Modern Israeli history

Who holds the land

Why Israel obstructs reconciliation

See article

Readers' comments



Who holds the land?
Well, before the debate even begins keep in mind that most of the land of the British Mandate of Palestine (created for the purpose of establishing a Jewish homeland in that territory) was used to create the "Kingdom" of Jordan for some deposed Saudi chieftains.
Second - as we see the illusion which is the Arab nation, as those redundant colonial creations all crumble into a flurry of anarchy, violence and fundamentalism we need to ask ourselves - does the world really need another one of those failed Arab countries? Especially since it seems that Arabs under Israeli rule (both in the PA and within Israel) enjoy a better standard of leaving, civic freedoms, health and education then their compatriots elsewhere in the middle east.


This article, whilst interesting, affords too little importance to the huge arsenal of WMD that Israel is now estimated to possess - up to 400 nuclear warheads plus chemical and biological weapons, more than that of either Britain or France. Plus the unpalatable fact that Israel has refused to sign the NPT and that its entire arsenal is outside of the IAEA inspectorate and subject to no outside control.

The estimate size of this undeclared arsenal is sufficient to destroy most of Europe as well as the Middle East and is under the control of a right-wing, and often extremist, coalition government that is known for its instability.

This then is the frightening scenario that is the status quo, with a tiny Middle Eastern state possessing a huge secret arsenal that is now even beyond the control of its mentor and founder, the United States.

That is the problem that now faces the UN and the world. The only solution would be to make the entire region including both Israel and Iran a NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREE ZONE. However, the AIPAC lobby has too powerful a hold of the US Congress for this to be implemented,

Those being the facts, it looks as if Israel will attack Iran in 2012 and that the subsequent conflict will quickly escalate to become nuclear after hundreds are killed by long-range rockets in both Iran and Israel.

fiesta_chorizo in reply to guest-iosnlle

Countries with larger arsenal of WMD and much less eminent threat level:
Russia, Pakistan, India, China, USA
When they consider it safe enough to disarm Israel can consider disarming as well.
Israel has been by far the most stable country in the region as well as much stabler than other western countries. you can stop worrying, unless you are a member of hizbullah, hamas or the iraninan revolutionary guard.

guest-iosnlle in reply to fiesta_chorizo

Sadly, you are misinformed. Pakistan and India hold less than 20% of Israel's estimated nuclear weapons arsenal.

As for Russia, China and the US. They are all signatories to the NPT and are the world's SUPER POWERS, Israel has just 7 million people in 20,000 m2. and is one of the smallest states in the world. The question is, should it be the 4th most powerful nuclear weapons state that is beyond now any external control?

You keep repeating "Israel estimated nuclear weapons arsenal". Estimated here means any body's guess, huh? LOL!
But your quote on the size of Israel's population and area is right. You just forget to add, that being the target for destruction by the Mohammedan (1.6 billion or about 23% of the world population) or as minimum by Arab (450 million) world, that "estimated nuclear weapons arsenal" is for Israel the absolutely necessary means for survival.
Since we're just guessing here, my assumption is that, however big or small, Israeli nuclear weapons arsenal IS GROWING. It can have some technological and scientific surprises unknown to other nuclear states, too. And good on Israel, I say.


Israel is like a stubborn another East Germany or apartheid South Africa. They will eventually go out either guns blazing or will just fade away and assimilate to local populace.

Strait_Forward in reply to tim73

Those nations and regimes who still make existential threats on the life of the Jewish people, will end up just their predecessors did:

Egypt's Pharos
Roman Empire
Spanish inquisition
Nazi Germany
Soviet Union

All gone. So would their followers.

Puntmeister in reply to Strait_Forward

Soviet Union doesn't belong in the list.

I, like most Americans, figured the Soviet Union was hostile towards Jews.

First through travels in Russia, wherein I met many Russian (once Soviet) Jews, as well as follow on research, I found the hostility wasn't endemic to the Soviet Union.

To be sure, Jews had their problems in Soviet times - but really no more or less so than usual, and EVERYONE had troubles during the Soviet times - they really weren't singled out.

In fact, many Jews were supportive of the Soviet experiment, and held high regard for (and sometimes high positions in) the Soviet leadership.

Why? Because the Jews figured the Communist theory, with its emphasis on 'Man' versus 'Religious man' would take the focus off of their religious affiliation.

To be sure, Russians (Slavs) tend to be racist - to include anti-semitic. But this was true before, during, and after the Soviet Union.

PS - I'm not out to defend Communism or the Soviet Union - just pointing out an interesting nuance to history which I myself was corrected on via in person real world experience.

Paperchase in reply to Strait_Forward

Oh please. In essence, all the "Jewish people" have done that the others didn't (ZERO of whose institutions fell because of what they did to the "Jewish people") is remember who their grandmothers were, and then get a country at the end of World War II because Europeans were happy to let people living in Palestine pay for Europe's own horrendous sins.

If you're going to get preachy about cultural constructs that are believed to have endured more rigidly than others, can we just jump into a fight about whose imaginary friend has the most superpowers? Otherwise, hush, the grownups are talking.

Strait_Forward in reply to Puntmeister

The most attractive part in communism for Jews was the principal of equality. Finally, Jews felt, they worth the same just like the person next to them, even if he wasn't a Jew. This was a breakthrough for Jews, and they embraced it.

As a result, you would find Jews working full heartedly for the communist idea, some of them manning high positions within the Russian communist party.

In WII, the combination of support to the equality principals of communism, and the fight against the Nazis, brought the result that among Red Army soldiers, the Jews became the most decorated fighters, prorated to their part of the population.

Having said that, the Soviet Union prohibited free religious practice for Jews. Learning Hebrew was prohibited. If persisted could have brought about the end to Russian Jewry. This was a cultural threat to the Jewish people's existence, not physical extermination.

Strait_Forward in reply to Paperchase

You say:
'...and then [Jewish People] get a country at the end of World War II because Europeans were happy to let people living in Palestine pay for Europe's own horrendous sins.'

The Jews' right for a state of their own in Palestine was recognized by Britain in 1917, and that righteous principal was adopted by the Leage of Nations in 1922. Long before WWII's sins.

jaysonrex in reply to Puntmeister

b8 ... etc. and etc.

You are not out to defend communism, you say. Maybe. But you are definitely trying to defend any and all antisemitic stories which defines you as a person. This is the inconvenient truth that no one can deny - so sorry.

no-nuthin in reply to Strait_Forward

yet no one seems to learn. (you forgot Haman in Persia btw)

even at this late day, their descendants still claim to have won. I've seen lot's of sites claiming that "the Jews were expelled from Egypt"... maybe no one read Exodus. I suppose the 10 plagues were a victory. somehow, "let my people go, no you can't leave" becomes "get out we win".

the confusion of the gentile mind is a handy work indeed.

Strait_Forward in reply to no-nuthin

'you forgot Haman in Persia btw'.

yup. and Iran those days is still work-in-progress..

I expect Iran to break up in the coming few years. After all, what do Kurds, Azeri, Baluchi, and Sunni Arabs got in common with Shiite Perisa?

Persia will contract back to its real size (..and influence)


Maybe the U.S. should follow Israel's lead and send African-Americans back to Africa "where they belong" and Indians back across the Bering Strait where they came from. Then America can become.the homeland for Christians except for a token minority of blacks.

Cutters. in reply to Strait_Forward

Going along those lines, most Jews in Israel would find themselves living somewhere between Iraq, Iran and Turkey. The only people left that can claim to have used the land continuously and before the Jew are the Bedouin, as the Jew committed genocidal massacres against other tribes that lived in Palestine/Israel before them. These acts are recorded in old testament and torah.

Strait_Forward in reply to Cutters.

You say:
'The only people left that can claim to have used the land continuously and before the Jew are the Bedouin'.

That's a lie. The oldest people around that has a claim to the land is the Jewish people.

Any proof otherwise - kindly share it with us..

Cutters. in reply to Strait_Forward

Bedouin have had use of that land since it was called Canaan, as traders, not possessor. There are a number of sites where historians has tracked the movement of semitic tribes, who all originate from what is now Iraq and Iran.

Egyptian texts talks of traders going for one end to the other, and the Bedouin have been doing the same thing since any record of them exists, using the same spots.

Unfortunately, they are now suffering the same fate as Roma. Israel refuses to let them travel through freely and confiscates land that they have habitually used. In this way, what Israel is doing is the same as extremist groups in Europe have done to Roma, like German confiscation of Roma land.

Strait_Forward in reply to Cutters.

Thousands of Bedouins living in Israel are Israeli citizens. You are right when you say that can't possibly posses all the land they wonder over. Unfortunately, some Israeli Bedouins try to take what's not theirs, demanding possession of far more land than reasonably possible.

Eventually a compromise will be reached with those who still haven't settled in towns already established for them, such as Rahat in the Negev Desert.

Ask Ishmael Khaldi, not me, how bad is it to be an Israeli Bedouin:

…or maybe Israel working Bedouin women:

Idalion in reply to Strait_Forward

You'll need to travel to Turkey to see the proof - the original of peace treaty between Egypt and Hittites concluded in 1258 BC. Basically, these two empires divided Canaan between themselves. So neither Bedouins nor Jews, I am afraid. I wonder what is your proof of Jewish supremacy.


The Economist:
"Meanwhile, more homes are being built in Israeli settlements deep within the Palestinian West Bank..."

You claim categorically, that the West Bank - the area between the 1949 armistice lines and the Jordan River - is ‘Palestinian’.

Says who?

Strait_Forward in reply to F R O Y

There is a number of international territorial disputes, under which all territories in questions are regarded for what they are - disputed.

Only Israel is discriminated against, again, when the territorial dispute it is part of is regarded as Israeli occupied.

This anti-Israeli discrimination will end one day, and the West Bank, as well, will be regarded for what it is - disputed.

F R O Y in reply to fiesta_chorizo

You're stuck in colonial times, Fiesta. The Mandate expired some time ago, if you are aware. Not that it was ever very legitimate.

Israel has no right beyond the Green Line. Anything it builds there shall be deemed illegal by International Law. Occupation powers can't settle their civilian population on occupied land.

F R O Y in reply to Strait_Forward

Yes, SF, there are a number of international territorial disputes, but very few where a foreign country keeps another people under its military rule. Actually there are only two such situations: Western Sahara (occupied by Morocco), and the Palestinian Territories.

You can call them disputed, if you want (but then Israel should at least explicitly declare which part it is specifically disputing: is it Area C? The settlements? the whole West Bank?), but as long as there are Israeli soldiers in the West Bank it will ALSO be occupied.

Strait_Forward in reply to F R O Y

You say:

Really. Ask the Kashmir people if they consider themselves Indians, or people other than Indians ruled by foreigners. Or maybe ask Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, wishing to unite with Armenia, if they consider themselves occupied by Azerbaijan.

Those are disputed territories, same as the West Bank - as a whole. There is NO basis for the unjust demand from Israel to completely withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines.

Such demand is a political rape attempt on Israel, trying to overwhelm it with international pressure lead by its declared would be destroyers, so that Israel has no choice but to cave in without and justification, helping Israel's destroyers to launch their next aggression against it.

F R O Y in reply to Strait_Forward

SF, Kashmir is internationally recognized as Indian territory, and all Kashmiris have Indian citizenship, even if they don't feel identified with it. This is patently different from the situation in the OPT, which, despite of being under Israeli rule, it is not considered as Israeli sovereign territory by any country n Earth (not even Israel), and where the indigenous population do not possess Israeli citizenship, regardless of what they consider themselves.

Nagorno-Karabakh, on the other hand, is de-facto under the control of the ethnic Armenian forces of Nagorno-Karabakh as a result of the Nagorno-Karabakh War, so we can't exactly say it is " occupied by Azerbaijan" (Azeris actually say it is occupied by Armenia).

So get your facts straight, and learn to distinguish separatist conflicts within sovereign nations from occupation of foreign territories by external forces. If Israel wants to join India's club, all it has to do is formally annex the OPT and grant Israeli citizenship to all of its inhabitants. Go ahead!

no-nuthin in reply to Strait_Forward

the chattering class- never did a day's work in their life. pooftahs, etc. birds of a feather flock together ya know

the terms "palestinian" and "west bank" conjoined maybe in the late 1990's? probably after the PLO accords.

no-nuthin in reply to F R O Y

and you just happen to be the judge. now im the judge, and here is MY rule-
1. The green line does not exist. it is not an international border; it WAS an armistice line. NOT A BORDER.
2. Jordan has renounced any claims, so there is no other State in question.
3. There is no Palestine under "international law".
4. There is no such thing as international law.
5. wherefore, get bent.

F R O Y in reply to no-nuthin

So no Palestinian State, then, right? Then what do you propose to do with the four million people you keep under occupation? Do you expect to keep them stateless and under Israeli military rule indefinitely?

At least Israel should be brave and say aloud what it wants, instead of constantly lying to the world about being committed to the creation of a Palestinian state. Then the rest of the world would have no option but to accept that Israel is nothing but a colonial apartheid regime, and treat it accordingly.

I really wish Israeli leaders would be as bold as you.

Strait_Forward in reply to F R O Y

You say:

So what? - Georgians and Azeri people once held a USSR passport. This is a technical matter, and today both are independent. Slovaks held Czechoslovakian passports, and now they don't.

Kashmiris want their own independence:

The uniqueness of the Palestinian aggression against Israel, is that it is existential in nature, not political. While Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh settle for independence from Azerbaijan, The Palestinians seek to exterminate Israel. Hence the constant pressure they are under.

Can't do the time, don't do the crime.. and the Palestinians whine to Israel: '... oh, what do I ask for, just to kill you... give me my rights so that I can really use them to make you lose yours...'

Supported by the 57 OIC member states, who sit on the world's 2/3 of the world's oil reserves, with the cooperation of Western leftists and anti-Semites, the Palestinians try to gang-rape Israel into submission.

Aint going to work, FROY.


The Economist:
"In 1982, he [Mr. Tyler] writes, “The martial impulse that impelled [Menachem] Begin, [Ariel] Sharon and the army into Lebanon ignored all the warnings from history—that military power could not rearrange the complex political order of Lebanon…The foundations of peace and coexistence with Israel could arise only from a settlement of the Palestinian question.”

But... this is the same Begin, who was the Israeli PM to sign peace agreement with Egypt, under which 90% of the territories occupied in 1967 were returned to Arab hands. Now, we are told, Egypt seeks to ‘modify’ those agreements..

The Economist:
“He goes on to depict the helplessness of the then prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, as Israel’s military might proved incapable of staving off a wave of suicide bombings following the Oslo accords of 1993.”

This is exactly what happens when Israel makes concessions to the Palestinians – Land for terror is what Israel gets, not peace. When making peace, supposedly, why should Israel prepare to ‘stave off’ suicide bombing?

Those two examples prove that Israel’s politicians, generals included, do try to make peace under concession making. Problem is – peace is not what Israel’s neighbors seek.

Puntmeister in reply to Strait_Forward

While it is certainly true the Palestineans and other Israeli neighbors are never going to fall in love with the Israelis, it would really be in Israel's best interest to appease the Palestineans to a point where they are satisfied enough that hatred of Israelis isn't their central defining characteristic.

The argument that Israel should not offer any concessions on the grounds that the Palestinians' true intentions are to destroy Israel is akin to a pre-emptive strike (kinda like the US invasion of Iraq).

The reality is, the Palestinians pose no existential threat to Israel, nor would they, even with statehood. Israel is just capturing high-pitched rhetorical comments made by infuriated Palestinians in order to promote their own ill-concieved policies.

To be sure, there is some fundamental racism on behalf of many Muslims towards Jews, which will never die-out, but that is not a valid reason for continually usurping disputed lands and imposing a myriad of stifling controls.

In Your Face in reply to Puntmeister


The assumption that such a point exists is unwarranted.

"The reality is, the Palestinians pose no existential threat to Israel...". I think your are grossly underestimating the crippling effect terrorism and rockets can have on a nation. Both Tel Aviv and the BG airport are quite within range of rockets fired from Samaria. That is, once Israel withdraws, and Hamas topples the PA, they will be free to target the nations central nervous system! The only thing Israel will be able to do will be to retaliate with a heavy hand, causing hundreds of deaths and being chastised by the whole world for its cruelty and overreaction. Even with the most massive retalition the suicidal Pals might stay undeterred. And then what?

This is not an imaginary scenrio. This is PRECISELY what happened upon withdrawal from Gaza. The only difference is that Gaza threatens only the Periphery of Israel whereas Judea and Samaria can threaten the heart and brain of the country.

Strait_Forward in reply to Puntmeister

You say:
'it would really be in Israel's best interest to appease the Palestinians to a point where they are satisfied enough that hatred of Israelis isn't their central defining characteristic.'

Appeasing the Palestinians doesn't work. Anytime Israel makes further concessions, the response is more terror.

The reason is - the Palestinians are unappeasable. The only thing that will make the Palestinians happy is Israel's elimination.

Look at the Palestinian National Charter, articles 2, 15, 21 for example:

In article 20, the PLO even claims that Jews aren't a people (!). That's why they refuse to recognize Israel a Jewish state. You see, b8uX9HDnLy, If Jews are not a nation, they do not deserve a nation state, do they?

Look also at the Hamas Covenant, second paragraph, or article 7, last paragraph:

For Hamas, not only Israel should be destroyed, but Hamas calls for genocide of the Jews.

The days Israel concedes more assest to the Palestinians, just to make it easier for them to kill more Israelis, are over. They understand that. They understand that through fake 'negotiations' they won't get anything more. That's why they try the UN now, to pressure Israel further.

The Palestinians won't stop till they are successful in destroying Israel. Any claim to the contrary will have to include the elimination of the Palestinian National Charter and the Hamas Covenant. Till that happens, Israel is justified in rejecting further 'appeasement' steps.

Gid5L2F in reply to Puntmeister

"... it would really be in Israel's best interest to appease the Palestineans to a point where they are satisfied enough that hatred of Israelis isn't their central defining characteristic."
Is there such a word as "uber-naivety?"

no-nuthin in reply to Puntmeister

besides, appeasing anyone never helps. there are 2 kinds of minds in the world- 'honor-shame' and 'self-confident'. you've got western confused with eastern and southern, the two will never meet.

any concession i make in an honor-shame culture is seen as weakness, not gratitude for being fair. why should i stop now, maybe you'll give me more, you weakling! on the contrary, the only way to make friends in the honor-shame environment is to mercilessly crush the opposition. thats how Arab states work, for good reason. this isnt a new england town hall meeting.

why are westerners so myopic? thats the real question. everybody else knows what's what but you have to project infantile fantasies on the world. no wonder the West is in collapse. And that's precisely what the Arabs think- we make more babies than you (waaaaaaaaaaay more babies) and we will outlast and overcome your amoral degeneracy. and they may be right.


"Meanwhile, more homes are being built in Israeli settlements deep within the Palestinian West Bank, placed there deliberately to thwart the possibility of a two-state solution."
The reality is that the Palestinian leadership isn't really interested in the peace process. Repeatedly the EU, UN, US negotiators have tried to get Mr. Abbas to the negotiating table. No matter what they offered the Palestinians, they aren't interested in returning to the negotiating table. The Palestinians are now demanding Jerusalem, which as anyone knows has been Jewish for thousands of years. So things are the other way around: the Palestinians are holding the Israelis and the peace process captive. Why do they do that? Because they can now score international recognition at the UN and can now demand more land in any possible peace agreement. That is why PM. Netanyahu has been building settlements inside the West Bank, out of spitefulness because the Palestinians don't want to accept the more than four credible peace proposals that the Israelis have offered the Palestinians. The Palestinians demand the Haram Ash-Sharif, the most important building in Islam in the region. But the Haram Ash-Sharif was built ON TOP of the Temple Mount, the most important Jewish building in Israel. So that is why the peace process is stalling. For once the truth.

Cutters. in reply to WM750

The temple was not built by Jews, so the claim to it is flimsy. It was built by those that originally lived there, when the land was called Canaan.

The settlements are illegal, dispute that all you want, and should be stopped.

Puntmeister in reply to WM750

The fact that there is such a heated dispute over a single mound of dirt speaks to the irrationality on both sides which stifles any realistic, logical, reasonable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In any event, given the perception in much of the West that the Israelis are more highly educated and civilized than the Palestinians, one would expect them to act as such and take the upper hand in any potential pissing match.

Yet, as you point out, "Netanyahu has been building settlements inside the West Bank out of spitefulness".

I'm not sure enacting antagonistic policies out of spitefulness is a fruitful, reasonable, fair-minded approach to proceeding, even in the face of what you describe as intransigent opponents.


Compare this with the congenital hatred displayed by Muslims across the planet against "Zionists".World should be able to tell Jews, where they can go.World should also be able to tell Muslims that they will not harm any Jew anywhere.That could be a tall order.One film has forced so many on the streets.Will they listen? If not, why not allow Israelis to settle their issue the way they want?West has been too busy since WWII, advising Jews to do this or that.


I take issue with the assumptions behind this comment. First, calling it "Palestinian" West Bank when they never owned it and never had a state there. In fact, it was previously occupied by Jordan before 1967, but no one called it "Palestinian West Bank" back then - nor did they seek to create a state in it. But it's convenient propaganda. Secondly, to say the settlements are "placed there deliberately to thwart," you make it seem that it is ONLY the settlements that are the problem when in fact several other factors from the Muslim side that are behind the thwarting of a 2-state solution that are encouraging more settlements -- consider Hamas, Islamic jihad, Hizbullah, and Iran who play much bigger roles in derailing such efforts, including Abbas' going to Iran's non-aligned summit and his constant bid to the UN for nationhood. You want to talk about impediments to peace? Just look what the Muslims and Islamists are doing. They exercise the exact same hostilities elsewhere in the region that have nothing to do with Israel, as I'm sure you already know.

In Your Face in reply to SamuelPrime

Re: Obstacles to peace, I have recently heard a lecture by MK Einat Wilf in which she persuasively made the point that the greatest obstacle to peace is the fact that millions of Palestinians are still in defined as refugees. How can anyone expect that any Palestinian leadership will be able to conclude a final settlement for as long as there are hudredes of thousands of Arabs who are denied by Arab governments any prospects of making a decent living and are told that the only solution for them is to "return" to what is now Israel?

F R O Y in reply to SamuelPrime

It is Palestinian because its indigenous population is Palestinian. That's the gist of self-determination. It does not require ownership or previous sovereignty. Natives can call their land of birth as they see fit.

Settlements are definitely "placed there deliberately to thwart" the establishment of a Palestinian state. That was the explicit reason behind the construction of Ariel, for conquering every hilltop in the West Bank and for peppering the whole territory with illegal settlements. They might not be the only factor behind the impasse, but they are a major one without a doubt.

Hostilities on the Arab side are the consequence of Israel's obduracy and its expansionist policies.

SamuelPrime in reply to F R O Y

Ah but here's the catch: there were also Jews, Christians, Druze, Bedouins, and other groups, living there. So these would be called "Palestinian" too -- not, as is implied, only ARAB Muslims.
And the constructions and settlements are a result of hostilities and not recognizing Israel as a state for several decades since 1948. (Like in the Khartoum conference with the Arab THREE NOs.) If Israel is not recognized and sought to make peace with, why should it not settle in land it won in a war designed to drown Jews into the Sea? It would be dumb. You can take from someone who wants to kill you. Arabs have no place complaining about the consequences of their failed war. They were defeated and they have to be reminded of it and accept it.
"Hostilities on the Arab side are the consequence of Israel's obduracy and its expansionist policies."
And conversely. How about considering Islam's expansionist policies from its very beginnings and to this day. You can't turn a blind eye to that, given they number 340 million in the middle east compared with Israel just 8 million. These numbers alone tell you who the real expansionist is.

F R O Y in reply to SamuelPrime

SamuelPrime: by the time European Jews began arriving in droves in the late 19th century, Palestine's population was 97% Arab, be them Bedu or Fellahin, Christian or Muslim. There was a tiny Jewish community, but it also included European-born Ashkenazi Jews who settled there for religious reasons. Native, Arab-speaking Jews were a minority inside a tiny minority. You could call all of these native peoples "Palestinians" if you want, and you would not be wrong, but we would still be talking about Arabs.

Secondly, Israel shall not settle the territories it occupies because it is ILLEGAL under International Law. Committing crimes to push the other side to be more amenable to your demands is not a very justifiable attitude. Like the kidnapper that cuts the ear of his hostage to convince his father to pay the ransom. Maybe it will serve to solve the situation faster, but it is hardly an ethical, legitimate or legal act.

Likewise, justifying Israel's present expansionism with Arab ancient expansionism from over one thousand years ago is just preposterous. Times have changed, in case you haven't noticed. Right of conquest has been out of flavor for quite some time already.

jaysonrex in reply to F R O Y


Israel IS the Jewish state and it represents the Jewish people. The account it has to settle with the Christian World is huge, just as it is with the Muslim World. Maybe in 1000 or 2000 years the o/s balance of the account will be more manageable. Maybe. And then, maybe not.

What the Christian World, more than the Muslim one, seems unable to understand and accept is the position of the 15 million Jews left throughout the world: NEVER AGAIN!

no-nuthin in reply to F R O Y

by the late 19th century, Palestine did not exist. Only in 1922 were any borders drawn. There is no difference between one side of the line and any other.

by the late 19th century, proto-Palestine contained only 500,000 people. 97% of small is still small. Both sides of the Jordan in total are 20,000 square miles. The land was close to uninhabited.

the OP here didnt refer to expansionism 1000 years ago; we're talking about right now, and ever since the last 60. What's amazing is that anyone thinks the word "expanse" could apply to an area that small. This isnt Germany and the Ukraine' this is 50 by 200 miles.

F R O Y in reply to no-nuthin

Moving outside your recognized borders is expanding, no matter how far you go. And no matter how many people you dispossess, displace or occupy, it is still a crime.

People don't need borders or recognized nation-states to have a right of self-determination in their homeland of birth. Otherwise most Africans would have no countries today.

With or without a previous state, numerous or few, Palestinians had a right to self-determine in the land of their ancestors, and no foreign power, or foreign colonizers had a right to prevent that. That injustice is at the root of this conflict, and as long as it is not acknowledged and addressed the conflict will continue.

SamuelPrime in reply to F R O Y

Froy, what you've pointed out is that demographics have changed - and I agree that they have. As a matter of fact, demographics have changed all thru the middle east, Jewish and Arab populations have changed, yes, but also consider Christian demographics -- huge numbers of Christians have left or moved -- as well as those in the people exchange between Turkey and Greece. Another example is the expulsion of Palestinians from Kuwait when Arafat shook hands with Saddam after invading Kuwait. Around 400,000 Palestinians have been expelled. Demographic change is still taking place. Even in the US you can see it. It is just part of the human process. So the Jew demographic change is no different, and certainly no different from when the Transjordan was created from the British Mandate.

The "international law" you mention is not binding. They are like recommendations. The problem with it is that we cannot expect one of the parties to abide by it when the other does not -- as many of the resolutions you're tacitly referring to are addressed to both sides, not just one. I think this international law part of the problem is in desperate need of revision -- they have not revised nor updated it in several decades! Needs revamping to deal with today's realities.


Secondly, it is thanks to the Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria ("West Bank") that it has transformed into a thriving economic region like it never has before. That is something that the Arabs living in it are benefiting from much more than their oppressed counterparts in Gaza.

Assatur in reply to SamuelPrime

Yes your comparison is true for Gaza and the West Bank, ignoring the effects of blockades on a country's economic well being. I seem to remember that Gaza recorded a tremendous growth for a short period after Israel relaxed the blockade restrictions.

And of course, if you compare the GDP per capita of the West Bank against the neighbouring 'oppressed' nations, your argument falls flat, unfortunately.

F R O Y in reply to SamuelPrime

That's a good one. Now Palestinians have to be grateful for having a foreign army controlling 60% of their territory, their borders, their airspace and the movement of goods and people within it.

FYI, the World Bank debunked just this year all that myth about the "West Bank boom", which, as we all know, was nothing but an international aid-fueled bubbled that did not translate in any kind of improvement for the lives of Palestinians, save for the few well-connected cronies in the PA. Unemployment is now higher in the WB than in Gaza (where it's never low), and the bubble has sent prices sky-high, further deteriorating the livelihoods of ordinary Palestinians. Last week we saw widespread protests all around the West Bank, precisely complaining about the state of the economy, protests that may well end up toppling Fayyad's (and Abbas's) collaborationist regime.

But of course you will still point out that the situation in the Territories is better than in Syria, or Yemen, or some other Arab country of your choice to prove your point. It was exactly the same point Afrikaners made about their black population. The ingrates were living far better than any other people in the region. They should thank their benevolent masters.

All colonial regimes are the same.

SamuelPrime in reply to F R O Y

To Froy and Assatur. Don't know where you got your info from but results are going to be mixed and are going to change from year to year. However, the Washington Institute says that there has been "Strong Growth in the West Bank, Less So in Gaza" (in a 2011 report). So it's not so bad as you make it -- particularly when we consider the state of hostility between two people and that a peace accord has not been signed. For its part Israel is doing a great job - even hiring Palestinian Arabs who work in Israel.

Concerning the blockade on Gaza, the 1000 tunnel system has been a way of getting around it - coupled with Israel's easing of blockade and allowing in many goods. Depending on degree of hostilities at a given time, Gazans can do quite well or they can do quite poorly -- much of it depends on Hamas and other jihadists who want to spoil the peace.

We are living in economically difficult times, so it should not be surprising that Arabs in the two territories could feel it - heck even Israelis feel it, as there have been protests because of high food and living costs.

Lastly, if you want to play the "apartheid Afrikaners game," you can play it also with the Muslim & Arab treatment of their minorities -- thru the Muslim practice of dhimmitude (Muslim second class treatment of Jews, Christians, and other minorities - and full discrimination against unrecognized minorities like the Bahais whom they persecute). But your comparison of Israel with such fails when you consider how other (non-threatening) minorities who know how to live peaceably with Israel - like Druze, Christians, Bahais - are not treated in that manner.

F R O Y in reply to SamuelPrime

My source is a report from April this year from the World Bank:

It does not deny the growth of the economy of the West Bank, but it states that it is just an aid-fueled bubble, which does not constitute a sustainable base for the economy of the territory. Also, it points out that all this wealth has gone to the pockets of a selected few (PA officials and their business partners), while the situation of the majority of Palestinians have worsened and unemployment soared.

You see, GDP growth does not tell the whole story.

As for the apartheid analogy, I'm sorry, but those minorities you mention, discriminated as they may be, are still considered citizens of their respective countries, and are not confined in restricted areas like Palestinians are in the OPT, and like blacks once were in their Bantustans in South Africa.

SamuelPrime in reply to F R O Y

Well, the Palestinians did not argue and complain when Egypt and Jordan were occupying Gaza and West Bank (respectively) with their foreign armies. But their prejudices against Jews make them complain when they've lost land during war they supported. Yes, in spite that they should be grateful they haven't been expelled they way they were expelled by 100,000s from Kuwait!

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to SamuelPrime

Singapore is one of the most efficient societies in the world. So is Dubai. Based on your logic, we should encourage large settlements of Chinese (i.e., Singaporeans) and Arabs (i.e., people from Dubai) in Israel. Israel will become much more prosperous.


The one glaring term missing from Mr Tyler's equation are the 'sabra' Arabs that are part of this whole process. That's a pretty clear sign of bias right there. Ah yes, he's a journalist with an angle, not an objective historian - thanks for the reminder.


Here's an idea? Let the Arab nations give each displaced Palestinian the home of each displaced Jew who they booted out of their countries after 1948 and 1967.
Fair exchange; no robbery!
Then leave Israel to get on with life in their modest-size territory including the west bank .

F R O Y in reply to Gid5L2F

Are you suggesting that Palestinians in the West Bank should leave the homes where they and their ancestors were born, to make way for Israel? That has an ugly name, you know.

Gid5L2F in reply to F R O Y

I was being facetious in order to make a simple point, that some here choose to ignore half the problem. They take sides with the REAL ethnic cleansers, namely, the Islamic states.

In Your Face in reply to F R O Y

And what about Pal suggestion that in order to make peace Judea and Samaria must be ethnically cleansed? What about the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. Ah, as long as it's Jews that are being cleansed its OK.

F R O Y in reply to In Your Face

As the papers from the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, leaked by Al Jazeera, showed, Palestinian negotiators offered Israel that Maale Adumim remained in the Palestinian state along with its Jewish inhabitants "as an example of coexistence". Tzipi Livni flatly rejected that possibility. Israel is not interested in leaving the settlements in Palestine. The whole point of the settlements was to expand Israel's territory and/or to thwart the creation of a Palestinian state. The whole argument about the "Judenrein West Bank" is nothing more than a crude red herring.


As a non-Jewish American who lived in Israel for a year, enjoying the non-Muslim regions (Druze, Jewish, etc.) while fearing for his life in Muslim areas, I just want to ask Economist: What is stuck in the head of the supposedly open-minded British that causes such one-sided blind opinions against the Israeli state? Is it because the Jews don't respect her majesty the Queen? (hopefully you dont block this radical comment :) )

SamuelPrime in reply to politbureau

politbureau, that couldn't be true since the Brits are not so thin-skinned as you imagine. After all, the Jews have gotten over the fact that some Brits (not all) have impeded efforts to have Jews flee to Israel in the 1940s to escape Nazi persecution.

iKNOWjustAlittle in reply to kentuckian

As a non jewish Brit who spent almost three years in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan learning about a region and its issues, never once fearing for my life, instead enjoying friendliness, hospitality from the other side, I can answer a little, hopefully without causing offence.
1).Not wanting to sound like a palestinian apologist, the actions of the well equipped Israelis have been unforgivable for decades now, on several levels, military and humanitarian to say the least.
2). Even though UK was instrumental in the establishment of Israel, the independent reports of unnecessary Israeli aggression and ongoing denial of so many basic necessities to palestinian civilians have come back to us for over a generation.
3). As the better educated nation almost to a citizen, it makes their failure to adopt the moral high ground and genuinely negotiate all the more shocking and unacceptable.
4). By now, the holocaust and anti semite cards have been trotted out so many times at the slightest non positive comment that it is seen as "here we go again..."
5). I'm genuinely terrified that the beginning of the end of the world could start because of Nyeten-yahoo's arrogance in lobbing rockets into Iran, safe in the belief that the jewish influenced USA will back them all the way.

Do these points shed any light on your question?

I consider all religions to be equally twisted in warmongering in the name of their faith. I absolutely don't wish to see Israel and its people annihilated, but like other brits, will not support them when they are as guilty as any of their oppressors, real and imagined.

no-nuthin in reply to politbureau

so what was their problem before the attack? everything was hunky-dory then randomly one day the jews attacked?
the british are assholes in general, is the general answer. ask the Boers about that one, and the irish, and of course, the Americans- they paid the injuns to murder our own colonist-settler ancestors, just like they created the whole Middle East problem- they backed the Arabs from the beginning.
"why do they call cigarettes 'fags' in britain? because the English are gay."- Family Guy
(apologies to the true Britons!!)


Also remember that English Protestants, Spanish Catholics and Turks, as nations, also had policies of flooding their peoples into the restive territories of Nothern Ireland, Basque Homeland and Kurdish areas. These nation now "own" these territories as parts of their modern territorial boarders.
I am not saying either side is correct but why are Israelis expected to do more than any nation in the EU? Get it...double standard??

F R O Y in reply to 2iaKyXJGJE

That's why today you still have conflicts in all those regions you mention. My bet is that all of them will eventually obtain their independence.

Besides, Israel has never officially claimed to "own" those territories. If it did, and it granted Israeli citizenship to their native population, just like the UK, Spain and Turkey grant citizenship to the inhabitants of the territories you mention, we would be discussing a very different issue (namely how soon Israel would have an Arab PM). But as of now this is not a "separatist" conflict, but rather a colonial one.


Enough. The Economist and Western Nations expect Israel to make exceptional territorial accessions to the Palestinians so that Israel will be less than 13km wide at its smallest point. So why is that expected? It is because Israelis are generally considered "Western" and therefore must give territorial advantage while Israeli citizens are murdered on a weekly basis.
I am always amazed how little the European Union expects from the Palestinians for peace. So if the Palestinians in Gaza launch thousands of rocket but it only kills 1, as opposed to 10, Israelis does it make it more ok? Ask Turkey about the PKK, ask Spain about Basque warriors, ask England about the IRA. Israel, like it or not, is a state among any other. It is a member of the UN, OSCE etc. So because Israelis are "Western" should they give away what members of the EU cannot to their minorities? The double standard is over.

Assatur in reply to 2iaKyXJGJE

Because the territorial accessions are those gained from the war? Technically, the West Bank is under occupation by Israel and hence doesn't own Palestine. Israel loses nothing it actually owned in the first place.

That's the problem with territorial expansions without a peace treaty.

F R O Y in reply to 2iaKyXJGJE

It either accepts to "lose" that territory it never owned in the first place, or it either formally annex it and grant Israeli citizenship and equal rights to its native inhabitants. But it can't have its cake and eat it too. Time to choose.


That a historical political insight as seen through the pink colored glasses of a 26 year veteran of the Washington (com)Post and the New York Times as well as a producer of 22 political documentaries for the American PBS ('Progressive' Broadcasting Service) might well discern a national militaristic undercurrent given the constancy of proven threat and ongoing bellicosity of Israel's opponents and sometime 'friends' is hardly surprising.

The fact that he has much more 'experience' in the Islamic 'diplomatic' world, than in dealing with repeated existential threats and his evident 'progressive' leanings has obviously given him a much higher left sided acuity. That a society being attacked repeatedly has led to his perceived "undermined opportunities for reconciliation" is laughable at best, given his failure to analyze the the society with which he recommends this reconciliation be accomplished. A Society and its States which for centuries have blatantly expounded their distropian visions of aeonic global conquest.


"Most of the army brass, past and present, are solidly opposed to a unilateral Israeli strike against the Iranian bomb-in-the-making."
Got a shred of evidence to back up that "bomb-in-the-making" claim or are you just another sycophant from Operation Fool Me Once lining up like sheep to take your place in Operation Fool Me Twice?


I hear Saudi Arabia and most of the Gulf State would like to see Iran bombed as well. Perhaps Israel should partner up with them. It they all openly acknowledge that they have shared interest then perhaps they won't need to pretend to hate each other anymore.

Paperchase in reply to Spectacularj1

A public acknowledgement of that, which has been a diplomatic fait accompli for decades, would be just the thing to have angry citizens of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States push their governments out of power. There's a reason they're pretending to hate each other.

Cool Beans

This book looks like an interesting read. Firstly, you are right that the Israel-Palestine conflict has been disapparing off the radar and Iran has conveniently, although rightly come back into the fray with their theats. It is also always great that new light shone on the history of the region and countries help us with understanding these problems hopefully with a cool head. That said, I find it interesting that you conclude with the settler movement being the driving force behind today's stalemate. Their impact even in the near term is questionable. At the end of the day, they do constitute a small minority including among those who are actually "settlers." 90 odd percent of these people (lots of Russian migrants for example) have no ideological bent and have moved primarily for economic reasons. So if you focus financial incentives on relocating these individuals into Israel this may be something policymakers should look into. Beyond this, only about 5% of West Bank is settled so conditions for land swaps are favourable and there are those on both sides who are open to boundaries. We should keep in mind that US, Israel and Iran are all facing elections soon so opportunities for reasoned, constructive discourse are inevitably drowned out by shrill, bloviating electioneers. I'm not suggesting that after elections, and with a mind calming cool winter in the horizon, we will see giant leaps of progress because after all it has been decades. But most democracies, given the nature and strength of their insitutions tend to give voice to various factions at varying times. Perhaps a small group of confrontational paranoids have co-opted the current political landscape but there's no reason to hope and pray that the peace movements, whose presence and growth you have highlighted, will be given voice and heard, hopefully sooner than later. I have no idea whether this will happen but goddam, there are three gods chilling in Jerusalem - perhaps they can invest their powers in uniting these people, and that too before the summer because Midde East heat gets everybody angry.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Car technology: Turbocharged
Schumpeter 37 mins ago
Gun laws: Prayers and pistols
Democracy in America July 11th, 17:43
Daily chart: Justice on trial
Graphic detail July 11th, 13:40
Technology and fashion: Storming the maisons
Schumpeter July 11th, 10:05
Financial literacy: Back to basics
Free exchange July 11th, 10:01


Products and events



