My own opinion is that, so far, road blocks and similar restrictions on the mobility of Palestinians have been unsuccessful in preventing terrorist attacks, and have a disproportionate and unjustified effect on non-terrorist Palestinians. The individuals involved in the Glasgow Airport attacker were, if I remember correctly, in the UK quite legally and working as doctors, so a road block to check their IDs would have beeen totally useless in preventing the attack. Arguably we could prevent any foreign person from entering the UK (the people were Iraqi, I think), but given that in the past some terrorist attacks have been committed or attempted by British people, I doubt that would entirely prevent terrorism in the UK either, and I fail to see how it would prevent attacks in other parts of the world.

Yes, it is absolutely a problem that terrorists are able to attack people, but it simply doesn’t seem to me that road blocks are an effective way of preventing those attacks. Nor does it seem to me that it is fair or useful to cast all Palestinians as terrorists and therefore people who should not be free to travel; by the same logic we might say that no Basque person should not be allowed to travel within or outside of Spain because of the actions of the few Basque separatists who are members of ETA. However, Spain does not have any such policy.

I just think we need different methods for preventing terrorism, starting with communication and policy changes. I really do think that preventing people from moving freely, and effectively imprisoning them, makes people more likely to turn to extremist action; as well as having unacceptable effects on the humanitarian situation of those people.

Just my 2p. But as I say, I can’t speak for David Mumford.

However on the issue of limited mobility, I’d be curious to know what he thinks of mobile suicide bombers, and whether he’s in favour of unrestricted access for these individuals to the London Bus and Underground and Glasgow Airport.

It is reasonable to ask what Hamas has in mind as an antidote. My point here is that this Zionism triumphant is seriously flawed. Hamas triumphant would, in my humble opinion, be much worse.

I now think that I understand what Mike Marqusee is trying to say. He is expressing an ideology of socialism and democracy as opposed to imperialism and racism in general terms.

That’s right. I’ve now understood that that’s a valid point to make in respect of the inequality and injustice inherent in the version of Zionism that won out (as against, perhaps, the Zionism of Judah Magnes). It’s a really important point, and I’m glad I’ve finally seen it. It doesn’t need to be justified with any explanation of what “should” have happened in Palestine, or what the Jews of the Arab lands “should” have done, or what “should” now happen (etc, etc). I don’t see how any of these ought to influence how you judge an ideology that stands accused of being inherently unjust to the pre-existing people of Palestine.

My position is that if there is no interest on the part of the 5 million Jews for a single democratic state (except for Pappe, Marqusee and a few hundred/couple of thousand? others) and no background at all of socialism combined with democracy (yet) on the part of the Palestinians, then we have to deal with realities, not dream about utopian solutions as if they are achievable any time soon.

I now think that I understand what Mike Marqusee is trying to say. He is expressing an ideology of socialism and democracy as opposed to imperialism and racism in general terms.

As the surviving victims of an extremely virulent form of racism were trapped in Europe after 1945, and the racism of the Israeli state had not yet appeared, what should these victims have done, or where should they have gone?

I’m also sure that Mike has a sensible answer for the Jews of the Arab lands who had been living for centuries under the Dhimmi system. Should they have stayed put and worked for change from within? I seriously doubt that, knowing the culture and the ideology of Islam as practised in those countries.

So, I started out calling Marqusee a dreamer, and I hold to that opinion!

Once the Jews from the Arab lands had fled or migrated en masse to Israel after 1948, they were never going back to Dhimmi status under the Arabs. That they then turned on the Arabs of Palestine and made them into another version of second class citizens is also shameful.

Marqusee is not a self hating Jew, he’s simply a dreamer. Only dreamers are talking about a single state post-Zionist solution. There must be a long period of separation and cessation of hostilities before there can be a ‘coming together’ of Palestinians and Israelis.