I've always favored this is a reasonable part of the two-state solution.

Typo: I meant to say "I've always favored this AS a reasonable part of the two-state solution."

" If over one million Palestinian Arabs can live as they do in towns and villages all over Israel, why cannot a few hundred thousand Israeli Jews live, symmetrically, in a West Bank Palestinian state?.."

Is this multiple choice? Let's see:

a) Because their Arab neighbors will once again try to kill them, and have succeeded in the past whenever Arabs or the British were in charge of safeguarding Jewish life.

b) Because the PA, like many Arab states, makes it illegal for Jews to own land.

c) Because Muslim governments treat non-Muslims as second class citizens who live in Muslim lands on sufferance only.

d) Because within the past decade, spreading Islamist triumphalism has progressed even in countries with a more moderate Muslim tradition, creating greater intolerance toward non-Muslims even in countries that had been less intolerant, and threatening the replacement of moderate governments with extremist governments.

e) All of the above.

There already is a two-state solution.

Israel and Jordan.

Any so-called "palestinian" aka Pal-e-SWINIAN who doesn't want to live among Jews can relocate to Jew-Free Saudi Arabia.

An interesting thought, albeit not a very new one - it's been suggested before, and more than once. In general, it sounds reasonable enough and, if it could be achieved, pragmatic enough.

However, there are quite a few serious problems with it, though, some of which were elucidated by the author:

---------

... because they [the more extremist settlers] attach a greater value to the Land of Israel than to the State of Israel, many of them might ultimately be willing, if they could have their civil and property rights safeguarded and continue to be Israeli citizens, to live in the land but outside the state. So might many of the more politically moderate ultra-Orthodox and secular Jews in the settlements, whose approach would be more pragmatic. Were they offered a status analogous, say, to that of French Canadians living in Vermont a short drive from the Quebec border, they might well prefer it to giving up their homes.

Needless to say, the Palestinians are not Vermonters and have no love for the settlers. ...

... if their Palestinian neighbors felt that they, too, were the recipients of a fair deal, the moderates among them might well prevail. And there would be an advantage in each country playing host to a large number of the other's citizens, for each would in effect be holding a body of hostages that it would have to treat well.

---------

The author barely touches upon the most important problem of all - that "the Palestinians are not Vermonters", and the gruesome picture of the Palestinian Arab murderers (with blood-covered hands) of the two Israeli reservists in a police station in Ramallah immediately jumps into my mind.

So, how do we go from here to there? Will the Palestinian Arabs be respectful of their Palestinian Jewish neighbors, or will they at least be law-abiding? And will there be laws within the PA protecting these Palestinian Jews and other non-Arabs and non-Muslims living under the PA rule?

Thus, a broader general question should be asked:

Can the PA become a civilized democracy, because nothing less would protect these Palestinian Jews?

Being a realist with a reasonably good knowledge and understanding of the history and culture of the region and its people, I tend to think not, but I hope to be proven wrong by history.

Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek, founder and director of Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem has offered a proposal like this as well. He made this statement during one of his talks in North America in 2005. I think he said it during his speech in Toronto.

Well, I think it could work, although the existing laws preventing Jews from owning land would be an impediment obviously. I hadn't thought of that.

This would have to be addressed, perhaps as part of a settlement with the PA.

For that matter, this might be addressed in Jordan also and other Arab states. Real normalization would see Jews able to live and travel safely in the Arab world as we have done for millenia.

Also though, the concern about attacks on the Jews isn't without foundation. I have to say there are bad memories too among the Palestinians, so it might take some time before people accept each other.

However, if there were formalized reconciliation councils, such as we've seen in Rwanda and other regions of intense conflict, and other efforts to educate people and reduce mutual fears, like friendships, cultural events and business agreements, I don't see why this couldn't work.

This would actually be much closer to the original Zionist ideal, which did not anticipate creating either a war with the Arabs or a Middle Eastern ghetto for Jews, an Eastern Pale of Settlement, where we'd be essentially trapped, only with an army.

I don't see how one can seriously contemplate an idea like this. The very raison d'être of the so-called "Palestinian people" (a handy invention by Yuri Andropov) has always been - and still is - the destruction of the state of Israel. The author seems to be relaying his profound thoughts from a different planet.

This article is an excellent illustration of the observation made a while ago:

Hillel Halkin is a fine translator, an elegant literary essayist – and an inept political analyst

Nieuwe, the whole point of a peace settlement is to forestall the destruction of Israel and also create security and self-determination for the Palestinian people.

Now - one can claim and not without some basis that the nationalism "Palestinian" was created in response to Zionism and the formation of Israel. It isn't entirely accurate but there is some basis for it.

That still leaves all those people who are effectively stateless.

Most Israelis don't want to offer them citizenship for fear of demographically becoming a minority and losing Israel as a Jewish homeland. Probably most of the Palestinian Arabs don't want to be Israeli citizens anyway and/or would view it as a step toward demographically destroying Israel as a Jewish state.

So, that leaves the two-state solution or some other similar idea, such as Seva has proposed (cantons, some kind of federation, etc).

Finally, here are the the problems with the argument that Palestinians are not a people:

a, they think they are a people and

b, the term "filistini" to refer to the Arabs of the region is actually an old one.

Christian Palestinians in particular have very strong connections to the area, obviously Jerusalem but also anyplace Jesus lived but also, since Islam is built on Jewish and Christian books and traditions, Muslims also are very attached to "Palestine" and there are very old scholarly and cultural traditions rooted in Jerusalem particularly. Also regional food, music and dance have unique regional aspects, this is true also of some needlework and styles of dress.

One can't really argue therefore that there's nothing unique about the Palestinians, clearly they do have peoplehood and roots in the region.

Many people did immigrate there relatively recently, some at the behest of the Ottoman sultan and others because the Mandate was starting to do better economically - but many local Arabs do have very old roots and might even be our relatives; some traces of Judaism and Jewish practice even remain though they're cryptic in most cases.

But they're there and that should give people food for thought.

So, simply to claim that the Palestinian Arabs have no uniqueness and no culture of their own and no connections to the land isn't really accurate. Also, it belies the complexity of the Arab people(s).

It became fashionable in the WWI era to start referring to "the Arab nation" but in fact that's a highly misleading term and concept, and overlooks the uniqueness of various groups including ethnic and religious, cultural, regional and economic variability.

In fact we're seeing some of this stress in Iraq for example but also in Yemen and even the Israeli Arabs are highly varied, for another example look at Lebanon.

Anyway, the point of making a peace agreement is to end the war and the misuse of people as a weapon against Israel.

And, without common sense ideas like the ones in the article there's just no hope of making progress at all.

At some point we have to open the door to something besides fear.

Sophia, thank you for your substantive lecture. Since you don't mention any evidence to support your interesting theories, I take them for what they are - your personal opinion. Of course, everyone is entitled to one, it would be silly to debate this point.

Could you please remind me, when was the last time the "Palestinian people" had a state between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea (or anywhere else, for that matter)? What was the name of its capital? What was the name of its currency?

By the way, the reference to Andropov in my previous comment was not a joke or a figure of speech. The invention of the "Palestinian people" (which is in reality a terrorist organization devoted to Israel's destruction) was the principal part of the KGB project whereby Arafat underwent a drastic transformation from a murderous thug to a peace-loving statesman (and eventually a Nobel laureate). This story is well known and well documented. If interested, you can (for example) start with this article.

With respect, of course you are correct that the PLO was a Soviet/KGB sponsored organization indeed and as you say, a terrorist organization dedicated to "liberating" Israel and it was founded before the so-called occupation in 1967.

However, as to the other assertions I have made, you could spend some time reading Israeli historians like Tom Segev, among others, who write eloquently about the people and their culture. Benny Morris is another, there are several people who've written about this.

For that matter who do you think was living in Jerusalem and environs at the time of the Crusades?

It's also a fact that there never has been a "Palestinian state", however it is also true that before Sykes-Picot there was no Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Palestine Mandate and there was no Saudi Arabia, in the sense of a nation-state, either.

Nation-states are a very new idea in the Middle East, although of course Egypt, Syria, The Persian Empire, and other regional powers have ancient lineages though they have generally been either kingdoms or part of empires. I am sure you're aware of this.

That said, it doesn't mean there were no people west of the Jordan with their own culture and sense of identity, linked to the place.

I think it's important to differentiate between them and the PLO and other organizations. After all the Israeli Arabs didn't just magically appear!

The miracle of Israel and of Jerusalem is that for 2,000 years after the explusion of Jews by the Roman occupation and the re-naming of Israel to Palestine, the following did NOT take place:

1. A Nation of Palestine was formed by either Christian or Muslim occupiers.

2. Despite the claim that Jerusalem is the third holy city of Islam, no Muslim entity made Jerusalem the capital of any Muslim state or entity.

_______________________________________________

It was not unil Jews returned to Israel that a nation was formed and Jerusalem was again made the capital of the Jewish nation.

Thatis a living miracle whether you are religious or secular.
_______________________________________________

Now, for the year of 1867 here is a brief description of Jerusalem by the famed American author Mark Twain who made a journey to Israel, Syria and Lebanon.

Excerpts from Twain's "Innocents Abroad":

Renowned Jerusalem itself, the stateliest name in history, has lost all its ancient grandeur, and is become a pauper village; the riches of Solomon are no longer there to compel the admiration of visiting Oriental queens; the wonderful temple which was the pride and the glory of Israel, is gone, and the Ottoman crescent is lifted above the spot where, on that most memorable day in the annals of the world, they reared the holy cross. The noted Sea of Galilee, where Roman fleets once rode at anchor and the disciples of the leader sailed in their ships, was long ago deserted by the devotees of war and commerce, and its borders are a silent wilderness; Capernaum is a shapeless ruin; Magdala is the home of beggared Arabs; Bethsaida and Chorazin have vanished from the earth, and the "desert places" round about them where thousands of men once listened to the leader's voice and ate the miraculous bread, sleep in the hush of a solitude that is inhabited only by birds of prey and skulking foxes.

The population of Jerusalem is compose of Moslems, Jews, Greeks, Latins, Armenians, Syrians, Copts, Abyssinians, Greek Catholics, and a handful of Protestants. One hundred of the latter sect are all that dwell now in this birthplace of christianity. The nice shades of nationality comprised in the above list, and the languages spoken by them, are altogether too numerous to mention.

It seems to me that all the races and colors and tongues of the earth must be represented among the fourteen thousand souls that dwell in Jerusalem. Rags, wretchedness, poverty and dirt, those signs and symbols that indicate the presence of Moslem rule more surely than the crescent-flag itself, abound.

Lepers, cripples, the blind, and the idiotic, assail you on every hand, and they know but one word of but one language apparently -- the eternal "bucksheesh." To see the numbers of maimed, malformed and diseased humanity that throng the holy places and obstruct the gates, one might suppose that the ancient days had come again, and that the angel of the was expected to descend at any moment to stir the waters of Bethesda. Jerusalem is mournful, and dreary, and lifeless. I would not desire to live here.

> "From Time Immemorial" by Joan Peters.

I recall that book being substantially discredited by later research.

> Could you please remind me, when was the last time the
>"Palestinian people" had a state between the Jordan River and
> Mediterranean Sea (or anywhere else, for that matter)? What was
> the name of its capital? What was the name of its currency?

This is not a good argument for the non-existence of a 'people', unless you want to argue that the Kurds, Basques, and Navajo are also not 'peoples'.

Bingo.

Look, people, there was NO Palestinian people until 1964, when Andropov had his propaganda gurus train Arafat and his PLO gang to become the leaders of a newly created "national liberation movement" of a newly created "Palestinian people".

Just read some of the later comments and statements made by some of the PLO leaders, where they admit that this whole "Palestinian people" business was a political charade, a fabrication, a hoax designed to fool the West and win their sympathy. If you don't believe me, I hope you believe what comes out of the horse's own mouth.

Now, could a new "Palestinian People" have been formed from 1964 until now? Dunno, ask some cultural anthropologists. My guess is that it would take more than 50 years to form a new nation.

"Palestinians" are nothing but Arabs, Syrian Arabs and Egyptian Arabs, with a few Bedouin clans thrown into the mixture for a good measure. Before Jews started coming en masse to the Ottoman province of Palestine in 1881-82 (the First Aliya), there were very few inhabitants in this land. It was mostly deserted, abandoned, unlivable. After the Jews began creating an economy, the Arabs began migrating from all around for the newly created jobs.

Living in Jerusalem, I have had plenty of opportunity to see various old photographs of the area, going as far back as the middle of the 19th century. This land was mostly an uninhabited (and uninhabitable) wasteland. Even looking at pre-1967 photos of the areas occupied and controlled by Jordan, one can see the vast empty spaces and almost no houses.

And then, miraculously, after the Six Day War, an Arab building boom takes place on the so-called "Occupied Territories" (including Jerusalem). That boom still continues, largely illegally, as most of the Arab construction takes place w/out any building permits. THIS fact should tell you something.

Back to nationhood and people. Is Israel a nation? Yes. It has a government and all the attributes of a state. Is Israel a people? Yes, if one thinks of the People of Israel (or a nation of Israel) in a larger sense, whereby Israel = Jews and Jews = People of Israel. One does not have to have Israeli citizenship to belong to the People of Israel. Just like one doesn't have to have a Jordanian or Egyptian or a Saudi citizenship to belong to the Arab People.

Are there regional differences b/w various Arab groups? Of course. Just like there are differences b/w various groups of the Jewish People. However, this alone does not create a new nation, as Jews are still Jews, no matter where, and so are Arabs.

Unfortunately, most of the West (just as intended by Andropov, Arafat & Co.) has swallowed the myth of the "Palestinian People" hook, line and sinker, and as a result, trying to argue now against that is not an easy proposition. On top of the regular difficulty of going against what has become conventional wisdom, accusations of racism, etc. abound. Not everyone who does not believe in the myth of the "Palestinian People" has the guts to argue against it.

Thus a new reality is being created on the ground with scarcely an objection from anyone. Even the Israeli gov't (and much of Israeli society) has swallowed that myth - and this is the worst of it.

Still, from historical and anthropological points of view, I seriously doubt one can call Palestinian Arabs a "Palestinian People". Moreover, these Arabs used to get incensed when somebody called them "Palestinians" prior to 1964, and certainly prior to 1948. They were proud Arabs, they proclaimed; "Palestinians" were the Jews living here, as their British Mandate issued IDs stated.

To sum it up, are Jews a people? Yes, they have all the attributes of that. Are Arabs a people? Ditto. Are Israelis a nation? Yes. Are Palestinian Arabs a nation? Me certainly thinks not.

Do read the WSJ article referred to above by another respondent:

The KGB's Man
Moscow turned Arafat into a terrorist.
By ION MIHAI PACEPA
Saturday, September 27, 2003
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004075

"Mr. Pacepa was the highest ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc. The author of "Red Horizons" (Regnery, 1987), he is finishing a book on the origins of current anti-Americanism."

This piece should help clear many misconceptions.

Thank you Seva for the link. I'll study it closely.

But - what does one do about the fact that THEY claim to be a nation?

We can say they're not but this doesn't mean the Palestinians themselves don't feel they are a nation.

In fact, Arab nationalism has taken many forms since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, including pan-Arabism.

It's also a fact that the borders drawn by the British and the French don't make much sense so nation-states don't really reflect people nations so to speak, and have also thrown enemies into bed with each other, and this has caused a lot of problems to say the least, cf Iraq.

Regardless, after the 1948 war, Arab refugees were deliberately and specifically referred to as "Arab," to indicate they were part of "the Arab Nation" and as stated above weren't called "Palestinian" until later and those on the West Bank after it was annexed were "Jordanian."

I also think it's fair to make the point that "Palestinians" as a political tool and military weapon arose mostly to get rid of Israel. Quite probably, had the refugee situation been dealt with differently and had the Soviets not gotten involved, and other radical groups, the situation today would be entirely different.

Does this mean there is no tissue between the Palestinian Arab people and no connections to the homes they lost? And that they have no cultural attributes?

After all many had lived on the land, for generations at least, maybe centuries; others had been part of a long tradition in Jerusalem, etc.

It's true that in some cases residency in Israel was very short, and Benny Morris details a "loosening from the land," due to economic and social changes as people moved to the towns, and also others moved into the area since the 19th century.

One of the oddities of the Palestinian refugee situation is that it required only 2 years of residency in the area of Israel from 1946-1948, to qualify as a refugee, which is very unusual. Generally one has to have lived a generation in a place to be considered an official UN status refugee from it although maybe we should check this to be certain.

Anyway, this doubtless both swelled the rolls and added to the number of people later identified as "Palestinian refugees," especially since their descendants qualify.

And, probably the policy of hereditary refugee status alone is enough to have reinforced this, but also shared experience in the camps, and the fact that other Arab states won't resettle the "refugees" except Jordan, although Jordan has also expelled many refugees - I think some right after the 1948 war - also after Black September and is now stripping some Jordanian citizens of Palestinian descent of their statehood.

So, they feel like an abused, unwanted people at that. They've been expelled en masse from several states besides Jordan, including Libya and Kuwait and are now in danger in Iraq, and to the best of my knowledge were not permitted entry into Syria or Jordan as they tried to flee the violence of the war. Some of these problems stem from their support of Saddam Hussein but some, I think, is just bigotry against them - the other Arab states certainly see the Palestinians as different - and mostly unwanted.

So, although I think, Seva, your history and other facts cited are solid - my question still stands - what about their position on the matter?

All of the above being so - does this mean their own feelings about their nationhood don't count?

There's something else: their suffering for sure is real. Some of it has been self-inflicted but in other cases they really have been victimized en masse, not least by other Arabs and deliberately made the targets of incitement and used as weapons.

Surely this isn't right! and also, surely we of all people can relate to those who live as "others" - just read about the camps in Lebanon and the treatment of Palestinians there.

Actually I agree with you, I just don't believe that a state excluding Jews should be created.

That's why the possibility of leaving the Jews already in Judea and Samaria in situ, if that could be worked out, makes sense.

I can't accept the idea of forcing people out of their homes. Also I don't think most Israelis or Diaspora Jews could deal with it - just watching the Gaza expulsions was terrible and the people involved are still suffering, they lost everything, and Gaza is an extremely hostile entity now instead of the foundation of a new state.

This would be deliberate ethnic cleansing too, not the accidental result of war but the forced expulsion of who knows how many people.

Already, in the wake of the '48 war, the Jordanians expelled all the Jews from the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Some of the oldest and best established kibbutizim were in that vicinity including the Etzion Bloc and of course East Jerusalem includes the Western Wall.

After that, until 1967, Jews couldn't even pray there or at other holy sites.

I don't think that returning to this situation is a good idea. In fact I think that would be REAL apartheid, real, deliberate ethnic cleansing, real racism.

But, the Jordanians do not want to be "Palestine" and the Palestinians want to be independent.

So, here we are.

Some kind of compromise like that proposed by the author of this WSJ article seems to make the most sense unless the residents of the West Bank are all offered Israeli citizenship, which they probably do not want and which might put Israeli Jews into minority status.

What is the alternative?

Interesting thing about no "P" in Arabic.

I guess that's why arafat and company called themselves "Filisteens" when speaking in their native arabic.

Rick, just because the Arabic language doesn't have our equivalent of a "P" doesn't mean they don't use the term Palestinian, only it's pronounced "filistini."

With respect that's kind of a lame argument:)

I agree the term "Palestine" or "Palestina" is Roman, however it refers back to the ancient enemies of Israel, the Philistines, who may actually have come from the Greek Islands judging from recent archeological finds.

And, the term has been in use since the Bar Kochba rebellion, when Judea was crushed by Rome.

As far as "From Time Immemorial" I think a lot of what she says is ok but some of the assumptions regarding extant populations are maybe dubious or at any rate very hard to prove.

I believe there probably were more people there than proposed although the Ottoman census numbers were not necessarily accurate - also - there is ambiguity because some of the population was nomadic or semi-nomadic - thus - people were there and they weren't there, if you see my point. The actual population around Kinneret for example might have been X in one season and Y in another.

I think the book infuriated proPalestinians because it implied nobody lived there and people obviously did live there, people who had a long tradition there too and a culture, farms, towns, and a growing nationalism that Zionists simply didn't take very seriously.*

I've read this in the notes of a prominent Zionist rabbi, who recalls having met a close associate of al Husseini's when he was in rabbinical school at Hebrew Union.

This gentleman warned the students that the Arabs were serious about their nationalism and that violence would ensue if the Jews kept coming to the Mandate, but nobody took him seriously.

I think, some of us still are not taking the Palestinians seriously even after all this time and bloodshed and maybe it's time to listen.

This isn't a value judgement about right and wrong or relative moral positions. It's simply a statement: start listening.

Who knows. Maybe somebody will listen to us.

*I don't think this was totally deliberate either. The Jews at the time were really desperate and didn't have many good alternatives; also, cultural sensitivity wasn't as finely honed an art as it is today. But, they were careful and idealistic.

It is a lie to claim they "stole" land, when in fact they purchased it dearly, often waste land too.

One problem with all the criticism of Israel is simply that the Jews of the early 20th century are supposed to have been prescient, and understand present day sensibilities and ideals.

How is this possible?

It isn't. And it's unfair to demand it retroactively and judge the early Zionists by the standards of our own time, when in fact they were scrupulous about trying to do the right thing, though they maybe should have been more careful about local culture and traditions, and for sure should have taken the Arab nationalists more seriously.

I'm not sure it would have changed anything though. By the 1930's it was already too late, only an open Mandate would have saved any real numbers of people, and the British because of the riots wouldn't allow it.