Yes, the Theatre of the Absurd’ is alive and well so it seems and living in Sydney, directed by an ‘Australian Lawyer’, the very person alluded to yesterday when discussing the need for an oath of allegiance for all such people in Australia as now being demanded of Palestinian people by the Israeli government of ill repute. This ‘local’ organisation, name probably taken from the back of a Corn Flakes packet, has the fanciful title “Foundation Member of the International Analyst Network and Convenor of Jordan is Palestine International”. Just another front for Israel with a membership of one, an “Australian Lawyer”.

It must have been somewhat galling to Israel to see the regard shown to Palestine at the United Nations last week, regard for which Israel has always aspired but has never achieved and never will as its place as the pariah state in the world grows daily. Why even this week, Israel has shown its contempt for the world body by announcing further building programs on Palestinian land after having probably murdered the occupants and/or bulldozed their homes.

The US, per courtesy of the Jewish fellow-traveller, Clinton, did put on her rehearsed irate face and stated that such an action was “unhelpful”. Really?

Strong words from Israel’s little helper

All arranged beforehand with Netanyahu during his failed attempt to bribe, threaten and cajole other nations into conforming to their wishes to give the Palestinian matter the thumbs down. Why Clinton would bother is hard to understand as Obama, in his sycophantic responses to Israel last week, made if perfectly clear that honesty and justice were not part of America’s agenda any more, now totally isolated from any further involvement in that part of the world.

And rightly so.

How times change. Israel was quite content to arrogantly ignore more UN Resolutions than any other country in the history of this world body while spending the rest of the time acting like a frightened child hiding behind the skirts of the US veto in the Security Council as it continued its apartheid policies.

What a disgraceful state.

Rexw, very well put. The pathetic Zionist apologist rears his head once again.

David

Mr Singer questions Palestine's 'territorial boundaries'. Could he please advise which territorial boundaries Israel had on entry to the United Nations and which territorial boundaries it has now?

Don't forget to include the "Occupied Territories"

David

So little support here Mr Singer.

Why not? You ask.

Well we all understand fairness and decency.

This article is absurd.

Shannah tova David Singer

Sorry, obviously clocked prematurely.

Shannah tova David Singer.

A suggestion for a new year's resolution.

Stop already with these ridiculous articles.

Even funnier when they are biting 'the hand that feeds', the US Congress managed to agree on something (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/when-the-moderates-wither-1.387574).

Another couple of billion dollars worth of savings per annum toward their trillion dollar target over a decade I'd suspect.

That is what happens when you try and build a State which has 0 exports and no GDP and is wholly reliant upon foreign aid.

#To rexw, VK3 AUU,stan1,imajulianutter,TrashmanCan and stevenlmeyer:

As usual I am subjected to a barrage of personal abuse and generalized rejection of my article without any attempt by any of you to detail where any of my facts are wrong or my analysis is considered to be in error.

If you are prepared to state your specific objections to anything I have written or the conclusions I have drawn - then feel free to do so.

Shooting the messenger is a poor substitute and indicates the paucity of your thinking.

I do not intend to be diverted from this position by being sidetracked on matters which are not the subject of my article.

Mr Singer, UNGA Resolution 181 (1947) was accepted by the State of Israel in 1948. It was accepted by the Chair of the PLA/PLO in 1990. That is important as it precludes the right of any Arab person not resident in the Jewish State (or Jewish person not resident in the Arab State) to choose to live in the other. That precludes the oft suggested 'right of return'.

As for the rest, they can declare their borders as they see fit. They have neither the military capacity or the will to hold anything other than what they have been given to date. However, as Hamas is 'part' of the overall Administration and refuses to cease the ongoing conflict, they are a hostile State, so all aid can and should be severed and the blockade enforced until such time as they see sense.

Hamas has 2 major problems if this goes ahead (a) the subterranean aquifer that provides the only water supply for the Gaza strip was extensively damaged in 'Cast Lead' and is only being propped up by wastewater treatment plants pumping water into the same and (b) the fact that as a 'de jure' Government, actions by non-State actors would see the legitimation of the destruction of infrastructure, roads, bridges, water treatment plants, etc. as seen in 2006 in Lebanon.

But by all means, let them have Statehood, why they didn't accept it in 1948 (or at any time since) is beyond me. We are entering severe economic times, failed States that rely upon aid are in all sorts, maybe they'll be forced to actually govern.

David

Your use of words such as barrage, abuse and shooting in response to a written criticism of lacking decency and fairness may be a case of freudian slippage.

Regardless nobody here seems to support your conclusions and really I can't see the point in debating you as you just mouth off the same old repewtitive propoaganda.

David Singer wrote:

>>If you are prepared to state your specific objections to anything I have written or the conclusions I have drawn - then feel free to do so.>>

Yep,

I'd like to do just that. But I would prefer to do so privately.

Graham,

I hereby give you permission to pass my email address on to David Singer should he request it.

David,

send me an email and I'll respond.

Till then again shannah tova.

"As usual I am subjected to a barrage of personal abuse and generalized rejection of my article without any attempt by any of you to detail where any of my facts are wrong or my analysis is considered to be in error.

If you are prepared to state your specific objections to anything I have written or the conclusions I have drawn - then feel free to do so."

Well David I did not think that my comment fitted into these categories so I will repeat it and maybe you could supply an answer.

"Mr Singer questions Palestine's 'territorial boundaries'. Could he please advise which territorial boundaries Israel had on entry to the United Nations and which territorial boundaries it has now?

#To stevenlmeyer

I would prefer that you post your criticisms on line so that they can then be shared with everyone and responded to in the same vein.

#To stan1

You state:

"Mr Singer questions Palestine's 'territorial boundaries'. Could he please advise which territorial boundaries Israel had on entry to the United Nations and which territorial boundaries it has now?"

I did not question Palestine's territorial boundaries.

What I did say was:

"The application does not specify the territorial boundaries of Palestine and thus would preclude any action by the UN against such a member - should the provisions of the UN Charter be breached by it in the future."

Your query on Israel's boundaries is unrelated to the subject matter of my article and in accordance with my previously expressed view I do not intend to deal with issues that fall outside my article.

Chicken

#To VK3 AUU

A typical response to be expected from one who chickens out at putting his name to what he writes.

David, the question posed by Stan1 was quite germaine to the subject under discussion, so why are you trying to duck and weave. My nom de plume of VK3AUU is uniquely mine. Look it up in Google, if you wish to find out who I really am.

David

David Singer wrote:

>>#To stevenlmeyer

I would prefer that you post your criticisms on line so that they can then be shared with everyone and responded to in the same vein.>>

I regret that I must decline to accommodate your preference. My offer to communicate in private stands.

However in case you would prefer to communicate by phone I hereby give Graham permission to pass on my mobile phone number.

'Your query on Israel's boundaries is unrelated to the subject matter of my article and in accordance with my previously expressed view I do not intend to deal with issues that fall outside my article.'

Of course since Israel doesn't accept a state of Palestine it hasn't borders with it, has it David?

Of course you won't discuss borders, or settlements either. We'd all, including you David, have to be daft to expect any rabid zionist to be reasonsble in a discussion on those topics. And you know that too. Don't you David?

#To imajulianutter

You really chose a great pseudonym - you are indeed a nutter spouting the following gratuitous falsehood:

"Of course since Israel doesn't accept a state of Palestine it hasn't borders with it,has it David?"

Israel made two offers to the Palestinian Authority in 2000/1 and 2008 that were rejected. Both would have given the Palestinian Arabs a state in more than 90% of the West Bank and Gaza with a capital in East Jerusalem. These offers were rejected because the Arabs wanted 100% - which they are perfectly entitled to demand. But they must accept the consequences of their negotiating stance and have no one to blame but themselves for what happens as a result.

The Palestinian Arabs have a history of rejecting their own State - in 1937, 1947, between 1948-1967 - when not one Jew lived in the West Bank, East Jerusalem or Gaza and these areas were occupied by Jordan and Egypt.

They too were nutters in missing these opportunities to achieve statehood.

Approaching the UN now is another instance of letting slip an opportunity to do a deal with Israel. That is their choice and again they will have to live with the consequences.

I hope you made your absurd statement from pure ignorance and not deliberately by design intended to deceive and mislead.

#To stevenlmeyer

Sorry but my decision stands. If you have any criticism of my article or its conclusions then post them on the OLO site and I will endeavour to answer them.

David Singer wrote:

>>#To stevenlmeyer

Sorry but my decision stands. If you have any criticism of my article or its conclusions then post them on the OLO site and I will endeavour to answer them.>>

My critique is not directed at any specific article so much as to your general approach. However I am unwilling to spell this out in a public forum.

So I guess we are destined not to have a discussion.

David,

If you say you accept the existance of a state and then go about setting up illegal settlements then you are self deceptive and absurd in expecting rational people to believe your rhetoric.

In my world actions speak volumes. In yours it seems land theft sanctioned by Israeli courts and lies matter most.

ps Your intrepretation of my nick name speaks volumes, about your blinkered comprehension and authoritie attitudes.

#To imajulianutter

You state:

"If you say you accept the existance of a state and then go about setting up illegal settlements then you are self deceptive and absurd in expecting rational people to believe your rhetoric."

The settlements are not illegal. Jews have the right to settle in the West Bank under article 6 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Jews in fact lived in the West Bank prior to 1948 pursuant to such vested legal rights before being driven out and dispossessed by the invading Jordanian army.

imajulianutter

Previously you have been provided chapter and verse with evidence of the legality of settlements on the West Bank, ... and indeed the legality of Israel's “occupation” of the West Bank to secure its safety. Under UN Security Council Resolution 24 israel is entitled to land for defensible borders

Indeed, Israel’s presence cannot be legitimately called an occupation. The term “occupation” refers to foreign troops on soverign territory (which the West Bank is not), such as the German occupation of countries during WWII.

Since Oslo, Israel has transferred virtually all civilian authority to the Palestinian Authority, retaining only power to ensure its own security and that of its citizens. You can’t object to that.

If you are unable to absorb and verify facts, given their provenance, then perhaps it is better if you do not enter this debate, as it is an utter waste of time for all concerned.

It appears increasingly difficult to engage in any legitimate debate about Israel as the level of knowledge about Israel, of international law, relative UN Security Council resolutions, and understanding of basic terminology, sinks to a deplorable level in direct proportion the loudest screeches.

So many comments, so much ignorance.

A common trait of the proponents of anti-Israel bile is that they do not like facts or history but hide behind personal attacks and misinformation from'reliable sources'. Take the time to read some history with an open mind and you will see that it is not Israel that prolongs this conflict but the Palestinian leadership which seeks Israel's destruction.

See David there is your disinformation and your usual nasty imputations at work.

I've never said Jewish people cannot live in the West Bank.

I am not anti-semetic as is imputed in your nasty small minded statements.

I object to the state of Israel dispossesing the Palestinian inhabitants of their homes, demolishing them and then building enclaves an the stolen lands.

And that is the issue you aviod facing and answering decently.

Shouldn't the land have at least been bought? And if you think former disposession is a reason for re-instatement then I might point out to you a few issues about a certain 'right of return'. doh. Do you feel a bit silly right now?

I see as usual you've called up the reinforcements. As usual a typical attempt to bully people whose opinions directly challenge the zionist grand design

Danielle,

Just the usual weasel words. Now explain the wall, the checkpoints, the harassment and the efforts to prevent a future Palestinian nation from having an army?

Malcolmpb,

Are you for real? Nobody with any brain believes that propaganda anymore. The belief the Palestinians deserve a homeland is much stronger since that disgraceful attack you blokes launched, and failed at, in Southern Lebanon. The world looked for a the perpretrator then and saw Israel. Since then you've lost the propaganda battle. The Palestinians are gaining more and more sympathy world-wide and will gain their state ... at pre '67 borders.

That's reasonable, fair and decent. Your position isn't. The world is no longer as it was but you blokes keep hanging onto the past and are too stubborn to see the changes.

It is written in the bible. The Jews are God's chosen people. It is God's will that they should do what they will in Israel. (Who am I kidding?) We can't argue with that and it is a pointless exercise to try. The fact that they are all brothers under Abraham seems to have not softened their hearts.

David

majulianutter

Not through international conventions, nor major UN resolutions, nor through relevant agreements between the parties, do the Palestinian refugees have a right to return to Israel.

In fact, 'right of return" was suggested as a move towards reconcilliation, and included equally 'right of return' for Jews to Arab states.

‘Right of return' has no international precedent, nor recognition, anywhere.

A Palestinian army? Remember the Palestinian war. They managed to kill more of each other in the first ten months, than had been in conflicts with Israel.

As for the fence, there are fences and more fences, and with checkpoints, worldwide, dividing groups. This is recognised as a legitimate means to secure safety. I have personally gone through many armed checkpoints elsewhere, I've also had to carry ID with me at all times. All rational people accepted this as a necessary means of security.

The Israeli fence has saved many lives.

I suggest that before you rush into print repeating 'catch phrases' and uninformed facts, that you actually do some indepth research - there is sufficient available - so that you can actually contribute something of value. Currently you are making yourself look ridiculous.

VK3AUU and your bretheren Stan1, Rhys Stanely et al.

One can only assume that you and James Saleam do lunch.

Those who have read the following, would find that you et al tick all the boxes. However, I am sure you find my observation flattering.

"Anti-Semite and Jew: An Exploration of the Etiology of Hate" by Jean-Paul Sartre

Hi Danielle

My only contribution to this string has been to ask Mr Singer to comment on 'national boundaries' which he referred to in his article.

This somehow associates me with James Saleam who is apparently a far-right activist. Dear me, that's a big jump.

I haven't read the book you refer to Danielle. I am currently reading 'The Invention of the Jewish People' by Shlomo Sand, which if you have not read, I thoroughly recommend. It's about nationalism and racism and demonstrates convincingly that the stream of East European Jews taking over Palestinian land and homes have no basis of claim on the country.

Stan1,

Your convulsive contributions to any discussion about Israel are well known.

'The Invention of the Jewish People' by Shlomo Sand was on the best-seller list in Israel.

Shlomo Sand's book has a stated political agenda, it is not a pure history. His agenda is not to expel all Jews from Israel, nor to abolish the Jewish state. Sand’s goal is preserve Israel as a democracy with a Jewish character based on a Jewish majority.

The fact that such questions can be discussed about Israel, in Israel itself, demonstrates that whilst occasionaly flawed, like every democracy, it is a true democracy.

Danielle

I agree with all that - except not too sure about the convulsions!

Danielle

Perhaps you'd like fo comment on this statement

'Jews in fact lived in the West Bank prior to 1948 pursuant to such vested legal rights before being driven out and dispossessed by the invading Jordanian army.'

and it's accompanying imputation that it justifies land stealing by Israel and the resettlement of Jews in the occupied territories.

Surely you'll duck for cover or mouth off the usual Israeli propaganda ... as you do.

Fewer and fewer people can understand the Israeli heavy handed treatment of people whose land they illegally occupy and steal.

Everything else is just weasel words.

imajulianutter

Settlements are built and serviced by Palestinians. Do your research ...

Read

Sunday, 25 September 2011 7:27:14 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12658&page=0#218664

Wednesday, 28 September 2011 8:30:47 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12658&page=0#218854

With terms like ‘weasel words’ and the pre-pubescent ‘doh’ ... and apparently no ability for even basic research ... what can one really say ...

'Undoubtedly the occupation is onerus,...'

Well well the perfect example of weasel words.

Your argument that because Palestinians had to fight in Israeli courts to be paid for their labour in building Israeli controlled compounds on stolen Palestinian land some how assigns responsibility to Palestinians for the illegal activity is fairly typical of you propagandists and your weasel word type arguments.

Thanks for allowing me to ridicule your position.

You Israeli propagandists are always this easy. You tie yourselves up in stupid little arguments that undermine your Government's disgraceful policy of land theft.

Danielle

I almost forgot.

I was right when I said:

"Perhaps you'd like fo comment on this statement

'Jews in fact lived in the West Bank prior to 1948 pursuant to such vested legal rights before being driven out and dispossessed by the invading Jordanian army.'

and it's accompanying imputation that it justifies land stealing by Israel and the resettlement of Jews in the occupied territories.

Surely you'll duck for cover or mouth off the usual Israeli propaganda ... as you do."

#To imajulianutter

You ask Danielle:

"Perhaps you'd like to comment on this statement

'Jews in fact lived in the West Bank prior to 1948 pursuant to such vested legal rights before being driven out and dispossessed by the invading Jordanian army.'

and it's accompanying imputation that it justifies land stealing by Israel and the resettlement of Jews in the occupied territories."

Why ask Danielle - and not me - to comment on what I wrote? Why put imputations into my words that are not there?

My point was that Jews were living in the West Bank prior to 1948 pursuant to the rights granted to them in accordance with the provisions of the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter - a fact that is never mentioned when considering the competing claims for sovereignty that are made by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority in relation to the West Bank.

Arab propaganda would have you believe that the Jews only arrived to live in the West Bank after 1967. That is wrong. They lived there before being driven out in 1948 by the Jordanian Army.

Do you agree?

Tell me David do you think any Israeli's driven out of the West Bank by the Jordanians constitute a reasonable defence for building illegal settlements?

Don't give me any spiels just an hoinest answer.

I'd bet a church aganist a pile of money you don't answer without propagandising.

David has provided evidence that settlements on the West Bank are legal (see above) - you really need to retain facts. There was never the expectation nor condition that this area be Judenfrei.

Provide evidence that a) this area was intended to be Judenfrei, also evidence b) of settlements built on private Palestinian lands.

The Arab world is effectively Judenfrei - Jews having been violently expelled. Now you wish the West Bank also to be Judenfrei. This puts you on a dangerous collision ...

Whilst you a free with the name-calling, those of reasonable mind notice that you never provide evidence for any claims you make. This is not debate. As stated previously, you waste everyone's time, including your own. Unless you are prepared to provide evidence, not propogandist slogans, then it is absolutely pointless responding to you. Others may wish to, but I won't.

Danielle

You might think in terms of Jewish and Arab, which is disgracefully discriminatory. I think in terms of Israeli and Palestinian.

You need to take a long hard look at the racial overtones contained in your language and arguments. Currently you are racist.

I won't address your racial arguments but let them simply define you.

David

'do you think any Israeli's driven out of the West Bank by the Jordanians constitute a reasonable defence for building illegal settlements?'

Do you wish to align yourself to Danielle's racist views?

Why don't you answer my direct questions?

#To imajulianutter

I am convinced you are an utter nutter.

How many times do I have to repeat that Jews have the legal right to live in the West Bank pursuant to article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Are you capable of digesting this one sentence?

You further state to Danielle:

"You might think in terms of Jewish and Arab, which is disgracefully discriminatory. I think in terms of Israeli and Palestinian."

You are apparently the victim of Arab propaganda that has successfully brainwashed so many into believing this is not a conflict between Jews and Arabs.

Think again.

The territorial disposition of the conquered Ottoman Empire after World War 1 resulted in 99.999% going to the Arabs and 0.001% going to the Jews to reconstitute the Jewish National Home. This has never been - and probably never will be - accepted by the Arabs if the history of the last 91 years is any guide.

The history of Palestine did not begin in 1948. Just go back to 1920 and see what happened from then on - if you think it is unrealistic to go back to the Bible and the Roman conquest of Eretz Yisrael.

You are perfectly entitled to swallow whatever you like hook line and sinker.

Just don't propagate misinformation and make claims that you never substantiate

David Singer,

Did you know that Deborah Lipstadt, arguably the world’s foremost authority on Holocaust denial, refuses to debate Holocaust deniers?

To the incredulity of TV producers she has turned down numerous invitations to debate Holocaust deniers on national TV.

In chapter one of her landmark book, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory*, Ms Lipstadt explains why.

May I suggest you read her explanation and contemplate it in connection with your own activities on this forum?

* http://www.amazon.com/Denying-Holocaust-Growing-Assault-Memory/dp/0452272742/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318121080&sr=1-1

#To stevenlmeyer

Re your comment on Deborah Lipstadt:

"May I suggest you read her explanation and contemplate it in connection with your own activities on this forum?"

You are really no better than the utter nutter.

Why don't you just state the explanation Deborah Lipstadt gives - why employ innuendo and not just simply state what she says - and then tell us why it has relevance to my activities on this forum that seem to be of such concern to you?

Then we can discuss it.

David Singer wrote:

>>Why don't you just state the explanation Deborah Lipstadt gives…>>

I provided you with a link. Just use Amazon’s “look inside” facility. Lipstadt’s explanation is right at the start of chapter one as stated.

In any case, I would have expected you to be familiar with Lipstatdt’s book and work. In fact I’m astounded that you aren’t.

>>Then we can discuss it [your activities on this forum].>>

As I’ve explained David, I am prepared to discuss these issues with you PRIVATELY.

You have a means of contacting me.

The offer still stands.

If you choose to reject the offer we are destined not to have the discussion.

Another book you may wish to read is:

The Wicked Son: Anti-Semitism, Self-hatred, and the Jews (Jewish Encounters) by David Mamet.

See:

http://www.amazon.com/Wicked-Son-Anti-Semitism-Self-hatred-Encounters/dp/0805211578/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318128685&sr=1-10

And, no, I cannot summarise a closely argued book for you in 350 words or less. Nor would I do so on this forum even if I could. So you’ll just have to get the book yourself if you’re interested.

To stevenlmeyer

Generalisation, generalisation,generalisation ....

If you think Deborah Lipstadt has a reason that convinces you to make the comment you did - then state that reason or conclusion.

Better still quote what she says that impresses you.

You obviously know where it is in Chapter 1. Just copy and paste the actual comment. Is that so hard to do

David Singer

The relevant passages are right at the start of chapter one.

I cannot cut and paste as you suggest. Maybe someone more computer literate than me could figure out a way of cutting and pasting these passages from an embedded PDF but I couldn't.

I also suspect that Lipstadt's explanation would run to > 350 words.

You now know how to find the relevant passages. If you, or anyone else, wants to read Lipstadt's explanation as to why she never debates Holocaust deniers you are free to do so.

BTW I never respond to ad hominem attacks. I feel that once someone resorts to such tactics the weakness of their case is self-evident. If you want to characterise me as an "utter nutter" feel free.

My offer of a private discussion still stands.

David

I always smile when I see people sink to personal abuse. It simply means they cannot counter the opinions of the abused.

Why can't you accept I agree Jewish people are legally entitled to live on the west bank? That you keep on repeating that statement in the hope it will show me as anti-semitic is not uniquely nuts. Gobbels used similar tecniques

Why are you are still trying to suggest it is Jewish people who are building the illegal west bank settlements on stolen (Unpaid for) land when in fact they are being constructed under the direction and control of the occupying Israeli military regime.

Now unless you want to claim that Israel is purely a Jewish state for only Jewish people, your statement is disingenuous.

I find it really very very funny that you think I'm utterly nuts yet you show you feel you have to justify, to me, the inane positions you propagandise.

Who is nuttier?

"David

'do you think any Israeli's driven out of the West Bank by the Jordanians constitute a reasonable defence for building illegal settlements?'

Do you wish to align yourself to Danielle's racist views?

Why don't you answer my direct questions?"

Again why don't you answer my direct questions?

They are not too difficult or incomprehensible you know. Too many other people in the world are asking the same or similar questions and are rejecting your irrelevant propagandised Israeli responses.