I have.

You seem to be saying that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are not Israeli settlements.

That is what I say is incorrect.



Have I misinterpreted what you said?

Carry on with differences please ...

I am referring specifically to the map which i quoted, which used Israeli and Jewish as synonyms. They clealry couldnt not have been Israeli settlements, because the reason they are labelled Jewish, and not Isreali is because at the time, the state of Israel did not exist.



I said, that I didn’t think that specific map was helpful, or useful, or right, to equate a jewish settlement with the state of Israell, especially as there couldn’t possibly be a link between the two as the state of Israel didn’t exist at the time. I went on to say you could probably produce a similar one showing the growth of islam in the UK, but I probably wouldn’t like the people who would choose to do that nor there reasons for doing so.

Okey Dokey...



For a start, the history of the colonisation of North America and what happen to the indigenous peoples is a lot more complex and nuanced than you and Mugwump appear to think. [url=http://www.shmoop.com/native-american-history/This site[/url provides some interesting reading.



Next up, the native American tribes had no concept of soldiers and civilians. All members of an enemy tribe were legitimate targets during hostilities, and hence all 'white' settlers were legitimate targets during the periods of conflict between them.



Further, the level of coordination between war bands was frequently very loose indeed and if some overstepped the mark by the standards of the day it would rarely have been the result of a deliberate policy by whatever leadership was in force at the time.



Now the blindingly obvious one...



Hamas and Israel are operating, at least notionally, within the framework of International Law. This defines what we, globally, now deem acceptable or not. Attacks against civilian targets are not acceptable. The same did not apply during the time of the early settlement of North America.



That's all I have time for at the moment.

Anyone opened a book yet on the next time Israel will decide it's necessary to murder a few children? The next election after this coming one, perhaps? After all, it's usually just before an election.

I hope CORNISH doesn't see this as he'll go mad.

According to the BBC news today, Israel are observing the ceasefire while 20 rockets have been fired into Israel from Gaza, if one of these lands on a primary school, it could be a lot of dead kids. Fortunately they won't be Arab kids, just Jews.

This map?







Far from conflating Jewish and Israeli land, it seems pretty clear to me: prior to the creation of the state of Israel, Jewish occupied land is labeled as such. Follwing the creation of the state of Israel, Israeli occupied and controlled land is labeled as such. It may have helped if they had produced a map for each year since 1946 but that's hardly practical is it

Im not sure what the relevance of what was Jewish land, to what is Israel is relevant. It gives the impression that a comparison between 'Jewish land'(and im not actually sure what this means in practice here? Majority Jew? only Jew? Jewish owned? What does Palestinian land mean in relation here aswell?) in 1946 and the state of Israel in 2000 is the growth of 'Jewish land' or a growth of Isreal which isnt true, and is misleading. It treats two different things as the same thing.



I also think that including the UN partition plan and 1947-67 is misleading aswell, Firstly because the UN partition plan wasnt actual reality, it was a partition plan, not what was actually true in 1947, secondly because 1947-67 doesnt make sense really, is it just 1967? the average over this period? its strange to choose such a long timeframe,

Really......?!

The third map is a 1967 snapshot.

Comparison with the fourth map shows the extent of the Israeli settlements across the West Bbank that I have been talking about.

The 1967 borders are important because they have been, for several decades now, the baseline for talks for the two-state solution.

My interpretation of events of the last few decades is that, regardless of what they say, Israel does not want a two-state solution, preferring rather to have a policy of constant encroachment across the West Bank and a squeezing of Gaza towards some kind of elimination, possibly by adoption into Egypt, aiming towards a non-existence of Palestine as any kind of state.

Lets not forget though that Israel immediately set about rounding up and arresting dozens of people at the start of the ceasefire. Add to that the shooting and wounding of 6 palestinians since the start of the ceasfire. Then to start Friday off they shoot and kill a 23 yr old. Shot in the head just to make sure. Are the Israelis really abiding by the ceasefire?

Isn't this exactly what the Palestinians complain about day in day out?