Sharon was absolutely right in evacuating the Jewish settlements in Gaza. Both Gaza and the West Bank are territories occupied as a result of military occupation. Israel is entitled to have an army of occupation in those territories. However, permanent civilian settlements are illegal. The Israeli settlements on the West Bank are also illegal and should be evacuated. The US resolutions supporting such illegality were simply wrong.

The US in its Constitution has separation of religion and state. Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist states are counter to the principles on which the US was founded. Support for such states are a matter of expediency rather than principle.

Sharon was following some great precedents. De Gaulle ran for office in France promising to keep Algeria French. The French departure for Algeria was a violation of his promise but a good and right thing for France.

"Israel has certainly paid an enormous price in deaths, injuries and ongoing trauma resulting from more than 8000 rockets being indiscriminately lobbed from Gaza..." says our Singer who, along with Ariel, is our Australian equivalent of Mark Regev.

I assume that the enormous price in 'deaths, injuries and ongoing trauma' is a fair assessment. A lawyer wouldn't exaggerate, would he?

Such an enormous price must surely mean say: massive destruction, 20,000 Israeli deaths, 100,000 injuries and trauma such that most of the Israeli population must be seeing psychologists and psychiatrists to help them manage their deep trauma.

Funny thing is, reports I read and news reports on television from across the world suggest that most Gazan rockets, unable to be properly directed, fall in empty fields or merely break a few windows, so impotent are they.

There seems to be an enormous disconnect between Singer's statements and the information I have seen. Given that I'm a news junkie, I suggest that Singer is gilding the lily. Mightily!

I wonder why he is doing this? Could it be that most of the world no longer swallows Israeli lies?

The U.N. vote seems to confirm it!

Singer. With all their exaggerations and nit-picking legalese I am finding your articles quite humorous. I look forward to them for a good laugh. The only problem is that I think you actually believe they are contributing to anything useful.

The worm has turned and Israel will have to start treating Palistinians as equals.

They need a new constituton not based on religious dogma.

Arjay wrote:

"The worm has turned and Israel will have to start treating Palistinians as equals.

They need a new constituton not based on religious dogma."

Dear Arjay,

Where did you get your knowledge of the Israeli Constitution? The fact is that Israel's current constitution is not based on religious dogma since Israel has no constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Israel

"There is no Constitution of Israel. Instead of a formal written constitution and in accordance with the 1948 Harari Decision adopted during the Israeli Constituent Assembly, the State of Israel has enacted several Basic Laws of Israel dealing with the government arrangements and human rights. The Israeli Supreme Court President Aharon Barak ruled that the Basic Laws should be considered the state's constitution, and that has become the common approach throughout his tenure. Opponents of this approach include Barak's colleague, Judge of the Supreme Court Mishael Cheshin.

The purpose of the Constituent Assembly initially was to enact a constitution for Israel by the 1 October 1948 but they failed to do so.

Various bodies in Israel have called for the enactment of a formal constitution to be contained in one document, and have submitted ideas and drafts for consideration."

You might take the trouble to see if there is any religious dogma enshrined in Israeli law before you bloviate further.