to Sophie in Washington,

I'm a non-religious Israeli. I don't believe we have a right for this land because of what is written in the bible. I do believe, however, that jews are entitled to their own
land because they were discriminated against, persecuted and killed in the countries which hosted them throughout history. In this sense the jews have a much better reason for settling in this land than the English had to settle
Australia, Ireland, America etc. Remember that
these areas were also popluted then.

me, Jerusalem, Israel

A few points...

1. I do believe we have to give back territories, but the article
failed to mention that the arabs didn't wants to have peace back in 1967 even if we gave back the territories then. Don't
forget that they instigated the 67 war when they already had these territories. The arabs were interested then in the eradicagtion of the state of Israel. In the tensed weeks before the 67 war, the Arab states threatened to destroy Israel, and Israelies lived under the impression that it's going to happen soon. After the war, the territories that Israel conquered gave Israelies the feeling, for the first time, that Israel is not so tiny anymore and can't be destroyed so easily. since the arabs were still
not willing to recognize Israel's right to exist then, it seemed
foolish to give back the territories and to put ourselves back
in the dangerous situation we were at before the 67 war.

more to come...

me, Jerusalem, Israel

I have little knowledge of the background to the issue. Maybe there are millions of people who share my simplistic view that, to acommodate the Jewish people, the Americans and British arranged the setting up of a new state in an area currently occupied by some other state or people. Irrespective of who lived in that area previously, such an establishment could only be legal and fair if it received the concensus of the majority of the people there at the time (assuming their right to be there, of course - this could become very complicated!).
I have always believed that the majority in the area were not Jewish and that makes the action illegal by today's standards. Maybe I am wrong. I hope for a peaceful settlement for everyone's good and I have no other predudice except a natural revulsion for the claim of a right, through having done a deal with God. That certainly does not help.

John cullen , Cork , Ireland

Pity poor Abramovich and his daughter. How comes he does not mention the assault by the Tran-Jordanian legion, under the command of a British general GlubbPasha, attacked the Old city of Jerusalem and nearby Jewish settlements BEFORE the state was established. How comes he, and all other reporters, FORGOT that when the IDF retook the Old City they found all synagogues destroyed, gravestones from one of the oldest Jewish cemeteries used as paving stones and for latrines for the Trans-Jordan Legion? It seems to be alright
for the Arabs to take over territory and it is not called 'occupation'. By the way after Trans-Jordan annexed Judea and Samaria they changed their name to Jordan. During the 19 years of their occupation they killed quite a few Palestinians who dared to criticise them. Gaza was occupied by Egypt and part of the Galillee was captured by Syria and for the 19 years of their "occupation" no one spoke of a Palestinian nation or state, viable or not.

Emanuel, Jerusalem, Israel

the documentary about the west bank of the jordan on which your daughter based her views may have been narrated by someone not hostile to israel, but it was a one-sided piece. in the interests of natural justice, there are two sides to this story and the israeli jewish side is invariably not reported or distorted. the constant terror and hatred expressed in suicide and other murderous attacks on israeli civilians by arabs are the reasons for the checkpoints, searches and the wall. the americans who live in the west bank are jews with a historical, present and future connection with the land of israel. most of them have purchased land legally and simply want to live there in peace, yet in the the closest to apartheid that you get in israel they are threatened with expulsion in exchange for the illusory carrot of peace with arabs who cannot accept the land of israel in any shape or form.

roisy nevies, london, england

It is interesting that Mr Aaronovitch has picked the Golan Heights as the place where settlement started 'on a nod and a wink'. As I understand it, the Golan was the only place in the occupied territories that was settled by Israel for years, as they hoped that a peace treaty that was sustainable could be attained without it. The Golan is a special case (and should never be relinquished) because almost daily since before Israel's independence, Syrian ordnance were fired into civilian settlements and farms in the Gallilee - an area not disputed by Syria or Lebanon. When war came in '67, the Golan was an even more important prize than Jerusalem, because of the constant murder of Israeli women and children from there.

David Garfield, London, UK

That 6-day war had its consequences for expats living and working in Libya, Tunisia, Lebanon and other parts of the oil rich countries. It bred people like Qadaffi and Nasser of Egypt who was the instigator of the entire mess also caused havoc in these countries.
The Syrians gained by taking over all the businesses owned and operated by, for example, Libyan Jews, and it was indeed the start of their annexation of land and property in the Middle East.
As a Brit working in Libya at the time, I saw a beautiful moderate Arab country destroyed by 6-days of madness.
The Israelis should now return the annexed lands to the Palestinians and both sides should sit down and talk peace and prosperity - no more war.

Chips Westwood, Sarlat La Caneda, France

To blame Israel is easy and of course fashionable.Always was.
Israel in the meantime is flourishing and is a world economic/military power.Meanwhile,true, the West Bank and Gaza are tough places and parts even horrible but Jordan,Israelis other neighbour is truly flourishing.
Jordan is at peace with Israel,"Palestine" under the Hamas and Abbas is not.
mmm.I wonder if there is a correlation here. No?
Trotskyite Englsih historians [not Aaronovitz] never will think there is..

Leslie Udwin, Johannesburg, South Africa

I am afraid Jan from London is misinformed. Jordanian forces did indeed expell hundreds of Jewish families from East Jerusalem (over 2000 people) and the Jewish quarter of the Old City was totally destroyed. However; the East of the City (including the Old city) consisted of a huge Arab majority since long before 1948 - for over a 1000 years. Also, the settlers are not simply rebuilding what was destroyed. The re-built Jewish quarter is vastly larger in size and settlements continue to grow in spite of international law and while Palestinians face huge legal barriers to building any new homes themselves.

To Phil I point out that this region has been called many names both before and after being known as Judea. People have exsisted in this region long before the emergence of organised religion and numerous peoples have over-lapped since. All those involved in this conflict must accept a shared history and a shared future if a lasting solution is to be found.

Paul, Jerusalem,

judea was 2000 years ago, that land was not empty for 2000 years. people lived in it. what name they call themselves is irrelevant. most societies have new nationalities, the russians were soviets only 20 years ago. 90% of the third world is made up of new nation states. the pakistanis were indians. spain was andalucia, all of europe was rome. the issue here is why pretentd that the people who lived in that peace of land for 2000 since the jews were expelled , whoever they are, whatever they believe in, have no right to it? this is what baffles me in this whole debate. why are jews the only people who have the right to this land and not anyone else? on what grounds? it was 2000 years ago! as for claims about jerusalem being jewish up until 1948. what was it in 1848, 1748, 1648? does the name al hussaini mean anything to anyone? the muftis of jerusalem for 500 years? oh wait, 2000 before it was jewish. distorting history will not work. EVERYONE has a right to that land.

sophie, washington,

This is indeed a fair and balanced article. The single shortcoming is that with the aggressive and threatening 3 "no"s declaration by the Arab states in Khartoum the proximity of the West Bank to the Mediterranean - as close as 8 miles in some parts - became an immediate and very real threat to the physical integrity of Israel.

It was never intended by the Arab states that the West Bank be a friendly neighbor to Israel. The very reverse was true. It was no longer in Jordan's hands but in the hands of a consolidation of aggressive Arab clans who answered to no authority other than the individual family heads. One need look no farther than Gaza today to see what this delivered.

What Israel had done these 40 years was to use settlements to insulate itself as much as possible from the existentialist threat which the West Bank territory constitutes. If those who today call themselves Palestinians had peaceful intentions everything would have turned out differently.

Ernalud France, Tours, France

Well, the time when East Jerusalem was truly Jewish was, of course before the Romans destroyed the city together with most of its population - and that was a good 2000 years ago. From that point on it was quite mixed. But I have to agree with Jan that calling East Jerusalem "Arab" is pure ignorance. The very first census (conducted by the Turks half a century before the Zionist movement was founded) found that even back then there were more Jews in the city than Muslims and Christians combined. And it is true that Jews left East Jerusalem only in 1948 due to mass slaughter (cum ethnic cleansing) by the Arabs. We would all love to see a Palestinian state, but if we go on telling the Israelis that this is Arab land, it is no wonder they treat this notion (and sometimes its bearers) with all the disrespect it deserves. And the bigger points relating to today and tomorrow become lost due to our ignorance, not the Israelis'

Dan, Manchester,

I believe that before Palestine was named Palestine, that area was called Judea wher Jews lived.

Phil, Preston,

One example of Aaronovitch's limited vision. He claims that 200,000 settlers moved into formerly Arab east Jerusalem. But East Jerusalem became Arab only after 1948, when Jordanian forces expelled hundreds of Jewish families. Previously it was Jewish. The settlers merely rebuild what has been destroyed.

Jan, London,

The touble with the West when it discusses the Israel/Palestine problem is that it always wants to start from 1967 or perhaps 1947/8.
The problem started in 1896 with th first Zionist Congress in Paris, followed by the collapse of the Ottoman empire and the appointment of the UK to a Mandate over Palestine.
At that time Imperialism was at its peak and it seemed not unusual that a European country could promise someone elses land to a people who did not live in that land.
At the time of the Congress only 50,000 Jews lived in Palestine; there were more Jews in Baghdad .
Now we in the West may conveniently forget the history of Palestine between the World wars, but the Palestinians do not. What happened in 1947/8 has to be seen thro' this historical prism. Which country in the West would have agreed in 1948 to having their country partitioned by the United Nations to suit several hundred thousand European Jews. If I had been a Palestinian then, I would have said no.

nick , Glasgow, Scotland

Yes all your theorising sounds OK from the standpoint of a London abode. If only some lunatic such as I'm-a-bad-dinner-suit to name but a few would stop saying 'we will sweep Israel onto the sea'. This rhetoric gives Israel the only excuse they need too take the hard line and for one of the most militarily sophisticated countries in the world that's not too difficult. Arafat was the one person in the late nineties who could have done something to help his people but he was too corrupt and ended up their own worst enemy. Before he declared that Intifada the Palestinians had started to improve their financial lot with lots of co-operation with Israel. There seems little hope now having voted for a declared terrorist organisation who want to sweep....(as if). A sort of peace might just be achieved in the area only in historic terms by that I mean hundred/s of years - sad but true.

Victor Cowen , Malaga, Spain

Is there anything you think the Palestinians could do? Because the onus is always on Israel to 'do something', but no-one seems to expect anything other of the Palestinians than random, mindless violence, and that is then excused with the 'bad conditions'. Change the CD please, this one is boring by now.

Roswhita, London,

interesting term pre-emptive. Israel starts the war, but they were only pre-empting, this is not being neutral its taking sides. The author is an avowed supporter of Israel, could we expect anything else?

akram, London,

Who would have thought we'd see the day? Mr. Aaronovitch has produced an article dealing with the Israeli- Palestine conflict that is even- handed, well-informed and clear- sighted, but in which his humanity and genuine compassion are evident in every line. This article should serve as a model for any self- styled pundit on the Middle-East; regardless of which 'just cause' they espouse.

Peter Boyle, Belfast,

The American accents of the settlers is likely to reflect the tendency of TV interviewers to prefer American English speakers in interviews. The documentary makers are probably reflecting back your own prejudices when they choose to focus on speakers of American English. Interviewees could just as easily have Russian accents.

Jonathan Lowenstein, Tel-Aviv, Israel

Our alliance with Israel has changed our post WWII strategies from one that enhances individual dignity and rights to one that advances the territories on behalf of friends and business partners. Our tactics now appear to be more like those used against the American Indians in the late 1800s to acquire the lands of the American West than those to end the deaths camps in central Europe in the mid 1900s.

Bill Keller, BASKING RIDGE, USA/New Jersey

The sufferings of the Palestinians have just as much to do with the corrupt megalomaniac Arrafat and his successors as it has with Israel and its democrats.
One eg : Israel leaves the Gaza strip, viable Orange groves are left intact .Commandered by Hamas they are used as bases to launch rockets. "Butter before bullets" ? I think not.

Peter Bolt, Redditch, UK

Lots to agree with, David, but the question of legality needs clarification. You correctly state that the 67 war was a defensive war on Israel's part. Under international law, there is no obligation on the part of the victim of aggression to relinquish, unilaterlally, land gained in a defensive war. The Arabs/Palestinians need to negotiate for the return of the land, and they certainly need to give up something significant to recover it. This point is frequently overlooked. It does not, of course, negate the deleterious consequences of occupation as outlined by you.

Chris, Adelaide, Australia

Sadly, whether or not Israel had occupied Gaza or annexed the West Bank, Arab nationalism under the banner of Muslim radicalism would have produced the same situation as you have described. To nearly all Arabs and Muslims, Israel is a
cancer to be cut out of the region. Only with its annihalation will their anger be sated, and then only for a short time, when they will turn their full attention to the rest of the world.

Stan Coveney, Sydney, Australia