1. Ted Belman said:

Jonathan wrote

One problem is that if Arabs can go to the West Bank, thousands or millions will go there because financially it is much better than living wherever they are now. So much for democraphics. Another problem is that any Muslims are too many. Only by maximizing the number of Jews will Israel maintain itself as a Jewish state. If it becomes a secular state there is no point to its existence. It will eventually cease is roll as a Jewish homeland and prime location for the perpetuation of the Jewish religion.

My one state solution is to have Israel separate in reasonable borders, the rest of the West Bank joining Jordan and Gaza joining Egypt. Only that scenario will maintain Israel as a separate Jewish state.

2. Ted Belman said:

Tiburon wrote

Beautifully sensible of course. Now....how to reveal to US folk and MSM (MainStreamMedia) that Israel is a "democracy" in name only - a mafia-ruled charade whose political echelons are largely a cesspool of corruption For only in this manner will sufficient public embarrasment accrue to the members of N. Am. Jewish Communities that they will, by their dollars and giving and growing disdain for the cabal's agenda, bring about the collapse of the Provisional Regime (which, needless to say, is exactly what it is, legally and technically....)
One Caveat: - Wise's Plan (2004) is admirable in all respects, but only through immediate adoption of a Jewish Constitution can his laudable prescriptions be enshrined for all future generations and protected from the predations of the oligarchical interests presently holding sway in Our Land.

BTW, I've been suggesting for years that a privately initiated and funded effort should be undertaken, offering say $100K per Arab Muslim ("nuclear") family towards emigration, with State or public assistance limited to facilitation of such emigration and diplomatic 'encouragement' through the Foreign Ministry worldwide for acceptance of these emigrees (in itself not a dire hurdle as $100K buys citizenship most places in the world!).

Quick analysis would reveal that the attendant cumulative costs would still render the so acquired property in the Land, far less expensive than what is on the open real estate market in Israel, today. For example, a typical Arab 'village', with the traditional attached grazing and agricultural lands (i.e. - olive groves) of 100 families would be obtained for some $10 million dollars; said lands and property easily accomodating 500 Jewish families, 'self-sufficient' in economic terms within the wider Israeli economy, through modern techniques of urban design and modern economic strategies in hi-tech, both industrial and agricultural....

The REAL hurdle remains that the POB (Pwrs tht Be) in Israel have very good reasons for maintaining the status quo: - 1) Due onerous bureaucratic restrictions on outmigration from the "territories", - an essentially captive 'bank' of third world wage earners to maintain the mafia's agricultural, construction and industrial 'sweat shops'; and 2) a captive market for Israeli goods, topping a billion dollars/annum - a five-to-one balance of trade advantage to the Israeli Economy.

This has no resolution save demolition of the oligarchy, if necessary by civil war (G-d Forbid).

3. Ted Belman said:

Irving wrote

I've often thought this should be re-visited, esp. since the
Russian immigration changed the demographics substantially.

There is still, of course, a risk, but maybe manageable, maybe not. Others would argue that Muslims have never lived amicably as a minority anywhere, so why would this time be different.

the challenge would be to get the Arabs to accept it -- without a right of return for the "10 million" offspring of the original refugees. If their true goal is the absence of any Jewish or Christian state in their midst, then they will not accept this if it has a chance to succeed. They will only accept it if they feel they can eventually take it over. We would have to fool them into thinking so, while trying to convince our own people of the opposite.

Anyways, I'm happy you are always prepared to consider things outside the box of current accepted opinion

4. Bill Narvey said:

The commentary provided on a one or two state solution and the nod given to a one state solution, is based on assumptions and projections that Israel may have the power to change, if it wills change from the past pattern of negotiations.

A one state solution no matter which way you cut it and no matter what protections might be offered the Jews to maintain a majority would destroy Israel as a Jewish state.

The Muslims have their own 21 Judenrein states in the Middle East. Jews should be entitled to a state of their own.

The negatives suggested for a two state solution presumes an independent Palestinian nation will be hostile towards Israel, will be a centre for terrorism and there will be no controls on population growth, etc.. All these things could come to pass if negotiations continue the way they have.

Should the Palestinians continue their terrorism after their statehood, Israel will no longer have to engage in surgical strikes, etc. It would be an act of war declared by the Palestinians and Israel would or should have a free hand in destroying their enemy without the usual cautions to avoid collateral damage.

Death and destruction would rain down on the Palestinians, their lands and economy devastated, they would need to relocate, but Israel would not be a place to relocate to. Israel would have captured more land and the cycle of negotiations begins again.

While such scenario is not a happy future, it is far better than having a Palestinian 5th column within one state which commits terror against Jewish citizens. Just who is the one state to declare war on? Itself?

For so long as the Road map governs the direction of the negotiations, Israel is boxed in with very limited negotiating options. The end result is guaranteed for Palestinians and all Israel has some lattitude in is how that eventual solution comes about.

Israel needs to resile from the Road Map, needs to reaffirm its own needs, not the least of which are its security goals and move in that direction. The Palestinians have had no compunctions on breaking their agreements. Tit for tat.

Israel needs the balls to stand up to the States, tell the Palestinians they have no inalienable rights, no right of return, no right to Jerusalem, etc. If they want anything, they had best give something tangible in return for whatever they got.

It is a basic principle of contract law that the party that breaches the contract pays damages or must return what they gained. Where that agreement was secured by fraud damages and penalties must be more severe.

Ther is no question the Palestinians have gained concessions on the basis of their frauds in leading Israelis to believe their word was good when in fact it was worthless.

Israel must take back that which it has so far given away and take even more, like control of the Temple Mount from the Waqf Trust. How Israel allows the Waqf to destroy Israeli archeological history is unforgiveable.

I can only assume that Israel has been pressured all the way to enter the Oslo and other agreements. Just what would happen if Israel told America and the Palestinians to get stuffed. All that was given is taken back and negotiations begin anew.

Most would say this is unrealistic. I would point out that Middle East events seem to flow from the unexpected and the unimaginable and do have an air of unreality to them. It is time for Israel to unilaterally change realities back to where they were as much as possible and see what happens beyond a lot of angry shouting and ultimatums, etc.

5. t said:

How many jews s live in nyc???? PROBABLEY A MAJORITY!Should we start a NEW JEW CITY??? ASmuch as camel jockeys sorry Arabs should be called Palestinians? If You as Jews known where that camE FROM MR, Belman??????I live in Canada but u waffle!!!!!!! Challenge me!You didn t know about expulsion you called it something else!It must bbe nice to be a dinner table jew!

6. Standish said:

Given the history of Jewish behavior towards Arabs, a one-state solution in the 21th century would most certainly be an aparteid nation and as such, unacceptable to every other nation on the planet.

7. Ted Belman said:

Let us assume that Likud manages to form the next government which then adopts a new constitution along the lines suggested and finally annexes the West Bank, Israel's troubles will not be over. The Arabs wouldn't automatically become citizens. One pre-condition would be that they must have proficiency in Hebrew or that they must wait 10 years etc.

When Germany was reunified its economy went into the tank because it had to deal equally with both populations. How would Israel manage this? The problem of what to do with the refugees in the various Arab countries would still exist and the world will still seek a solution because the host countries are unlikely to offer them citizenship.

Gazans would clamour for the same treatment and Israel would refuse. It would have to become part of Jordan with a land link, part of Egypt or form its own state with a population of about 1.1 million.

Would Israel be able to absorb the West Bank Arabs more successfully then France has absorbed its Arab population or would she be inheriting a bigger problem then she could solve?

How could Israel expell those Arabs who are associated with terrorism or don't sign the loyalty oath if no country will take them in?

As for the two state solution, I don't see how that could work either. The land is just too small and the need for peaceful coexistence including sharing of air space and water too great to be managed by two enemies.

Israel is caught between the devil and the deep blue Mediterranean.

8. Ted Belman said:

Standish

You are so full of crap and bias. The Arab Israelis have more rights and freedoms than any Arab living in any Arab country.

9. BobW said:

The presumptions, the variables and the options cannot be supported.

A one state plan can only be acted upon by planners. GOI has already been relegated to the sidelines.

Observers do not miss the capability of Arab terrorists to create states of seige.

Observers do not miss that Jerusalem is contested.

Observers do not miss that the Muslims do not want a Jewish presence in the eastern Mediterranian.

There are NO solutions within the diplomatic realm for a Jewish presence. Yelling or taking sedatives or attending bagels and lox brunches in NYC will not change the Muslim goal.

The 2 state solution requires forfeiture of Jerusalem and Hebron. If this is the view of GOI, many lives were lost in vain.

Uganda, Madagascar and Birobidjan were already offered as substitutes for a Jewish homeland.

So was Al Arish, Sinai.

Kol tuv,
BobW

10. felix quigley said:

The problem is exactly the opposite to the Standish viewpoint. On winning the 67 War which the Arabs initiated by declaring that they would end Israel (Nasser) Israel then offered it all back in exchange for peace. That offer was rebuffed by the Arabs.

Then Israel began the process of building up education and social services etc to make the Arabs prosperous. On the presupposition that a prosperous Palestinian Arab is a peaceloving one. Oslo was an extention of that psychology. The result was Intifadas and many Jewish lives lost.

There is no hope for Israel if it does not remember the reason for its existence.

Central is the role Judaism played in the formation of the Jewish people and nation. I think that without Judaism there would be no Jewish nation and no Israel. Mere fact of history no matter what way you spin it.

I was also under the impression that Israel was set up as a "Jewish" state in 1948 and the nations of the world in atonement for the Holocaust decided (however briefly as it turned out) that Jews needed a Jewish state as a PROTECTION, never mind the fulfilment of national liberation rights.

Ted you do correctly restate the issues and problems facing Israel. Meanwhile Iran continues to build the bomb.

There is a difference though with France etc and it is this:

Israel was never an ordinary state or country. Because of antisemitism it needed to be set up as a revolutionary entity.

That did not happen. It was set up unfortunately by Jewish patriots who were at the same time quite reformist types of people. The dominant philosophy would have been social democracy and to a lesser extent stalinism. Physical courage in war by the way is not quite the same as mental rigour.

Now social democracy (Blair Shroeder etc) is not the type of philosophy that has much backbone. And they have proved elsewhere that they capitulate to pressure. Do I have to remind readers about 1933 Germany!

Implicit in what Ted says is that there is no easy way. His outlining of the problems in that regard is a positive, or rather it is negative which can be transformed into its opposite, a positive.

And I believe there IS a way but it necessitates building a new leadership in Israel and in the Diaspora.

When we speak about the Arabs and Israel we really speak about Hajj Amin el Husseini and the Jews attempt to have a nation state in Judea.

When we speak about Israel's right to exist we are really talking about what held the Jews together as a people over 2000 and more years.

I think that is the root of the problem, it explains the rise of an obvious liar and opportunist like Sharon. It explains this new Labour leader Peretz. And so on.

Web sites such as Israpundit are vital, but not enough. We need a new type of leadership.

Every single issue, such as the refugees, or the hostile Arab population in Judea, must be taken and posited against the lessons of history.

I would hazard a guess that this new guy Peretz has possibly either never heard of Hajj Amin or knows only scant details about him.

Finally I would refer to 2 paragraphs above by Bill Narvey as I think they are instructive and in their own way both pinpoint the problem and provide a guide to future perspectives. Bill writes above:

"I can only assume that Israel has been pressured all the way to enter the Oslo and other agreements. Just what would happen if Israel told America and the Palestinians to get stuffed. All that was given is taken back and negotiations begin anew.

Most would say this is unrealistic. I would point out that Middle East events seem to flow from the unexpected and the unimaginable and do have an air of unreality to them. It is time for Israel to unilaterally change realities back to where they were as much as possible and see what happens beyond a lot of angry shouting and ultimatums, etc."

Par 1 is correct but deficient in that it does not explain WHY Israeli leaders allow themselves to be pressured. This has to be traced historically to the origins of the state. I wrote something on this (details later)

Par 2. Use of the word "unrealistic" is important. Bill is afirming my point above. We need a new type of party or leadership, normal and realistic are not the terms I would found it on! A leadership which is based only on the actuality of the Jews struggle down through the centuries and all that that means...now that is the key.

In this regard I do believe that the setting up of the Jewish state in 1948 was a truly revolutionary act.

These issues in another sense are all about our propaganda in the best sense of that word. In the field of ideas and of Israels right to exist we should concede nothing. That is a major issue. Look at the record of the Israeli state here, by reference to the Muhammad el Dura France 2 issue.

As Bill says we should change the agenda. Put it another way as a proud Irishman I think we should set up our band, play our own music, keep playing it and then whoever comes to the dance is their decision. A prerequisite of dance entrance is that they enjoy the music.

11. felix quigley said:

I wrote a number of articles around this issue about 9 months ago. One of them may be relevant

http://www.irelandsupportsisrael.com/defence.html

and also

http://www.irelandsupportsisrael.com/rosa.html

12. Joseph Alexander Norland said:

The problem with Ted's piece begins with the first line. The term "the Arabs on the West Bank" is enemy terminology, it assumes a difference between Israel and the "West bank". In fact, "the West Bank", Israel and the East bank were assigned by the League of Nations as the Jewish National Home, and the corresponding document constitutes part of International law to this day. The fact that the nations have once again robbed the Jewish people, that oil is thicker than blood, and that the New Jayson Blair Times revels in the term "West Bank" does not change the fact that we are talking about Judea and Samaria. This is not an issue of quibbling about semantics; it is a litmus test which differentiates those who accepts propaganda from those who stick to truths.

The problem with Ted's piece then continues with "either citizens of a new state or citizens of an expanded Israel", also on the very first line. As I have explained in "23 reasons" (http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2004/02/23_reasons.php), there is the option of Jewish sovereignty over the entire western portion of the former Palestine, granting the Arabs autonomy only. This accords with the League of Nations document which guarantees the Arabs religious and civil rights, but not political rights.

The problems as I see them are (1) too many among us embrace the enemy's viewpoint, from terminology ("west bank") to solution framework (one state vs two states); (2) Israel is a prime example of the left shutting out truth to the point that even right-thinking people no longer advocate their line with sufficient rigour.

13. felix quigley said:

Exactly

I noticed Ted's use of West Bank as well but decided to come at it from a different point of attack.

I have a lot of sympathy with the Israelis right down the line. We must not forget that the prime factor in all is the issue of antisemitism.

From the time of the Roman expulsions the Jews have been made the collective scapegoat for all of humanity. Now that is something to really grasp.

It follows from that that the ideological battering of Jewish minds is colossal and intense. To withstand that is needed a very special kind of leadership.

I am not advocating Leninism at all, but there was truth in what he referred to as the strength of bourgeois ideology on the working class leadership. It is the analogy that I am seeking.

What kind of leadership then to withstand this hatred of Jews and hatred of Israel?

Well certainly not Sharon a man as pliable as they come. An opportunist. A manouvrer. A trickster. The worst kind of pragmatist (new party). No loyalty. Placing personal career first.

So what kind of leadership for us. I am not sure.

But it must not be cliqish, ie there must be free discussion and here Ted plays a big role in that Israpundit provides vital information knowledge and discussion.

We are what we have been. Cause and effect. A leadership which is based upon our history.

The decision to establish a Jewish state was not a light affair. It had been prepared by a lot of suffering and hopes.

Paul Johnson describes how every year very poor people would turn to Jerusalem, lift their glasses and say next year in Jerusalem.

The Jewish movement won an important section of English Christians to their side and from this came the Balfour Declaration and then the League of Nations Mandate. Later antisemitism inside the British establishment began to rise and linked up with Hajj Amin el Husseini from which developed the PLO.

The point about Josephs 23 Reasons is this. We should not be afraid to be small in numbers but we should stand on principle. One of those is the legality of the Mandate of 1921 and how Britain betrayed that and now how Rice Baker and Bush proceed as if that legality (international) is a mere bagatelle.

We have to show people that Palestinianism is an imposition on the situation, in which the Nazi Kurt Waldheim in the United Nations post 67 played a large role. www.tenc.net has important material on this.

I am for the idea of autonomy for Arabs within the Israeli state. And if any Arabs attack the state of Israel they must be expelled to an Arab country. If any Arab lifts a stone to harm a Jew he or she must be expelled. Members of groups like the Palestine Solidarity or ISM should never be allowed into Israel. Britain must pay reparations to Israel for the theft of Jordan at the hands of Winstone Churchill. The answers to the present are all there in history. Needed a cadre leadership of backbone to fight for same. On the outside in countries like Canada and Ireland we have a big responsibility because we are not under the same unrelenting pressure and danger.

14. Ted Belman said:

To Joseph and Felix

We are in agreement as to facts and law although the position of the Jews as enshrined by the League of Nations hs been eroded somewhat by the GOI over the years. In fact the HCJ in Israel took note of the position of the GOI that Israel held the land in "belligerent occupation" is a case in point.

Even if we are right that Israel has a clear right to sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, we are so far from having that right recognized let alone supported that we must have a plan B.

It is common in litigious matters for parties to compromise their rights because of the difficulty of winning the case.

Israel has every right to come to the conclusion that the cost of "litigating" is not worth the exercise. The "occupation" is viewed as damaging to Israel's interest and Israel is looking for a way to get out from under. For others, the occupation is the lesser evil then foregoing out birthright. The consequences of the latter are far more damaging, they say.

The reason I raised this debate is because I feel that the right has to have a Roadmap of their own. What is their solution? It is not enough to just say "no" or "its ours"..

15. felix quigley said:

What you say may probably be true and I am no lawyer thank goodness. You know the joke about lawyers and estate agents and rats...

You are dead right in the last sentence except for one thing. Somehow we have to junk these expressions left and right. In my book in Israel they have diametrically the opposite meaning than say in classic Marx and Engels time period.

The Left has become Islamofascist. How "Left" is that!

The "right" I say in the faces and activity of the young Jews of Gaza. How right wing (Mussolini) were they!

The point I was trying to make is that on the present road Israel is doomed in any case.

The danger is coming more from inside the Israeli soul. You cannot just DO that in Gaza and not have repercussions. Jew should not expel Jew for any reason and also it had echoes of the Atalena affair and the blame heaped upon Irgun in the Camp David bombing issue.

I think we have to go back to some basic issues. One is the 2 millenia of exile and the yearning towards Jerusalem of really very poor Jews indeed. It held them together. Judaism was political.

The Balfour Declaration emerged out of those struggles. Christians supported Jews at that point because of that simple steadfastness of poor Jewish people.

How many in countries like Ireland would be inspired to support on hearing about Sharons sons land speculation deals.

You know Ted we are not as isolated as we may think. The rise of Islamofascism has put the whole political world in a tizzy. As Sean O'Casey commented in Juno and the Peacock (I think) the world is in a terrible state of chassis!

There are opportunities but we need a cadre. The cadre based upon Jewish history, Jewish wisdom and the latest in humanity's scientific endeavour IS the Roadmap and there is no other.

16. Ted Belman said:

Felix

Amen to that.

17. Michael Wise said:

Many of the above comments are interesting and deserve detailed responses. However, it is important to realize that Israel policy makers must choose between various less than perfect alternatives. Below I attempt to describe an issue that has not been properly explored. It is a clear consequence of any plan that suggests a sovereign Palestinian state on the West Bank (I know that the proper name is Yehudah and Shomron-- by the way for all you sticklers, parts of Yehudah and Shomron are already behind the green Line! If I use the term West Bank, everyone knows what I am talking about!!) The text below was circulated 8 months ago.

The Looming Demographic Catastrophe

see separate post today

18. Standish said:

Dear Ted,

In response, I could claim that you are "full of crap and bias," but this personal insult would not further the dialogue in a useful manner. Is the United Nations General Assembly also full of crap and bias, and do you think this is really the reason for so many resolutions condeming Israel's behavior? Neither is your second comment to the point, that of the relative well-being of Israeli Arabs. A nation with two distict classes of citizenship is aparteid, and all I am saying is that aparteid is unacceptable to all other nations on the planet today. You may not like this situation but there it is.

Respectfully yours,

Standish

19. eotw said:

"Is the United Nations General Assembly also full of crap and bias, and do you think this is really the reason for so many resolutions condeming Israel's behavior?"

Standish:
Dude...like...ah forget it... You MUST be Canadian.

20. felix quigley said:

Standish

The UN is full of bias against Israel and in fact one of its General Secretaries was a Nazi (Kurt Waldheim) and he worked to have the idea of Palestinianism made acceptable. A nazi. Why!

As regards Israeli Arabs.

Israel was set up as a home for the Jews. They had been wandering, persecuted for 2000 years.

It was to be a defence against antisemitism.

According to the Mandate non Jews were to have social and religious rights but not political rights.

Arabs should have autonomy but NO representation in the Knesset. They should have NO power of a political nature in the state.

That is not apartheid. That is a defence against antisemitism.

I am Irish and a non Jew. If I lived in Israel I would insist on 3 things. 1. My religious rights (I have no religion!) 2. My social rights (I expect to be taxed! 3. I would lastly insist on NOT having a vote to the Knesset. I am not a Jew.

Jews are not responsible for antisemitism. Period.

Standish why not address Arab antisemitism, taking in Hajj Amin el Husseini. Have you ever!

21. Standish said:

Dear Felix,

Your statement that, "Arabs should have...NO representation in the Knesset" and
"...NO power of a political nature in the state," is a textbook definition of apartheid. The term means separation, segregation and discrimination. What you want does not change the meaning of words.

Standish

22. Ed D said:

Felix,
In this debate, which I will not add to, you have won hands down. Should you ever wish to become and live as an Israeli, you would be more than welcome. I just wish that the Jews on the left loved Israel the way you do. It is my holy wish that Sharon and co., lose the coming election decicably. He is up to his neck doing the criminal stuff that Omri has done. You say you have no religion, but G-d bless anyway.

23. Ted Belman said:

Standish

Because you replied to make your point in good faith, I decided to reply to you.

"Is the United Nations General Assembly also full of crap and bias, and do you think this is really the reason for so many resolutions condeming Israel's behavior?"

Totally. Much has been written on this enough to fill a book. Read stuff by Bayefsky to get your answer. Or Bedien. Essentially the UN is corrupt and politicized and constantltly demonizes Israel. Since you put them forward as a paragon you are blind to the truth.

"Neither is your second comment to the point, that of the relative well-being of Israeli Arabs."

I did not comment on their "well being". I simply said they have more freedom and more rights then any Arab living in an Arab country. They also have all the same rights. They are far better off then the Arabs in France.

To call Israel an apartied state shows your ignorance or bias. As for the status of the Arabs in the West Bank they have the right to vote in PA elections and the PA runs their territory and is responsible for the rule of law and all other freedoms. So the charge of Aparteid cannot be applied to Israel which has not annexed the West Bank. It is not part of Israel. True that Israel protects itself by checkpoints and control of the border but that is only temporary until a deal is cut or until the Pals stop their violence. Or do you deny Israel the right of Self defense.

I would remind you the UN which you love so much passed Res 242 which authorized Israel to remain in occupation until they have a deal on secure and recognized borders. The Arabs have refused to make such a deal preferring to destroy Israel instead.

"A nation with two distict classes of citizenship is aparteid, and all I am saying is that aparteid is unacceptable to all other nations on the planet today. You may not like this situation but there it is."

As I have said, Israel accords equal rights to all its citizens and Arabs in Israel are citizens. So "aparteid" by your definition still doesn't apply to Israel. But since you are so worked up about Aparteid why not vent your fury on real aparteid states like Saudi Arabia or most other Arabs states that truly have different rights for Muslems and others. What are you going to do about that.

Why not get worked up about all the killing of innocents by Muslims all over the world. That's the greatest denial of equal rights.

But no you will content yourself with fighting and demonizing Israel, the only true democracy in the ME.

24. Leonard said:

I've come to this posting rather late dealing with the question of Two States or One, and enjoyed reading all the above comments most of which I agree with. I will make my submission for its pennies worth. As we know there already exists two Arab States in the original League of Mandate Palestine - Jordan and Gaza. Both countries are Free of Jews (Judenrein). Times have moved on since 1947 when the Arab world refused to accept the UN proposal of partition and tried to destroy the Jewish State at birth. At that time there were 600,000 Jews in Israel. Now there are over 5.5 million. Bush has recognised that you now have to deal with the new facts on the ground - namely the Jewish communities that have grown up behind the Green Line (the old ceasefire line) have grown and thrived.If the Arabs had their way that region would be judenrein too.

Judea & Samaria including the Old city of Jerusalem are the birthplace of the Jewish people and are dotted with the remains of ancient jewish communities that existed two thousand years before the birth of Islam and the Arab conquest.These areas must be non-negotiable. The Palestinian population have no desire to co-exist with Israel but wish to use the territories as a staging post to attack the rest of Israel. Israel can never allow herself to be placed in a position of such vulnerability again where not only millions of arabs claiming to be palestinians can move into the region, but so can foreign arab armies plus the Iranians. The country is simply too small to take such a risk with her survival.

It leaves the question as what to do with the million or so hostile arab residents in the region who have no desire to co-exist, like the Sudeten Germans who were used by the Nazi's to destabilise Czechoslovakia in 1938 which resulted in Nazi domination. Three million of them were expelled after the War so the situation should never recur. Israel should never allow herself to be placed in a situation like the Munich Pact with a settlement imposed from outside that threatens her existence. With Transfer not being an option the Palestinians can be granted some limited autonomy provided they refrain from acts of terror. For all the reasons already argued so well in the above comments -Jerusalem, Judae and Samaria should be non-negotiable.

25. Peter Murphy said:

The creation of Israel was, simply stated, a huge mistake. The region was and always will be Arab and Muslim. Taking one race and transplanting them into the midst of another race, culture and religion by force was pure folly. The British, and later the Americans, have paid the price for this fiasco since the Zionist immigration into "Israel" began. There was some fantasy among Zionist idealogues that the Arab and Muslim popoulation in the region should be treated as if they never existed. Maybe they had a dream that they would all just pack their bags and leave peacefully the way the Jews peacefully marched into the Nazi death ovens. Well, this idea is doomed to failure and the struggle against this notion will never cease to exist. The discussion of a one state or two state solution is just semantics without any practical relevance. Either way, the acceptance of a "Jewish" state which excludes the participation and influence that is inherent to the region cannot be realized.

26. Test said:

Test

27. Leonard said:

It is true that Israel is an Island that exists surrounded by an Arab Ocean.But that is no reason to question her right to exist.The Nazi's did not wish the Jews to exist - and tried to liquidate them in the same way that the Arabs and presently the Iranian regime wish to liquidate the Jews in Israel.That is more reason to fight for the continued existence of the Jewish people. Egypt and Jordan have already established relations with Israel and other moderate Arab countries such as Qatar, Tunisia and Morocco are close to doing so. Israel maintains strong economic ties with Europe and the rest of the World and with our support her future should be secured. Peter Murphy would be better off supporting the only Democracy in the Middle East rather than some of the disyfunctional totalitarian feudal or theocratic regimes that he seems to identify with.