The language used in the legal discourse involved in this issue is of interest.

My grandfather, of the 'Light Horse', (camel and mule support and supply unit) followed and supplied the fighting units up the Then Ottoman coast of 'Palestine' and he eventually became involved in the assail of the 'cactus barricade' of the coastal fortress town of Gaza. He related to me that, every time his unit came across an isolated Jewish settlement in that journey, the provision of food, horse care, fodder and even clothing laundry essentials were provided, without question and without 'barter'.
The codified and accepted laws of current commerce were applied. What has this to do with with the essay above? Not sure, but it was his story and I found it interestin.

It may be more accurate, reflecting the historically accurate submission by Singer, to describe the current 'Occupied territories' as 'disputed territory'.... It is not a 'done deal' and 'settled science' issue! It is enormously complex with the best interest and wellbeing of both groups deserving the respect of internation law, understanding and a little less simplistic labelling.

David,

you do realise you are writing supporting a regime that undertakes, weekly, the torture, coercion, mistreatment and 'questioning' of Palestinian boys, from ages 12 to 18, to obtain confessions before havng then appeared shackled and handcuffed before Israeli military 'judges' in Israeli military 'courts' facing charges laid under Israeli military occupation law, without them having access to proper representation.

Why is there a 100% guilty judgement and the standard and automatic prison terms for these boys increased threefold if guilty pleas are not automatically tendered? Why is there never any evidence tendered?

Tell me why the same conditions and treatment are not metered out to Israeli youths?

I have to agree.
I am all for Israel observing International Law in it's dealings with the Palestinians.
One such provision is that an occupied people are the responsibility of the occupier and should be treated with all due decency and dignity.

Further more, it is illegal to extract them from their homes and lock them up without due process, in a foreign country.
This is just one of many provisions and considerations that International Law inconveniently stipulates.That and all the other many manifest evils the Israelis have subjected the Palestinians to since 1897.

By the way, what does Mr. Singer call the idea of shipping an entire people out of one/more geographical areas and dumping them in, oh, lets say JORDON, for the benefit of one particular religious group?
I'd call that ethnic cleansing and a crime against humanity.
Surely as a Lawyer Mr. Singer can understand the ridiculous position he puts himself in?.

Oh and David the boys were merely accused of throwing stones.

#To imajulianutter

You need to address your queries to the Palestinian and Israeli lawyers who represented their clients at their trials-which their parents and relatives are free to attend.

I note you have not made any comment to the subject matter of my article or voiced any disagreement with any of the stated facts.

#To Therzal

You state:

"Further more, it is illegal to extract them from their homes and lock them up without due process, in a foreign country."

Could you please give specific examples where this has occurred and the provisions of international law that have been allegedly breached?

What "foreign country" are you referring to?

You further state:

"By the way, what does Mr. Singer call the idea of shipping an entire people out of one/more geographical areas and dumping them in, oh, lets say JORDON, for the benefit of one particular religious group?"

Please indicate the specific incident and date when when this occurred

David

I refer you to the article in the Weekend Australian of Saturday, 26 November written by John Lyons, 'Stone Cold Justice' and to our Governments enquiries to the Israeli authorities.

i don't like talking with lawyers ... I find they usually try justify anything no matter how objectional.

No I won't talk about trivial matters you want others to think important.

As a lawyer I think you'll understand why I think mistreatment of children is much more important.

It astonishes me you keep your writing in support of a regime carrying out such atrocities.

That you do need to address. Why don't you write an article condemning such practises?