'You're about the best value on this site save our runner.'

thanks Toni just confirms to me how the God of Israel laughs at His puny adversaries.

Good grief, he's like one of Pavlov's dogs...

Mr Singer is about 80 years and it shows:
"I usually enjoy speaking with David Singer about “Palestine” and the UN Charter and other matters. I enjoy his articles.
David is a cousin whom I have admired for many years; both as a lawyer and as a “mensch”. His foray into same-sex marriage is disappointing. It is fundamentally wrong to take the comments by the Hon. Michael Kirby AC CMG out of context and use them to the exact opposite effect as their original intent."
Justice Rothman responds to David Singer's SSM article » J-Wire
www.jwire.com.au › News

#nicknamenick; #toni lavis

You both seem to have trouble comprehending what Lord Balfour actually said - so I will repeat it once again:
"The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land"

Balfour was misquoted by Nick Thobun who said:
"Lord Balfour (declared), chillingly, that Zionism was 'of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land'"

Why would Thobun - and you two apparently - want to go to such lengths to deliberately conceal that what Balfour said was:
1.The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism.
2.Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes,
3. Zionism was of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.

Could your objective be to prevent anyone reading and understanding that "Zionism":
1.was not a dirty word,
2.was embraced by the four Great Powers,
3.was rooted in age long traditions
4.was unanimously endorsed by all 51 members of the League of Nations in conferring the Mandate for Palestine on Great Britain
5.was to take place in just 0.01% of the conquered Ottoman Empire territories - whilst Arab self-determination was to simultaneously take place in the remaining 99.99% as provided by the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon and the Mandate for Mesopotamia.

Does your hatred of the Jews run so deep that you are prepared to swallow false propaganda such as that uttered by Thobun and the other four falsehoods I referred to in my article?

Even a modicum of intellectual honesty would do you two the world of difference

So you don't do court hearings David . The judges would get you for unprofessional conduct.
"3. Zionism was of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land".

Yes the Christians agreed on that. No Arab states were in L of Nations in 1922 were they , and Persia is Shia'a . The Poms put Pahlavi in power in 1921 and Iran is an Indo-European language state.

What logical defence do you have to deny your own words?

#nicknamenick

You are lacking in any intellectual honesty in raising a letter written by Justice Rothman on 29 September about one of my articles.

What you fail to tell OLO readers is that I made a detailed response on 1 October denying Justice Rothman's very serious allegation that I took the comments by the Hon. Michael Kirby AC CMG out of context and used them to the exact opposite effect as their original intent.

What you also fail to tell OLO readers is that Justice Rothman failed to answer my response to his claim - prompting another request by me for him to respond on 5 October.

What you also fail to tell OLO readers is that Justice Rothman has still failed to respond to my answer rejecting his claim.

If your purpose is to somehow misleadingly and falsely suggest that I am engaging in the kind of conduct that I have accused Nick Thobun of - then your claim is totally rejected.

I have answered and categorically denied Justice Rothman's allegation. He has failed to respond. In those circumstances I can only assume that he has now accepted my explanation that I did not quote the Hon. Michael Kirby out of context.

Why did you not disclose the above sequence of events between Justice Rothman and myself - if not deliberately to deceive and mislead OLO readers?