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!