A thought about Israel.

[myata]

That of course doesn't make any sense at all - there's simply no logic in your statements. Should an independent state be created for every small minority in the country? Why should European Jews, which had no "uninterrupted ancestry" in the Palestine (other than age old books), be allowed to immigrate in huge numbers to already populated land, as opposed to e.g. somewhere in the countries of their benefactors? Why should eastern world bear any responsibility whatsoever / no wrong, even care about, a tragedy brought about entirely by West's own imperialist policies?

Try this: we know there're many homeless people out there. Do a good thing - send them to live in (and take over) someone else's house. See what the owners will have to say. Sounds right?

The truth of the matter is that the rulers of the world at the time simply considered it the cheapest possible solution to the problem they had on their hands, which happened to coincide with the program of radical Zionists. Bingo. By doing that they created a hot spot that'll be with us for a long time to come.

I agree with you on one point though. In this situation, nothing at all guarantees long term stability for Israel, not even if they cover every square inch of land with guns and arms.

[Higgly]

Your views are respected and of course fair comment. What I would say is, that it is not accurate to define Jews as simply being of European ancestry. This is just not true. Ashkanazi Jews are Jews whose blood has been inter-bred, but its origins are not from Europe but the lost twelve tribes of Semites. Certainly Tsfardic Jews are clearly not of European origin and are African and Arab Jews or dark skinned Jews of different cultural tradition. It is a misnomer to define Jews as simply being European. This is a concept based on ignorance as to what the origins of Jews really are.

We live in a country full of people who came from somewhere else. We call ourselves Canadian, but remember where we came from. In fact, this is the way it works all over the world. The Jews who founded Israel were Europeans. If a Canadian who is descended from Polish roots emmigrates to Australia, he is considered a Canadian, not a Pole.

It is the same ignorance that defines Zionism simply as a European colonialist notion. It is not just a nationalist ideology. It is a religious concept that flows directly from the Bible and the belief that Jews have a spiritual convenant from God to the land in Israel, and whether Jews travelled from the Middle East to Europe and settled there, does not change the fact that they are ancestors of aboriginal peoples of the Middle East.

Well sure. That's what they believe. Expecting everyone else to clear out because of it is an extraordinarily arrogant position to take. Your reference to Jews being descended from the aboriginal peoples of the Middle East conveniently ignores the fact that the Arabs enjoy the same status. The Jews were dominant in Palestine for a total period of 300 years and during that time they were not the only ones who lived there. It is a bit far-fetched, after 2000 years have passed, to say that this gives them the right to show up and kick every one else out.

I understand however perfectly your point that to the Arab and Muslim world, the idea of a Jewish state would be seen as a threat from Europe. I think though it is also important to point out that while trendy left wingers like to say the Arab world deemed Israel a colonialist European imperialist imposition, this is precisely that, a trendy left wing invention.

I guess you missed the Ahmadinejad interview on CNN. And before you go off on a rant - no I do not agree with his ideas about Israel, the Holocaust, and Jews in general. I am citing this because I don't think you can label him a trendy left winger although he stated a number of times during the interview that he considered the Jews of Israel to be Europeans.

In the real world of Islam, its deeper then that. In the real Muslim world, dhimmitude prevails and that is a belief that neither Christians or Jews even if they were born in the Middle East and have continued roots there, are NOT entitled to any property rights or equal rights as Muslims. Its more complicated then just describing it as neo-colonialism because it has deep religious roots that create intolerance and discrimination that having nothing to do with the fact that Israel was created.

Here is a link to the Wikipedia definition of dhimmi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi . There is nothing in there about Jews and Christians being forbidden to own land. In any case, it is pointed out that the Dhimmi laws were most often unenforced.

The fact is Christians and Jews have lived in Palestine UNINTERUPTED since Biblical days but had their rights taken away by Romans, Greeks, Turks, etc.

So what?

The Arab League chose to reject the UN partition plan because it was following its Muslim beliefs that neither Jews or Christians should be permitted to own land or be self-governing. This is a deeply entrenched religious belief that has not changed.

I think he's just making this stuff up, folks. If you take the trouble to do a little reading you will find that King Abdullah of Jordan as well as King Faisal made agreements to support the existence of Israel. Faisal with Chaim Weitzmann, the head of the Zionist Council (this was before Israel came into existence) and Abdullah with Golda Meier who went to Amman to meet with him in Amman immediately prior to the 1948 war.

European Christians who first felt guilty for the holocaust and felt Jews should be allowed to return to Israel, now are the same Christians who feel Jews are evil for having returned to Israel.

Most of the European Jews who went to Palestine and created the state of Israel went there before the Holocaust in the period between 1920 and the start of WWII. Much of the infrastructure which was to become the state of Israel was already in place. The entire city of Tel Aviv had been completely built up from almost nothing in that period, for example.

The European Christian world has demonstrated a complete and total hippocracy towards the fact it created a holocaust and was responsible for over 3,500 years of persecution of Jews and refusing to allow Jews to own lands. In that regard the Muslims in the Muslim world are no different. No they did not engage in the same level of genocide, but they certainly practiced the same level of discrimination.

Yes the Jews were persecuted. But which country refused to allow them to own land? What is your reference for this? Name those countries.

Had the Arab League allowed the Jews a tiny country all of this would not be discussed.

Yes and if Israel would allow the Palestinians to have their 'tiny little country'?

The other point I would like to make is that the legal rights Jews claim to Israel were not based on their population size at the time.

And you are saying this is a point in their favour?

That said you raise an obvious interesting point. For Israel a democractic state to remain Jewish by nature, its population would have to have its Jewish portion of that population out-number its Muslim or Christian populations. The current birth rate is something like 8 Muslim Israelis to one Jewish Israeli, so if we project that into the future, say to the year 2030, Jews could be a minority in Israel which of course would bring into question the idea it could remain democractic but Jewish.

A country that is run by and for the benefit of one particular part of its population is not a democracy. It is an oligarchy. Israel is a democracy in the same way that ancient Greece was a democracy. In a true democracy, immigration and housing policies would not be made to favour one group with the stated goal of ensuring that group's numerical superiority in the electorate.

In the Muslim world they do not worry about such things because their policy of dhimmitude and killing off of or discriminating againstnon Muslims (Zoroastreans, Bahaiis,Jews, Christians,) makes it a moot point. Unlike Israel, no Muslim country allows non Muslims property ownership rights or even business ownership rights.Morrocco is the only Muslim country that has allowed a relatively tolerant level of cooperation with its Jews, and that is directly because of the traditions flowing from its King. It is an exception to the rule. Jews in Muslim countries can deal with one another or Christians but things get very complex when they want to deal outside their own communities which are in fact enforced ghettoes.

Oh brother.

[Argus]

The plight of the Palestinians is a tragedy, but it can largely be blamed ON Arab states. They urged them to flee, they urged them not to go back, they refused to sign a peace with Israel, and they refused to allow the refugees to become citizens.

What utter nonsense!

Urging Palestinians to flee was: (1) reasonable, given the expulsion activities being carried out by Isreali forces, and (2) in no way the cause of the confiscation and continuing exclusion of these people.

They excluded themselves by staying away for decades. Legally speaking, in fact, if I leave my house and don't come back for ten years, I'm going to find out that the city has seized it for back taxes and sold it to someone else. And I would have no right to reclaim it.

Arab states' not signing a peace deal with Israel is because there has been no redress for the Palestinians.

What redress do you imagine there should have been? Israel was created. Arab states attacked and attempted to destroy them. Palestinians fled. The Arab states lost.

BTW, just as many Jews were forced out of Arab states along the way. None ever received any compensation. And oddly enough, none of you lefties oh-so-sympathetic to the capitalist rights of the previous Palestinian property owners cares a damned about the same rights of those Jews.

No states' have any obligation to accept masses of refugees as citizens.

But over time, every state does. Except the Arabs. To listen to you we should have held back all those fleeing American Loyalists and put them in refugee camps and kept them there for generation after generation. And hey, then there's the black slaves fleeing into Canada. We should have clamped them into camps at the border, right, and kept them there for decades, even centuries?

[Argus]

FYI (Rue in particular): BBC had a site with detailed information on the history of Middle East conflict. Google search must find it in a flash. Please consult it (BBC being a respectable source of information) for the factual background on the recent history of the region.

I don't regard the BBC as being a respectable source of information on the Arab-Israeli dispute. I regard the BBC as foresquare and unapologetically on the side of the Palestinians and with no moral or ethical problems with slanting stories so as to make Israel look bad and the Arabs look good - or at least, better.

But wouldn't you say the same of anyone who doesn't accept foursquare the Bush/Likud worldview?

As I have never liked Bush or Likud I can't help wondering why you would think that.

[Higgly]

They excluded themselves by staying away for decades. Legally speaking, in fact, if I leave my house and don't come back for ten years, I'm going to find out that the city has seized it for back taxes and sold it to someone else. And I would have no right to reclaim it.

The Israeli laws of abandonnment were passed in 1950 - less than two years after the Palestinians were driven off of their land by Jewish forces. Israel has refused since 1948 to allow Palestinian refugees to come back and re-claim their land. You make it sound as though they stayed away voluntarily. They did not.

What redress do you imagine there should have been? Israel was created. Arab states attacked and attempted to destroy them. Palestinians fled. The Arab states lost.

The Geneva Conventions forbid settling on conquered land.

But over time, every state does. Except the Arabs. To listen to you we should have held back all those fleeing American Loyalists and put them in refugee camps and kept them there for generation after generation. And hey, then there's the black slaves fleeing into Canada. We should have clamped them into camps at the border, right, and kept them there for decades, even centuries?

In fact Jordan has done so. The Queen of Jordan is a Palestinian. You also need to understand that many Palestinian refugees refuse to accept citizenship in another land because they believe that the land they were forced to leave still belongs to them.

[Rue]

That of course doesn't make any sense at all - there's simply no logic in your statements. Should an independent state be created for every small minority in the country? Why should European Jews, which had no "uninterrupted ancestry" in the Palestine (other than age old books), be allowed to immigrate in huge numbers to already populated land, as opposed to e.g. somewhere in the countries of their benefactors? Why should eastern world bear any responsibility whatsoever / no wrong, even care about, a tragedy brought about entirely by West's own imperialist policies?

Try this: we know there're many homeless people out there. Do a good thing - send them to live in (and take over) someone else's house. See what the owners will have to say. Sounds right?

The truth of the matter is that the rulers of the world at the time simply considered it the cheapest possible solution to the problem they had on their hands, which happened to coincide with the program of radical Zionists. Bingo. By doing that they created a hot spot that'll be with us for a long time to come.

I agree with you on one point though. In this situation, nothing at all guarantees long term stability for Israel, not even if they cover every square inch of land with guns and arms.

Myata you missed the point as do most people who ignore the origins of the Middle East and simply choose to define the Middle East since 1948. The size or amount of people in the Middle East is not the only way to define or establish the validity of legal rights to land or access to government services. What you are suggesting is that if one ethnic group has more population then another, it is not required to recognize the other's legal rights .It is simplistic to simply say, the majority of a population rules . Yes from a purely practical point of view, if you want to be democratic state, it eventually becomes impossible to be a one religion state at the same time if you genuinely want to practice democracy. The point is in a democracy you balance all kinds of minority rights with majority rights, you don't simply ignore them. Israel which is democractic unlike the Muslim world's countries which are not and do not worry about minority rights faces the dilemma of trying to remain Jewish if its majority becomes Muslim, but that is a diferent issue. The issue as to Israel's legal right to form a sovereign nation in 1948 which is what we are talking about, does not and did not start simply after the holocaust-that misnomer comes from a refusal to look back at the origins of not just Jews, but Muslims and Christians as well in the Middle East.

Jews have always lived in the Middle East and so have a legal rights dating back further then any Muslim or Christian. If we want to be logical then we must agree that all three people can make equally as valid arguements to legal rights for the land or self-government. Simply being selective as to how far back one goes to determine legal rights to property is precisely what causes problems and conflicts. The fact that Jews or Christians were forcefully displaced form Palestine does not take away their rights to return just as you would argue today that Palestinians have the right to return to Israel proper. Your aguement to be logical must apply to all 3 parties equally, or necessarily becomes selective and bias and illogical. If you simply select Palestinians or Muslims as having the only or best rights and everyone else is to be categorized as pretenders you completely ignore the origins abd validity of the legal rights of Christians and Jews which would be arbitrary and therefore necessarily illogical.

The point is all three can and do make equally as valid legal arguements that conflict. So please stop engaging in selectivity and portraying this as Israeli Jews bad and evil Palestinians and Muslims as good and innocent. Such formulas of good v.s. bad are for children and fairy tales not grown adults.

Now since the Middle East's countries other than Israel have no democractic tradition or historic tradition of recognizing Christian or Jewish rights as being equal to Muslim rights when it comes to land, business or religion, it makes it absurd to simply blame this on Jews wanting a country and its precisely why history has been revised in the last 15 years and has gone from seeing Israel as a just conclusion and exercise in democractic rights to a bad guy nation. Although nothing at all has changed since 1949, your generation seems intent on ignoring Middle East history. The same Christians in Europe who supported the state of Israel, now see their children suggesting Israel is an unfair colonialist invention. Talk about short memories and hippocracy. Christian Europe is descended from the same Christians who for 3,500 years would not allow Jews to own land and be treated as equals and choose to ignore not just the role of the holocaust but the role of their government instititions and churches in not allowing Jews to own land or be allowed fair and equal treatment. It also ignores the forced dhimmitude Muslims imposed on both Christians and Jews and also forbid Jews and Christians from owning land or having the same rights.

The fact is if the Muslim world allowed Jews to own land and did not persecute them and force them to live in ghettoes and if the Christian world did not slaughter them continuousl for 3,500 years and the world instead was a loving and democractic place, no there would be no need for Jews dreaming or wanting a soverign country of their own just like Muslims would not want Islamic nations and Christians would not have dominated Europe and North and South America's governments and institutions with their religions at the expense of non Christians and would not insist on Christian nations.

The reality is however, Christians and Muslims have demanded and imposed nations based on their religions. Now you would have us believe Jews do not have the same rights because they are a minority in Muslim or Christian nations. But the point is by starting their own country they then become a majority don't they and your arguement suddenly goes pffft because now you have to change the rules and say, uh yah, but its different. Christians can have nations. Muslims can have nations. But Jews can't. Why? Because we said so.

Well sorry after 3,500 years of persecution in Europe and after centuries of dhimmitude in the Middle East, Jews realized they would not survive if they did not go back whence they came and take a final stand.

It is illogical not to mention hipporcritical to suggest Muslims can have Islamic nations, Christians can have Christian nations, but Jews can not have a nation.

Also please understand Israel is not just a reaction to the holocaust or a nationalist political concept. Zionism is not to be simply defined as political. Zionism is also religious. Jews UNLIKE Muslims or Christians, believe that they have a covenant with God and spiritually are connected to the land of Israel. It is not just a matter of politics for them, itis a matter of spiritual connection. The Muslim religion does not attach its existence to owning land. In fact in the Muslim psyche, the concept of borders is absurd and inan ideal world, since religion and state are not seperated, there would be no need for borders there would be just one massive Islamic nation that never ended.

As for the Christian world, it has long dominated all of Europe, South and North America's government institutions and used the imposition of military force to impose its

beliefs. It wasn't democratically elected-often it was imposed on the majority by a minority.

Just like the West and its Christian traditions will not allow itself to be taken over by Muslims and just as the Muslims do not want to distinguish state from religion, and do not tolerate other religions, so do Jews want to have a state where their religion is never in question.

I personally prefer to live in a democractic non religious country. I hate all organized religions equally for the same reasons but unlike you I do not selectively deem Muslims and Christians to have rights but Jews not to have rights.

Either the entire world defines nations not on religion but democractic rights of equality and keeps religion seperated from the state, or it is what it is now, a mix of theocracies and alleged democracies-but this double standard that Jews are the only ethnic group in the world who can not be a majority in a nation makes non sense and is in fact merely a symptom of Islam and Christianity continuing to manifest intolerance towards Jews not just as a religious people, but as a political people, a cultural people and a people whose essence is linked to the land.

[Rue]

The plight of the Palestinians is a tragedy, but it can largely be blamed ON Arab states. They urged them to flee, they urged them not to go back, they refused to sign a peace with Israel, and they refused to allow the refugees to become citizens.

What utter nonsense!

Urging Palestinians to flee was: (1) reasonable, given the expulsion activities being carried out by Isreali forces, and (2) in no way the cause of the confiscation and continuing exclusion of these people.

Arab states' not signing a peace deal with Israel is because there has been no redress for the Palestinians. You need to keep the concept of cause and effect more clear in your head, it seems.

No states' have any obligation to accept masses of refugees as citizens. But hey, where are these refugees from, anyway? Israel/Occupied Palestine, right?

Your comments are absolutely selective so its not suprising you would try get personal with me and refer to what I said as nonsense. Urging Palestinians to flee was not reasonable and if you took the time to bother to read instead of being Mr. Know it All about an era you know nothing about, you would realize the decision to flee was based on unfounded rumours and panic.

You are absolutely and completely dead wrong when you make the statement Arab states did not sign a pceace deal with Israel because there has been no redress for Palestinians. Teh Arab League did not sign a peace treaty because it chose politically to continue to remain at war with Israel. It felt the war was not over. The Arab League made the decision not to recognize any right to a Jewish country. That is why there was no peace deal. The decision not to deal with Palestinian refugees came about as aq direct result of the Arab League refusing to allow Palestinians to resettle in Arab countries and to engage in peaceful dialogue to compensate displaced Palestinians. Your history is selective. What is nonsense is for you to pretend that Israel has the moral culpability to resettle Palestinians when the Arab League refused to do the same. That is absolute and utter nonsense.

Now you want to talk about nonsense. You state no state has the obligation to accept masses of refugees. Yet in the same breath you expect Israel to. Talk about double standard. Talk about nonsense. All nations have an obligation to work together to resolve conflicts. It is precisely your selective double standard that

the Arab League engaged in. It expected Israel to do something it would not do, and that was accommodate displaced Palestinians.

And for your information, if you bothered to read, you would find out, that those Palestinians that did not flee Israel, not only kept their land, but in years to come would win cases at the Supreme Court of Israel guaranteeing their right to own land.

See you are so quick to portray this in a selective way you refuse to recognize that Israel did already accommodate Palestinians who did not flee. But I doubt you are interested in reality or history. In your world of black and white, Jews and Israel are bad, Palestinians are victims, and the Arab League has no moral responsibility for causing these Palestinians to flee in the first place. No that is all selectively ignored isn't it.

So we agree I think you are as nonsensical as you think I am. Whoopy.

[Higgly]

Rue, a lot of what you say is not true but you appear to be one of those people who believes that if he says the same thing over and over and over again, and to enough people, that it will come true. You are a lot like Israel and the mythinformation campaign it constantly conducts about its own history.

Your idea that the Jews have rights going back before the Moslems and Christians is wrong. The Jews and the Arabs have lived on the land side by side back to the dawn of recorded history. The fact that the Arabs later became Moslem or Christian is immaterial.

The Arabs did not flee because they were told to by the Arab League. They were driven out by shelling from Israeli forces acting under orders from Ben Gurion to clear the Arab towns and villages.

The Palestinians had no choice in being absent from their land. They were driven off of it and not allowed to return. Your idea that they gave up the right to their land because of this is like saying that if a thief takes something, and you are not able to get it back within a certain period of time, then it belongs to the thief.

The laws of dhimmi do not forbid Jews from owning land. Jews are not prevented from owning land in Arab countries. No European country forbids Jews from owning land. Not now, nor at any time in modern history.

Article 29 of the Geneva Conventions forbids the settling of conquered land. When Israel took lands outside of that mandated by the UN partition proposal (which it agreed to), it was in violation of the Geneva convention. Now that Israel is building settlements in land taken during the last war, it is doubly in violation.

I do not see anyone here saying that the Jews should not have a country, just that the Palestinians should have one as well and be compensated for the loss they suffered as a direct result of the creation of the state of Israel.

[myata]

Sorry, Rue, much of what you're saying is confusing, has no factual backing and honestly not worth argument. If you want to believe what you believe, no one can persuade you otherwise. I have little hope for the region though, while people like yourself are sticking to their entrenched positions. Admitting the truth, however unpleasant it may be, will be the first, and btw the easiest, step on the long way to the resolution, if it's ever going to happen.

[jbg]

The Arabs did not flee because they were told to by the Arab League. They were driven out by shelling from Israeli forces acting under orders from Ben Gurion to clear the Arab towns and villages.

The Palestinians had no choice in being absent from their land. They were driven off of it and not allowed to return. Your idea that they gave up the right to their land because of this is like saying that if a thief takes something, and you are not able to get it back within a certain period of time, then it belongs to the thief.

Then why do many Arabs live peacefully and prosperously in Israel, vote in Israeli elections, and have full civil rights, except right to serve in Army?

The laws of dhimmi do not forbid Jews from owning land. Jews are not prevented from owning land in Arab countries. No European country forbids Jews from owning land. Not now, nor at any time in modern history.

Why should the Jews have to accept any inferior status?

I do not see anyone here saying that the Jews should not have a country, just that the Palestinians should have one as well and be compensated for the loss they suffered as a direct result of the creation of the state of Israel.

Does every sliver of a people that the Arabs define as "separate" get a State at Israel's expense. How many Arab countries are there? How many more are needed?

[Borg]

I had a thought that maybe the creation of Israel was bad. Perhaps it lead to even more discrimination and anti-Semintism in the world, and especially in the Middle East.

Maybe and maybe not.

In the end, the State exists.

After all of this time how would you propose to destroy it?

Stop attacking Israel and it will stop attacking the neighbouring states.

Borg

[bradco]

The Arabs did not flee because they were told to by the Arab League. They were driven out by shelling from Israeli forces acting under orders from Ben Gurion to clear the Arab towns and villages.

The Palestinians had no choice in being absent from their land. They were driven off of it and not allowed to return. Your idea that they gave up the right to their land because of this is like saying that if a thief takes something, and you are not able to get it back within a certain period of time, then it belongs to the thief.

Then why do many Arabs live peacefully and prosperously in Israel, vote in Israeli elections, and have full civil rights, except right to serve in Army?

The laws of dhimmi do not forbid Jews from owning land. Jews are not prevented from owning land in Arab countries. No European country forbids Jews from owning land. Not now, nor at any time in modern history.

Why should the Jews have to accept any inferior status?

I do not see anyone here saying that the Jews should not have a country, just that the Palestinians should have one as well and be compensated for the loss they suffered as a direct result of the creation of the state of Israel.

Does every sliver of a people that the Arabs define as "separate" get a State at Israel's expense. How many Arab countries are there? How many more are needed?

does every sliver of a people that the west define as "separate" get a state at the expense of arabs.

the palestinians have just as much of a right to a state as Isreal has

[KrustyKidd]

Maybe and maybe not.

In the end, the State exists.

After all of this time how would you propose to destroy it?

Stop attacking Israel and it will stop attacking the neighbouring states.

Borg

So true and simple. Now, as another poster said, deal with it and instead of using the money given to them to kill - build, educate and industrialize instead. They would find a willing participant and investor in the Israeli nation.

[Figleaf]

The plight of the Palestinians is a tragedy, but it can largely be blamed ON Arab states. They urged them to flee, they urged them not to go back, they refused to sign a peace with Israel, and they refused to allow the refugees to become citizens.

What utter nonsense!

Urging Palestinians to flee was: (1) reasonable, given the expulsion activities being carried out by Isreali forces, and (2) in no way the cause of the confiscation and continuing exclusion of these people.

Arab states' not signing a peace deal with Israel is because there has been no redress for the Palestinians. You need to keep the concept of cause and effect more clear in your head, it seems.

No states' have any obligation to accept masses of refugees as citizens. But hey, where are these refugees from, anyway? Israel/Occupied Palestine, right?

Your comments are absolutely selective so its not suprising you would try get personal with me and refer to what I said as nonsense.

It was Argus's post.

The remainder of your post is fantastical and repetitive drivel, already amply refuted on this thread.

[myata]

From the responses on this topic so far, it sounds like a fair resolution can/should be sought in the "two states" solution, around these main lines:

1. Recognition of the "issues" with creation of Israel;

2. Fair compensation to all directly affected by p.1 (by involved Western powers, Israel and the UN);

3. Delineation of borders based on internationally recognized lines like 1948 or 1967 (not because of their obvious fairness, but for the lack of better precedent); or mutually agreed modifications of the above;

4. Mutual recognition of the two states;

5. Guarantees of security for both states by international community (possibly and likely with international supervision of borders in the first years);

Any problems with that?

[Argus]

From the responses on this topic so far, it sounds like a fair resolution can/should be sought in the "two states" solution, around these main lines:

1. Recognition of the "issues" with creation of Israel;

Can we include my "issues" with the creation of the state of France? I don't like the place, and discussion of its creation is every bit as practical and important.

2. Fair compensation to all directly affected by p.1 (by involved Western powers, Israel and the UN);

Does that mean fair compensation from the Arab states to all Jews forced to leave their homes, and compensation to Israel for the military attacks on it by Arab states, and compensation to Israel for the security costs due to terrorism funded by Arab states, and compensation to the families of Israelis murdered by terrorists funded by Arab governments?

3. Delineation of borders based on internationally recognized lines like 1948 or 1967 (not because of their obvious fairness, but for the lack of better precedent); or mutually agreed modifications of the above;

4. Mutual recognition of the two states;

5. Guarantees of security for both states by international community (possibly and likely with international supervision of borders in the first years);

Any problems with that?

Have no problem with the last three. But you might have a few problems getting it implimented given the Palestinian Authority, as well as a number of Arab states refuse to recognize Israel's existence.

And then there's Jerusalem. Frankly, I'm on the Jews' side with that one, given the Muslims treated everyone else's holy sites like crap during their reign. The Jews have at least respected and protected the holy sites of other religions. To my mind, that earns them the right to look after the place.

[Figleaf]

Can we include my "issues" with the creation of the state of France? I don't like the place, and discussion of its creation is every bit as practical and important.

It sounds like you have no interest whatsoever in acheiving an agreed peace of any kind. If you won't acknowledge the source point of the dispute, any attempt at a discussion based on reason is out the window, isn't it?

2. Fair compensation to all directly affected by p.1 (by involved Western powers, Israel and the UN);

Does that mean fair compensation from the Arab states to all Jews forced to leave their homes, and compensation to Israel for the military attacks on it by Arab states, and compensation to Israel for the security costs due to terrorism funded by Arab states, and compensation to the families of Israelis murdered by terrorists funded by Arab governments?

I'd say the principles of compensation ought to be applied equally to all participants, so:

-Jews forced to leave homes - yes

-attacks on Israel by Arab states - yes, for 1948, 1956, 1973.

-security costs - no

-murdered by terrorists funded by Arab governments - yes, on case by case basis for killings outside the scope of 'fair' warfare.

And then there's Jerusalem. Frankly, I'm on the Jews' side with that one, given the Muslims treated everyone else's holy sites like crap during their reign. The Jews have at least respected and protected the holy sites of other religions. To my mind, that earns them the right to look after the place.

Personally, I think the solution on Jerusalem would be something like this:

-city declared heritage of all humanity and put under governance of a UN Security Council sub-committee.

-said subcommittee appoints Israel the administrator and security protector of the city for 50 or 100 years, subject to subcommittee's broad policies.

-both Israel and the Palestinian state permitted to make Jerusalem their ceremonial capital, provided that they maintain an administrative capital in another city.

[M.Dancer]

-attacks on Israel by Arab states - yes, for 1948, 1956, 1973.

The 1967 war, although the first shots were fired by Israel, the war was started by the Arab league when the decided to blockade Israels Red Sea post and mobilze and amass troops on Israels frontiers.

The situation is sort of like an old west gun fight....where ol black bart calls out the man in white, but the man in white is faster.

[Rue]

Rue, a lot of what you say is not true but you appear to be one of those people who believes that if he says the same thing over and over and over again, and to enough people, that it will come true. You are a lot like Israel and the mythinformation campaign it constantly conducts about its own history.

Your idea that the Jews have rights going back before the Moslems and Christians is wrong. The Jews and the Arabs have lived on the land side by side back to the dawn of recorded history. The fact that the Arabs later became Moslem or Christian is immaterial.

The Arabs did not flee because they were told to by the Arab League. They were driven out by shelling from Israeli forces acting under orders from Ben Gurion to clear the Arab towns and villages.

The Palestinians had no choice in being absent from their land. They were driven off of it and not allowed to return. Your idea that they gave up the right to their land because of this is like saying that if a thief takes something, and you are not able to get it back within a certain period of time, then it belongs to the thief.

The laws of dhimmi do not forbid Jews from owning land. Jews are not prevented from owning land in Arab countries. No European country forbids Jews from owning land. Not now, nor at any time in modern history.

Article 29 of the Geneva Conventions forbids the settling of conquered land. When Israel took lands outside of that mandated by the UN partition proposal (which it agreed to), it was in violation of the Geneva convention. Now that Israel is building settlements in land taken during the last war, it is doubly in violation.

I do not see anyone here saying that the Jews should not have a country, just that the Palestinians should have one as well and be compensated for the loss they suffered as a direct result of the creation of the state of Israel.

First of all the laws of dhimmi most certainly forbid Israelis from owning land and engaging in the same ownership of land and same rules of business interactions as Muslims. That is a fact.

Secondly for you to say European countries did nto forbid Jews from owning land at any time in modern history is complete and utterly wrong and for you to state these two things, once again shows yet someone else ignorant of the history of Jews in Europe lecturing someone whose relatives were forbidden to own land and fleed Europe because of persecution.

Now you seem to have selectively quoted article 20 of the Geneva Convention forbiding the settling of conquered land but clearlyt you have no idea what this article means and what it applies to.

You clearly have chosen to ignore other articles and international law which allows a sovereign nation to protect itself from imminent threats of attack and terror.

Now perhaps you like Myata and all these young people who have not a clue about the origins of Israel but carry on as if you do need to once and for all review the facts;

between 1517 and 1917, the Ottoman Empire of Turkey controlled the areas of Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. Supporting Germany during the First World War, the Turks were defeated and in 1916, the southern portion of control was mandated to Britain and France - Lebanon and Syria going to France, with Palestine (the areas known today as Israel, Jordan, and the West Bank) controlled by the British. Jews had begun mass immigration to Palestine during the 1880’s and slowly started changing the very landscape from malarial swamps and dry desserts to farmable land. This also attracted a large number of Arab immigrants who were looking for employment and better living conditions.

In 1923 Palestine was divided into two areas by the British – 25% of the land (west of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish homeland and administratively run by the Palestinian Jews. The remaining 75%, called Trans-Jordan would be the Arab-Palestinian homeland.

Arab Palestinians began a systematic effort to drive out the Jews from the area west of the Jordan River with continuous attacks on Jewish settlements. Most widely known was the 1936-39 “Arab Revolt”, where attacks on Jews continued mercilessly. The British, who once protected the Jews and Arabs from each other, soon began ignoring the situation after many of their own died getting in between Arabs and Jews. The Jews began pouring more and more resources into their own defensive force called the Hagana, which eventually became the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).

By 1947, the British had grown weary of the Middle East and left it to the United Nations to decide the fate of the region. The UN passed resolution 181 partitioning the land west of the Jordan River (the original 25% of Palestine) into a Jewish Palestinian state and an Arab Palestinian state. The Jews accepted the resolution and the Arabs rejected it, claiming all of Palestine. On May 14, 1948 the Palestinian Jews celebrated for the first time as Israelis, but on the following day, seven neighboring Arab armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen invaded the new state. Many Arabs who were living within the new Israeli boundaries were encouraged to leave by the other Arab states so a mass invasion could wipe out all of the Jews. The Arabs, who were anticipating an easy victory, promised Jewish land and property in return. The Independence War lasted about a year and a half and the Arabs that had stayed in the Israeli boundaries became Israeli citizens; those that had left are known as one of the first waves of “refugees”.

Israel now had a state that was a little bit bigger than it was before the war, though their population was reduced slightly by the casualties sustained during the war. The area that was Arab Palestine was now controlled by Egypt (taking the Gaza Strip) and Jordan (occupying the West Bank). Jordan annexed this territory and the land east and west of the Jordan River was simply called Jordan.

In 1964 the Palestinian Liberation Organization was formed. Led by Yasser Arafat, it claimed to be the sole representative of the Palestinians. They vowed to reclaim the land and destroy the state of Israel.

In 1967, the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian armies began to mobilize along the borders of Israel. Israel called for a pre-emptive strike and attacked Egypt, utterly destroying their Air Force within two hours. Jordan launched their attack from the West Bank, unaware of Egypt’s loss, while the Syrian army attacked from the Golan Heights mountains into the north. The Israelis won the war in six days and now controlled the Sinai Desert, the West Bank (including all of Jerusalem), the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights.

In 1973 on the eve of the holiest Jewish holiday Yom Kippur, Syria and Egypt launched a surprise attack on Israel. After initial losses suffered due to the surprise, Israel still controlled most of the territory gained from the 1967 six-day war. In 1979, Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat signed a mutual recognition pact with Israel in exchange for the return of the Sinai Desert.

Israel formally annexed the Golan Heights in 1981, using the natural barrier of the mountains as defense. In response to terrorism from the north, Israel invaded Lebanon on June 6, 1982 and went as far north as Beirut. By 1985, Israeli troops withdrew from most of Lebanon, but kept a security zone on the southern border.

Israel built settlements on the land captured in the 1967 war throughout the 1980’s. In response, the Palestinians launched the first intifada (uprising) against Israeli occupation in 1987. Peace talks were launched and the Oslo Accords in 1993 attempted to pave the way for peace. Mutual recognition between the PLO and Israel and limited self-rule for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza were the highlights of the agreement; Jordan also signed a peace treaty with Israel.

Instead of being selective with history or making statements which are just not true, take the time to read about the laws forbidding Jews from owning land in Europe or the Middle East before you make such blanket statements.

More to the point, stop conveniently and selectively ignoring the fact that Jordan occupies the vast majority of Palestine and in your tendy revisionism or that of Myiata's or Black Dog's because you people find it easier to define this as black and white, you don't want to go back and ask yourself where the hell Jordan came from and what it did in 1967 with the Palestinians.

Yes legally the Arab League of Nations is legally and morally responsible for advising Arabs to flee Israel. Your suggestion Arabs in Israel were shelled is ignorant. Many Arabs did not leave and were not shelled. The shelling you talk about was isolated because the Israeli defence force at the time was a rag tag army and it was only directed at the Arab League Armies which ran the moment war began.

Now let me conclude by stating, you can continue repeating comments and ignoring history and revising it but each and every time you talk about Israel and try revise history I will be here like a boil on your butt reminding you of what went down.

It is precisely this ignoring of history that will create another holocaust only this time this is one Jew who won't sit passively by while it happens.

And I also want to point out, at least in my attempts to talk about this equation, I do not refer to it as bad v.s. good or depict Palestinians as evil.

I have said from day one both Jews and Palestinians have equal rights in this area. I did not choose to create wars and engage in constant terror, the Arab League and many Muslim nations and their clerics continue to do so to this day.

[Rue]

From the responses on this topic so far, it sounds like a fair resolution can/should be sought in the "two states" solution, around these main lines:

1. Recognition of the "issues" with creation of Israel;

2. Fair compensation to all directly affected by p.1 (by involved Western powers, Israel and the UN);

3. Delineation of borders based on internationally recognized lines like 1948 or 1967 (not because of their obvious fairness, but for the lack of better precedent); or mutually agreed modifications of the above;

4. Mutual recognition of the two states;

5. Guarantees of security for both states by international community (possibly and likely with international supervision of borders in the first years);

Any problems with that?

None. zero. Completely fair. Bang on. etc.

[Rue]

Can we include my "issues" with the creation of the state of France? I don't like the place, and discussion of its creation is every bit as practical and important.

It sounds like you have no interest whatsoever in acheiving an agreed peace of any kind. If you won't acknowledge the source point of the dispute, any attempt at a discussion based on reason is out the window, isn't it?

2. Fair compensation to all directly affected by p.1 (by involved Western powers, Israel and the UN);

Does that mean fair compensation from the Arab states to all Jews forced to leave their homes, and compensation to Israel for the military attacks on it by Arab states, and compensation to Israel for the security costs due to terrorism funded by Arab states, and compensation to the families of Israelis murdered by terrorists funded by Arab governments?

I'd say the principles of compensation ought to be applied equally to all participants, so:

-Jews forced to leave homes - yes

-attacks on Israel by Arab states - yes, for 1948, 1956, 1973.

-security costs - no

-murdered by terrorists funded by Arab governments - yes, on case by case basis for killings outside the scope of 'fair' warfare.

And then there's Jerusalem. Frankly, I'm on the Jews' side with that one, given the Muslims treated everyone else's holy sites like crap during their reign. The Jews have at least respected and protected the holy sites of other religions. To my mind, that earns them the right to look after the place.

Personally, I think the solution on Jerusalem would be something like this:

-city declared heritage of all humanity and put under governance of a UN Security Council sub-committee.

-said subcommittee appoints Israel the administrator and security protector of the city for 50 or 100 years, subject to subcommittee's broad policies.

-both Israel and the Palestinian state permitted to make Jerusalem their ceremonial capital, provided that they maintain an administrative capital in another city.

Fig I strongly support the existence of the state of Israel but where I differ from a lot of Israel supporters is that I personally agree with the concept of Jerusalem being an international protectorate but still being the administrative capitals for both Palestine and Israel. To me it seems to be the only fair way to deal with all this shit.

However Fig the reality is, I doubt you will find too many Jews at this point willing to give up Jerusalem without a fight to the death. It is as emotional an issue to them as say the Mosque of Oman is to Muslims.

Fig I come across very strong on the right for Israel to exist but don't like any organized religions precisely because I think all they do is entrench conflict.

Now its time for me to give this big mouth a rest and let someone else talk for awhile on this topic. I dominated it too much.

[Higgly]

Then why do many Arabs live peacefully and prosperously in Israel, vote in Israeli elections, and have full civil rights, except right to serve in Army?

Not sure what your argument is intended to be here but I am guessing you are obliquely countering my point by saying that since there are still Arabs living in Israel, then they couldn't have been driven out. The fact that all of the Arabs were not driven out does not mean that hundreds of thousands of others were not driven out. If that is not what you meant then what did you mean?

In any case you raised the 'full civil rights' of Israeli Arabs. This is another piece of mythinformation promulgated by Israel and its apologists. In fact Israeli Arabs do not enjoy full civil rights. Consider Israel's policy regarding land use. All state land is administered by the Jewish National Fund which is mandated to reserve the use of the land 'for Jewish benefit'. The JNF is not permitted to lease or sell land to non-Jews. It is in fact technically illegal for a non-Jew to stay overnight on state land. And then we have immigration policy in the form of the 'Right of Return' law. Any Jew from anywhere in the world has the right to settle in Israel and take up citizenship. A policy which produces a stady flow of Jewish immigrants, and guarantees a perpetual Jewish majority in the electorate. These immigranst are given loans on very generous terms and generous tax breaks as well as special consideration for housong (almost all in illegal settlements on Palestinian land). This different treatment extends to the way Israeli Arabs are treated in society. Consider what happened when Ariel Sharon took his little waddle out onto the grounds of the Dome of the Rock. Israeli Arabs demonstrated to protest his presence. Eight of them were shot dead in the streets by the IDF. Contrast this to the treatment Jewish settlers received when they protested their removal from settlements in Gaza. Oh the wailing! The gnashing of teeth! The shredding of garments! Soldiers crying and pleading. Settlers crying and pleading. Settlers were standing on roofs and throwing heavy objects down on the soldiers. How many were shot?

Why should the Jews have to accept any inferior status?

Here again you are not addressing my point. I said nothing about Jews accepting inferior status. My point was that Rue's statements concerning the ownership of land by Jews under the dhimmi laws were wrong.

Does every sliver of a people that the Arabs define as "separate" get a State at Israel's expense. How many Arab countries are there? How many more are needed?

This is a ridiculous exaggeration and it is not worth a response.

[Higgly]

Can we include my "issues" with the creation of the state of France? I don't like the place, and discussion of its creation is every bit as practical and important.

No problem. Go back to the dark ages when it happened and argue with the Huns, the Gauls, the Vandals and the Romans.

Does that mean fair compensation from the Arab states to all Jews forced to leave their homes, and compensation to Israel for the military attacks on it by Arab states, and compensation to Israel for the security costs due to terrorism funded by Arab states, and compensation to the families of Israelis murdered by terrorists funded by Arab governments?

Well in fact the government of Israel is apparently keeping a tally of all the Jews who have been forced to leave their homes in Arab lands and they are having problems coming up with a total equal or even close to the number of Arabs who were driven out of Israel.

I'm not sure you want to get into compensation for damages caused by Arab states since that might open the door for compensation demands for the damages caused by Israel - for example bombing the entire country of Lebanon into rubble - twice. With respect to compensation to Israelis for family members killed, you might want to remember that the number of Palestinians killed by the Israelis is more than 3 times that of Israelis killed by terrorists. And this is just during the two intifadas.

Have no problem with the last three. But you might have a few problems getting it implimented given the Palestinian Authority, as well as a number of Arab states refuse to recognize Israel's existence.

Well you know I keep wondering why it is that the Palestinians are being held responsible for the polcies of all of the Arab countries in the neighbourhood. Takes the idea of collective punishment to a new level, no? In any case, there are also Arab countries who do recognize the state of Israel.

And then there's Jerusalem. Frankly, I'm on the Jews' side with that one, given the Muslims treated everyone else's holy sites like crap during their reign. The Jews have at least respected and protected the holy sites of other religions. To my mind, that earns them the right to look after the place.

The Church of the Nativity, the Temple Mount, the Western Wall, what have you would not still be there if what you say is true. The Turks had 600 years to destroy them. Israel will always put its security over the rights of Christians and Moslems and to my mind that means they are the least ones to be trusted with the place.

[Higgly]

Personally, I think the solution on Jerusalem would be something like this:

-city declared heritage of all humanity and put under governance of a UN Security Council sub-committee.

-said subcommittee appoints Israel the administrator and security protector of the city for 50 or 100 years, subject to subcommittee's broad policies.

-both Israel and the Palestinian state permitted to make Jerusalem their ceremonial capital, provided that they maintain an administrative capital in another city.

Well that's not bad but I would put security in the hands of UN Peacekeepers and administration in the hands of the special UN sub-committee to be made up of representatives of all of the groups who reside there. This would not only be the Jews, Christians and Moslems but also the Armenians, what have you.

[Higgly]

First of all the laws of dhimmi most certainly forbid Israelis from owning land and engaging in the same ownership of land and same rules of business interactions as Muslims. That is a fact.

I am not going to argue this with you Rue. Go to Wikipedia and try to edit the entry for dhimmi to add your comments about Jews being forbidden from owning land and see how far you get. If you can get that into the Wikipedia entry and make it stick, I will believe you.

Secondly for you to say European countries did nto forbid Jews from owning land at any time in modern history is complete and utterly wrong and for you to state these two things, once again shows yet someone else ignorant of the history of Jews in Europe lecturing someone whose relatives were forbidden to own land and fleed Europe because of persecution.

Name the country and the time Rue. In which country did this happen and when? I asked you this before and you didn't answer.

Now you seem to have selectively quoted article 20 of the Geneva Convention forbiding the settling of conquered land but clearlyt you have no idea what this article means and what it applies to.

Actually I said article 29, but I believe it should have been 49. Why don't you look it up for us?

You clearly have chosen to ignore other articles and international law which allows a sovereign nation to protect itself from imminent threats of attack and terror.

We are talking about settling on conquered land not defending yourself from attack. If you want to start another discussion about that, then put up a post, but don't start getting footloose on my points.

Now perhaps you like Myata and all these young people who have not a clue about the origins of Israel but carry on as if you do need to once and for all review the facts;

I know a hell of a lot more than you would be comfortable with Rue. Watch what you say with me.

between 1517 and 1917, the Ottoman Empire of Turkey controlled the areas of Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. Supporting Germany during the First World War, the Turks were defeated and in 1916, the southern portion of control was mandated to Britain and France - Lebanon and Syria going to France, with Palestine (the areas known today as Israel, Jordan, and the West Bank) controlled by the British. Jews had begun mass immigration to Palestine during the 1880’s and slowly started changing the very landscape from malarial swamps and dry desserts to farmable land. This also attracted a large number of Arab immigrants who were looking for employment and better living conditions.

Mass migration by Jews was not allowed by the Turks, just as any country would not permit mass migration of one people willy-nilly onto its territory. Mass migration did not start until the British Mandate. Get your facts straight.

In 1923 Palestine was divided into two areas by the British – 25% of the land (west of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish homeland and administratively run by the Palestinian Jews. The remaining 75%, called Trans-Jordan would be the Arab-Palestinian homeland.

The hell it was. It was administaered by the British throughout the Mandate period. The Jews set up their own organizations for education and social welfare, but not until later; the British always controlled immigration, land allocations, policing, what have you and made the rules everybody lived by - both Jews and Arabs.

Arab Palestinians began a systematic effort to drive out the Jews from the area west of the Jordan River with continuous attacks on Jewish settlements. Most widely known was the 1936-39 “Arab Revolt”, where attacks on Jews continued mercilessly. The British, who once protected the Jews and Arabs from each other, soon began ignoring the situation after many of their own died getting in between Arabs and Jews. The Jews began pouring more and more resources into their own defensive force called the Hagana, which eventually became the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).

To say that there was a systematic effort to drive out the Jews is self-serving BS. All of the eruptions of violence were in response to specific incidents. The Arab revolt you refer to came about as a result of an incident at the Western Wall - always a sensitive spot, where Jewish religious leaders put up temporary structures in defiance of British requests not to do so. There was British Commission which studied that revolt and it decided that the Balfour Declaration had been a mistake. Arab agitation was above all, the result of the Arabs finally waking up to the fact that the Jews intended to turn all of Palestine into a Jewish state, in spite of the fact that the Jews had given many assurances to the contrary to just about everybody and downplayed their true intentions. You neglect to mention that at the same time many Arabs were being killed by Jews. Your mention of Haganah leaves out Irgun and the Stern gang who in fact were responsible for most of the deaths of British troops - to the point where the British were referring to them as terrorists (oh my!) and putting out wanted posters for some of them - for example Itzhak Shamir. Not only did Irgun and the Stern Gang murder British troops, but also European diplomats who came to try to negotiate a truce and in one case a gang of Irgum terrorists went to Cairo and assassinated a diplomat.

By 1947, the British had grown weary of the Middle East and left it to the United Nations to decide the fate of the region. The UN passed resolution 181 partitioning the land west of the Jordan River (the original 25% of Palestine) into a Jewish Palestinian state and an Arab Palestinian state. The Jews accepted the resolution and the Arabs rejected it, claiming all of Palestine. On May 14, 1948 the Palestinian Jews celebrated for the first time as Israelis, but on the following day, seven neighboring Arab armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen invaded the new state. Many Arabs who were living within the new Israeli boundaries were encouraged to leave by the other Arab states so a mass invasion could wipe out all of the Jews. The Arabs, who were anticipating an easy victory, promised Jewish land and property in return. The Independence War lasted about a year and a half and the Arabs that had stayed in the Israeli boundaries became Israeli citizens; those that had left are known as one of the first waves of “refugees”.

The majority of Arabs who fled Palestine did so because they were driven out by Jewish forces. Palestinian refugees from Haifa and Jaffa report that they were driven out by mortar and sniper fire coming from the Israelis. Menachem Begin's memoires (later censored) state that Ben Gurion personally gave the order to drive out over 60,000 Arabs from towns like Ramle.

Israel now had a state that was a little bit bigger than it was before the war, though their population was reduced slightly by the casualties sustained during the war. The area that was Arab Palestine was now controlled by Egypt (taking the Gaza Strip) and Jordan (occupying the West Bank). Jordan annexed this territory and the land east and west of the Jordan River was simply called Jordan.

No, Israel now had a state almost twice the size of what it was before. It had taken most of what was assigned in the UN partition to Arabs.

I will try to come back to the rest of your fantasy tale later Rue, right now I have something to attend to.