“The wall is totally blocking the creation of a Palestinian state”

The security barrier isn't blocking anything except the murderous intentions of terrorists - the barrier can be moved or even removed, but this will only happen when there is no longer need for it to protect Israeli civilians against Arab aggression.

The real impediment to the creation of a Palestinian state is the failure of the PA to fulfil any of its basic responsibilties - to it's own citizens and to the roadmap.

Is the creation of a Palestinian state the sole responsibility of Israel, or is there anyone at the PA who might like to involve themselves in the process? If it's the former, then the disengagement plan is the only way, and the PA will be forced to accept the results, having failed to show any interest in any other solution.

While the Israeli government, at considerable risk and cost, has formulated a plan to displace Israeli families from their homes in Gaza, by force if necessary, the PA has done less than nothing to pursue any of the commitments it gave under the roadmap.

There is no Israel.

in the PA controled territories its illegal for an Arab to sell land to a Jew. In Israel a Jew can sell his land to an Arab.

A Modest Open Letter

Dear Israel,

It has become painfully clear over the past few days years decades that you, as a nation, have a severe image problem internationally. This problem is not just with openly hostile governments that have promised on many occasions to destroy you and murder your citizens wholesale; rather, it extends to inter-governmental assemblies such as the United Nations, progressive non-governmental organizations, the global press, and the academic intelligentsia, combining into what has commonly come to be called "world opinion." I believe it would be of some benefit to consider the ways in which you can bring this world opinion to your side, and gain sympathy and respect, if not outright admiration, from nations the world over.

(Some may be tempted to ask why a sovereign nation should give any consideration to this "world opinion" to begin with. Some may even ask how this world opinion came to be considered a moral authority, especially given the rather shaky moral record of virtually all nations that presume to hold it. Such questions are beyond the scope of this letter. Suffice it to say that your UN ambassador probably does not enjoy being berated daily by virtually every country on the planet, including those that have more mass graves than your entire population.)

Let us consider the strategy you have employed for the past few decades: namely, to demonstrate your strength, but seek peaceful solutions instead, as with Egypt and Jordan; to strive to kill terrorists, but spare innocent civilians, as in Jenin; to occupy after being attacked, but not engage in genocide or ethnic cleansing, as in the West Bank; to give sworn enemies the benefit of the doubt and test their word, as with Arafat; to give all those within your borders citizenship and basic rights; to respect all your citizens' freedom of speech; to discuss your flaws openly and honestly; and to admit imperfection, but expect the world to understand the difficulties you face; to protect reporters and their freedom of speech, expecting them to report honestly and contextually; to respect world opinion while expecting it to recognize your right and responsibility to your own citizens. In short, you have tried to do the right thing, and expected the world to reciprocate. This foolishness has to stop, and it has to stop right now. It has brought you neither love nor respect from your fellow nations, and it is unclear as to why you expected anything else. But we'll get to that.

First, let us consider some suboptimal ways of getting on the good side of global opinion. These work, but the harm they do to your own nation tends to outweigh any benefit, so they aren't particularly recommended:

* You can surrender to the Arabs. Put down your weapons, drop to your knees, and allow them to overrun the place. This will reduce you from your current position of strength, to that of innocent victims. The world loves helpless, innocent victims! Consider all the sympathy and support you got just after the Holocaust, when Jews was synonymous with skeletal Auschwitz victims. Why, the Europeans couldn't support you enough, just as long as you didn't hang around in Europe! (After all, helpless innocent victims are fine and good, as long as they are not camped out on the front lawn. That just spoils the scenery!)

This solution has been employed multiple times over the past 100 years or so, all with roughly the same results: sympathy galore. Just ask the Tibetans, the Kurds, the Rwandans, or the Sudanese in Darfur. The problem, of course, is that sympathy is all you get, and that's worth about as much as one of Arafat's commitments to peace -- so you'll end up exactly like the Tibetans, the Kurds, the Rwandans, or the Sudanese in Darfur. Or, more likely and more to the point, like the Auschwitz victims that never left the camp.

* You can become an enemy of the United States. It's wacky but true: if you are opposed to the United States, you can expect widespread global support, regardless of your own failings. You can set up a mass-murdering police state, invade two countries, and kill entire villages with poison gas, but if you oppose the United States, you'll be the lesser evil. There are several problems with this approach, of course, not least of which is that there is no guarantee that it will work for you. There simply isn't enough empirical data to determine whether, in opposition to the U.S., you'd actually be viewed as the lesser evil. It certainly worked for Iraq and North Korea, but then neither of them is run by Jews.

Another problem is that being an enemy of the U.S., while popular, is exceedingly dangerous. Since 2001, at least two countries that engaged in this have had a radical change of government, preceded by some very loud urban renewal courtesy of the U.S. military. (By contrast, slaughtering Spanish citizens and Filipino expats has brought extremely promising results. You should keep this in mind.) At any rate, when picking one's enemies, the United States is probably not the best choice. Of course, in your case this option is barred even more by your strategic dependence upon the U.S. That problem is addressable, and we'll get to it shortly; nonetheless, it's easy to see that gaining popularity by being anti-U.S. is not really a viable option.

Now that we have eliminated the false leads, we shall examine the actions you will have to take in order to receive positive press and start benefitting from friendly world opinion. As you consider these options, you will no doubt find that they violate your principles, and contradict your very strongly held morals. Well, frankly, you'll just have to deal. When getting on the good side world opinion and the progressive intelligentsia, real morals are a nuisance you simply cannot afford. If you're going to insist on something as silly as principles, and be bothered by something as trivial as rank hypocrisy, you'll just have to hang out with the other pariahs, such as the U.S. and Australia. So forget it: just make like the French, and shrug it off. Principles are so simplisme.

The French actually have much to teach you about the benefits of moral flexibility: it has taken them successfully through World War II and the Cold War -- to say nothing of the many crises in Africa and the Middle East since then -- with virtually no damage to their economy, infrastructure, or reputation. The Americans, Brits, and Russians may have fought World War II to the bitter end, while the French surrendered after a few weeks and started working for the Germans, but guess who still ended up on the Security Council? That is skill, my friends!

Anyway, enough babble -- on to the plan!

* The first thing to realize is that negative opinion is created by negative reporting. You have naively assumed that if you allow jouralists to report everything, they really will report everything -- the good and the bad, the claims and the counterclaims, the bloodshed and the background. Such foolishness! How many reporters can you name that have won awards for reporting something positive, especially where a Western society is concerned? Reporters don't merely report facts; reporters look for "the story," and that story had better have some bloodshed, preferably involving defenseless and oppressed people. Well, there is certainly no shortage of that on the planet, but someone who is willing to kill thousands of rival tribesmen is unlikely to spare a BBC crew, so the number of opportunities to wear khaki and film misery is actually much more limited. Then, as if to answer the prayers of every Pulitzer chaser, you walk right in, with the ethnic conflict, the weak Arabs, the poweful Jews backed by the U.S. -- and all perfectly safe to film! What kind of news stories do you expect, anyway, when even the lowest al-Jazeera staffer can stand in the middle of Tel-Aviv and safely curse the Zionist entity, while every TV crew in the West Bank knows that simply showing Palestinians doing what they do best gets your press credentials revoked.

So let's cut the crap. Close the West Bank and Gaza to journalists, and remove any who resist. Cut phone lines and satellite links; use missiles as needed on the rest. Isolate the West Bank and Gaza entirely; nothing, not even an SOS gets in or out of there without your say-so. Throw a couple of reporters in jail, just on general principle. Make it really clear that anyone who embarrasses the State of Israel can receive the same treatment; then make good on the threat. (I suggest using as examples reporters from respected but unimportant countries -- New Zealand, say, or Belgium -- you get the idea.) Make journalist visas nearly-impossible to obtain, and hold them as prizes. Demand to review all footage before it's broadcast or taken out of the country. Hey, it works for Arafat and the Saudis; it'll work for you.

This will obviously cause you some difficulty with your own journalists, especially the more left-leaning ones. Give them the same treatment as the foreign journalists. Remember: you are trying to be a respected member of the global community. Niceties like freedom of the press are not something you can afford.

* A large portion of your population will object to this, on account of some silly notions like freedom of speech and the need for open discussion in a democracy. I won't bother telling you how to get rid of them. All you really need is a couple examples. Just remember: you control the press, so it's not like anyone will know. (Eventually, no one will care. More on that later.)

* There's also the whole problem of various activists and outright terror sympathizers. All I have to say is that you don't really see too many protestors in Pyongyang or Damascus. Sure, it's partly due to the fact that their political leanings match those of North Korea and Syria to some degree, but mostly it's because they doubt they'd come back from such an adventure. This seems easy enough to arrange. Let's just say that ever since Rachel Corrie became one with the earth, not too many ISMers are eager to stand in front of a bulldozer. You don't need to be too obvious: a few examples and some rumors that those who protest in Israel tend to disappear, and the activists will seek new protest venues elsewhere.

* This only leaves one type of negative publicity: the pundits and commentators outside your borders. Without live pictures, though, the world will quickly tire of hearing their cries of "occupation!" -- that stuff is boring, and the world has a very short attention span. Still, if you're worried, surely it's not that hard to remove one or two of the more annoying ones. The rest will quickly get the message. It works for the Chinese in Hong Kong, or the Iranians with Rushdie, and it will work for you.

Simply following these guidelines should reduce to virtually nil the flow of negative publicity. That by itself is not enough, though: you need to get the world on your side. And as everyone from the USSR to the PLO to Saddam Hussein has demonstrated, you can't do that without getting really nasty.

* First off, you need to put yourself in a position where other nations need something from you. This is the only way most of them will ever support you, under any circumstances. There's a reason why everyone pays so much deference to the Saudis, and it's not because the world loves fat men in Maybachs. Like it or not, the world is not in dire need of more Sabra oranges or high-tech toys, and advanced cancer research just makes them feel inadequate. So what you need is control of a strategic resource. My suggestion would be to push the Egyptians out of the Sinai, and take over the Suez Canal. There's not much they can do about it, especially if you quietly point out that, well, you might just have some tactical nukes that might just find their way into Cairo. It's amazing how accommodating people can be when properly motivated. You can even let them save face through nominal control of some worthless port; no matter.

The point is, once you have control of a waterway so crucial the the Euroid economy, expect to see a radical change of tune from the French and the rest of Europe, especially the Old side. Don't bite off more than you can chew, though: it's probably best not to tweak the Brits this way, and I strongly suggest you give Americans perpetual free passage. As to the rest, you can pretty much do as you wish -- and I suggest making it really clear that you intend to play favorites. It'll certainly alter the calculus a bit: the Arabs may have oil, sure, but it still has to get to Europe somehow. And that's really hard, especially what with all those sabotaged pipelines. What sabotaged pipelines? You figure it out.

Oh, please, don't blanche at me now. This is global opinion we're talking about. Just imagine how much the Europeans will love you once they realize their economies are now completely dependent on your whim. I predict a total love fest. Chirac will go nowhere without his yarmulke.

* You should also throw a bone to those intellectuals and progressives who are not rotting in your jails, just to make them forget their comrades. This is not too hard to do. Some anti-U.S. rhetoric might be nice, but you can do well enough just by espousing some pet issues of theirs, and adopting their language. For example, instead of the boring moniker State of Israel, perhaps you can adopt the name The Jewish State of Social Justice. Progressives love the phrase "social justice," and they'll accept anyting that promises it, no matter how absurd.

(Sort of like "free universal medical care." Which I also suggest you implement, at least in the West Bank. It doesn't have to be medically competent, or especially caring -- the point is, it's "free" and "universal." A couple of Potemkin villages and some carefully orchestrated trips with properly instructed reporters will do wonders. It worked for the Russians and the Cubans; it will work for you. Progressives are much more willing to accept a boot in someone's face, if the wearer of the boot explains that the face receives free universal medical care. Like quantum mechanics, it's weird and counter-intuitive, but it works.) By the way, now that I think about it, you should probably remove the "Jewish" from the new name of the state -- it polls negatively with global opinion. Perhaps the Hebraic State of Social Justice, or maybe something like the Multicultural State of Social Justice. Don't worry about what that means; it's the name that counts.

As you can see, you've been going about this world opinion thing all wrong. Silly Jews, you've tried to do the right thing under difficult circumstances, and -- oh the hilarity! -- expected fair treatment from the same people who brought you the Crusades, the Pale of Settlement, the pogroms, the Dreyfus Affair, the Holocaust, and exploding buses. Now you'll probably just ignore me, stick to your silly morals and principles, and wonder how a Communist dictatorship manages to castigate your behavior without even a slight trace of irony.

The only terrorsists are Israel who have the blood of many dead Muslims on their hands. The Wall shows the total contempt the Israelis have for any Muslims.

where do you get your facts from? it is extremely hard for palestinian israelis (for that is what they are) to buy land in israel. homes are routinely demolished as the government refuses to grant building licences; vast tracts of land, legally owned by palestinian israelis have been confiscated over the decades under the pretence of security; bedouins are being forced from their land in the negev; there are over 100,00 non-jews living in unrecogonized villages (villages intentionally left off the 1956 'master plan' (yes, that is what they called it) therefore receive no budget allocation from the state although the residents who work pay tax; the majority of building projects are for jews only; the list of discrimination goes on and on. and yes, some palestinians did sell land to jews, but the vast majority has been taken by force. you have no idea.

J Swift,

your piece essentially sums up for me the inherent alienation of zionism. The Jews have been used. When Britian helped create Israel it was to create 'Our little Ulster in the middle-east'. Millions of Jews, fleeing from terrible persecution, were not welcome in the UK and US. But we were happy to send them off to be our guard-dogs in the middle-east.
Even now, there is a rather unholy alliance between Zionists, and right wing fundamentalist Christians, who state 'God does not hear the prayers of Jews', genuine christ-killer anti-semitism, who want all the Jews to return to Israel in order to bring about the second coming of Christ!!! And this would be funny, if these people weren't so rich and powerful, and persistently in support of the most extreme zionist position, undermining any hope of peace. You must know how difficult it is in Israeli society to move against the extremist Settlers, who are directly funded by extremist Christians who want to bring about Armageddon, and the coming of Christ.

Historically, the Jews and the Arabs got on far better than the Jews and the Europeans. Why, then, is it the Arabs who have to suffer for the crimes of the Germans?

Your piece then goes into a long 'fuck you' to the rest of the world, which in essence is the core of zionism. 'You have done this to us, therefore we can do what we like.'
But the problem is, we live in an ever globalising world. The idea of a Jewish state with a Jewish majority is ridiculous, in light of the fact that they exist as a minority within the world. Taking your logic to its extreme, you can't be safe until everyone else is dead, or maybe if you go and live on another planet. Because the policies Israel is following turn the whole world against it. Which encourage Israel to adopt even harder policies. Which engenders yet more hatred towards Israel. Which cause Israel to adopt yet harder measures.
The policy of global isolation enforced by militiary might, which is essentially what zionism is, leads ultimately to a disaster for the Jewish people, let alone for the neighbouring Arab countries. I wish you had the breadth of vision to see that.

But no wonder you're pissed off. The Jews have been humiliated, then they have been used, and they are still being used. But the only way out is not to isolate yourself even further, but to build bridges of understanding between the Jews and the Palestinians, and to live together in one country. And from that strong base, it is possible to make peace with the neighbouring countries, and gain acceptance in the region.

Ok bandora,

Before 1948 many Palestinians sold land to Jews. This land was desolate and sold for very high prices. This is very well documented. By 1948 5% of land in Israel was owned by Jews and this is a lot considering that 85% of the land was state owned and not for sale.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to the 1956 master plan. Please elaborate. As for property rights for Israeli Arabs, I suggest that you go to the Galilee and see the Arab homes in Nazareth, they are some of the most luxurious in Israel. And I would like to point out that the construction industry in Israel is dominated and owned by Arabs. As for the Negev Bedouins, this is a problem but not unique to Israel. In Jordan for example, the state have problems because when Bedouin villagers settle down, the authorities build schools and hospitals and then the Bedouins leave. That is their way of life. But Bedouins who live in the north of Israel and in the Judean desert don’t share the same problems as the Negev Bedouins. See the Negev is state land and the Bedouins move from one place to another making development very difficult. The state should not just allot the Bedouins some land, as this will be in contrary to their way of life. It is a difficult situation.

Hermes,

Your Israel as the little Ulster quote has not been used in context. Britain did not help create the state of Israel. The Irgun fought against the British and in turn were called terrorists. After Britain finally realised that they could not maintain their mandate over Palestine they handed the matter to the United Nations who voted for partition. The Brits expected the Jewish state to be annihilated and hoped that the Jews would call on the British for aid and protection and thus any Jewish entity in Palestine would have had a British military presence. This did not happen.

As for the Christian fundamentalists supporting Israel, I say good! And when their messiah comes, the second coming of Christ, we will return the favour and convert!! But until that day let them help.

The Arabs do not have to suffer. Sherif Hussein, the leader of the Arab world during WW1 welcomed the return of Jews to Palestine and his son Emir Feisal said, “We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement.... We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home”.

Unfortunately, other Arab leaders were hostile to Jews and refused to accept the return of Jews to Palestine (ie the 1937 Arab revolt). And anti Jewish laws and persecution began in the Arab world and Iran before the rise of political Zionism.

The essence of Zionism is to break free from the shackles of persecution, persecution from Europe, the Middle East and anywhere in the world. Even Malcom X argued that the reason for the Holocaust was that Jewish national belonging disappeared in Germany and that after the establishment of Israel, Jews were once again strong in their own land.

And no we don’t live in a globalised world. We live in the world of the nation-state. From the former Yugoslavia, former Soviet states, the Kurds, and even the Palestinians there is strong national sentiment. And judging by the EU’s new constitution, the European Union is a union of nation-states too.

In the beginning Jewish immigration was largely peaceful, and the Arabs even helped at many points, which is why I don't despair about the situation and I believe both peoples can live together in peace.
However, the issue of land purchases is a vital one, and important to understand. Even land that was 'legally' purchased was problematic, as it was often purchased from absentee landlords, and the farmers, who thought they owned the land, were evicted. This led to a lot of the bad feeling between the Jews and the Arabs.
Remember, before this, there was a Jewish community in Palestine, and they lived peacefully, side by side.

"In 1948, at the moment that Israel declared itself a state, it legally owned a little more than 6 percent of the land of Palestine...After 1940, when the mandatory authority restricted Jewish land ownership to specific zones inside Palestine, there continued to be illegal buying (and selling) within the 65 percent of the total area restricted to Arabs.

Thus when the partition plan was announced in 1947 it included land held illegally by Jews, which was incorporated as a fait accompli inside the borders of the Jewish state. And after Israel announced its statehood, an impressive series of laws legally assimilated huge tracts of Arab land (whose proprietors had become refugees, and were pronounced 'absentee landlords' in order to expropriate their lands and prevent their return under any circumstances)." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."


How did land ownership traditionally work in Palestine and when did it change?

"[The Ottoman Land Code of 1858] required the registration in the name of individual owners of agricultural land, most of which had never previously been registered and which had formerly been treated according to traditional forms of land tenure, in the hill areas of Palestine generally masha'a, or communal usufruct. The new law meant that for the first time a peasant could be deprived not of title to his land, which he had rarely held before, but rather of the right to live on it, cultivate it and pass it on to his heirs, which had formerly been inalienable...Under the provisions of the 1858 law, communal rights of tenure were often ignored...Instead, members of the upper classes, adept at manipulating or circumventing the legal process, registered large areas of land as theirs...The fellahin [peasants] naturally considered the land to be theirs, and often discovered that they had ceased to be the legal owners only when the land was sold to Jewish settlers by an absentee landlord...Not only was the land being purchased; its Arab cultivators were being dispossessed and replaced by foreigners who had overt political objectives in Palestine." Rashid Khalidi, "Blaming The Victims," ed. Said and Hitchens

This eviction of a lot of the peasants led to a great deal of hostility, which is one of the motivations behind the hostility to Jewish immigration, which at first had been readily accepted.

"At various locations in northern Palestine Arab farmers refused to move from land the Fund purchased from absentee owners, and the Turkish authorities, at the Fund's request, evicted them...The indigenous Jews of Palestine also reacted negatively to Zionism. They did not see the need for a Jewish state in Palestine and did not want to exacerbate relations with the Arabs." John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice."

"Before the 20th century, most Jews in Palestine belonged to old Yishuv, or community, that had settled more for religious than for political reasons. There was little if any conflict between them and the Arab population. Tensions began after the first Zionist settlers arrived in the 1880's...when [they] purchased land from absentee Arab owners, leading to dispossession of the peasants who had cultivated it." Don Peretz, "The Arab-Israeli Dispute."

"Serfs they (the Jews) were in the lands of the Diaspora, and suddenly they find themselves in freedom [in Palestine]; and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination." Zionist writer Ahad Ha'am, quoted in Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

"An article by Yitzhak Epstein, published in Hashiloah in 1907...called for a new Zionist policy towards the Arabs after 30 years of settlement activity...Like Ahad-Ha'am in 1891, Epstein claims that no good land is vacant, so Jewish settlement meant Arab dispossession...Epstein's solution to the problem, so that a new "Jewish question" may be avoided, is the creation of a bi-national, non-exclusive program of settlement and development. Purchasing land should not involve the dispossession of poor sharecroppers. It should mean creating a joint farming community, where the Arabs will enjoy modern technology. Schools, hospitals and libraries should be non-exclusivist and education bilingual...The vision of non-exclusivist, peaceful cooperation to replace the practice of dispossession found few takers. Epstein was maligned and scorned for his faintheartedness." Israeli author, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, "Original Sins."

Britain did help the creation of the Jewish state. You only have to look at the Balfour declaration. But you are right in that it did not go according to British plans. Britain was using classic divide and rule tactics, in this case the Jews versus the Arabs, and it can be seen how in many occassions they helped BOTH SIDES!!! The British have a lot to answer for. However, now Israel exists as a little Ulster, not for the UK, but for the US. It is a strategic alliance, that maintains US interests in the middle east. Or do you not believe the US is using Israel in that way?

The point about the Christian fundamentalists is YES, they are crazy, and the idea that the messiah will come when all the Jews go to Israel is ridiculous. But because of these crazy beliefs, they support extremist elements within Israel, and undermine hopes for peace, because these people don't WANT to see peace between the Jews and the Palestinians. They want to see a holy war. They are dangerous allies, because they don't have your best interests at heart, they in fact put you in greater danger. It is essentially the same as Saudi supporting extremist elements in Palestinian society.

You mention Malcolm X, well this is what he said on the matter:
"The number one weapon of 20th century imperialism is zionist dollarism, and one of the main bases for this weapon is Zionist Israel. The ever-scheming European imperialists wisely placed Israel where she could geographically divide the Arab world, infiltrate and sow the seed of dissension among African leaders and also divide the Africans against the Asians.

Zionist Israel's occupation of Arab Palestine has forced the Arab world to waste billions of precious dollars on armaments, making it impossible for these newly independent Arab nations to concentrate on strengthening the economies of their countries and elevate the living standard of their people.

And the continued low standard of living in the Arab world has been skillfully used by the Zionist propagandists to make it appear to the Africans that the Arab leaders are not intellectually or technically qualified to lift the living standard of their people ... thus, indirectly "enducing" Africans to turn away from the Arabs and towards the Israelis for teachers and technical assistance.

"They cripple the bird's wing, and then condemn it for not flying as fast as they."
 http://www.malcolm-x.org/docs/gen_zion.htm

Hermes, your historical revisionism is well argued but that doesn't change the fact that it based on a very loose (i.e. largely invented) interpretation of what actually happened. Despite being a current history postgraduate, I'm forced to consider myself somewhat of the 'old school' in considering that history should be about revealing and fairly interpreting the facts of the past, rather than inventing them.

Your approach is, while having nothing to do with history in the sense that I understand it, quite prevalent, although I'd rather call it historical fiction. This is particularly true in the case of Israel, or, since the 1960s, what has been referred to as 'the Israeli-Palestinian conflict' or even 'Palestinian history'!

You see, when it comes to past events, an objective truth exists. Whether it is possible to gain access to that truth is debatable. But when one fails to even try, Hermes - we have to question whether that's history at all. I'd say it was just 'creative writing'.

Elvis,

my interpretation on history is based upon the accounts I have read, from several sources, including Israeli and Arab historians.

Simply denouncing what I have said as a work of creative writing, without making any effort YOURSELF to go deeper and find out more, is hypocritical. I believe what I have written to be the truth, though incomplete, like all history. It is more in depth and sheds light on the zionist myth constantly spouted that 'Most of the land was purchased', when it is known only 6 percent of the land was purchased, and some of those land purchases caused the eviction of surprised Palestinian farmers, who believed THEY owned the land they worked on.

NOW, I challenge you to look into the truth of the roots of the conflict. I believe it is something like this. On either side at the time there are extremist agendas. On the one side you have an extreme zionist nationalist agenda, which wants the land WITHOUT the arabs, and wants to remove them from the land. On the other side you have the extreme Palestinian nationalist agenda, epitomised by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who wanted to remove the Jews from the land and held disturbing ties to Nazi Germany. But in the middle you have a vast majority of Arabs who are happy to live with the Jews, and in fact helped them build initial settlements, and you have the Jews who just want to live in that land, escaping Nazi persecution.
NOW it seems to me that somewhere with these dodgy land purchases, a lot of the trouble started, amongst ordinary Palestinian farmers. How many Jews turned up in the country, believing they'd rightfully purchased the land, to confront Palestinian farmers who believed that THEY owned the land? Perhaps both were unaware of any foul play, unwilling to back down, and confrontation ensued. Is that the fault of the British, the Ottoman Turks, the leaders of the Zionist movement?
Exactly how was it an intially friendly relationship between the two peoples turned into this ridiculous conflict, which I'm sick of, you're sick of, and everyone caught up in is sick of? Rather than simply dismissing what has been said, engage with it, and if you disagree, offer an alternative.

i think we are all forgetting the blatently obvious why palestinians oppose the wall.

as Noam Chomsky points out, no one would be against the wall (european, israeli, palestinian), IF

it was build ON the green line (internationally recognised borders of israel) or inside israel.

however the israeli's have build the wall on palestinian land, and in such a way so as to cut off water supply, farm land to the villages. this is why the european court ruled the wall to be illegal.

c.f. if your neighbour built a wall (nothing wrong with that, its lawful), but build it a meter into yourside of the land (cutting your flower beds off). then you would

EASILY WIN IN ANY ENGLISH COURT OF LAW THE RIGHT FOR YOUR NEIGHBOUR TO REMOVE THE WALL.

its obvious, and we're glad such a laws exists in the western world.

"if your neighbour built a wall (nothing wrong with that, its lawful), but build it a meter into yourside of the land (cutting your flower beds off). then you would

EASILY WIN IN ANY ENGLISH COURT OF LAW THE RIGHT FOR YOUR NEIGHBOUR TO REMOVE THE WALL."

What if you built your wall on land that never legally belonged to your neighbour? What if your neighbour's landlord, Mr. Jordan, gave you the rights to the neighbouring property, and the tenants repeatedly attacked your family and broke into your house? Then you would

EASILY WIN IN ANY ENGLISH COURT OF LAW THE RIGHT TO FORCIBLY REMOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR.

But, perhaps you are feeling generous and you choose to allow the squatting tenants to stay, but build a wall to prevent them from attacking your family?

Pickles, do some research for crying out loud!!!

In 1988 Jordan renounced its claim to the West Bank and ceded it to the PLO ( the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, in case you don't know ).

Israel has no legal claim to those lands in the West Bank it is stealing through the line of the wall.

If my next door neighbour builds a wall through my house, puts a tank in my bedroom, and murders my hamster with a precision missile strike, do I have the right to get him evicted?

my apolgies for typo - it is 1965. the law is the planning & building law (1965). if you read the planning laws in israel you will find that they are listed as master plans, by district. and i used to visit nazareth a lot when i lived in haifa - i hardly think that becasue there are a few rich palestinians living in nice houses it is an excuse for taking the land of many thousands of others. nor is nazareth full of these types of homes. and reported in al ittihad this week: sakhnin used to own 95,000 dunams, today it is only 9,300. the land has been taken through various uses of the planning laws. this is the same for other areas particulalry in the galilee.

Hermes, I agree that the issue of land purchases is important.

27% of the land bought by Jews was bought from the Fellahin-owners themselves. The remainder was bought from absentee landlords and this land was mostly uncultivated. Some of the landlords did actually live in Palestine themselves. This purchase was legal under the Ottoman Land Code of 1858.

David Ben-Gurion instructed the Jews not to purchase land from the Fellahin as not to displace the local population. Only occasionally were local Arabs displaced.
Of land bought from absentee landlords, many Jews rented the land to Arabs in an effort not to displace them.

Furthermore under British rule, the British called for individual claims of dispossession. The British discovered that very few of the claims were actually valid. Nevertheless, Palestinians who were displaced from Jewish land purchases were relocated or, if desired, compensated financially.

Rather than dispossess Palestinians, Jewish settlement in the land of Israel increased the Palestinian population. This was due to several reasons. Jewish settlements blossomed in what was once desolate land. Jews introduced modern sanitary conditions, hospitals, and water purity increased. The death rate of Palestinians decreased, infant mortality reduced and Arab life expectancy increased to levels unprecedented in the Middle East. In addition, Arabs from neighbouring countries immigrated to Palestine as work was to be found, and the Jews were in demand of Arab produce.

Arab hostility towards the Jews came about because before Jewish immigration. Jews held an inferior legal status and were seen as inferior and weak. This was enshrined in the Dhimmi code where Jews could not allowed to bare arms (a severe disposition in an armed society), testify against a Muslim, and were bared from many professional positions. Jewish immigration changed the stature of the Jew in Palestine.

The Jews did not treat the Arabs with cruelty as your quote suggests. In fact it was the reverse. There were many Arab raids against Jewish property, and the Arabs enjoyed sympathy from the Ottoman authorities. Jewish attempts at appeasement were seen as a sign of weakness.

As for the relationship between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine before Zionism, I will give you a few quotes. You will see that the Jews were ill treated by the Arabs. If this is not enough for you I have plenty more accounts, just tell me what time period you want!

“I think that it is my duty to inform you that there has been a proclamation issued this week by the governor in the Jewish quarter that no Jew is to be permitted to pray in his own house under pain of being severely punished”. (William Young 1839)

“…But why is this attack in such as place at so unreasonable hour? It was because the Christians and Jews who go to Jerusalem, pay at this place a tribute of fifteen piastres each”. (Ali Bey 1807)

“they… performed their religious rites in studied seclusion and obscurity, and were, if possible, more despised here than the Jews are in other Mohammedan cities” (J.S Buckingham 1816, on a visit to Hebron).

And the Malcolm X quote:

Every culture in Germany was led by Jews; he published the greatest poets, composers, and stage directors. But those Jews made a fatal mistake -- assimilating.

From World War I to Hitler's rise, the Jews in Germany had been increasingly intermarrying. Many changed their names and many took other religions. Their own Jewish religion, their own rich Jewish ethnic and cultural roots, they anesthetized, and
cut off... until they began thinking of themselves as "Germans."

And the next thing they knew, there was Hitler, rising to power over the beer halls -- with his emotional "Aryan master race" theory. And right at hand for a scapegoat was the self-weakened, self-deluded "German" Jew. Most mysterious is how did these Jews -- with all their brilliant minds, with all of their power in every aspect of Germany's affairs -- how did those Jews stand almost as if mesmerized, watching something which did not spring upon them overnight, but which was gradually
developed -- a monstrous plan for their own murder. Their self-brainwashing had been so complete that not long after, in the gas chambers, a lot of them were still gasping, "It can't be true!"

If Hitler had conquered the world, as he meant to -- that is a shuddery thought for every Jew alive today. The Jew never will forget that lesson...

... and then the Jews set up Israel, their own country -- the one thing that every race of man in the world respects, and understands.

"If my next door neighbour builds a wall through my house, puts a tank in my bedroom, and murders my hamster with a precision missile strike, do I have the right to get him evicted?"

...if he's an anti-social filthy squatter anyways, maybe you should do it yourself...

having just come back from Israel, i question the idea of them being civilised.

It was dirty, people were rude and the people at the air port treated people like shit.

All I saw and those I spoke to were just allot of people who went around with "Victims Of the Past" printed on their heads.

Is it any wonder why people look down on them when Israelis treat not just some, but every body like bits of shit on their shoes.

I wont be going back!

having just arrived to England, i question the idea of them being civilised.

It is dirty, people are cold and unfriendly and the people at immigration treated people like shit.

All I see and those I speak to are a lot of people who go around with "I don’t give a f**k" printed on their heads.

Is it any wonder why Europeans hate the English, they treat everybody like bits of shit on their shoes.

I will be leaving soon!

if == thinks like this about England, then thank god he will not be staying in our country long.

When we have supposed friends like this, then the reality is, who needs enemies!

Get out of England == and stay out!