A wary encounter

Andre

The mistake Obama is making is in seeking to do a deal with the terrorists who control the Gaza strip and West Bank. The people he needs to understand and do business with are as you say the Egyptians and Jordanians. Moreover he needs to hit the terrorists hard thus inspiring people, as for example Libya was, to lay off terrorism and backing Al Quaeda. The solution for Palestine is for Egypt to re-occupy Gaza and incorporate it into a peaceful and non-religious-fundamentalist Egypt. The west bank should be returned to Jordan apart from those parts of Judea and Samaria now essentially Israel. We need to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel against the terror of Islamic fundamentalism which threatens us all - including more moderate secular nations in the middle east - Tunis, Dubai Lebanon. Having said all that Obama must first admit his error - read a history book or two and reflect on the difference between good and evil. Increasingly I doubt his ability to withstand a crisis. Miss ya George!

Michael B

Precisely. Netanyahu, because he does bring real gravity and verve to the discussion, may be able to puncture the willfulness and illusions that are otherwise on display.

And, commenting on any prospects of sanctions against Iran, Obama would need to marshal a broad alliance of countries - Germany prominently, but notable others - that would be willing to commit to severe, even draconian sanctions against Iran. Yet Obama couldn't so much as persuade Europe to take any of the Guantanamo prisoners, he likewise couldn't persuade Europe to commit more deeply on the Afghanistan and Pakistan fronts. (This, from the "new respect" the U.S. has supposedly garnered as a result of Obama's election!?) Yet we're suppose to believe he's capable of persuading Germany and other European states in forming a sanctions alliance against Iran.

Sam Armstrong

I really hope so Melanie. I really do.

John Edwards

The Palestinians have been waiting far too long for their national rights to self determination to be recognised and the two state settlement finally enacted. The position in international law (as confirmed by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion on the Separation Wall) is quite unambiguous. Israel must return to its internationally recognised borders.

The Palestinians (including the Hamas leadership) and all the Arab States have accepted the principle of the two state settlement.

It is a matter for optimism if indeed Obama is showing signs of getting the Israel/Palestine conflict

barackobama

The US, quite rightly, will never abandon its total commitment to the security of Israel, no matter what Obama may or may not believe. This is an unshakeable first principle of US Middle East policy which has never been called into question by any US president since 1948. Obama knows there is no more certain way of losing in 2012 than to suggest that the US would not do everything in its power to protect Israel in all circumstances and always.
That is the static part of US policy in the region. Obama can't change it and stay president.
The dynamic part of US policy is this: every US president since Truman has tried to protect US vital interests in the Middle East by ending the potential for the region to produce conflict by securing peace by consent. George W Bush, his dad, Ronald Reagan, and Nixon all knew that the only workable approach to the disputed territories is for them ultimately to be controlled and policed by the kingdom of Jordan. But they also knew that to get to the point where Jordan could take over the thankless task of policing almost 3 million people in the West Bank is for a token form of independence to be temporarily granted first. This is because any attempt to annex the West Bank without the transitional phase of a phoney independent state would destroy the stability of Jordan, which has been at peace with Israel for 14 years.
Those who want Jordan to take over the Palestinians (which is the only viable alternative to the status quo) must first accept that there will be for a fleeting period something called a Palestinian state, which means there has to be some land to go with it. This is the approach pursued by the Republican administration of George W Bush, the first US president to publicly support a Palestinian state.
Republicans support two-states because it’s in US interests for this to happen. That is what George W Bush repeatedly declared. Why can't people believe him?

hadrian

And what of Palestinian Christians? What rights will they be granted under the tender mercies of Hamas or Fatah? There's yet another rub for the putative freedom loving Obama to ponder.

Neil Turner

Melanie, interesting analysis and largely, I agree

However, I do think you miss the principal point here, that Obama is the ultimate Humanist

He sees the conflict purely on the human level, and cannot grasp that religion can play a part

Thus, he does not recognise the Islamic desire to establish sharia and the caliphate. THus he treats as mere rhetoric Iran's threats to destroy Israel

Nor does Obama recognise or respect Israel's Biblically historic right to the Land

All those who surround Obama share this view

I am hugely impressed with Bibi's strength in going to Washington and not buckling

He looks like the right man for the job

Neil Turner

Another thought...

I wonder who is the Master here, and who the Apprentice

One heads the largest democracy, supposed leader of the free world. The other heads a tiny nation about the size of Wales

Obama is way out of his depth, playing a game in which he is ignorant of the rules

porkbelly

There really are two Obamas - cautious, pragmatic Obama and leftist idealogue Obama. The problem is pragmatic Obama doesn't counterbalance idealogue Obama, he enables him. He is like the middle-class crackhead saying "the last thing I want to do is become a drug addict!" as he lights the pipe...

Hamish Mac

OK! OK! But please, Anyone supporting the 'No palestinian state' position, What is the alternative? With some detail- including the demographics - what do you propose happens -the status quo? Or what??!!

Hamish Mac

I accept that Andre answers my earlier question with his suggestion that Egypt take over Gaza and Jordan subsume the West Bank -a prima facie possibility. But can you really imagine the deeply unpopular and corrupt Egypt of Mubarak accepting that can of worms or the shaky Kingdom of Jordan accepting that other can of worms. Both regimes would only be taken over by radicals - as they probably will be anyway - and unite against Israel.

Please remember that the people of Palestine are our fellow human beings who are suffering what they experience as brutal persecution and they demand a sense of dignity and justice first and foremost. Labelling them as just terrorists only perpetuates the hideous mess.

Scott

Do the Palestinians specifically state that no Jews will be allowed in a Palestinian state, or do they just oppose Jewish settlements, because these most of these settlements are likely to become part of the Israeli State in any future peace deal?

ahad ha'amoratsim

John Edwards, Israel has no internationally recognized borders, and certainly none recognized by the Arab states or the PA, and that is one of the roots of the problem. The 1949 armistice lines are not borders and have never been recognized as such. If you think otherwise, you need to do more research. UN Security Resolution 242 says that Israel does not have to withdraw from a cm. of territory captured during the 1967 war unless and until there are internationally recognized borders, and that what territory it must withdraw from is to be negotiated in the context of determining those borders. In other words, first peace negotiations are successfully concluded, then negotiation. Not unconditional withdrawal followed by inconclusive negotiations.

Roy

Thanks for yet another thoughtful piece Melanie. I share your concerns about Obama and the niavety he appears to be showing in his dealing with the Iran nuclear issue. The linkage with the Palestine 'Two State' peace option (aka 'Mission Impossible' or rather 'Unfeasible') is, as you say, lethaly false - or potentially so. I think you hit on a point early - that of Obama failing to enlist the support of the US' few Arab allies like Egypt. This really is an opportunity squandered as the constrained goodwill his election produced in the Middle East will quickly dissapate. I am amazed someone such as Obama who SHOULD be familiar with Islam, given his own background, should seem to be so ignorant of the stark differences between mainstream and extreme, Sunni and Shiite, and how these play out politically in the cauldron of the Middle East. Does he not realise that what the Iranians are after is a Shiite bomb? Their hated Sunni neighbour Pakistan has 80-100 of them - its unthinkable to the Tehran mullocracy that Iran should have that power too. Regularly screaming for the annihalation of Israel is a nice way of showing solidarity with (but always control of) their Shiite allies Hezbollah and in turn, of course, Hamas and the Palestinians. But it disguises the real reason they seek to become a nuclear power. Green used a very good analogy when he pointed out that unlike Christianity, Islam had yet to have its 'great schism' conflict and historically, Islam was at or near that point now. Extremist Sunni Taliban conduct a murderous oppression of Afghani and Pakistani Shiite minorities under their control - it infuriates Iran that they are powerless, for all their influence, to do anything about it. But be rest assured, as schemeing Persians, they will. A glimpse of their total ambivilence towards Sunni extremists can be seen in the recent offer they made Obama to hand over several AQ they hold (an offer not taken up). To be clear - Sunni religious jurisprudence labels Shiites as apostates and heretics and this is siezed upon by extremists like AQ. Obama should bear that in mind when he does his diplomatic kabuki dance with the Iranians instead of uselessly linking it to the Palestine issue which just plays into Tehran's hands.

George

John Edwards,

Your comment is replete with errors - here are some:

1) Israel has no internationally recognised Eastern border - the 1949 Armistice line (aka the Green line, aka the 1967 borders) is not a border.
2) It's a fence not a wall.
3) None of the Palestinians have accepted the principle of a two state settlement. What some of the Palestinians (and definitely NOT the Hamas) have accepted is two states as a temporary stage on the road to the total destruction of Israel. The strategic goal is the same for all of them - they merely differ as to the tactics.

A Redwood, CA

A legal expert a tutored Alinsky Radical who never wrote a single paper of importance on the law, is occupying the Oval Office. A man whose entire higher education record has been removed from public view. The patronizing message to Bibi, a warrior with a known past, not the most perfect Israeli, must have been cringing listening to this two bit agitator. Any Israeli who saw this "sequence" can easily tell that Bibi was having a bad day with the 21 Century's premier appeaser. This is not going to be a beautiful friendship.

hal shaw

I think you need to read Mark Steyn's "When Barry met Bibi" at Nationalreview.com. Nobody spells it out better than Mr. Steyn. I wish I could share your hope that sanity might prevail. I think Israel is alone as it has never been before.

gary ashton

in many ways maybe its time for israel to break away from the us for a while. at least this way it can be independent seeing as though the 'special relationship' ain't so special anymore.

Nannette

To understand more about Barack Obama, google his real name Barry Soetoro and see what you come up with... one of the most insightful articles is
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13056.htm

A.J

Superb article. I would add that not only will no Jews be allowed to live in a Palestinian state but also any others who are not Muslim will be second class citizens

Corin

Why is it that Obama's actions make far more sense if we believe the conspiracy theorists? He is not the side of Israel or historic Western Democracy. Simples? Even a meerkat can understand it.

Henry Sidgwick

Ahad ha'amoratsim, Your highly creative interpretation of Resolution 242 indicates that you need to do more research. There is wide scope for interpretation in history, but also some standards of accuracy and honesty.

Wm. Hazlitt

"The left is not merely Manichean, but insulates itself from any possibility of heresy by surrounding itself only by those with whom it agrees. It is therefore rarely forced to follow through its reasoning and thus see its patent falsehoods and idiocies exposed."

We would all do well to remember some verses from Matthew:

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

"Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

Mailman

I have said this time and time again. A palestinian state must be treated in exactly the same manner as Japanese and German societies were treated after WWII.

Palestinians must be forced to change. They must give up their war of hatred against Israel. Once that is done then the reward will be a Palestinian state that is capable of being a productive part of Middle East society.

However, I fear that the decision isnt actually in the hands of Palestinians.

Iranians and other Islamic regimes have far too much invested in the continued war of hatred against Israel that would stop them from allowing Palestinians to live in peace.

The pity here is that BarryO cant see through his own leftist lies to see the truth that is right in front of him.

Israel isnt the problem here.

George

Henry Sidgwick,

For your further reading:

" 1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"

stanley Jerusalem

Corin
May 20th, 2009 11:14am
"Even a meerkat can understand it."
But could you find a meerkat that didn't have a 20 year history of listening to anti-semitic preachers or wasn't dependent on Arab oil?

Augustus

Palestinian nationalism has always been a phony crock. A transparent justification for terrorism that has always come before nationalism. Palestine was never a country or a state. It was the name given by the Roman occupation forces to a region far larger than modern Israel. There has never been a Palestinian ruler until Arafat, and never a seperate country called Palestine.

The Palestine Mandate in the 20th Century was used to create two states: An Arab state called Jordan, and a smaller Jewish state called Israel. So, who needs a further Palestinian state? The Palestinian Arabs have built nothing but death and destruction since the Oslo Accords 17 years ago. They have taken the billions that was given to them from all quarters of the globe, and what they didn't pocket for themselves under Arafat, they turned into weapons or bribes. By any standard, they have failed to show any ability to build or run a functioning state. Not even the most liberal thinker can point to anything in the PA leadership that suggests they're capable of running a functional state.

Therefore, the only real reason for creating Palestine Mk.2 is the destruction of Israel. This state will not bring regional stability. It will not even bring internal stability, as it will not be able to function without its entire workforce being funded from abroad. Palestine Mk.2 will be a Frankentein's Monster with body parts from Shiite, Sunni, and Marxist terrorists. It will only know how to do one thing: Kill. It would be an unnatural artificial state whose existence and raison d'etre would have only one overriding purpose: The ultimate destruction of Israel.

ahad ha'amoratsim

Henry Sidgwick, my "highly creative" reading of UN 242 is based on an actual reading, and on the comments of non-Israeli diplomats who were involved in drafting and negotiating it. Go back and read it, and show me what requires Israel to withdraw in advance of negotiation of recognized borders. You will also note that in the context of a comprehensive settlement and secure and recognized borders, Israel is to withdraw from "lands" acquired during the war -- not "all lands" or "the lands". According to the British diplomat (whose name escapes me), the omission of both "the" and "all" was deliberate in order to leave room for negotiating what parts of the land would ultimately remain as part of Israel, out or recognition that the 1949 armistice lines were neither secure nor recognized.

Henry Sidgwick

ahad ha'amoratsim and George, I have discussed this topic before, perhaps not with you:

We will have to accept that the wording of 242 is ambiguous, and ambiguous on purpose - otherwise the US and USSR, the Arab states and eventually Israel, would not all have signed.

However, the major ambiguity, the one winked at by the US, and exploited by Israel ever since, exists only in the English version, and only on a reading of the words that ignores their primary meaning:"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." Now, in normal English, that phrase refers to those territories occupied in the conflict. In Israel's strained interpretation it means only some of those territories.

Israel particularly needs this ambiguity because the preamble affirms "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war..." Israel used the ambiguity in an attempt to ignore the clear consequence of this affirmation by insisting that in fact the wording of clause 1 part 1 allowed it to keep some of the territories so acquired.

Before we finish the game of quotation, I would like to add one more. In 1983, Secretary Schultz wrote to King Hussein on behalf of the President to reiterate the US interpretation of 242: "The President believes, consistent with Resolution 242, that territory should not be acquired by war. He believes as well, however, that Resolution 242 does permit changes in the boundaries which existed prior to June 1967, but only where such changes are agreed between the parties." (This is a good place to point out that for Palestinian Arabs 242 stinks - it is a stitch-up between Israel and Jordan and Egypt, none of whom wanted to acknowledge their existence.) Secretary Schultz then added a significant sentence: "The United States considers Jerusalem part of the occupied territories." This statement has two interesting implications: first, that the US, and all the other signatories other than Israel, expected Israel to withdraw to the boundaries that existed before June 1967; and, secondly, that if Jerusalem was "occupied territory" then so was the rest of the territory beyond the June 1967 boundaries. Settlement on occupied territory is prohibited under international law.

Trumpelor, the proud kafir

@John Edwards,
Since you seem so enamored of international law, let me remind you that the San Remo 1920 conference gave to the Jewish people,FULL SOVEREIGNTY on historical Palestine !
The different clauses of this seminal international conference are still binding nowadays!
@Henry Sidgwick,
No ambiguity exists over 242 resolution since his author,the honorable Mr Derschowitz always emphasized that his meaning was well known aka from territories and not from whole territories...

George

Henry Sidgwick,

Whilst I agree that Wikipedia is not the most reliable of sources, you really ought to read the history of Resolution 242 there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_242. Please pay special attention to the discussion about the inclusion/exclusion of the definite article before the word territories, especially what those who were responsible for wording the resolution (such as George Brown, the then British Foreign secretary) have to say. One of the reasons for the ommission of the definite article in the English version of the resolution (which is accepted by most to be the authoritative version) is that withdrawal from "the territories" stands in complete contradiction for the right of all States in the area "to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries".
The reference to "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" could just as easily refer to Jordan's acquisition of the West Bank in 1948. And this inadmissibility is not affirmed, but emphasized. If you are going to argue about the interpretation of the resolution, you could at least quote it correctly.

George

Maybe Israel should try the "two states for two peoples" solution - Israel as a solely Jewish state with no Arabs and Palestine as a totally Arab state with no Jews. I'm sure that the Israeli Arabs would be more than happy to be uprooted from their homes and go and live under Fatah/Hamas rule.

RPK

Henry Sidgwick
If the President and Secretary Schulz believed that 'territory should not be aquired by war' should the USA still be British or possibly even Native American Indian?

Penny

Stanley:

"But could you find a meerkat that didn't have a 20 year history of listening to anti-semitic preachers or wasn't dependent on Arab oil?"

Clearly, we need David Attenborough on the case forthwith!

Penny

Augustus,

I would just add one further observation to your post: the frustrating tendency of the West and its intelligentsia (or otherwise!) to see the situation through Western eyes.

Not every inch of the globe shares our values system. Nor does it relate to our beliefs, logic or mindset. Our faulty assumption that it does contributes to the ME problems.

A few years ago I watched a Newsnight debate between several Western, intelligent 'thinkers' (for want of a better word) and one extremist cleric. The questions the Westerners posed were met with what appeared to them to be illogical answers. Their frustration and, I would have to say, emotion bordering on anger - was clearly evident when their highly logical, sensible questions were met with what appeared to them to be nonsensical answers.

The cleric was not being nonsensical - he was simply responding from his own perspective based on his own system of values.

Henry Sidgwick

George, The debate on whether the definite article should be included or not is all very well, but the English language is such that Israel's interpretation is more tortured than the alternative, generally accepted version. (Try reading it as if you were neutral and indifferent to the content, or try transposing it to some topic where you do feel indifferent or disinterested.)

Withdrawal from occupied territories does not stand in complete contradiction to the right of states to live in peace within internationally recognized borders (or, I should say, you are going to have to explain how, at least to me).

I doubt the drafters of the document would have "emphasised" the preamble if they had not thought it worthy to be "affirmed". Although I have the quotation marks in the right place to allow me to claim strict accuracy, I accept, for what it is worth, that I should have used "emphasise" and not "affirm".

The inadmissibility of the acquisition of land by war would apply to Jordan, as indeed to Israel and its acquisition in 1948 of territory not allocated to it in the Partition. Israel's legal claim (and the Palestinians') is founded on Britain's acceptance of the Partition as the proper conclusion of its Mandate (in legal terms Britain was fulfilling its Mandate, although in political terms it was clearly scuttling away from its responsibilities). The UN has no legal power to alter the Partition agreement. It is not within the gift of the Security Council to sanction Israel's acquisition any territory. There is no ambiguity about the legal position. No amount of casuistry over the wording of 242 alters that fact.

Henry Sidgwick

RPK, Your point is well taken: the USA is indeed founded on genocide. However,your point is also in a way anachronistic. It is only since the end of the nineteenth century that real efforts have been made to construct a code of international law that might begin to curb the actions of the great powers. As we all know, great powers do what they want, and the rest do what they have to. But there has been some progress. It is not a good argument to say that, because great powers got away with bad behaviour in the past, they should continue to get away with it, insofar as the international community can do anything about it.

Augustus

Penny, you make a good point, especially regarding different systems of values. I understand that when Palestinian Arab Christians returned to the region to build up the economy,
they fled very quickly in the face of relentless shakedowns, kidnappings, and militia gangs masquerading as law enforcement.

If you're a Palestinian Arab you most probably either work for UNRWA (funded by foreign donors), or for the Palestinian Authority (also funded by foreign donors), in which case your 'government business' entails nothing much to do, so you spend your time joining a gang dealing in drugs, or carrying out a spot of border terrorism, or collecting protection money from any remaining stores that are open. The whole sorry business is nothing but a seething mess, and any sane person must surely ask: How in the world has any of this contributed to regional stability? Proposing that more of this, by conjuring up a new state, will stabilize the region
is pure pie in the sky.

Antonia

John Edward, Jews have been waiting for 2000 years to have their rights to self determination recognized, and whose rights are being denied in favor of so-called Palestinians. Considering that the "Palestinian' as a nation came into being in the 1960, they are not waiting all that long, especially if one considers that they seek to establish their homeland in Judea, with a capital in Jerusalem and demand that they be given preference over the very name means Judean (Jude, Jew) and who have been praying to Jerusalem for the last 3500 years. Actually, the so called Palestinians openly proclaim that they aim to establish their nation in the whole of Israel.
You appear to have no problems with denying the right to self determination to the Jews who are undeniably an ancient nation with a very long history, separate and distinct language and religion.

Joe Strummer

George - The two state solution will never work as one group will demand both, Northern Ireland being the classic example. When Ireland was partitioned, the hope was that the Roman Catholics accepting Southern Ireland and the Protestants Northern Ireland as their own respective countries then peace would reign. The Roman Catholics,however, wanted both and have committed terrorist acts ever since to remove the Protestants from Northern Ireland.

Antonia

barakobama:
You are quite wrong that the U.S. has a policy to protect Israel. As a matter of record, in 1948 the U.S. had slapped an arms embargo on Israel and so did most of the Western countries. Arms had to smuggled into Israel during that time, while American government counted on Israel getting strangled at her birth. As a matter of fact, not until after 1967 war did the US recognize the usefulness of Israel. The State Department never wanted the recognition of Israel and, given the added incentive of generous retirement plans the Saudis offer, their position is ambivalent, at best, towards Israel. Barak Obama, however, is not ambivalent; like his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, Obama is firmly anti-Israeli.
Nobody can with all seriousness claim that the advocacy of the 'Palestinian' state and confining Israel to the territory which cannot be militarily defended, as all military experts attest, is done in good faith and does not aim to facilitate the destruction of Israel.
'Palestinian' can be resettled in Jordan, which is Palestine, Jews have no other home. The return to countries were they were persecuted is not an option.
In addition justice require that Jews be given right to self determination in their ancient homeland.

An American

Augustus,

I agree with your last comment.

Obama presents the Palestinians as some noble race striving to make a better future for themselves...nothing could be farther from the fact. I'm not even sure Obama believes it...but everything Obama does is for political purpose, he doesn't represent reality either abroad or at home. It's all just an enormous charade...the joke is on all of us.

I admire your insights into various subjects. Check out our friend Conservative Cabbie.com

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgewick and other anti-Zionist commenters are being highly selective, picking and choosing the parts of the Partition Plan they want Israel to comply with.

What is overlooked when invoking the terms of the 1947 Partion Plan to determine the boundaries of Israel was that, from 1947 till 1967, under Arab control, the Old City of Jerusalem was closed to Jews, and that,.contrary to the current Arab demand for a Judenrein Palestinian State with Jerusalem as capital, Resolution 181 declared Jerusalem an international city and imposed the following:

"Guaranteeing to all persons equal and non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, economic and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association.....

Preserving freedom of transit and visit for all residents and citizens of the other State in Palestine and the City of Jerusalem, subject to considerations of national security, provided that each State shall control residence within its borders.....

No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the ground of race, religion, language or sex.....

Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights......

The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations. "

Will the anti-Zionists please be as strident in their assertions that the Arabs should adhere to the above in Resolution 181 as you are in your admonitions to the Israelies.

phil

Wm. Hazlitt"We would all do well to remember some verses from Matthew:" perhaps you could tell us why-perhaps he said many wise words but the ones you quoted seem not to apply to anything we are debating -but never mind ,although I would rather hear about 242 -the true version

phil

Linda the new regime here does not allow it seems disagreeing with the twisted versions of some individuals who write here but you and Ahad put things in the correct context and then receive nonsense back from them -I know I keep saying this but why do you bother ,you are not going to change their minds and I feel sure they are trying to sting you like a bee -personally I care for truth and justice and seek practical solutions -we will not get them from those people and I do not think they even want them -barbed wit, and criticism of both Jews and Israel is more their purpose ,as for the fate of Palestinians ,I do not think they give a jot either -your passion and talent is wasted on them .

Ronnie

It is just possible, as this latest chapter unfolds, that Bibi and Obama will make a good team.

George, 'it's a fence'. Reminds me of Monty Python, 'It's not a balloon, it's a Zeplin!'

Linda Smith

Ah, but Phil I enjoy exposing the intellectual vacuity in the anti-Zionists' bigoted posturing!

Original Tony

'A leopard does not change its spots' the saying goes.

I believe this to be true of the poeple who will govern any potential 'second state'...they will continue to attack Israel and continue with their mafia lifestyle.

Israel is caught between a rock and a hard place, no wonder this problem has festered for decades

phil

Linda Smith I know but I do not think they realise that they have been exposed :)

Dave M

"Israel must return to its internationally recognised borders." (John Edwards).
Israel may well have to make some kind of diplomatic compromise in any peace arrangement (if it ever happens) but it's also somewhat hypocritical to quote international law at Israel. That's because many countries today exist along borders they have far less right to occupy than Israel. I mean, should the Brits pull out of Australia or Americans migrate from the U.S. seeing as America was once populated by Indians? Besides the Jews are an indigenous people themselves.
Apart from that, it seems ridiculous for Arabs to complain they're in any way a minority, given the expanses of land they occupy. At the end of the day, the Middle East conflict is about religion and no two state solution will make any impact. Arabs believe Jerusalem should be Islamic, plain and simple. The moderates would be happy to share Jerusalem as a common religious cultural capital while extemists simply wish to see Jews driven out. Neither will Arabs accept Judaism is a far older belief system than Islam and that such a state of affairs accords Jews a certain legitimacy to settle in the region.

Archie

Well, indeed Miss Phillips! Is not President Obama's foreign policy so typical of many since at least Franklin Roosevelt, in believing that deals can be done with all governments and sundry groupings of whatever political stripe, the latest being - of course - the rebuffed overtures to Iran. For as long as I can remember, Europeans in particular have been derided in the US media for berating US "naivety", but what else to call it? (One can well imagine Mr. Obama thinking "Qatar? Where the hell is that?)

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, I am curious why you repeat these challenges as if they were fresh, when you know they have been addressed before, more than once. Do you feel in some obscure way it gives you a moral advantage to pretend your opponents cannot answer your limited repetoire of debating points?

As you well know I have condemned both Israel and Jordan for their carve-up annexing the territories designated for the Palestinian Arabs in the Partition settlement.

I am not sure why you quote the terms of the Partition agreement as they refer to Jerusalem. Are you saying that Jerusalem should finally become, as there proposed, an international city under the jurisdiction of the UN?

Gil

Henry Sidgwick, your point about Jerusalem being an international City would have some merit if all other problems were solved too. Do you really think that Saudi Arabia and Iran will accept such a solution?

On resolution 242 your views are influenced by your hostility to Israel. The wording is clear, and in law that's what counts. By the way, in case you have forgotten, here's a newsflash: Israel withdrew from Sinai in 1981-2 in return for peace with Egypt. This was back in the good old days of the Middle East. It also withdrew from territories in the Jordan Valley in return for peace with Jordan.

If you think Israel would withdraw from territories again e.g. Golan, without solid cast iron guarantees for its security - you are deluded.

ahad ha'amoratsim

The UN declared Jerusalem an international city in 1947. Jordan responded by putting the city under seige. The world did nothing. Britain was responsible for enforcing the law, but responded by arresting Jews who tried to run the blockade, and cooperating with the Jordanians. The siege culminated in the expulsion of a Jewish community that had been living in the Old City for centuries. As soon as Jordan finished cleansing the city of Jews, it began a system desecration of Jewish holy sites. A centuries old synagogue was turned into a public latrine. Another was made into a stable. Still others were razed. Tombstones from the millennia-old Jewish cemetery were taken for paving sidewalks. Jordan refused entry to Israelis, to non-Israelis whose passports showed any past visits to Israel, and to Jews from any country. During all this, the world said nothing. Would anyone who cared about the rights of Jews to preserve and visit their holy sites trust the UN to see this does not happen again? Or trust the non-Jewish countries to do anything about it if it were to occur? Would President Obama so much as send a pleading note, let alone take action? Better men than he, including Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson, let the Arabs get away with it.

Henry Sidgwick

Gil, On Jerusalem, you should read what was written more carefully. I merely asked why Linda Smith was quoting some of the terms of the Partition. On Resolution 242, the wording is deliberately NOT clear; but the law is - Israel's occupation is illegal. On the "good old days", Israel has dealt with neighbouring states since its inception (and even before). I am not sure what your point is. The main topic of these blogs is Palestine/Israel. Are you suggesting that, as happened with Egypt and Jordan, if the Palestinians give "cast-iron" guarantees,then Israel will return the territories it has occupied illegally?

karen USA

Isreal is alone. America is alone. Obama rushes us all towards destruction from every direction. People just can't believe it.

Henry Sidgwick

ahad ha'amoratsim, I note you have abandoned your defence of a wholly tendentious interpretation of Resolution 242, and moved on to a travesty of the history of the war of 1947/8. Here is a war in which, as regards Jerusalem, you claim only one side was fighting. Here is a city whose international status under the UN was rejected by both Israel and Jordan. And negotiations on access to holy sites, hospitals and the univesrity stalled by Ben Gurion's intransigence. And desecration of holy sites on a large scale by Israel. Try to remember that there are two sides to this story. Israel is not always the innocent victim of inexplicable aggression. Ask yourself what is the purpose of perpetuating the Zionist myth of the founding of Israel when what is required from both sides for negotiations to succeed is honesty.

Gil

Can I ask why my response to Henry Sidgwick of this morning was not posted? I answered Sidgwick comprehensively regarding 1967 being a war of self-defence. Thus, the occupation of the territories by Israel was absolutely legal.

Don't forget that Jordan ilegally occupied the West Bank until 1967.

Henry Sidgwick@11:07, everything you write is a travesty, a make believe history. Jordan was desecrating Jewish places of worship for 19 years, until 1967.

The war of

Adam B.

Henry Sidgwick, it was Jordan that systematically destroyed the ancient synagogues in the Old City of Jerusalem, as well as the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, in the years 1948-1967. You have your "history" the wrong way round.

Henry Sidgwick

Gil, On the question of whether Israel's wars have been defensive or offensive, I will not refer you to the usual suspects, but to an excellent book by a member of Israel's security elite: "Defending the Holy Land" by Zeev Maoz. Maoz served in the IDF for many years and fought in three wars. He was a security advisor to the Prime Minister, and the Director of the MA course at the IDF's National Defence College. The official Israeli claim that its wars have been defensive is simplistic in the extreme.

If you read what I have written you will see that I have not forgotten Jordan's illegal annexation of the West Bank.

I do not condone Jordan's desecrations, but merely point out yet again that there are two sides to this conflict, and since 1948 Israel has desecrated many Muslim holy sites and mosques. Both sides have grievance.

I would have liked to read your detailed response on the 1967 war, but posts seem to disappear at random.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick asked me: "Are you saying that Jerusalem should finally become, as there proposed, an international city under the jurisdiction of the UN?

No. I am making the point that although the Arabs are demanding Jerusalem as the capital of the proposed Palestinian State, this was not a condition of the Partition Plan. As the Arabs appear to have dispensed with the terms of the Partion Plan in their negotiations, then all the other conditions of the Partition Plan are also eligible for negotiation, including Israel's borders.

What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, I see your point, but I do not think it a very good one to use against the Palestinians.

They have agreed to negotiate on the basis of the pre-1967 borders not the Partition borders. This may well just be belated realism on their part. It is nevertheless a large concession in terms of the history of the conflict - the Yishuv/Israel will have gone from next to nothing to 78% of Mandate Palestine. Yet what concessions is Israel making? If I read you aright, you are implying that Israel wants to keep yet more - it wants to negotiate its borders, which in the past has meant that it wants the settlements in the West Bank and the security strip in the Jordan valley (which includes much of the fertile land), leaving the rest cut up into small cantons, it wants control of the water, it wants what is left to be criss-crossed with Israeli-only roads and security barriers, it wants control of any link between the West Bank and Gaza, it wants to retain control of access by land, sea and air, it wants to leave the Palestinians with what sort of an economy?, in a word, it wants everything on its shopping list.

And what is your argument? The Palestinians have renounced their rights under the Partition, and have asked for East Jerusalem as Israel has West Jerusalem. And you say this is reason enough for Israel to "negotiate" yet further concessions from them (which would leave them around 14% of the territory and not much else).

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick, since Israel has been under constant threat of extinction by its implacable enemies since 1947,who refuse to recognise its right to exist as a Jewish State, and who failed to annihilate it militarily, it has every right to adopt measures it deems necessary for its own security despite the bleatings of Arab apologists.

Linda Smith

""Wm Hazlitt, you posted "The Palestinians have renounced their rights under the Partition, and have asked for East Jerusalem as Israel has West Jerusalem..."

Stop playing silly games, Hazlitt. You know perfectly well the Old City is in East Jerusalem....

Gil

Henry Sidgwick, in my post that did not appear I pointed out that the Six Day War was legitimate self defence; in international law, no less. You accept that Jordan occupied the West Bank illegally and therefore you have to accept that in International Law Israel had the right to occupy an area from which it was being shelled and shot at.

Since 1967, Israel has allowed free worship for Muslims at Jerusalem's holy places. Thank you for acknowledging that Jordan descrated Jewish holy places.

Israel permits Muslims (the Waqf)to self-administer the site. Jews are formally not allowed to go up to Temple Mount. Imagine, this is an Israeli government exercising this restraint. By and large, I agree with this.

I am in agreement with much of what Maoz says. However, he at least is not anti-Zionist.

Linda Smith

Apologies to Wm Hazlitt for my comment of 24 May 3:29pm). Its should have been addressed to Henry Sidgwick.

Gil

Henry Sidgwick, where did you get the figure 78% from? Can i remind you that west of the Jordan river is only 23% of the Mandate.

The Arabs rejected UN resolution 181 and proceeded to attack the Yishuv with attendant antisemitic attacks on synagogues.

After 1967, the Arabs said in Khartoum: No to peace or recognition of the Jewish State.

So, the Arabs throw their toys out of the pram and the victim (Israel) has to run and pacify them. Well, if it will bring peace, so be it.

For the record, I agree with Israeli concessions if they meets with the country's national interest.

Henry Sidgwick

Gil, The 1967 war was not a war of self-defence. It is not enough simply for Israel to announce that it was, and claim the protection of international law for continuing to occupy and settle the territory it has conquered.

If you read the Mandate in full, I think you will find that Britain acted within the letter of the Mandate in creating a state of Trans Jordan, even if it was in practice a typical piece of imperialist gerrymandering. So, yes, 78%. Whether we should take the League of Nations and the Mandatory Powers and the whole rigmarole as anything other than a fig leaf for naked imperialism is another matter. But the Mandate is the legal basis for Israel's existence, absurd as that may seem (and for the existence of a notional Palestinian state on 46% of Mandate Palestine).

I think you are very selective with your history in your latest two contributions and with your description of current circumstances. I am sure there are many in the West Bank and Gaza who would enjoy the freedom of worship you describe, but I believe it is increasingly difficult for them to visit Jerusalem.

I think you are right that Israel should make concessions if Israelis consider it in their interests to do so.

I have to admit that unlike Zeev Maoz I would have been anti-Zionist when it was a live issue. But it seems irrelevant now, given that Israel exists, and has every right to seek to ensure its continued existence.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, Again I see your point, but think less of it than you do. Are you saying that Israel should continue to have West Jerusalem, East Jerusalem, all Jerusalem, all the outskirts of Jerusalem, large chunks of the West Bank that Israel has designated as Jerusalem, and Israel should continue to have the bulk of the fertile land in the West Bank (and Galilee, come to that), and all the aquifers, and whatever else it wants, because the Palestinians have proposed East Jerusalem as their notional capital, and the Partition agreement gave them no right to make such a claim, and the Jordanians who annexed the portion of the Palestinians' land that the Israelis didn't failed to observe the terms of the Partition, so Israel can do what it wants?

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick: "The 1967 war was not a war of self-defence. It is not enough simply for Israel to announce that it was, and claim the protection of international law for continuing to occupy and settle the territory it has conquered."

The 1967 was a war of self-defence. It is not enough simply for you to announce that it was not.

Had the Arabs won the 1967 war (or the 1948, 1973 wars) what "State" would they have been agreeable to cede to the Jews? What would they have done with the Jewish population of Israel?

You know that the PLO /Fatah and Hamas refuse, as they have always done to recognise Israel as a Jewish State, and Hamas is openly commited to Israel's destruction and genocide of Jews. All your blather about a putative Palestinian State is nought but smoke and mirrors. Israel has no obligation to those who seek its destruction. Its only obligation is to protect its own citizens.

Tim

A two State concept is only in the best interest of the U.S. not of Israel, the Palestinians, or Jordan.

This issue is too complex for other Nations to try and solve, it can only be solved by the two groups of people who occupy the land at present.

In my limited view, I see Israel as being as magnanimous as it can be in allowing the Palestinians use of their land.

Historically, when a Nation overtakes another, you either have to force the people to assimilate, or throw them out.

Its a difficult road for both groups of people, and one better left to Israel to sort out.

As for civil rights abuses which may occur, I think again, we need to look to history and see what constitutes abuses, when Nations are being formed.

This day and age we look at beautifully written stories,or watch horrible videos of destruction, and think how awful it is for the people to have to go through those terrible things, but what we always fail to see is these things have always happened.

Look at the Soviet Union forming, United States, Canada, Germany, Zaire, Ethiopia, China, North and South Korea. I could go on and on, my point is humans will never just agree to go along with new ideas, or new ways of life. Usually before peace there is a point when the group realizes there is no other choice but to follow the new rules.

No matter how 'progressive' a person may believe they are. If you tell them they have to follow new leaders they will rebel.

Yitzchak

I have been following this debate for a week now. There are many opinions. Almost as many distortion of facts.
I note with particular outrage
the words of Henry Sidgwck who
claims that the six day war of 1967 was not a defensive war.
Or that Israel desecrated Muslim & Christian sites in Jerusalem.
These are outright lies and must be stated as such loud and clear.

If it is the intention of Mr. Sidgwick to justify Arab "rights" to the holy land
by distortions and falsehoods, then he must be prepared to show evidence of his allegations.

The proof of Egyptian, Jordanian,
Syrian intentions in May, 1967 is
well documented. As are the photos and sworn affidavids surounding Arab desecrations of synagogues and cemeteries in Jerusalem.
I would not be surprised to read
Mr. Sidgwick protest that there were not six million but only one.
But I am not too shocked when such statements are made, either from ignorance or hatred.

Here are some facts that are undeniable.
There was never a Palestinian Arab nation. The Arab homeland is
Arabia. Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem was established in the year 1000, BCE, l400 years before
the birth of Mohammad. in 1929, the Muslim WAKF in Jerusalem put out a tourist book acknowledging that the Solomons Temple stood underneath the Dome of the Rock. (An embarrasment to todays Arab\protestations that no Jewish Temple ever existed.)
Seven Arab nations attacked the new State os Israel in 1948 and swore to "annhilate the Jews".
Palestinian Arabs who stayed in Israel have more freedoms and political and civil rights than any Muslim in any other Arab country.
In the latest poll taken last month amidst the Arab population of Judea & Samaria (West Bank),
76% of the respondants agreed that suicide bombings are legitimate expressions of "resistance".
As for the legality of resolution #242, the ambiguity there was meant as a cover for
honest negotiations for a true peace between all parties. The Arab response? "No Peace, No negotiations, No recognition"!!!

These are only some of the facts
that Mr. Sidgwick omits.
Perhaps he needs to find other
rationalizations for the inhumane
behaviour of Israels' neighbors throughout the last 100 years.

the words of

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, "The 1967 was a war of self-defence. It is not enough simply for you to announce that it was not." Such a jolly rhetorical wheeze, but unfortunately I have given a reference to an historian who cannot be accused of bias against Israel whom you might find helpful in exploring the complexities of what happened in 1967. It would be so nice if you could move beyond your sloganizing.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick: you haven't answered my questions:

"Had the Arabs won the 1967 war (or the 1948, 1973 wars) what "State" would they have been agreeable to cede to the Jews? What would they have done with the Jewish population of Israel?"

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, Since you have been highly selective in the questions you choose to answer, we could both play this game ad nauseam.

Israel did not think it remotely likely it would lose (if you believe its intelligence assessments) despite the public panic and wobbles among some of its military personnel. Egypt did not think it would win. The most it military told Nasser was possible was to fight Israel to a stationary war (and before he completely lost the plot, Nasser thought this over-confident). Syria did not think it could win a war, merely protect the territory Israel was encroaching upon. And Jordan certainly did not think it could win. The US agreed with Israel's intelligence assessments. A consensus is growing among historians that the 1967 war was an inadvertent war. The IDF was excessively aggressive in pursuing its agenda and the Arab states were almost unbelievably incompetent in pursuing theirs.

Your question therefore is hypothetical. I suppose your point is that you assume the Arab states would have done something atrocious to the Israeli people, and therefore Israel is justified in committing lesser offences against Palestinian people. Or perhaps your intention is simply to use a rhetorical question to divert attention from what is happening inthe real world.

Gil

Henry Sidgwick: 'A consensus is growing among historians that the 1967 war was an inadvertent war. The IDF was excessively aggressive in pursuing its agenda and the Arab states were almost unbelievably incompetent in pursuing theirs'

Firstly, please define 'consensus'. And quoting Jeremy Bowen or Tom Segev will not do. You need many more than that for a 'consensus'.

Secondly, your statement does not change the legal position one jot. Nasser and Hussein provoked, miscalculated and lost. An open and shut case. As a famous Israeli author once said: 'apologies for winning'.

Perhaps, Henry Sidgwick, you should criticize the Soviets who were very happy to forment trouble and mischief.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick, you are not only highly selective in the questions you choose to answer, you evade answering the questions, prevaricate and confabulate. You certainly play your game ad nauseum.

Here are just a few salient facts about the 1967 war:

"A combination of bellicose Arab rhetoric, threatening behavior and, ultimately, an act of war left Israel no choice but preemptive action. To do this successfully, Israel needed the element of surprise. Had it waited for an Arab invasion, Israel would have been at a potentially catastrophic disadvantage.

While Nasser continued to make speeches threatening war, Arab terrorist attacks grew more frequent. In 1965, 35 raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched.5
Meanwhile, Syria's attacks on Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967, during which Israeli planes shot down six Syrian MiGs. Shortly thereafter, the Soviet Union — which had been providing military and economic aid to both Syria and Egypt — gave Damascus information alleging a massive Israeli military buildup in preparation for an attack. Despite Israeli denials, Syria decided to invoke its defense treaty with Egypt.

On May 15, Israel's Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai and massing near the Israeli border. By May 18, Syrian troops were prepared for battle along the Golan Heights.
Nasser ordered the UN Emergency Force, stationed in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw on May 16. Without bringing the matter to the attention of the General Assembly, as his predecessor had promised, Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand. After the withdrawal of the UNEF, the Voice of the Arabs proclaimed (May 18, 1967):

'As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.'

An enthusiastic echo was heard May 20 from Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad:

'Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.'

On May 22, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping and all ships bound for Eilat. This blockade cut off Israel's only supply route with Asia and stopped the flow of oil from its main supplier, Iran. The following day, President Johnson expressed the belief that the blockade was illegal and unsuccessfully tried to organize an international flotilla to test it.

Nasser was fully aware of the pressure he was exerting to force Israel's hand. The day after the blockade was set up, he said defiantly: "The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war."8
Nasser challenged Israel to fight almost daily. "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight," he said on May 27.9 The following day, he added:
"We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948."

King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30. Nasser then announced:

'The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations.'

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."

On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
The Arab rhetoric was matched by the mobilization of Arab forces. Approximately 250,000 troops (nearly half in Sinai), more than 2,000 tanks and 700 aircraft ringed Israel.13
By this time, Israeli forces had been on alert for three weeks. The country could not remain fully mobilized indefinitely, nor could it allow its sea lane through the Gulf of Aqaba to be interdicted. Israel's best option was to strike first.On June 5, the order was given to attack Egypt."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf6.html#N_12_

Henry Sidgwick, I asked you ""Had the Arabs won the 1967 war (or the 1948, 1973 wars) what "State" would they have been agreeable to cede to the Jews? What would they have done with the Jewish population of Israel?" Your response covered only 1967 and ignored 1948 and 1973. You denied the truth that the Arabs were preparing to launch a war of annihilation in 1967 by claiming that the Arabs "thought" they could not win. You cited no references for your claims and alluded only to a shadowy unnamed "consensus" of "historians" Brings to mind certain "historians" who deny the established facts of the Holocaust. Now please respond properly to my questions.

Henry Sidgwick

Gil, I am sorry, I did reply, but it appears to have disappeared. The gist was:

You are quite right that I was careless to talk grandly of a "consensus". If we can agree that Prof. Maoz represents a mid-point, then he and those to his "left" (if I can use that misleading terminology) are in broad agreement about the inadvertence of the war. Those to the right clearly disagree. I accept that there is a great deal of scope for interpretation, but I find those to the "right" more selective and less credible as attempts to tell the whole story. I certainly do not find their version sufficiently credible to support the great weight Israel requires of it.

(By the way, I think you are unfair to Tom Segev who has produced good work.)

I agree that the staggering incompetence of the Arab states does not change the legal position at all. We disagree on what that legal position is. I the ruling of the ICJ and the opinion of the vast majority of international jurors is more plausible: Israel's annexation and occupation of the territories it conquered is illegal.

As I say, I know you disagree and that your opinion is based on a particular legal interpretation of a particular historical interpretation of the 1967 war which I in turn disagree with. I suppose we will just have to agree to differ, but I do think it worthwhile to debate such points (as opposed to hurling contemptuous insults at each other).

I can appreciate the sentiments you quote. "Apologies for winning" captures very well the natural response in the circumstances. Indeed, it would be difficult not to sympathise with the hubris that followed such stunning success. But the question is surely what Israel should have done with its success to ensure the future security and prosperity of its people. I would contend that its military successes have led it to put too much faith in aggression rather than diplomacy and compromise, and that this has not been in the interests of its people. I can well understand the contrary opinion, but I still think it wrong. (And, yes, I know it is presumptuous of an outsider to pontificate on such matters, but, again, I think it is worthwhile debating such matters.)

Finally, I have not seen a credible explanation of what the Soviets thought they were up to. After Khrushchev, they were usually cautious in the extreme. I do not know whether it was malice, or incompetence, or what. Your description is certainly one possibility, but I can't see what they could hope to achieve.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, I had assumed you were reading other contributions. I suggested a reference to Gil, an excellent book by a member of Israel's security elite: "Defending the Holy Land" by Zeev Maoz. Maoz served in the IDF for many years and fought in three wars. He was a security advisor to the Prime Minister, and the Director of the MA course at the IDF's National Defence College. He is a Zionist, a man who has given the state some service, a man whose opinions are worth considering. His book will give you a more comprehensive account than the web-sites you appear to employ to keep all contrary opinion at bay.

Biff Larkin

Obama's close, long association with hysterical Jew haters is a matter of historical record and unopen to debate.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick Here is an extract from a review by Efraim Inbar, professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and director of the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies of Maoz latest offering " Defending the Holy Land: A Critical Analysis of Israel's Security and Foreign Policy":

"Maoz, professor of political science and director of the International Relations Program at the University of California-Davis, has written a long, well-organized, and detailed book. But those attributes are not enough to distract from the author's often unhinged animosity to Israel. For Maoz, practically everything the Jewish state has done in the area of defense and foreign policy over the last sixty years was wrong. His last chapters are devoted to explaining the failures, ending with some policy prescriptions. For anyone who enjoys sophisticated Israel-bashing and has the patience to read more than 600 pages, Maoz has provided the book.

His narrative of unrelenting criticism erodes the credibility of his arguments. The author implausibly tries to show that Israel's "military adventurism" was much to blame for the 1967 war and argues that Israel played "more than a small part" in the outbreak of the War of Attrition (1967-70) although Cairo clearly initiated that combat.

The author's account of the Arab-Israeli conflict reflects a total misunderstanding of the central role played by Israel's use of force in compelling the Arabs to come to grips with Israel's permanence. Military victories in 1956 and 1967 are curiously and myopically seen as exacerbating Israel's relations with its neighbors, rather than as important events in Egypt's gradual realization that Israel could not be destroyed—a process that culminated in the 1979 peace treaty. Similarly, the author fails to see that the military victory in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, despite the strategic surprise on two fronts, was another significant step in the Arab recognition of Israel as an entrenched fact.

The most astonishing critique is directed at Israel's nuclear policy, despite its obvious success. Maoz advocates Israel's renouncing nuclear weapons and joining a regional security regime. Greater naiveté can hardly be imagined.
Maoz repeatedly belittles the dangers posed by the Arab states and portrays Israel's perception of those dangers as unwarranted. Indeed, Maoz views Israel's defensive military operations as trigger-happy, ignoring that the Middle East is conflict-ridden and war-prone, and that Israel's neighbors often resort to the use of force. The author generally dismisses Israel's right to attack states and organizations that refuse to live in peace with it. One can doubt the wisdom of the 1982 Lebanon war, but it included defensive aims. But the author ignores the threat of terrorist and Katyusha attacks by the Palestine Liberation Organization ............

........Defending the Holy Land symbolizes a much larger problem and reveals the perversity of knowledgeable academics who adopt the wrong conceptual lens, disregarding basic common sense.

Read the whole review at http://www.meforum.org:80/2139/defending-the-holy-land

Henry Sidgwick, I am not sure if you, like Maoz, can be described as harbouring "unhinged animosity" towards Israel. But you are certainly an Israel basher.

I am still waiting for you to respond to my questions: I asked you ""Had the Arabs won the 1967 war (or the 1948, 1973 wars) what "State" would they have been agreeable to cede to the Jews? What would they have done with the Jewish population of Israel?" Your response covered only 1967 and ignored 1948 and 1973. You denied the truth that the Arabs were preparing to launch a war of annihilation in 1967 by claiming that the Arabs "thought" they could not win.

alanadale

I can’t understand why Linda Smith keeps harking back to implementing Resolution 181 because then we will be discussing Israel withdrawing to the Partition line.
The City of Jerusalem is not established as ‘a corpus separatum’ under a special international UN administered regime as she well knows because in that regard Resolution 242 with a call for a two state resolution moved the game on. Perhaps if both sides agreed it could become an international city.

Linda Smith writes: ‘Since Israel has been under constant threat of extinction by its implacable enemies since 1947,who refuse to recognise its right to exist as a Jewish State, and who failed to annihilate it militarily, it has every right to adopt measures it deems necessary for its own security despite the bleatings of Arab apologists.’

In May 1967 half a dozen US intelligence agencies reviewed Israel’s security concerns in the light of rising regional tensions and concluded that (1) Egypt had no intention of attacking Israel and (2) if it was mad enough to do so Israel in the words of President Johnson would ‘whip the hell out them’.

The head of Israeli intelligence said in Washington on June 1 ‘there are no differences between the US and the Israelis on the military intelligence picture or its interpretation’.

As for her fatuous mantra ‘Had the Arabs won the 1967 war (or the 1948, 1973 wars) what "State" would they have been agreeable to cede to the Jews? Because they would never have won ANY of those wars and the Israeli high command knew exactly where they stood vis a vis the comparative strengths of both sides.

Only Israeli incompetence in 1973 opened up any instability in the balance of power but Uncle Sam was there to plug the gap and restore the status quo ante.

It is interesting to reflect on what Zeev Maoz actually had to say about Israel’s wars in Defending the Holy Land which attracted such hysterical ire from the reviewer Ms Smith so diligently brought up from Google.

‘Israel’s war experience is a story of folly, recklessness and self-made traps; none of Israel’s wars with the possible exception of the 1948 War of Independence, none is what Israel refers to as a war of necessity. They were all wars of choice or folly.’

Finally I have a question for Linda Smith. Reciprocity is a fundamental concept of international law. Why has no government of Israel ever agreed to recognise a Palestinian state within its 1967 borders as enjoined by scores of UN resolutions, the Fourth Geneva Convention and World Court’s Advisory Ruling on the Wall? In November 2007 the General Assembly voted (as it does annually) on a motion calling for ‘Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources’. The motion was passed 164 to seven with Israel voting against it backed by the US, Australia and four south Pacific island states with a collective population measured in tens of thousands. Would you not describe this as an international consensus calling on Israel to remove itself ‘bag and baggage’ from the Occupied Territories?

Gil

Henry Sidgwick said: 'But the question is surely what Israel should have done with its success to ensure the future security and prosperity of its people. I would contend that its military successes have led it to put too much faith in aggression rather than diplomacy and compromise, and that this has not been in the interests of its people'

I believe casting around generalizations do not promote the debate that you claim you are interested in. Let me remind you that Israel withdrew from Sinai in the context of a full peace treathy with Egypt. Every square inch of Sinai was handed back, including settlements.

The above was done by Begin and Sharon. This is something that you would rather people forgot or did not consider.

Israel under Sharon withdrew from Gaza including evacuation of settlements. We all saw what the Palestinians did in Gaza afterwards.

For the record, I supported neither Sharon nor Begin as I am to the left of the political spectrum.

Regarding Russian mischief in the Middle East, I find your comment strangely naive. Do read the book 'Foxbats over Dimona' by Gideon Remez and Isabella Ginor. That will give you a clue. If they were so cautious after K, why did they go into Czech in 1968?

Are you denying the Russian attempts to persuade Syria and Egypt that Israel was planning to attack them?

Alanadale, you are writing utter rubbish. Perhaps you want to airbrush out of history the blockade of the Tiran Straits and the port of Eilat by Nasser. You have to remember that a couple of years previously Nasser had used gas i.e. chemical weapons against the Royalist forces in Yemen.

Nasser didn't want war, he wanted Israel to collapse from within. Apologies that Israel didn't oblige.

Wm. Hazlitt

Linda Smith, I have watched your debate here on its predictably wearying path. I note that you continue to present as disinterested arbiters of truth commentators who are highly interested, to put it no more strongly: Daniel Pipes and his Campus Watch and his Me Forum.

Try to take on board, even just as a thought experiment, the notion that there is no harm and much benefit in trying to understand the arguments of those you disagree with. At least do not simply dismiss them because you have googled them to find what Mr. Pipes thinks you should think about them.

I am not sure why you have trouble with this. If you read only the avowed propagandists for one side in a dispute (which by definition has at least two sides) then you will not understand the whole story and will increase your chances of being wrong.

alanadale

Gil. I’m well aware that Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran through which 5% of Israel’s trade passed. He did so to lend support to Syria which Israel was drawing up plans to attack. In fact he had allowed some ships through which suggested it wasn’t the kind of blockade that Israel is currently imposing on Gaza.

You don’t address my central point that the USA knew and Israel knew that Egypt did not pose a material threat to Israel before Israel decided to mount a pre-emptive attack on June 5.

Gil

Allanadale, more utter rubbish from you. Egypt kicked out the UNEF forces from Sinai, in breach of existing agreements, because it was part of the Egyptian plan to drag the Syrians and Jordanians into war. Egypt guessed, correctly, that the world would turn the other cheek to threats against the Jews, just as the world(with small exceptions) turned its back on Jewish refugees fleeing Europe in the 30s and 40s.

Indeed, De Gaulle told Abba Eban that Israel would lose the war.

The closure of the Tiran straits was in clear breach of customary international law especially since Israel had received assurances that it would have rights of access to the straits.

Regarding the Soviets, I notice that you have no answer to the fact that the USSR was actively formenting trouble and hoping that the Arabs would attack Israel. In doing so, they fed Nasser false information that Israel was about to attack the Syrians on the Golan.

So why aren't you blaming the Soviets, Alanadale/Sidgwick/Bowen?

Why don't you acknowledge the Israeli public's trauma of being attacked by Egyptian chemicla weapons after their use by Egypt against Royalist forces in Yemen?

Henry Sidgwick

Gil, Thank you for the reference. I missed it when it came out. The authors' thesis clearly has radical implications if true, and is hugely enjoyable if false. Serious scholars confirm that the authors make a serious case, so I will not pretend to judge it (certainly not before I have read it!) My prejudice would be that it is implausible. It goes against all we know, or thought we knew, about the Soviets. It requires that they were willing to risk nuclear war with the US to eliminate Israel's bomb. It requires that they rely on forces they, and everyone else, including the Arab states, knew to be inadequate to defeat Israel. It requires the US to be asleep the the wheel. Nevertheless, we also know that the Cold War led the two sides to paranoia and bizarre escapades.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick, I do not read only "the avowed propagandists for one side in a dispute" as you assert. I reach my own conclusions from FACTS, not opinions. After examination of the FACTS, I agree with the opinions of the people I quote.

You still fail to answer my questions. I am still waiting for you to respond to my questions: I asked you "Had the Arabs won the 1967 war (or the 1948, 1973 wars) what "State" would they have been agreeable to cede to the Jews? What would they have done with the Jewish population of Israel?" Your response covered only 1967 and ignored 1948 and 1973.

As I recall, Jeremy Paxman never wearied of repeating his salient question to Michael Howard. Nor will I of mine to you.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, Where do you get your FACTS from, if not from Daniel Pipes and his ilk?

Gil

My response to Alanadale's last response hasn't appeared for some reason. Strange that each time I try to rebut arguments from International Law, my post fails to make it.

Henry, I've found that when it comes to Intelligence matters the best approach is: never believe anything until you see original source evidence; always keep an open mind; never believe official histories before the 30/60/70 year rule is up.

Henry Sidgwick

Gil, Your warning to be sceptical of histories, whether official or not, is salutary. Indeed, even after the official documents have been released, motives, and much else, can remain murky (as I have found in trying to understand certain episodes even in British history). I suppose the moral is to be less categorical in asserting that this or that is what in fact happened. I hope you don't mind if I suggest that this applies to you as much (perhaps) as it does to me.

You are correct in protesting against my grand generalization, which I concede was pompous. I was trying to indicate a pattern I think can be discerned in Israel's diplomacy. The peace treaty with Egypt you mention is a case in point. The peace Israel finally accepted was on offer from Sadat before the Yom Kippur War. Israel and the US studiously ignored Sadat's advances, in part because they did not think Egypt a serious player. In effect, Kissinger's message to Sadat was, Do something that will engage my attention, otherwise we will just wait it out until you accede to our (and Israel's) demands. This can be discerned in the tortuous dishonesties of Kissingers voluminous writings, but was also clear to others, such as Abba Eban. Again, my account clearly simplifies highly complicated diplomacy, but I think there is little doubt that Israel's arrogance after 1967, and in particular Golda Meir's notorious intransigence, were examples of military successes leading Israel to put too much faith in aggression rather than diplomacy and compromise, and that this has not been in the interests of its people. (Pompus but, I think, true.)

Gil

Henry Sidgwick, I take your point about the tendency of people on this blog (myself included) to be too categorical at times. Two reasons come to mind: 1. There is a lot of bad faith around in debates on Israel-Palestine where some people claim that they are not antisemitic but just against Israeli policies, or that they are against Zionism but not Jews. Many of these people are actually arguing in bad faith.

For the removal of any doubt I haven't directed my remarks at you. Nor do I believe that people who criticize Israel or its policies are necessarily antisemitic, that would be madness and fly in face of some obvious facts. Yet, many people are.

2. Due to the nature of the internet and time constraints, comments may appear more categorical than warranted,

Regarding the overtures from Sadat to Israel. I believe you are correct - in part. I believe that Yossi Sarid has mentioned these overtures too, as he was involved in liasing between Meir and interlocutors. I cannot recall what Kissinger says in his writings as the books are not to hand.

I do believe, however, that there is another interpretation that could be put on these overtures: to lull Israel in a false sense of security. After all, there is a very strong view that Sadat needed a victory and restoration of honour before he could make peace. That, from his point of view, was achieved in '73. In addition, I'm not convinced that we can say for certain that he was willing to give Israel what she wanted, namely full peace.

I agree that Golda Meir made many...questionable...decisions and utterances in her time as Prime Minister.

alanadale

Gil. From Sadat’s position it was very simple. He needed to break the deadlock of ‘No war, no peace’ because his country was economically paralysed and being throttled – arguably as Gaza is today.

His calculation was to break the deadlock by establishing a bridgehead on the east bank of the canal which would force Israel to the negotiating table. A classic case of war as diplomacy by other means.

He had no intention of advancing beyond the protective cover of his missile defence shield and assumed Israel would stop him form doing so. Unfortunately the Canal Crossing was successful beyond his wildest dreams and smashed through Israel’s defences. He was then left with the dilemma of all military commanders in such situations to capitalise on his success and advance and Syria’s appeal to him to press the advantage to relieve pressure on the Golan probably proved decisive.

This new dynamic seriously threatened the balance of power but it by no means meant that Sadat wanted to drive Israel into the sea because he patently did not.

He did want peace as he amply demonstrated by his trip to Jerusalem. But he warned in the Knesset that only a comprehensive peace would work. Begin spurned his initiative.

For some reason too one of my posts being less than complimentary about Alan Dershowitz seems to have been attacked by the gremlins or fallen foul of the censor.

Gil

Alanadale, I lost interest after the fist paragraph when you spoiled it with a facile comparison to Gaza. You might wish to reflect on the fact that today Egypt is to blame for so much of Gaza's problems. Not to mention its appalling treatment of the Gazans prior to 1967.

Ironic, eh?

And to say that Sadat 'wanted peace', just like that (a la Tommy Cooper) while ignoring the fact that he pragmatically needed access to US financial and other support 'cos he realised the Soviets were a broken reed, is a very bad argument.

You might also wish to reflect on the fact that Egypt an Syria treated Israeli POWs in an utterly disgusting fashion conpared to the way Israel treated its counterparts.

Just like Hamas is treating Gilad Schalit.

And Nasser did want to throw the Israelis into the sea.

You don't argue in good faith and I'm not responding to you any more.

alanadale

I reprise to Gil’s comment: ‘De Gaulle told Abba Eban that Israel would lose the war’. Big deal. De Gaulle was about to ditch France’s traditional support for Israel and did so after 1967 because he foresaw the Six Day War would merely feed Israel’s lust for territorial expansion; that Israel would not be happy with merely 78% of Palestine but would want more. Anyway, what did he know of Egypt’s military capability?

Nor am I here to defend Nasser’s record on chemical weapons. Though it seems to me it stinks of hypocrisy to take a moral tone with Egypt when the US was quite happy to turn a blind eye to Saddam Hussein using them against Iran in the first Gulf War and di itself use them in Vietnam with Agent Orange. Do you really think Israel wouldn’t use them if the circumstances demanded? If not why does Israel have the bomb?

More to the point the Americans had come to the conclusion that Nasser did not want war (despite his dumb tactical moves) and that if he did go to war he would be trounced, a view that Israeli intelligence concurred with.

Ref the Soviet Union fomenting trouble you conveniently ignore Israel’s inflammatory border raids, not least the infamous November 1966 raid on the Jordanian village of Samu in which an Israeli armoured brigade razed 125 homes and killed 18 Jordanian soldiers – shades of the Gaza raid mounted by Sharon in February 1955 which killed 40 Egyptian soldiers. Arthur Goldberg – hardly an anti Zionist – said in the UN of this raid. ‘I wish to make it absolutely clear that this large-scale military action can not be justified, explained away or excused by the incidents that preceded it and which the Government of Jordan has not been implicated’. Egypt for its part had consistently tried to stop borders incursions which were (at least initially) overwhelmingly individual Palestinians trying to get back to properties they had been expelled from.

I’m afraid it’s all of a piece with Sharon’s declaration in 1967 ‘If we don’t launch a first strike. Israel will lose its deterrence capability, our main weapon the fear of us.’ Yet ironically it is Zionists who shout incessantly about their own fear, as though no one else has legitimate security needs.

Perhaps Gil you should step outside the self serving paranoia box Israeli apologists have created to serve their expansionary ends. If the considered view in 1967 was that Nasser did not pose a threat (let alone an existential threat) to Israel it is demonstrably absurd to suggest that Israel since faces any sort of conventional existential threat given its possession of the fourth most powerful armed forces in the world. If it faces an ‘existential’ threat it is of its own making, like the Soviet Union an existential threat from within. When Shimon Peres threw up his hands in despair at Davos after the Gaza raid and asked rhetorically ‘What can Israel do?’ There’s a very simple answer: accept the international consensus on 242 and get back to its 1967 borders.

alanadale

Gil writes: You might also wish to reflect on the fact that Egypt an Syria treated Israeli POWs in an utterly disgusting fashion compared to the way Israel treated its counterparts.

What evidence have you got for this absolutely outrageous allegation? I was living in Egypt during the 10th of Ramadan war and I can assure you one of the principal aims of the war for Egyptians was to show the world that they were not the evil savages they had been painted by Zionist propaganda after 1967. Israeli POWs were treated with kid gloves if not for any other reason than they were perceived to be an invaluable propaganda tool

You really have to look at the video recorded evidence of what Israel did trashing Jenin and Gaza before you dare to lecture anyone about Israel’s ‘civilised’ treatment of its POWs and subject populations. There are screeds of evidence of Israel’s human rights abuses and I would just like to draw your attention to what Benny Morris had to say about Israel’s unprovoked occupation of the Gaza Strip in 1956. He writes: ‘many Fedayeen and an estimated 4,000 Egyptian and Palestinian regulars were trapped in the Strip, identified and rounded up by the IDF, GSS and police. Dozens of these Fedayeen appear to have been summarily executed, without trial. Some were probably killed during two massacres by IDF troops soon after the occupation of the Strip’. He goes on to say the UN estimated Israeli troops killed 447 and 550 during their three week occupation of the Strip.

And may I quote an even more shocking statement from the same author, again hardly someone who can be accused of being anti Zionist, in his book Israel’s Border Wars regarding Israel’s attitude to border incursions. He reckoned ‘probably less than 10%’ were politically motivated ‘or undertaken for terrorists purposes’. He goes on to describe how the Israelis made the Arab side of the border a ‘free fire zone’ in which the ‘overall attitude’ was one that ‘killing, torturing, beating and raping’ Arab infiltrators was if not permitted not particularly reprehensible and invariably went unpunished. Palestinian infiltrators were routinely murdered, even children shot in the head and elderly Palestinians castrated.

Gil, I earnestly suggest you consult your moral compass for it is seriously askew. Anf why, why will you not address the central issue in this whole increasingly irrelevant debate. Why Israel feels it is entitled to more than 78% of the land when the world community has overwhelmingly ruled this is the basis for a resolution of the conflict.

Linda Smith

Alanadale: yes it is a "whole increasingly irrelevant debate."

In the real world, there is not going to be "a resolution of the conflict" any time soon. Hamas and Fatah both have operative Charters devoted to the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel. Israel is not going to commit suicide by total withdrawal from the West Bank in order to create a Hamastan version of the Swat Valley on its own doorstep dedicated to its destruction.

alanadale

Linda Smith writes; ‘Hamas and Fatah both have operative Charters devoted to the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel.‘

Leaving aside whether Hamas and Fatah have ‘operative Charters’, whatever that means, devoted to the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel‘, let’s deal with actions not words.

Has Israel ever recognized Palestinians’ right to a state within the 1967 borders as enjoined in scores of UN Security Council resolutions, the Geneva Convention and a near unanimous World Court Opinion that ruled ALL settlement of Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem was illegal?

By contrast the Arabs had been moving towards accepting a two state solution since the 1970s.

In November 1977 Sadat made his historic trip to Jerusalem. What did Begin do? He thanked Sadat ever so much for his courageous gesture but declared ‘Judea and Samaria’ off the agenda in any peace negotiations – after Sadat had told the Knesset it had to be a comprehensive peace, anything less would not work. For good measure the Knesset in August 1980 passed a law unilaterally annexing East Jerusalem and declaring Jerusalem the eternal and undivided capital of Israel.

Reel on a year and Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd launched what in effect was a prototype of the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan supported by the PLO. What was Israel’s response to this peace initiative which had been preceded by an effective year long PLO ceasefire? To invade Lebanon. According to Israeli academic Avner Yaniv Israel had two options at that point: a political move leading to historic compromise or pre-emptive military action against the PLO ‘to beat Arafat’s peace offensive.’ The raison d’être of the entire Lebanon war, he said, was ‘to destroy the PLO as a political force able to reclaim the West Bank as part of its state.’

As well reducing a whole swathe of southern Lebanon, subsequently dubbed the Dahiyya option to a wasteland, Israel killed between 18,000 and 22,000 Lebanese and Palestinians in that invasion, the overwhelming majority of whom were civilians. This was roughly the number of civilians killed by the Allies in the 1944 Campaign to liberate France and roughly equal to the total number of Israelis killed in all its wars, the difference being that the overwhelming majority of causalities in this latter case were combatants. For your information the total number of Israelis and non Israelis civilian and security personnel in Israel and abroad killed by Palestinians between 1967 and 1990 were 420, a figure surpassed in the first few hours of the Lebanon invasion.

Reel on to November 1988 when the Palestine National Council formally accepted a two state solution which unlocked the Oslo Peace Process. What did Israel proceed to do? Pour more settlers into the Occupied Territories so that by the time the peace initiative blew up there was nearly twice the number there were when the process started. The rise of Hamas (initially with Israeli encouragement) on the back of a discredited and undermined PLO and the realisation that Israel was not prepared to settle on the basis of 242 was entirely predictable. Palestinians got the message that negotiations had strengthened Israel’s hold over their lands. All bets were off.

Now with the Saudi Peace Plan we have a rerun of 1982 with Hamas (and Hizbollah) in place of the PLO moving behind an Arab initiative. A Hamas ceasefire was holding. And what do the Israelis do? Under the cloak of the US elections they kill half a dozen Hamas operatives effectively breaking the ceasefire and starting the chain of events that led to the Gaza invasion and a casualty rate even more obscene (given the huge proportion of children killed) than the Lebanon invasion.

In short, far from Abba Eban’s aphorism that the Palestinians ‘never lose an opportunity to lose an opportunity’ being the case it is the Israelis that have always impeded peace moves. In the words of Ze’ev Maoz ‘Israel’s decision makers were as reluctant when it came to making peace as they were daring and trigger happy when they came to making war. The official Israeli decision makers typically did not initiate peace overtures. Most of the peace initiatives in the Arab Israeli conflict came either from the Arab world, the international community or from grassroots informal channels.’

To be absolutely clear, no one is asking Israelis to withdraw to the 1967 borders before a full and comprehensive peace but simply to accept the Occupied Territories do not belong to them and will be relinquished with peace. That does not compromise Israel’s security; rather it enhances it by taking the wind out of the sails of radicals who make great play of the West’s double standards. The only way we are going to beat Islamic extremism is to deal even-handedly with the Muslim world. It is in Israel’s long term interest to revisit Yaniv’s two options and ‘give peace a chance’ rather than endlessly creating pretexts to steal more land. One important consequence of this expansionary policy is the use of ever more disproportionate force. Every time Israelis do it makes it harder for the bully to masquerade as the bullied.

Linda Smith

Alanadale: Leaving aside whether Hamas and Fatah have ‘operative Charters’, whatever that means, devoted to the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel‘, let’s deal with actions not words."

Alanadale, you know perfectly well what "operative Charters" means. Hamas and PLO/Fatah sole raison d'etre is the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel - not peace.
Israel does not have to cede anything to any entity committed to its destruction.

Stop playing your infantile games.

alanadale

When talking about threats, Linda Smith, you have to consider the ability of the perpetrator to deliver on them. Hamas and Hizbollah are reserving their positions because the PLO’s recognition of Israel in the 1990s produced absolutely zilch. Contrast this zero sum position of combatants who have very little power to put into effect their threats without inviting massive retribution with that of Zionists who since Ben Gurion and before have been discussing the question of population transfer and have been very much in a position to do something about it and to delay if not abort (though not through lack of trying) the birth of Palestinian state. Even today Israel’s foreign minister is quite openly advocating population transfer in racist language worthy of the National Front. What an advertisement for democracy Israeli style!

Even if Hamas and Hizbollah seriously wanted to do away with Israel they can’t. So cut your puerile rant. Hamas has offered a 50 year ‘hudna’. Take the offer as seriously as you seem to take their empty threats. In 50 years’ time I’ll be dead and no doubt you; in any event the world will be a very different place and there’s plenty of time to test their intentions.

If Israel is prepared to engage and recognise the Palestinians’ right to peace and security in their designated territory this conflict can begin to be defused.

If, not Israel will play out a self fulfilling prophecy; the power of the resistance whose capacity to hurt Israel is currently minimal will grow as the range of their missiles lengthens and support for their increasingly radical positions hardens.

Finally and personally, if Israel had behaved only half responsibly and decently towards the Palestinians and not been bent on seizing land it would be possible to have a little more respect for your argument. As it is you appear to hold to a purblind view, (because you studiously avoid any mention of the issue of occupation or its manifest injustices), that Israel is entitled to more than its 1967 borders. Israel has no right to ask the rest of the world to support its illegal occupation of Palestinian lands.

Linda Smith

Alanadale: "..Zionists who since Ben Gurion and before have been discussing the question of population transfer.....to delay and if not abort (though not through lack of trying) the birth of Palestinian State."

You are so tiresome in your Anti-Zionist, Arab apologist inversionism, laced with double standards. You know perfectly well that the Arabs refused a State in 1947. In an earlier comment you justified the Arabs going to war because in your opinion the Arab State delivered by the Partition Plan was not good enough.

Population transfer was advocated by the British in 1937 in the Peel Report due to the Arab hatred of, and attacks on, Jews and was a perfectly reasonable proposal in that epoque, a successful population transfer having been carried out in the 1920s following Greek/Turkish war. Large numbers of "ethnic" Germans were transferred out of the Sudetenland following World War 2. Millions of people were transferred in 1948 on the Partition of India. I note the hypocrites are not complaining about that transfer because it created a Muslim state, Pakistan.

I wonder what the British government would do if a Jihadist type movement started gaining ground.

"Hamas has offered a 50 year 'hudna'."

The use of the term "hudna" denotes that an Islamic religious war is being fought, a war without end until the "infidel" (Israel/Jews) is vanquished. A "hudna" is nothing more than a ceasefire.
During the "hudna" the jihadists have time to rearm. As Hamas and Hizbullah are Iran's proxies, it will be only a matter of time until Iran is able to supply with nuclear warheads for their rockets, dirty bombs etc.

" In 50 years’ time I’ll be dead and no doubt you; in any event the world will be a very different place and there’s plenty of time to test their intentions."

As I am not an Israeli, and I assume neither are you, our willingness to test Hamas's intentions is irrelevant.

"If Israel is prepared to engage and recognise the Palestinians’ right to peace and security in their designated territory this conflict can begin to be defused"

You and Henry Sidgwick never answered my questions: If the Arabs had won the 1948, 67, 73 wars, what State would the Arabs have conceded to the Jews? What would they have done with the Jewish population?

Your Arab apologist double standards just won't do.