On the 1st of Sept 1939 Hitler's emergent war machine invaded Poland in pursuit of the Arian dream of a re-united Germanic State of an historic precedent, that, were it not for the unforeseen declaration of war by various outraged countries of Europe in response to Germany's act of aggression, would have entailed the annexing of various other portions of Germany's neighbour's territory, including France and Austria, to form the expanded Germany that Hitler and his Nazis believed was their divine right.

Not included in this dream of an Arian utopic super-state was the presence of non-Arian persona; in particular the unfortunate Jewish population that had previously made its home there. Germany's expansive program was eventually thwarted of course, and as its swansong subsided, a full realisation of the horror of the holocaust that the Jewish people suffered at the hands of Nazi Germany, touched the hearts and turned the stomachs of the allied and other nations.

Not without some considerable good will and some considerable regards did the first world nations facilitate the restoration of Israel as the long–lost homeland for the long-suffering Jewish people in the late 1940's.

It is often the case that victims of abuse follow in the footsteps of their abusers and become abusers themselves. This can be seen to be what has happened to the Jewish people of Israel; their conception of a divine right to other people's lands; and their treatment as inferior and undesirable of the unhappy Palestinians who happen to have their homes in the lands that Israel covets. Not only are these unfortunate Palestinians treated as second class citizens with second class rights in their own country, just as the Jews were in the beginning of Hitler’s campaign against them, but they are similarly thrown out of their own homes at gunpoint in favour of replacement Jewish residents.

Apparently Moses commandment, which was actually made to the Jewish people: ' Thou Shalt not covet thy neighbour's house', has become trampled on by a new regime which asserts that: 'Thou shalt covet they neighbours house in Jerusalem, and take it from them by any means possible'.

It is not difficult to conceive that, if the world was not watching closely what Israel does in its quest for its promised land, Israel would soon be rounding up the inconvenient but unoffending Palestinians and locking them away in death camps as a final solution of their own, such as they themselves were the innocent victims of seventy years ago. Already, to the innocent and battered Palestinians, the Star of David must seem just as loathsome and fearful an emblem as the Swastika of the Nazi Germany was to the world in 1940.  The arrogance of Israel in refusing to comply with directives and agreements is also redolent of the arrogance of Nazi Germany in failing to comply with such things.

The world should not sit back and permit such arrogance today, just as it did not sit back and permit it in Sept 1939. One hopes that the world's response in this case would fall short of declaring war on Israel. though of course there are nations sympathetic to the palestinian cause that are prepared to do just that. A loud and united voice of condemnation and accompanying economic penalties and trade embargos would be a step in the right direction; the support of Israel by the United States of America is clearly counter-productive.

 It is very unfortunate that America habitually stands behind Israel, driven by a voting public that blindly follows biblical passages without giving any consideration to what God, whom they try to please by this conduct, might actually think about the behaviour of this once asserted 'chosen people', who now choose for themselves to behave in every way contrary to laws their faith dictates. All promises made to Israel by God are historically endorsed by the clause: 'Subject to your compliance to My requirement of you", which the historically rebellious Jews have historically failed to do, and historically suffered the consequences for. Today, the sympathy of the world is rapidly turning away from Israel and towards Palestine, which will very soon be enjoying the goodwill and regards of the world that Israel enjoyed in 1948 , but has now compromised.

There is no way that Israel’s abuse of Palestine complies with Gods requirement of them such that the Bible thumping American public ought to be concerned that God will condemn them for not supporting Israel in favour of supporting the fundamental rights and fair treatment of the Palestinian people.

That the treatment of Palestine and the proposed treatment of Palestine is unfair is readily apparent by the oppressions both Israel and other nations are ever endeavouring to impose upon it. For example, Israel is ready to recognise Palestine as an independent state, but refuses to respect its borders, and even requires that it retains a controlling influence within its boundaries forever afterwards. What kind of independent state is that? Palestine's successful recent application for status as an observer nation at the UN was accompanied by qualified support from various countries, that qualification being that that recognition did not include protection under international law from war crimes against it by Israel, or presumably any other country . That preclusion in itself is a standing testimony as to the fact that war crimes have been committed against Palestine by Israel, for which Israel ought not be granted impunity, and of course denies Palestine rightful protection under law in future from any further transgressions against them on the part of Israel, should Israel continue to act with such impunity as it already has done.

The granting of Palestine’s status as an observer nation was accompanied by a host of conditions that still preclude it from being a truly independent state: it will be unable for example, to control its own borders, something that would surely be a pre-requisite for true independence. Other conditions were that it has no army or police force of its own, and no rights to self-government, which surely is what having an independent state is all about.

For Palestine to be a truly an independent State with all the rights and Status of an independent state, it has to be self-governing, it has to have the full protection of international law as an independent state and it has to be free to preclude the presence of Israel from within its borders. To say to Palestine ‘We are going to make you an independent state but without protection under international law, you have to be governed from without, and with an obligatory Israeli presence within your borders that can more or less do what it likes’, is not to give Palestine anything at all.

An independent state is an independent state. There can be no half measures or compromises about it. Palestine would still have justified grievances about having a state compromised by the provisos of Israel included it is asserted, to facilitate the peace process.

The problem is, from Israel’s point of view, one mainly of security related to geography. It wants to retain control over the Jordan valley within the state of Palestine. It wants to control any threat to it via Gaza. It wants a land it can defend easily but at the same time it wants land that it does not have, and in particular it wants full control and ownership of Jerusalem, which it sees as its divine right from God, just as Nazi Germany considered a great Germanic Nation was their divine right from God, and were prepared to act in a most unholy and ungodly way in which to secure it.

If such things were divine rights, then it must be obvious to any but the meanest of intelligences, that the obtaining of them would not require one single ungodly action. Thus it is for Jerusalem; if Jerusalem is truly given by God to Israel, then they would have no need to take it by forcing innocent Palestinians out of their homes, there would be some other, more divine means of securing it for them.

Most peace initiatives for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict recognise the so-called 'Green Line' as the legitimate and appropriate border for Palestine, encompassing both the Gaza strip and the West Bank. If Israel recognises it however, it does not respect it, having built its own barricades and settlements well within the Palestine side of the Green Line and Jerusalem.

I however, would assert in my humble limited appraisal, that the Green Line is a most inappropriate border for Palestine and Israel and it is the trying to assert it as otherwise that is causing all the major impediments to the peace process in Israel and Palestine.  There is a much more practicable alternative line of demarcation, which for clarification purposes could be called the 'Blue Line'. This would extend from Tirat Zevi in the east, directly across to Hadera on the west coast. Everything NORTH of the line being the state of Palestine and everything south of that line, including the Gaza strip, being Israel.

An additional consideration could be the inclusion of a 'double border' somewhere along the length of this border, so as to create a neutral 'no man's land' where families who have been blessed by having both Palestinian and Israeli members could live and do business unseparated by otherwise uncompromising demarcations. A palestinian member of such a family could for example pass freely through the palistinian side of this double border but not the israeli side, and vice versa for an israeli member. In this way the integrity of the borders could be maintained whilst at the same time making provision for such families not to be disrupted by such borders. There ought to be sufficient passage of goods across such a border for these families to earn a living dealing with those goods.



If this blue line had been the demarcation  from the beginning, then Israel and Palestine would both be enjoying peace and security today. To do it now does present some difficulties, but not any that could not be overcome, and certainly none that have not been overcome by other countries as solutions to other problems.

The benefits to Palestine of such a border are that it could have a completely independent, self-governing state in good country with its own sea port (Hefa) and borders with three friendly countries: Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. They would have the advantage of having produce to sell to Israel from the richer land that they occupied. The benefits to Israel are such that Israel would no longer have any requirement to retain any presence, control or influence within this Palestine’s borders.

These benefits to Israel are: Israel would no longer have to share a border with formerly hostile Syria and could then comply safely with the UN directive to remove its illegal settlements from the Golan Heights. It also, without any infringement of Palestinian territory, keeps control of the Jordon valley it desires to. The thorn of the Gaza strip in its flesh would be removed by the migration of Palestine there to the north and incorporating Gaza into Israel. The land of Israel would be wider and easier to defend than the current nine miles it currently complains about, and in addition to all this, it gets by fair trade - not foul play, its prize of Jerusalem.  Israel would prosper sufficiently from the increased tourist industry a peaceful and settled Jerusalem would attract so that it could afford to buy the produce that it needs from Palestine.

Better all-round for everybody.

The Logistics of it now would be to clearly define the border; to relocate all Palestinian people north of that border, to relocate all Israeli people south of that border, and to relocate any mixed families onto a split-border no-man's-land. Migration such as this was accomplished on a much larger scale when India divided its Muslim and Hindu populations and segregated them into India and Pakistan.

In the interests of enduring peace and stability in this region it could be accomplished again here; the long term benefits of which would surely outweigh the sacrifices that would have to be made.

Correct me if I am wrong: