Will Jerusalem settlement freeze thaw relations?

had a real sense of optomism when Obama was elected and a return to the road map but it has reached a place where all the other road maps ended up....in a siding, with Israel calling all the shots...everything has been a sellout and in favour of Israel from the Balfour declaration onwards, the Jewish lobby in the Senate has ensured that only Israel can ride on this road everyone else is down a back alley....

OBAMA BACKED AGAINST A WALL

A wall of Jewish 'support' officers. Can he be unbiased?

NO HE CAN'T.

I fear that Europe & the US are still too compliant to Israeli interests. An 'honest broker' is so far totally absent. Israel is treated like a NATO, NPT, EU member and has been admitted into the OECD despite her refusal to follow international law.

It doesn't help that the BBC makes life easy for Israel: failing to report on the recent Guardian revelations that Israel offered nuclear weapons to apartheid South Africa, that the IDF killed a 75 year old man in Gaza last week, that operation Cast Lead was an act of collective punishment as found by Judge Goldstone (the BBC prefers to tell us that Cast Lead was to stop rocket attacks - the Israeli official line). I don't imagine that the numerous ships taking aid to Gaza will be reported either.

How can the BBC's viewers understand what the BBC is playing at when it refuses to release information on exactly what the Director General and Ariel Sharon spoke about in 2005? Is this why the DEC appeal was not aired on the BBC?

bibi cannot deliver the settler terrorists. any israeli politician who really wants to do something gets attacked.

the passport fakers just play for time while making facts on the ground.

the real battle in israel is for its soul between those who want to extend the discrimination and those who want human rights for all regardless of race creed colour or religion.

"MAKE NO MISTAKE!" (Barack Obama)

Obama is on a power trip funded by money from who-knows-where. He dreams the same dream that Tony did, and as for the truth of it - he will 'think about that tomorrow'.

Make no mistake - SUCH MEN, armed with oratory and charisma, while deeply in dept to powerful forces, ARE DANGEROUS.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

is the israeli internet warfare team and their hasbara handbook methods back?

Not quite sure what all the fuss is about. What is the problem if Jews want to live in Jerusalem. After all Jerusalem is their capital. Has been for 3,000 years. I would'nt want anyone telling me that I can't live here or that I can't live there. That's not fair and it's not even legal. Besides the two folks in the picture don't look scary. The little fella seems pretty cute. Let's stop bothering these folks and start worrying about some real problems.

No "jauntycyclist" just reality. Something you are clearly uncomfortable with. Wots hasbara btw? Is it like northern soul?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Ok - let us please clear a few things up. First, stevie - your comments show absolutely no knowledge of the relationship between the U.S and Israel. firstly the balfour declaration had nothing to do with the U.S - the nitty gritty of the consequences of that is for another time. but again you follow in the long line that spout absolute drivel when it comes to the foreign policy of the U.S in relation to Israel and specifically the Jewish community and lobby. the key to U.S Israeli policy is a long lasting broad based support from the American public at large. Whether it is the Puritans, John Adams, U.S presidents throughout the 19th century, all the way up to Truman (the cabinet divided i might add) - support for an Israeli state, and support for that state has been shaped by the will of the U.S - not the mystical Jewish lobby. Closer inspection shows since 48 each President has looked at Israel in different light - the scope of this is too big for a comment box though. please look at the Gallop polls from 1948 - look at the Gallop polls from 2006. Religious, secular, republican, democrat. There is overwhelming support for Israel not confined to the Jewish quarter which make up less than 2% of the population. the lobby is powerful but they don't shape policy. it is effective, but petitioning the government in favour of a given foreign policy is different from manufacturing it. stop looking for black and white answers - your chatter from coffeehouses in Amman and Damascus does no good here. The U.S must do more - settlement pressure, religious fundamentalism (Christian and Jewish), oversimplification of terror, and more - but don't don't exonerate the U.S government from responsibility - its Wilsonian idealism, i'm afraid, needs to be shattered.

and now the other side of the coin - Friendly_David. Jerusalem must be under shared sovereignty - what happened 3,000 years ago has absolutely no relevance to today's realpolitik. The idea that one faith or nation can have exclusive sovereignty over Jerusalem is politically unrealistic and religiously delinquent. A shared, open Jerusalem for all parties is key to peace - an exclusivist claim by a single party is a guarantor of perpetual conflict. Not quite sure what the fuss is about? Try some objective reading about the conflict.

"Justice4all" except Jews eh?

"justice4all" lol (sorry but the incongruiety of your name and the contents of your post demand a pained snigger)
A totally false and racist narrative."Palestine" a mere roman spiteful geographical abstract, was never a state, and the majority of "palestinians" are very recent immigrants from the Ottoman empire, actually bought into the area in the 19th century to cater for the demand for extra labour after Jewish led improvements and increased building in what was a sparesly populated wasteland, an underinvested - in backwater of the "islamic world" (what a racist concept!)
Many travellers at the time remark on its unpopulated state, and that in fact Jews appeared to be the majority. This certainly goes for Jerusalem and its environs, never having a majority muslim population.
The reactions you describe against anglo arab tyranny, diplomatic betrayal, terrorism and state violence that was inflicted upon the Jews, and their quite justifiable and painfully efficient retaliation was measured, and just. Jews never exported military reprisals to the streets of London, unlike your champions or co religionists.
To put it simply. Israel has been liberated from islamic occupation, its rightful inhabitants having returned. (No ashkenasi bullcrap at this point please)
If you actually know history, you would know that the british government renaged on its pledges in 1922, and the infamous white paper of 1939 condemned hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of Jews to death. "Palestinian" sympathy to the nazi perversion is a matter of historical record, from its earliest days.
Israel is vibrant, strong, has the 15th largest economy ion the world, and really doesnt need the measly 3 billion dollars a year in fixed US "aid" (none of this is actual money, merely American kit that Israel could make much better) this is only 7% of the total Israeli economy.
Did you know that?
Sounds like someone has sold you a narrative pup mate.

The situation in Jerusalem is our business. The discrimination, apartheid and oppression inflicted on the Palestinian people affects us all. It is the great injustice that underpins much of the terrorism in the world today. Yet the western governments, the press, and media are so in fear of the powerful pro-Israeli lobby that no-one speaks out. Israel is a rogue nation with illegal nuclear weapons, that ignores international law and UN resolutions. The majority of the people under the control of the Israeli state (the Palestinians). have no stake in the government that controls every aspect of their life (the Israeli government). They are citizens of no state. Their homes are destroyed to make way for settlements from which they are excluded. They are routinely refused planning consents for their own constructions. Their land is grabbed. They are walled into ghettos (called security barriers) They are being ethnically cleansed by stealth. They are murdered by extra-judicial assassinations. They are often murdered by settlers. The IDF, and settlers seem immune from prosecution. Israel (which is more than just the Jews) was reminded on more than one occasion that they should not afflict or oppress the stranger that was within their gates because they too were strangers in Egypt. The appalling treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli state and by some settlers has no place in Jewish, Christian or Islamic religions. The Western nations stand condemned for their silence.

I support the right of Jews to live in Jerusalem and anywhere in Palestine as a whole. But not as overlords. Rather as fellow citizens with the Palestinians. The immigration of Jews should be linked to the return of refugees. The no settlement should be exclusively Jewish. Land should be bought not expropriated. Ownership of land taken from the displaced refugees and the Palestinians who remain should be returned and / or subject to significant compensation. Law and justice should be evenly applied. If this means that the Israeli state is dismantled in favor of a more inclusive political structure then so be it. The idea of a religious state is something of the past. The nasty religious apartheid that now exists should have no place in a modern world.

Piggykosher has rightly raised the affliction of the Jewish people by the Nazis. The Jews were castigated as traitors, terrorists and enemies of the state. They had their land and property taken, they had to have passes to move about, they were moved inside walled ghettos, they were murdered with impunity, they were declared non-citizens .....
Can we see any parallels with the Palestinian people today?
It is so disappointing to the world that a people who were once so afflicted and oppressed have now become the oppressors.
There is a great deal of sentiment and sympathy for the Jewish people that is being squandered

Will Jerusalem settlement freeze thaw relations?

No.

The settlement freeze means nothing. Everyone even the US says building on occupied land is illegal. Everyone even the US recognise the East Jerusalem should be the capital of a Palestinian state.

That is everyone except the Israeli's.

The Israeli's are saying that they will temporarily halt an illegal activity in return for the Palestinians giving something in return.

This is the equivalent of a thief asking to be given something while they are not stealing.

PiggyKosher - Israel was founded in 1948 by terrorists, it's democracy is based on the forcible removal of palestinians from their homes and land, it is guilty of human rights violations and war crimes. Fortunately the Israelis have a powerful lobby groups in the US & UK & EU which allows them to get away with it.

I agree with manchester me, even the BBC has now been censored by Israeli pressure, on what it can report and how it can report it.

Tim Gould - again, really, you're being very selective in the truth. the situation in Palestine underpins much of the terrorism in the world today? you really think that? the world trade centre was bombed as Rabin was working out negotiations with the PLO at Oslo, and during the run up with negotiations with al=Asad and Syria; bin Ladin sent al-Qaeda to Florida to train to be a suicide pilot while Camp David was taking place. Terror effects the U.S because it is seen as an instructive, expansionist, autocratic supporting state, not because Palestine. Much of the terror towards the U.S, specifically from al-Qaeda and related militants was in reaction to troops in Saudi Arabia - this was U.S ties and defense to an Arab state not a Jewish state! also - your theory holds no water to the anti-Western terror in Algeria and the Philippines, or the bombings in Bali, London or Madrid.

Again, Tim - you're just wrong about the lobby. As i mentioned above, your chatter is like that of the coffeehouse in Amman and Damascus - it is of no help. perhaps you've been reading mearsheimer and walt's book a bit to much and forgot your reality check. policy must be debated - Israel, Iraq, Iran - of course. but it must be grounded in reality, not by demolishing all rationale. if the Israel lobby wasn't advocating policies that the majority of Americans found congenial then it wouldn't make any headway. As much the as Christian right has huge influence, it doesn't explain the wide moderate support, or the democrat support for Israel. America are reminded of themselves in Israel. Just look at the Gallop and PEW polls and surveys of the general population. take 9/11 - before the attacks 41% were favourable towards Israel, 13% Palestine. after 9/11 U.S support had risen to 55% and Palestinian fallen to 7%. ...., and i could go on. there is no conspiracy here. there is a lobby - but it hasn't duped the entire U.S population, and it certainly hasn't got hegemony over the pillars of power in Washington. If something must be done - it is the power of lobbies via congress - but that's a matter for campaign finance reform etc...(and effects all lobbies), not this wanna-be intellectual scholarship.

Also, Tim - i do not condone Israeli violence (although much of what you talk about is media fabrication and context riddled), but nowhere do you mention the terror that Israel face. If we're going to be sensible about this then both sides must refrain. Israel face terror from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, other Palestinian rejectionist groups, Hezbollah, and an increasingly powerful and hate-rhetoric spouting Iran. I'm not sure their violence and suicide bombing has any place in any religion either. If you want to at least try and contribute to balanced discussion on the the conflict, and hope for a solution, you must appreciate both sides of the coin even if you don't agree.

Also, the West stands silent? Again, over simplification - there is nothing that separates opinion between the U.S and Europe in international relations as much as this conflict. the fact the EU have proved fragmented ineffective is besides the point (again its scope beyond a BBC comment box), but to lump 'the west' in together is just more shoddy drivel that serves absolutely no purpose in debates of such important matters.

RIGHT - AS IN 'GOD-GIVEN'? (#15)

Blind belief is a terrible curse on the Ape Confused by Language. 'Consider the Apes of The Africas - they kneel not, neither do they pray'.

By natural law, one might reasonably argue that the American Indigene has at least as much right to America as the Jews have to Palestine, or any part thereof. There are so many displaced groups (some by force of Great British Might) who want to go back 'home'. It is only Jewish PR (being a cut above the average) and a stubbornness that passeth all understanding, that makes their case stronger.

As I understand it, the Australian Aborigines had no concept of land ownership - originally.

Oh - it's all going awfully well.

Mr Urban you have been reporting and commenting on world events for years and many a time I have wanted to put ‘pen-to-paper’ regarding your coverage but this is the first time that I dare. In dealing with the Levant and the current status of the conflict between the Arab and the Jew one has to be very careful how to lay-out ones stall. In selecting Silwan to attempt (in your own words) “to drill down to the key issues - people around the world struggling for peace and security” shows that you do not live-up to your own motto. You chose Silwan as an expose on the issues relating to Jewish settlement but failed to explain the historical background and its context. I find your terminology “For some years though Jews have been expanding their toehold in the neighbourhood” offensive and taken out of context. I hope your blog will afford me the space to put this to right and through the microcosm of Silwan provide a decent backgrounder to the current problems in the Levant.

Silwan is, in 2010, a neighborhood adjacent to the Old City of Jerusalem, extending south-east along the Kidron Valley. The arabic name (سلوان‎) is derived from the ancient Greek name Siloam which in itself is derived from the more ancient Hebrew Shiloah. Ancient geography and archaeology place this area as the outlet of the Gihon Spring feeding the Pool of Siloam opposite the City of David and once part of King Solomon's Royal Gardens. In ancient times the residential area of Jerusalem extended south of the Temple Mount. Its most famous archeological feature is the rock hewn underground tunnel ordered by King Hezekia (II Kings xx 20) which brings water into Jerusalem and this work is referred to in (also II Chron. xxxii. 30) an ancient Hebrew plaque inscription discovered in 1882 and removed to a Turkish museum in Constantinople. So, without a doubt the ancient historical setting is Jewish as much as the name of the place is Jewish.

Let us turn to more recent times. Ayn Silwan (the biblical Gihon Spring) and the arab village of Silwan (Old Silwan) are registered in Ottoman tax records but its population at most run to some many 10s of families. There was a documented peasants revolt here in 1834 against Ibrahim Pasha and numerous descriptions and illustrations produced by 19th century travellers show the numbers of Arab inhabitants was minimal. Documented urban growth of Old Silwan did not occur until 1882 when a group of Jews arrived from Yemen and settled there on land purchased for that purpose. Initially, they lived in tents but later, when the rainy season began, they temporarily moved into the ancient burial caves on the east side of the valley. In 1884, the Jews then moved into new stone houses constructed for them on the eastern slope of the Kidron, north of the Arab village of Old Silwan, and built for them by a charity called Ezrat Niddahim. Construction costs were kept low by using the spring as a water source instead of digging cisterns. An 1891 photo (“Documents of the Dream, Pioneer Jewish photographers in the Land of Israel, 1890–1933,” Vivienne Silver-Brody, Magnes Press, JPS, Philadelphia,1988, p. 40) shows the homes on an otherwise vacant stretch of hillside. An early 20th century travel guide (Cook's Handbook for Palestine and Syria , Thomas Cook Ltd., 1907, p. 105) writes: In the “village of Silwan , east of Kidron … some of the fellah dwellings [are] old sepulchers hewn in the rocks. During late years a great extension of the village southward has sprung up, owing to the settlement here of a colony of poor Jews from Yemen, etc. many of whom have built homes on the steep hillside just above and east of Bir Eyyub.” However, these legitimate Jewish residents were not afforded the protection of the British Mandate and fled for their lives from Silwan during the 1936-39 Arab revolt and Arabs moved into the vacated buildings. Silwan was then annexed by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (itself 80% of the British Mandate area) after it attacked the nascent Jewish state in 1948 and remained under Jordanian occupation until 1967, when Israel recaptured the Old City of Jerusalem after another Arab attack.

So we now see, in the tweny-first century, that modern Silwan has grown northward towards the Old City of Jerusalem, expanding from the original small farming village into an urban neighborhood which encompasses Old Silwan (generally to the south), the Yemenite village (to the north), and the once-vacant land between. Today modern Silwan follows the ridge of the southern peak of the Mount of Olives to the east of the Kidron Valley, from the ridge west of the Ophel up to the southern wall of the Temple Mount of the Old City of Jerusalem.

Mr Urban, if one was looking for facts to explain the problem of “Jewish Settlements” and the “Occupied Territories” one could not have chosen better than Silwan. As you can see from the above synopsis : from ancient times Silwan was Jewish; there was always a Jewish presence and settlement in the sub-region and for over half-a-millenia (and probably prior to this) Jews were the majority of the population of Jerusalem untill 1948 when the Hashemite Kingdom attacked; from the Middle Ages to the 19th century Old Silwan was also occupied by a small number of peasant Arab farmers; the Jews started expanding their settlment (“Old Yishuv”), before the British Manadate, with bona fide purchases in Silwan and elsewhere; the League of Nations Britrish Mandate was pro-Arab and failed to protect the Jewish inhabitants which fled Silwan and the British Mandate also gave 80% of the Mandated territory to the Arab Hashemites (not actually local Arabs to this area) and also encouraged Arab migrant labour from other areas in the Near- and Middle- East whilst limiting Jewish migration; the Arab Hashemites (whose Arab Legion army was British officered) attacked the nascent Jewish state and took Silwan in 1948 and allowed Arabs to possess Jewish owned property including those in Silwan; in 1967 when the massed regional Arab armies attacked the Jewish state they (including the Hashemites) were defeated and since then the Jewish state of Israel has been hamstrung by international do-gooders in resolving unauthorised Arab occupation of Silwan and elsewhere and former documented Jewish owners of land and property have no redress! From a documented small and insignificant Arab village there is now a large urban sprawl of former migrant Arab workers who claim “Palestinian” rights!

So, “the key issues - people around the world struggling for peace and security” is and always will be, in the case of Silwan, is a secure state for the Jews in their ancient homeland, nothing more and nothing less. The “biggest obstacle to progress” is the current old Imperial pipe-dream of Arab hegemony in the Levant (at the expense of ancient and inalienable Jewish rights of residence) and Islam/Arab unwillingness to recognise the Jewish state’s right to exist.

Giraffe_Knees - Were the German occupiers of France faced with terrorism or were they faced with resistance? Is Israel faced with terrorism or resistance?

Even in the US there is a recognition in the constitution of the right of the people to bear arms so that they can protect themselves against evil oppression. Had you been born a Palestinian you would at least have been throwing stones.

Do you think that Palestinians should be able to live in Israel / Palestine as equal citizens, with equal rights with the Jewish people?

Do the Palestinians have to be driven out or be kept as underdogs?

Are they to be confined in ghettos behind walls?

Should they be confined into unsustainable homelands as attempted in the apartheid South Africa?

From Northern Ireland we learned that no political solution or peace was possible until some of the perceived injustices felt by the Catholic community were tackled.

Media fabrication? - I think not. There is a very pro-Israeli bias in the media. Ask the UN regarding its conclusions. Independant evidence and reports show again and again that Israel lies. It lied about the phosphorous, it lies about murders (until occasionally caught on video footage), it lied about the passports. The illegal settlements exist. The refugees exist. Israel ignores UN mandates and breaks accords.

And yes there are many fundamentalist Christians, particularly in the US, who in their dogma seem to think that God loves the Jews more than he loves the Palestinians. That mindset has allowed many right wing Christians to support Israeli occupation and oppression. And there are many Jews and Christians who forget that the Jews (or Judah) are only one of 12 of the tribes of Israel and that even the Palestinians and Arabs consider Abraham to be their father. When Jesus (to Christians the messiah, to Jews a prophet, and to Islamic people, a Teacher) was asked who is my neighbor he gave the story of the Good Samaritan - someone from a people hated by the Jews of the time.

And yes, I think the leaders of the west including Europe are largely silent about Israeli actions and policies. They might make token complaints but where are the sanctions? We reluctantly sent a minimal message when we expelled a diplomat over some passports but the passports took on greater importance than the extra-judicial assassination.

We appear apply double standards in Palestine and the middle east. We invade Iraq because it attacks its neighbors, oppresses its own people, abuses human rights and might have had weapons of mass destruction yet Israel is our esteemed ally. Many Islamic people see this and perceive a great injustice against their Islamic brothers. Most commentators recognise this perceived injustice as one of the things that underpins and gives justification to Islamic terrorism. Part of our strategy in dealing with international terrorism has to be to diffuse this sentiment.

I wasn't around to speak out against slavery or to fight against Nazi-ism but the Israeli oppression is the great injustice of our age. I have no agenda other than to speak out against an injustice. I wonder where you are coming from.

HarryO - In apartheid South Africa - the claim against the majority black population was that they were immigrant workers. In Nazi Germany similar accusations were used against the Jewish population of Europe and carefully selected history (propaganda)was used to justify their expulsion or resettlement into homelands elsewhere. It is an argument that was used to put Jews into Ghettos. Can you not see what you are doing?

If you want to go back far enough, the term Palestinian has its origins in the term "Philistines" who were in the land long before Israel arrived.

Would you move the Palestinians out? Can those who were driven out return.

There is space for both people but it has to be on an equal footing. Not one in which one community are subjects and the other are the overlords.

I am fairly new to 'Post a comment' in fact above you will find my first ever! I am, however, not new to the arguments raised about the Levant and what should be called 'the continuing Arab-Israel conflict.'

Let me take some of the points or "issues" raised in other comments and give my slant:

1. STEVIE "had a real sense of optomism when Obama was elected" up until then claiming "everything has been a sellout and in favour of Israel." If, however, STEVIE would look at all the administrations he will know that Israel has not always had an easy "ride"!

2. BARRIESINGLETON worries if the President of the USA can be "unbiased" but fails to realise that even when Israel, in the past, has been pushed to make real concessions by previous administrations the Arab leadership has failed to deliver!

3. MANCHESTERME of manchester raises the cannard that Israel refuses to "to follow international law" and laughably, showing extreme prejudice, that the "BBC makes life easy for Israel." Any near-East watcher will say that the BBC has and continues to present consistently more pro-Arab views.

4. JAUNTYCYCLIST rather fetchingly and wrongly calls the issue a "battle in israel is for its soul between those who want to extend the discrimination and those who want human rights for all regardless of race creed colour or religion." Wowww, JAUNTYCYCLIST, here in Israel - the only true democracy in the Middle East - the 'argument' is between how we aim to survive in the long-term. Not human rights, not race, not creed, not colour and not religion. Look to Israel's neighbours for any of those arguments.

5. BARRIESINGLETON believes President Obama is "deeply in debt to powerful forces." Who ? Inuendo ? Which lobbyist or group ?

6. PIGGYKOSHER be fair, the Arab world and Islamists are made-up of people who really want to make peace with Israel and the Jews.

11. But GIRAFFE_KNEES knows best, clearing-up historical knowledge and goes on to state "but don't don't exonerate the U.S government from responsibility - its Wilsonian idealism, i'm afraid, needs to be shattered." But, GIRAFFE_KNEES, if the vast majority of citizens in the USA are believing Christians they understand their bible and relationship between Jew and the Holy Land. That is where you and I differ. What happened all those years ago has absolutely everything to do with today's realpolitik. Try some really objective reading about conflict resolution! It is all about setting-out your stall clearly and concisely and homing in on the key issues.

I cannot comment on JUSTICE4ALL it is off-line.

14. 15. 16. TIM GOULD wants everyone to know that Israel is a "rogue nation" but Israel threatens no one and only defends itself. That "(the Palestinians) have no stake in the government" but I presume they did under Hashemite or Egyptian rule and Israel can also be blamed that they failed to take-up citizenship in the Hashemite Kingdom which comprises of 80% of the Mandate area. They should be rightly citizens of that state and live there. Their homes are NOT destroyed to make way for Jewish homes and they are welcome to work and shop in Jewish areas - whilst Jews are scared for their own lives in going to Arab areas. Yes, our Arab neighbours are routinely refused planning consents just as their Jewish neighbours are. Any land is only expropriated by the Government, as in any civilised country, through legal means which they Arab and Jew are oft to challenge in the Supreme Court of Israel. Yes, there are security barriers and most Jews pray for the day they are removed because we desire to live in peace and not be murdered. The Arabs are only being ethnically cleansed by their own administration(s) and murdered by extra-judicial assassinations by Arab terrorist groups who disagree between themselves. Jews are often injured and murdered by Arab terrorists and not vice versa. No one in Israel is immune from prosecution. And, it is the Western nations who stand condemned for their Imperial past and their need, in the Levant and elsewhere, to divide-and-rule!

Yes, Jews have the right to live anywhere and have a particular historic right to rule Israel completely and utterly. Questions on prior ownership both for Jew and Gentile needs to be treated judicially. There is no alternative "inclusive political structure" the British decided that when Britain gave 80% of their Mandate to the Arabs and did everything in their power politically and militarily to create a failure of the Zionist enterprise. No "nasty religious apartheid" exists in Israel, unless you do not refer to Israel but to a Sunni Kingdom which does not allow other Religious buildings to be erected.

Finally, there are absolutely no "parallels" with the treatment of the 'Palestinian people' and the holocaust. The Nazis saught the destruction of Jews and Jewish civilization worldwide. Israel wants to live in peace in secure borders.

17. AGB what land is "occupied" and by whom? If the 'Palestinians' are truly a nation please say when Jerusalem was ever its capital city. The 'Palestinians' cannot "give" anything to Israel because they are the metaphorical thieves who are trying to steal what is not theirs. They Arabs have tried robbery with violence in the past and now they are the thieves.

AGM, come on now, Israel was founded by the United Nations and the Arab nations surrounding it, in 1948, tried their best and failed to whipe it off the face of the map. The Arab legacy continues to be aimed at robbery with violence or thievery whichever takes their fancy. The problem the old Imperial powers face (as well as the new erstwhile World leadership) is that oil and petro-dollars still talk loud and strong. Thank G-d the Jewish people can finally stand-up for themselves.

Tim, deeply disappointed by your tired and somewhat grotesque use of the term "apartheid". As I have asked on other related sites when this slander is used..Give me a full explaination of how the Jewish State (I use the term deliberately, after all it is the only on the planet) is "apartheid", and how islamic states, for instance Saudi Arabia, and Iran, are not.
Why did the arab states reject all offers of compromise before 1948, and why did they begin an all out, illegal and literally genocidal war against the new state?
HarryO and Giraffeknees; very informative posts.

So Tim, you are basically in favour of the destruction of the Jewish state. Can you grasp that Judaism isnt C of E? There is slightly more to it than that. Its a cultural and ethnographic, shared history, and more. Yet you choose only to see a tiny part of the whole. Do you want the same multi culti disaster to befall the Jewish state as has happened here? I am deliberately picking the least sinister outcome for your "solution" though it would be far, far worse than that in outcome, in reality.

AGB. The 1948 war was a genocidal illegal war begun by the Arabs. It rages to this day. The Arab illegal war mongering doomed their "cause" from then, to this minute.
10% of the entire Jewish population (including many non combetant women and children) were massacred, not by erring "smart weapons" but with the club and bayonet, especially when Kibbutzim were overrun.
Did not Cairo, Amman, Damascous broadcast that arabs must leave their homes, so that "the Jews can be slaughtered like cattle" by the "victourious arab armies" ? The ethnic cleansing was a failed arab attempt at genocide. Palestinian arab "refugees" were created by their own fears, their leaders hubris and incompetence, and a lingering usage of palestinian "refugees" as pawns. LOL, sorry but...there were 1,000,000 Jewish refugees, created by the arab "worlds" concerted racism in 1948-50. Who in the west advocates for them?? Where is their "right of return"?? Are they still in "refugee camps in the Negev??
Your agitprop cant is indigestable, and grostesquely one sided.

Tim Gould. Explain to me how Israeli nuclear forces are "illegal"?
Also please dont try to find clumsy analogies between the murderous genocidal plight of the pre Israel era Jews of Europe and the current Palestinian issue. It wont wash.
You seem to be in denial over the anti -semitism that is hard wired into islamic writings, and the koran, which naturally has a strong bearing on contemporary islamic society. Islam cannot live in peace as a minority religion. Just look around the world today.
This has had a massive impact on the "arab Israeli" conflict.
The UN is dominated by the islamic bloc, yet you somehow imagine this corrupt, undemocratic, deeply vile club of (mostly) despotic and contemptable failed states to be "an honest broker" in anything, especially the Jewish people??

OBAMA COSTING (#23)

Can't tell you Harry. But when a chap of modest means suddenly takes on a flash lifestyle, the money has come from somewhere. That 'somewhere' want's something back from Obama IS speculation.

HARRYO - i appreciate your comments - i am too new (first time!) to the BBC comment box, and usually try to keep away from these things (for obvious reasons), but it is refreshing to have a more balanced mind among the above. Just to clear something up, the point i was trying to make about the Wilson idealism wasn't from the government perspective - more from those who challenge foreign policy on the ground of kowtowing to the Jewish community. These people would far prefer to look to a mystical lobby because it is a useful illusion. Pro-Israelis in the U.S like to think they have political clout; other U.S politicians on the Hill like the idea of deflecting criticism to a bogey lobby; Those in Israel are relieved in the knowledge of its perceived influence; Arab states find U.S policy easier to swallow by looking to Lobby influence; and general criticism home and abroad to U.S FP looks better on paper to blame a scapegoat. The arguement would be more convincing if the lobby was altering the course of policy to which the U.S have held to since WW2 - protect its interests. It isn't - you just need to look at U.S behaviour in the last 50 years, especially in Latin America (Contra war anyone?), to understand this. Convenient more than convincing - but this is usually enough to feed into those who want simple answers to complicated problems (a lot like some of the people posting here).

Tim Gould - your comparison to Nazi Germany (and comparing the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah to French resistance fighters? you need a reality check, sir!), Apartheid South Africa and Norther Ireland struggle to the Arab-Israel conflict is hilarious as much as dangerous. To make such comparisons shows poor understand of each and would get shot down by most experts and scholars of any of the conflicts above. i also find the idea that there is a pro-Israel bias in media equally hilarious! do you spend much time reading European news? Just look at the German and French press, especially Le Monde for a taste of the overtly anti-ISRAEL (not pro-Israel as you suggest) press that is rife on the continent - some of it is dangerously close to verging on anti-Semitism. I don't use that word lightly.
Finally - "I wonder where you are coming from." I find this deeply offensive and insulting but not surprising. What exactly are you suggesting? I have made no rash remarks or played on rumours - only facts that you have overlooked and failed to appreciate. A settlement to this conflict is the most pressing matter of internationally relations - i haven't spent the last 4 years of my life reading about it to have someone insinuate that i don't want balanced, fair, and comprehensive peace. Tim, i can only suggest you do some balanced reading of your own on the conflict - Kirsten Schulze from LSE has a brilliant yet short textbook that outlines the origins until roughly 2006. Perhaps after this you will understand that a solution isn't as black and white as you think.

9

yes i see the hasbara boys are out in force today. look up hasbara handbook and the Global Language Dictionary written by the well known to NN Republican marketer, Frank Luntz for The Israel Project and compare post 23 with the stock answers and tactics they suggest. one of things they suggest is to pretend not to be an experienced poster as if they 'just happened by'.

if anyone wants a chat with Foreign Affairs expert Mark Regev about hasbara his details [among many others] are here.

http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH/b.3265577/k.8C04/Helpful_Links.htm

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

PiggyKosher - How do you think the Israeli/Palestinian conflict can be or should be resolved?

Hold that thought. im just going to have me dinner first.

1/ Jordan must accept responsibilty for the West Bank, as it was before the early 90s. That was a cynical political ploy by the Hashemite kingdom, which population wise, is already "Palestine" in all but name.
2/ A federation of Israel, Palestine/Jordan. Each state having its own distinct culture accepted by the other(s) Flags, anthems etc to be retained.
4/ A common army, with a setup similar to nato.
3/ A common currency. The area could be a technological, intellectual and cultural powerhouse, dwarfing the empty petrol dollar sham of "Saudi Arabia"
5/ Limited right of return to Palestinian "refugees" but that will not undermine the integrity of the Jewish state. These returnees will have to swear an oath of loyalty and non hostility to the state.
6/Full right of return for the 1,000000 Jewish refugees from the "Arab world"if they so wish as this will not effect arab demographics.
7/Full compensation, fiscal and material for Jewish property and businesses and assets seized by the arab states in the 40s and 50s.
8/Compensation for Palestinians, paid for by the EU and Suadi Arabia. They can spend their money on something worthwhile for once, instead of virtual funding of a hopeless armed "struggle" that just pisses off the Israelis.
9/ Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel. Amman to be the capital of Palestine/Jordan.
10/ This entity to have a permanent seat on the security council.

And of course a full apology and material compensation from the Arab states that launched the illegal genocidal war of May 1948.

Any war crimes carried out by the British officered "arab legion" to be fully investigated. Suspects to be arraigned in Jerusalem for trial. This obviously includes any culpable British officers.

Jordan can never accept responsibility for the West Bank; nor would the Arab community allow it; nor is it even a remotely sensible option. Would Jordan also accept responsibility for the Gaza Strip in your plan?

why is it not a remotely sensible option

The gs would be administered by Egypt

34. At 9:26pm on 28 May 2010, piggykosher wrote:

Nice solution piggykosher well thought through :-), what on earth did you have for dinner :-)

So we have a common area with two or more seperate states, where one state has responsibilty for another state but the other one doesn't. They have a common army that is controlled by I assume two or more states. Full right of return for one group of people but not for the other group, and an unnamed entity to have a seat on the security council.

You should send your plan to the parties involved, it looks like you have found the perfect solution :-)

its good innit

piggykosher - i am now bowing out of this 'conversation' because if you don't see the inherent problems with your plan (which is often used by unequivocally delusional Israel supporters in the Jewish state in the U.S), then there is little point in continuing this.

Bye

the arabs should be made aware that actions have consequences.
I dont play the stupid game of imagining this all started in 1967. It didnt.
The proper point to begin the narrative is may 1948. More precisely the 24 hours after Israel was recognised as an independent state by the UN, and the arab states launched a genocidal and illegal war.
That must be addressed above all. Taken from that context, instead of the absurd timeline that seems to think 1967 is somehow more significant, all makes sense. The palestinian "refugee" problem is a self inflicted issue stemming from that illegal genocidal attack, as are the subsequent territorial issues.
If the world doesnt grasp that blinding reality, well.
The arabs have not been punished for this murderous aggression, and it blocks any meaningful reference to it.
So its about time any "deal" took this reality fully into account.

g k its a basis for discussion. If the concept of a people having to account for their actions horrifies you that much, then well..
It seems its fine when its only one side has to do the accounting, and make all the sacrifices, both in territory and security. Umm?

piggykosher - If according to you, there was never a state/country called Palestine, then Israel is obviously in the wrong place because the first line of the Balfour Declaration (1922) says "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and ...etc" (courtesy of Wikipedia)
On a different note, has anyone compared the ratio of Israeli civilians that have died compared to the number of Palestinian civilians, or maybe just those below the age of 18, or females or....any civilian deaths ?
A quick search on google will show you that there is shocking difference in the ratio's, and that really is the answer to those that insist Israel is only defending itself, obviously complete rubbish.

Piggykosher - Your blinkered vision astounds me...1948 - So, basically, The UN has the right to give parts of a country away to a 3rd party based on their history ?
What gives the UN or the US or the British that right ?
What a load of tosh

Your ignorance astounds me also. Can you not grasp that there WAS NEVER a sovereign state called "palestine"? The last sovereign state in that territory was called Israel, which was destroyed after Roman invasion and attempts at ethnic cleansing.
It was a territory, ceded to the "British empire" after ww1
The UN and its hypocritical cant after 1948, there lies the "tosh"

sliml you use wikipedia. Enough said.
as to your brilliant research, your point? It names a territory called "palestine" a colonial convienience and shorthand. Where does it say "THE STATE" of palestine?
Please enlighten me.

So you are not aware of the several thousand Jews murdered by palestinian homicide bombers, etc?
Does the Israeli army detonate bus bombs in ramallah or whereever the hell? No. Does palestinian terrorist factions use human shields, create weapons stockpiles and combat posts in schools and places of worship? Yes.

oh dang, your ignorance and arrogance brought me back! Piggy says "I dont play the stupid game of imagining this all started in 1967. It didnt.
The proper point to begin the narrative is may 1948." what he doesn't appreciate is that 'all this' didn't start in 1948 either. it has its roots in the 19th century with Moses Hess, Theodor Herzel, the first Zionist congress, the surges of immigration from 1892 - 1903, the second Zionist congress that confirmed Palestine as home, the break between the Ottomans and the Arabs, the rise of Arab nationalism, Jewish immigration and settlements till 1914 (30,000 to Palestine), the formation of the Jewish agency in 1923, the next surge of immigration from 32-39 (200,000), the chaotic British policy from 1918 - 48, the Arab Revolt of 36, the rise of the Haganah and Irgun who not only terrorised the Palestinians but the British too, fascism in Europe... the list goes on. too much history not enough geography. this didn't start in 1948 - don't be so naive.

the rest of your comment is just a rambling of words that don't really pull together to make any serious or fact based opinion. it is, quite frankly, embarrassing. you say, "If the world doesnt grasp that blinding reality", like you're a master of domestic and foreign policy analysis when you're really someone with skewed views, too much time and a keyboard. Ciao!

Giraffe knees. Ive been patient with you.
What exaxctly is your point? Apart from a gratuitious and ineffective attempt at insult?
So far you have made no point. If you want a merry jaunt through the 19th and early 20th century, fine. Im pointing out that the timeline starts further back than 1967, which far too many seem to be fixated on.
So, once again, your point?

JAUNTYCYCLIST as we say here 'shavua tov' (good week). Your Item 30, I had to google "hasbara boys" and came upon www.hasbara.com. No, JAUNTYCYCLIST, I am not one of "them," the language is my own, your inuendo is typical of a 'Doublethink-purveyor' seeking to pursuade the public not just to say the opposite what they think but to think the opposite of what is tangibly obvious. George Orwell, wrote about you in 'Negative Utopia' of 1984 - subtle forms of brainwashing by inuendo; postulates becoming infallible doctrine; downplaying, deriding and denigrating facts, denying resonance and portraying ones own viewpoint as the reality and the majority's article of faith. I have never heard of the "Global Language Dictionary" and unlike yourself I am really a blog virgin who, at 55-years old, decided it was high time (this is my agenda) to respond (at Item 20) to a respected journalists blog by arguing that he (Mark Urban) should have presented facts as a backgrounder. If you, JAUNTYCYCLIST, want to have a go at me please stick to my presentation of the facts - do not haughtily posture something that the public (and readership) cannot measure by any yardstick for objective validity.
By the way, I know Mark Regev (but not that well) and actually grew up with him but in the last 35-years he is no more than a nodding acquaintance. Why,on earth, should anyone do what you suggest and want to try to chat with a spokesman if the Prime Ministers' Office? What has his contact details got to do with my presentation of facts and my arguments against ideological transmutations (at Item 23 above)?
Who am I? www.hasbara.com (from their website) is said to provide a means "to assist efforts to explain Israeli life from the vantage point of the average Israeli citizen." I am your average Israeli citizen who has not been trained by www.hasbara.com! I am an expat listener/reader of BBC who finally decided that I knew enough about a subject and that I could make a valid contribution. Who are you JAUNTYCYCLIST? What is your agenda (as far as a Silwan expose is concerned) JAUNTYCYCLIST?

50. At 6:30pm on 29 May 2010, piggykosher wrote:

So you are not aware of the several thousand Jews murdered by palestinian homicide bombers, etc?

Does the Israeli army detonate bus bombs in ramallah or whereever the hell? No.

But the Israeli army does bomb shoot innocent civilians, deliberately target civilian infrastructure, shoot and kill peacful protesters, use phosphur bombs in civilian areas. The Israeli government builds on occupied land that, has implemented racist and apartheid policies against the palestinians.

Does palestinian terrorist factions use human shields, create weapons stockpiles and combat posts in schools and places of worship? Yes.

Does the Israeli army round up civilians and then shell them yes.

Is the Israeli army guilty of war crimes yes. Read the Goldstone report.

Here is a list of bombings carried out by the jewish irgun terrorist group

1937, March 2 Arabs killed on Bat-Yam beach. [11]
1937, November 14 10 Arabs killed by Irgun units launching attacks around Jerusalem, ("Black Sunday") [12][13]
1938, April 12 2 Arabs and 2 British policemen were killed by a bomb in a train in Haifa. [13]
1938, April 17 1 Arab was killed by a bomb detonated in a cafe in Haifa [13]
1938, May 17 1 Arab policeman was killed in an attack on a bus in the Jerusalem-Hebron road. [13]
1938, May 24 3 Arabs were shot and killed in Haifa. [13]
1938, June 23 2 Arabs were killed near Tel-Aviv. [13]
1938, June 26 7 Arabs were killed by a bomb in Jaffa. [13]
1938, June 27 1 Arab was killed in the yard of a hospital in Haifa. [13]
1938, June (late) Unspecified number of Arabs killed by a bomb that was thrown into a crowded Arab market place in Jerusalem. [14]
1938, July 5 7 Arabs were killed in several shooting attacks in Tel-Aviv. [13]
1938, July 5 3 Arabs were killed by a bomb detonated in a bus in Jerusalem. [13]
1938, July 5 1 Arab was killed in another attack in Jerusalem. [13]
1938, July 6 18 Arabs and 5 Jews were killed by two simultaneous bombs in the Arab melon market in Haifa. [13][15]
1938, July 8 4 Arabs were killed by a bomb in Jerusalem. [13]
1938, July 16 10 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jerusalem. [13]
1938, July 25 43 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Haifa. [13][16]
1938, August 26 24 Arabs were killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Jaffa. [13]
1938, February 27 33 Arabs were killed in multiple attacks, incl. 24 by bomb in Arab market in Suk Quarter of Haifa and 4 by bomb in Arab vegetable market in Jerusalem. [17]
1939, May 29 5 Arabs were killed by a mine detonated at the Rex cinema in Jerusalem. [13]
1939, May 29 5 Arabs were shot and killed during a raid on the village of Biyar 'Adas. [13]
1939, June 2 5 Arabs were killed by a bomb at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem. [13][18]
1939, June 12 1 British bomb expert trying to defuse the bombs killed, during a post office in Jerusalem was bombing [13]
1939, June 16 6 Arabs were killed in several attacks in Jerusalem. [13]
1939, June 19 20 Arabs were killed by explosives mounted on a donkey at a marketplace in Haifa. [13][19]
1939, June 29 13 Arabs were killed in several shooting attacks around Jaffa during a one-hour period. [13][20]
1939, June 30 1 Arab was killed at a marketplace in Jerusalem. [13]
1939, June 30 2 Arabs were shot and killed in Lifta. [13]
1939, July 3 1 Arab was killed by a bomb at a marketplace in Haifa. [13][21]
1939, July 4 2 Arabs were killed in two attacks in Jerusalem. [13]
1939, July 20 1 Arab was killed at a train station in Jaffa. [13]
1939, July 20 6 Arabs were killed in several attacks in Tel-Aviv. [13]
1939, July 20 3 Arabs were killed in Rehovot. [13]
1939, August 27 2 British officers were killed by a mine in Jerusalem. [13]
1944, September 27 Unknown number of casualties, around 150 Irgun members attacked four British police stations [22]
1944, September 29 1 Senior British police officer of the Criminal Intelligence Department assassinated in Jerusalem. [22]
1945, December 27 7 British policemen killed during the bombing of British Intelligence offices in Jerusalem; 1 British soldier killed during attack of British army camp in north Tel Aviv [23]
1946, July 22 91 people were killed at King David Hotel Bombing mostly civilians, most ... staff of the hotel or Secretariat,
41 Palestinian Arabs, 15-28 British citizens, 17 Palestinian Jews, 2 Armenians, 1 Russian, 1 Greek and 1 Egyptian. [24][25]
1946, October 30 2 British guards killed during Gunfire and explosion at Jerusalem Railway Station. [26]
1946, October 31 Bombing of the British Embassy in Rome. Nearly half the building was destroyed and 3 people were injured. [27]
1947, January 12 4 killed in bombing of British headquarters. [28]
1947, March 1 17 British officers killed, during raid and explosion. [29]
1947, March 12 1 British soldier killed during the attack on Schneller Camp. [29]
1947, July 29 2 kidnapped British sergeants hanged. [30]
1947, September 26 4 British policemen killed in Irgun bank robbery. [28]
1947, September 29 13 killed, 53 wounded in attack on British police station. [28]
1947, December 11 13 killed in attack on Tireh, near Haifa [31]
1947, December 12 20 killed, 5 wounded by barrel bomb at Damascus Gate. [32]
1947, December 13 6 killed, 25 wounded by bombs outside Alhambra Cinema. [33]
1947, December 13 5 killed, 47 wounded by two bombs at Damascus Gate. [33]
1947, December 13 7 killed, 10 seriously injured in attack on Yehudieh. [33]
1947, December 16(ca) 10 killed by bomb at Noga Cinema in Jaffa. [34]
1947, December 20 6 Arabs killed, dozens wounded by bomb at Haifa refinery, precipitating the Haifa oil refinery massacre. [35]
1947, December 29 14 Arabs killed by bomb in Jerusalem. [28][36]
1948, January 1 2 Arabs killed and 9 injured by shooting attack on cafe in Jaffa. [37]
1948, January 5 14 Arabs killed and 19 injured by truck bomb outside the 3-storey 'Serrani', Jaffa's built Ottoman Town Hall [38]
1948, January 7 20 Arabs killed by bomb at Jaffa Gate. [39][40]
1948, February 10 7 Arabs killed near Ras el Ain after selling cows in Tel Aviv [41]
1948, April 9-April 11 107-120 Palestinians killed and massacred (the estimate generally accepted by scholars, instead the first announced number of 254) during and after the battle at the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem, by 132 Irgun and 60 Lehi fighters. [42][43][44][45][46]
Between 1937-1948 During 11 years of attacks, Hundreds of Palestinian civilians, over 20 British officers and over 20 Jewish civilians were killed in total by the Irgun

PiggyKosher the original question was

Will Jerusalem settlement freeze thaw relations?

What was your answer to this question?

Following on from my Item 23 can I comment on other posts realting to Mark Urban's aricle on Silwan.

At Item 18 GIRAFFE_KNEES comments on TIM GOULD's earlier postulation that "the great injustice" to the Arab Palestinians "underpins much of the terrorism in the world today." Rubbish TIM GOULD this is an unproven hypothesis and my 'best bet is' that even if the State of Israel did not exist there would still be terrorism.

Poor TIM GOULD who at Item 19 gets slammed by BARRIESINGLETON for what he said at Item 15 that he supports "the right of Jews to live in Jerusalem and anywhere in Palestine as a whole." BARRIESINGLETON thinks this is a "Blind belief" and goes off on a Doublethink tangent (see my Item 53). BARRIESINGLETON we are not talking about what you call "natural law" and definitely do not "reasonably argue" over parrallels that do not exist. It is an unreasoned somewhat anti-semitic jibe to say "It is only Jewish PR (being a cut above the average) and a stubbornness that passeth all understanding, that makes their case stronger." And for good measure you introduce "Australian Aborigines"! Why? The issue here is Jewish Settlement, Jewish Sovereignity and its effect on the population of the Near East. The 'Settlement' and 'Sovereignity' pre-date anything that you, BARRIESINGLETON (or your forefathers), can lay claim to. The Jew is physically and spiritually connected to the Holy Land more so than any other race and can prove a reasoned factual continuum demographically since ancient times.

In 21 TIM GOULD had a go at GIRAFFE-KNEES in a paroxysm over resistance or terrorism. I do not know where TIM GOULD lives but I am sure that he could probably define and excuse tens of thousands of his countrymen being killed and wounded! Wake-up TIM GOULD if it were only a matter of the Arab wanting, as you say, "equal rights"! The Arab wants to destroy the State of Israel and the Jewish people? European ghettos, apartheid South Africa and Northern Ireland are not coming close to being relevant as you would aver! Inuendo prevails - TIM GOULD says: there is little pro-Israel bias globally (facts please, the reverse is true); Israeli politicians lie, but no more or no less than their counterparts elsewhere; and, the definition of 'illegal' should be challenged on a case-by-case basis and it is often so challenged in Israel's Supreme Court by Jew and Gentile alike. Your illogical tirade then goes on to encompass the "fundamentalist Christians" and their 'beliefs' (please substantiate, again inuendo)and then TIM GOULD the hypothesises about creating new 'Jewish races' to compete! Worst still TIM GOULD tries to promote the fiction that "Israeli oppression is the great injustice of our age" claiming "I have no agenda other than to speak out against an injustice." Come-on, again the issue here is Jewish Sovereignity and Jewish Settlement and TIM GOULD fails to address either of these issues by arguing intangibles. I really do wonder where he is "coming from"?

TIM GOULD, furthermore, at Item 22 (before my synopsis at Item 23) takes a stab at my review of Silwan (at Item 20) to try and draw further Orwelian Doubletalk directed at the State of Israel (and Jews) by creating unsubstantiated parrallels to apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany in the sickest of ways. TIM GOULD then comes up with, what he thinks is a brilliant but not very original idea, that the 'Palestinians' are connected to the ancient 'Philistines.' Finally stating "There is space for both people but it has to be on an equal footing." The State of Israel is a democracy TIM GOULD (some would say the only one in the Middle East) that survives and prospers despite (or is it inspite) of your (and others) invective. Those who would destroy it cannot be treated as equals they are treated as the enemy. The world knows how to treat with the enemy - crush it and then impose a peace! This is something that Israel never did and some would say all the more is the pitty!

No because the question is wrong. Jerusalem is always an excuse for Palestinian non cooperation under the guise of outrage. The West Bank economy is booming, in no small part down to investment, often from Israel. Like the 2nd outbreak of violence and terrorism in 2000-1 its Jerusalem that is used with immense cynicism by the PA.
Its no barometer of anything IMO

The GOLDSTONE REPORT?
LOL at least you have a sense of fun.

The violence was originated by the Arabs, so facile lists are pointless.
I could create a far grimmer list than that from Arab outrages of the time, but I wont oppress the reader further.
1928, the Hebron massacre, over 100 Jewish elderly murdered, women and children, mostly by the blade.
Can you find me ANY EXAMPLE of Jewish self defence which predates this?
Can you not grasp the reason for Jewish defence, after this and following murders, committed by Arab forces, aided sadly sometimes by the "impartial" British occupiers?

PIGGYKOSHER goes on to fight his own corner until Item 28 when BARRIESINGLETON speculates further where President Obama gets all his money from! So?

By Item 32 AGB poses an interesting question to PIGGYKOSHER "How do you think the Israeli/Palestinian conflict can be or should be resolved?" If he wanted my answer, in the context of Mark Urban's report on Silwan, by direct negotiations by elected leaders (not by world opinion makers through proximity talks). PIGGYKOSHER's response Items 34-36 is unwarranted and, I am sorry to say, lends nothing to the debate. Chaps, please let us not get destracted from Jewish Sovereignty and Jewish Settlement. AGB's response to PIGGYKOSHER at Item 40 unravels all this.

46 and 47 is where SLIML joins in the PIGGYKOSHER bashing. SLIML, what has the Balfour declaration got to do with the argument? "Palestine" and the League of Nations Mandate was born out of the ambitions of the Imperialist Britain and their promises to the Imperialist French, the Arabs and to the Zionists as set forth in the Balfour declaration. The Sykes Picot Agreement and the McMahon Correspondence is equally of importance. The background to the Mandate is discussed extensively by David Fromkin, "A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East," 1990 (Owl books, 2001) and also by Michael J. Cohen, "The Origins and Evolution of the Arab-Zionist Conflict," 1987. Cohen wrote: "..But once the United States abdicated any further role in the new European order after the summer of 1919, it was left to Britain and France to divide the Middle East between them. It cannot be said that either power displayed any great altruism when it came to deciding whether the indigenous peoples of the area were mature enough to be granted their independence. In April 1920, in the small Italian town of San Remo, Britain and France divide the Middle East into mandates while the American ambassador read his newspaper in the garden. Britain obtained Palestine and Iraq; the French acquired Syria." So, in 1920, following the defeat of the Turks, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the peace conferences after World War I, the British Mandate for Palestine was created by the League of Nations. The Mandate was international recognition for the stated purpose of "establishing in Palestine a national home for the Jewish people."

The geographic facts that underly this are as follows:
The Mandate was originally 118,000 square kilometers (about 45,000 square miles). In 1921, Britain took the 91,000 square kilometers of the Palestine Mandate east of the Jordan River and created Trans-Jordan (later in 1946 the Hashemite Kingdom) as a new Arab protectorate. Jews were barred by law from living or owning property east of the Jordan river, even though that land was over three-fourths of the original Mandate. In 1923, Britain ceded the Golan Heights (another 1,176 square kilometers of the Palestine Mandate) to the French Mandate of Syria and Jews were also barred from living there. Jewish settlers on the Golan Heights were forced to abandon their homes and relocate inside the western area of the British Mandate. There is land on the Golan Heights and land on the east bank (Trans-Jordan) of the Jordan that was purchased and owned by Jews and Jewish Institutions pre-dating the Mandate. So, in 1923, the total remaining area of the Mandate for Palestine, after these land deductions, was just under 26,000 square kilometers (about 10,000 square miles). Within this area the southern part of the Mandate, the desert of the Negev, was also closed to Jewish settlement and left to approximately 15,000 roaming Bedouins. The balance of the Mandate, the inhabited part of Palestine, and only the part west of the Jordan, was just 14,000 square kilometers. Jewish immigration was limited by the British, especially after the periods of Arab riots and severely restricted after 1939. At the same time, Arab immigration was not restricted or even recorded. By 1948, when the State of Israel was founded, 1.8 million people lived the western area of the Mandate, estimated to be 600,000 Jews and 1.2 million Arabs. Following the war between the Jews and the Arabs in 1948, the inhabited areas of the 14,000 square kilometers were divided along cease-fire lines between Israel and Jordan/Egypt. 8,000 square kilometers, or 57% of the reduced area (which is only 6.7% of the original Mandate territory), became Israel. The rest of the area of western Palestine, 5,700 square kilometers of historic Judea and Samaria, was annexed by the Hashemite Kingdom (to Trans-Jordan)and renamed the West Bank; while 360 square kilometers were occupied by Egypt and called the Gaza Strip.

So, SLIML, what was the British Mandate by the League of Nations? The preamble to the League of Nations document that establishes the British Mandate for the territory states the purposes as follows:
"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty [the Balfour Declaration], and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

Article 6 further states:
"The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

The facts are that the British government failed in its specific purpose of facilitating Jewish immigration, settlement, and the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" although the Mandate had the clear intent was to go forward with the Zionist program of Jewish immigration and settlement. Any early optimism that this could be done with justice for all was destroyed by Arab hostility, increasing anti-Jewish violence and ultimately the British reneged on their obligations and adopted a largely pro-Arab approach to policies in the Mandate territory.

SLIML do you now know what the boundaries were of the Mandate?
SLIML do you now understand what the Mandate was?
SLIML do you now realise that the British Government of the day failed in its Mandate?

One last thing, SLIML, the only wars that the State of Israel has ever fought were defensive and your alternative aggressors bodycount has no relevance whatsoever. I repeat what I said earlier. It is a pitty that the world did not allow Israel to impose a peace on their defeated enemies - something applied elsewhere in the realpolitik.

AGB, what is your source for this oddly detailed information? Or am I talking to a professional propagandist?

AGB. I would appreciate a list of Arab outrages in the same period, or does your "sources" only list one side? I wonder, if that be the case, what manner of "source" you could be using?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Well, I left off my comments on SLIML at Item 47. And although PIGGYKOSHER argues on, I would in that context concentrate only on the facts relating to Jewish Sovereignty and Jewish Settlement that Mark Urban has tried to report on.

So at Items 48 & 49 (and the Ottoman Empire) and specifically the Mandate area, it was never officially referred to as 'Palestine.' The Mandate area fell partly The Vilayet of Syria (Damascus) (Arabic: ولاية الشام) and partly in The Mutesarrifiyyet of Jerusalem (Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف). Even earlier administrative areas never referred to a 'Palestine.'

PIGGYKOSHER then goes off,at Item 50, on a tangent and starts a bodycount and bad-mouths the poor Palestinian civilians (who the world now thinks are the under-dogs) and I am just waiting for the invective and tirade in response.

GIRAFFE_KNEES at Item 51 continues his Orwelian posts tries to find a modern milestone for Jewish Sovereignty and Jewish Settlement and unfortunately fails! Then PIGGYKOSHER (at Item 52) verbally retaliates calling GIRAFFE_KNEES earlier post "gratuitious and [an] ineffective attempt at insult?" Please GIRAFFE-KNEES can you try to understand that Jewish Sovereignty and Jewish Settlement is ancient, really ancient. Any argument that there was no effective governance by Jews for two millenia does not mean that they did not live in the Holy Land. The Holy Land and the Levant has always been the batlleground of world powers (both large and small) for the crossroads of Europe, Asia and Africa. Throughout, Jews have survived and prospered (in various degrees) on this land and those Jews who never managed to live on the land have always remained connected to that land and their Jewish bretheren who resided in the Holy Land. This is fact, supported by documentation.

The Item 54 post, by AGB, responding to PIGGYKOSHER (at Item 50) raises the distortions of the Goldstone report as evidence of Jewish/Israeli wrong-doing. AGB goes on to claim Israel has "implemented racist and apartheid policies" but cannot actually quote an Israeli Government policy document even if he tried. The reality, here in Israel, is the opposite - at every stage the Supreme Court in Israel is kept busy protecting human rights (some would say at the expense of defence policies). AGB then goues on to list Irgun "bombings," no AGB, the source you have used calls it "List of Irgun attacks 1937-1948." Who were the Irgun in the context of Jewish Sovereignty and Jewish Settlement? The Irgun was an underground armed organization formed by a Jewish group, in the aftermath of the Arab Riots of 1929, out of feelings that the Haganah (the Jewish civil defence organisation operated by the Histadrut) was not adequately defending Jewish interests. The Irgun was a fringe organisation that carried out sometimes brutal attacks in their defence of what they thought was best Jewish interests. AGB, why did you not use the "List of massacres committed prior to the 1948 Arab–Israeli war in Mandate Palestine" from the same internet resource? AGB are you being selectively anti-Jewish?

At Item 55 AGB finally returns to the question "Will Jerusalem settlement freeze thaw relations?" and demands an answer of PIGGYKOSHER. My answer to AGB is no. The issue of settlements and a settlement freeze is a 'red-herring' and is part of the irredentist demands by a shady Arab tyranny which continues to be the aggressor trying by brazen absolutism to steal what is and was patently never theirs to begin with. The question is what will bring about long-lasting peace? The world, and AGB, expects the Jews/Israel to deviate from precedent. Treaties are usually only signed with either friendly powers or defeated enemies (who dread their adversaries might) neither of which applies.

The term "Palestine" is much used to try to define a geo-political area in the ongoing Arab-Israel conflict and derived from this there is a term "Palestinian" which also tries to define a group claiming or aspiring to be homogeneous. I hve tried to show here that this is a very recent invention and that no State of "Palestine" has ever existed.
Early, in August 1949, when the peace talks in Lausanne failed, the Palestine Conciliation Commission (PCC), established by the British following Israel's 1948 War of Independence "in order to help work out a peaceful settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict," was set-up. Throughout the 1950s, the PCC tried its best to deal with the key issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict, however the commission did not achieve any of its goals and the organization "ceased to function in 1962" although it did established, on 23 August 1949, the Economic Survey Mission headed by Gordon R. Clapp, which formed the basis of the establishment of the special United Nations operation UNRWA.
Meanwhile, the aggressor Arab states banned the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) which was the central political organ of the Arab community of Mandate Palestine. The AHC was established on 25 April 1936, on the initiative of Hajj Amin al-Husayni, the mufti of Jerusalem, and comprised the leaders of Palestinian Arab clans under the mufti's chairmanship. The Committee was formed after the start of the 1936-39 Arab revolt. On 15 May, the Committee called for nonpayment of taxes, for a general strike of Arab workers and businesses, and demanded an end to Jewish immigration. The committee was banned by the British Mandate administration in September 1937.
A committee of the same name, the AHC, was reconstituted by the Arab League in 1945, but went into abayence after it proved ineffective during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The AHC was banned by Jordan in 1948, and sidestepped by Egypt and the Arab League with the formation of the All-Palestine Government in 1948.
The All-Palestine Government (APG) was established by the Arab League on 22 September 1948, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. However, shortly after its establishment an Arab-Palestinian Congress (APC) named King Abdullah I of (the Hashemite Kingdom) Transjordan, "King of Arab Palestine". The APC called for the union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan and Abdullah announced his intention to annex the West Bank.
The other Arab League members opposed Abdullah's plan and the APG was regarded as the first attempt to establish an independent Palestinian state. Though jurisdiction of the APG was declared by the Arab League to cover the whole of the former British Mandate of Palestine, at no time did its effective jurisdiction extend beyond the Gaza Strip, with the State of Israel flourishing and the West Bank being annexed by the Hashemite Kingdom, the APG relied entirely on the Egyptian government for funding, and on UNRWA to relieve the plight of the refugees in the Gaza Strip. The APG soon moved to Cairo where it gradually fell apart because of its impotence, ending up four years later as a department of the Arab League. It was finally dissolved in 1959, by decree of Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt. The Arab League at the Cairo Summit 1964 initiated the creation of an organization (the PLO) representing displaced Arab peoples from the Mandate area and to give them a definition. However, other groups then and now continue to jockey for such leadership.
This then is the modern historic basis of the claim for a geo-political area called 'Palestine.'
One needs to go back to 132 CE when the Emperor Hadrian changed the name of the Roman province from Iudaea (Judea) to Syria Palaestina and also renamed Jerusalem "Aelia Capitolina."
Byzantine (eastern) rule followed with Emperor Constantine I converting to Christianity around 330 CE made Christianity the official religion of Palaestina. After his mother Empress Helena identified the spot she believed to be where Christ was crucified, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was built in Jerusalem. The Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and the Church of the Ascension in Jerusalem were also built during Constantine's reign. This was the period of its greatest prosperity in classical antiquity. Urbanization increased, large new areas were put under cultivation, monasteries proliferated, synagogues were restored, and the population West of the Jordan may have reached as many as one million.
In 351-352, the Jewish population revolted against Byzantine rule in Tiberias and other parts of the Galilee and were brutally suppressed.
In approximately 390 CE, Palaestina was further organised into three units: Palaestina Prima, Secunda, and Tertia (First, Second, and Third Palestine), part of the Diocese of the East.
Byzantine administration of Palaestina was temporarily suspended during the Persian occupation of 614–28, and then permanently after the Muslims arrived in 634 CE, defeating the empire's forces decisively at the Battle of Yarmouk in 636 CE. Jerusalem capitulated in 638 CE and Caesarea between 640 CE and 642 CE. Under the Muslims it became part of ash-Sham (Arabic for Greater Syria).
So the basis of any claim to a geo-political area called Palestine is based on Roman/Byzantine provincial names over one and a half millenia ago or more recent non-entities!

piggykosher - my point is that peace won't be made over a bbc comment box like this, especially with Israel biased views that hold no weight in the arena that is conflict resolution, or simple 'peace for peace' rhetoric that is more at home in likud than in the face of needed compromise. it is ultimately futile. what do i think? first there needs to a be strong return to the Syrian track. negotiations in 94/95 at Wye and then 99/2000 at Shepardstown have laid the groundwork for a relatively swift agreement. of course that depends on several other factors. 1) Bashar al-Assad must have consolidated power in Syria. he has had 10 years now - lets hope he's made some progress. I'm not sure how much longer the Syria population can continue to have reform struck off. If done right Bashar could allow Syria to become the heartbeat of the Arab community (thus keep legitimacy etc). 2) there needs to be an Israeli government willing to return the Golan to the 67 lines including the Sea of Galilee - not the 1923 line. This is the final sticking point - we already know there are agreements on security and early warning systems. 3) more trust needs to be built between both parties and this will need to happen before 1) and 2). with Syria comes Lebanon and then the Gulf states - and finally the Palestinians. of course there is the arguement that such an atmosphere would push the PLO into compromise - but there is also the argument that Israel, now feeling safer than it ever has, would be willing to make more concessions to the Palestinians. such progress would allow for the marginalisation of Iraqi insurgent influence in Syria, as well as isolate Iran. It would allow for the birth of some form of common market ala Peres which would allow real development in the new Palestine (not just aid driven prosperity in the West Bank like post Oslo), and would also cement a relationship from Israel down to the Gulf. of course a stable, unified, sensible, void of corruption and cronyism, Palestinian entity needs to emerge, and we need a sensible, willing, dovish hawk rabin style Israeli government to put the pieces together. The end result is two states, borders redraw to allow the continuation of major Jewish settlements, a shared Jerusalem, limited right of return with reparations, etc etc. perhaps this is verging on being far too positive - but positivity has been severely lacking for over a decade.

HARRYO - i'm afraid when it comes to much more ancient history on the Holy Land i am lacking. i do appreciate the clout that modern settlers have though - it would be correct to say the state of Israel was born through pioneering settlers and so it is hard to for religious and secular to not give a degree of support to those living in, and building settlements now. the last 'old guard', if you will. settlements will continue as long as the above is still perceived; the Israeli election system of two votes allows the Orthodox (what, 4th biggest in the Knesset?) and other religiously motivated parties to have a dis-proportional amount of political clout; those settlers in question, especially the more militant, show they are reading to fight for the land (whether it is the settlements or the crudely built highways in between); and the settlements are seen by religious and secular as fitting somewhere into the bracket of national security. I would have to disagree over their importance though - especially as they were a major sticking point over the progression of talks at Camp David.

HARRYO - while i have to agree that treaties are sometimes 'only' signed between friendly powers or defeated enemies, this isn't always the case. See Egypt in 78/79. Even Kissinger in 73 realised the October War wasn't a 'war' - it was a reminder that peace was necessary - it was to push both parties together through disengagement for the purpose of a later agreement. Sadat realised the road to getting the Sinai back was through the U.S, not the USSR, and the road to the U.S went through Israel. For peace can also happen with strategic necessity and realisation. Of course you could then argue that that only produces a cold peace - but i fear the scope of that goes back this comment box for just now! But either way, from this we can take that a deal with Syria isn't impossible. If we were to add 'strategic necessity and realisation' to your list list of reasons for peace and treaty, then it certainly does ally to our current situation. ...But again, of course i might just be playing devils advocate here and you don't need to go far to get the arguement that 'strategic necessity and realisation' also points Syria to continued rejectionism, isolation, support for Iran and other rejectionist groups. C'est la vie.

Im glad HarryO is contributing much to the debate, and giraffeknees also.
Ok it may be OT, but I have just been attempting to make some general points about certain dates, events, that the parties have enshrined.
Thats pretty obvious though.
My "peace plan" was meant to be taken to broaden the discussion somewhat, and a rather arch response to a question upthread.
Gk, I get back to my point. Confidence building measures are sorely needed from the Arab side at the moment. Who can negotiate with an party who still allows poisonous propaganda in their media, schools. etc?
This should be structured into any peace plan, so it is monitored and acted on if it is extreme. It causes angst and uncertainty, so, how can any Israeli government negotiate with good heart yet?
All my point has ever been is than the Arab side should begin to behave far more responsibly in its actions.
Peace for peace and mutual recognition first. No more land for uncertainty.
Gk your post is highly interesting.

I agree that confidence is much to do with the tone of the arguement and posture, just as much as substance. the words leaders speak and the manner they employ has a huge impact of the substance of positions adopted - this is very true. The Arab use of Nazi imagery or parallels to depict Israeli practices against the Palestinians - these only promote sensitive and negative reaction. But equally valid is the tone of the Israeli government. For example - take Rabin and Netanyahu; both held similar policies towards settlements in the occupied territories (the surge in settlement building post Oslo in 93 was a surprise and is often not accounted for!) - but Rabin is widely not associated with 'land creep'. Netanyahu's aggressive, arrogant, and very colonial manner in which he expresses his policies has led to declining trust between both parties. it was a factor that caused the slow down and eventual end to the Oslo agreement in the late 90s, and it is having a similar effect now. Indeed, it is hard for both sides to negotiate with a good heart.

Gk I agree with much that you say. However I would date the collapse of trust and the virtual disappearance of "Peace Now" and other movements in the Israeli body politic, to the so called second intafada, and the unprecedented wave of terrorist attacks that came in its wake.
Even Abbas was reported in the Jerusalem Post a few days back, as believing that the second intifada was a disaster.

Well GIRAFFE_KNEES (at item 66):
Thank you for picking up my point on conflict resolution. Unfortunately you kick-off with the wrong tack - Syria. Israel has had peace (without a treaty) and a flourishing commercial border with Syria (without formal relations) despite the fact that Syria needs Israel as an adversary more than anything else to prop-up their own regime. Until Syria leaves the Iranian axis of terror and actually sues for peace with Israel it is in neither countries best interest to pursue a meaningful peace precisely because it could never be meaningful. It is also dejeune for GIRAFFE_KNEES to believe that peace with Syria would cement a relationship from Israel down to the Gulf - and it would never be "stable, unified, sensible, void of corruption and cronyism." Why? Syria is a Baathist regime representing a degenerate form of Pan-Arabism that at the best of times could not develop friendly neighbourly relations with either Iraq or (in its time) Egypt when these other countries espoused to hold to similar doctrines.
GIRAFFE_KNEES you cannot hope to comment proficiently without understanding the Jewish Pschye from its very ancient history and its timeline to the modern era. Jews may have been subjugated in the Holyland and dispersed to the four corners of the earth but they always maintained daily their emotional and spiritual connection with the Holy Land and those Jews who lived there! Modern pioneering settlement is only the tip of a very large iceberg. I do not know where you get your theory that elections here (in Israel) are based on "two votes" I only have one. What allows "the Orthodox and other religiously motivated parties to have a dis-proportional amount of political clout" has nothing to do with what you perjoratively term "those settlers" it has to do with the vast proportion of Jews in Israel who are not religious but are traditional trusting the Orthodox leadership to represent them more than non-religious shades of politicians who are the 'fat-cats' and even 'fatter-cats' who have let them down time and time again. So, again, GIRAFFE_KNEES, .... wrong .... religious politicians really understand and believe in the Jews' right to the Holyland.

GIRAFFE_KNEES, yes treaties are 'only' signed between friendly powers or defeated enemies. Egypt's and Jordanian's leadership realised after the 1973 debacle that they were the Arab League patsies in the Yom Kippur war to destroy Israel. That war went well initially for Syria and Egypt (and the IDF now says that they were making provisions for Tel Aviv to be over-run) but the tide turned as the IDF was knocking on the door to Cairo and Damascus. These peace treaties, although effected sometime after the event were effected because these Arab countries had everything to gain and nothing to lose. Vraiment, c'est la vie.

Finally, I am please from my comments on your Item 51 you have not thought it possible to reply and what with my comments here you may understand better the Jewish psyche and its attachment to the Holyland.

Now try, GIRAFFE-KNEES to focus on the microcosm of Silwan presented by Mark Urban in his Blog and in the on-line programme. Read my backgrounder at Item 20 and yes my other presentations of the very valid Jewish views which are based on facts as I see and read them. I would be very interested in hearing your views (translated into your own local context, wherever you live) of what you would do (1) with 50,000 mainly belligerent squatters in your backyard who (2)have been brough-up on a diet of hateful propoganda and who (3) are told by their leadership to destroy you and yours, when you have (4) already lost 80% of the country that was promised to you under international agreements by the highest authority in the world! Yes GIRAFFE_KNEES I live in this reality! What would your response be? How cosey do you feel now?

HARRYO - note my 'perhaps i'm being too optimistic tone' at the end of the Syrian section. I am perhaps being too optimistic. Anyway - my "stable, unified, sensible, void of corruption and cronyism" statement was in reference to a Palestinian entity - nothing to do with Syria. I was getting at that a collapsed almost civil war Palestinian entity isn't a good negotiating partner. Your comments on Syria hold little regard to the negotiations at Wye and Shepardstown - specifically the latter. Committees on security, boundaries, normalisation and water were tacked - it was an Israeli leak that showed Hafiz had agreed on normalisation and security that scuppered the whole thing. Hafiz and Syria had been humiliated because it looked as if Israel had achieved normalisation without territorial concessions - especially as the boundary committee hadn't even met. If you look at the memoirs of Clinton, as well as the comments by Dennis Ross post Shepardtown, both went into detail about Syrian flexibility and Israel not responding in kind. The figure usually quoted is they were 80% towards a deal. This was probably the best chance for an accord especially as once Hafiz died Bashar was initially (and to an extent continued to be) ineffective, weak, has provided safe haven for Iraqi Baathist and increased rhetorical support for Iran.
But Syria no longer realistically holds the Pan-Arab torch. Perhaps when the more radical Ba'thists were in power - but that ideal has only been used as a rally point with little substance. Hafiz was a pragmatic realist. Of course no Syrian leader could gain credibility for a foreign policy that didn't cement their role in defending the 'Arab cause', and that is why they were the bastion of the war to liberate the Palestinians in the late 60s - that only brought them the loss of the Golan. Since then the struggle with Israel has had a specific territorial dimension - the recovery of the Golan - not a battle for unrealistic national aspirations of 'pan Arabism.' There was, and is no real Ba'thist ideology in the regime - but Asad used it to make unpopular decisions justifying them in the long term struggle of a 'Greater Syria' against a 'Greater Israel'. This has only been compounded by the treaties in 79, 93, and 94 - which has demolished any meaningful pan-Arab rhetoric.
Syria and the Iranian axis of terror - this is a relationship of pragmatism - Syrian sponsorship is not motivated by ideology which means it is more amenable to outside pressure. It is clear that Syria have used resources, regardless of ideology - Gulf states, USSR, Iran, etc - for strategic depth and financing. With Iran, it may be no substitute to the powerhouse of Egypt, but its fierce anti-Zionism is valuable for the balance of power. All this comes back to regaining the Golan and the Sea of Galilee - Syria have much to gain from this. The international community need to show they have everything to lose from not.
Syrian peace is unlikely to resume as long as an Israeli government is more concerned with political survival, the Syrians benefit more from an alliance with Iran and Hezbollah - remaining a serious player instead of a marginalised state which could be an outcome of an accord - , and there is huge mistrust between post parties; Syria remain disgruntled at the apparent Rabin promise in 94/95, Israeli anger of alliance with Iran. But that doesn't mean it isn't impossible - entrenched position, bad motives, poor timing and psychological obstacles can be overcome.., and surely will have to be if violence is no longer going to be the only leverage.

Re: the Israeli vote. Correct me if i'm wrong but you vote for a candidate and a party with 'lists'? this structure of government and voting system gives influence to smaller parties to form coalition governments. In 2003 11 of the 120 members of the Knesset were settlers - that is 9% of the parliament when they represent 3% of the population. With less than 5% of the population living in settlements, and roughly only 25% of those considered religious settlers and ideologically committed - this is definitely a disproportionate amount of influence ! - and surely this is why it was only the likes of Sharon that had the necessary credentials to removed settlements in 2005.
To your last point ('already lost 80% of the country that was promised to you under international agreements', etc). I appreciate all these comments - and i have nothing to add. but you do fail to mention anything from the Palestinian population perspective. Since 1993 and Oslo many have been under the impression they were finally getting their own state (although not technically implied in Oslo, 'final status negotiations' gave the impression) - but even after a decade of fighting and blood shed they only had a measly 3% of the WB and then Gaza. Even at Wye in 98 with the additional proposed 13%, Netanyahu suspended all planned redeployment! And throughout the 90s the increased settlement building in the light of the commitments at Oslo and Oslo II was a mockery of the peace process. Palestinians also saw Arafat being used a an Israeli security guard - Israel had relived itself of administration and governance of the Palestinians but also retained full control of settlements and the Israelis living there. There has been a lot of 'process', but not a lot of 'peace'.
Finally, you live in the reality - i live in the cosy UK where it is easy for me to criticise - i am also still relatively new to studying the area. If my maths are correct you are also 33 years older than me. Let me get back to you in 33 years time and tell you what i think then. I will also endeavor to further understand of the Jewish psyche and its attachment to the Holyland.

GIRAFFE_KNEES your Item 71
The Arab ('Palestinian') "entity" will never, in my opinion, be "stable, unified, sensible, void of corruption and cronyism." Why? They, as a group, have relied on international hand-outs (trillions of US dollars) for over six-decades. Much of the basics, including education, health and local services is provided by international agencies (very little self-help) and scamming the system has become a way of life. That same "entity" is not in fact a distinct and separate existence - it is factionalised, in its early days clan-based and now made up of organized criminal groups which have loose association but do not share a common organizational structure or code of conduct.
Regarding Syria, it is ruled be the Alawites, which represent no more than 20% of the Syrian population, and take their name from ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib, cousin and son-in-law of Muḥammad, who was the first Shi'a Imam. In more modern times the Alawites were ill treated by the Ottoman Empire and they resisted an attempt to convert them to Sunni Islam. They revolted against the Ottomans on several occasions, and maintained virtual autonomy in their mountains. Today, in Syria, the Alawis predominate among the top military and intelligence offices, and although they also hold major positoons in the civilian administration and national economic groups they share these with Sunni Syrians who represent about 70% of Syria's population. Dissent is crushed, read-up about the well known Hama massacre which occurred in February 1982, when the Syrian army bombarded the town of Hama in order to quell a revolt by the Muslim Brotherhood. An estimated 7,000 to 40,000 people were killed, including about 1,000 soldiers and large parts of the old city were destroyed. The attack has been described as possibly being "the single deadliest act by any Arab government against its own people in the modern Middle East".
Regarding Syria you and the world must forget the history of negotiations Israel has passed that turning point and is now preparing for a wide-ranging assymetrical missile-war which will be targeting our strategic civilian utilities, urban centres, towns and villages. In the next war, G-d forbid, there is the potential for greater civilian casualties which will outnumber military casualties. (Our military, however, is basically civilian. From our village, because of Gaza last year, we were bereft of husbands, brothers, uncles and cousins, friends and neighbours.) But now the Syria, Iran, Hezbullah, Hamas axis (and anyone else who joins them) will target the home front like no other war before it. Our enemies (the 'Axis') will target long-range missiles fired from their residential areas (Syria has well over 2,000 Hizbullah well over 1,200 Hamas many hundreds plus unknown quantities from Iran) over the heads of the Israeli military at the Israeli population with an accuracy down to meters. Their aim is to destroy infrastructure, confinement to bomb shelters and thus extract capitulative decisions from a weakened Israeli government. Apart from these long range missiles the Axis may have many thousands of short range cheap projectiles that can cause major and awfull destruction in an haphazard manner. Thus, the Axis could maintain intense fire directed at the home front for many weeks if not months. On top of this is the potential nuclear threat from Syria and the inevitable nuclear threat from Iran.
In my opinion this still remains (from the Arab strategic perspective) a battle for "leadership of pan-Arabism, leading to Islamic dominance of the world."
What the international community needs to do, as quickly as possible, is to ostracise these pariah states, but looking at how they have handled Iran over the last 24-months and the inability to engage a sanctions policy I doubt this will happen.
The situation has nothing to do with what or how much Israel can or will give! Our enemies seek one thing, and one thing only, our destruction! That the world inspires or gives the impression that it would support another Arab entity in the Levant is wrong because even with an enlarged area it could never be self-sufficient.
Finally, to voting and Knesset (parliamentary) seats. A voter has to be registered. The voter comes to the specified voting location with an ID. This is checked and his name is located and marked on the register. The voter then goes into a booth and selects a single marked slip from a tray of printed slips each representing a particular party and places this in the envelope and returns to the table and places the envelope in a sealed box. We vote for a party and each party has a list. In response to the questions on the number of seats taken by the religious and what you term 'settler.' Consider this. We are still a traditional Jewish society although the non-religious are by far the vast majority. Being traditional Jews, the males are circumcised, marriages in the main are under religious auspices and obviously when some one dies they are, if Jewish, accorded a religious burial. These non-religious still fill the synagogues on the Day of Atonement and at other key rites of passage. Many non-religious and especially from former Middle Eastern communities will vote for religious or zionist parties never mind what their political or economic background. These make up, with the religious and zionist members of the population nearly 50% of the electorate!
The current Jewish/Israeli feelings is that we are threatened by an Axis of evil who seek our annihilation. Why should we support the creation of an entity that should never have been thought of to begin with. Just look at my historical backgrounder on the Arab League at Item 65 above.

Hi All,
It seems that the media front and "comments" have now moved to BBC's Have Your Say and "Was Israel right to board the Gaza flotilla?" Please, please, please, do not forget Silwan!
I am preparing a brief for "Was Israel right to board the Gaza flotilla?" see you there.

26. piggykosher wrote:

"Did not Cairo, Amman, Damascous broadcast that arabs must leave their homes ..."

You have been reading too much Israeli propaganda.

State: radio station, date, time.

Be warned, though.

Records of all Middle Eastern radio station broadcasts in 1947 through 1949 are kept in London, and in spite of throrough search nobody has been able to provide these data, including Israel, which has been asked for specifics time and again without ever giving an answer.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

@ 74 ST_JOHN claims that @ 26 PIGGYKOSHER has been "reading too much Israeli propaganda" that there were no broadcasts to British Mandate Arabs asking them to leave their homes, claiming "Records of all Middle Eastern radio station broadcasts in 1947 through 1949 are kept in London" and that they are "in spite of throrough search nobody has been able to provide these data."
Come on ST_JOHN - where in London are these record? - what do these records contain and in what format? - who has carried out the search? - where are these findings published? However, see my April 1949 reference to a radio transcript!
Other than the one transcript reference I know nothing about ephemeral contemporary radio broadcasts or their records but I do know something of the printed word. Let me answer the basic question as to WHO CREATED THE BRITISH MANDATE ARAB REFUGEE PROBLEM?
Firstly, why do I call it the “British Mandate Arab Refugee Problem”? Because, in almost all cases, contemporary references to the refugees by nationality are either "the Arabs of Palestine" or simply "the Arabs." The ONLY contemporary reference that I could find which refers to "Palestinians" is American. Arabs, of that time, simply did not use the term because the term would have been inaccurate as "Palestinian" then applied to both Jews and Arabs living under the British Mandate. Use of the term "Palestinian" to mean only Arabs came much later.

I have found some very interesting written evidence,so, try these contemporary reports :
--- ASH SHA'AB editorial 30 January 1948 (Haifa) "The first group of our fifth columnists consists of those who abandoned their houses and business and go to live elsewhere... At the first sign of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle."
--- BRITISH MANDATE POLICE REPORT to Jerusalem Headquarters on 26 April 1948 attested: "Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab population to stay and carry on with their normal lives..."
--- ARAB NATIONAL COMMITTEE, in Haifa, on 27 April 1948 refused to sign a truce, reporting in a memorandum to the Arab League Governments: "when the delegation entered the conference room it proudly refused to sign the truce and asked that the evacuation of the Arab population and their transfer to neighboring Arab countries be facilitated... The military and civil authorities and the Jewish representatives expressed their profound regret. The mayor of Haifa (Mr. Shabtai Levi) adjourned the meeting with a passionate appeal to the Arab population to reconsider its decision..."
--- LONDON TIMES 5 May 1948 "The Arab streets are curiously deserted and, evidently following the poor example of the more moneyed class there has been an exodus from Jerusalem too, though not to the same extent as in Jaffa and Haifa."
--- SADA AL JANUB Beirut 16 August 16 1948 quoting Msgnr. George Hakim (Greek Catholic bishop) "The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab Armies would crush the "Zionist gangs" very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile."
--- EMIL GHOURY Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee as quoted by Daily Telegraph London 6 September 1948 reporting from Beirut "I do not want to impugn anybody but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem."
--- THE ECONOMIST London 2 OCTOBER 1948 "Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit... It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."
--- FALASTIN the Hashemite Kingdom daily wrote on 19 February 1949: "The Arab States which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promises to help these refugees."


Now try these remembrances (witness statements after the fact):
--- NEAR EAST ARABIC BROADCASTING STATION Cyprus 3 April 1949 "It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem
--- KENNETH BILLY New York 1950 an American journalist, covering the area before and during the war, in his book 'New Star in the Near East', pp. 30-31 (New York 1950) "The Arab exodus, initially at least,was encouraged by many Arab leaders, such as Haj Amin el Husseini, the exiled pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, and by the Arab Higher Committee ... They viewed the first wave of Arab setbacks as merely transitory. Let the … Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab peoples to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck, the[y] … could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea."
--- HABIB ISSA in the daily US-published Lebanese newspaper Al Hoda, June 8 1951 (New York) "The Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade... He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean... Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down."
--- NURI SAID Iraqi Prime Minister quoted by NIMR EL HAWARI 1952 former Commander of Arab Youth Organisation in his book 'Sir Am Nakbah' ("The Secret Behind the Disaster"), 1952 (Nazareth) "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.”
--- AD DIFFA Hashemite Kingdom daily 6 September 1954 wuoting refugee "The Arab governments told us: get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."
--- EDWARD ATIYAH Secretary of the Arab League Office London quoted in 'The Arabs', p. 183 (London 1955) “This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country
--- AKHBAR EL-YOM Cairo daily 12 October 1963 recalled: "15 May 1948 arrived...on that very day the Mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead..."
--- HARRY C STEBBENS an official position in the British Mandatory Government in Palestine in 1947-48, wrote in the London Evening Standard (Friday, 10 January, 1969):
"Long before the end of the British mandate, between January and April, 48, practically all my Arab Palestinian staff of some 200 men and women and all of the 1800 labor force had left Haifa in spite of every possible effort to assure them of their safety if they stayed.
"They all left for one or more of the following reasons: The Arab terrorism engendered by the November, 1947, U.N. partition resolution frightened them to death of their imaginative souls and they feared Jewish retaliation. Propagandists promised a blood bath as soon as the mandate ended in which the street of all the cities would run with blood. The promised invasion by the foreign Arab armies (which started on May 14, 1948, with the Arab Legion massacre of some 200 Jewish settlers at Kfar Etzion) was preceded by extensive broadcasts from Cairo, Damascus, Amman, and Beirut to the effect that any Arabs who stayed would be hanged as collaborators with the Jews. "The Palestinian Arabs were the victims then, as in 1967, of their own propaganda, and having on the average no stomach for violence they ran. I have met many of my Palestinian Arab friends since in Beirut, Damascus, Amman, and in the Persian Gulf states, and they have all without exception gladly told me that they had wished they had listened to me and stayed - as did some 200,000 who became and still are the most economically advanced Arabs in the Middle East. The massacre of Kfar Etzion, the massacre of the hospital convoy killed 48 Jewish doctors and nurses, the continued shelling and blasting of Jewish settlement for more than 20 years, has not caused one single Israeli to move away. They sit tight and if necessary in their shelters while across the river, where the shooting comes from, the towns and villages are deserted, last year's crops still rot on the trees and the refugees move still further away from any trouble."How long will the Palestinian Arabs continue the myth that they were kicked out, every time they ran away from trouble and got themselves into more trouble?"
--- KHALED AL-AZM Prime Minister of Syria in 1948 and 1949, wrote in his memoirs (Beirut, 1973), that among the reasons for the Arab failure in 1948 was "the call by the Arab Governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it and to leave for the bordering Arab countries, after having sown terror among them...Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave...We have brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees, by calling upon them and pleading with them to leave their land, their homes, their work and business..." (Part 1, pp. 386-387).


Finally, a quote from a noted Arab academic turned politician :
--- ABU MAZEN wrote in an article entitled "Madha `Alamna wa-Madha Yajib An Na`mal" [What We Have Learned and What We Should Do], published in "Falastineth-Thawra" [Revolutionary Palestine], the official journal of the PLO, Beirut, March 1976, "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland...The Arab States succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people."

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Some Palestininan claim that they are descendants of the biblical Jebusites, and others the Philistines, Canaanites or other nations. This, they believe, is their claim to Jerusalem. However, they face a bit of a dilemma as Islam, as we know, is not as old as Judaism and Christianity. So the Muslims attach themselves to the biblical nations that proceded the Jews and Christians, even though they don't belong together historically and ethnically. The question is then: Why do the Palestinians on one hand use biblical references as a valid claim for their ancestry, but then reject the validity of the biblical promises regarding the land? The Koran doesn't mention Jerusalem once, while it appears 767 times in the Old Testament of the Bible.

Dear Mr.Tim Gould.

In relation to your comment about the parable of the good Samaritan. It is true that you love your neighbour as yourself. Have you heard the one of Unforgiving servant? Shouldn't you have forgivness in your heart as Christ has forgiven you?? Have you also read Matthew 7:1-6? Maybe concentrate on what it is that you should be doing right, instead of what others are doing wrong. Jesus spoke alot about how we should treat others. Actually His whole message came down to love. So loving your neighbour as yourself isn't just living side by side in acceptance, but living to support each other with ultimate humility and service!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.