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.