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

# John Ryan

If you consider anything in my article or in my reply to #mac to be fiction - please specify where I have got it wrong.

Israel an apartheid state? With an Arab population in excess of 1 million being 20% of the population and possessing the same voting rights as the Jewish population?

What does that make the 21 Arab states with virtually no population other than Arabs - at last embarking on a revolution to get the same voting rights as the Israeli Arabs? See if you can find a church in Saudi Arabia. Are you prepared to brand these States as being apartheid?

# MaNiK JoSiAh

I am more than happy to answer any reservations you have about my articles. Fire away.

Here is the Singer again, flogging the same dead horse.

Doesn't he realize that the world is changing, that fewer and fewer people accept the Israeli/Jewish propaganda that seeks to whitewash the brutal regime that has held the Palestinians under a crushing, cruel, illegal occupation since 1967?

"By their works ye shall know them."

http://dangerouscreation.com

Response to David Singer's response:

(quote)
1. Hamas breached the ceasefire.

Well, I've seen the contrary stated, _with_ a good deal of supporting detail.
How about you provide appropriate supporting detail (events, dates, etc)?

Incidentally - to respond to some other comment - the editors of OLO
shouldn't reject an article like Singer's out of hand - but they should
at least ensure that a factual issue like this is dealt with accurately,
and if the facts are in dispute, the nature of that dispute should be
made clear.

(quote)
2. Israel's historical claim to the West Bank dates back to biblical times

And the Palestinian refugees' claim is that they and/or their families lived
there continuously until 1948. How can you overlook this and expect to be
taken seriously?

(quote)
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.

This doesn't help those living in the remaining 0.001%

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

Details ?? Including, specifically
(1) where in these documents are the boundaries of a future Jewish state
specified, and what were those boundaries ?
(2) what in those documents authorises (or even suggests) expulsion of the
Palestinians currently living there?
(3) what, precisely, indicates that those documents created legal rights for a
future Jewish state, rather than just suggest the future possibility ?
(4) if these documents legally created a future Jewish state, what was the UN
doing, in 1947, when it was debating the same issue again?

(quote)
The UN Partition Plan was rejected by the Arabs.

It doesn't seem as though the Jews accept it either

continued response to David Singer's response

(quote)
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.

If this is an appropriate way to consider the issue of two different groups in
a particular region (it's obviously not) you would naturally equally ask why
should the Palestinian majority in the (British-era) Palestine be prepared to
commit suicide?

The fact that you seem to be capable of considering only one of these two
questions and not the other illustrates why I can't take your opinions
seriously.

(quote)
4. Mc Ewan spoke these words - not me.

Yes, I never meant to suggest otherwise.

(quote)
5. Jews were also thrown out of their homes in the West Bank and Gaza in
1947-1948 when they legally lived there.

Yes, and I think that's wrong, too. Do you?

(quote)
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.

As did their Jewish brethren, their Australian brethren, etc. (Or have I
misunderstood your meaning of the word "brethren"?). Refugee policy is a
separate debate. But for folk who (or their families) came from Israel,
Israel is primarily where they should be allowed to return.

continued response to David Singer's response

(quote)
6. Offering to cede Israel's legal claims in 95% of the West Bank is
remarkable.

If Israel were entitled to all of the West Bank, it would indeed be remarkable.
The question whether Israel is entitled to any of the West Bank is touched on
above.

(quote)
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.

I don't know. If you think it's relevant to any of the above you're welcome to
tell me.

If there were Jews who were expelled from these countries and
continue to be excluded, but who want to return, and if I were denying that
such people should be allowed to return, then this would be a pertinent
debating point. As it is, it's not.

#David G

The world certainly is changing - especially the Arab world - as over 100 million Arabs try to overthtow 40 years of despotism and autocratic rule in an attempt to gain the right to elect their leaders in free and fair elections.

Seems to me that what they are prepared to die for is very much like the rights Israeli Arabs have enjoyed for the last 63 years.

The West Bank Arabs made their democratic choice in 1950 to unify the West Bank and East Jerusalem with Jordan and become Jordanian citizens. Unification was enjoyed by them until 1967 and Jordanian citizenship was theirs until 1988.

They are now certainly entitled to press for their own state - but 17 years of failed negotiations make it fairly clear this is not going to happen. The parties are simply too far apart in achieving a negotiated settlement.

Is the risk of another war and ongoing death and suffering by both Jews and Arabs worth the continuing effort to create an independent state that was rejected by these selfsame Arabs in 1937, 1947, between 1948-1967, and in 2001 and 2007?

I might be flogging a dead horse - but in the case of the West Bank Arabs the horse has already bolted. The opportunities created between 1937-2007 are not likely to return.

# jeremy

In reply to your queries:

1. I gave you my evidence. Give me yours.

2. I detailed Israel's historical claim to the West Bank as you asked. That claim was recognized by the unanimous vote of the League of Nations which also provided that the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish commnunities living there were not to be prejudiced.

Those living in the remaining 0.001% never accepted the umpire's verdict. That is their entitlement but they have no one but themselves to blame for the consequences of that decision and the subsequent events that led to the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.

Sorry to disappoint you but the Jews did accept the Partition plan.

3. The right of Jews to return and settle in Palestine in 1920 was prescribed under the Mandate - a legally binding document in international law providing for the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home there. The Arabs living in Palestine had no political rights under the Mandate - only civil and religious rights that were to be protected.

The right of Arabs to return and settle in former Palestine in 2011 is designed to destroy the Jewish National Home and with it the political rights created in the Jewish people in international law.

4. Good - we agree on something

5. So why do you object to Jews returning to live on land which currently has no internationally recognized sovereign owner and which they have the legal right to do so under the Mandate and article 80?

Six Arab armies invaded Palestine in 1948 causing the Arab refugee problem. They perpetuated the problem by failing to take responsibility for the integration and rehabilitation of the refugees within their own Arab societies.

6. Ceding one's claim to 95% of the territory is more than "a part". It is a substantial concession.

7. My last remark was made in response to your personal attack on me in your last paragraph. Shooting the messenger and ignoring the message is a favourite tactic of those with no real answers to rebut my claims.

David,

point 1 - I haven't purported to give you anything which should convince you or anyone else - I don't have it to hand. You haven't given me anything either - just a bald statement.

What event(s) / dates are you talking about?

point 2 Where in the Mandate does it say what you say it does ? (Quote it - paragraph numbers, page numbers etc). Why (if this requires explanation) does it mean what you say it does?

My previous question - does the Mandate specify the boundaries of this future Jewish state - would also appropriately be answered by specifically giving the source. (The blurb says you're a lawyer - aren't you used to answering questions like mine by citing a specific portion of a document in such a way that someone else can look it up?)

points 3,5,6 depend on this one.

What do you mean about the Jews accepting the partition plan - they're occupying territory far in excess of that specified in the partition plan?

I note you say "the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities living there were not to be prejudiced"

Would you say that preventing them from living there at all is consistent with this requirement?

1. My "bald statement" was preceded by the following statement in my article:

"Operation Cast Lead occurred only after a cease fire between Israel and Hamas had been breached between November 2008 - December 19, 2008 when 170 mortars, 255 Qassams, and 5 Grads had been indiscriminately fired upon Israel's civilian population centres from Gaza.(http://idfspokesperson.com/2009/01/03/rocket-statistics-3-jan-2009/)"

Now please supply the evidence for your contention.

2. It is obvious you have never read the Mandate. I suggest you do before commenting further. It contains 28 articles. You may then appreciate this conflict has been raging for 90 years.

3. The Mandate spoke of reconstituting the Jewish National Home "in Palestine" - 78% of which was comprised in Transjordan. Three months later the Jewish National Home provisions were postponed or witheld from applying in Transjordan - which subsequently became an independent sovereign Arab state in 1946.

The Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter are the definitive legal documents establishing vested legal rights in the Jewish people to have their own national home in Palestine.

4. You are becoming tedious. The Jews accepted the UN Plan. The Arabs rejected it and sent six armies to invade Palestine and wipe out the nascent Jewish State. Israel ended up with more than the 55% allocated to it in the UN Plan. The Palestinian Arabs ended up with nothing - Egypt and Jordan occupied the residue until their loss to Israel in 1967. No Arabs wanted to establish a new state there during those 19 years when it could have happened with the stroke of an Arab League pen.

5. Those Arabs who no longer live in Israel have forfeited the protections afforded them under the Mandate. Those 1 million Arabs who now live in Israel have those rights protected - as well as equal political rights with the Jewish majority.

Had the Arabs shown the slightest interest in accepting the League of Nations decision - the history of Palestine would have been very different. Saying "no" to every proposal over the last 70 years has got them nowhere. Will they ever learn to compromise?

For anyone interested in the facts on this - here's some information that
Singer found it too "tedious" to provide.
(Tedious for me, too, to give Singer the benefit of the doubt - that he might
be right - find he can't be bothered to reference his claims,
I do all this research, and find nothing that contradicts
my previous general understanding of the situation).

The British Mandate for Palestine:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Palestine_Mandate.html

Preamble:
... the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it
being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the
civil and religious rights of existing non­Jewish communities in Palestine, ...

Its boundaries are not specified
(note that the Mandate covered the area later called
TransJordan (now Jordan) as well as Palestine, see
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_overview.php)

The boundaries, apparently not fixed until the UN Partition Plan.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/partition.html
Boundaries: each state was roughly to be half of Palestine.
(see http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_un_role.php)
Also (yet again!) in Chapter 2,

2. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the
ground of race, religion, language or sex.
3. All persons within the jurisdiction of the State shall be entitled to equal
protection of the laws.

Of course in addition to any "legal claim" arising from the League of Nations
Mandate and the later specification of boundaries for the Jewish state,
there are plenty of subsequent UN resolutions which surely also
create "legal claims" just as much as the Mandate did.
Eg UN SCR 242 which required Israel to withdraw from territories
occupied in 1967.
So if Singer is right about Israel's legal claim to that land
then I guess UN SCR 242 extinguished that claim.

Likewise the recent (attempted) UN SCR,
declaring Israel's West Bank settlements illegal.
(see http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37572&Cr=palestin&Cr1)
That's a lot of governments which don't see the legality of Israel's
claim to the West Bank the way Singer does.

#jeremy

Glad you supposedly found nothing to contradict your general understanding of the situation.

Please then - answer these questions:

1.What is your view on Article 6 of the Mandate which states:

"ART. 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."

Does this article give Jews the legal right to settle in the West Bank on State lands and lands not required for public purposes?

2.You correctly state the Mandate included Jordan.

Do you agree Jordan comprised 78% of the Mandate and not one Jew lives there today because their right to do so was withheld by Great Britain with League of Nations approval just three months after the Mandate was promulgated.?

Do you agree that such right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home was not withheld in the West Bank and Gaza?

3. The UN Plan only recommended - not fixed - the boundaries of the Jewish State. Had the Arabs accepted the plan there would be no continuing conflict in 2011.

Is this your general understanding?

4. UN Security Council resolution 242 did not require Israel to withdraw from all of the territories occupied in 1967. Israel has already withdrawn from over 90% of those territories. Israel is only required to withdraw to "secure and recognized boundaries"

Is this your general understanding?

5. Yes - many Governments don't see the legality of Israel's claim in the West Bank the way I do.

Does that make them right or do you think there is another possible alternative legal argument based on the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter that could prevail - especially after you have now read the Mandate which those Governments studiously ignore?

6. By the way - I am still waiting for your evidence that Israel breached the ceasefire with Hamas.

David,

1 & 2. I can't see anything in the Mandate giving Jews a right to establish a
state in any part of the Mandate that they chose - that's my point about the
boundaries not (so far as I could see) being fixed until much later.

3 (first sentence) I wasn't aware of that - when/how did the boundaries get
_fixed_?

My point still remains - if the correct legal position was that the
Jews had a right to establish a Jewish state wherever they chose within the
Mandate territories, what was the UN doing in 1947 specifying boundaries
(whether recommending them or fixing them). Ie, if you're right, it doesn't
make sense for the UN to have been voting on boundaries.

4. No, but I'm not going to dispute it either.

Re all the above - you still haven't said anything to indicate that
the Mandate means that the Jews had a right to establish a Jewish state
wherever they chose within the Mandate territories.

5. My view is primarily based on evaluating what you (and others who have
mounted not totally dissimilar arguments) have said. But it's nice to see that
many governments agree.

6. I am heartily sick of this issue.
You'll keep on waiting if you're not prepared to give the dates of the
events you're referring to, as I've repeatedly requested.
If you do, I'll then hunt for the information I believe I've read.
If I find it I will compare the date of the breach alleged in that material
with the date you have given. If it is earlier I will communicate it to you.
Got it?

BTW - you said at one point that
Those Arabs who no longer live in Israel have forfeited the protections
afforded them under the Mandate
How, precisely ?

#jeremy

1 and 2: You better read the Mandate more closely. The Jews were given the right "to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine"

Whether it meant the whole or any part of Palestine is open to interpretation. Winston Churchill explained that when the words "in Palestine" were used it did not mean the whole of Palestine. This was the basis that he sought to exclude the Jewish National Home being established in 78% of the Mandate territory (Transjordan)- just three months after the Mandate was promulgated. That left only 22% of the Mandated territory for the Jewish National Home.

3. The boundary between Egypt and Israel was established in 1979. The boundary between Jordan and Israel was established in 1994.

The status of the West Bank,Gaza and East Jerusalem remains to be determined.

The UN was attempting to settle the conflict between Jews and Arabs that had been raging since 1922. The Arabs refused to accept the terms of the Mandate and the proposed earlier partition recommended by the Peel Commission in 1937.

4.What then is you position on the meaning of Resolution 242?

5. I think its nice to see you apparently accept that there are now indeed two conflicting legal viewpoints - as is usually the case in legal disputes. It is not an open and shut case. What surprises me is the failure of those many states to have even considered the Mandate and article 80. It does them and their foreign ministries no credit to have considered half the law and not the lot.

6. I bet you are heartily sick of this issue. For the third time the breaches occurred between November 2008 - 19 December 2008

Those Arabs no longer living in the Jewish National Home can hardly claim to be entitled to protections that were only to apply to Arabs living in the Jewish National Home under the terms of the Mandate.

You say:

For the third time the breaches occurred between November 2008 - 19 December 2008

And how does that help if I find the my source alleges that the (initial) breach was on (for example) 19th November? I don't think you have any idea what "tedious" means.

(you say)
Those Arabs no longer living in the Jewish National Home can hardly claim to be entitled to protections that were only to apply to Arabs living in the Jewish National Home under the terms of the Mandate.

So a no discrimination clause permits them to be expelled and not readmitted, and therefore the clause does not apply to them? You must be joking.

Needless to say, the factor we've left out of this is that even if there is no specific legal protection for them, ordinary human decency prohibits expelling people, or not readmitting those who have fled from a war.

#Jeremy

The breach of the ceasefire referred to in my article initially occurred on 4 November 2008.

Perhaps you might now answer "Yes" or "No" to the following questions I posed to you:

1.Does article 6 of the Mandate give Jews the legal right to settle in the West Bank on State lands and lands not required for public purposes?

2. (a)Do you agree Jordan comprised 78% of the Mandate and not one Jew lives there today because their right to do so was withheld by Great Britain with League of Nations approval just three months after the Mandate was promulgated.?

(b)Do you agree that such right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home was not withheld in the West Bank and Gaza?

3. The UN Plan only recommended - not fixed - the boundaries of the Jewish State. Had the Arabs accepted the plan there would be no continuing conflict in 2011.

Is this your general understanding?

4. UN Security Council resolution 242 did not require Israel to withdraw from all of the territories occupied in 1967. Israel has already withdrawn from over 90% of those territories. Israel is only required to withdraw to "secure and recognized boundaries"

Is this your general understanding?

A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice.