Ruth, I just read the article you sent by Kenneth Levin on “Frontpagemagazine” (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F66256B6-688A-45AE-9252-CF9758750035)

I was not familiar with this american web-magazine, but a look at its “front page” titles unequivocally defines it as zionist right-wing hardline media.

M. Levin basically says there’s something clinically wrong with Israelis who were in favour of the Oslo peace process, and by extension with Israeli leftists: they suffer mental illness.

Now, if this type of discourse does not immediately ring a “DANGER” bell to a History major like you, Ruth, you should get your money back from your university.

This is typically what totalitarian regimes did: opponents are labelled as deranged by a doctor. The accusation of being mentally ill is one of the most classic ways to avoid debate and shut up opposition as has been done in the Stalinist era, and in Nazi Germany.

Just bone-chilling. Funny though: he forgot to mention the paranoia of right-wing Israelis as another pathology.

Palestinian Jews your sentence should be the headline of every day sentence that our leaders should remember.

2. Of course you’re right about the distinction between General Assembly non-binding resolutions (there are only 4 of them) and Security Council resolutions (more than 50 ). But obviously when people refer to resolutions in this context it means Security Council resolutions.

In fact, I’ll tell you what I have in mind in particular: the territories occupied after the Israel “preemptive agression” of 1967.

As you know, To regain any moral credibility, and be on the right side of Public International Law, Israel should simply give those territories back, and stop settlements ASAP.

You know that, and reluctance to admit the problem is just slowing down any progress.

Maybe I don’t consider what I say a matter of emotions and false statements. Let me tell you again the center of my beliefs and ideas. Israel is occupying lands that are not a part of it. Me as a Palestinian see the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a peace agreement that includes the right of Israel to live in the 1948 lands and that after a Peace agreements both Arabs and Palestinians should and must prevent any attack of its security. From the other side Israel gives and declares the right of Palestinians to establish their own state that must be made on the 1967 boarders including East Jerusalem, the holy places, and a fair solution for the refugee’s case. This must also include the freedom of praying for anyone that Jerusalem is important for him or her, but the control on the Mosque should be in the Muslims hands.
Ruth I don’t write in order to prove who is right. Again I respect your opinions that are built on your background of laws and culture, but at the same time I have my own beliefs that are built on my background and culture.
Considering the Palestinian Jews question, I say that if such a state could be made including everyone without racism and justice and rights for everyone, then this could be one of a the strongest states that could be made, but the problem is that it is not only a conflict of land, for our bad luck it is a conflict of religion, beliefs, and culture. I wish to succeed to living in such a state.

1) Israel accepts the Human Rights in principle while sometimes violating them. This is similiar in all western democracies. Non-democratic societies do not accept Human Rights in principle and are much freer in violating them.

2) International Law is quite another issue. International laws are basically treaties between countries. So there are treaties that Israel choose not to sign. You probably have UN resolutions in mind, however only resolutions of the Security Council have legal status.

One secular state, with clear separation of religion and politics, under the protection of the UN and the US, that would protect and guarantee the rights of Jews and Arabs, equally, that would mix them in schools, develop poorest parts of the country (Gaza), like the reconciliation process in South Africa.

Like South Africa did 30 years ago, it seems impossible. Yet they did it.

And Ruth, for Jews, the one state would still provide refuge for persecuted Jews from the world, under the status of refugees (if they can prove they’re being persecuted).