Prepare, NJC PC

[sl . m]

Laurent, thanks for sending all that information about the PLO. I would add one thing: I believe Arafat declared the PLO charter - the parts that refer to the destruction of Israel - as "caduc" meaning null and void, in December 1988. He had to do this to be allowed to enter America to attend a meeting of the U.N.

Having said that, he did it with a wave of his hand and a little smile, as though it wasn't really an issue.

I would say that the debate on this list about what the bible does or doesn't say shows that a Middle East solution can't and shouldn't be based on anything in the bible, or on any other religious text.

I'm beginning to get worried here: am I really the only atheist on the list?? Colin, I know you're no fan of organized religion, but you believe in a higher power. I don't, or at least I'm agnostic regarding that. I wouldn't want to say that everything we see is all that exists. But I also find a belief in god (in any traditional sense) as basically superstition.

I believe in the maxim of Feuerbach: "For god to be everything, man must be nothing".

We should trust ourselves and our own judgement and sort out life on this earth by ourselves, with no help from gods, real or imagined.

Regarding the mid-east, I believe the U.N (or, if they won't, Britain and America) should impose a solution, and back it up with force. And forget who was there first. It's too late to argue that now.

For me, the solution would be something like:

1. Israel should withdraw to its pre-1967 borders (but bearing in mind that they won the extra land - the so-called Occupied Territories - fairly and squarely in a war they did not start, and that should be acknowledged);

2. Palestinians must give up the demands that everyone now labelled a "Palestinian refugee" should be allowed to return to Israel. That would lead to millions of Arabs descending on Israel, and would de facto lead to the destruction of Israel. The overwhelming majority of so-called Palestinian refugees have never even been to Palestine or Israel. They were born in other Arab countries, and are only labelled "Palestinian" because those other countries refuse to grant them citizenship. This is in part due to the PLO's insistence that anyone born to Palestinians is Palestinian, not Syrian if born in Syria, not Jordanian if born in Jordan. And it's also in part due to the other Arab countries wanting to keep the Palestinian crisis alive and not wanting them to assimilate.

3. Arab countries in which Palestinian refugees currently reside should be strongly encouraged to extend citizenship to them, particularly if they were born there, and should allow them to work as doctors, lawyers etc, which they are presently not allowed to do. The encouragement should take the form of withholding aid money if they refuse.

4. The Israelis must give up the law of return, which grants any Jew, or spouse of a Jew, or even grandchild of the spouse of a Jew, the right to become an Israeli citizen. This leads to the spectacle of people with strong Glaswegian accents, who have been living in Israel for three weeks -- whose mothers or grandmothers were Jewish but who themselves may never have practised the religion or even thought about it -- being helped to build houses on land which the United Nations has ruled belongs to Palestinians, some of whom may actually have been born on that land. That is patently unfair. It's a law that is based on a particular reading of religious texts, and it has no place (in my view) in a 21st century settlement of a very complex issue.

5. Any imposed settlement should completely ignore the "we were here first" issue. If this principle were to be applied universally, it would mean that Italians could come over to Britain and claim ownership of some of our land. As could the French, the Celts and the Vikings. Aboriginal Indians could kick Canadians out, and white Brits could kick blacks out. Claims based on "we were here first" lead to madness.

6. The United Nations should pick an arbitrary date - January 1st 2004, say - and should rule that anyone who is a citizen of Israel or the Occupied Territories on that date is a citizen of Israel. After that date, anyone wishing to become a citizen can apply and will be accepted on the basis of a need, if there is one, for that particular person's skill, regardless of race or religion.

7. Jerusalem would be ruled by the central government. Holy sites of importance to all three religions would be administered by a special government committee, with representatives of each religion on the committee, as well as philosophers, historians and other scholars with no religion, overseen by a similar U.N. committee to check for balance and fairness.

Jews will argue that this might eventually lead to the end of Israel being a predominantly Jewish state, and yes, it might, but will it realistically? Immigration can be restricted. Israeli citizens can be encouraged to multiply and to stay. The state of Israel as a Jewish state could last for a very long time.

But I would also say that perhaps a debate is needed as to whether having a particular country, by law, as a Jewish, Christian, Islamic (or whatever) state is justifiable in this modern - and I would hope, post-religious - era. Because I think this new Israeli state would need a constitution that stressed the common humanity of its citizens, and not any particular religion.

So that's my two cents' worth - a proposed solution to the mid-east conflict, no less! ;-) And in less time that it takes a pig to have an orgasm.

Sarah