A few weeks ago I said something along the lines that it seems impossible to write an article which is regarded as deserving of rejection by On Line Opinion. It was primarily this author that I had in mind.

To make just a few of the more obvious rejoinders:

para 1 - who breached the ceasefire ?

para 2
What is Israel' "historical" claim to the West Bank ? Presumably related to the fact that Jews lived there in the past. If so, don't Palestinians have a far better "historical" claim to all of pre-partition Palestine ?

Does Israel have any legal claim to the West Bank (or, indeed, that part of Palestine which was not allocated to Israel by the UN partition plan, but was occupied by Israel following 1948)?

para 3
Is there anything unreasonable about Arabs wanting a "right of return"? If not, then Israel's continued rejection of the demand points only to the unreasonableness of Israel, and does not give a reason why Arabs should not continue to demand their "right of return".

para 4
Maybe he should have said a "reasonable solution". It's absolutely clear that the Palestinians would accept a two-state solution with return of refugees (even more so, obviously, a return to the UN partition plan borders - they don't seem even to be demanding this!)

para 5
And what about Palestinians thrown out of their homes (where, unlike Israeli settlers in the West Bank, they were living perfectly legally) in 1947-8?

para 6
Why is an offer to give back only part of what has been taken (stolen) remarkable? And why on earth is the rejection of such an offer worthy of comment?

In short I really think that Singer is a person who believes that it's more important for Jews to be able to live where they want than non-Jews, just because they are Jews. If this is correct, the repeated appearance of his writings in On Line Opinion only goes to show that it has no editorial standards whatever.

# Jeremy

In response to your queries:

1. Hamas breached the ceasefire.

2. Israel's historical claim to the West Bank dates back to biblical times when it was called Judea and Samaria - names that were only erased in 1950 when the Arabs sought to obliterate any Jewish connection with these areas.

Arab claims to self-determination were to be recognized in 99.999% of the Ottoman Empire lands captured by the British and French in the First World War. Jewish self determination was to occur in the remaining 0.001%. The Arabs never accepted that decision - demanding 100%.

Israel's legal claim is founded in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

The UN Partition Plan was rejected by the Arabs.

3. Israel will never agree to the Arab right of return as the Jewish National Home would lose its Jewish majority. To you this may seem unreasonable. To the Jews it would turn Israel into a 22nd Arab State. The Jewish majority is not yet prepared to commit suicide.

4. Mc Ewan spoke these words - not me.

5. Jews were also thrown out of their homes in the West Bank and Gaza in 1947-1948 when they legally lived there. War is ugly yet countless refugee problems have been resolved in many places around the World by resettlement following the conclusion of hostilities. The Arabs preferred to keep their Palesinian Arab brethren in refugee camps for the last 63 years rather than resettling them within their own countries.

6. Offering to cede Israel's legal claims in 95% of the West Bank is remarkable. If you were offered 95% of what you demanded - why wouldn't you be prepared to accept it? Negotiations involve compromise. 100% was available between 1948-1967 to create a Palestinian State by the stroke of a pen - but nothing was done to create such a state. That opportunity will not return again.

20% of Israel's population of over 7 million are Arabs. You might tell me how many Jews now live in the 21 Arab nations.

"The UN partition plan was rejected by the Arabs"(outrageous!)- as was their right, that should have been the end of the whole Zionist enterprise. However, other far more powerful interests had plans of their own.

jeremy,

Your last comment really sums up the essence of the Zionist position,it's basically that Jews have a special claim on the land and therefore the Palestinians have no right to resist the invaders.

Good Luck.

Writing Fiction comes easy to you David, you would not know the truth if you fell over it,you are a prize propagandist for the Israeli Govt.
No wonder people are see Israel as another Apartheid state and it should be treated as such,all this because of a fairy tail called the Bible.
The only reason you and your propagandist mates keep going is because of US backing,well old son the march of history is relentless,and I have a feeling you and the fanatic semi fascist settlers will lose in the end
But that wont worry the Settlers as most have US passports and wont hang around when the writing is on the wall,or maybe you can all convert to Christianity like your US Christian backers want.

David, I don't generally agree with your posts, but think you've made some good points here.

McEwan is indeed basing his comments on dubious presuppositions that are common to the left intelligentsia. A good example of this is found in the comments attached to most OLO articles about Israel.

It's all so predictable: Zionism is a greater evil than jihadist Hamas; USA is the Great Satan, anything regarding faith is a "fairy tail"(sic) etc etc.

Jeremy, should articles be rejected just because they present an opinion contrary to your own? I think not!

#mac

The Palestinian Arabs are perfectly entitled to reject whatever they like.

They rejected
1. The 1922 Mandate
2. The 1937 Peel Commission recommendations
3. Article 80 of the UN Charter in 1945
4. The 1947 UN Partition Plan
5. Establishing a State in the West Bank,Gaza and East Jerusalem between 1948-1967 when not one Jew lived there - as they had all been dispossessed by six invading Arab armies in the 1948 War
6. Any negotiations with Israel between 1967-1993
7. Offers made by Israel in 2000/1 and 2007
8. Resumption of direct negotiations with Israel in 2010.

Of course Jews have a similar right to reject what they like - but when they do - people like you go into a frenzy. Why the double standard?

The Jews accepted 1-4 above. Had the Palestinian Arabs done likewise 63 years of death and suffering by both Jews and Arabs would have been avoided.

The Palestinian Arabs and the Arab League continue this rejectionist stance seeking to pursue their unchanged ambition to replace the one Jewish state in the world with a 22nd Arab State and 58th Moslem State.

They are emboldened by people like you to continue this struggle to gain sovereignty over just 0.001% of the former captured Ottoman Empire that is not under Arab sovereignty.

That is their - and your - entitlement to pursue. It has not and will not get them anywhere. Compromise has to occur if ever there is a resolution of the conflict

It is tragic to understand the Arab world with its vast land mass and oil reserves - with supporters like yourself - cannot abide a Jewish state in its midst that is one third the size of Tasmania.

The conflict will continue with such a mindset.

Acceptance of the UN Plan would have got the Palestinian Arabs their State in an area far greater than the Palestinian Authority now claims 64 years later. That is where rejection has led to and regrettably the continuation of this stance will lead to a lot more suffering on both sides