It is difficult to let an article like this go without a comment.

The murder of the Jewish family is a crime. If Obama is confronting the "killing culture in Palestine" his false interest comes a little late in the piece. He and Presidents since Johnson have stood by while Palestinians were murdered by the thousands, year after year and without a sound from the likes of the current incumbent, Obama, a Zionist stooge, as were the others.

As for Mr Singer, can anyone recall any displayed agitation over the deaths of Palestinian people by his home country as they strived to remove by force the real owners of the land? Never.
Sayanims do the bidding of the Israeli state, without question.

As for Abbas, his compromises over time were recently disclosed in the media and should be understood in the terms of the great charade, the "peace process". What a misnomer that has been. With Clinton, a mouthpiece for Israeli policies, Mubarak, until recently the darling of the US and the evil and hated Netanyahu, Abbas didn't stand a chance. He thought that Clinton was impartial, Mubarak a friend. Naive? Yes. So his credibility has gone forever and has been for some time.

So what he has said in relation to the killing of one family when compared to tens of thousands of Palestinians, is coloured by history. But he, like the rest of the world expects to see some carefully engineered result to this matter as just another Israeli false flag exercise to be used for their purposes or ignored as with the Goldstone report on the inhumane Gaza war by the Israelis, the whitewash investigation into the Gaza flotilla, the 1967 as-yet uninvestigated USS Liberty scandal and the dancing Israelis after 9/11, with 4,000 deaths .( http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html )

Israel is, after all, the fantasyland of the middle east where things are never what they seem and the spokesmen for their causes here, even against the interests of this country, are thick on the ground in Melbourne.

The Sword of Damocles is hanging over Tel Aviv.

Dear David,

As you have used the word Palestinian in your piece I almost feel as though I owe you a response.

I would first like to express my horror of what happened to the Fogel family. Anyone who has read about the killings must have turned their thoughts to the two surviving children. They witnessed the slain bodies of their family members and now face a life as orphans with unimaginable memories. May their future care and counselling afford them a measure of peace in the future.

May I draw your attention to your line;

“Abbas’s attempt to justify some kind of moral equivalence between land disputes and the murder of Jewish civilians must be categorically rejected by President Obama.”

However given the announcement by the Israeli government that;

“The ministerial committee on settlement affairs decided Saturday night to approve the construction of hundreds of housing units in several West Bank settlements, a move that came in response to a deadly attack on a family of five in the settlement of Itamar on Friday.”
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-approves-500-new-homes-in-west-bank-settlements-in-response-to-itamar-attack-1.348864

Could not your line just as easily read;
“The Israeli government's attempt to justify some kind of moral equivalence between land disputes and the murder of Jewish civilians must be categorically rejected by President Obama.”

They have no problems with the moral equivalence you have so soundly condemned of Abbas. Are they to suffer your pen as well?

Everyone was so shocked by this gruesome murder - even in heaven, so God made a special dispensation for the Fogel family and sent down his angel to revive them.

However, as the angel approached, the settlers told him: "That's very nice of you, but tell your boss no thanks, we rather have our new building permits", and so he left.

What happened to the Fogel family is exactly what the Arabs have in mind for all the Jews in Israel, and the Israelis know it. THAT is why the Israelis fight so hard, because they know what will happen if they lose.

It has happened before in their history and they are not going to let it happen again.

I think that the Israelis are one of the reasons why I decided to become a racist. If anybody had to be antiracist, it had to be the Jews, as nobody has suffered more from Racism than the they have.

But the Israelis soon figured out that when surrounded by a race of enemies who make no bones about their desire to exterminate you and your entire family, then racism is indispensible if you wish to survive. So, the Israelis are unopologetically racist, and I don't blame them.

Of course, the western activist class are appalled that the Israelis are racist, and that is why the activists are so racist towards the Israelis.

The Arabs are racist, the Israelis are racist, and the anti racist western activists are racist. Everybody is racist.

Situation normal.

How convenient it is to ignore the bombing by a US-supplied Israeli "drone" on the very day that Singer had this article published.

A civilian area in Gaza full of women and children and in the dead of night for absolutely no military reason the Israelis unleashed inhumane death from the air, yet again. Their answer to everything. What a courageous state, fighting families in Gaza and then continuing an illegal blockade of the materials required to repair the roofs, windows and structures that they bomb with monotonous regularity.
All with the general agreement of the US, subservient and weak.

When Israel goes just one day without killing Palestinians, Mr. Singer, perhaps we might read what you have to say. Until then.....you and your country have no credibility.

And there is also the issue that this may not have been "Palestinian terrorists". We occasionally have massacres in Australia that are entirely unrelated to politics. Why not in Israel? It may simply have been the act of a mad man or some unhinged family member. Or perhaps some fundamentalist Zionist who wishes to make political capital from it.
I personally don't see the moral difference between the killing of civilians by the IAF, (which they do in great numbers on an almost daily basis) and the killing of Israeli civilians by Palestinian militants. Except that the Palestinians are living under a military occupation and so have some moral right to resistance (though of course not to the extent of killing civilians) whereas the Israeli's are the occupiers who have no moral right to kill any Palestinians.

#rexw

It is a pity you are unable to distinguish between deliberate, targeted murder of civilians and inadvertent deaths of civilians caused during conflict between Israel and its many adversaries.

Tens of thousands of Jews and Arabs have inadvertently died as a result of conflict. The overwhelming number of murders have been visited on the Jews.

I have constantly expressed regret at the needless death and suffering visited on both Jews and Arabs as a result of the failure to resolve the conflict that has gone on for the last 90 years. Go back and read some of my articles.

Yes - the sword of Damocles is hanging over Tel Aviv - as it has for the last 73 years as the Arab League continues to deny the right of the Jews to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in their biblical and ancestral land as legally sanctioned by the League of Nations and the United Nations.

You no doubt would be handing out sweets if the Damoclean sword fell on Israel. You probably approved of the Gazan Arabs doing just that to celebrate the Fogel murders.

#csteele and #yuyutsu

Firstly #csteele - there are three surviving Fogel children - not two.

Secondly - No residential building of any significance has taken place in the existing settlements for about 15 months since the 10 month moratorium was put in place and was continued after it expired.

This did not stop the Fogel murders but only confirmed that hatred and the murder of Jews will continue - settlements or no settlements.

Thirdly - the murders of countless Jewish civilians also took place between 1948-1967 when there were no settlements - not even one Jew - in the West Bank and Gaza.

Arab brainwashing certainly can claim you as two of their greatest successes.

#LEGO

Outing yourself as a racist is something a lot of commentators on my articles would do well to readily admit. There are a lot of Jew haters out there - all of course using nom de plumes.

How you can suggest the Israelis are "unopologetically [sic]racist" when 20% (1.2 million) are Arabs who have rights to
1.vote,
2.elect their own parliamentary representatives,
3.peacefully assemble,
4.say what they like,
5.occupy positions in the judiciary and diplomatic corps
is outrageous.

More than a hundred million Arabs are crying out to be given these same rights at the moment in at least 6 "Arabs only" states. They are being brutally murdered for their trouble.

Arab brainwashing has apparently claimed you as another disciple.

#Rhys Jones

You, like rexw, need to rethink the enormous difference between murder and accidental death - both morally and legally.

Yes - the perpetrators of the Fogel murders have not been caught. I quoted Abbas to that effect in my article.

I was careful not to make that claim and regret you saw fit to suggest otherwise. I hope an unqualified apology is forthcoming.

The real thrust of my article was to point out the Palestinian Authority's official sanctioning and extolling of the killing culture that has led to the murder of thousands of innocent Jewish civilians at the hands of identified and convicted Arab terrorists.

Have you got anything constructive to say about that?

Rexw,

The settlers would not shed a tear if the sword fell on Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv, for your information, is the fort of the Israeli peace camp. If it was up to Tel-Aviv alone, then Israel would have withdrawn from the occupied territories many years ago, but Tel-Aviv is not Israel's capital and is not where decisions are made. One of the favourite settler slogans is that if not for them then Tel Aviv would be under attack. My answer to them is "I'll deal with the Arabs when they come, but better have them as neighbours than yourself!".

Lego also, please don't generalise: not all Israelis are racist.

On the matter of Gaza, it is not under occupation. Israel has left the place some years ago. Gaza is for every practical purpose an independent state that is at war with Israel and wishes to exterminate its people. Naturally Israel has to defend its citizens at present, irrespective of what wrongs were made in the past. I wish that the West-Bank was in the same situation, then you just watch how Gaza would seem like a picnic if Palestinians only dared to spit across the [1967] border.

David,

"No residential building of any significance has taken place in the existing settlements for about 15 months since the 10 month moratorium was put in place and was continued after it expired"

You mean no LEGAL building, and you don't count East-Jerusalem either. What are the existing buildings doing there in the first place?

"Arab brainwashing certainly can claim you as two of their greatest successes"

Ah, here we go, when things get tough it's time to blame the Arabs.
- I don't care about the Arabs: this is an internal Israeli matter. The occupation and settlers are ruining Israel from inside. If the settlers did not have the Arabs on their side they would have needed to invent them!

"the right of the Jews to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in their biblical and ancestral land"

Which you consider a sufficient reason to torment and ultimately ruin the contemporary citizens of Israel!?

Dear David,

There are indeed three surviving Fogel children. I was aware of Shai but had been thinking of Tamar and Roi and their future nightmares. That wasn't quite reflected in the wording of my original post. It is hoped that Shai is too young to be burdened by any memories. A very small blessing perhaps in this horror. That being said I feel it is unfortunate the photographs of the slain family at the scene have been posted and propagated on the net, potentially to be accessed one day by the surviving children.

Now I asked you to respond to the proposition that the Israeli government had engaged in the same moral equivalence you accused Abbas of by claiming a just response to the killings was to announce another 500 illegal homes were to be built on Palestinian land.

You had three options, one to answer it, two to ignore it and three to both ignore it and attack me. My money was on the third and you have not disappointed calling me one of 'Arab brainwashing'(s) 'greatest successes'.

Enough said.

Dear rexw,

You are correct that there has been nobody directly implicated in the murders. There had been some talk of their former Thai house-boy being questioned but unlikely I would have thought.

I also agree there is measure of double standard being dealt here. As a tank commander Uri Fogel would have been fair game in Afghanistan or Pakistan, even at home with his family, and dealt with by a missile rather than a knife probably with similar 'collateral damage'. The IDF do have tighter controls over the risk to civilians but still far from what is acceptable.

However we make a grave mistake if we view this solely as a Jewish Occupiers vs Palestinian Terrorists issue. Perhaps we should think of it a more as a turf war between gangs, the Mexican Cartel hostilities is an example, though instead of drugs it is ideology that is being peddled.

Cont'

Cont'

Itamar is an illegal settlement deep inside the West Bank. Home to over a thousand settlers. A BBC report in 2002 describes the then population of 500 were mostly “members of Gush Emunim, a messianic settler movement which argues that there is a religious imperative for Jews to settle the West Bank.” The military wing of this organisation, the Gush Emunim Underground, was responsible for bomb attacks against Palestinian officials, a plan to low up the Dome of the Rock, and for planting six bombs under Arab buses in Jerusalem timed “to detonate on Friday afternoon as Muslim worshippers returned home from celebrating Isra and Mi'raj.”

The Underground was disbanded in the eighties. However there continues to be real tension between Itamar residents and the neighbouring Palestinian town of Awarta.

Awarta has a population of over 5,000 without running water or sewerage and an unemployment rate of over 35%. Until 2007 the farmers around Awarta were regularly attacked by Jewish settlers particularly during the annual olive harvest. “However, from 2007, when a group of Israeli activists — Rabbis for Human Rights — agreed to protect the farmers during the harvest, attacks came to an end.” Wikipedia

Last year two cousins from Awarta, both farmers, aged 18 and 19 were killed by IDF forces by multiple shots in the back at close range. The deeply suspicious incident is still under investigation. The murders in Itamar came nearly a year to the day after the Awarta murders/killings hardly justifying but possibly flagging the motivation of the individual responsible.

Permitting the incursions of these settlers, many holding abhorrent and incendiary views deep into Palestinian territory is a failure of the Israeli government. Responding by permitting more of the same needs to be condemned.

#Yuyutsu

Existing buildings have been constructed - and such activity is now being resumed - because Jews claim to have the legal right to settle in the West Bank under article 6 of the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter. Sovereignty in the West Bank is still the subject of dispute between both Jewish and Arab claimants. The West Bank is only about 4% of the Mandate for Palestine in which sovereignty still remains unallocated between Arabs and Jews.

Criticize the political wisdom of Jews doing so if you wish - but not the legal basis on which they claim to be entitled to do so.

The Arabs have never accepted the legally binding decisions in international law of the League of Nations and the United Nations. This has affected their whole thinking on the territory once known as Palestine. That is their prerogative - but where has it got them?

Their leaders' blindness has only caused untold suffering to the Palestinian Arabs that could have been avoided had they chosen compromise to conflict. Their "all or nothing at all" approach has been - and continues to be - a disaster.

Had the Arabs created a Palestinian State in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem at any time between 1948-1967 - when they had driven out all the Jews then living there - the issue would now not be on the international agenda. Trying to now achieve this State - 44 years after that unique opportunity was lost - is proving to be a hopeless exercise after 18 years of trying.

I guess the world will ultimately come to understand the folly of pursuing the Bush Roadmap. Regrettably many Jews and Arabs are still to die, be wounded and traumatized until the international community seeks a different solution to the future of the West Bank.

#cteele

You state:

"Now I asked you to respond to the proposition that the Israeli government had engaged in the same moral equivalence you accused Abbas of by claiming a just response to the killings was to announce another 500 illegal homes were to be built on Palestinian land.

You had three options, one to answer it, two to ignore it and three to both ignore it and attack me. My money was on the third and you have not disappointed calling me one of 'Arab brainwashing'(s) 'greatest successes'."

My answer:

I thought I had answered your claim by making it abundantly clear there was no moral equivalence between
1.Abbas equating murder of a Jewish family as a just response to vandalising olive trees and
2.Israel's response to resume building in the West Bank following the Fogel family massacre.

Israel learned to its bitter anguish that its decision to reduce building activity in the West Bank did not save the Fogel family from being murdered. Their murder was due to pure Jew hatred. In those circumstances there was no reason to pursue that policy any further since it could not be seen to be contributing to a more peaceful and secure environment for Jews living in the West Bank.

In other words the settlements issue has always been a furphy. As I pointed out Jew hatred and murder of Jews was rife between 1948-1967 when not one Jew lived in the West Bank.

Jew hatred is regrettably an unending hatred - incapable of ever being extinguished.

David,

You are a good lawyer and you do your job well.

It is true that even the worse criminial is entitled to a solicitor for legal defence. If you were Hitler's solicitor, he would probably be acquitted on the grounds of insanity or something, you would surely be able to find the right article, then return home in the evening with professional satisfaction.

I am not a lawyer and I suspect neither are most (if any) of the other OLO members. I just wonder why you are attempting to exercise your legal skills here among the lay rather than in a proper court of law, with competent prosecutors and judges.

I admit it can be quite fun to detect all these typos and ambiguities, but it is common knowledge that it never was, nor currently is, the INTENTION of the united-nations to allow the Jews to misbehave as they currently do in the west-bank and Eastern-Jerusalem.

It is also common knowledge that the hard-core Jewish settlers and their supporters are not an innocent party who just want to build homes for their families. It is well known that they would not stop short of bringing their "Messiah" who will enforce a fierce and bloody Talmudic-law based dictatorial regime over Israel and its surrounding areas.

I agree that the Arabs leaders are both stupid and care not for the suffering of their own people, but why are the Israeli leaders trying to compete with them over those "merits"?

"Israel learned to its bitter anguish that its decision to reduce building activity in the West Bank did not save the Fogel family from being murdered"

It did not save Japan from tsunami either, nor did it cause that tsunami. It is given that Japan is situated in the pacific ring-of-fire and prone to earthquakes, while Israel is situated in the middle-east and prone to Muslim madness, just as here in Australia we are prone to fires and floods. It is time for Israel to base its decisions on its own good rather than on mirroring what Arabs do or don't.

#Yuyutsu

You state:
"I am not a lawyer and I suspect neither are most (if any) of the other OLO members. I just wonder why you are attempting to exercise your legal skills here among the lay rather than in a proper court of law, with competent prosecutors and judges."

My answer:
Because you constantly keep saying the Jewish settlements are illegal. Whilst you keep mouthing this inanity I will continue to point out the true legal position.

You state:
"It is common knowledge that it never was, nor currently is, the INTENTION of the united-nations to allow the Jews to misbehave as they currently do in the west-bank and Eastern-Jerusalem."

My comment:
The 1947 UN Partition Plan did call for partition and for an Arab state to be formed - which included the West Bank and Gaza and part of what is now Israel( but not Jerusalem). But the Arabs rejected the UN Plan and went for the jugular - all of western Palestine - in 1948 - and were defeated - losing in the fight a lot of territory assigned to the Arabs in UN Plan.

Trying to recreate 1947 in the differently changed circumstances of 2011 has not - and cannot happen. Trying to recreate in 2011 what was rejected between 1948-1967 is also a non-starter.

The Roadmap is dead. A new way and a new plan are desperately needed if further suffering and bloodshed is to be avoided.

What has a brutal, deliberate and barbaric act of slaughtering five people by a vile murderer have to do with an act of God that wreaked such havoc and death on tens of thousands in Japan?

I can only shake my head in amazement at your clouded and flawed thought processes that could lead you to make such a stupid comment.

Of course Israel will base its decisions on what is best for it. It has a Government that has to make these judgment calls all the time. If the electorate don't agree they will get tossed out. Its called democracy

Dear David,

I have known a few bullies in my time and this is how they tend to argue. If their argument is exposed as flawed, without substance, or just plain hypocritical then they seek to surreptitiously change it.

You answered my post with;

“I thought I had answered your claim by making it abundantly clear there was no moral equivalence between
1.Abbas equating murder of a Jewish family as a just response to vandalising olive trees and
2.Israel's response to resume building in the West Bank following the Fogel family massacre.”

No you hadn't.

Besides the question wasn't about the moral equivalence between vandalising olive trees and the resumption of building in the West Bank, rather it was about land disputes and the murders.

I had asked why your statement;

“Abbas’s attempt to justify some kind of moral equivalence between land disputes and the murder of Jewish civilians must be categorically rejected by President Obama.”

Could not have just as easily read;
“The Israeli government's attempt to justify some kind of moral equivalence between land disputes and the murder of Jewish civilians must be categorically rejected by President Obama.” ?

I feel to call this a 'clever' lawyering trick would be overly generous, to me it was just a clumsy attempt to misdirect.

Dear forum reader,

It is interesting to take note of David's language, particularly in his posts. I have in the past pointed out his almost pathological avoidance of the word 'Palestinians' when referring to Palestinians. They are invariably 'Arabs'. Although a little more generous with the word 'Israeli' more often than not 'Jew' is used.

It is effective because even I find myself using the said nomenclature at times.

Here is what we got in the last 120 words he used to answer my post;
...pure Jew hatred...Jews living in the West Bank.. Jew hatred... murder of Jews...not one Jew lived in the West Bank...Jew hatred.

Yet surely this is about Israelis and Palestinians, so why the concerted effort to couch the conflict in these emotive terms? I would think it is because 'Jew hater' and 'Jew murderer' push immediate buttons in so many of us who remain overwhelmed by the tragedy of the Holocaust. It equates an occupied and oppressed people with the Nazis, designed to strip away any potential sympathy.

In my opinion this is a misuse that serves to dilute the legacy of what the Jewish people endured last century. It would be my hope David is a little more circumspect in the future and if he isn't that OLO find someone else to put the case for Israel.

C.Steele, to expect the Singer to be able to see the situation in a balanced way is an unreal expectation.

The Singer is a Jew, one who believes that he is one of the Children of God. As such, he believes he has special rights and that his people have special rights and that God gave them these rights which sets them apart from the rest of us mugs and allows them to do whatever they like which includes stealing land from others, occupying them, humiliating them, killing them, starving them, etc.

His Jewish propaganda on OLO is irksome and he uses all his legal skills to try to baffle people who don't have legal training. But thankfully they can spot a religious conman when they see one.

With Singer, I find the best thing to do is to ignore him.

David,

You must be very proud of yourself for finding this legal loophole (assuming, for lack of legal-training and skills in reading the small-print, that you are correct). According to the Geneva convention, if a kosher/sovereign state takes over areas of another kosher/sovereign state in the course of war, then it is illegal to settle its citizens there. However, you managed to demonstrate that in 1967 the West-Bank did not belong to a kosher state (perhaps some official stamp was missing or had the wrong colour of ink) and therefore the Geneva convention does not hold and the occupier can do there whatever they like. Congratulations!

I stated that the UN never had an intention to allow the Jews to misbehave. Rather than answering to the point, you wrote about "Arabs" and how bad they are: Totally irrelevant!

I have never mentioned the Roadmap on these pages. What I wrote has nothing to do with it because keeping the occupied-territories and settling there was detrimental to Israel even decades earlier.

So tsunamis are an act of God, but Arabs are not? then who the hell created the Arabs which poor God is powerless to remove?

The Fogel family was murdered because that is part of life in the Middle-East, being surrounded by Arabs/Muslims. This is no different in principle than living in the ring-of-fire and occasionally dying of earthquakes and tsunamis. If you swim in a crocodile-infested lake, don't be surprised if...

You stated that "decision to reduce building activity in the West Bank did not save the Fogel family from being murdered": of course it didn't, that would be as unrealistic as averting tsunamis, hence my example (which you consider stupid). However, it did lots of good in other areas (other than your impossible criteria of "changing the Arabs"), which you wish to ignore. It seems that you like to stick to that impossible criteria because it justifies your desire for Jewish land. You prefer to promote your grand ideas of "Jewish National Home in their biblical and ancestral land" at the expense of ordinary Israeli citizens.

#csteele

You state:

"Here is what we got in the last 120 words he used to answer my post;
...pure Jew hatred...Jews living in the West Bank.. Jew hatred... murder of Jews...not one Jew lived in the West Bank...Jew hatred.

Yet surely this is about Israelis and Palestinians, so why the concerted effort to couch the conflict in these emotive terms? "

My answer:

Because the conflict is indeed between Jews and Arabs - not Israelis and Palestinians - and it began in the late 1880's.

Censuses in Palestine during Ottoman and British rule classified the population into three categories labelled "Moslems", "Christians" and "Jews"

The Mandate in 1922 didn't even mention "Arabs" or "Palestinians". It spoke of the "non-Jewish communities" in Palestine.

The 1947 UN Plan only spoke of partitioning Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab State - no mention of a Palestinian state.

There were no "Israelis" until Israel became a sovereign state in 1948.

The conflict has always been one of the Arabs refusing to recognize a Jewish National Home in any part of Palestine for the last 130 years.

The PLO Charter (1968) states:

"Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong."

I like to deal with facts - not fiction. You apparently are not.

#David G

You state

"The Singer is a Jew, one who believes that he is one of the Children of God. As such, he believes he has special rights and that his people have special rights and that God gave them these rights which sets them apart from the rest of us mugs and allows them to do whatever they like which includes stealing land from others, occupying them, humiliating them, killing them, starving them, etc.

My answer:

Jews only claim to be entitled to exercise the legal rights recognized by the League of Nations and the United Nations entitling them to reconstitute their national Home in former Palestine in recognition of the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine - rights that have never been recognized by the Arabs

You insist on attacking the messenger and ignoring the above message.

It is a pity that you don't take your own advice and just ignore me.

You would save yourself a lot of hate, vitriol and anguish.

#Yuyutsu

Well we are making some ground.

You acknowledge there may be what you term a "legal loophole" but which I would describe as "the international law relating to Jewish settlement in the West Bank".

You are indeed beginning to understand that the West Bank did not belong to a kosher/sovereign state in 1967. Indeed it still does not belong to any kosher/sovereign state in 2011. It is "no man's land" in which Jews have the right to settle under article 6 of the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter. Jordan withdrew any claims to sovereignty in 1988. A newly created entity in 1993 - the Palestinian Authority - is making a claim - as a result of the Oslo Accords.

Jordan occupied the West Bank between 1948-1967 and its failure to annex the West Bank was not due to the absence of an official stamp or the wrong colour ink as you facetiously suggest - but due to the refusal of any country bar - Great Britain and Pakistan - to recognize such annexation.

I find it hard to believe you are unaware of these facts. Why sprout nonsense that makes you appear totally ignorant?

Equating the murderous actions of Arabs with loss of life caused by a tsunami - as acts of God - is mind blowing and just makes the rest of your post irrelevant and not worthy of further comment.

Well, folks, if the Singer is right, then we all have the right to trace our ancestry back and lay claim to whatever our long distant relatives owned thousands of years ago!

I might have claim to Buckingham Palace or a castle-type country estate on the Moors. If I have any Roman blood in me as a result of the Roman conquest of Britain, I might be able to claim real estate in Florence or Rome, perhaps the site of the Vatican. If I have Viking blood as well then Sweden and Norway could also be on my list. I could end up owning half of Europe!

Why don't you join me in this quest. I think we should appoint the Singer as our legal representative.

He seems to argue nonsensical notions with great skill!

http://dangerouscreation.com

David,

If you look at Israeli maps between 1949-1967, the area to the east of Israel has just one colour, with just one label across both sides of the Jordan river: "JORDAN". If you'd been in Israel at the time, you could see the road-signs "Halt, border ahead". Perhaps for lack of lawyers, it was very clear and every Israeli child knew: Israel is here, there is the border and there's the Jordanian enemy on the other side, rock solid along with real Jordanian soldiers shooting across from the walls of Jerusalem's old-city. Everyone knew their place: this is ours, that is not - that is Arab.

The Geneva convention did not appear arbitrarily out of thin-air: it reflects the human concern towards people who find themselves on the losing-side of wars, such as POWs and civilians who are afflicted by occupation. Can technical/legal points alleviate their suffering and justify atrocities? Had the outcome of the 1967 been the reverse, would you still hold that the Geneva convention does not hold due to technical excuses?

I knew that lawyers live in a world of their own, that legalities and common-sense do not go hand-in-hand, but was not previously aware to what extent until I read your reply to Csteele, according to which you still categorize people according to archaic terms from the late 19th century to the early 20th at the most, such as "Jews" and "non-Jews" and consider that practice valid simply because it fitted the Ottoman regime.

(yes, I know that Ben-Gurion also mentioned "Jews" and "Jewish-state", and even raised a bible as "proof", but that was completely cynical on his behalf for tactical purposes, he never meant a word of what he said, whereas you seem to mean it)

You still talk about the supposed rights of those "Jews" while disregarding the actual contemporary citizens of the state of Israel, mentioning them with reluctance as if they either do not exist or as if their whole existence is only for the purpose of serving your Jewish real-estate aspirations, in other words, as being "Messiah's donkey" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Messiah%27s_Donkey).

(continued...)

(...continued)

Some contributors in this forum characterize the Palestinians as victims (which they are, of both the Jewish settlers along with the Israeli government which supports them and not the least, of their own leaders), but in fact, the main victims of the Jewish aggression, though not mentioned as often, are the ordinary Israeli people. You seem to assume, wrongly, that they are somehow obliged to sacrifice their life, their well-being, their morals and their good name for the sake of your Jewish ideological greediness for land and control. No, they are not!

Regarding the tsunami analogy:

Muslims do not accept non-Muslims in their region in the same way that the ocean does not accept being pushed up 10 metres without flowing over to the sides. Just as the ocean does not care whether it innundates houses or factories, fields or nuclear-reactors, so the Muslim-Arabs do not care whether the "others" in their area are Jews or Israelis or Japanese for that matter. That's just how it is in the Middle-East: live-with-it-or-leave-it.

Pick your geographical nemesis. Be it fires or hurricanes, earthquakes or drought, extreme heat or extreme cold, pollution or dictatorship. No spot on earth is free of strife, so if you chose the Muslims/Arabs, get on with it and please do not complain!

# David G

You state:

"Well, folks, if the Singer is right, then we all have the right to trace our ancestry back and lay claim to whatever our long distant relatives owned thousands of years ago!"

My answer:

You have to do one more thing folks - get the international community to back your claim.

This is precisely what the League of Nations did when it unanimously recognized the Jewish people's historical connection with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.

Until you - and others of your ilk - accept the legal significance of this one momentous event - you will continue to fail to understand the nature of this conflict and expose your comments as being totally naive and ill-informed.

You would indeed be better off accepting your own advice and just ignore me. You have nothing of any value to contribute to the discussion.

I must decline your suggestion that I act as your legal representative. Clients who are not prepared to accept their legal representative's advice soon find they have to shop around for a new lawyer.

Well, I guess I have to swallow my disappointment about you declining my invitation to represent me, Singer.

I guess what stops me falling into a complete state of depression is that you're not really prosecuting your case for the Jews very well either given the nature of most comments that accompany your all too frequent missives.

No one agrees with you, Singer, because the cause you are espousing is ridiculous. That the League of Nations voted as they did shows only that humans can be easily manipulated, not that your cause has any worth or substance.

When you show some consistency and start arguing that anyone can go way back in time and lodge a claim for land that their ancestors once lived on, then you might have some credibility though not with most members of your 'profession'.

I won't hold my breath!

#Yuyutsu

There was no border between Israel and Jordan during 1948-1967 - only an armistice line to show where hostilities had ended at the time a cease fire was declared after Jordan's invasion of western Palestine.

Jordan's subsequent attempt to unify the West Bank with the East Bank by a joint sitting of Parliament comprising West Bank and East Bank Arabs in 1950 was never recognized by the international community.

You just can't bury your head in the sand and ignore these fundamental facts.

The applicability of the Geneva Convention to an area of land occupied by Israel in 1967 - within which Jews were legally entitled to settle pursuant to rights created 28 years before the Convention came into existence and where internationally recognized sovereignty belonged to no State - does not in my opinion have any validity or substance.

I have consistently called for a dialogue between Jordan and Israel to see if they can agree on restoring the status quo as far possible to that which existed when - in your own words the area to the east of Israel had just one colour, with just one label across both sides of the Jordan river: "JORDAN".

Any other solution is - and has always been - wishful thinking.

Continuing to equate acts of God with deliberate murder makes you appear really foolish.

#David G

The only human beings being easily manipulated are those who are brainwashed by Arab propaganda rather than formulating their own opinions based on cold hard facts.

You dismiss the legally binding decisions of the League of Nations and the United Nations. Acting in defiance of the law has caused the Palestinian Arabs much suffering.

You are also very inconsistent. In one post you commend me for possessing great skill. In the next post you accuse me of not prosecuting the case for the Jews very well. Tut tut.

Anyone is entitled to make and prosecute a claim and seek legal recognition of that claim. Ever heard of the Aborigines and the Red Indians?

Yes, I have heard of the Aborigines and the Red Indians, David.

They both have much in common with the Palestinians. The three groups have been crushed by superior armed forces which were/are led by folk who totally lack conscience, morality, ethics, generousity or compassion.

Dear David Singer,

You really do have trouble answering anything substantive I challenge you with don't you. Being 'slippery' isn't a nice thing to call a lawyer but I'm hard pressed to think of another term.

I highlighted to the others your “almost pathological avoidance of the word 'Palestinians' when referring to Palestinians” and your insistence on using the term 'Jews' and 'Arabs'. You offered as a response;

“The Mandate in 1922 didn't even mention "Arabs" or "Palestinians". It spoke of the "non-Jewish communities" in Palestine.”

My response? Get your hand off it mate.

Article 7 of the Mandate reads; “The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.”

Citizenship implies a 'State'.

When subsequent to this the predominately Jewish portion of the Palestinian citizenry decided to cede and create a separate state those left do not cease being Palestinians even if they mainly Arabs.

There are official UN bodies including The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, the United Nations Development Programme/Programme of Assistance to the Palestinian People, the UNESCO Programme of Assistance to the Palestinian People, and The United Nations Register of Damage Caused by the Construction of the Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory that freely use the word Palestinians.

Cont'

Cont'

If the body that you hang such a tenuous hook of legitimacy on for the illegal activities of the government of Israel has no problems with identifying the Palestinian people why do you? Don't you agree it makes you look rather silly?

So why do it? Are you that uncomfortable with the actions of your brothers and sisters that you need to couch the conflict as a Jews vs Arabs. Possibly.

But then you say we are victims of Arab brainwashing.

Wikipedia defines brainwashing as “the application of coercive techniques to change the values and beliefs, perceptions and judgements, and subsequent mindsets and behaviors of one or more people, usually for political, financial, personal, or religious purposes”

Mate, look in the bloody mirror.

You then refer to the PLO Charter (1968) including;

"Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.”

“Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.”

Let me reply with references to the Likud Charter from Wikipedia;

“The 1999 Likud charter emphasized the right of settlement in "Judea, Samaria, and Azzah". Similarly, they claim the Jordan River as the permanent eastern border to Israel and Jerusalem as "the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel".”

“The 'Peace & Security' chapter of the 1999 Likud Party platform “flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.” The chapter continued: “The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.”

Why shouldn't the average Australian view both parties as 'mad as cut snakes'?

One doesn't know for which disaffected group Rhys Jones and rexw are batting, but until they get their facts correct they are doing them a great disservice. Surely it can't be that hard ... before breaking out online.

Since the beginning of this year, Hamas have fired 174 mortars and rockets at Israeli towns and villages, over 80 rocket attach attacks since 19th March. This provacation would bring retaliation from any country.

There are no Jewish settlements in Gaza. Gaza actually ramped up attacks on Israel after Jewish settlements and Israeli troops left. The argument that there would be peace if Jewish settlements on the West Bank ceased is not borne out by fact.

The solution, and simple at that: The Palestinian people recognise Israel’s right to exist, and agree to the two state solution. Until the Palestinians actually decide they want a state of their own, no borders can be determined. This is the fundamental reality that needs to be addressed before all else.

David,

On one thing we agree:

If Israel and Jordan will agree to restore the pre-1967 status quo, I will be overjoyed and happy to kiss King Abdullah's feet. I'll even invite you for lunch.

There are however two difficult problems:

1) The Israeli leadership are idiots and blinded by Jewish ideology, so they want these cursed territories for themselves.
2) His majesty King Abdullah, as was his late magnanimous father King Hussein, is too inteligent to want anything to do with those cursed territories.

Alternately, I'll be happy to hand over the West-Bank to anyone who is foolish enough to be willing to take that responsibility. The Chinese perhaps? maybe Iceland? Maybe overcrowded-Singapore will be tempted? What about our own Julia - even someone with half-a-brain wouldn't take it! Well, maybe Gaddafi...

Nay, even the Palestinians (despite what they claim for the sake of propaganda) do not want that land: they had too many chances under previous Israeli PMs to gain control and have their own state, yet they always jeopardized it (I don't blame them, nobody in their right mind wants that responsibility).

Israel is drowning in that swamp (remember Vietnam?), so all the Arabs and the Iranians need to do is sit idly and wait for its eventual demise.

If you cared for Israel, like I do, you would urge it to get out of the West-Bank ASAP, with or without agreements, and you would urge the rest of the world to help relieve Israel of that stupid burden by pressuring it to let go. However, it seems that you care not for the Israelis, but only for "the Jews" and their grandiose dreams.

"Continuing to equate acts of God with deliberate murder makes you appear really foolish."

Thus spake the lawyer: legally these are indeed very different (especially in matters of compensation), but for an ordinary sane person with a bit of common-sense, what difference does it make whether s/he dies of a flying-bullet or of the ceiling falling over his/her head? None!

(continued...)

(...continued)

Well, lawyers live in a world of their own. Everybody could see the border between Israel and Jordan, in some parts it was an actual wall, so you could even touch it. All road-signs said "Halt, border ahead", not "Halt, armistice-line ahead", Israel-Radio also referred to it as nothing but "border" and anyone who came too close to the (unreal?) border was shot (were these *legal* bullets, or are those people who were shot still *legally* alive?), but *legally* it was not a border, and *legally* the people on the other side do not deserve any human-rights because they were not part of a *legal* kosher-state, so therefore it is OK to torture them or whatever, as *legally* they do not even exist, go figure lawyers.

How sloppy of the league-of-nations and subsequently the UN to give land-rights to an archaic and diffuse, but mostly UNACCOUNTABLE group such as "the Jews". Rights always come with responsibilities, but suppose those "Jews" committed atrocities, who would be held accountable? does it give the UN rights, for example, to arrest Jews in Melbourne or bomb synagogues in Argentina?

Nay, while the UN may have been legally sloppy, common-sense says that their intent was simple and straight-forward: to allow the formation of the state of Israel, then make it a full (and accountable) member. Once Israel was created, their mission was complete and that chapter was closed... except for the lawyers of course, who live in their own separate reality...

Dear Danielle,

"Until the Palestinians actually decide they want a state of their own, no borders can be determined."

We might as well wait for fish to grow beards.

On the contrary: Israelis do not deserve to remain victims of the Palestinians and their delay tactics. Israel needs to wait for no one. Israel should return to its own pre-1967 borders, erect a big wall and declare to the whole world: "This is our border. We want nothing beyond it, we occupy nobody-else's land, we wish to hurt no one, but anyone who dares to breach this border will be nuked without mercy!"

# csteele

"Citizenship" does not necessarily imply a "State"

For example West Bank Arabs enjoyed Jordanian citizenship between 1950-1988 but the West Bank has never been legally recognized as forming part of the State of Jordan.

Had the international community accepted your view in this instance then the course of history may have been entirely different - one Arab state in about 83% of Palestine and one Jewish state in about 17% of Palestine - instead of the current futile attempt to create a second Arab state on 5% of former Palestine. Both Jews and Arabs would have been spared a lot of suffering.

Pity you weren't agitating for this over the last 43 years. Are you prepared to do so now?

The percentages will change slightly - about 82% for the Arab state and 18% for the Jewish state depending on direct negotiations between Jordan and Israel. Is that really so unfair a division of Palestine between Jews and Arabs?

What you still fail to comprehend is that the legal rights vested in the Jewish people by the League of Nations and the UN - as unfair or unjust as you or the Palestinian Arabs or indeed the Arab world might consider them to have been - are still on the statute books to be exercised for the benefit of the Jewish people.

These are not tenuous hooks of legitimacy as you assert. They are the legal foundations for the recognition of the Jewish people's right to reconstitute their national home in Palestine.

The international commitment for the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine on 0.001% of the liberated Ottoman Empire - remains as binding as the international commitment given at the same time for the creation of an Arab National Home in the remaining 99.999% of the liberated Ottoman Empire.

(to be continued)

# csteele

(Continued from last post)

Yes - the 22 Arab Islamic states supported by another 35 non-Arab Islamic States in the UN are seeking to undermine and eventually eliminate the State of Israel by the creation of a plethora of non-governmental organizations designed to create and identify a "Palestinian people" where no such people was recognized by the UN in 1947 or the League of Nations in 1922. That is propaganda. Such belated action by these UN agencies may well translate into legal consequences. They are certainly trying their hardest to do so.

Are you aware of any such UN agencies set up to promote the inalienable rights of the Kurdish people, the Corsican people or the Basque people?

The Jews' vested legal rights are not going to be undermined by such tactics clearly designed at delegitmizing the Jewish people.

Comparing the PLO Constitution - binding on all Palestinian Arabs - to the political platform of one of many political parties in Israel is a furphy. If you compared the PLO Constitution to the Basic Laws of Israel you might be on firmer ground. But I guess you would want to avoid any such discussion.

In any event the PLO constitution denies the Jewish people any right to have their own state. The Likud platform delineates the future territorial boundaries of the Jewish state. They are two very different concepts. As stated earlier the Arabs already have one state in former Palestine - called Jordan - created on 78% of former Palestine. The PLO wants 100% as their Charter makes clear.

Sorry - I will continue to view this as a conflict between Jews and Arabs - because that is what it is, always has been and will be.

"The percentages will change slightly - about 82% for the Arab state and 18% for the Jewish state depending on direct negotiations between Jordan and Israel. Is that really so unfair a division of Palestine between Jews and Arabs?"

Yes, it would be unfair towards Israel.

You operate under a false assumption that "the more land the better", but in fact it would be better for anyone, especially for Israel, to even own land in Fukushima than in the West-Bank (including Eastern Jerusalem). Jordan's King Hussein was a very wise man, so he realised it first and took his feet out of there as fast as he could. His son is not a fool either, nor the various Egyptian leaders who would never set foot in Gaza again.

Is it not bad enough that Israel had to enter that cursed territory in 1967 because it had been unfairly attacked from there, that now it should also unfairly have keep part of it, and moreover, be held responsible for the actions of the mad Jews who live there?

Also, you are suggesting to divide Palestine between Jews and Arabs, ignoring the fact that it is no longer terra-nulla, that meanwhile the state of Israel was formed on 17% of its area. You are asking to willy-nilly take away the land from the Israelis and hand it over to "the Jews" - no thanks!

"Sorry - I will continue to view this as a conflict between Jews and Arabs - because that is what it is, always has been and will be."

Then go find your "Jews" who are happy to live in that extra 1%, or 5% or whatever and be accountable for their actions there, but please leave the state of Israel out of it! Once Israel withdraws and is finally out of there, you are welcome to try and bring your "Jews" there (with the blessings of the league-of-nations, of course), so long as the state of Israel is not held responsible neither for their actions nor for their subsequent gloomy demise.

Yuyutsu,

You know my opinion about Jewish settlers on the West Bank.

A wall, Yuyutsu, a wall? The current security fence brings so much outrage ... apparently it must be porous, but only one way, and there must be no delays. Each Palestinian that goes through it regards any delay as a personal insult, a personal outrage. I have gone through many security checks which I would hazzard took longer and were more intrusive. To have taken them personally would have been the height of stupidity. If any tried to run a security check, it was a ruling "shoot first, ask questions later". This applied even to royalty. In the case of those here who are so dim as to not understand the latter, a security check was needed to ensure such a personage had not been hijacked, nor their vehicle used to smuggle weapons or explosives. Identity cards were essential for everyone.

Considering the many security walls around the world - even between northern and southern Ireland - to which none object, Israel’s security fence bring howls of international outrage - and this despite the fact that Israel’s internal security is truly reliant upon it. One can only surmise this a new ugly form of antisemitism.

If Israel were to build a wall as you suggest, it would do well to copy the proposed Saudi-Yemen barrier, 10ft height of reinforced concrete embedded with electronic detection equipment, which, on any movement detected, will blast sox off, even if it be a wandering goat. Tch, tch, and the Saudis were so loud in the condemnation of Israel’s security wall ...

An aside, which is admittedly a ‘lateral’ thought. Sometime ago I tried to purchase cookware from the Middle East, but was not permitted to bring these into this country. The reasons being that the glazes used were lead-based with other toxins. These leached out into the food when cooking with certain ingredients.

Considering the general insanity seen in the Middle East ...

Dear David Singer,

What on earth are you trying to sell us now?

“one Arab state in about 83% of Palestine and one Jewish state in about 17% of Palestine”?

Your percentages represent revisionist claptrap that is at best desperate and at worst hardly what I would call honest.

You know as well as I do that the Transjordan Memorandum separated the areas controlled by the British into Palestine and Transjordan well before the British Mandate came into effect.

The fact is under the UN proposal 1/3 of the population got 2/3rds of the land designated Palestine despite owning less than 7% of it. And the Palestinians were supposed to be happy with the deal?

Arguing with you about whether or not the Palestinian people exist as an entity is like arguing with creationists about evolution. The determined refusal by yourself to accept what the rest of the world sees as a given at some stage has to mean further discourse is just giving air to abhorrent views.

I will just add a line from the UNSCOP recommendations; “Although sharply divided by political issues, the peoples of Palestine are sufficiently advanced to govern themselves independently.”

You claimed “"Citizenship" does not necessarily imply a "State"” but then used an example that included one such “State”. Please!

However I will run with the argument because I do think there is a point to be made here. Citizenship is usually divided between jus sanguinis ("right of blood") and jus soli ("right of soil"). At its simplest the conflict in Palestine can described as a clash of citizenship types. Israel granting “citizenship based on ancestry or ethnicity" and Palestinians granting citizenship to anyone born on the territory of the State be they Arab Muslims, Arab Christians or native Jews. Granted there are degrees exhibited by both but this generally holds true.

Cont'

Cont'

Your comment about comparisons between the Charter of the PLO and the Charter of Likud being a furphy is rot. They are perfectly appropriate for comparison, something you proceeded to do yourself. Just as the PLO Charter rejects the notion of a Jewish state within Palestine so the Likud Charter rejects a Palestinian State within Palestine. Both parties would be happy seeing them set up elsewhere, just not within Palestine.

You instead directed me to compare “the PLO Constitution to the Basic Laws of Israel you might be on firmer ground. But I guess you would want to avoid any such discussion.”

More than happy to discuss them, shall we start with the Jerusalem Law passed by the Knesset in 1980 which stated “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.“ but without defining its boundaries? Predictably it was not well regarded by the international community prompting the “UN Security Council Resolution 478, adopted by 14 votes to none, with 1 abstention (United States of America), declared soon after that the law was "null and void" and "must be rescinded". This resolution called upon member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city.” Wikipedia.

Thankfully the world heeded that call and it is my understanding all embassies were withdrawn from the city of Jerusalem.

When we get down to it you aren't very good at this are you.

I am going to take a line from U.S. Secretary of State Edmund Muskie's address on the Jerusalem Law, completely out of context of course, but in my opinion quite descriptive of your OLO contributions as “illustrative of a preoccupation which has produced this series of unbalanced and unrealistic texts on Middle East issues.”

Couldn't have said it better myself.

#csteele

You state:

"I am going to take a line from U.S. Secretary of State Edmund Muskie's address on the Jerusalem Law, completely out of context of course, but in my opinion quite descriptive of your OLO contributions as “illustrative of a preoccupation which has produced this series of unbalanced and unrealistic texts on Middle East issues.”

My answer:

What Muskie actually said was:

"In remarks made to the Council U.S. Secretary of State Edmund Muskie said "The question of Jerusalem must be addressed in the context of negotiations for a comprehensive, just and lasting Middle East peace."

The draft resolution before us today is illustrative of a preoccupation which has produced this series of unbalanced and unrealistic texts on Middle East issues. It fails to serve the goal of all faiths that look upon Jerusalem as holy. We must share a common vision of that ancient city's future-- an undivided Jerusalem, with free access to the Holy Places for people of all faiths.[1]"

Your unbalanced and unrealistic texts - based on misstatements of fact - unequivocally qualify for similar condemnation.

Here is another one.

You state:

"You know as well as I do that the Transjordan Memorandum separated the areas controlled by the British into Palestine and Transjordan well before the British Mandate came into effect. "

My answer:

The British mandate came into effect in 1920 and was confirmed by the League of Nations on 24 July 1922. The Transjordan memorandum came into effect on 23 September 1922.

What the Transjordan memorandum did was to prevent the Jews reconstituting the Jewish National Home in Transjordan - thereby reserving 78% of the Mandate territory exclusively for the non-Jewish communities of Palestine. Britain remained the Mandatory Authority until Transjordan became independent in 1946.

I don't intend replying to your further posts - unless to correct any further misstatement of facts.

Arab propagandists obviously have a faithful disciple on their side.

#Yuyutsu

Greatly excited about the prospect of joining you for lunch.

Why don't you also join with me in urging Israel and Jordan to enter into direct negotiations on the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank and East Jerusalem?

Don't knock the negotiations before they start. Get Jordan and Israel to the negotiating table first (maybe under UN Secretary General Chairmanship)and let them decide if they can come to an agreement.

Such a settlement would accord with the history, geography and demography of "Palestine" and determine the allocation of 4% of the remaining 5% of Palestine still remaining unallocated between Jews and Arabs.

Kissing King Abdullah's feet and having lunch with me will be your reward if a settlement is reached.

I must say I am intrigued by this comment of yours:

"Also, you are suggesting to divide Palestine between Jews and Arabs, ignoring the fact that it is no longer terra-nulla, that meanwhile the state of Israel was formed on 17% of its area. You are asking to willy-nilly take away the land from the Israelis and hand it over to "the Jews" - no thanks!"

Please clarify:

1.What in your view is the difference between "Israelis" - whose population is 80% comprised of Jews - and "Jews"?

2. Is "Israel" the Jewish State or not?

3. What land do you think I am asking be taken away willy-nilly from the Israelis and handed to "the Jews"?

Dear forum reader,

Of course Muskie was speaking in support his country abstaining from the vote, (unconvincingly I thought), that is the reason I prefaced my sentence with “completely out of context of course”!

Without the preface it would have been disingenuous, kind of like dishing up three articles of the PLO Charter then when challenged with the Charter of the Likud party saying;

“Comparing the PLO Constitution - binding on all Palestinian Arabs - to the political platform of one of many political parties in Israel is a furphy. If you compared the PLO Constitution to the Basic Laws of Israel you might be on firmer ground. But I guess you would want to avoid any such discussion.”

Notice dear reader how we have somehow gone from Charter to Constitution, two separate documents. Why? Because it better fits his argument that we should ignore the Likud Charter and focus on the Basic Laws of Israel thinking he was on safer ground. Slippery in my book.

Still on the PLO Charter. David raised three Articles from it in defence of his use of the terms Jew and Arab. He omitted Article 6 which reads “The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.” Disingenuous in my book but then I am not a lawyer.

Now to the British Mandate that David asserted came into effect in 1920. Perhaps he would like to go and correct the Wikipedia reference then.

“The British Mandate for Palestine, also known as the Palestine Mandate and The British Mandate of Palestine, was a legal commission for the administration of Palestine, the draft of which was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 and which came into effect on 26 September 1923.” Wikipedia

Have I been a little harsh on him? Possibly, but slapping me with being one of the “greatest successes of Arab brainwashing' will get him slapped back, something bullies hate often resulting in them not wanting to play any more.

Examination of Security Council's Resolution 242 shows that it did not require that Israel withdraw from "all the territories" occupied after the Six-Day War. This wording was deliberate. The push by Arab states and Russia to have the word "all" included was rejected.

Lord Caradon, the British Ambassador, who drafted the approved resolution, stated:

"It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear."
(Prosper Weil, "Territorial Settlement in the Resolution of November 22, 1967" in John Moore, ed. The Arab-Israeli Conflict (Princeton UP, 1967) p. 321)

Any ambiguity was further removed when in October 1969 the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons that Israel’s withdrawl was not required from "all the territories".
(Abba Eban, Abba Eban (Random House, 1982) p. 452)

Again, as reported in the “Beirut Daily Star” (June 12, 1974) Lord Caradon clarified Resolution 242:

"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because these positions were undesirable and artificial."

In his speech to AIPAC Policy Conference (May 8, 1975) regarding Resolution 242, U.S. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg unequivocally confirmed:

"The notable omissions - which were not accidental - in regard to withdrawl are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines' ...the resolution speaks of withdrawl from the occupied territories without defining the extent of the withdrawl"

Whatever one’s position about settlers on the West Bank, embedded within Resolution 242 is latitude for Israel.

The terms “Palestine/Palestinian” whilst convenient has little legitimacy as to a traditional people

In February 1919, the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations adopted the following resolution: “We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time.”

In 1937, Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi reported to the Peel Commission: There is no such country (as Palestine).”

In 1946 Arab-American historian, Prof. Philip Hitti stated: “There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not”.

This same committment was echoed by the Arab Highter Committe to the UN General Assembly in May 1947; and again by Ahmed Shuqueiri (later chairman of the PLO) when addressing the the Security Council a few years later.

Indeed, the Arab population in the British mandate of Palestine was very thin on the ground.

In 1867 Mark Twain had visited the area and described a bleak and desolate country ... “We never saw a human being on the whole route.”

Based on the Report of the Palestine Royal Commission of 1913, nothing had improved.

In 1918, the leading Arab nationalist, Sherif Hussein, Guardian of the Islamic Holy Places in Arabia, bewailed that Palestinians had deserted the area, “His native soil could not retain a a hold on him ... ” Hussein also saw that Jewish immigration in large numbers would be the solution to this problem. Jewish immigrants bringing with them agriculture, factories and trades - Palestinian Arabs would be enticed home. (Al-Qibla, March 23, 1918)

Many other Arabs subscribed to this. Dawood Barakat, editor of the Egyptian paper Al-Abram, wrote: “The Zionists are necessary for the country: The money which they will bring, their knowledge and intelligence, and the industriousness which characterizes them will contribute without doubt to the regeneration of the country.” (“Middle Eastern Studies”, April 1965) p. 243

In WWII, the British found so few Arabs in Palestine and needing workers, they shipped in tens of thousand of Arabs from elsewhere.

Jewish Israelis are still alive who have Palestinian passports issued during the British mandate.

David,

"Why don't you also join with me in urging Israel and Jordan to enter into direct negotiations on the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank and East Jerusalem?"

I already gave you the two reasons why, and may I hopefully be proven wrong, both sides would not agree - one for being too foolish, the other for being too wise. Perhaps we need to wait a few decades till the first grows up and the second grows senile.

Also, I'm concerned that once a settlement is achieved and hostilities cease (so far so good), Israel might maintain a portion of the toxic lands it took in 1967 and would have little incentive to rid itself of those (but then, it could give them to "The Jews", so everyone wins!).

"1.What in your view is the difference between "Israelis"-whose population is 80% comprised of Jews - and "Jews"?"

Israelis are the citizens of the state of Israel.
80% of these are of Jewish descent, but this does not turn them automatically into "Jews" (isn't that just what Hitler did, condemning people to the gas-chambers solely on the grounds of their Jewish ancestry?). By calling Israelis "Jews" you are wrongly attempting to categorise and lay a trip on 6-million people without their consent.

Each Israeli has the right to decide, and occasionally revise, whether or not Judaism is for him/her, whether or not they wish to identify with it and which aspects of Judaism (if any) they wish to implement in their life.

"2. Is "Israel" the Jewish State or not?"

Israel is a sovereign state that has at the moment certain Jewish characteristics because its citizens so decided. Other than that, it is under no obligation to remain affiliated with Judaism. As in the individual case, the state of Israel may revise from time to time which aspects (if any) of Judaism it wishes to incorporate in its public life.

"3. What land do you think I am asking be taken away willy-nilly from the Israelis and handed to "the Jews"?"

That land marked on standard maps as "ISRAEL".

Dear Danielle,

I am hoping that a wall will not be necessary, but I am trying to be realistic. If a wall is erected, I do not expect any gates or checkpoints. I also hope it will be constructed in such a way that wandering goats are not injured. The wall should not cause any outrage because it will be built directly over Israel's accepted border.

About the cookware, it is indeed outrageous. Even if you want to poison yourself with lead and other toxins, it is none of the government's business, besides perhaps you may want to use this cookware other than for cooking - pottery perhaps, or sculpture, or storage, or to make musical instruments. It is your right!

Regarding the Palestinians, all your quotes up to 1946 are correct and even later there was no Palestinian nation. However, such a nation has started taking shape in the late 1970's as a response to settler provocations and as a propaganda tool against Israel. It is a very young nation, but by now we cannot deny its existence (this of course does not mean that Israel owes them anything).

Regarding resolution 242, you are right, the Russians failed to add the word "all" and Israel suffers from that omission ever since. Had the word "all" been included in the first place, no such frustrating, endless and futile negotiations would have been needed, along with the numerous Israeli victims who died of terror attacks in the meanwhile.

Dear Yuyutsu,

As I understand it, Israel was prepared to exchange land for the settlements.

Obviously the Palestinians must be afforded quite some benefit by not agreeing to the two-state solution, defined borders. Perhaps if those funding the Palestinian territory brought pressure to bear by threatening to withhold moneys, the Palestinians would see that it was in their own best interests, and those of the region, to come to an agreement.
One must also remember that many Palestinians also do well from Israeli coffers and benefits.

I realise that your concern is for the integrity of Israel. But Israel must be assured that it is safe. As you know, the complete withdrawl of Jewish settlements and the military from Gaza, did not result in peace from that side. In fact, Gaza's attacks on Israel greatly increased. There is no rationale for such behaviour.

If the Palestinians won't agree to a defined state, then perhaps the UN (such as it is) should impose it. Sixty years is far too long ... another sixty years? With every year any agreement becomes more remote. The British and other colonial powers certainly had no problems in defining borders, albeit artificial ones, indeed in creating entire new states in the Middle East ... and these have "stuck".

As the Palestinians won't/can't decide, then it should be decided for them.

No ... a legitimate Palestinian state won't guarantee Israel's security, but with Palestinian recognition of Israel's right to exist, it would go a long way ..

Dear Danielle,

Yes, Israel was prepared, and in principle is still prepared, to exchange land for the settlements. I personally oppose this idea. Why should Israel give up its own legitimate territory in exchange for toxic, cursed territories that were obtained in the 1967 war?

It is my view that whether an agreement is reached or not, Israel should get out of any territory it obtained in the 1967 war, to the last millimeter.

Israel's withdrawal from Gaza has done it much good, but you cannot expect a single move to fix all the problems of the world: the Arabs are still the Arabs and the war is still on, but at least Israel is not trapped there in Gaza.

Once Israel is completely out of the occupied territories and within universally accepted borders, once it is again considered a fully-legitimate nation by the rest of the world (if not by the Arabs), then if/when it is attacked again it will be allowed to apply its full military power without the world objecting, blaming and stopping Israel as they usually do today.

You are right, a Palestinian state won't guarantee Israel's security. I don't believe that recognition would do it either. The only thing that can guarantee Israel's security is a strong army with the best and most advanced weapons AND the willingness of Israel to use them AND the willingness of the world to allow Israel to use them. That can only happen once Israel is out of the territories and is no longer perceived as a "colonial occupier".

#csteele

You state:

"Now to the British Mandate that David asserted came into effect in 1920. Perhaps he would like to go and correct the Wikipedia reference then.

“The British Mandate for Palestine, also known as the Palestine Mandate and The British Mandate of Palestine, was a legal commission for the administration of Palestine, the draft of which was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 and which came into effect on 26 September 1923.” Wikipedia

My answer:

Rely on Wikipedia at your risk.

The Mandate came into effect at the San Remo Conference on 19-26 April 1920 and was subsequently confirmed in the Treaty of Sevres on 10 August 1920.

You can't win a trick.

#Yuyutsu

Your comments on differentiating the Jews in Israel from Jews living outside Israel is quite breathtaking - even surpassing your attempt to equate murder with acts of God.

The Declaration of the State of Israel says this:

"ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL."

You have now identified yourself with those who want to eliminate the one Jewish State in the world and replace it with a 22nd Arab State in defiance of the decisions of the international community.

Our lunch date is off. Go join similar like minded people.

Dear David Singer,

My goodness my dear fellow, why on earth do you need to be schooled on legal concepts by a layman?

To come into effect – the condition of being operative.

If a person is arrested then convicted by our courts, sentenced to jail then a period of community service that community service does not 'come into effect' until he is released from jail.

The British Palestine Mandate did not come into effect until the British assumed their Mandatory responsibilities on 29th Sept 1923. Hell mate the Poms and the French only finalized the borders of their respective Mandates on the 7th of March that year. The French also assumed their responsibilities when the British did, on the 29th.

As to winning a trick, it is not something I aspire to. Trickery I would have thought is changing Charter to Constitution. I'm happy dealing in facts.

David,

I am more than familiar with Israel's declaration of independence, but as mentioned earlier, Ben-Gurion was cynical about it and did not mean any of the Jewish stuff when he read it. It was lightly-armed 600,000 people against 100,000,000 Arabs, the situation was desperate and few believed that Israel could survive at all. Foreign aid and arms were desperately needed and being Jewish was in fashion at the time, just a few years after the Nazi holocaust. No wonder that Ben-Gurion said whatever he could to please the world as well as to receive Jewish money. He even, as later did his foreign-minister, Aba Eban, both atheists, raised a bible as supposed "proof" for Israel's rights on its land.

That was of course dishonest, but it cannot bind 63 years later those 3 generations that were subsequently born in Israel and have it as their natural home, along with those who were only children at the time.

There is no international law, nor a UN resolution stating that Israel must remain Jewish. I also know of no country that conditioned its acceptance of Israel upon the later remaining Jewish.

I find your idea that people must be EITHER Jews OR Arabs amazingly illogical. The chances of Israel becoming the 22nd Arab state are very slim (unless Israel formally annexes the West-Bank and Gaza and grants Israeli citizenship to those people). It is also most unlikely that Israel all-of-a-sudden will stop exporting Judaism, just as an Arab country wouldn't suddenly stop exporting oil -it's just too good a business!

I also see no reason why Israel should suddenly be dropping its Jewish characteristics: it has for example the Hebrew language and the Sabbath (Saturday) as its national day of rest, not Friday or Sunday - I don't see these changing any time soon, nor do I recommend it. The whole point is just that the citizens of Israel could make any changes if they wanted.

Israel is an independent sovereign state and will not be held hostage by any external group, not even that fuzzy collection of people called "Jews".

Dear David,

I agree with Yuyutsu, I don't see Jordan, considering the its bloody history with the Palestinians, agreeing to a proposal such as you make.

Also, what about Gaza ... and are they truly Palestinians? They speak an Egyptian Arabic, not the Arabic spoken on the West Bank, and their familial and economic ties are with Egypt.

Egypt was only too happy to relinguish this protectorate, which it had parlously administered. Only after Israel had occupied Gaza did it move into the 20th century.

Some have suggested that Egypt resume control of Gaza. Do you feel that this is also a solution? One has to wait for the dust to settle in Egypt to see what sort of regime takes control. A poll showed 85% of Egyptians want the introduction of Sharia law; this does not look too promising.

# Yuyutsu

What a font of knowledge you are.

You state:

"I am more than familiar with Israel's declaration of independence, but as mentioned earlier, Ben-Gurion was cynical about it and did not mean any of the Jewish stuff when he read it."

Can you please quote your source for this amazing revelation?

For your information this is what Ben Gurion read:

" In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.

This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home."

You have no credibility whatsoever.

#csteele

1.You state:

" The British Palestine Mandate did not come into effect until the British assumed their Mandatory responsibilities on 29th Sept 1923."

So what was Herbert Samuel the first British High Commissioner for Palestine doing in Palestine in June 1920? Wasn't he sent there to put into effect the decision of the San Remo Conference held three months earlier?

2. You confuse "taking a trick" with trickery". Obviously you have never played bridge or solo. You insult the millions of people who do.

Come to think of it - you are totally confused.

#Danielle

You may be right - Jordan and Israel might not do a deal. But then again they might. No one will know until they sit down and negotiate.
Jordan might just accept sovereignty in 95% of the West Bank knocked back by the Palestinian Authority - by redrawing the existing boundary between Israel and Jordan. There is no other Arab interlocutor that I can identify to negotiate with Israel.

As for Gaza it is a real problem - a basket case. Annexing it to Egypt makes sense but Hamas will not give up power very easily.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Whatever you see in hindsight, the latitude given Israel in Resolution 242 was based on sound militarily, logistic principles; retention of some territory provided defensible borders. Those who draw up Resolution 242 were not acting capriciously, they would have been advised of this. One recognises in the apparent 'latitude' of this resolution, considered thought.

And considering ... within a week of Sadat stating he was ready to make peace with Israel, Mohammed Heikal, his confidant, was committed not only to reclaiming territories occupied by Israel, but also to the elimination to the State of Israel itself. (Al-Abram, February 25, 1971)

All thoughtful people would agree that, in whatever form, the Jews need a secure homeland and a place on the world stage of politics.

In WW11, German and Austrian Jews were granted visas to enter this country. As soon as Britain entered the war, these visas were not only overturned, but the Jewish applicants were not advised. Many Jews went to the gas-chambers waiting for their promised visas to arrive. Many of these Jews had escaped Germany/Austria and were resident elsewhere in Europe.

With the fear of 'reds under the beds,' Russian Jews, albeit being persecuted and murdered in their country, were being denied entry.

In times of war or conflict, one's nationality determines determines one's status.

Germany, a democracy, considered the most civilized country in the world ... look what it threw up. Nazism occurred not so long ago. In living memory to many.

The situation occurring in Western Europe does not bode well.

Jews have always been an easy target for persecution ... especially so, if exploited to unite disparate groups.

Dear David,

One would hope you are right. By whatever means, Jordan or the UN, this ongoing Palestinian situation should be resolved.

As for Gaza ... The Hamas are mentored and financed by Iran. Gaza is effectively an Iranian "toe-hold.' Iran wants to take dominance in Middle East ...

Dear David Singer,

I am afraid the confusion lies with you my friend. The Mandate system was a League of Nations protocol. The four Allies powers that made up the San Remo Conference could suggest it as a process but it had to be confirmed by the League to have any validity. This was not done until 1922 and did not come into effect until 1923 and only after Turkey accepted the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne.

Another FAIL as my daughter would say.

I must say to puts ones self up as knowledgeable of the history of Israel you would appear to be poorly informed. This should be bread and butter stuff for you. I know from Google how far your reach is especially among the right-wingers in the US. My concern is the misinformation you may be spreading through incendiary channels. I would be happy to spend some time with you to correct some preconceptions that do not stand up to more rigorous examination.

By the way trick to trickery was a segue on my part but nice deflect by yourself from the Charter to Constitution swap.

Dear Danielle and Yuyutsu,

I have not responded to any of your posts because they were not directed specifically at me. May I say I do not have any Jewish friends that I know personally of have met on-line who think like you two do, particularly Danielle, even among some of the more strident of the Zionists. If I could be so bold may I ask if either of you are Jewish? It may well be self-evident so excuse me if that is the case and feel free not to answer if you like but I am interested and would like to be sure.

#csteele

Yet another misstatement:

You state:

"The Mandate system was a League of Nations protocol. The four Allies powers that made up the San Remo Conference could suggest it as a process but it had to be confirmed by the League to have any validity."

My answer:

The four Allied powers did not suggest the Mandate as a process. They determined it would occur, they would appoint the Mandatory, determine the boundaries and determine the nature of the Mandate. The terms of the Mandate were to be formulated by the four Allied Powers and then submitted to the League of Nations for approval

The following articles in the Treaty Of Sevres make this clear.

"ARTICLE 95.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

The Mandatory undertakes to appoint as soon as possible a special Commission to study and regulate all questions and claims relating to the different religious communities. In the composition of this Commission the religious interests concerned will be taken into account. The Chairman of the Commission will be appointed by the Council of the League of Nations.

ARTICLE 96.

The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval."

Dear David Singer,

Not even close.

Why are you quoting from a treaty you know was annulled within a couple of years and superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne which does not even mention Palestine?

The Mandate system was from the League of Nations.

“Three steps were required to establish a Mandate under international law: (1) The Principal Allied and Associated Powers confer a mandate on one of their number or on a third power; (2) the principal powers officially notify the council of the League of Nations that a certain power has been appointed mandatory for such a certain defined territory; and (3) the council of the League of Nations takes official cognisance of the appointment of the mandatory power and informs the latter that it [the council] considers it as invested with the mandate, and at the same time notifies it of the terms of the mandate, after ascertaining whether they are in conformance with the provisions of the covenant." Wikipedia

Note, “ at the same time notifies it of the terms of the mandate”. That is The League of Nations telling the mandatory power how the mandate will operate.

As a side note the Treaty of Lausanne does have some poignancy for Australians because it codifies access to the war graves of the ANZACs, however the Treaty of Sevres would have been far more advantageous to the Kurdish people if it had stayed in force.

Look this should be simple even for you, could Britain have had a legal and binding Mandate over Palestine without the League's approval? No!

Have you conceded yet that the Mandate did not come into effect until the 29th September 1923? If you can't after all the evidence I have provided here you will look even sillier.

Dear Danielle,

Resolution 242 also includes the cessation of belligerency, an unrealistic/unenforceable goal, so 242 had better never existed. Not blaming anyone for lack of hindsight, but without the word "all", the militant-Jews of Israel get the false impression as if the world will accept their retaining parts of the occupied-territories, hence the endless-negotiations and the terror-attacks that come with it.

The tragedy of the Nazi holocaust was most terrible and shocking, no need to repeat the gory details. The Arab desire to throw the Israelis into the mediterranean is also shocking, as well as their actual behaviour since the massacre of 1929. This is why the UN approved the formation of Israel and also why Israel must remain armed to its teeth.

The question is whether every aspect of life needs to be based on the worst-case scenario. Should we allow Hitler and his ilk to dictate how we live at present?

Suppose that some hypothetical psychopath acted to rid the world of green-eyed people. Both the green-eyed people and the rest of the world have therefore resolved to grant all green-eyed people a state of their own where they could be safer. The question is, would the green-eyed people wish under any other circumstances to live together, given that they have nothing in common but the colour of their eyes? What if another psychopath will tomorrow target those with pimples on their back?

It's tragic that so many types of people who would otherwise have nothing to do with each other were, and still are, forced to live together and defend themselves shoulder-to-shoulder against a cruel and irrational enemy. As they do so, however, originally out of necessity, new generations and a new culture were formed.

Dear Csteele,

I do not consider myself a Jew.
However, having been born to Jewish parents, neither Hitler and his followers, nor the Rabbis and their followers (each for their own reasons) will ever respect my wishes not to belong to that group. They would still, against my will, consider me a "Jew" till the day I die and even beyond that.

David,

"Can you please quote your source for this amazing revelation?"

Sorry I cannot be too specific, I heard it many years ago, either on Israel-radio or Israeli-TV.

"this is what Ben Gurion read:..."

That cynical socialist old fox could have read aloud anything that would forward his goals, but it doesn't imply that he meant any of it. Better judge him by his actions - Yes he wanted Jews to make their home in Israel, but only if they were young, healthy and socialist. The rest of them he was happy to leave for the Nazis. I suppose it is also a sign of strong Jewish faith to murder one's [Jewish] political rivals by shooting them as they swim empty-handed in the sea, as he ordered without remorse in the Altalena case.

Theodore Herzl, "the spiritual father of the Jewish State" only considered forming a Jewish state as his 2nd-best option. He also pursued the option of forming it in Uganda rather than in Palestine. His first preference was for the Jews to assimiliate, convert to Christianity and disappear as a recognisable entity. It was only following the Dreyfus trial and pogroms in Russia that he came to believe that it would be practically impossible and therefore the Jews should have a state of their own.

Dear csteele,

My father and his family died in the Holocaust. An Austrian Jew, he fought in the French Army. He was one of those to whom Australia granted a visa, then overturned it without letting my parents know. He had the option of converting to Christianity. Although a secular Jew in every way, he refused: "I will not desert my people." Being a toddler, I was too young to remember him. My mother and I were POWs.

My mother was an Australian Catholic. I was raised a Catholic. She married a senior British colonial officer when I was a child. After leaving school, I spent seven years in Malaysia. This was during the Emergency; I personally witnessed terrorist attrocities. At fifteen, I stood amongst the dead and dying after terrorists how thrown hand-grenades into a packed theatre. These victims were familes with their young children.

I was eventually to end up in academia.

Dear Yuyutsu,

If a people have to fight a defensive war from on their own soil, they are already in dire trouble. A couple of OLO members have stated that they would not agree to fighting a defensive war beyond the Australian border; undoubtedly, they also believe that any fighting would only occur between the hours of nine and five.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Yes ... on 26th August, 1903, at the Sixth Zionist Congress, Bazle, Hertzl proposed the British Uganda Program, but only as a temporary emergency measure because Russian Jews were in immediate danger. He made it quite clear that his ultimate aim was a Jewish entity in the Land of Israel.

The Uganda Program sank without trace.

I can't even begin to get my head around the idea that Hetzl wanted Jews to convert to Christianity. Do you have a reference for this? "Assimilation" is not the same as "conversion".

Dear Danielle,

Of course, if the strategic situation, based purely on military criteria by military experts, demands that a war be carried outside one's country, then it is quite acceptable to do so.

The 1967 occupation is already tainted beyond repair by non-military considerations. Also, while the Palestinians can prove to be quite a nuisance ocassionally, by themselves they carry no significant military capacity as to warrant an ongoing occupation. Once there is a clear border with a wall, and more so once they have significant economic assets on its other side, they will be very careful not to breach that border by missiles and the like because they will know that any such breach will cause an immediate and terrible carnage amongst them.

Israel's real danger lies to its north, led by Iran and its Syrian and Hezbullah deputies. Israel should concentrate its military capabilities on that, rather than on the policing of relatively-harmless Palestinians.

Regarding Herzl, here is a quote from http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/r/rubinstein-herzl.html :

"
This is the substitute to an idea Herzl had before converting to Zionism: a mass conversion to Christianity in order to put an end, once and for all, to Jewish suffering. Because he realized that such a conversion was impossible, he reached the inescapable conclusion: Without giving up Jewish identity, the new solution serves a parallel approach—entering the family of nations not through a side entrance for individuals but through the main gate—as an equal and respectable quest.
"

Also from http://www.jafi.org.il/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/Compelling+Content/Jewish+History/Herzl/The+Doomed+Dynasty.htm :

"
At this stage he was already contemplating a solution for the "Jewish question" in the form of the Jews' mass conversion to Christianity. Trude's birth "reaffirmed Herzl in his resolve to spare his children the agony of their parents," Elon says. He tried to win over the paper's editors for his mass-conversion project, but they rejected it "with derision," Elon writes.
"

Dear Danielle and Yuyutsu,

Thank you both for your candour. It has help contextualise some of the posts I had struggled with.

Dear Danielle,

My father fought in the Malayan Emergency and the city where I lived in the Southern Philippines suffered numerous attacks by Muslim rebels, though the term nowadays is terrorists I think rebels still fits better in their case.

Hardly comparable to your experiences but I remember my school being evacuated after one attack where a dozen people were killed a few kilometres down the beach from where we lived. In response the Mayor, who was a friend of my parents, shot three captured rebels through the head and left their bodies in the town square as a warning.

My school was a military one and there were numerous services for older graduates who had lost their lives in the conflict. For an Aussie kid Asia during that period was surreal and the experiences I gained as teenager served, in some fashion, to sidestep me from my peers in Australia. Hopefully the upside is ability to recognise and acknowledge 'side stepping' in others.

Dear Yuyutsu,

As a teenager, thanks in no small part to Mitchener's The Source, I fell in love with the idea of Israel. Through the years disenchantment replaced idealism, to me the heroic Joan of Arc figure is now just another among the 'fish mongers wives' of the region.

I still hold the Jewish culture and its gifts to the world in very high esteem. However I have not had to shoulder the burden that so often accompanies the 'blessed'. It is a price I don't think I personally would want to pay.

For your sake may your attempts at divestiture bear fruit.

Dear Yuyutsu,

"At this stage he was already contemplating a solution for the "Jewish question" in the form of the Jews' mass conversion to Christianity. Trude's birth "reaffirmed Herzl in his resolve to spare his children the agony of their parents,"

Under the experience of such persecution of Jews it is understandable that Herzl would have contemplated such a solution. One imagines that many Jewish parents have at some time wished to spare their children of such a burden. Certainly Jews sought conversion in Europe when faced with the Nazi regime. So understandable ... but as we now know, so futile.

The Nazi regime traced back though records to find a Jewish forebear. Undoubtedly, many sent to the gas-chambers were unaware that they had any Jewish blood.

The fact that Herzl, himself, did not convert to Christianity, I think, puts this particlar episode into perspective.

As to your comments about Iran etc. I fully concur.

As stated before, I do not believe that Jewish settlers should be permitted beyond the Green Line. They are creating an artificial settler "state", which is diametrically opposed the well-being of the State of Israel. They should be removed back into Israel. If they choose to remain where they are, their presence shouldn't be allowed to influence future decisions as to Palestinian borders. They might well find themselvers ultimately living within a Palestinian state. This would be their choice. One wonders if the messianic Christian religions support the idea of settlers living on the West Bank.

#csteele

Yes - the Treaty of Sevres was not executed and was superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne.

Yes - the Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine but it contained the following provision:

"Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."

The future of Palestine, Syria and Lebanon and Mesopotamia had been determined as set out at the San Remo Conference and in the Treaty of Sevres in 1920. Nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne changed those decisions.

You continue to rely on Wikipedia at your risk.

If you believe the Mandate did not come into effect until 29 September 1923 do you still stand by your earlier statement:

"You know as well as I do that the Transjordan Memorandum separated the areas controlled by the British into Palestine and Transjordan well before the British Mandate came into effect"

Just a simple "yes" or "no" - and then perhaps we might just have to agree to disagree.

Dear Yuyutsu,

There are many forms of persecution ... and these are ongoing.

Persecution of peoples occurs world wide.

I re-state my belief that Jews need a homeland, and an associated voice on the political stage.

Do you really believe that Jews are/would be immune to persecution?

As you rightly observed, it is not your perception of yourself, but what others perceive of you.

Israel is not perfect, and is certainly open to criticism. However, considering what is happening elsewhere in the world, Israel is singled out for inordinate condemnation. Martin Luther King observed that such criticism of Israel was antisemitism.

One only has to look at many of those OLO writers - indeed the number of topics pro rata given to criticise, indeed damn Israel, OLO - to see an unhealthy obsession. If Israel wasn’t a Jewish homeland, do you really think it would attract such malevolent interest.

Where is there the constant barrage, amount of media, and level of condemnation of other, by far worse situations?

The British, have taken to criticism of Isreal with the same enthusiasm they take to bloodsports. Politically safe, indeed opportunistic. Whitehall is not referred to as the “camel train” for nothing.

Even now leave Jews leave England, and elsewhere, because they are not afforded the level of protection other groups have.

As for England’s record ... I wouldn’t like to be a Gypsy there.

I made comparison with our indigenous people and the Palestinians on
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=1168

Dear David Singer,

Since you seemed to have dialled back the bombast I am happy to answer in a more measured fashion.

The Allied Powers could well have colonised the areas they had under their control after the war, in fact for one of them it was a serious consideration. They decided to go the Mandate route because it gave them legitimacy under international law. The earlier treaties were the principal powers carving up their areas of influence but until it had gone through the Mandate process with the League they lacked validity with the international community. The US's Kurdish Mandate was a case in point. Failure to get it through their Senate saw America withdrawing from the Mandate process and not seeking ratification through the League.

So to answer your question. Yes. I stand by my statement. Britain had control but not until it officially took up its responsibility, as was vested in it by the authority of the League, did the Mandate properly come into effect.

While it isn't the only source I go to Wikipedia has done a fine job for me thus far.

As for agreeing to disagree that is something we might do over the intent or motives of the participants. The facts however stand as they are and do not afford us that option. You either believe in the facts or you don't.

Hopefully you consider your question answered and will afford me the same courtesy.

Did the Mandate come into effect on the 29th of September 1923? A simple 'yes' or 'no' if you please.

Dear Danielle,

Regarding your post dated Wednesday, 30 March 2011 2:49:44 PM.

I remember researching some of the quotes you used many, years ago and was a little surprise to see they still have currency. For instance I grant Mark Twain's 'The innocents abroad; or, The new Pilgrim's progress' was not very flattering of Palestine but no more than he was of Greece.

“"From Athens all through the islands of the Grecian Archipelago, we saw little but forbidden sea-walls and barren hills, sometimes surmounted by three or four graceful columns of some ancient temples, lonely and deserted---a fitting symbol of desolation that has come upon all Greece in these latter ages. We saw no plowed fields, very few villages, no trees or grass or vegetation of any kind, scarcely, and hardly ever an isolated house. Greece is a bleak, unsmiling desert, without agriculture, manufactures, or commerce, apparently."

Available nowadays through Google Books it is quite amusing in parts, though Mr Twain was disturbingly un-PC.

Of Neapolitans, “filthy in their habits, and this makes filthy streets and breeds disagreeable sights and smells. There was never a community so prejudiced against cholera as these Neapolitans are. But they have good reason to be. The cholera generally vanquishes a Neapolitan when it seizes him, because you understand, before the doctor can dig through the dirt and get at the disease the man dies.”

Nor did the Jews of Palestine escape his acid; “They say that the long-nosed, lanky, dyspeptic-looking body-snatchers, with the indescribable hats on, and a long curl dangling do front of each ear, are the old , familiar, self-righteous Pharisees we read of in the scriptures. Verily they look it. Judging merely by their general style, and without other evidence, one might easily suspect that self righteousness was their specialty”.

Keeping in mind the original Twain quote was about a short journey near the Sea of Galilee why is the determined portrayal of Palestine pre-Israel as a desolate, depopulated place so important to so many?

Might it be to defend a sense of self righteousness?

#csteele

My answer is "No"

Now are you prepared to return the same courtesy by answering my earlier query to you:

If you believe the Mandate did not come into effect until 29 September 1923 do you still stand by your earlier statement:

"You know as well as I do that the Transjordan Memorandum separated the areas controlled by the British into Palestine and Transjordan well before the British Mandate came into effect"

Just a simple "yes" or "no"

Dear David,

Could you do me the courtesy of actually reading my post.

#csteele

I don't consider you have answered my question.

I would ask you to once again answer "Yes" or "No" to my question which is:

If you believe the Mandate did not come into effect until 29 September 1923 do you still stand by your earlier statement:

"You know as well as I do that the Transjordan Memorandum separated the areas controlled by the British into Palestine and Transjordan well before the British Mandate came into effect"

Is it really that hard for you to pen a one word reply - either "Yes" or "No"?

Dear Csteele,

"I still hold the Jewish culture and its gifts to the world in very high esteem."

By all means do so, go ahead and select the positive aspects of the Jewish culture - by now those gifts belong to the whole world. There is no need to identify with any specific group to be entitled to use them.

And thank you for the sympathy.

Dear Danielle,

"I re-state my belief that Jews need a homeland, and an associated voice on the political stage."

What about the green-eyed people then? Bad luck and persecution can fall on anyone's head.

"If Israel wasn’t a Jewish homeland, do you really think it would attract such malevolent interest... Where is there the constant barrage, amount of media, and level of condemnation of other, by far worse situations?"

It is better to be hit by sharp words than by other sharp objects. Others like the Tutsis, Sumalis and Bosnians were not hit by sharp words, but Israel (and the USA) is hit by words because fortunately it is militarily too strong to end up like the rest.

BTW, Jews are not exempt from the tendency to use sharp words against others. Many Jewish communities do desreve sharp words because they themselves use sharp and derogatory language toward those who are not Jewish, for example by calling them "Cha'tes" (with gluttural "ch"; a hybrid word somwhere between "sinners" and "animals").

At a school-staff AGM:

Principal: "Ladies and gentlemen, before embarking on the heavier side of this evening, I am proud to announce that we have some cakes to distribute".

Arts Teacher: "There has long been inequality of genders which must be corrected, therefore the women-teachers should receive more cakes".
Physical-Education Teacher: "Those who sweat at their job, like me, and spend more calories, should receive more cakes".
Physics Teacher: "Those who work their brains spend just as many calories".
Biology Teacher: "Pregnant teachers have two lives, hence they deserve to receive double the number of cakes".
Sociology Teacher: "Why should children inside the womb receive their portion but not those who already disembarked? Let all children of teachers be counted!"
Math Teacher: "The cakes should be divided in proportion to the square-root of one's weight divided by the logarithmus of one's fat-percentage".
History Teacher: "Cakes should only be distributed among the working-class: those teachers who vote for the Liberals are capitalists and deserve no cakes".
English Teacher: "Let everyone write an essay explaining why they believe they are entitled to cakes, then let the cakes be distributed in proportion to the marks".

Cleaner enters: "Sorry guys, my son has just eaten all the cakes!"
--- --- ---

David and Csteele, looking at your drawn argument, long-as-the-exile as the Jews say, like two old ladies whose boat capsized who 80 years later are still sitting on the same deserted island under the same palm tree discussing their former love-affairs, is just like watching the above AGM:

Whatever happened 90 years ago when none of us was yet born, matters like fighting over a dead rotten rat. Since then, several new generations were born and two new nations emerged and took over the area of Palestine: first the Israelis and later the Palestinians.

Fighting over a 90-year old cake, long eaten by the birds?

Dear Yuyutsu,

Agreed.

I thought I clarified this. Other peoples are suffering far greater than the Palestinians ... Darfur ... etc.

But the condemnation of the regimes responsible for this muted, if not silent, compared with that levelled at Israel.

Dear csteele,

If you wish to read actual reports on the demography of the territory, refer to:

John Hope Simpson, Palestine: Report on Land Settlement, Immigration and Development (London, 1930)
Report on Agricultural Devopment and Land Settlement in Palestine by Lewis French (December 1931, Supplementary Report, April 1932)
Palestine Royal Commission Report (the Peel Report) (London, 1937)
also ...
Mashe Auman, 'Land Ownership in Palestine 1880-1948' in Michael Curtis et al, "The Palestinians" (1975)

These are a good starting point.

I notice you are referring to different souces. You are wise to do so than rely upon Wikipedia. Some time ago I had cause to question some “facts” published by Wikipedia. I was informed that as it is an open source, information is not guaranteed to be accurate, also facts can be changed at will. Wiki is open to abuse. Anything you need to rely upon thrown up by Wiki needs to be verified, preferably by numerous sources.

As Yuyutsu rightly observes this is past history. If Britain had honoured its wartime promises of Arab independence, the Hussein-Weizmann agreement signed at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference would have been fulfilled. This ongoing disaster would never have occurred.

Any discussion of the past, especially in relation to the Balfour Declaration, is rendered futile.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Do you realise that your obsession and hatred of Jews, so passionate, ties you inexorably to them. If you really want to rid yourself of this heritage, you need to step back, be completely indifferent, change your name, and attach yourself elsewhere. However, be warned, in each society there are the good, the bad and the evil.

You also appear to hate the Arabs, and undoubtedly the Iranians. In fact, the entire Middle East. Have you no soft spot for camels?

Dear Csteele,

From being imprisoned, my mother and I became exchange POWs, to be among the first lot of Australian refugees back to Australia. My mother was met by Australian Federal Police as she disembarked. They gave her a very bad time. I even remember them in the house. As my mother enveloped herself in silence about the events in Europe, I thought my father had done something terrible. Certainly local people also thought the household subservive. The AFP interviewed friends and neighbours. So intrusive and destructive were they of her daily existense, indeed every action and interaction with others, she was to say later that she wished they had the sophisticated means of surveillance that they have today.

On my return to Australia after being in Malaysia, I encountered “experts” droning on about the Emergency, their voice of “authority” rose with a corresponding degree of ignorance.

Nothing seems to change ...

I have no confidence in public opinion, the mean intelligence drops as numbers increase.
I recall a few years ago, the Australian press required all copy be in a language that a twelve year old could understand.

Many Palestinians have no issue with Israel ... or the “Occupation”. Indeed, many see this as a plus. Do read the links and survey provided on:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11684

#Danielle

You state:

"If Britain had honoured its wartime promises of Arab independence, the Hussein-Weizmann agreement signed at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference would have been fulfilled. This ongoing disaster would never have occurred. "

My comment:

This ongoing disaster has occurred because the Arabs were never prepared to accept the grant of self determination for

1. the Arabs - in 99.999% of the conquered Ottoman Empire territories and
2. the Jews - in the remaining 0.001%

as embodied in the Mandates for Palestine, Syria and Lebanon, and Mesopotamia

The Arabs had numerous opportunities to change this mindset after these proposals were first initiated by Britain and France in 1920 and endorsed by the League of Nations - but have refused to do so.

For the Arabs it was - and still remains - 100% or nothing

Dear Danielle,

I like camels, though I'd probably be afraid to come too close and be bitten or kicked by one. Something that I do miss from the middle-east though is porcupines, they are so sweet!!

I don't hate Jews - I pity them. I think they are victims, trapped in a dangerous cult that screws up their mind. There are some nice traditions in Judaism, but their biggest problem is the Jewish-identity thing and so many of the Jewish customs are sadly infused and tainted by that exclusive identity.

How can I be indifferent when my family is caught up in this war between Jews and Arabs? I am certainly upset on this thread because David Singer places the interests of the Jews above those of my family, the real people who actually live in that area, who were born there and should just be able to live their lives having nothing to do with either the Jewish or the Arab/Muslim toxic ideologies.

Hate Arabs and kiss King Abdullah's feet?... I actually admired his father. I am also currently eagerly watching the news because I care for the poor Libyans and wish they are able to throw out their dictator. I also have Arab friends here in Australia. No, there are certainly very good Arabs, I only hate those who want to kill my family. I think that's understandable: both my parents were, even as innocent civilians, extremely close on more than one ocassion to being killed by Arabs.

Dear Yuyutsu,

LOL. Yes in a sense we are acting like old women but being still happily married to my school yard sweetheart any discussion about former love affairs would be rather brief, on my part at least.

My apologies for being tedious, and you're right in a way that the current topic does not have much relevance to the situation today, but could I invite you to give a little thought to what is being played out here besides the testosterone factor (I didn't want to take us from old ladies to rutting bulls but David and I have locked horns before).

It is also about veracity. We are both aware if just one of our substantive arguments has its legs cut out from under it then the whole house of cards hits the deck. That is what makes this interesting. David has done his cruciate and medial and is tottering but needs just a little shove (what is it with me and mixed metaphors?).

David has retreated from my challenges several times by switching the argument and attacking on a fresh front. One can only keep this up for so long. He partially 'resigned' before but has returned for more.

There is other rather selfish consideration. The discussion, at least for a little while, has been drawn away from what happened to the Fogel family. I, along with I suspect many others, remain distressed by the tragedy and its subsequent exploitation.

Finally through research I have had several of my notions about the formation of Israel realigned. That can't be a bad thing.

So please excuse me giving the 'rotten rat' at least one more kick.

Dear Danielle,

I will read your references though instead of trading quotes on how populated or advanced Palestine was or wasn't(which I can supply if you like) I am more interested in why people think it is so important. If they consider their cause is just then why is it an issue?

Dear David,

This is not a court room where you can cut a witness off after a single word. You got your 'Yes' or 'No' answer as one word standing alone in its own sentence. If you are distressed I went on to explain my answer more fully then go and complain to a judge. Again, I stand by my statement.

Other forum readers, if they can be bothered, might speculate on why you are so insistent that nothing accompany my answer.

Now some free advice, be very careful where you go from here because by answering 'No' you literally :) don't have a leg to stand on. My advice would be a strategic withdrawal.

Through your posts you have gracefully left many droppings for us to examine like;
“So what was Herbert Samuel the first British High Commissioner for Palestine doing in Palestine in June 1920? Wasn't he sent there to put into effect the decision of the San Remo Conference held three months earlier?”

The San Remo Resolution did not even prescribe which Mandatory authority who was to rule over Palestine. Remarkably Samuel was the first Jew in 2,000 years to rule over the historic land of Israel. However leaving that aside his appointment even then was deemed illegal by the military government.

“Samuel's appointment to High Commissioner of Palestine was controversial. While the Zionists welcomed the appointment of a Zionist Jew to the post, the military government, headed by Allenby and Bols, called Samuel's appointment "highly dangerous". Technically, Allenby noted, the appointment was illegal, in that a civil administration that would compel the inhabitants of an occupied country to express their allegiance to it before a formal peace treaty (with Turkey) was signed, was in violation of both military law and the Hague Convention.” Wikipedia

You're the lawyer, were they right?

#csteele

What I got from you was a qualified "yes"- which you have made clear will not be changed. That is your prerogative of course.

It is also my prerogative to reject it as unsatisfactory and to end any further correspondence between us.

Dear David,

Strategic withdrawal it is then. Wise move.

I would have preferred a checkmate but a resignation will do, however it is dressed.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I understand completely from where you are coming.

Many years ago I divorced myself from Catholicism, indeed Christianity. The gospels don't stand up to scrutiny. That Jesus existed, undoubtedly; a Jewish teacher or rabbi, possibly ... but Paul was determined to start on new religion ... Jesus' own famiy considered Paul insane, as indeed Paul noted. However, this is something for an entirely new thread.

You mention that rabbis will never see you as other than Jewish. Well ... the Catholic church will never see me as other than Catholic; a lapsed Catholic, but a Catholic nevertheless. And priests can be relentless in 'bringing one back to the faith' ... especially if they find a lapsed Catholic in extremis. In their eyes, the only way I could be severed from the church would be if I was excommunicated. But even Hitler wasn't excommunicated.

I also see much that is admirable about Christianity, although the fundamentalists, like Jewish fundamentalists, can be horrific. I imagine that fundamentalism in all religions, attracts a certain psych ... If it wasn't channeled into, and "sanctioned" by the name of "religion" (and basically any world religion would do), it would be the stuff of psychiatric wards and medical journals.

Do you know that we have porcupines in Australia? I wonder if they differ, and by how much, from those found in the Middle East.

Dear csteele,

As Yuyutsu observed, it doesn't really matter if the current Palestinians are from original stock. What does matter is that they are Palestinians now. The only argument I have is with people claiming a heritage that they do not, in fact, have.

As we have been fruitlessly debating Israel-Palestine States OLO - indeed, who really cares what we think - the Palestinians are preparing to unilaterally declare a state (based on the pre-1967 borders).

Ephraim HaLevy, ex-head of Mossad and of Israel's National Security Council, has much to say that is important, indeed relevant. Not affiliated to any political party, but a pragmatist, Halevy has been maintaining for sometime that Israel and Hamas must talk.
HaLevy has been recently interviewed on TV; his reasoning is extremely sound. OLO readers will have to access the TV interview for themselves.

The background to this interview is the Israeli response to Hamas' rocket attacks, including Israel's targetted killings (don't forget Britain made targetted killings an art form) and Richard Goldsone's review (after all the facts gathered) of his original UN report on the Gaza war.

Washingtonpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.htm

#csteele

Self adulation is the province of fools.

“It is also my prerogative to reject it as unsatisfactory and to end any further correspondence between us.” ~ David Singer, Monday, 4 April 2011 11:03:59 AM

“To promise not to do a thing is the surest way in the world to make a body want to go and do that very thing.”  ~Mark Twain, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, 1876

:)

Dear csteele,

Rules of war and the Hague Convention not withstanding, the House of Lords debated Samuel's appointment.

As he was not recalled, his appointment was deemed legal. This decision is the only decision that has relevancy.

Politics ... legality ... expediency ... We are familiar with this ...

The Hansard papers of that debate would be interesting to read.

If one were to revisit all ... Australia ... terra nullius?

Dear Danielle,

Your Terra Nullius rejoinder of course evokes the biblical phrase “He who is without sin cast the first stone”. However if the corollary shouldn't be that we are asked to turn away from recognising and challenging a wrong.

You noted that “the Palestinians are preparing to unilaterally declare a state (based on the pre-1967 borders).”. The response of the Israeli Government was to threaten to annex the West Bank settlements and the threat from the US was to veto any declaration of statehood at the UN.

Isn't it up to the people of a proposed state to 'declare' it? Israel certainly took that path. By its very nature such declarations are unilateral even the state is under the control of an occupying or colonial power.

It certainly cuts through a few pretences.

You said;
“Rules of war and the Hague Convention not withstanding, the House of Lords debated Samuel's appointment. As he was not recalled, his appointment was deemed legal. This decision is the only decision that has relevancy. “

The Hansard is readily available; http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/search/

However I can find little in the way of a debate on his appointment with the most concern being where his salary was to come from. Perhaps my searching skills have been found wanting.

House of Commons 21st June 1920

Captain W. BENN Are we to understand that the Mandate has already been settled for Palestine?

Mr. BONAR LAW No.

Captain BENN Then how can you appoint a Governor?

Mr. BONAR LAW You must take preliminary steps to set up a civil administration. I should have thought that that was desirable from every point of view.

Seems to have been the best of it. Happy to be corrected. Still worth a look, lots of other fascinating stuff.

Dear csteele,

As I have claimed ad nauseum before, the UN, or Arab League, or whatever, should decide the Palestinian state considering that the Palestinians can't/won't do so. The conditions tossed in about the "new" state would not have been viable. I suggest the Palestinians did this quite cynically, knowing it was not acceptable, thus dragging this out yet again.

Yet appearing ...

Many of the Palestinians seem to be benefiting quite a lot from the status quo.

A threat to their funding would undoubtedly result in a rapid and clean decision.

Perhaps, the Palestinians should have been presented with a time limit ...5 yrs, 50 years, 100 years, perhaps a 1000 years ... to decide a state. I can’t think of anywhere else where the idea of statehood has brought such a dragging of feet.

Am I to believe that you consider that the State of Israel should be dismantled? That’s not very nice ...

The fact that Samuel’s appointment was accepted at the level of the House of Lords legitimises it.

Should you feel the need to contest the legitimacy of his appointment, indeed, the entire issue - which did not alter the following course of events - I suppose you could mount a challenge. Is there a statute of limitations?

Three words “Hutt River State.”

Good luck!

Dear csteele,

Perhaps dismantling the entire colonial map imposed on the Middle East would go a long way to solving their problems. Colonial powers imposed artificial borders and states without due consideration to those who were forced to live within. Is there a legal basis to challenge these past injusticies? More people have been killed within Arab states, and between Arab states, than those killed in conflict with Israel.

Israel would still exist. Zionists were welcome ...

Sherif Hussein, the guaradian of the Islamic Holy Places in Arabia, and a leading Arab nationalist, welcomed Jews to their homeland.

"... we have seen Jews from foreign countries streaming to Palestine ... The cause of causes could not escape those who had a gift of deeper insight. They knew the country was for its original sons (abna 'ibilasliyin), for all their differences, a sacred and beloved homeland. The return of these exilse (jaliya) to their homeland will prove materially and spritually ... (Al-Qibla, March 23, 1918)

Emir Faisal believed the Zionist movement a companion to the Arab Nationalist movement.
Faisal confirmed this in a letter to Harvard law professor and future Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, on March 3, 1919.

"The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement ... We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home ... We are working together for a reformed and revised Near East and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is nationist and not imperialist. And their is room in Syria for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be a real success without the other."

This letter was written a day after Chaim Weizmann presented the Zionist case to the Paris conference.

Colonial interests poisoned the water. The Middle East would be very different today ...

#Danielle

You hit the nail on the head.

The Arab world - and indeed the world at large - needs lots of other "Feisals" and "Husseins" to speak out and break down the monolithic Arab rejectionist viewpoint that the Jews are not entitled to national self-determination.

This takes a lot of courage given the Jew-hatred being currently espoused throughout the Arab world and at the United Nations.

One Arab defiant enough to publicly express a different viewpoint is Commodore Al-Mulhim a retired Commodore of the Saudi navy. I would refer you to his article in Arab News (another big breakthrough) at:
http://www.arabnews.com/opinion/columns/article322715.ece

If you are aware of any similar articles then I would appreciate your directing me to them.

When we can read or hear of another 100 such articles or similar viewpoints from prominent Arabs - there might be hope that the Middle East will not continue to be the graveyard it was in the 20th century and has continued to be for the first 10 years of the 21st century.

Dear Danielle,

Sadly I haven't seen porcupines in Australia - I did see an echidna once in nature, which was beautiful, but it's a bit too big and too wild to keep as a pet. In Israel they live in yards, hiding in holes in the walls during the day and coming out to feed at night. They are so cute!

Even while most Arabs are good and accommodating people, there is something about them that makes them helpless against violent extremists from within who ruin it for all. I can see little hope after reading about the shocking murder of their Israeli/half-Arab best-friend (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/actor-director-and-activist-juliano-mer-khamis-gunned-down-in-jenin-1.354098). Juliano was killed for offending Islam because he conducted a theater-workshop where boys and girls acted together and even wore pig-masks while playing George Orwell's "Animal farm"! I am so sorry for the Arab silent-majority, but they will have to live behind a wall until they are able to control their extremists - despite the fact that most of them would indeed prefer to live under Israeli rule.

I agree with your criticism of Catholicism, but comparison with Judaism is difficult because Catholicism is a religion while Judaism is not. As David just correctly implied in his last post, Judaism is essentially a nation (or strictly-speaking an identity-group or a club, because the modern concept of "nation" did not exist prior to the French revolution and Judaism is much older), a nation which just happens to feature a so-called religion, specially designed for the purpose of holding that group together (which indeed it did successfully for thousands of years). True religions focus on God, but the primary focus of Judaism is on the above holding of the group together, while using the name of God in vain to reinforce that political agenda. Sadly, even Jesus, whom I admire, was only partially successful in detaching his Godly teachings from the prevalent Jewish culture.

Dear Yuyutsu,

It was very disturbing to read about the death of Juliano Mer-Khamis who seemed to be one of the 'peace makers' and I can understand your depression. However the story also told of the involvement in Juliano's theatre of Zakariya Zubeidi, the former military leader of the Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades. To me that was a sign of hope for the future despite the murder.

I also am a little wary when I read that “Mer-Khamis was shot five times by masked Palestinian militants” then further on we are informed by a witness that, "He was on his way to his car when a masked man stopped him, shot him and ran away."

Lone psychopaths are able to gun down prime ministers. Was this a solitary attacker or a group? Time will tell we hope.

Dear Danielle,

You said;

“Am I to believe that you consider that the State of Israel should be dismantled? That’s not very nice ...”

I was going to let it slide since I wasn't sure where it had come from but will address it.

The Holocaust was a defining moment in world history. It served to rip any sense of complacency about anti-Semitism from much of the world. It also, rightly I think, gave the Jewish people a 'free pass' on things that might have otherwise been challenged if done by any other group. The formation of Israel was one of those things.

Why?

As a lapsed Catholic I'm sure you understand guilt. As a cultural Christian I accept guilt for what happened to the Jewish people by Christian hands, not just in WW2 but through the ages.

That guilt also extends to the Palestinian people and native the Jews who lived in and prospered through much of North Africa, the Middle East and beyond. Zionism and the imposition of European Jewry has inflicted great damage to both their lives and their culture. They are made to suffer because of our trespasses.

The call of Zionism and tensions the actions of European Jews created throughout the region has served to strip great historical Jewish communities from the lands they were part of for so many generations.

I am also mindful of the sanctuary from European anti-Semitism so often offered by the Muslim rulers and people. Spain is the stand out example.

The danger for the State of Israel, rather than the Jewish people as a whole, is through their actions guilt felt toward the plight of Palestinians now outweighs that felt toward Israel in perhaps a majority of people.

My Christian fundamentalist father-in-law who has been such a long term supporter of Israel now acknowledges it is only the prescriptions of his faith that keep him there such is his disquiet.

I do not think Israel in its current form and attitudes will last forever, but rather than total disassembling shall we say it needs urgent reassembling.

Dear csteele

Do you blame Jews for wanting a homeland? You seem very cavalier to the constant persecution of Jews in Europe throughout history. Do you really believe that this would end?

More Jews were expelled from Arab states than the Palestinian experience. Not only were Jews expelled, but they were left with nothing but the clothes on their backs. All their properties, hospitals, schools, synagogues, private residences were appropriated by relative governments. No compensation.

Do you really believe that Palestinians have suffered at the hands of Israel, more so than they have inflicted upon themselves, and have experienced at the hands of other Islamic states?

Palestinians have only to accept the right of Israel to exist... Is this so wrong? Palestinians living in Palestinian territories have certainly benefitted from Israel. Many would prefer living under Israeli administration than Palestinian.

During the Palestinian civil war, more Palestinians were killed in the first ten months, than had been killed in conflicts with Israel. Indeed the understandable rush to leave Palestinian territory by businesses and individuals brought down a Fatwa forbidding immigration, except for study with assurance of return. Israeli Arabs have not felt the same compulsion to escape Israel ... if they felt their existence was so ghastly, they surely would have.

A British officer observed that if the state of Israel had ended up a wasteland, not unlike Palestinian areas, the Palestinians would not have been interested in the territory. This observsation was echoed by others.

Perhaps you believe that Israel is apartheid. Evidence does not bear this out. Israel is racially diverse. Arabs are in the Knesset, serve top ranks of the services, in the diplomatic corps, on the Supreme Court, are on university faculties, in the Cabinet.  ... Indeed, 20% of university students are Arab, which well represents the percentage of Arabs living in Israel. Arabs are in all walks of life ... Now describe the apartheid there. Perhaps you can demonstrate the same level of inclusion in other places in the world.

cont ...

Do you believe that Israel should not defend itself against attack? Importantly ... are the facts you obtain correct? The British have - they will tell one - the most ethical standards when combatting terrorism, in war, conflict etc. Compare these standards with Israel defending it’s own State. Look at NATO. But those already subject to confirmation bias, will only believe the false claims about Israel; claims without basis in fact.

I do not know from where you obtain your evidence as to the Palestinian experience. But given the false reporting by the media, especially from Britain, and the fact that Wikipedia is an open source, subject to abuse, it would be well to verify facts from a number of sources.

One only has to read some of the OLO submissions here to see incomprehensible malice, and the subversive lies promoted about Israel. Why?

When reporting about Israel, the august BBC disregards its own Editoral Guidelines as to accuracy in journalism. These guidelines are applied to every other situation, but not to Israel.
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=215402

Other British media blindly follow ; the yellow press indeeds rely upon its libel against Israel ... And European media emulates that coming out of Britain. Why the level of interest and constant barrage about Israel? Why the subversion of fact?

Anti-Israel movements in universities have formed in Britain and Europe. So rabid are many groups, that scholars are refused to debate Israel’s position. Only anti-Israel speakers are given voice. How can this be justified? Why is Israel singled out? The only evident reason is that Israel is a Jewish homeland. Anti-semitism (albeit dressed up in new clothes) dear csteele, is alive and well.