#stevenlmeyer

I do not agree with your claim that the Muslim 23% of humanity will never accept a negotiated settlement.

As I pointed out to you in a previous post:

"Governments make war and make peace - not the worldwide Ummah.

At present 27 members of the 56 members in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) maintain diplomatic relations with Israel - which is very heartening considering 22 of the 29 remaining OIC members are Arab states only two of which maintain diplomatic relations with Israel.

The 22 Arab League States (excluding Jordan and Egypt) and Iran are the real Muslim protagonists presently facing Israel. Till they recognize Israel as the Jewish State the possibility of conflict with these States is certainly high."

Not having received any response I assume you had accepted this position. Clearly this is not so. Can you tell me why?

You have obviously given up on any negotiated settlement being achieved. This certainly is a recipe for war. Pity that your contribution is so defeatist.

david,

Since you are such an expert on international law, perhaps you could let us know what it says about one state using another state's passports for assassinations.
When Israel is so dishonest with its 'friends' how can we believe what you say about your enemies?
Your strategy is to obfuscate with inane and irrelevant 'factoids'. You clearly have no desire to make peace with the Palestinians but yearn for a 'Greater Israel' You are more dangerous to democracy in Australia than the extremist Muslims. They are less sophisticated and poorly resourced. We see them as threat and so can take counter measures. The threat you pose is much more insidious. You pretent to think and act like us, all the while harbouring ideas reminiscent of nineteeth century nationalism mixed with an unreformed old testament. People like you really are a worry.
Note: I don't see you as an Australian. You clearly put the interests of another state before ours.

1.I am not confusing them. I am saying they ALL say that there must be two states and one of them is to be called PALESTINE. Since you started this by babbling on about Jordan I felt it was relevant.
2.You were the one who kept bringing up past connections with Jordan. Once again you show your inconsistency and hypocrisy with "The region has moved on since 1948" in regard to partition but not in regard to Jordan or the Palestinians who must honour every past agreement.

The rest of this I am sure is leading up to some devastatingly clever legalistic loophole that you think absolves Israel of its land theft and genocidal ethnic cleansing.

3. Dont know.
4. Sounds good.
5. No I do not agree with this. According to my reading of the situation the British chose the Jordan river as the border thus leaving what is now Jordan outside Palestine. The British agreed to 22% of the Land WEST of the Jordan river to be given to the Jews the rest was for the PALESTINIANS. The land EAST of the Jordan river was to be called Transjordan and later became todays Jordan. Totally separate, totally different countries. Do you tell these lies deliberately? Do you think we are stupid?

continued

continued

6.No I do not agree. Terrorist organisations and mad mullahs might spout about "wiping Israel off the map" but no one (except rabid warmongers like yourself) takes them seriously. Israel has done well for itself with its "facts on the ground" doctrine and as abhorrent as I find that policy it is the case that Israel now exists and will exist for a long time to come. To try to remove the population living there now would be as wrong as it was in 1948. Many Arabs have no fight with Israel and just want to get on with living their lives. It is Israels actions and continued belligerence that is causing the majority of conflict.
7.No bloody way. Israel has claim to no more than 22% of the land West of the Jordan river. Do you agree with this?
8.Yes
9.No. They wanted a united state of Palestine in ALL of the land of West of the Jordan river

A few questions for you David Singer. Since you started this game.

1.In 1948, for whatever reason, a whole lot of Arab people left their homes and businesses in what is now Israel. Whole towns and villages left. These homes and businesses were then taken over by Jewish people imported from around the world. How do you justify this? If I leave my home for a few weeks, even a few months or even years does that give the Jews a right to come in and take it over? Please explain.
2.As I keep pointing out all the UN, LoN, British Mandate documents and agreements are all built on not only providing a country for the Jews, Israel, but also one for the Arabs, Palestine. Do you agree?
3.How do you justify the annexation of Jerusalem when all agreements say it should be a shared city at the very least?
4.How do you justify the expansion of Israeli settlements beyond 22% of the land West of the Jordan river?
5.How do you justify the Israeli government sanctioning the practice of extrajudicial assassinations. No trial, no innocent until proven guilty, no respect for the rule of law. How far does it extend? Are all critics of Israel in danger from the mossad?

Hope thats meaningful and civil enough for ya :)

#Dane

Posters like you who ignore the message and shoot the messenger have no credibility and are entirely irrelevant.

#mikk

In reply to your answers to my questions:

1. You still ignore the Arab refusal to accept their own state in 1937, in 1948, between 1948-1967, immediately after the Six Day War in 1967, in 2000/1 and 2008. How long must such Arab rejectionism be allowed to continue and at what cost to human suffering on both sides. Forever?

2. You continue to ignore that the Jewish rights to settle in the West Bank and Gaza are legal rights preserved under Article 80 of the UN Charter. That is why they are alive today. The offers and opportunities made to the have Arabs come and been lost.

3. Thank you for being truthful. My above responses I hope will help you come to accept my view.

4. It "sounds good" because that is what the Mandate document actually says.

5. I can accept your statement:

"The British agreed to 22% of the Land WEST of the Jordan river to be given to the Jews the rest was for the PALESTINIANS."

This is exactly the crux of my argument. You see we have eventually started to talk from a common factual background. That is very encouraging.

6. It is not only "terrorists and mad mullahs" who have rejected Israel's existence but the entire 22 members of the Arab League except Jordan and Egypt. See 1 above.

7. I agree 100% with what you say. I have never suggested anything else.

8. We agree again

9. If you are correct, why did the Arabs agree then to unify the West Bank with Jordan and make the Arab residents of the West Bank Jordanian citizens from 1950 until 1988?.

We have now reached agreement on 4 of the 9 questions I have posed. If we can reach agreement on the other 5 after you read this post, then we will have a firm basis on which to start talking about solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

I await your responses to 1,2,3,6 and 9.