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".