"As a result, 8000 Israeli citizens were forced to evacuate their homes and businesses established in Gaza over the preceding 38 years."

One might well ask, "Why were they there in the first place, when Gaza wasn't part of Israel?"

David

#VK3AUU

Gaza wasn't part of any country. It was no - man's land under the sovereign control of no -one. Jews were entitled to settle there under Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter.

Funny thing is the position is still the same in international law.

Hamas has failed to declare independence and of course will not do so; It wants all of Israel.

Hamas wants all of Israel
Israel wants all of Palestine
Israel/Palestine
Palestine/Israel
The brothers are at it again
bickering bickering
Is there in the world today
a more intractable pair of whingers?

“But that will have to be Israel’s decision - not America’s. America’s view - now or later - regarding land swaps is irrelevant under the Bush Letter.”

Convenient cherry-picking by Mr. Singer

His country, Israel, has a worthless letter signed by historically the world’s worst head of state, ever, George Bush. To Zionists, this letter now becomes an authoritative document, set in concrete to wave aloft and respect like the Magna Carta

It is no Magna Carta, believe me and has as much value as a used tissue.

However according to Mr. Singer, on behalf of Israel, again, he now states that anything further will be Israel’s decision, not America’s.

How convenient for the likes of the Israelis. When it suits them, it is American dictates to which they parasitically cling but when it is something that doesn’t suit their long range apartheid plans, it is Israel who is to make the decision, again according to the Melbourne chapter.

Their arrogance is palpable

America, is not the land of the free, the home of the brave nor is it the greatest nation on earth or the superpower that they continually proclaim and certainly not the beacon of freedom, equality, and liberty to all and far from being the Promised Land.
Bush’s letter therefore is hardly worth the paper on which it is written. He was a blackmailed, small-minded bit player on a middle east stage, the kind of person that falls so easily into the Israeli trap. He was also stupid to boot, but dangerously so.

Everyone knows that the US has lost forever what little credibility if had in relation to this matter, with Mr. Rhetoric Obama mouthing all the words that make him appear to be strong and decisive but in reality is now nothing more than an insignificant pawn on that same middle east chess board.

And finally, they are not respected. The world will decide not American Jews and fellow-travellers..

#halduell

Incredible isn't it - especially when you consider the Arabs rejected what they say they want today Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem - and even more territory to boot in many cases - when in

1937 - they rejected the Peel Commission Recommendations

1948 - they rejected the UN Partition Plan

1950 - they voted to unify the West Bank and East Jerusalem with Jordan and did nothing from then until 1967 to establish an independent State there

2001 and 2008 - they rejected Israeli offers of more than 90% of the West Bank, 100% of Gaza and a capital in Jerusalem

In view of such intransigence and negativity one can only wonder at what drives other countries to continue to plead their cause and ignore the claims of other groups such as the Kurds, Basques and Tibetans.

My computer's free Farlex dictionary defines antisemitism as 'the intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people.' Note that is against Jewish people, not people of the Jewish faith.
Now, if it is true that Palestinians are the direct descendents of the Jews of Biblical times, then wouldn't it follow that Zionists are anti-Semites.

Mr Singer in common with many apologists for Israel persists in the selective quotations of UN resolutions and the wholesale rewriting of history. What he fails to address is often worse than the claims he makes.
Obama's speeches (Cairo, State Dept & AIPC) personify the duplicity and one-sidedness of US policy. Obama, like Mr Singer, fail to point out that Israeli settlment activity in the occupied territories is unlawful. Neither Obama nor Mr Singer discuss Israel's reliance on excessive lethal force, most recently last week in response to the Nabka demonstrations. Nor do they care to discuss Israel's blatant disregard for internaitonal law such as the continuing blockade of Gaza and the attack on the Freedom Floitilla in international waters.
Obama's speech referred to the borders of Israel and Palestine being based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps. This stance and that of Mr Singer represents a step back from the unanimous Security Council Resolution 242 that required the unconditional withdrawal of Israel armed froces from territory occupied in the 1967 conflict.
Leaving Jerusalem out of the negotiating process simply allows Israel to continue its unlawful processes of settlement expansion, ethnic cleansing, house demoliitons and withdrawal of residence permits.
Mr Singer also fails to address the question of the 4.7 million Palestinians registered with the UN as refugees, mostly in refugee camps or within the borders of those countries that adjoin Israel.
UNResolution 194 of 1948 said that those refugees wanting to return to their homes (from which they were forcibly evicted by the Israelis) should be permitted to do so at the earliest possible date.
Nor does Mr Singer address the situation of the 1.5 million Palestinians living as second class citizens within Israel. That issue alone among many makes a mockery of Israel's claim to be the Middle East's only democracy. (continued as separate post)

There is much more that could be said but space contraints do not permit it. Suffice perhaps to note that every year for the past 40+ years the UN General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly to require Israel to comply with its international obligations. In recent years only Israel, the US, the Marhsall Islands, Palau and (to its undying discredit) Australia have voted against the resolution. The World Court said much the same thing in 2004. Is the world out of step? Or is it Israel by its arrogant disregard for anything but its own warped interests that is the greatest danger to peace in the Middle East.

It's all over now David. You've lost.

The world has moved on from feeling guilty about the subjugation, dispossession and murderous ill-treartment of the Jews by the Nazis of Europe. You cannot rely on that theatrical device any longer. Now we are all starting to feel some guilt about the subjugation, dispossession and murderous ill-treartment of the Arab people of Palestine, by the Jews of Israel.

That was always going to happen because of the openness of our western liberal democracies which came to us through the egalitarianism of the Greeks (Something your apartheid promoting constitution rejects) and from our sense of justice, which came to us through Jesus Christ and particularly his Sermon on the Mount. (Something you've also rejected in favour of the traditional Jewish concepts of 'justice'.)

The Jews of Israel have little in common with us liberal democratic westerners. We've all woken up to the deceipt.

Obama isn't leading world opinion ... he's wisely following it.

Where is the plea for mutual respect and understanding? One of the most powerful messages that we hear over and over again from both sides is that neither side thinks the other cares about its rights, or worse - suffering. This makes reconciliation next to impossible.

Surely there must be a way for Israel to exist securely while allowing justice for the Palestinian people. A sustainable future for Israel and the Palestinians should be our central concern.

I can only hope that the US President Mr Obama can help achieve this
goal. Possibly ,he feels that it is time for a radical rethinking of the conflict. He deserves full support in this - not criticism or condemnation.

Once again, it is timely to remind Mr.Singer how the Zionists stole the land from the incumbent Palestinians. How they rounded up the men from the villages and transported them to other Middle eastern countries, some never to return until years later after their farms and houses had all been taken over by the Zionists. All this was done under the pretense that it was only going to be a temporary occupation.

No wonder they Jews have become the most hated group in the region.

David

In the past year David Singer has written around 20,000 words in 22 articles on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for OLO.

His aversion to the word ‘Palestinian’ is so pervasive he has personally included it less times over this entire period than President Obama did in the short speech that is the subject of this article.

The count for the President was 10.

I list below David Singer’s articles over the past 12 months from the most recent downwards. I have included the number of times the term ‘Palestinians’ was used by David in each article.

Palestine: Obama sinks America’s integrity and reputation 0

Palestine - bring Jordan back into the equation 0

The many hats of Abbas 0

Israel - a boycott without a buoy 2

Goldstone gazumped on Gaza 0

Obama - confronting the killing culture in Palestine 2

Palestine - intellectual ignorance insults Israel 2

Israel, the Arab World - the blessing and the curse 0

Egypt, Israel and Gaza - flashpoint for future confrontation 0

Palestine - no Jews, soon no Christians 0

Palestine: outing state-sponsored Jew-hatred 0

Palestine, UNESCO and Legal Realities 0

Mandela's Elders Malign Israel 0 (actually 2 but only to discredit the legitimacy of the term.)

Palestine - serious negotiations or spurious nonsense? 0

Palestine: Jew haters - like Koran burners - cannot be condoned 0

Palestine - one Arab, two States, three hats, no Jews 0

Confrontation or negotiation; intransigence or compromise? 0

Goodbye Palestinian Authority - welcome Jordan 0

Obama - dancing with the devil in the West Bank 0

Obama accelerates, Israel graduates, the West Bank separates 0

Obama clarifies stance on West Bank and Gaza 0

West Bank and Jerusalem Generate Jitters For Jordan 0

Why is a man with an almost pathological determination not to use the word ‘Palestinians’ allowed to continue contributing here?

To be fair I did slap him around about it last year and this year there has been some begrudging use but the last three articles have seen a return to the bad old ways.

It is so pleasing and gratifying to see the high level of intelligent and well-informed comment on these pages on this subject.

Well overdue.

The world has now digested as much anti-semitism nonsense as they ever will again and the orchestrated cultural efforts of the museums, exhibition centres and other sideshows are well past their use-by-date, fifty years past to be precise. No such theatre from Russian survivors of the Stalin actions, perhaps 6 times greater that all the Jews in total. They are respected for that restraint and admired for their stoicism and character.

Hard to find a better example of the use of am international event to blackmail a willing world, who initially joined with great sympathy for the act of persecution of gypsies, the mentally deranged, Jews, communists and other unsupported ethnic groups. But that was sixty six years ago. The world has changed. We need friendship not blackmail as the basis for existence in 2011, humanity not aparhteid, love not Zionist hatred and an expansion of good works, not starvation and cruelty.

Happily, for those of us who can count Jewish people among our friends, we have all seen the change from a capable and once likeable people to the hated Zionist. Never the twain shall meet. Ask the friendly Jews who can say they they are Australians through and through and who see their religion as their only Jewish connection, certainly not with the evil ways of Israel.

Certainly not the sayaniums like Mr. Singer and his ilk who use every opportunity to promote the destabilising rhetoric in influencing the likes of weak, malleable politicians like Gillard and others to promote their objectives, not in Australia's interestsfor one second, but for the long term goal of 'Eretz Israel', the generation of funds to enlarge such influence, the expansion by force, murder and cruelty to secure the lands of another nation.

The world will not tolerate it any more, thankfully.

Rhys and csteele,

yes I agree with you both and I think both of you and indeed Singer himself applaud our laws in regard to hate speech.

I think because of the constansy of Singer's negative messages about the Palestinians over the years it is about time he, his message and his methods were tested with a charge under those laws; a charge of hate speech towards Palestinians.

# rexw

You state:
"Bush’s letter therefore is hardly worth the paper on which it is written. He was a blackmailed, small-minded bit player on a middle east stage, the kind of person that falls so easily into the Israeli trap. He was also stupid to boot, but dangerously so."

My comment:
Your statement is utter rubbish. The Bush letter was endorsed by the House and the Senate on 23rd and 24th June 2004.

Were the overwhelming majority of their members (502 out of 513) endorsing the Bush Letter similarly blackmailed, small bit players and the kind of persons that fall so easily into the Israeli trap?

The Bush letter constitutes an American commitment which binds all subsequent Presidents and administrations. I believe Obama's cunning attempt to subvert this Bush commitment will not be swallowed by the House and the Senate. Otherwise America can wave goodbye to ever again having nations believe its international commitments and promises can be trusted.

#csteele

I am flattered that the best you can find to criticize my articles - during your apparently close monitoring of them over the last 12 months - is my failure to use the term "Palestinians".

I am not on my own.

The term "Palestinians" was not used:

1. during the 400 year rule of Palestine by the Ottoman Empire until it ended in 1918,
2, by the British and the French at the Peace Conference in Versailles in 1919, the Treaty of Sevres 1920 and the Treaty of Lausanne 1920
3. by the 52 states comprising the League of Nations in the document constituting the Mandate for Palestine unanimously endorsed by them in 1922.
4. By Britain during 1920-1948 when it was the Mandatory Authority in Palestine
5. By the United Nations in its recommendation for partition of Palestine in 1947 into a Jewish State and an Arab state.
6. In the census statistics where the population was divided into "Moslems","Christians" and "Jews"

The term "Palestinians" appears to have surfaced with the drafting of the PLO Charter in 1964. This document denies the validity of the Mandate and everything that flowed from it and calls for the eradication of the Jewish state. You apparently support that view when you adopt the language of the Charter. That is your entitlement. It is my entitlement to not become a parrot of such vicious and hate filled propaganda,

The more accurate term to employ is "Palestinian Arabs".

I don't have the time to go back over my old articles but perhaps you can count the number times I have used the term "Palestinian Arabs".

Readers are no doubt eagerly awaiting the results of your ongoing research. Happy counting

#To the rest of the contributors so far

I do not believe any of your comments takes issue with any of the facts or conclusions in my article. If I am wrong then please point out where you specifically disagree with what I have written in this article and I will reply.

In other words - concentrate on the message and not messenger.

Singer is correct. Only when the so called Palestinians realize that as inhabitants of a centuries long colonized land they have no more rights than the native inhabitants of pre 19th century Ireland, 20th century Americas, Africa or Australasia. Ottomans gave their total control to the Christian Euros and gave control to the Zionists.
The so called Palestinians have no right to question their ethnic cleansing. No right to water that their masters refuse to give them. No right to farm. No rights whatsoever.
One can tell Obama hates Israel because instead of providing the 5th Fleet to help the Israelis in their life and death defensive struggle against Gaza, he held back.
When the illegal invasion from Gaza was stopped by Israel instead of providing megatons of ordnance Israel needed, he merely replaced each cluster bomb, each White Phosphorus, each bullet and each bomb on a one for one basis. Instead of running antiterrorist assassination squads through the West Bank and Gaza he merely helps train the Israelis.

I'm glad to read David Singer's articles here, where thoughtless support for (let's call them, for now) the non-jewish residents of the land which the Romans called Palestine in 137ad - the palestinian Arabs, both Muslim (around 95%), Christian and some other, very small minorities (such as Samaritan).
Opinion polls done by palestinian groups, surveying palestinian people, show nearly 90% support for destroying Israel as a jewish state. This is not only behind the daily rocket attacks from liberated Gaza. It is also behind the demand that all those who claim to be refugees from the war the Muslim Arab countries started against Israel in 1948, and all their descendants, be allowed to return to their former place of residence.
Those claiming this right of return know that they now outnumber the jews who live in Israel, and they intend to use their majority status to change Israel from being a Jewish state into a Muslim state. If they were to succeed in doing so, you can hold your breath until the murders start. This is continually the sticking point of negotiations between the two groups, and successive palestinian negotiators know that if they agree to a Jewish Israel, and no (or very limited) return, they will themselves be murdered by their constituants.
There already is a palestinian state - it's called Jordan, formed on more than 50% of the British Mandate called Palestine. If there is to be another one, those who will make up its population need to agree that, having lost all the wars they've started with Israel, they don't have the right any more to determine the terms of the peace.

And Halduel, your knowledge of the history of the area is deficient. When the Muslim (some call then Beddouin) armies came through palestine in 634ad, they found a mostly Jewish, Christian and Pagan population. They killed about 1/3 of them in the wars to conquer the land. They took about 1/3 of them into slavery (back) to Arabia. And they put in place laws for the remaining population which were so severly discriminatory against non Muslims, that many converted to Islam over the 1400 years of Muslim rule. So a proportion of the Muslims wanting the destruction of Israel have Jewish ancestry, and would today be Jews if it were not for those discriminatory laws and practices. This is confirmed by the fact that there is a very rare blood disease, shared almost only by Israeli and palestinian men, because they share the same heritage.
They are cousins and brothers, but because Islam disdaines pre-Islamic history, and because most in the west know almost nothing about Islam and its history, almost no-one knows this. I'm not sure if it would help to change the mind of fanatics, but ordinary Jews and palestinian Arabs might be interested to learn it.

Dear Mr Singer,

By your argument Obama, by using the word 'Palestinians', has "become a parrot of such vicious and hate filled propaganda". 

That is so nonsensical that it just appears screwy. 

Are you screwy Mr Singer? Or is it unfair to ask that?

I posted your appalling statistics so that others can judge for themselves how much weight to put on your articles. They were not directed at you since we have trodden this road before and from memory you picked up your bat and ball and didn't want to play any more.

Dear camo,

More revisionism?

Here is a quote from Norm Cantor's book The Sacred Chain; "the greatest works of Jewish philosophy and theology produced in the Jewish diaspora since Alexandria in the first century A.D., and the most impressive corpus of Jewish poetry, some written in Arabic and some written in Hewbrew between the bible and the late nineteenth century, were the products of Muslim Spain."

And when the Jews were driven from that country one of the most welcoming rulers was the Ottoman sultan and a significant number of them "found comfortable refuge in Turkish domains".

#csteele

Again no response by you to challenge my message that the term "Palestinians" did not appear in the international lexicon until 1964.
Only another pathetic attempt to shoot the messenger.

The spectacular success of Arab propaganda since 1964 and its ability to influence one's thinking is not confined to ordinary persons such as yourself.It extends to people such as President Obama who would be well advised to use the term "Palestinian Arabs" - as would you.

Why do you continue to use the term "Palestinians" rather than "Palestinian Arabs"?

By the way - When are you going to let OLO readers know how many times I have used the term "Palestinian Arabs" in my articles over the last 12 months?

Hi csteele, are you suggesting that Jews weren't always persecuted by Muslims? Or that they were persecuted by Christians? Of course they were, by both, at various, and numerous, times.
From very early on, the Jews called themselves Priests, by which they meant they could read - very rare in ancient society, that most if not all people in a community could read. That's why they, along with early Christians (with less reason) were called "people of the book" by Roman authorities, a name which stuck even until the invention of Islam, which called them both by the same name (and confused their two histories). And, in fact, Muslim leaders found they could rely on Jews to give order to their empire, much moreso than other Muslims, because they were intelligent and well read, not just in their own scriptures but often in many ancient texts, in many languages. Muslim leaders also learnt that they provided convenient scapegoats when things went wrong, as they inevitably did, and so persecution of Jews was erratic in the Muslim empires, as it was in the Christian.
Islam is still actively, and institutionally, anti-semitic, whilst Chistianity has at least tied to deal with its anti-semitic past.

Dear David Singer,

You asked; "By the way - When are you going to let OLO readers know how many times I have used the term "Palestinian Arabs" in my articles over the last 12 months?"

I'm not. That is your job if you wish to counter the point I have made, with some success it would seem because it appears to quite effectively neuter further discussion on your articles which I kinda miss.

Dear Camo,

Middle Eastern Jews and Muslims lived in relative harmony until the European Jewery came and buggered things up. Not entirely their fault of course but nevertheless changed the lot of indigenous Jewery throughout the region.

To try an attempt to balance Muslim antisemeticism with Christian antisemeticism is in my opinion a grave insult to those who have suffered polgroms throughout the ages culminating in the Holocaust under Christian regimes.

#csteele

Would have expected you to readily co-operate about the number of times I have used the term "Palestinian Arabs" rather than "Palestinians" over the past twelve months bearing in mind that this information is apparently at your fingertips following your acknowledged close monitoring of my articles. We are not at war.That you refuse to do so indicates you are running away from an argument you started. Doesn't do your credibility any good.

One last request - How many times did I use the term "Palestinian Arabs" in my articles during the last 12 months?

Dear David Singer,

Since it is so important to you I will make you a deal. Even though I view your insistence on using the word 'Palestinian Arabs' a completely disingenuous attempt to change the language around the issue to suit a totally discredited agenda, I will do the homework but only if you withdraw unreservedly the assertion that the term Palestinains is "vicious and hate filled propaganda" since it is patently ridiculous.

Your call.

#Csteele

You have an unfortunate habit of twisting words.

Firstly this is what I actually wrote:

"The term "Palestinians" appears to have surfaced with the drafting of the PLO Charter in 1964. This document denies the validity of the Mandate and everything that flowed from it and calls for the eradication of the Jewish state. You apparently support that view when you adopt the language of the Charter. That is your entitlement. It is my entitlement to not become a parrot of such vicious and hate filled propaganda,"

I certainly do not withdraw these remarks. Indeed I affirm them loudly and clearly.

The term "Palestinians" is defined in Article 5 of the PLO Charter to mean:

"The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian. "

Yes - Jews are deliberately excluded when the term "Palestinians" is used. Jews have no place in Palestine according to the PLO Charter. I find this racist and offensive. Don't you?

Does this means you won't now do your homework and let OLO readers know how many times I have used the term "Palestinian Arabs" in the last twelve months?

Whilst I have your attention - do you believe that the Jews have any entitlement to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in former Palestine pursuant to the Treaty of Sevres, the Treaty of Lausannne and the Mandate for Palestine?

Just a "Yes" or "No" will do.

Csteele, I haven't compared the relative numbers of Jews killed by Christian regimes against those killed by Muslim regimes, although I do remember seeing analysis which probably did attempt that comparison. And I dare say most Westerners know much more of Christian history than Islamic - that's cetainly my experience. Yet to deny that Jews and Christians were second class citizens in Islamic-ruled empires is to deny well-known history. Google "dhimmi", it being the word Muslims used for Jews and Christians who came under their control. And just in case it isn't clear in the material you find, the contract - dhimmi - between Muslim rulers and their Jewish and Christian subjects was revocable at the whim of the Muslim ruler, and the murdering of (especially) Jews in Muslim-ruled lands could resume.

Dear camo,

To even have the slightest doubt about the history of the persecution of the Jewish people has been many times more devastating under Christian regimes compared to Islamic ones smacks of a type of denialism that is disturbing.

I mean even today Jewish representation in the Iranian parliament is mandated by law.

There is no comparison even before the Holocaust.

Dear David Singer,

It is not my homework rather it is yours and my offer to do it for you was conditional on your withdrawal of you inane comment. As this was not forthcoming my offer has expired.

Now I have asked you before to cut out that ‘lawyer’ crap of demanding yes or no answers. This isn’t a court so you need to pull your head in.

My position reflects that of the Mandate you flagged. I am “in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.

Do you believe the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities have been prejudiced by the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people? You may answer with more than a yes or no if you wish.

I believe the legitimacy of the Jewish homeland should be measured in direct proportion to the degree in which those civil and religious rights have been honoured.

To csteele

No

Dear David Singer,

Now this is where your ‘yes – no’ idiocy falls down. Are you saying ‘No’ to my request that you pull your head in or are you saying ‘No’ to my question, “Do you believe the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities have been prejudiced by the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people?”

I’m going to assume that it is the latter and if so it is evident that you live in a quite different reality to the rest of us and as such any arguments we put forward are going to appear totally, well, unreal. Perhaps the best thing is for us to accept your right to your reality and move on.

However would it be too much of an impost to ask you to refrain from trying to impose your reality on the rest of us? It has become a little wearing

To csteele

Censoring anyone's right to express their point of view has no place in Australia. I certainly don't intend to be silenced. If you don't like what I write - then don't read it and don't respond to it.

You keep entreating OLO to ban me. If you don't like the OLO policy don't visit the OLO site.

By the way - how many times did I use the term "Palestinian Arabs" in my published articles on OLO over the past twelve months? Going to pick up your ball and run away again?

Dear David Singer,

I am well aware that by continuing to post on this thread I am contributing to your response count and therefore the likelihood we will be blessed again by your pearls of wisdom.

Not that I mind that much as you have certainly been a revelation to me and I think quite a few others who had been lulled into the notion that extremism primarily lay with the other side.

As to your statement “Censoring anyone's right to express their point of view has no place in Australia.' do you then condemn the actions of Colin Rubenstein and Mark Leibler?

From Crikey by Greg Barns;

“The column by Mr Backman, “Israelis are living high on US Expense Account”, was published in last Saturday’s Age. Colin Rubenstein and Mark Leibler, two of the most zealous Israeli lobbyists in Australia went ballistic, hammered The Age’s editor Paul Ramage, and the result was a grovelling apology by the newspaper which said the column was published in “error”.”

Please note there is a difference between asking OLO to ban you and asking them to justify your continuing to be published. I was quite keen to hear their argument.

To tell you the truth I would probably rather you continued to post. Your attitudes explain a great deal about what the Palestinians face and it is better to see your views out in the open rather than presented only behind the closed doors of our politicians.

To csteele

Put your case to OLO and see if you can get a grovelling apology for publishing my articles.

By the way - how many times did I use the term "Palestinian Arabs" in my published articles on OLO over the past twelve months? Going to pick up your ball and run away again?

Concentrate on criticizing what I write (which you rarely do)rather than continue with your paranoid obsession to try and edit me out of existence. You will sleep easier.

Do you then condemn the actions of Colin Rubenstein and Mark Leibler?

To csteele

I don't condemn anyone's actions - including your obsessive desire to see me barred from the OLO site. Go for it mate. Oz is a free country.

Everyone is free to speak his mind and then justify his position if criticized. What the Age did and why they did it is none of my concern. Write to Crikey or the Age if you have a problem.

Again you show an interesting trait to ignore the content of my articles and set up some diversionary agenda of your own.

Grow up.

By the way - how many times did I use the term "Palestinian Arabs" in my published articles on OLO over the past twelve months? Going to pick up your ball and run away again?

Dear David Singer,

Lol!

Dear David Singer,

Okay I have now stopped laughing.

I have just been viewing via the BBC the slaughter of unarmed Syrians at the border with Israel. When the IDF finally decided to use more conventional means of dealing with protestors ie teargas, the situation was quickly managed. Up till that point they had been using live ammunition and the toll of dead and wounded is horrendous, unacceptable, and utterly shameful.

You stated in your article; "Obama’s position will be viewed by Israel and its supporters’ as a shift that does no honor to America and badly damages its reputation and integrity."

I say Israel's actions on this day will be viewed by the rest of the world including many Americans as doing no honor to Israel and badly damaging what is left of its reputation and integrity.

I am sickened.

I do not wish to play anymore at this time.

David and camo,

I would recommend that you ignore the usual suspects who rush to OLO whenever they see David's contribution. They have not stated to which benighted group they belong ... Unfortunately, pro-Palestinian groups, purportedly supporting the Palestinians, do great damage to their cause - not only be fabricating facts (easily identified) - but also tossing in "events", which actually throw into stark light Arab attrocities. The above usual contributors are either ill-informed, or deliberately malicious. Patently clear, they do not want to see peace between Israel and Palestinians. They do not wish to see a viable and healthy Palestinian state alongside Israel, but ongoing conflict and bloodshed. The question begs 'Why'?

As for csteele ...? I may be wrong, but I have a strong impression that csteele has no real interest in either Israel or the Palestinian cause. 'Indifferent' perhaps would be the word.
However, csteele likes the battle of crossing swords with David. One can almost hear the snort of the warhorse.

UN General Assembly Resolution 194, 11 Decmber 1948, addressed numerous issues, the aim of which was to facilitate truce in the region. Resolution 194 established a
conciliation commission, representatives being from the US, France and Turkey replacing the UN mediator.

The brief of the commission was the achievement of “a final settlement of all questions ... between governments and authorities concerned.”

Of the fifteen paragraphs, paragraph 11, the “refugee clause,” alone addressed the issue of refugees and compensation for property. This clause was neither a stand-along clause nor was it specific to Palestinian Arabs.

Over 800,000 Jews had been expelled under pain of death from Arab States, their properties, including all assets, residences, schools, hospitals etc. had been appropriated by Arab governmemts. These Jewish refugees were left with the clothes on their back.

The Resolution was directed at both Jewish and Arab refugees. How could it not be?

Importantly, Resolution 194 did not guarantee unconditional Right of Return.

Arab states - Egypt, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen voted against Resolution 194.

cont ...

UN Resolution 181: “Right of Return” to Israel does not exist. Anyone living outside the borders of Israel recognised by the Palestinian leadership - (recognised by Arrafat in 1993) - have no right of return.

International Law does not recognise Right of Return. There is no precedent, nor legal standing.

Right of Return is neither recognised nor implemented on the political level anywhere in the world.

Right of Return does not exist.

Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled against a Greek demand for a "right to return" to the Turkish part of Cyprus. The Court ruled that there is no such absolute right. (Demopoulos v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, France, Mar. 1, 2010.)

Inspite of voting against Resolution 194, (thus devoid of inherent logic) Arabs call for Right of Return; a euphenism for Israel's destruction. In an internal meeting, March 2009, Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas acknowledged that the repatriation of even one million Palestinian refugees "would mean the end of Israel." ( The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 24, 2011; see, also, Saeb Erekat, "The Returning Issue of Palestine's Refugees," The Guardian (London), Dec. 10, 2010.)

Resolution of the Israeli-Palestian conflict would be Palestinian recognition of Israel’s right to exist, the sincere hand of peace proferred to Israel, and the two state solution. Why is it so hard?

#csteele

Goodbye.

Sorry you still did not answer my frequently asked question to you:

"By the way - how many times did I use the term "Palestinian Arabs" in my published articles on OLO over the past twelve months? "

Maybe now you can give us the answer with a little more spare time on your hands.

#Danielle

You ask:

"Resolution of the Israeli-Palestian conflict would be Palestinian recognition of Israel’s right to exist, the sincere hand of peace proferred to Israel, and the two state solution. Why is it so hard?"

My response:

Because the Arabs have never wanted and will never accept a two state solution.

This solution was available to them to accept in
1. 1937
2. 1947
3. At anytime between 1948-1967 when the West Bank,Gaza and East Jerusalem was under total Arab occupation and control
4. In 2001
5. In 2008

The only solution they will accept is one in which Israel no longer exists as the national homeland of the Jewish people. They have made that abundantly clear as each of the opportunities given them above have been rejected.

Why the world continues to persist with the belief that the Palestinian Arabs - in the face of such intransigence and rejectionism - should be given a second Jew-free state in former Palestine (in addition to Jordan) - is a mystery.

Can you imagine the outrage and indignation that would occur if the Jews demanded a second Jewish state in the West Bank in addition to Israel?

How many bites of the cherry do you allow the Palestinian Arabs?

I am sure there are other groups like the Tibetans, the Kurds, the Basques and the Tamils that would welcome the international community pursuing national rights for them with the same intensity as they do for the Palestinian Arabs.

Continuing to do so for the Palestinian Arabs is regrettably a waste of time.

David,

When the British spoke of Palestinians they referred to Jews of the territory, not Arabs.

Arrafat himself declared that there was no such person as a Palestinian Arab; they were all Syrians.

csteele, interesting that you point to Iran to give an example of Muslim attitudes towards Jews - it was 10th century Persia which gave the world the yellow star of David, which Jews who lived in Persia had to wear, to make it easier for the authorities and populace to discriminate against them. This was the symbol the nazis chose when they wished to do the same.
And I haven't heard of Iran's Jewish members of parliament having any notable successes recently - any examples?
Jews are not even allowed to live in many Muslim-ruled countries - Jordan and Saudi Arabia spring to mind, and palestinian polls of palestinians consistently report that palestinians want no Jews in a (second) Muslim country for themselves. (And I agree with David's use and analysis of the term Palestinian.)