In Israel, no matter what the land was called has always been Jews living there.  Most of the West Bank 'arabs' if they look back in their history have Jewish heritage.  I had a bunch of Muslim friends that would light 2 candles on friday evening and have bread and wine.  This happening in West Bank (I saw it once with friends in Gaza).  When I asked why they did that I would get the same response.  My parents did this and there parents did this.  Its to remember that back in the day this is how they lived.  No, this is the Shabbat and what is done on Shabbat.

Jews actually started going to land formally known as Israel(Canaan) in the late 1850s.  Those that stayed after the fall of Jerusalem eventually just stopped practicing.

Genetically about half of "Palestinians" are actually Jews. Some know it, some don't. Those that know it often keep it a secret because being Jewish is not a good thing among Arabs. One Bedouin clan openly refer to themselves as "Jews" because of their Jewish heritage, although by religion they are Muslims.

The point with the Irish Times article is that it openly, in a major Irish newspaper, defends the thesis that land bought by Jews remains the property of the non-Jewish seller and that Jews can only live on their land because Europeans grant them permission. It hasn't been like that since the middle ages in Europe. In Ireland it's becoming normal opinion now.

For the longest time I was wondering why the world accepts that lands bought or owned by Jews in the middle-east outside Israel is apparently not Jewish property for some reason. But I thought that at least where Jews are owners and sovereign our property would be safe.

During the potato famine the Irish didn't have a problem with accepting help from the Rothschilds, the same family that bought so much land in what was then the Ottoman Empire. Apparently what Jews buy is the Jews' to give away, if the Irish can eat it. But if the Jews want to consume what they buy themselves, they can only do so with permission by the Europeans and have to accept the "fact" that what they bought remains the seller's property.

Just imagine, if we (Zionists) had not spent money to safe the Irish during the famine we could have bought more land for Jewish settlers in Israel. And the Irish could happily claim that the land we bought remains the seller's property and I wouldn't have to be upset at them for accepting our help but refusing to acknowledge our right to buy and own land.

It just goes to show that many (or perhaps most) people do not feel gratitude for those who help them in need but rather despise them, maybe for making them feel like they owe something.

There won't be another potato famine in Ireland, thank G-d. But if it happened again, I would still support sending aid again, just like in the 19th century. But I will know that there won't be gratitude, or even respect for our equal rights. We will still be the people only allowed to live on our land because the Europeans granted us permission. And we will have to accept that what we buy remains somebody else's property.

The Middle East had worked out the "grammar" for negotiating the relationship between different ethnicities over centuries of hisory, sometimes violent sometimes peaceful. On the whole a history that was more peaceful than Europe's. The creation of Israel upset that civilizational balance and a new settlemnt has to be worked out, by both. My point is that Israel is not helping the cause of settlement (I mean peace settlerment) by imposing the blockade.

Yes. But we have only so much information available. As for most of the world the existence of Israel is beyond question. Only issue is a valid binding resolution of the Palestinian issue.

Historical debts are best forgotten.

You think we would be closer to a peace settlement if Hamas could fire more rockets from Gaza?

Even Mahmoud Abbas thinks the blockade shouldn't be lifted.

And I don't think the creation of Israel upset the balance more than the creation of 20 Arab states in lands inhabited by dozens of non-Arab peoples. If by "balance" you mean that only Arabs should rule, then, yes, the creation of a non-Arab state upsets the balance.

But generally, I think, the word "balance" would imply that each nation should rule herself.

A "balanced" middle-east would contain an Assyrian state, an Aramaean state, a Christian Lebanon, a Kurdish state, independent African states in the Sudan and a Kingdom of Morocco that accepts the language of its native population as an official language.

That would be "balance".

There are valid binding resolutions. The Arabs just refuse to obey them.

The UN did decide that what was left of the British mandate was to be made into three entities: one Jewish state, one Arab state, and a free city of Jerusalem which was to join one of the states ten years later based on a vote. (Guess which state the Jewish-majority city of Jerusalem would have joined.)

But the Arabs refused and invaded. Then they occupied the land that was supposed to be the Palestinian Arab state.

The Palestinian Jewish state ("Israel") survived the attack.

If only they would forget.

But quite in contrast it seems that those who owe us never forgive us the debt.

Maybe, but apparently that is because "Europe granted" it the right to exist, not because Jews have a right to exist per se or the right to buy and live on property.

Most of the world belives that Jews have the right to exist and buy and live on property.  The issues the world has with the settlements are very different and rather more nuanced that the simple issue of peoples right to buy a house.

According to todays Times Israel has or is about to lifted at least part of the blockade.  I wonder what kind of weapons Hamas will be able to make out of the Chocolate that was previously blockaded.

I really doubt that the Irish article about 1948 was about "settlements" in the 21st century.

And no, it really isn't more nuanced than the simple issue of people's right to buy a house. Make it anything more than that and you are already applying special rules to Jews. Nobody worldwide cares if Arabs buy a house in Kurdish lands. (In fact that simply makes the land Arab land forever.)

I have never seen the media or the UN make a difference between settlements on land owned by Jews before 1948, settlements on land bought by Jews in modern times, and settlements created on "stolen" land.

It's nice that "most of the world" believe that Jews have rights. The problem I have is with the fact that is is apparently an acceptable opinion that Jews have no right to live on property they buy and the entire thing about Jews making things different.

Did the Times also say that the blockade had stopped chocolade?

Don't worry, you'll probably never hear about the kind of weapons Hamas are going to make. The media usually don't report about the rockets that hit Israel on a daily basis and they won't start now (and admit that Israel had a reason for the blockade besides Jewish malice).

How is it that when Israel blocks weapons the issue automatically changes to chocolate?

Is that a normal state of affairs? Because I don't remember reading anywhere that when the allies sank merchant ships on route to Germany and Japan in WW2 that they did so to stop chocolate deliveries. That seems to be an Israeli (or rather anti-Israeli) thing.

Turns out there are really not many good arguments against the blockade. If there were, the term "weapons" could be used rather than "chocolate", isn't that true?

Just be honest and admit that the world has an issue with Israel not allowing weapons into Gaza.

That's what this is about. It's not about food or medical supplies, because Gazans have both. It's not about "chocolate" because the middle-east never had chocolate before cocoa was imported from the Americas and still survived. And it's not about travel restrictions because Darfurians certainly can't travel anywhere and the world doesn't care.

No, this is solely about Israel blocking WEAPONS.

Or possibly about ISRAEL blocking weapons. The world doesn't have a problem with the Arab League blocking weapons deliveries to Darfur either.

But then those evil Africans might kill non-Jewish white people. Can't have that.

Just the fact that an Iranian ship is now enroute shows the true intent.  The rest of the Middle East has never given Gaza any aid before (except if you count munitions), all of a sudden Iran decides to send a ship.

Another thing was before Gaza was given over to the PA it was rather self-sufficient land.  The Israelies built irrigation systems that made Gaza into some excellent farm land. Gaza, also had olive and grape vineyards there which could be used to export.  

ITs not about the land or the people.  Its not like the blockade just started either. (What about Turkey's blockade of Cyprus? This is one of the main reason Turkey is not and will be allowed into the EU?)

Do you know why the blockade is going on?  Its not totally about weapons.  Shalit, is being held without access to the Internation Red Cross, which is illegal and as kidnapping another countries soldiers is an attack of war but I didn't see the U.N. say anything about when Shalit got kidnapped nor the sinking of another warship.

There is no humanitarian crisis, Israel sends over 15,000 tons of medicine and food through international organization.

Basmas, is Hamas a terrorist organization? Is Hamas' charter peaceful, you be the judge.   Here it is http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm  just scroll down and you'll find the Charter.

Israel should close the borders, stop sending aid, and hand over the sea blockade to the UN with the demand that the UN pay 100,000 dollars per rocket launched at Israel to Israel.

Should be a good deal for the UN since we all know that the rockets are a reaction to the blockade, right?

You know if that happened there wouldn't be any rockets coming over, right?  There would be probably an invasion force coming over or the everyday hit and run squad/sniper squad.

No, what does the UN care about money?  It is not theirs and there is an endless supply (Luxury Liners in Haiti)

That's why we have to close the border completely and absolutely.

Let them seek medical care elsewhere (Egypt, Jordan, Cyprus) and let them import whatever they want with all the money they constantly receive from all the world.

I know. But the trick here is, I simply want the money. Israel will get hit by rockets anyway.

Each invasion into Israel should also cost the UN.

I think Istrael too has evaded quite a few binding UN resolutions.

Which ones?

And have they been general ("Both sides are asked to...") or special ("Israel is asked to...")?

What about the repeated calls for ceasefire during Israels/s war with Lebanon.

They were not "binding UN resolutions".

Plus, if there were directed at Israel rather than Hizbullah (who started the war) I wouldn't call them "general".

So perhaps you want to know why Hizbullah did not heed repeated calls for ceasfire in its war with Israel?

If someone is under attack and defends himself, asking him to stop is tantamount to legitimising the attack. If the UN is in that business, the UN shouldn't be listened to.

So I ask you again, which binding UN resolution has Israel violated? And was that resolution specifically made up for Israel or was it a resolution based on written international law that applies to everyone?

You are right. Surely there are UN resolutions which have been vetoed by the US. I may be wrong but there is one on the return of Bekkah Valley and Golan Hieghts. But as I have said my own reading on the specific issue of UN genaral and UNSC resolutions may be alittle shaky.

The Beqaa valley is in Lebanon, near Beirut (?). What resolution regarding that valley has Israel violated?

As for the Golan Heights, I am not aware of a UN resolution specific to it. There is resolution 242 which demands this:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

Israel's response was this:

My government has indicated its acceptance of the Security Council resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace. I am also authorized to reaffirm that we are willing to seek agreement with each Arab State on all matters included in that resolution.

So I guess we are waiting for (ii), termination of all claims or states of belligerency. The Arabs have not done that yet. Note that Israel offered land in exchange for peace in 1968 and the Arabs rejected it. Are you seriously blaming Israel for the Arab failure to accept their part in the resolution?

But there are two other important points about this resolution.

Since Jerusalem was supposed to be under UN control for ten years and was then supposed to be subject to a vote among its population to join either Israel or the Arab state (at a time when Jerusalem had a Jewish majority), a withdrawal from Jerusalem wouldn't give anyone else rights to Jerusalem. Instead the vote would have to be done, at a time when Jerusalem had an even greater Jewish majority.

Gaza and the non-Jerusalem parts of the West-Bank could have been given back to Egypt and Jordan, but they didn't want them when they made peace with Israel.

The Golan Heights can theoretically go back to Syria once Syria ends the state of belligerency.

The remaining one point is this:

Syria and Jordan attacked Israel. When Germany attacked Poland and Russia, Poland and Russia got to keep German lands won in that war. I don't know when the UN changed "international law" to make that illegal but it certainly didn't even apply when North-Vietnam attacked and finally annexed South-Vietnam.

And does anybody seriously believe that if the Arabs had won any of the wars the UN would have bothered with the supposed law that says that one must not annex land in a war?

So apart from this resolution 424 which is apparently not based on international law as it applies to any other country and which Israel was willing to comply with but the Arabs were not, which resolution did Israel defy?

This actually is a moot point because we are talking about PA and not Lebanon.

I'll post what I posted before: 

The envoy of the Quartet, Mr Tony Blair, has noow suggested exactly what we have argued here. Let a select list of items into Gaza and withdraw the blockade. Israel having realised that world opinion is against it, for the moment swill be brought on board.

No matter what the HAMAS is or is not, Israel has its own security has to engage with it. Non-engagemetn is not a serious or viable option.

That doesn't make sense. Letting a select list of items into Gaza is a blockade.

That's what Israel is doing at the moment.

Avoidance of dual use materials and strictly food, medicines and nothing that can be used in an offensive manner. That is what it means. Gaza is not a soverign entitly and therefore Israel uses its right of self defence to enforce the blockade.

Yes.

But my point is that you cannot "let a select list of items into Gaza" AND "withdraw the blockade", because "letting a select list of items into Gaza" IS the blockade.

What I find extremely worrying is that the world cares so much about Gazans not getting weapons but coudn't care less about Darfurians not getting food. The first is a crime Israel must be condemned for, the second is perfectly OK and the UN and Europe would never lecture the Arab League over it.

It's a class system for humanity. There are class-A people and class-B people. Non-Jewish and non-Kurdish white people are class A, Kurds, Jews and black Africans are class B.

Guess Whatr. You may be right. The world does not care for Darfur because it is away from the prying eyes of the Media.

Are you putting the cart before the horse?  How does the world know about any crises?  Well, some say Governments or the UN speak about them, but most governments (dictatorships aside) and the UN have no message vehicle!  They all rely on the media.  Does the media rely solely on governments and the UN for their information?  Some would say yes.  But that is not true either.  At least in theory.  The media often digs out the story to tell, and then the governments and the UN pick up the mantra (as well as the public).

So you are using circular logic with your response.  It is NOT away from the prying eyes of the media.  The question remains why is the media ignoring it.  And Leauki has touched on the answer.  It goes beyond that to a truth about extreme hatred and bigotry by the left.  But the rebuttal to your response is that the media is not doing their job regardless of the reason.  In a word, they are incompetent.