

Dear Yuyutsu,

When did I maintain that the Israeli diplomats that connected with Pollard were innocent? In a post dated Sunday, 1 January 2017 5:58:35 AM I wrote "If Israel had been a proper ally they would have informed the US when Pollard offered to spy for them. The US would have sacked Pollard, and he could have gone to Israel." The diplomats were out of reach of US law, but Pollard wasn't.

Small enclaves can demand more conformity and obedience to authority than metastates. An Amish community and an ultra-orthodox Jewish community can live within the US and to a large extent maintain its autonomy and ideals. I have read material written by former members of such communities who found the experience of leaving the community and living in the wider society most liberating.

A Bildungsroman is a story of the growing up of a sensitive person who looks for answers to his questions through different experiences. Generally, such a novel starts with a loss or a tragedy that disturbs the main character emotionally. He or she leaves on a journey to fill that vacuum.

During the journey, the protagonist gains maturity gradually and with difficulty. Usually, the plot depicts a conflict between the protagonist and the values of society. Finally, he or she accepts those values and they are accepted by the society, ending the dissatisfaction. Such a type of novel is also known as a coming-of-age novel.

Those novels often incorporate the journey of the young seeker from a small town to a big city. They rarely if ever go the other way.

Shadow Minister: "There are more Israelis born in Israel than Palestinians."

And they have every right by birth to live there. As equal individuals along with the rest of the people born in Palestine, together with the involuntary Palestinian exiles from the invasion (Naqba) and their families who wish to return home.

There were also a number of ethnic Jews there before the Naqba. One of them (now deceased) was a good friend of mine. His opinion of the terrorists who established Israel, and of their racist state, was one of deadly hostility matching that of the Hamas Resistance movement though he didn't share their Islamic cult.

EJ,

Are you referring to the Arab invasion of Israel in 1948, 1967, or 1973?

Dear David,

Some of the groups that require the highest conformity and obedience also produce the greatest satisfaction to their members. Take a choir or an orchestra for example: you are even told when to breathe and when not to, but if you identify with the group's purpose then you are happy and it doesn't upset you in the least.

It is clearly a liberating experience for people to leave a community where they feel that they do not fit - just as it is for people who fit to remain.

Look at the tragedy of the Scots: had Scotland been independent from England, then they wouldn't be forced to leave the EU where they feel good, whatever be their reason.

«Finally, he or she accepts those values and they are accepted by the society, ending the dissatisfaction.»

So "1984" is a Bildungsroman? It ends with:

”But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother”

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: "Look at the tragedy of the Scots: had Scotland been independent from England, then they wouldn't be forced to leave the EU where they feel good, whatever be their reason."

You have previously written that smaller groups are better than larger groups. Here you call it a tragedy for the Scots to leave a larger unit to belong to a smaller one. It really seems that you just want to argue with a procrustean quality to your arguments. You change your arguments to maintain disagreement.

I really guess that there isn't much point in dialogue with you if you see 1984 as a bildungsroman. I will try to avoid any interaction with you in future. I have made such a resolve before, but this time I may keep it.

All the discussion on here regarding the settlements is redundant.
The differences between the PLA led by Abbas and Hamas are coming to a conclusion.
Abbas, it seems is likely to be displaced in the near future and the
other factions have close connections with Hamas.
Hamas has just one policy on Palestine; Kill the Jews.
Maybe they will relent and let them leave on foot.

http://tinyurl.com/zfm647v

Discussions on this border, that border etc etc is pointless.
I guess Israel knows this better then we do.

Re Shadow Minister:

Palestine was invaded by foreign terrorists in 1948. Every other engagement with the terrorists' "state" was an act of Resistance like that of the Poles and other Europeans on their own territory against the occupying Hun invaders.

The 5 Permanent UN Security Council are terrorists. They invited terrorists to join up. Free Antarctica!

EJ,

I agree that the Jordanian, Egyptian and Syrian terrorists invaded Israel in 1948, and that Israel has been successfully resisting their attempts at genocide since.

Dear David,

Regarding Scotland, I promote freedom - not isolation. While groups of people should be free to determine their life-style, they should not be denied the option of relating with other groups of their choosing. A Jewish enclave for example should not be prevented from asking the advice of Rabbis in other Jewish enclaves.

Regarding "bildungsroman", you wrote: «Usually, the plot depicts a conflict between the protagonist and the values of society. Finally, he or she accepts those values and they are accepted by the society, ending the dissatisfaction.»

Doesn't "1984" fit this description?

Smaller groups and smaller nations are just the means, not the end: The goal is to prevent coercion and while coercion is wrong in any-sized group, I think that it is more likely to occur in larger groups.

Shadow Minister's depiction of the Palestinians and their allies who attacked the military occupiers in and after the Naqba as "terrorists" matches both in spirit and the actual term used the Hun depiction of the European Resistance during the Hun occupation. A perfect match, even down the the Huns' assumption of entitlement.

There's a (slightly muddled) factual history at
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/06/17/top-ten-myths-about-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/

A solution based on justice and international law:

# Dismantle racist state of Israel
# Everyone born in Palestine or forcibly exiled from it be entitled to reside in Palestine
# Foreign settlers required to return to their legal homelands or seek refuge in other countries
# Those entitled to remain in Palestine form a state under majority rule

This could lead to an Islamic state under Sharia "law" which would engulf settlers who refuse to leave. Unfortunate, but couldn't happen to nicer people.

EJ

You do indeed have Hun like properties, but by far worse is the Nazi Hamas government in Gaza that wants to start a second Holocaust, who carelessly fire rockets from amongst their civilians so as to cry victim when their civilians are killed.

Dear Julian,

«A solution based on justice and international law:»

I think that it may help if prior to suggesting a solution, you first tell us what, in your view, is the problem.

It will also help if you can explain what makes the above problem so serious that it warrants the extreme suffering of millions, such as separating families and placing people under Islamic-state conditions.

I also would like to know whether this solution is something that you personally would like to see, or whether it is merely the cold output resulting from feeding a computer with the input "justice".

International law never meant a thing to me anyway, but having read your suggestion I also start doubting the value of 'justice'.

Obama and his mercenary nazis stole Ukraine from Holy Mother Russia.
The Hun Slav destiny is glorified in the Syrian victory and tomorrow Jerusalem.

To correct factless distortions I repeat: Majority rule by the people born there. Foreign overlords out. Like Poland after the Huns and then the Russians finally left. It's called right to self-determination.

I posted the following to the wrong thread. I should have posted it to this thread.

Self-determination is unfair, undemocratic and an instrument of oppression. It has come to mean a nation formed on the basic of a religious, ethnic or racial paradigm. Those who are citizens of the nation but are not of the dominant paradigm are second class citizens. The term, self-determination, was introduced into diplomatic parlance by Woodrow Wilson who wanted the make the world “safe for democracy”. However, Wilson was a racist who apparently thought white Protestants of north European descent were the only peoples capable of democracy. The treatment of the Central powers after WW1 shows his biases. Germany except for the return of Alsace and Lorraine to France and the Polish Corridor remained a national unit and essentially untouched. Self-determination was applied to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and it was broken up to create new states. With the exception of Czechoslovakia the new states went fascist between WW1 and WW2. Part of Wilson’s motivation was probably the hope that the peoples of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire would be so happy with their new status that they would not come to the US and spoil Wilson’s dream of a white, Protestant USA. The subject peoples of the Turkish Empire were not even deemed worthy of self-determination and were given to Britain and France as mandates.

There should be no Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist states. In a democratic country religion or lack of it, ethnicity and race of its citizens should be no business of the government. All should be equal under law, and that law should be civil not religious.

Dear David,

«Self-determination is unfair»

More "1984" stuff? War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength...

For other people, strangers whom you have no ideals in common with and never agreed to have anything to do with, to order you around, telling you which laws you must live by... is fair, while to determine for yourself how and by what guidelines you should live ... is unfair. Don't you love the Big Brother?

Self determination means that those who feel second-class and do not like it, should declare their own independence over their part of the land, where they can then feel first-class.

Enjoy the winter, David!

David F: "Self-determination is unfair, undemocratic and an instrument of oppression. It has come to mean a nation formed on the basic of a religious, ethnic or racial paradigm."

Can't speculate on what Woodrow Wilson "thought" or "wanted" but Australia has self-determination and yes it was formed on the basis that David describes and did not evolve into a state fairly comparable with David's final paragraph setting out what a nation should be until it had self-determination and was no longer a vassal of Britain.

Next step an Australian republic to make self-determination perfectly clear, and possibly the repudiation of the ANZUS treaty under which we are Deppity Dawg to American colonial adventures (we have to go to their aid, they don't have to come to ours despite the threat from Moslem Indonesia).

EJ,

As the vast majority of those "refugees" from Israel were born outside the country they have no claim to citizenship of "Palestine"

Dear EJ,

Political independence is not the same as self-determination. Self-determination means that a nation is formed on the basic of a religious, ethnic or racial paradigm. Australia is composed of people having many ethnicities, many religions and of many races. Self-determination would occur if Australians split into many nations based on identity politics. Instead of doing that Australians manage to live together and in general accept and get along with other Australians with different ethnic, racial and religious backgrounds.

Verballed again by the pro Zionist lobby! See my

"And they have every right by birth to live there. As equal individuals along with the rest of the people born in Palestine, together with the involuntary Palestinian exiles from the invasion (Naqba) and their families who wish to return home."

And their families. On this thread.

The "debating" practices of Zionists and other frauds include rewriting what others have written and then taking issue not with what the others have written but with what the fraud has changed.

I noticed that practice also in responses to AJ Phillips on the marriage thread,

Re David F:

Not bothered which expression is used to describe a nation controlling its own decisions (subject to universal human rights norms) on its own territory -- that's what must always be made to apply in Australia and what in Australia needs defending and consolidating.

It does not for example describe Britain whose self-determination/political independence is compromised by EU diktats from outside its territory. Nor does it currently describe Palestine.

Dear EJ,

Self-determination is not the same as political independence. It's that simple. The two expressions have different meanings.

DF, If Catalan achieved independence from Spain what would that be called? When Poland got rid of the last Hun and the last Russian overlord what would that be called? How about when the East Timorese became free of the Indo scum?

Just curious, not seeking to debate semantics (as was happening on the marriage thread).

EJ,

The majority of Israel has self determination, as opposed to the dictatorships of hamas, the PLO and essentially every Arab country is a dictatorship that murders its own civilians.

The Arabs are presently acting like savages, and need to be controlled before they harm themselves or anyone else.

SM: Yes the racist regime imposed on Palestinian land has self-determination as did the racist regimes imposed on Poland by the "Aryan" and Soviet Slav overlordship. Poland had self determination once Poland was run for better or for worse by the Poles.

And yes Islamic regimes worldwide are dictatorships (and not only the Arab regimes - cf. the dictatorships directly north of us). But most of them are not run by racist foreign overlords. Our concern in Australia is to control the religious (as distinct from racial) supremacists that we have let into the country so we don't end up with an alien overlordship like the Palestinians.

Dear EJ and Shadow Minister,

I see self-determination as defined by Wilson in action – a nation formed by a unity of ethnicity, race, religion or some other unifying feature. I regard it as usually a bad thing since those individuals not part of the unifying principle but within the political boundaries of a nation formed in such a way are liable to be considered second-class citizens are to be persecuted. However, it may not be a bad thing if the rights of those who do not conform to the dominant paradigm are respected. However, that may be difficult to do.

EJ mentioned Catalan. Catalonia is part of Spain, but Catalan is a language which is not Spanish. Spain is a country where the Catholic Church is prominent. Catalonia has a history of being anticlerical and antichurch. During the Spanish Civil War Catalonia was an anarchist stronghold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_to_Catalonia tells about George Orwells’ experience in that war. There is an independence movement in Catalonia which is driven by different factors. One factor is a desire for self-determination since they feel a unity as a people and would like to express that unity as an independent country. Counter to that is a desire for independence as a separate state which would be tolerant of diversity and less burdened by conformity than the rest of Spain. That kind of political independence is not self-determination.

The American Revolution was a colonial rebellion against England, but the rebels felt very English. “Taxation without representation is tyranny” was one of their slogans. They felt they were being denied their rights as English to be represented in parliament. In rebelling against England they were creating a better England. The rebels became a nation.

However, I would to bring up another matter. We seem to feel very differently about both individuals and groups. I feel that what ethnic group or nation we belong to is largely a matter of chance. It depends on who our parents are and where we live. I feel that no ethnic group, nation or individual is entirely good or entirely bad.

Continued

Continued

I feel there is some good in the worst individual and some bad in the best individual.

Shadow Minister wrote: “The Arabs are presently acting like savages, and need to be controlled before they harm themselves or anyone else.”

EJ wrote: “The "debating" practices of Zionists and other frauds include rewriting what others have written and then taking issue not with what the others have written but with what the fraud has changed.”

I see the two of you as mirror images of each other. One condemns a people, and the other condemns a social movement. Shadow Minister condemned the Arabs, and EJ condemned the Zionists. One Arab is not the same as another Arab, and one Zionist is not the same as another Zionist.

Some Arabs do not like what other Arabs are doing and condemn the violence. Palestinians have a history of nonviolent protest which goes back much before 1948.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/05/18/palestines-hidden-history-of-nonviolence-2/ tells about that history. The world in general has chosen to ignore the Palestinian history of nonviolent protest in favour of covering suicide bombing and other forms of violence.

From the article:

“As Jewish immigration into Palestine increased and the implementation of the Balfour Declaration became more apparent, Palestinians who feared marginalization (or worse) under a Jewish state continued to resist. In the early 1930s, numerous protests and demonstrations against the Zionist agenda were held, and the British mandatory government was swift to crack down. The iconic image of Palestinian notable Musa Kazim al-Husseini being beaten down during a protest in 1933 by mounted British soldiers comes to mind.

It wasn’t until nonviolent protests were met with severe repression that Palestinian guerrilla movements began. After the 81-year-old Husseini died a few months after being beaten, a young imam living in Haifa named Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam (the namesake of Hamas’s military wing) organized the first militant operation against the British mandatory government. His death in battle with British soldiers sparked the Arab rebellion that began in 1936 and lasted until 1939.”

From the above, nonviolent Arab protests were met with British violence.

Continued

Continued

Zionism originated as a nineteenth century romantic nationalist movement. Many Jews participated enthusiastically in national liberation movements like that of Poland against Russia. However, most of these movements wound up rejecting Jews so Jews developed their own romantic nationalistic movement.

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_nationalism

“By the turn of the century, ethnic self-determination had become an assumption held as being progressive and liberal. There were romantic nationalist movements for separation in Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the Kingdom of Bavaria held apart from a united Germany, and Czech and Serb nationalism continued to trouble Imperial politics. The flowering of arts which drew inspiration from national epics and song continued unabated. The Zionist movement revived Hebrew, and began immigration to Eretz Yisrael, and Welsh and Irish tongues also experienced a poetic revival.”

During WW1 England made conflicting promises to Arabs and Jews. The promises of Arab and Jewish Independence turned into the forming of British and French mandates in the areas detached from the Turkish Empire.

Balfour in 1905 favoured the Alien Exclusion Act which kept Jews fleeing czarist oppression out of England, but in 1917 he issued the Balfour Declaration which set up Palestine as a Jewish homeland without consulting the people living in that area.

Zionism is Jewish self-determination, and it has the flaws of other self-determination movements.

As there are Palestinians who are committed to nonviolence there are Israeli Jews who sympathise with the Palestinians, are not in sympathy with the actions of their government and have been willing to go to prison for their views.

http://jfjfp.com/?tag=refuseniks tells about some of them.

I feel sympathy for both Arabs and Israeli Jews. I think a Palestinian state would probably be more repressive than Israel is. I would like to see a democratic, secular state in that area which would not discriminate among its citizens on the basis of ethnicity or religion, have separation of religion and state, an integrated public school system and civil marriage. It does not seem possible with the passions of the moment, but to me it seems the best chance for peace in that area.

Self-determination of a nation defined by common territory (such as Australia) is a different animal from self-determination of a race defined by common genetics (such as Israel).

Dear EJ,

The difference is that self-determination is not defined by a common territory. It takes more than that.

Self-determination is examined in detail at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination#Current_issues

Some Aborigines want a treaty matching race to territory such that there would be areas where non-Aborigines could not enter without Aborigines' consent. For reciprocal justice (or racial equality) that would also need to include areas which Aborigines could not enter without non-Aborigines' consent. This would throw Australia back by decades.

The Aborigines feel a unity with each other because they are a people. It's the fact that they consider themselves a people - they are connected by genetics - that they want the territory they are connected with. It's people that want self-determination. By itself territories don't want self-determination or anything else. The Jewish people are connected with the territory between the Jordan and the Mediterranean as are the Palestinians. The struggle is not between territories. It is between two peoples connected with the same territory. Self-determination proceeds from some form of unity that a people feel.

Dear EJ,

Thanks for the reference to the article on self-determination. Self-determination is a group right – the right of a people to form a political unit based on their identity as a people. I don’t give a snail’s fart for group rights. The only right I care for is the right of an individual to be free – free to get an education, free to express any opinion, free to pursue whatever employment he or she is capable of, free to believe or not to believe in any religion, free to marry who he or she chooses etc. As far as nations go I favour those nations which put a fewer restrictions on the freedom of an individual than those which put more. If people who live in Australia have more individual freedom with Australia as an English colony I support Australia as an English colony. If people who live in Australia have more individual freedom with Australia as an independent country I support Australia as an independent country. That is the important issue with me. Group rights depend on the definition of the group. Individuals need no definition. Quite often a group right is merely the right to oppress others. That was the issue in the US Civil War. The south wanted self-determination and seceded because the slave owners wanted the right to keep others as slaves. Self-determination for the South meant the preservation of slavery. Individual freedom and self-determination are often at odds.

Dear David,

«I don’t give a snail’s fart for group rights. The only right I care for is the right of an individual to be free»

So do I - and for an individual to be free, they should (among other things) be able to choose the people they want to be and associate with and the laws (if any) by which they are bound.

If it so happens that their individual preference is to live with like-minded people of similar spiritual values and goals, then who are you to tell them otherwise?

The "right" of groups is nothing but the sum of rights of the individuals that comprise this group as they work in harmony together towards common goals, especially such goals that are not shared outside this group.

It seems that all you want is to force your own secular ideals on others who do not share your views and brainwash/indoctrinate their children in your own type of schools.

Anyone should be free from the fear of some stranger-policeman knocking at their door at night and accusing them of breaking laws and regulations that are based on conflicting values and goals, in the name of people which they never consented to associate with.

Yuyutsu writes "... laws and regulations that are based on conflicting values and goals, in the name of people which they never consented to associate with"

This is precisely why the Palestinians must not go on having to put up with the racist state of Israel plonked in the middle of their homeland.

Dear Julian,

The so-called "Palestinians" should and could have everything they deserve and openly ask for, provided just one thing: that they stop harassing their neighbours.

Israel's ONLY legitimate justification for denying them the freedom to live as they want, is self-defence against "Palestinian" violence. While the rest of Israel's claims are rubbish, I'm dismayed that this one holds true.

BTW, the vast majority of Israeli Arabs say that they prefer to live in Israel as it is, racist as it may be, over living under Palestinian rule. Their greatest fear is that they would be forced to become "Palestinian" under peace-deal land-swaps. I strongly oppose land-swaps and believe that Israel should withdraw EXACTLY to its pre-1967 borders.

I really doubt that individual "Palestinians" are different from their brothers within Israel and do truly want to have their own state: I suspect that they only say so outwardly but want nothing of it - but if they do want a state, then they should have it RIGHT NOW, then if they ever again use their state to launch attacks against Israel, then Israel will have every right to kill them all.

EJ,

Why do the Israelis have to put up with the racist Palestinian states in the middle of their homeland?

Palestine was there. It wasn't terra nullius and its residents were not cockroaches. Israel was gouged out of it by foreign terrorists. Settlers have homelands to return to - ie where they were born and from whence they arrived, Palestinians are in their own homeland and exiles are forcibly locked out of it by the invading overlords.

The map sequence at http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mapstellstory.html
(scroll down to Palestinian Loss of land 1946-2000) tells the stark truth.

I was at http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mapstellstory.html a couple of minutes ago, tried to return to it and it seems to have been blocked. Maybe the Russians aren't the only ones who can hack.

Dear Julian,

Let me understand you correctly:

Suppose for a moment that everything happened as your website describes - are you asking for people to pack up, leave their thriving homes and go as refugees to foreign lands where they've never been before, only because of events that happened before they were born?

Or perhaps all you ask and would receive satisfaction from, is for families to remove their grandmother from her nursing home, throw her on a plane or on a ship to send her overseas to where she happened to be born before she was brought by her parents to Israel as a toddler?

And otherwise, do you expect those who WERE born in Israel to willingly subject themselves to a militant Islamic regime where even in the unlikely event that it allows them to live, they would be treated as third-class dhimmis?

Now who is treating people like cockroaches?

Not just Jews - also Muslim Arabs who live happily as Israelis: while you make your outrageous demands, an increasing number of them volunteer to serve in the Israeli army, in order to become first-class Israeli citizens and protect their families and villages from ever falling under callous "Palestinian" rule.

And of whom are you expecting to make those insane voluntary sacrifices? Of healthy and functional people who have one of the strongest armies on earth, including vast nuclear capabilities!

All so that Mr. Julian, the emperor, can satisfactorily tick his "Middle East" box.

Are you dreaming, or do you need medical help?

EJ,

The map shows the Jewish territory as proposed in 1947 which the Jews accepted and the Arabs did not. The Arabs tried to wipe out Israel in an unprovoked attack and lost badly. They attacked again unprovoked in 1967, and lost badly again. The same again in 1973.

Each time Germany attacked Russia unprovoked, it lost land. Do you suggest that Poland and Russia cede the land they won in WW1 and WW2?

SM, the leap from 1946 to 1947 was imposed not only without the agreement of the inhabitants but without their input at all. The expansions thereafter were not determined with Palestinian permission but at first (1967) by an army lavishly funded by the USA prevailing over a peasant Resistance movement seeking to recover stolen territory. Continued thereafter by the invaders holding the local community at gunpoint while more intruders entered the land and built illegal settlements on it.

The ejection of the Huns from occupied territory was quite the other way round. They had seized it by invasion and were eventually thrown back to their own homeland and a bit further for richly earned good measure. They whined about the extra for a while but nobody listened nor should have.

To Yuyutsu I suppose I have to repeat (yet again) that anyone born in Palestine has a birthright to remain there, and add that so does anyone brought as a child. Adult settlers out out out back to their homelands and normally they'd take their families with them. A dear old grandmother not born in Palestine is probably a rarity and would normally be able to remain with her family who WERE born there.

British people living in the colonies would have had the same problems when the colonies gained independence, and they seem to have got by.

A Jewish minority left behind by Palestinian independence would have the same problem but those with a homeland to return to could and in most cases should return to it.

Imposition of Sharia "law" on a minority remains part of a global problem with the march of Islam which is something we all need to confront, first totally rejecting the PC voices of appeasers. In Palestine it might lead to refugees with a case for resettlement elsewhere. They might have to start in the camps built for Palestinian exiles.

But in no way should the preservation of racist Israel be allowed to call on the sacrifice of blood or treasure to keep it going.

EJ,

The Jewish and Arab inhabitants were both comprehensively consulted, and the Jewish inhabitants agreed to the partition plan in 1947. The Arab inhabitants, however, were not prepared to cede the Jewish inhabitants one inch of ground, and as soon as the British left launched a racist and genocidal pogrom to massacre the Jews outnumbering the Jews >4:1, but being such a mentally enfeebled group got their arses whipped, and established an Israel bigger than the 1947 proposed partition.

The planned 1967 and 1973 pogroms again failed with tens of 1000s of dead Arabs, and Israel not only keeping their land, but gaining a buffer against Arab aggression.

SM It's blindingly obvious to anyone who knows any Palestinian Jews that Jews were not excluded from living in Palestine, just as Germans were not excluded from living in Poland up to 1939. After 1939 the game changed when the lavishly armed Huns stormed in by state terrorist violence (Blitzkrieg they called it) and called Polish territory their own and the Poles Untermenschen. Polish and other free world Partisans were treated as aggressors against the Hun Vaterland just as the Zionist occupiers and their mouthpieces label the Resistance in Palestine as "terrorists" and aggressors against the ever-expanding implanted state of Israel.

Some slimebags in the free world accepted and peddled the Hun narrative and a lot of these slimebags had bought their way into high office. We see the same thing in America especially today including demonstrably racist Donald Trump pledging undying support to racist Israel and like the launcher of this thread accusing Obama of treachery for not opposing Polish - sorry, Palestinian - statehood.

EJ,

Arabs are not excluded from living in Israel, though notably Jews are excluded from living in every Arab country. No wonder the Arabs were so chummy with the Nazis.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I remarked that you are the mirror image of Emperor Julian. He seems to think all Zionists are bad, and you commented “No wonder the Arabs were so chummy with the Nazis.” Some Arabs were chummy with the Nazis. Some saved Jewish lives during the Holocaust. The following tells about one of the latter.

http://www.aish.com/ho/p/Honoring-an-Arab-Righteous-Gentile.html

One Arab is different from another Arab, and one Zionist is different from another Zionist.

Dear Julian,

«A dear old grandmother not born in Palestine is probably a rarity»

Why a rarity? The age of mass-migration, which lasted till 1951, is long over, so now the vast majority of Israelis who were NOT born in Israel (about 30% of Jews and a negligible number of Arab Israelis) are older migrants who meanwhile had their families in Israel. If you exclude Jews that were brought to Israel as children, then the percentage is way smaller than 30% and those would mostly now be quite elderly (83+). One notable exception is the wave of immigration from the U.S.S.R in 1990-1991, once the iron-curtain lifted, but practically all of those who immigrated as adults then, came as families and now have Israeli-born children, grandchildren and/or grand-grandchildren.

You keep ignoring the plight of Arab-Israeli citizens who lived there for 1000's of years and refuse to become "Palestinians": they want to remain in Israel rather than become part of a barbarian failed-state. Surely you don't consider them as "colonisers", so what have you against them?

«A Jewish minority left behind by Palestinian independence would have the same problem»

Those who identify as "Palestinians" do not want independence - it's mere propaganda. I wish they wanted and I would support that, but they were offered independence several times and always refused: all they want is to kill all the Jews, then rejoin the big Arab nation.

Regardless of any wrongs one's grand-grandparents might have done, nobody in their right mind would invite into their country such people who wish to kill, subjugate or expel its citizens.

«Imposition of Sharia "law" on a minority remains part of a global problem»

Radical Muslims do not wait for elections: Sharia law is being imposed on minorities and majorities alike, including in Indonesia.

I very much agree with David that most Arabs are good people - but as a group they are useless and unsuccessful in stopping radical Islam.

Israel should be preserved - not because it is [sadly] racist, but because it's the only place in the region where sane people can live.

Not all Nazis were the same but all promoted and lived by the lie that the right to invade and subjugate the people of territory outside their own belonged to the “Aryans” who were linked by blood. Not all Zionists are the same but all promote an identical lie about the prerogatives of a chosen race of born overlords linked by blood. Google “Israel Law of Return” to see it spelled out by the Zionists themselves. That is the only similarity between Nazis and Zionists. All Nazis were free of all moral restraint according to universal norms of behaviour. Some Zionists also are, but most Zionists are not.

Overlords in Rhodesia and other European colonies suffered the same dislocation of colonialist individuals and families when their foreign enclave was dismantled, as overlords in Palestine will encounter when their foreign enclave is dismantled (which inevitably it will be). The choice to remain (as equals not overlords) or return to their own homelands or seek settlement (as equals not overlords) via e.g. UNHCR somewhere else can be negotiated in the dismantlement process as it probably was in the African colonies.

It is no surprise that Donald Trump, a racist bigot to the bootstraps, has declared a special protective relationship with Israel. Birds of a feather!

Some (now regrettably deceased) friends of my family were among the Russians who took advantage of the offer to let Jews go to Israel. Like many of the others the moment they were free they bypassed Israel and chose a decent country worth living in. Dreams of racial supremacy didn't drive them, just dreams of freedom. They sorely missed dear friends who had to remain in the USSR because they were not Jews.

Whatever takes place in dismantlement negotiations there is no good reason why (mainly American) taxpayers' money, blood and diplomatic resources should be wasted to fight Israel's many enemies and keep Israel afloat and gunned up. Western blood and treasure will be increasingly in demand to stem the march of Islam.

Dear Julian,

Every enclave, every state, every country, every continent, every race, every species, every planet, every sun, every galaxy and every universe will eventually be dismantled. It is the irrevocable law of nature, please have patience.

Apropos of Yuyutsu, Monday, 9 January 2017 10:16:57 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_too_shall_pass

""This too shall pass" (Persian, Arabic & Hebrew) is an adage indicating that all material conditions, positive or negative, are temporary. [go to the source for the expressions in the original languages.]

The phrase seems to have originated in the writings of the medieval Persian Sufi poets, and is often attached to a fable of a great king who is humbled by the simple words. Some versions of the fable, beginning with that of Attar of Nishapur, add the detail that the phrase is inscribed on a ring, which has the ability to make the happy man sad and the sad man happy.

The adage and associated fable were popular in the first half of the 19th century, appearing in a collection of tales by the English poet Edward Fitzgerald and being employed in a speech by Abraham Lincoln before he became the sixteenth President of the United States."

Yuyutsu's nostrum of leaving a major injustice for the fullness of time is not unlike the calls to protect the major injustice of domestic violence by leaving those who commit it free to terrorise their victims while social engineers fiddle around restructuring society.

Palestinians have been suffering a major injustice for much longer than Poland did and we in the American sphere are part of it. First cab off the rank is to turn demonstrably away from it strategically and diplomatically and second is to be seen to assist the Palestinians in restoring control of their own homeland. In our time, not cosmic time.

Dear Julian,

While I never condone domestic violence, comparably, social engineers generate even more pain then domestic perpetrators. The least you can say in mitigation for domestic perpetrators, is that their abused partner has agreed at some point in time to reside with them.

So-called "Palestinians" have not suffered at all under Israeli rule from 1967 until about 1975-1976, nor have they thought of themselves as "Palestinians" until that time. On the contrary, they were happy, they were free to enter and work in Israel and swim in its beaches as they pleased without any barriers, they invited Israelis to their homes and enjoyed unprecedented prosperity.

Two things happened since and gradually:
1) The Jewish settlers came.
2) The PLO, a Tunisian-based terrorist group, incited the local Arabs to rebel and terrorise.

Sure they also suffered in 1948, but that great injustice was at the hands of their Arab brothers, who forced them to leave their homes and become refugees. Had they not attacked Israel at the time, they would retain their control over most of what's Israel today, including an international enclave in Jerusalem.

Anyway, what matters is that they suffer now. This needs to stop, but it can only stop once they stop their terrorism. It is only by their own most-stupid actions that the internal balance within Israel changed, that the moderate Israelis who supported them are desperately leaving the country while extremist settlers, especially Americans, are arriving and settling in their midst. The situation has deteriorated so badly that now even Israel bows down and is unable to control the Jewish settlers, not any more, the Jeannie is out of the bottle.

Sadly, placing the "Palestinians" behind the wheel would not reduce their suffering - more likely, as their factions fight among themselves, they would throw each other from rooftops and shoot at each others' knees, just as we saw in Gaza.

Indeed they are in deep muck, but I know not how to help them. National sovereignty may satisfy the aspirations of some Western social engineers, but would only increase the suffering of ordinary "Palestinians".

EJ,

Not all Arabs are the same, but most agree with genocide, public hangings subjugation of women etc.

Dear SM,

«Not all Arabs are the same, but most agree with genocide, public hangings subjugation of women etc.»

I disagree that it's "most". The tragedy, however, is that most Arabs keep their disagreement with the above practices private and hidden in fear for their life.

It has been written a very long time ago. and it is fulfilling.