Response / Henry Siegman on Burston and 'Israel's pathology'

I know your perseverence is admirable versus this "Dog" with a bone he keeps biting while there is no flesh left in it. All his posts are so spurious is a wonder you persist in responding. This is tantamount of being a "sadomasochist" And I hardly think you come under that category. However,you have tried,and tride and yet have not got the gist of this person's antecedents wich may be( he is one of them)? Answer my question on my supposition eh?

"In 1993 the PLO recognized the State of Israel"(Ron) Yet they still don't want to recognize Israel as the state for the Jewish people (as in nation not religion) "It also declared it recognized UN resolutions 242 and 338"(Ron) Yet their interpretation of it is that Israel has to withdraw to the 1967 boundaries which involves major risks for Israelis. "It declared that the PLO commits to the ME peace process and to peaceful resolution of conflict thru negotiations"(Ron) Yet they insist that Israel should accept the so called right of return of millions of Arab Palestinians which would be suicidal for Israel. And most importantly: You forgot Hamas which is now the dominant force amongst Palestinian Arabs. And Hamas openly boasts of their intent to destroy Israel. So Ron, you better go back to the drawing board because not much seems to have changed in the attitude of your Palestinian Arabs. They still seem to be holding onto their old dreams ...

...the longer I look at THAT matter the closer is my way of thinking about that to your way . Of course it is kind of simplicity because quite ordinary pple who are far away from policy would like to live in quite ordinary way in their own state but policy + religious ideology have made it imposible. Too many "extreme fingers" do mess and for sure Independed State of Palestine is not on first place in "their job".

Where to start? Your posting says nothing. It quotes my comment, it offers a history course, which is a paragraph about the past which has nothing to do with our subject. The subject was Palestinian attacks against Israel before 1967. Israel didn't exist until 1948. So you begin with 1929. Why didn't you go back to the Israelite slaughter of the Medianites, it would have been just as relevant. Then you refer to the 1964 PLO charter which has been declared null and void and redrafted. If we are to discuss what the PLO was, lets also discuss the Irgun and Haganah. The web site to which you refer repeats the 1993 PLO recognition of the State of Israel that I reported.

There is something seriously wrong here. You claim I have tried to tell you historically laws were in place to protect civilians in siege warfare, and that you were the one to remind me that such laws are a recent phenomenon. Pls read from my past postings. #103 to you: "Thru the centuries of siege warfare, there were never a UN and international laws protecting innocent civilians. There are now." #116 to you: "international laws governing blockades or sieges did not apply to the protection of innocent civilians...there are now" 120 to Fox: "Thru all the historical blockades there were no UN nor international laws to govern the collective punishment of civilians. There are now". Doesn't it bother you that you claim my comments as yours? I did not pretend that Hamas has nothing to do with the people of Gaza. I said "it was none of Israel's business how Hamas governs Gaza." There is a disturbing pattern here.I hope you are able to correct it. Good luck.

Bravo! Peter. I have maintained repeatedly that when Jews read something they don't like, they attack the author calling him either an anti-semite or a liar. Thanks for the confirmation. Re journalists, I quoted from the Foreign Press Association. Of course your anecdotal report of a photographer photographing a Blair certainly makes that a lie. One cant be certain about journalists being allowed in Gaza, Israel fluctuates frequently about allowing them in and then barring them. On 20 November the Associated Press filed a protest with Israeli PM criticizing govt decision to ban journalists from entering Gaza. Foreign Policy Journal said "...Israel has barred for months journalists from entering Gaza,...(but) the suffering caused by the siege is no secret in the region." 20 March 2009. Lie #2. I didnt say "no Gazans treated in Israel." Thats a lie. For the rest, I quoted Relief agencies, Human rights agencies, and WHO; those damned liars.

"The Palestinians did not wage war against Israel before 1967 ... Can you explain why you invent such things? .... The two Arab states allowed no Palestinian attacks on Israel. Are you lying?"(Ron) Quite a mouthful from you there Ron. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and put it down to your ignorance on the subject. So let me give you a crash course on Middle East History: I'll ignore events like the 1929 massacre of Hebron's Jews by Palestinian Arabs. I'll also ignore the two Arab revolts during the British mandate, in which they murdered hundreds of Jews. I'll even ignore the rantings of the Mufti of Jerusalem Amin Al Husseini who collaborated with the Nazis and schemed with them to extend the final solution to the Jews of Palestine. I'll ignore all of that because all of that happened before Israel even existed. But I won't ignore the PLO and the Fedayeen. Here read about them and what they stood for : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization "..[the PLO] is a political and paramilitary organization founded in 1964..." "..Founded by a meeting of 422 Palestinian national figures in the West Bank, in May 1964, following an earlier decision of the Arab League, its goal was the liberation of Palestine through armed struggle..." So Ron, tell me this: Was 1964 before 1967, or NOT? And did guerilla attacks by armed Palestinian infiltrators (known as the Fedayeen) occurr against Israeli civilians between 1948 and 1967, or didn't they? Do me a favour Ron, go read up on the subject before you answer ...OK?

The Palestinians did not wage war against Israel before 1967. That's how I explain that. Can you explain why you invent such things? Israel declared statehood on 14 May 1948. On 15 May, the next day, the Jordanian army occupied the West Bank and Jerusalem. Then Egypt took Gaza. The two Arab states allowed no Palestinian attacks on Israel. Are you lying? or you just don't know better? In 1993 the PLO recognized the State of Israel. It also declared it recognized UN resolutions 242 and 338. It declared that the PLO commits to the ME peace process and to peaceful resolution of conflict thru negotiations. It said the PLO renounces terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility to prevent violations and discipline violators. How can I convince Israelis of anything if they are no better read than you?

You make it sound that the Palestinian Arabs are waging war against Israel because of the land that Israel occupied in 1967. The trouble with that theory is that the Palestinian Arabs waged war on Israel before 1967 too. How do you explain that Ron? Now, Ron, if people like you want Israel to listen to your suggestions, then your job is to convince Israelis that the Palestinian Arabs have given up their 61 year old dream of destroying Israel. The trouble is that NOTHING that they seem to do or say (especially Hamas) suggests that ...

Lee, you may be new at this, but if you post a comment critical of Israeli policies, particularly Israel's treatment of Palestinians, you will think you are the reincarnation of Yasser Arafat. They won't address the substance of your comment, but they will attack you, and you will be called either an anti-semite or a liar. It is intellectually inane to generalize about an entire population, but there must a common gene running around there somewhere. Good luck.

It gave birth to one of the greatest counries on Earth...USA baby! What we DONT need is another backwards, dark ages, women/Christian/Jewish oppressing Islamic state.

The lack of Palestinian military capacity (I forgot to mention trained officers) may be blah, blah, blah, to you, but not to any Palestinian who ever harbored a thought of a Palestinian state attacking Israel. Believe me, if there were a sovereign Palestinian state bordering Israel, it would worry about the Israeli army. Your scenario is absurd, and you would recognize that it you knew something about the Arab world. The only Arab nations who could conceivably attack Israel are Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Jordan and Egypt care more about their relations with the US than their disdain for Israel.They also tried it several times and didn't like it. The Arab league in 2000 offered Israel full recognition by all Arab states and guaranteed secure borders if it withdrew to its 1967 borders. There will never be an Iranian army on Arab soil unless as a conquerer. Iranians are Persian Shias. The Sunni Arabs hate and fear the Shia more than Jews. It is a nonsensical and uniformed scenario.

"Who cares how wide Israel would be under 1967 borders. Israel has one of the most sophisticated powerful armed forces in the world. It would fear attack from the Palestinians who have no aircraft, no tanks, no artillery ... blah blah blah"(Ron) I also said that at those narrowest borders which are 15km wide (10 miles) is where Israel's population centre is. We all know how the Palestinians treated Southern Israel's civilians after Israel withdrew from Gaza. They were NOT worried about Israel's army because they knew that their allies (people like you) and their inbuilt majority in the UN will place constraints on Israel. And one more thing, imagine this scenario: At some point after Israel's would be withdrawal to the 1967 boundries (the 1949 armistice lines), the Palestinians would allow othe Arab armies or Iran's army to line up at Israel's borders. The UN would do NOTHING as usual. The Americans would restrain Israel as they always do and at some point that Arab/Iranian army would launch a 1973 style surprise attack and within hours could cut Israel in half. Even if Israel would emerge as the ultimate winner, just imagine the carnage that would result to Israel's civilian population. You might NOT care about that Ron, but Israelis are NOT fools, NOR are they indifferent to such possibilities. There is simply no need for them to take such risks NOR is it imperative for the Palestinian Arabs to insist on it unless that is exactly what they plan to do to Israel.

...You were the one who tried tell us that historically International laws were in place to protect civilians in siege warfare. I was the one to remind you that such laws are a very recent phenomenon. But now you are trying to lecture me on the topic and pretending that I disclaim such laws? OK, you can go on and pretend ... All I said was that: - such laws apply both ways and do not just favour your "poor Palestinians". - Israel is just restricting the re-supply of goods, it has not entirely prevented the entry of ANY goods. - Consequently, the Gazans are NOT starving. They are just being inconvenienced. - Israel's terms to ease the restrictions are NOT unreasonable. - What is unreasonable are the actions of the elected leaders of the Gazans (Hamas) who target Israeli civilians. - It is unreasonable to claim that Israel is committing genocide by defending it's own civilians from the Gazans. - It is also unreasonable to pretend that somehow Hamas has NOTHING to do with the people of Gaza. My recollection is that at the last democratic elections, the majority of Gazans voted for Hamas even though they knew that Hamas stood for war with Israel. Now Ron, do you think you could stick to the topic and debate what I am ACTUALLY saying rather than what you pretend I am saying?

"Who cares how wide Israel would be under 1967 borders. Israel has one of the most sophisticated powerful armed forces in the world. It would fear attack from the Palestinians who have no aircraft, no tanks, no artillery ... blah blah blah"(Ron) I also said that at those narrowest borders which are 15km wide (10 miles) is where Israel's population centre is. We all know how the Palestinians treated Southern Israel's civilians after Israel withdrew from Gaza. They were NOT worried about Israel's army because they knew that their allies (people like you) and their inbuilt majority in the UN will place constraints on Israel. And one more thing, imagine this scenario: At some point after Israel's would be withdrawal to the 1967 boundries (the 1949 armistice lines), the Palestinians would allow othe Arab armies or Iran's army to line up at Israel's borders. The UN would do NOTHING as usual. The Americans would restrain Israel as they always do and at some point that Arab/Iranian army would launch a 1973 style surprise attack and within hours could cut Israel in half. Even if Israel would emerge as the ultimate winner, just imagine the carnage that would result to Israel's civilian population. You might NOT care about that Ron, but Israelis are NOT fools, NOR are they indifferent to such possibilities. There is simply no need for them to take such risks NOR is it imperative for the Palestinian Arabs to insist on it unless that is exactly what they plan to do to Israel.

...You were the one who tried tell us that historically International laws were in place to protect civilians in siege warfare. I was the one to remind you that such laws are a very recent phenomenon. But now you are trying to lecture me on the topic and pretending that I disclaim such laws? OK, you can go on and pretend ... All I said was that: - such laws apply both ways and do not just favour your "poor Palestinians". - Israel is just restricting the re-supply of goods, it has not entirely prevented the entry of ANY goods. - Consequently, the Gazans are NOT starving. They are just being inconvenienced. - Israel's terms to ease the restrictions are NOT unreasonable. - What is unreasonable are the actions of the elected leaders of the Gazans (Hamas) who target Israeli civilians. - It is unreasonable to claim that Israel is committing genocide by defending it's own civilians from the Gazans. - It is also unreasonable to pretend that somehow Hamas has NOTHING to do with the people of Gaza. My recollection is that at the last democratic elections, the majority of Gazans voted for Hamas even though they knew that Hamas stood for war with Israel. Now Ron, do you think you could stick to the topic and debate what I am ACTUALLY saying rather than what you pretend I am saying?

"You read that Erekat said "it breaks my heart, we were so close," and time ran out. The Palestinians never got the chance to say yes"(Ron) You (AND Erekat) can assert and make excuses for Arafat till kingdom come, Ron, but just tell me this: How long does it take to say yes if one really wants to say yes? Hmmmmmmm Ron?

Ron admits he has not read the article. Wow,shocking confession indeed.So,monsieur Ron deduces article by reading responder's replies? Not a commendable trait for sure. Look we know you are a fake pretending to be what you are not.Hiding in youe "basement" with a blanket to keep you company and a candle by your side.You Ron are a pathetic individual who needs not an academic to respond to him,but a PEASANT would teach him more than he'll ever know.

WHATEVER...

Do you not have even one favorite spurious comment you would like to address? You must realize your denigration of the benefits of reading is ridiculous, if not worse. Did you do some thinking before accepting the Jewish religious belief that Yahweh gave the land of Canaan to Abraham and his descendants, or did you just read about it? I am not paid by anyone. But I have a singular mission, to disprove and disavow the overwhelming amount of Israeli propaganda that saturates my country. I sometimes call on my experience from living in the Middle East to help.

M Nom de guerre. I did not misunderstand Siegman's reply to Mr. B. Burston. I didn't read Siegman's comments. I responded to postings. If you, Monsiuer, are unable to articulate one single issue you would like to address, and you have not one single substantive comment to offer to our discussion, why did you write?

You may read Ron,but have no understanding on the real situation in Israel. Reading makes not AN EXPERT. Therefore,better do some thinking,rather than regurgitate what you read. So far you have not convinced the REAL ISRAELIS who live here,and know the story FIRST HAND rather than accepting your spurious responses you write so glibly. God heavens have you paid to post so many? or are you an employee of Haaretz?

It's not a very sophisticated tactic to falsely claim your interlocutor makes a statement and then attack him for it. I claimed no expertise on Egyptian border, except, I can read. The wall has nothing to do with the tunnels. Thus it has no bearing on arms trade. It doesnt play any role in punishing the civilian population, so why object to it. You and your fellow blockade apologist, Tim R., seem to think that if you can just find enough examples of siege warfare to compare with the Israeli blockade, somehow it would make the blockade justified and legal. There are no comparisons. Thru all the historical blockades there were no UN nor international laws to govern the collective punishment of civilians. There are now, and Israel is violating the 33rd article of the 4th Geneva Convention, and thus in commission of a war crime. It is none of Israel's business how Hamas governs Gaza and the rockets have stopped. The likes of me will forever criticize Israeli violation of international l

I am not certain I understand your effort to connect the Abbas willingness to accept the 2009 Olmert offer, and what Abbas is demanding now. Its like Camp David and Taba. Attention Deficit Syndrome is treatable. Israel never made official the peace agreement Abbas said he would accept. Since then Israel has expanded on its violations of international law by continuing to build in the settlements in the West Bank and expropriate more Palestinian homes in E. Jerusalem. Abbas would be smart to demand the 1967 border as the lynchpin of negotiations. He would have UN and EU and general international community support. Who cares how wide Israel would be under 1967 borders. Israel has one of the most sophisticated powerful armed forces in the world. It would fear attack from the Palestinians who have no aircraft, no tanks, no artillery (rockets are not effective in combat) no crew survived weapons and no command and control structure? You Jews act as if you are all at Masada.

Your reply to Mr.Seigman is so true and very touching thanks.But will he accept the concept of our "tiny" Israel being buffeted from all sides? A small example:For those who seek knowledge: throughout our world of those that seek the knowledge. Israel is but a tiny speck, a fly, that molests one and many. To swat a fly is easy, so some may envisage, but this Sabra fly is tough. Remember what is a Sabra. A cactus with many spikes, yet used to be sweet inside, that has changed. The spikes are inside after so much adverse threats. Permission to land, Papa Sierra Hotel 159 on final approach.

They even produced a photo of Blairs relative shopping in a Gaza supermarket. Lie 2. No Gazans treated in Israel. "In absolute terms, however, the number of patients from Gaza who were treated in Israel substantially increased, rising from nearly 5,000 in 2006 to 7,000 in 2007. 1,627 Gazan patients saw their requests denied in 2007, as opposed to the aproximate 470 who were denied treatment in 2006, according to WHO figures."- http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/970686.html Is That what happens in a "Genocidal Blockade?? Is that what the Sudanese were doing? Is that what the self annointed moralists who preach here were busy ignoring?

It shouldnt be too difficult for you to grasp that international laws governing blockades or sieges did not apply to the protection of innocent civilians. And neither were there international laws in place against collective punishment of civilians. There are now. That wasn't too hard was it? So, there were no misconceptions except on your part. When you say there is nothing in international law prohibiting a country from defending its citizens including siege warfare, you are childishly wrong. Of course there are laws governing what a country can and cannot do to protect its citizens. A nation my not mistreat prisoners of war (many many laws governing that), it cannot use chemical weapons, it may not attack doctors, ambulances or hospital ships, it may not rape or torture combatants or noncombatants, it may not steal private possessions, it may not ignore a white flag of surrender and it may not collectively punish civilians. All those act are violations are war crimes.

You are a rare Or laYehudim ! Don't hide your light under a bushel, but speak out, loud and often ! David

Thank your, Bradley Burston, for your controversy with Henry Siegman. It enabled me to discover this writer, and read a lot of his interesting polical analyses in "Council on Foregn Relations". I can only encourage your readers to do the same.

For all you eloquence, dear Henry, you have bought THE LIE, hook, line and sinker. The plight of the "Palestinians" is bad, but they are only a tool, a cattle-prod, of the surrounding Arab nations - none of which want anything less than an Israel with no jews. They (the Arab nations) could easily remedy this situation. So,don't blame Israel for not wanting to give up the little bitty piece of land that is a minuscule part of what she was actually given her by G-d, and granted by man's world governing body. Look at history, sir. Shame on you.

"Thru the centuries of siege warfare, there were never a UN and international laws protecting innocent civilians"(Ron post #102) But that's NOT what you said before, Ron. This is what you said in your #91: "Historically international law has called blockades only legitimate objective is to weaken military forces of the enemy"(Ron Post #91) ... So I just had to correct your misconception. Now, about International law: I am all for it, as long as you don't try to apply it selectively, which you seem to want to against Israel. Once again, there is NOTHING in international law which prohibits any country from defending it's citizens. And that includes the use of siege warfare. So Israel is well within it's rights to restrict supplies to a people (Gazans) who decided to pursue armed struggle instead of settling their differences with Israel through negotiations. Of course if the blockade causes discomfort to the Gazans, they can stop their rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and start serious face to face peace negotiations with Israel (NOT involving the demand for Israel's destruction). Those are Israel's ONLY conditions for the cessation of the blockade. Does that seem unreasonable to you Ron ....?

"The myth is that Abbas rejected the offer. The fact is Abbas did not turn Olmert down. In fact, Abbas said with that offer (93% of West Bank and Gaza) "we can have peace in 2 days." (Ron) Then how do you explain the fact that Abbas is demanding Israel's return to the pre 1967 armistice lines? http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1127449.html "We cannot go to negotiations without a framework. And we say the framework is UN resolutions, meaning a return to the 1967 borders," Abbas said, referring to Israel's borders on the eve of the Six-Day War"(Abbas) Just for your information, at it's narrowest point (where Israel's population centre is), the 1967 borders are 15 km wide. A return to such borders would be national suicide ...

"Thru the centuries of siege warfare, there were never a UN and international laws protecting innocent civilians"(Ron post #102) But that's NOT what you said before, Ron. This is what you said in your #91: "Historically international law has called blockades only legitimate objective is to weaken military forces of the enemy"(Ron Post #91) ... So I just had to correct your misconception. Now, about International law: I am all for it, as long as you don't try to apply it selectively, which you seem to want to against Israel. Once again, there is NOTHING in international law which prohibits any country from defending it's citizens. And that includes the use of siege warfare. So Israel is well within it's rights to restrict supplies to a people (Gazans) who decided to pursue armed struggle instead of settling their differences with Israel through negotiations. Of course if the blockade causes discomfort to the Gazans, they can stop their rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and start serious face to face peace negotiations with Israel (NOT involving the demand for Israel's destruction). Those are Israel's ONLY conditions for the cessation of the blockade. Does that seem unreasonable to you Ron ....?

"The myth is that Abbas rejected the offer. The fact is Abbas did not turn Olmert down. In fact, Abbas said with that offer (93% of West Bank and Gaza) "we can have peace in 2 days." (Ron) Then how do you explain the fact that Abbas is demanding Israel's return to the pre 1967 armistice lines? http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1127449.html "We cannot go to negotiations without a framework. And we say the framework is UN resolutions, meaning a return to the 1967 borders," Abbas said, referring to Israel's borders on the eve of the Six-Day War"(Abbas) Just for your information, at it's narrowest point (where Israel's population centre is), the 1967 borders are 15 km wide. A return to such borders would be national suicide ...

Your point could not have been that at Taba the Palestinians got the best offer they are ever going to get. You read in # 77 what they thought of the offer. It was the best they had seen. You read that Erekat said "it breaks my heart, we were so close," and time ran out. The Palestinians never got the chance to say yes, or no. Given that fact, your last paragraph is idle chatter, to which there is no point.

You probably won't see pictures of starving Gazans, because there aren't foreign journalists in Gaza to take such pictures. The Israeli gov't is under protest by Foreign Press Assoc saying UN reports that Gazan population of 1.5 million, half of them children,are in dire straights, and journalists are not allowed in to cover it. I don't know where you got information that thousands of Gazans receive medical care in Israel. UN relief agencies report that 80% of Gazans depend on meager trickle of Int'l aid that Israel permits to enter; 450,000 (30%) of Gazans are without clean water; patients in dire need of medical care not allowed to leave Gaza; 50 have died only because of lack of medical care. Human rights orgs say dozens of people have died in last 18 months while waiting for permits to enter Israel. WHO reports not enough IVs. Nurses forced to put blood into plastic bottles to transfer to IV bags. I am not confusing Gaza with 1948 Jerusalem, Mr sarcastic Aussie, and you know it.

You are right, part of posting #90 proves only that ME Jewish men have common semitic heritage with Lebanese men, Syrian men and Palestinian men. The posting was in response to Mr. Fox who said there is no proof that Jebusites are forebears of Palestinians, thus it is nonsense. The point in bringing to the fore the common genetic signature was because it proved to be a great catalyst to those scholars and historians who maintain the Palestinians are direct descendants of the Jebusites. You failed to note that. I did not forget to mention Abraham and or Ishmael when discussing the NYU and Academy of Sciences report. I didn't mention them because there was no reference to either of them in either report.

"Thru the centuries of siege warfare, there were never a UN and international laws protecting innocent civilians"(Ron post #102) But that's NOT what you said before, Ron. This is what you said in your #91: "Historically international law has called blockades only legitimate objective is to weaken military forces of the enemy"(Ron Post #91) ... So I just had to correct your misconception. Now, about International law: I am all for it, as long as you don't try to apply it selectively, which you seem to want to against Israel. Once again, there is NOTHING in international law which prohibits any country from defending it's citizens. And that includes the use of siege warfare. So Israel is well within it's rights to restrict supplies to a people (Gazans) who decided to pursue armed struggle instead of settling their differences with Israel through negotiations. Of course if the blockade causes discomfort to the Gazans, they can stop their rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and start serious peace negotiations with Israel (NOT involving the demand for Israel's destruction). Those are Israel's ONLY conditions for the cessation of the blockade. Does that seem unreasonable to you Ron ....?

Comments written by the poster called Ron. You not only misunderstood my reply to Mr.B.Burston,but you have made a mockery of all the subjects you presented in such a high and mioghty way. You young man are suffering from delusions of GRADEUR,in all the responses versus your interlocuters. It seems you think far too greatly of your knowledge which are faulty throughout. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing they say:And you are PROOF OF IT. Beter think before making a bigger ass of your self in future.

We have not established that Gazans are not starving. They may very well be, or will over time, you just can't quote me as saying so. I believe, along with the international community, that Israel is trying effectively to deprive the Gazans of adequate food supplies. The UN World Food Programme confirms that. To call upon the history of siege warfare to justify the Israeli blockade of Gaza is dramatically grasping at straws, in fact it borders on intellectual dishonesty. In the context of siege warfare Gaza is not a fortified city, fort nor castle. In the last great siege, Stalingrad, two nations were at war and the city defended by the Soviet army. Thru the centuries of siege warfare, there were never a UN and international laws protecting innocent civilians. There are now. To repeat, Israel is violating the 33rd article of the 4th Geneva Convention, and it is a war crime. If you want to apply morale equivalency to Hamas and Israel its fine with me. I agree, it's appropriate.

"The myth is that Abbas rejected the offer. The fact is Abbas did not turn Olmert down. In fact, Abbas said with that offer (93% of West Bank and Gaza) "we can have peace in 2 days." (Ron) Then how do you explain the fact that Abbas is demanding Israel's return to the pre 1967 armistice lines? http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1127449.html "We cannot go to negotiations without a framework. And we say the framework is UN resolutions, meaning a return to the 1967 borders," Abbas said, referring to Israel's borders on the eve of the Six-Day War"(Abbas) Just for your information, at it's narrowest point (where Israel's population centre is), the 1967 borders are 15 km wide. A return to such borders would be national suicide ...

"Usually when a Jew doesn`t like what he reads, he charges the author with that hackneyed phrase, 'anti-semite.'" Very inciteful, Ron. Love your clarity of thought. :)

"Usually when a Jew doesn`t like what he reads, he charges the author with that hackneyed phrase, 'anti-semite.'" Ron Perhaps one of crudest and most idiotic posts I've ever read here.

You know. psychologists (borrowing from Martin Hiderberg)claim that a personality is as atavistic as any pathology, so its the ID stupid. Mr Siegman is searching his own identity and in the process, discovers a multitude loyalties. But, before that, his allegiance as a intellectual of the 1950s anti-clonialism induces him to fight his own demons but not in very concrete colonial lands, but the one where his is uncomfortable with: Judaism. Thus, writing in the a Jewish-Israeli Newspaper, he can finally defeat his demons, and in the process find his own identity.

the Pals could have had a state 60 years ago. 40 years ago under the Clinton plan the problem IS the "occupation" all Israel is the "occupation". Pals said that 60 years ago,they still say it-in Arabic.

"I didnt claim Gazans are starving. I said Israel is trying to starve them"(Ron) I am glad that we established that the Gazans are NOT starving. As for what the Israelis are trying ... rest assured that if the Israelis would want the Gazans to starve, then they would starve because they have the means to close down the smugglers tunnels ... "Historically international law has called blockades only legitimate objective is to weaken military forces of the enemy"(Ron) Really Ron? Here read about the REAL history of siege warfare: http://www.answers.com/topic/siege-warfare "A second means of forcing the surrender of a fortification was through starvation by blockade. Eventually, should those delivering supplies not be able to evade the blockade, hunger would force those besieged to surrender."(Answers.com) By the way, while you are talking about International law, you might care to admonish Hamas for deliberately targeting 1 million Israeli civilians in Southern Israel with their rockets, hmmmmmmm Ron? Or don't you consider that collective punishment Ron ...?

You seem to believe that the blockade is just some sadistic act, one without reason. You claim to be an expert on the Egyptian border with its "walls 8 meters high, a 300meter buffer zone..." Nice, this is stop the building of tunnels and the illegal arms trade, not food. Did you protest the building of this wall? As for your take on "blockade history" you are ignorant. There have been thousands of blockades in history, and yes all have been aimed at the civilian population!!! The aim of course is to force the military forces of the area blockaded to throw down their arms. In our case here we have an armed group, Hamas, which is also the elected representative, the elections haven taken place under Israel's enlightened occupation. The ball is in Hamas' court, Israel left Gaza, we have no troops or civilians there, and that is a fact, yet Hamas continues to run Gaza like a prison, rocket Israel and wait for the likes of you to criticize Israel.

of Abraham Reinforcing the biblical narrative,the Arabs being descendents of Abrahams son Ishmael. The bit you forgot to mention from the NYU study.

of Abraham Reinforcing the biblical narrative,the Arabs being descendents of Abrahams son Ishmael. The bit you forgot to mention from the NYU study.

man o man, this is simply very very on point, the last two paragraphs are true, blaming the victims is the standard procedure for all settler colonial projects.

You are correct. In 2009, Mr Olmert offered generously to Mahmoud Abbas and it was the best offer Abbas or Arafat had been proffered. He did not offer return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, but he proposed a real breakthrough. The myth is that Abbas rejected the offer. The fact is Abbas did not turn Olmert down. In fact, Abbas said with that offer (93% of West Bank and Gaza) "we can have peace in 2 days." The Quartet agreed, and requested Israel make offer binding. It never did.

What do you agree with?. Mr Foxs lack of knowledge of Egyptian border? His refuting my claim that Gazans are starving? His contention that historically blockades were used in place of military attack? I explained Egyptian border in #81. Read that. I didnt claim Gazans are starving. I said Israel is trying to starve them by allowing only 80 trucks a day in aid into Gaza, when UN World Food Programme declared for a population of 1.4 million 400 trucks of just food a day are required to meet international standards of basic nutrition. Be careful agreeing with Fox's history of blockades. Historically international law has called blockades only legitimate objective is to weaken military forces of the enemy. Israeli blockade does not target armed forces but entire population. That's a violation of article 33 of 4th Geneva Convention and a war crime. Article 33 forbids collective punishment. Maybe you can go with Fox and the Israeli Govt to defend this in the Hague, when the time comes.

Mr Fox is refreshing. Usually when a Jew doesn't like what he reads, he charges the author with that hackneyed phrase, "anti-semite." Regarding the forebears of Palestinians, it is difficult to prove a claim over 3,000 years old. Its about as difficult to prove as that written in the Hebrew Bible. So that must be nonsense too. The Bible reports on the presence of Jebusites in Canaan when the Israelite tribes arrived. According to the work of numerous historians and scholars, "the majority of the Palestinians Arabs are descendants of the ancient Jebusites." Recent genetic evidence has demonstrated that "Palestinians as an ethnic group represent modern descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times." The New York University School of Medicine and the National Academy of Science have established that Middle East Jewish men have a common genetic signature with Lebanese, Syrian and Palestinian men, and not with any other non-Jews in the world.

Israelis on the street have never discerned in Palestinian society, in Gaza or the West Bank, a real intention to make peace with Israel. Very soon after Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo agreement with Yitzhak Rabin, he put in place in the Palestinian Authority a Destroy Israel mentality - in schools, mosques and in the gove-controlled media - which I presume is still in place. If my presumption is incorrect, I would certainly like to hear about it. Perhaps Mr. Siegman or Bradely Burston can report to us on this topic.

As I understand the Israel-Palestinian negotiations carried out by Israel's last prime minister, Ehud Olmert, Mr. Olmert conceded to the Palestinians more than was then, or is now, Israel's negotiating position, including but not only the entry to Israel of descendants of Arabs who in 1948-49 fled or were expelled in war from Israel. That offer of Mr. Olmert was rejected by the Palestinian side. For at least three reasons, the current Israeli coalition government doesn't expect any breakthroughs in the near future. First, the Palestinians didn't accept Mr. Olmert's unprecedented negotiating generosity. Second, in all the past negotiations over the years, the Palestinians have never veered from their initial negotiating position, that is, they haven't negotiated at all. And third, MR. Olmert's negot. position is not the position of this elected government.

NOT one picture of any starving Gazans The population in Gaza continues to increase. Hamas has shot up the Israeli fuel depot. They have used suicide bombers at crossings. "Near Genocide"?You must be confusing it with the Arab blockade of Jerusalem in 1948.NOTHING was allowed through.Hadassah nurses & doctors on their way to hospital were captured and machine gunned to death Mr History Major.

NOT one picture of any starving Gazans The population in Gaza continues to increase. Hamas has shot up the Israeli fuel depot. They have used suicide bombers at crossings. "Near Genocide"?You must be confusing it with the Arab blockade of Jerusalem in 1948.NOTHING was allowed through.Hadassah nurses & doctors on their way to hospital were captured and machine gunned to death Mr History Major.

"At Taba, Arafat (as despicable as he was) was obviously aware of the time frames. But, therefore, so was Barak. Whats the point?"(Ron) My point is that in Taba the Palestinian Arabs got the best offer they are ever going to get. Had they said yes to that offer, the O--C-C-U-P-A-T-I-O-N could have ended. The two state solution could be a reality by now and you guys ... the eternal critics of Israel could no longer criticize Israel for the O--C-C-U-P-A-T-I-O-N although I am sure you would find some other reasons to blame Israel for ALL the troubles of humanity as a whole. But of course the Palestinian Arabs didn't choose to say yes because they wanted Israel to make even more concessions. Impossible concessions like the so called right of return which would have been tantamount to national suicide for Israel. That's my point Ron.

"At Taba, Arafat (as despicable as he was) was obviously aware of the time frames. But, therefore, so was Barak. Whats the point?"(Ron) My point is that in Taba the Palestinian Arabs got the best offer they are ever going to get. Had they said yes to that offer, the O--C-C-U-P-A-T-I-O-N would have ended. The two state solution would be a reality by now and you guys ... the eternal critics of Israel could no longer criticize Israel for the O--C-C-U-P-A-T-I-O-N although I am sure you would find some other reasons to blame Israel for ALL the troubles of humanity as a whole. But of course the Palestinian Arabs didn't choose to say yes because they wanted Israel to make even more concessions. Impossible concessions like the so called right of return which is tantamount to national suicide for Israel. That's my point Ron

"I do not for a moment believe that Palestinians are faultless, and have repeatedly said so in my writings."

Taba was not a continuation of Camp David, although interim talks between the two parties took place between Camp David and Taba(no US participation.) The subject we were discussing was the Camp David talks, not the Taba talks. I give up on the percentage of land offered by Barak at Camp David. Its like reading the Bible, find whatever you want. On rechecking I now have found 97%,95%, 93%, 88% and 61%. But according to book co-authored by Robert Malley, special assistant to Clinton who attended the talks, "the final and unnoticed consequence of Baraks approach is that, strictly speaking, there never was an Israeli offer. Determined to preserve Israel's position, ... the Israelis always stopped one, if not several, steps short of a proposal. The ideas put forward were never in writing." At Taba, Arafat (as despicable as he was) was obviously aware of the time frames. But, therefore, so was Barak. Whats the point?

"Mr. Fox you say there is "no nearly genocidal" blockade of Gaza"(Ron) Hamas rules Gaza and they were elected by the Palestinian Arab people into Government in the democratic elections of 2005. Hamas has opted to wage armed struggle, instead of trying to settle their dispute peacefully via negotiations. In other words they have been waging war on the state of Israel. As such, Israel has every right to restrict the entry of supplies to it's self declared enemy. In fact in most other wars in history, it would have been unheard of for one or the other side to allow the re-supply of it's enemies. Siege warfare has been a recognized form of warfare for time immemorial and it's objective has always been to force the besieged side to submit to the terms of the besieger. Now in the case of Gaza, Israel has not even instituted a TOTAL state of siege. In fact, NO one is starving in Gaza and various items of supply ARE allowed to go through. What are Israel's terms? They seek recognition of Israel as the state for the Jewish people and cessation of violence. Those are NOT unreasonable demands and given the continued violence perpetrated by Gazans against Israeli civilians, a partial blockade is hardly unreasonable. What is unreasonable is to call that "Genocide" ....

Given your certitude about matters, knowledgeable or not, I would have thought that you would avoid intellectually vacuous vocabulary words like "nonsense," "blah blah," and "rubbish." I over estimated, mea culpa. I would have thought, for example, that you would know something about the Gaza border with Egypt. Rifah crossing to Egypt has walls 8 meters high, a 300meter buffer zone and Egypt is bound by treaty with Israel to keep the border closed most of the time. There is no comparison with historical blockades of one nation against another, with the Israeli blockade over a civilian population with no recognizable armed forces. Historically a blockade is an act of war. The world is not black or white. Israel might consider abandoning its illegal occupations in a negotiating process toward a peace settlement. The idea of a blockade or war is a little sick. I am surprised you would equate proposed photos with UN statistics. The words "Hamas a fine democratic gov't" are yours not mine.

"You question the reporting on the Camp David offer because I did not mention Taba. TABA WAS NOT THE SUBJECT"(Ron) For your information, Taba was the continuation of Camp David in which Barak's offer was nearly as generous. At Camp David Barak offered to give up 93% of the West Bank NOT as you claim 61%. And the response was? Violence and the second Intifada! By the way, please don't trot out the old excuses about Sharon's visit to the holiest site for the Jewish people (the Temple Mount) because that didn't justify the violence that was unleashed by the Palestinian Arabs ... So what happened next? They continued the negotiations at Taba and Barak offered even more generous terms. Arafat dithered and insisted on the so called Right of Return too. And then, as you rightly say: Time ran out. Now, are you telling me that Arafat was NOT aware that time would run out? Are you telling me that he wasn't aware that Clinton's presidency was at it's end? Are you telling me that Arafat wasn't aware of the imminent Israeli elections? Are you telling me that Arafat did NOT in effect reject Ehud Barak?s offer by NOT accepting a good offer while he still had the chance to accept it? Because if you are saying that, then you are the one who is lacking clarity of thought ...

ron from all your blah blah, you fail to mention that Gaza shares a border with Egypt, yet the Egyptians do not seem interested in opening their border. Are they also to be taken to the World Court? As I stated earlier, and you conveniently ignored. Blockades have historically been used to take the place of a military attack. It seems that you prefer Israel use military force rather than a blackade. As for the starving of the Gaza population, this is but rubbish. If the Pals were actually staring, pictures of Pal children, alla Bangladesh would be plastered on the front pages of nearly every magazine and newspaper in the world. But in your world where Hamas is a fine democratic gov't, all talk of humaninty is useless, you prefer war.

Your thought process confuses me. Barak's offer to Arafat at Camp David was the subject. I reported the details of the offer and you repeated Clintons opinion of the offer. You said you did not know whether to believe me or Clinton. I said nothing for you to believe or not believe. You read the facts of the offer and either you agree with Clinton or not. You question the reporting on the Camp David offer because I did not mention Taba. TABA WAS NOT THE SUBJECT, neither were the 1979 talks or Olmerts 2009 offer. Taba was as close as the two sides ever came to an agreement. But Clinton left office and Bush became president, Barak had two weeks before elections. Barak lost the election to Sharon and the talks never resumed. Israeli FM Shlomo Ben-Ami said "We are closer than ever to the possibility of striking a final deal." Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said," My heart breaks, because I know we were so close. We need six more weeks to conclude the drafting." But time ran out.

"Clinton`s opinion, of course, has no bearing whatsoever on the details of the offer Barak made to Arafat"(Ron) .... Let me think about it ..... who should I believe? ..... Ron or Clinton ...? OK, I thought about it and I think that Clinton has greater credibility than Ron. Especially since I know that Ron's figures were massaged somewhat and neglect to mention the real territorial offer that Barak conceded in Taba in 2001: In Taba, Ehud Barak offered 97% of the West Bank, part of East Jerusalem and a land offset for the remaining 3% of the West Bank that Israel proposed to keep. And indeed, that offer was acceptable even to Arafat but unfortunately he kept on insisting on the so called Right of Return of millions of Palestinian Arabs to Israel proper. But that of course was NOT acceptable to Israel because it wasn't interested in committing national suicide. Ron Dear, you really need to brush up on your history. After all it is still very recent history that we are talking about ...

Mr. Fox you say there is "no nearly genocidal" blockade of Gaza. The Israeli government agrees with you. It proudly brags to its critics that an average of 80 truckloads a day of international aid enters gaza. That in itself is almost an admission of genocide. According to the UN World Food Programme, Gaza with a population of 1.4 million requires daily 400 trucks of food just to meet basic nutritional needs. Israel also forbids entry of building materials, electrical appliances,spare parts for cars and machines, fabrics,threads, needles, candles, matches, mattresses, sheets, blankets, cutlery, crockery, cups, glasses, musical instruments, books, tea, coffee, sausages,and shoes. Article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention discusses collective punishment and violation of the article is considered a war crime. If Israel continues to thumb its nose at the international community, that violation will probably end up being charged in the Hague.

Ron you wrote that the present day Palestinians are Jebusites. Actually you have absolutely no proof of this, which makes it nonsense. If you want to know where the present day Palestinians came from then you have to look at the history here since the destruction of the Temple. Over time folks have migrated to what is now called Israel from Egypt , many are in fact Christians who arrived from Europe and the region, there was also a large influx of Turks over a thousand year period, it is also interesting to see how many Pals have Syrian family names. Jebusites? that is your own invention. As for your take on "nearly genocide", there is no such thing. The blockade was a means to force Hamas into taking responsiblity for its ethos and its people. The blockade was humane, when you consider the other option, being war. Hopefully a man of peace such as yourself, will protest the rocket fire knowing full well that it will lead to another war!

Undoubtedly you quoted Clinton?s opinion accurately. What else could he say? He was one of the players, and he certainly wasn't going to criticize Barak. Clinton's opinion, of course, has no bearing whatsoever on the details of the offer Barak made to Arafat. Read it yourself and draw your own conclusions. If you were Arafat I doubt if you would have done otherwise.

Technically you are correct. Home-made rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel during the first intifada. But the first Qassams, were fired into Israel on 10 February 2002, well after the Israeli 2001 blockade had been imposed on Gaza. My comment, ?and thus the rockets,? was not referring to the deputy prime ministers comment. It is interesting that your attention was drawn to when the rockets were first fired, rather than the nearly genocidal violation of human rights Israeli blockade.

Sam, fervent wishes, or dreams wont do it. Genesis 10:13-14 makes no mention of Palestinians nor Egypt. It mentions only descendants who lived in Canaan, which was a satellite of Egypt at the time and refers to Philistines, not Palestinians. The Philistines were a maritime people probably from the Greek island of Crete. They were not semites. The Palestinians are descendants of a semite tribe, the Jebusites. They built Jerusalem and their roots are in Palestine. Jewish religious beliefs are that God gave the land of Canaan to Israelites. Perhaps, but he said to dwell in. He also said in Judges 2:21-23, "In the future, I will not evict any of the nations that Joshua left in the land when he died." Jebusites were still there.

Read Genesis 10-13&14 Palestinians came out from Egypt

Hamas was elected. Obviously you and the UNHRC missed it all.

This was a beautiful example of two myopic leftists trying to out apoligize each other. The use of terms like colonization sum up Siegman's worldview. This is not a battle of Euro colonialialism versus the primitives. One must not forget that the war of '48 was fought between Arab forces seeking the destruction of the nascent Jewish state, and a small state attempting to against all odds, protect itself. Those out for genocide lost. The Jordanians did not offer the Pals a state, nor did the Egyptians, the war was only fought in their name. When actually the Arab forces meant to conquer and occupy. But the language has been tossed about and now the Israelis are the "colonizers" and Hamas is portrayed as a regime without any options. But Siegman chooses to forget that Hamas had an option, and that was to accept the Jewish state's existence, and to actually talk peace rather than send their children off to blow themselves up. The myopic Left.

Trying to deny the negative effact it had on Israelis does not change what happened.

"I don`t know what you call Barak and Olmert offers, but you should call them nothing more than propaganda attention getters"(Ron) This is what Bill Clinton said about Ehud Barak's offer: "Clinton believed all the most difficult practical issues between the two sides had been solved, but that Arafat "seemed confused, not wholly in command of the facts," and that he ultimately "couldn't make the final jump from revolutionary to statesman" -- what Clinton calls "an error of historic proportions." http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/pastiche.htm

Mr. Siegman, Why don't you start writing about the Arab world's insistence that Istrael has no right of existence? Once the Arabs make peace with Israel you can start making claims about Israel's pathology. Miles Pinedo

I don't know what you call Barak and Olmert offers, but you should call them nothing more than propaganda attention getters. At Camp David Barak offered 61% of occupied territories; strategic roads to be used only by Israelis; continued Israeli control of all borders; all Palestine external trade to go thru Israel; large settlement areas and East Jerusalem to be retained by Israel, including 250 sq kilometers adjacent to East Jerusalem. The offer was take it or leave it. Arafat left it. Olmert?s 2009 peace offer was not rejected by Abbas. In fact, Abbas said with that offer(93%of West Bank and Gaza)" we can have peace in 2 days." The Quartet agreed, and requested Israel make the offer binding. It never did.

Gaza blockades began long before your reading about it started.The Al Aqsa Intifada which broke out in September 2001 led to an Israeli blockade of Gaza and closure of Gaza International Airport. Economic effects were immense, some $3.5million. After October,all movement across the Green Line dividing West Bank from Gaza was halted. Complete closer installed in November 2001. Economic and humanitarian issues caused great concern in UNCTAD by 2003. From 2000 to 2006 consequence of Israeli military activity in Gaza was estimated loss of $42 million in Gazan agricultural productivity. The IDF left Gaza on 1 September 2005, but Israel maintained control of all entry and egress points and all water and air space. Israel imposed a total blockade in 2007, when Hamas won control in Gaza. When Hamas won the elections, an Israeli deputy minister announced that the Gazans were going on a diet. They did ... and thus rockets.

political correctness...much ado about nothing...instead of seeing the enemy, and islam is your enemy, you are trying to embrace this beast, and when it hurts you, as it should because of it's very nature, you respond with more hand-wringing meaningless rhetoric. there is an answer... will you listen?, no not until you see HIM whom you have pierced. remember 1st love The MOST HIGH, then love thy neighbor. if you put your neighbor 1st before HIM, there are consequences, which are well known throughout history. shalom, and stand and be recognized!

Years before Israel was established Arabs attacked Jewish settlements, killed civilians, rioted, lobbied to stop all Jewish immigration at the height of the holocaust, etc." Uh huh. Children did all this? Amazing!!!!

All the terror attacks perpetrated by the Jihadist occurred long before there was such thing as OCCUPATION.How some people dismiss this and forget it all.Especially when we withdrew from Gaza what was their reason to destroy all the infrastructures and beagan lobbing qassams instead of creating a viable state.We and most balanced people know the reason,while the rest omit/forget the matter.

History tells us the Palestinians, originally a semite tribe, probably deserve a state as much as the Israelite tribes do. There has always been a Palestinian people.When Israelite tribes crossed into Canaan, Canaan, also know as Palestine, was occupied by semite tribes, Amorites, Hittites and Jebusites. The words Jews and Arabs weren?t known yet.The Jebusites built Jerusalem and occupied it for 100 years after the Israelites arrived in Canaan. The New York University School of Medicine, and the National Academy of Sciences have discovered that Middle East Jewish men have common genetic signature with Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese men, and not with any other non-Jews in the world. Many noted historians maintain the Jebusites are forebears of the Palestinians. If that is true, the Palestinian forebears built Jerusalem. If so, they deserve a state.

"The offers by Barak and Olmert would be termed "worthless"! Both Prime Ministers were facing decling popularity ....I would call these offers worthless!"(Said) And that's why the offers were rejected? Are you serious? Wouldn't it have made more sense to accept the offers? They had nothing to lose and everything to gain by accepting it, that is if the offer was acceptable to them. The onus would then have been on Israel to deliver. If they would, then we could have had peace by now. If they would not, then you would have the right to vilify Israel. So, could it be that the offer was NOT acceptable to Arafat/Abbas because they want even greater concessions from Israel? Why don't you say it like it is ...?

I don't know what you call Barak and Olmert offers, but you should call them nothing more than propaganda attention getters. At Camp David Barak offered 61% of occupied territories; strategic roads to be used only by Israelis; continued Israeli control of all borders; all Palestine external trade to go thru Israel; large settlement areas and East Jerusalem to be retained by Israel, including 250 sq kilometers adjacent to East Jerusalem. The offer was take it or leave it. Arafat left it. Olmert?s 2009 peace offer was not rejected by Abbas. In fact, Abbas said with that offer(93%of West Bank and Gaza) "we can have peace in 2 days." The Quartet agreed, and requested Israel make the offer binding. It never did.

Gaza blockades began long before your reading about it started.The Al Aqsa Intifada which broke out in September 2001 led to an Israeli blockade of Gaza and closure of Gaza International Airport. Economic effects were immense, some $3.5million. After October,all movement across the Green Line dividing West Bank from Gaza was halted. Complete closer installed in November 2001. Economic and humanitarian issues caused great concern in UNCTAD by 2003. From 2000 to 2006 consequence of Israeli military activity in Gaza was estimated loss of $42 million in Gazan agricultural productivity. The IDF left Gaza on 1 September 2005, but Israel maintained control of all entry and egress points and all water and air space. Israel imposed a total blockade in 2007, when Hamas won control in Hama. When Hamas won the elections, an Israeli deputy minister announced that the Gazans were, "going on a diet." They did ... and thus rockets.

You seem to forget that Gazans were firing missiles prior to the siege after Israels withdrawal. How might you explain that?

..the "PATHOLOGY" is with people like YOU who cannot distinguish who the "OCCUPIER" is....Israel and Jews have an EQUAL -I would argue greater claim to that land as part of their ancestral homeland stolen from them and later squatted on by Arab opportunists as Byzantiun withdrew--when the Pals dig up "their" ground (except in Gaza)they unearth JEWISH history-you can't ignore that fact...THis is not to ignore the PAL "plight" or the demographic "facts on the ground" -THEY are ensconced there -disputed "Rights" to the land or not...My solution: 1. PALS admit they are squaters on Jewish ancestral homeland. 2. To ease the PAL "PLIGHT" Israel RENTS them the land THEY are "occupying" for 1 shekel a year inperpetuity UNTIL GOD decides the final status. That preserves Jewish ties and Honour to ancestry but it gives the Pals a "place" to live without continuing WAR +CONFLICT --like Hong Kong under the rental before China re-claimed it-THEY can fly their flag there.

You pulled your soldiers out of Gaza. But what you then did to the Gazans is worse than the soldiers could do. Israel is committing a crime against humanity. If Israel wants to see the rockets stop, it might consider stopping the effort to starve the Gazans to death. Israel says an average of 80 truckloads a day of international aid enters gaza: almost an admission of genocide. According to the UN World Food Programme, Gaza with a population of 1.4million requires daily 400 trucks of food just to meet basic nutritional needs. Israel also forbids entry of building materials,electrical appliances,spare parts for cars and machines, fabrics,threads, needles, candles, matches, mattresses, sheets, blankets, cutlery, crockery, cups, glasses, musical instruments, books, tea, coffee, sausages,and shoes. If you had a wife and children in Gaza you also might want to fire a few rockets.

The offers by Barak and Olmert would be termed "worthless"! Both Prime Ministers were facing decling popularity: Barak had an election coming up and peace negotiations were political suicide. Nothing was written down, and Arafat was expected to take Barak's word, and agree to a nebulous "deal". Olmert had an approval rating of 8% at the time (up from 4% or 5% because he announced that he had prostate cancer). So, neither of these offers could have been actualised. I state again, I would call these offers worthless!

If the Palestinians wanted peace, there would have never been wars in 1947, 1956, 1967, 1973, Lebanon I, Lebenon II, and the rocketing of Sderot. Southern Lebanon and Gaza would have been bastions of peace. But they are not. The only thing the Palestinians want and have always wanted is the destruction of Israel and the massacre of all its Jewish population. No amount of talking will change that, especially with an Iranian sponsor ready to nuclear.

Israel's enemies, and unfortunately this includes many on the Israeli left, simply can't stake out a logical position. For instance, they pretend that reducing Israel's waist to eight miles would be good for Israel. They pretend Israeli concessions are good, though they've never brought Israel anything but disaster. They depict one of the world's smallest nations as a colonial empire. England had an empire that included much of the world. Israel is simply a very tiny nation. There is no limit to leftist absurdity, hatred and, in the case of Israeli leftists; self hatred.

"Rabin was undermined by ongoing terror suicide bombers regular stabbings and shootings" Don't try to weasel out of it - Rabin was murdered by a Jewish Israeli. It sounds like you trying to excuse that.

Edward Said wrote an interesting article about orientalism, which I will have to re-read. Unfortunately, I thought the teacher was an orientalist also. Instead of humoring these people, you have to handle them with kid gloves. Maybe. In my life I have been exposed to a lot of people, not just Jews. It is a good experience, to learn to listen and respect people. Although we represent the Jewish community, we have to learn to understand other peoples; they may be different.

from coming into existence.The genocide intention that failed. Who was very quiet about the Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza under Egyptian and Jordanian rule? Not a squeek about its all ours etc etc In 1967? The Clinton plan? You make it quite clear what you are really about"It is OUR land. Jews have no claim to it"then claim you are peace partners. .

regular stabbings and shootings,it does not do credit to Mr Siegmans narrative to omit the role they played in formulating Israeli public opinion. It is just one example of selective history and blame shifting,an indulgence that allows Israel bashers to "prove" their point,to their own satisfaction at least.

Peace requires to have two strong leaders on both side, an Israeli prime minister who can say no to settlements in the occupied territories and a strong Palestinian president that can make concessions on East Jerusalem to become International and refugees to go back to the Palestinian state. On Rabin was strong enough to make these concessions and he got assassinated, I think the Israeli people are not ready for peace yet, therefore they should be ready for the other alternative which is war. so think about it carefully before you say no to settlements and make a good gesture to end the settlements in the West Bank.

Individual Jews bought individual pieces of land during the rule of the Ottomans, then during British rule. When British rule came to an end, it was decided that where Jews were a majority they would govern themselves and where Arabs a majority they would govern themselves. The Muslim Arabs Refused to let ANY piece of land that had been ruled by Muslims to ever be ruled by Jews. They went to war many times,each time losing, which has consequences.losing more land! Also much Jewish property in MiddleEast confiscated after Isreal was formed. Who's the thief?!

Siegman has done an excellent job in both the original op-ed in the NYT and now in his response here on Haaretz. It is such breath of fresh air when a Jew legitimately criticizes Israel, because any non Jew will be labelled as an antisemite or an enemy of Israel or as one who does not understand the truths on the ground or etc .....

Cheech and Chong.

The highest I ever got was a State College. I'm totally out of my league here.

please,pay him no attention whatsoever-he is totally irrelevant!

Fact - Out of 190 so members of the UN Israel is the only one with no regional group (could even participate in commission discussion Geneva)- Just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not after you. There is enough to show Israel is signaled out - to deny it to to reconstruct reality. Re Palestinians - where were their demands for a free state when it was occupied by Egypt, Jordan, Syria ? Where the Palestinians Passive in Jordan (attempted coup), Lebanon (civil war), Kuwait (collaborating with Sadam' troops) Fact - They want refugee back to Israel (no mention of Jewish refugees - separate issue)- if both people deserve a state as you state (not two Arabs state) this would have been dropped, PA is an Islamic state - Israel agrees in 2 state solution but the PA can not recognize Israel as Jewish - If they are suffering so much surely taking refugee issue away, agreeing to recognition of Jewish state and have a demilitarized state no an issue.

not all Palestinians. "here is Palestien... its Jordan duh!" No it isn't. Jordan is Jordan. Palestine is still Palestine and it's people are still Palestinians. At the fall of the Ottoman Empire, there was a non-state entity of Palestine, after Jordan was carved off, Palestine was somewhat smaller. After Israel was carved off, Palestine was smaller still. After Israel took a further 50% of Palestine by war, illegally, by 1949, Palestine was even smaller. Today, what remains of the non-state entity of Palestine is being further eroded by illegal annexation by Israel, illegal settlements, by Israel, illegally built separation barrier, by Israel. The Palestinians are being squeezed into less and less land, with less and less resources, by a greedy neighbour who values territory over peace.

Are you listenning?? No sir you only hear what you want to hear. Israel bashing is SO intellectually fashionable what has reality got to do with it?

No need for a 23rd Arab nation. There already is a 2-state solution. (Trans-)Jordan is 73% ethnic "Palestinian", and Israel is 78% Jewish. A 70-30 split of the so-called "West Bank" between Jordan (70%) and Israel (30%) will solve the problem, and accelerate a demographic democratic Jordan vs. the current hereditary dictatorship run by the little king. The Hashemites (a west Iraqi bedouin tribe brought in by greedy Brits as Ghurka-like stooges to manage their "Commonwealth" hijacking of 80% of Mandatory Palestine) can split off the Eastern half of the country if they demand a separate identity - but they are the real outsider "cowboys" occupying historic peoples lands here, not the Jews or the PA Arabs.

By whitewashing all Arab sins, deliberately ignoring both Barak's and Olmert's offers to the Palestinians, and only blaming Israel (which was attacked in 1967 but this point is ignored), Siegman lived up to Burston's characterization.

Years before Israel was established Arabs attacked Jewish settlements, killed civilians, rioted, lobbied to stop all Jewish immigration at the height of the holocaust, etc.

Israel is destroying all chances for a a two-state solution, and is a trapped to a policy it cannot revise. It's now time for the One state solution, where every citizen, Israeli or Arab, is granted equal human rights. Democracy should now decide how the country is governed. Enough!

Mr. Siegman will not list the organizations of which he has been a director. He is very careful not to do that for a special reason.

Mr. Siegman, your arguments here sound so reasonable. It's easy to forget that elsewhere you publish poisonous descriptions of Israel, replete with factual errors, using the apologist's whitewash for Arab violence. I find your attitude towards the Palestinians patronizing and forgiving of all transgressions. I'm surprised that you dare criticize the current government who "insists on retaining far more Palestinian land than was demanded by previous Israeli governments". I recall that you lambasted ALL the deals that previous governments made. If and when Palestinians achieve a state, it will be despite people like you - not thanks to people like you. Similarly, as the public support for Israel declines further, you can take pride that your gasoline accelerated the flame.

The fact remains that most Israelis have absolutely no idea whatsoever what goes on in the occupied territories and if they did perhaps they would have a different opinion. The fact also remains that although there are Jews from more than one hundred different countries living in Israel the problems that are caused by extremist settlers are not from Sabras but from the Americans who have moved to religious and extremist settlements and for some reason, after moving to Israel in their 30's and 40's feel that the Arabs who lived on the land they expropriated have no rights anymore to that land. The demographics are not in Israels favor. Either a binational State which would mean the end of Israel or to maintain the status quo where Palestinians are treated like garbage in a giant prison. I am not a leftist. I think Israel should never give back the Golan but I do believe that a two State solution is in Israel's vital security interests as much as it in the Palestinians.

You are forgetting about me and the other approximately 1 million Jews driven from Arab lands. When will the Arabs face up to that?

Seigman writes,"Nothing would have more encouraged Palestinian efforts to overcome their many shortcomings, or to oppose their rejectionist groups, than a credible Israeli commitment to such a state." Uh, Henry, we pulled every last soldier and settler out of Gaza - and what did the Pals do? I think you know very well.

"However, if Israeli policy had truly aimed at a two-state solution, it could and would have happened long ago. Nothing would have more encouraged Palestinian efforts to overcome their many shortcomings, or to oppose their rejectionist groups, than a credible Israeli commitment to such a state." From my read of Mr. Burston's columns over years, my expectation is that he is in near perfect agreement with this statement. My sense is that his objections are to the either/or tone (and then application) of much dissent. In an environment of necessarily extended dissent (not once and then done with), in order to be known as adopting "tough love" or even merely "criticism of policies" as distinct from "demonization", it is necessary to include appreciation in the midst of criticism. In the case of Israel, I find it admirable that the basic laws state in nearly equal tone that Israel is to be both Jewish AND democratic. Two simultaneous characteristics.

israel is a m.eastern name as is judea and samaria, palestine is not a m.eastern name it is a roman name, hebrew and judaism both predate arabic and islam and are m.eastern... the western wall is older than the dome..... there is no mention of palestinians prior to the 1960's... so based on indisputable facts you are quite clearly wrong. if u want to talk about land theft then try australia, nz and all countries in n and s america.

Henry Siegel omit one significant part of his biography, both in Haaretz and in his NY Times oped. He mentioned only that he was a director of the American Jewish Committee. Siegel did not mention, and perhaps did not tell either the NY Times or Haaretz, that he has served as a director of the Arab Bankers Association of North America (ABANA). A detailed google search led to the URL. Mr. Siegman has never worked in the field of international banking and was never an officer of a domestic bank in the US. So what practical reason would ABANA have for putting Mr. Siegman on its board of directors alongside a roster of experienced bankers and businessmen? Judging from Siegman's opeds in the NYTimes and Haaretz, I guess we have the answer to that question.

There are two baseless assumptions that I hear from the "peace" camp, that come to lead them to their flawed conclusions. The first is that even were the Palestinians to have a state, that there would be peace, rather than a soveriegn base for more effective terror attacks. The second is that leftists are generally condescendingly racist towards Palestinians by treating them as lesser beings not in control of their violent actions if provoked i.e."the Arab street explodes in rage." It is racist at its extreme to relieve Palestinians of the consequences of their actions and choices as if they were a nation of chidren.

"All 40 years of problems can`t be blamed on Netanyahu" - Lee True, Netanyahu is a symptom. The 'problems' actually are only 30 years old. Things were pretty mellow on the West Bank until Begin unleashed the Settlers. The West Bank remained calm as the Yom Kippur War raged. The problems started after 10 years of mostly peaceful occupation. Israel's Palestinian problem back then was from refugees in Jordan and Lebanon.

Mr. Siegman's response, and Mr. Burston's original essay, have been a most interesting experience. Reasoned and well argued debate. Refreshing.

If and when Palestinians achieve a state, which they deserve no less than do the Jewish people... Im afraid Mr Siegman that you too are a captive of Orientalism We deserve a state more than the Jewish people for 2 reasons. 1) It is OUR land. Jews have no claim to it 2) To prove to the world community that theft cannot be accepted This is why we will not share what is stolen, no matter how progressive you appear to be

'How about accept the offer of a state by the U.N. in 1947? How about Arafat counter-offering in 2000 when Clinton tried to make peace? How about the Palestinians recognizing Israel BEFORE the 1990s?! How about the Palestinians establishing a state when there was no "occupation"?' Be realistic Proud Zionist. A large swathe of Arab Palestine was given gratis to the Jews - didn't have to pay one shekel - and 800,00 Palestinians became refugees, either fleeing or being driven out. The Jews kept their homes and land, refused to let them return and declined to pay any compensation for the theft. Did they think the Pals would just say, Aw forget it, let bygones be bygones? Would Jewish people have? (No chance!). It is that which has fanned the resistance ever since, compounded from 1967 by the occupation and the colonial-era settlement enterprise. Israel will have to square up to the events of 1948 at some point and make restitution before the slate can ever be wiped clean.

"To blame Palestinians, rather than their occupiers, for their responsibility for remaining under a forty-year, oppressive military occupation when Netanyahu's government refuses to consider anything resembling a viable or sovereign Palestinian state....is to add insult to injury." OK, but what about the decades of Israeli leadership other than Netanyahu's? Are you blaming all Israeli leaders? Even Rabin? And what about the generous peace offers made by Barak and Olmert -- offers that were turned down? And what about considering what happened when Israel pulled out of Gaza (i.e., the thousands of Hamas rockets raining down on Israeli communities)? It all seems so simple to you. Just end the occupation and all will be well. We all want the occupation to end, but it just ain't happening until the Pals develop the capacity (and the will) to create a peaceful country. You make it sound like the problem rests with Israel only. If only that were true.

Take a hike and fly a kite. Relax smarty? Salaam/Shalom

Mr. Seigman has been writing for over forty years? I wish him another hundred years. God bless him. Salaam/Shalom

Rabin said about pals demanding Jlem : " "They must forgert about it" Segman has been attacking all Israeli leaders (and people) ,not the "present leadership"as you and him suggest.

Palestinians are responsible for there own suffering , if they want respect let them earn it, if they dont want to suffer then they should stop makeing themselves suffer, because they dont really have to , unfortunaly its the most corrupt place on earth and its up to them to change, learn and understand that israel is israel, its not palestine and never was, maybe all the arabs should finally wake up.

As for much of the rest of the Left, Burston and Siegman pounce at every opportunity to dissect, analyze and find criticism for Israel's failings whilst almost totally ignoring that we have a Palestinian leadership(s) counterpart which have a very long history of embracing a number of extremely problematic ways, including corruption, militancy, extreme bigotry against Jews, denial of history, fundametalism, embracing of ideologies which celebrate suicide bombings and the murder of Israeli civilians, the acceptance of kangaroo court justice to get rid of Palestinian collaborators, the kidnapping of Israelis, the failure to officially recognize the existence of Israel, and the call for Israel's destruction. Burston is beginning to show a glimmer of hope, at least for me, that he is embracing a realization that these issues about the Palestinian perceptive are central to any possibility of a future peace in this region. It's not all about us.

Thank you Mr Siegman. Your article states clearly something we need to remember,which is that we need to stop viewing ourselves as victims. We are a strong. intelligent, ancient people. We need to treat others as we want to be treated. If the Israeli government wanted to work towards peace, it could. Its lack of care and effort is evident to all good people around the globe.

"But there is little that Palestinians could do - even if they were faultless - to compel overwhelmingly powerful and politically well-connected Israeli governments to accede to a viable and sovereign Palestinian state," How about accept the offer of a state by the U.N. in 1947? How about Arafat counter-offering in 2000 when Clinton tried to make peace? How about the Palestinians recognizing Israel BEFORE the 1990s?! How about the Palestinians establishing a state when there was no "occupation"?

Like #3, I also used to be leftist, and now, I think that most Palestinians want a state in order to gat all of Israel in the future. I wish I were still a starry-eyed leftist.

A really honest and insightful piece about Israel and our leaders' true intentions. I hope that it encourages more Israelis to overcome their 'victim complex' and start to address the situation for what it actually is.

'If Israeli policy had truly aimed at a two state solution...'. What do you call the Barak offer of 2001 or the Olmert offer of 2009 ?

I think you are overlooking the legitimate and wide spread cultural problems that Palestinians face -- human rights abuses, abues against women and children, the pathological commitment to violence as the only solution, destruction of gay rights... When Israelis first "occupied" Israel, they did so with none of this baggage, brining with them, in spite of their refugee status, a scrapiness and will power, and cultural dignity that *then* led to an independent state. In other words, you are making a conflation of the "oppressed" status of palestinians with Israeli occupation. I have no doubt that Palestinians are oppressed, but the real demons they face are the ones within their own culture. If Palestinians had committed to non-violence, there would have been peace 50 years ago -- and no matter how much we pretend otherwise, Golda Meir was right, whatever you can say about Israel, if the Arabs put down their guns there would be peace tomorrow, if the Israelis did, there'd be Genocide

To witness the effort debunking the propagandist Burston implies that he (Burston) has sufficient influence as to warrant the effort.

'If and when Palestinians achieve a state, which they deserve no less than do the Jewish people, it will be time enough to hold them accountable for their shortcomings.' and exactly why does every arab tribe deserve a state. whould there be a 'palestinian people' were it not for the jewish people. i'm not sure that even siegman would answer 'yes' on these two questions

Let it be 1 state Israel and let all the palestinian become citenzen I love it!!

Mr. Siegman--I used to be very leftist, voted Meretz, read Haaretz supported Oslo etc.. However, over the past 15 years the Palestinians have convinced me that they are not particularly interested in a state, What interests them is the Jews not having a state. When given a chance to move towards a state (ie..the withdrawal from Gaza), they consistently choose killing Jews over building a state. Just because in their place you would want state, doesn't mean that they do.

British mandate Palestien was split in two... One side for the Arabs which would be run by the Hashemites that would later be called Jordan(1946) and one side for jews and any arab who choose to remain called Israel (1948) If Arabs really want a state called Palestien then rename Jordan back to Palestien!

A Jewish light in the Israeli darkness. This position coming from an American Jew and recognized representative gives me hope for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people (the democratic one, you know, the one systematically rejected as non relevant...). You do not ever imagine how many Europeans thinkers are close to you, without having the ability to expressed it, or at risk to be demonized as antisemite. Thank you so much M. Siegman. Peace be upon You.