Neither argument impresses me much: the important thing is that the two groups believe that they have legitimate competing claims, and quibbling over whether each group “really” is legitimate gets us nowhere.

On the one hand, I can understand why the Israelis would want to control the access of Palestinians to their territory (because of terrorist bombing of civilians). That being said, I saw an interesting Palestinian movie about the indignities of the check points, and the injustices caused by it. If I had to go through that every day, I might hate Israelis too. To make a wall and to limit the travel of Palestinians might save Israelis from being bombed by suicide bombers, but it also increases the resentment, poverty and difficulties suffered by the Palestinian people. In the long run, both suicide bombing and the partitioning just actually exacerbate the problem.

But how to get people to behave civilly (no bombings, no apartheid, no army incursions?) I don’t know. It has the flavour of a horrible ongoing cycle.

Legal Eagle, there was also suggestions of giving the Jews the Kimberley region of Western Australia. This plan was know as The Kimberley Plan.

As you mentioned we can go back and forth forever. I’ll conclude by saying that apartheid-like regimes and rules always fall. The French’s fourth republic in Algeria, British India, South Africa and even in America where black people won their right to drink from any fountain and ride any bus.

I don’t think historical trends will spare Israel.

Of course the Jewish population intermingled with the natives - there’s a reason why some German Jews have blue eyes and blonde hair, but most Ethopian Jews look African. I once met an Indian Jew who looked Indian (they are a very small minority in India). However, there are some genetic markers which show that most of the Jews stem from the same group of people. It is true that some of the Russian Jews are descended (in whole or in part) from converts, and it’s a bit of a vexed issue - I have heard an ultra-radical Jew say that Russian Jews are not “real Jews” because of this. (He said this at a lunch where there were no less than three Jews with wholly or partly Russian forebears at the table…pleasant guy, huh?)

If a militant Jew came on this blog and said, “No Palestinians should be allowed back to Israel ever, they are all just terrorists with no rights who should be pushed off the land”, I’d ask them how they’d feel if the Palestinians succeeded in pushing them off the land, and they were still alive 50 years later. Would they feel aggrieved? Would they still feel they had a claim to that land? I’m sure that they would. Would they want to use force to get the land back? I suspect that they would - look at the reaction of Jewish settlers who were pushed off their settlements by the Israeli government. There are bad people on both sides who would kill innocents to get their land back, and use any means necessary to effect that. Take the assassination of the Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, which I believe was not only an act of terrorism, but also made peace so much harder to achieve. Incidentally, I do strongly believe that the settlement of Palestinian territories by small groups of Jewish settlers is wrong, and such settlements should be removed…they are not entitled to that land. I don’t care what the Torah says or what the prophecies are - the question is what land was validly granted by the UN.

I know it’s not an easy issue, and there are no easy solutions. All I want is for people to put aside the emotive stuff, and to try to put to the back of their mind the wrongs done to their own people, and to calmly consider the position of the other side. That way, perhaps some reconciliation or peace can be reached.

I don’t see myself as not having an open mind. I was an ardent supporter of Israel right until my second year of uni.

The way I see it, the situation isn’t all too complex. Palestinians had always been on the land, European Jewry started ariving in small numbers in late 1800s/early 1900s. This still wasn’t a problem and there is footage and many accounts proving that there wasn’t much hostility between Arabs and Jews. There are Jewish organisations which will confirm this.

The problem begins when European Jewry arrives in their masses (their connection to the land is solely spiritual, as European Jews were largely descendants of European converts to Judaism.) This would be a cause of concern to any people, not only Arabs.

The Palestinians didn’t manage Auschwitz and didn’t have any role in the persecution of European Jews. Yet they had to pay for it and 6 million Palestinians are still stateless today.

I do believe that Jews should have a state of their own. Germany should’ve given them Bavaria.

This is where we fundamentally differ. If the UN partitions territory over which two different groups have a claim, and gives a portion to each group, in my opinion, neither group is an “invader”. The history shows that both groups had been promised that they would get the land, and it was an attempt to satisfy both groups. So the Israelis were not invaders, they have been legally granted the initial piece of land by the UN. One can query whether the UN made the right decision or not, but in my opinion, it’s a bit like domestic property law - the starting point is that once title is registered it is valid.

If you think about it in a domestic property law context, even if the initial claim were not valid, 60 years would be more than enough to adversely possess land - the usual amount of time is 15 or 20 years. I’m a property lawyer in real life, I can’t help thinking like one.

I think a “mixed” state would be a disaster - unfortunately, after the events of the last 60 years, I very much doubt the two groups could live together happily. If one group outnumbered the other in a representative parliament, they would oppress the other and make them into second class citizens (whether the majority were Jewish or Palestinian). Then we’re back to square one.

My solution is the “King Solomon” solution: each party loses some of its land, each party gains some, and neither gets the disputed territory of Jerusalem which has caused so much trouble.

However, LDU, I don’t think we’ll ever agree on this. But what my post is asking you to do is to open your mind, and consider that the other side may have a valid argument. I would say the same to a pro-Israeli who wished to deny the claims of Palestinians.

Another point: I don’t see why Australia and Israel are not comparable - 200 years is still a very short time, particularly if the indigenous population have lived there for at least 20,000 years previously, if not 80,000! Why is the historical context different? I would say that was an obligation for colonisers to recognise the claims for the indigenous population over property, and indeed, international law at the time of settlement of Australia said as much. There were three different ways of claiming territory, being conquest, cession and occupation, and only the third did not require the coloniser to compensate or recognise claims of the colonised, because it was presumed that the land was empty (as you will see if you read paragraph [33] in Mabo).

The problem with Australia was that the indigenous system of ownership was so different to what they knew that they thought indigenous people didn’t own property at all…and they thought the land was empty so they didn’t bother to compensate them or consider their claims. Then 200 years later, we finally realised that was wrong in Mabo. And three cheers for that!

Finally, if a soldier deliberately targets civilians who are unarmed and uninvolved in conflict, he or she is a terrorist. That is not legitimate either. So if any soliders in Iraq did that, I would say that he or she should be gaoled, just as a terrorist would be. I don’t care what side you’re on, I just care about the fact that you deliberately target civilians.

Second, Israels creation is unique due to the fact that you have a completely foreign race (European Jewry) being planted amidst another local race. Again, this hasn’t happened in a long time.

Third, another 150 years should pass for Israel to enhance its claim to the land.

“But the fact that you don’t deny my suggestion ownership by conquest is valid in all cases means that your seeking to refuse to accept the Israeli claim to the land of their forefathers has a darker more sinister reason.”

Dark and more sinister reason my rear end.

The world doesn’t function according to the promises God made to Moses. If it does, then God also said he’ll expell them from the land if they disobey him and he’ll ban them from trying to repossess it.

To say that it’s the land of their forefathers (because God gave it to them) is to also say that the same God took it away from them and they no longer have claim to it.

“what point does a conquerors claim to territory become entirely legitimised in your eyes?”

Putting the conquest into perspective (how was the world during the incident) i’d suggest a reasonable amount of time depending on each particular situation.

With the Zionist conquest of Palestine, 60 years doesn’t make it in my opinion.

Legal Eagle,

In regards to Cyprus, I support the returning of land occupied by the Turks. And the thousands of people who were driven out during the invasion have a right to return. The Turkish Cypriots who were born on occupied land can either go back to Turkey or live under the rule of non Turkish Cypriots.

Back to Israel…You don’t shift the Israelis out. You put forth two options:

i) As you say, they should accept the initial wrong was committed by Zionists and European Jewry against Palestinians.

ii) Once this wrong has been accepted, they can either live under Palestinian rule with the return of all Palestinian refugees from neighbouring countries and or their descendants; if any Israeli isn’t happy with the return of the Palestinians, then they should move elsewhere. The United States and UK should compensate individuals who decide to leave.

“…Arab States and Palestinian paramilitaries started the problem by refusing to accept the UN’s initial partition ”

Were the Palestinians supposed to compromise their territory in the face of foreign invasion to appease their invaders?

I don’t think you can compare the colonisation of Australia with that of Palestine. They are of two very different time periods. Belonging to different worlds with different trends. If Australia were to be founded in 1948 the would be different.

Reconciliation is good. A good starting point would be the ceasing of any settlement activity and their dismantling by the Zionist regime. No more confiscation of Palestinian property. No more house demolitions. The retrials of all Palestinians held in Israeli dungeons. No more annexation of east Jerusalem. Removal of the wall. No more collective punishment. Removal of all check points. Withdrawal of the army from all territories and free movement to all Palestinians. The current Israeli government along with the US and UK should compensate all Palestinian families from the occupied territory and Palestinians returning from exile. They should also concentrate on Palestinian education and health care. Then, new elections should be held, and there should be an equal participation of Jewish and Arab candidates reflecting the new population.

Whoever at this point in time is the governing party may propose for a name change for the state. I’d be positive the Kassam rockets would stop firing too.

“But what about a bomber who deliberately kills scores of Iraqi children by detonating a bomb in the vicinity of a US soldier who is handing lollies out to those children?”

A bomber who does that has no excuse. That would not constitute resistance.

I’m not sure whether you keep up with news from Iraq but there have been incidents when coalition forces were responsible for such attack.

Last year two British soldiers disguising themselves as Iraqis by wearing the keffiyeh and robes were detained in Iraq after they detonated a bomb in a civillian area for no apparent reason. The British army forcefully broke into an Iraqi police office and removed these two soldiers. They didn’t face any tribunal for planting a bomb in a civillian area and the whole even was hushed up overnight.

Now, I’m not sure how many other incidents similar to the above are perpetuated by coalition forces. Incidents that don’t make it to the news.

But what is a fair response? More than 50 years have gone by since the State of Israel was formed. Do you just shift out everyone who lives there, including those Jewish Israelis who were born there and regard Israel as their home? Many Jewish people who live in Israel would not leave unless you physically forced them to move or killed them. Do you physically force them or kill them? In my mind, Israel’s response to the Palestinian issue would be to recognise that people had been wronged in the first place, and to make reparation. I believe that there have been some efforts towards this, but a major sticking point has always been who gets Jerusalem.

Some Israelis might argue that the Arab States and Palestinian paramilitaries started the problem by refusing to accept the UN’s initial partition (which gave Palestinians their own territory), and invading Israel in 1948. I don’t think it’s relevant whose “fault” it was. What has happened has happened. Regardless of who caused it, the fact is that people were forced off their land (or fled) and cannot now return. I think it’s time to move on from blame and fault.

Taking Iain’s point further, let’s think of an analogy close to home. One could extend your argument to say all settler Australians should vacate Australia because the land was wrongfully taken from indigenous people. There is no doubt that the land was taken by force in many circumstances, and indigenous people were killed, died of disease or were horribly dispossessed from lands on which their forebears had lived not just for hundreds of years, but for millenia. So, by that logic, indigenous people could argue that they had a right to forcibly remove us from their land - we are recent interlopers. However, most don’t argue that, for a variety of reasons.

Perhaps I am an idealist, but I think that reconciliation is the answer, rather than either side taking further retaliatory action. As an outsider, I can see that each act of retaliation just makes the problem worse rather than fixing it. Reconciliation is a difficult thing . It means seeing one’s deadly opponents as real human beings with families and the same concerns as anyone else. It means forgiving people for wrongs which may have been committed against your group in the past. It also means sharing access to resources, to land and to holy sites. I can see that there are some would never want to share, and I don’t know what the answer is to that. What’s that saying? “To err is human, to forgive is divine.”

As for the question of whether people should rebel with force against an occupying army: that is an extremely difficult question. I recognise, of course, that there are some times when it is legitimate to use force.

My problem is when innocent civilians are routinely and deliberately targeted, rather than the occupying army. I can understand it if an Iraqi guerilla shoots at an American solider because he is unhappy with the state of his country. The solider and the guerilla have made a choice to become involved in conflict, and that’s a risk they both have chosen to take.

But what about a bomber who deliberately kills scores of Iraqi children by detonating a bomb in the vicinity of a US soldier who is handing lollies out to those children? That, to my mind, is terrorism as opposed to legitimate rebellion. Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of innocent people who have not chosen to become involved in the conflict (except by their unfortunate proximity to the act of terrorism or their citizenship of a particular country). Such attacks like some of the ones in destroy the fabric of one’s own people: far more Muslims than non-Muslims are killed terrorist attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such attacks also make the occupying army start to distrust ordinary civilians - if an ordinary civilian is likely to blow you up, the solider is less likely to give a person who shouts “I’m innocent!” a second chance.

What if the army accidentally drops a bomb on the wrong village and kills a school full of innocent children? That is not terrorism, that is just a horrible, awful mistake, because it was an accident. Conversely, what if an army deliberately targets civilians in order to break down morale of those whom they are fighting? The latter is terrorism to my mind.

In so saying, I recognise that the line is difficult to draw. What if you were a guerilla who could assassinate a fascist dictator by detonating a bomb when the dictator was visiting a home for orphans? What if a resistance fighter/terrorist is at home with his children, and the army could kill him if they also slaughter the children? I don’t know the answer to these questions.

I knew I’d open a can of worms by raising the Israel-Palestine issue, and by stating my own support of the right of the state of Israel to exist (it was legally and properly created by the UN, after all). I also believe that a state of Palestine should exist, just as was envisaged in the initial partition by the UN, and that the area in Jerusalem should be internationally controlled (as a world heritage site and holy site for many religions). But sadly, I think any solution imposed would create unhappiness and resentment, and each side would feel hard done by.

I welcome any comments on my views.