Singer says that the PLO says
"Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit."

Unfortunately - notwithstanding the information Singer presents about the boundaries of the League of Nations mandate - this seems quite ambiguous.

For the British treated "Palestine" (west of the Jordan) separately from the territory east of the Jordan (TransJordan), from, I understand, fairly early during the period of the mandate. I don't know much about how these two names were used in practice - but I do know this, that in the Times World Atlas, in a version published between the two World Wars, clearly identifies "Palestine" as being west of the Jordan and "Transjordan" as being east of the Jordan.

Palestine is the land south of the Lebanon, west of the Jordan River and northeast of Egypt.
The world knows this.
Zionism has split this land into a very unequal two, (currently 22% and 78%), and they chase commas to legitimise their acts.
When necessary, they invent new ones - anything to keep it off the table.
They want it all, but how to justify the necessary ethnic cleansing needed to achieve this, not cede power to the majority and still front the world speaking words like 'equality' and 'human rights'?
Someday equilibrium will return in the form of one state, a fully honored law of return and a democratic government elected by universal suffrage with "one man, one vote".

Further to my argument, current 2011 population figures show there are about 5.8 million Jewish Israelis and 5.5 million Palestinians. This latter figure includes 1.4 million Palestinian Israelis and 4.1 million Palestinians.
Both groups are now said to descend from the the same ethnic stock of Biblical Jews, s0 that's 11 million people from one ethnic stock pulled roughly into two halves for no particular good reason.
The world really does need this deadly bickering to stop now.
If the Palestinians could hold off on claiming sovereignty over 22%, they will eventually have a shot at equal rights in 100%.
If the Israelis could get over Zionism, they would realise that they are not the only inhabitants/owners of Palestine.
If only...

Still so little support here Mr Singer.

In today’s article, Mr. Singer has used yet another organisation, ‘CAMERA’ as his source of reliable statistics and comment. At least he is not quoting from the Israeli Propaganda Manual or the well-used Mossad Handbook.

But almost just as bad.

On its official website, CAMERA describes itself as "a media-monitoring, research and membership organization devoted to promoting accurate and balanced coverage of Israel and the Middle East" which "fosters rigorous reporting, while educating news consumers about Middle East issues and the role of the media." CAMERA further describes itself as a "non-partisan organization" which "takes no position with regard to American or Israeli political issues or with regard to ultimate solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict. CAMERA lists 46 news outlets which it says have issued corrections based on their work. The organization also publishes monographs about topics relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs website says CAMERA has 55,000 paying members and thousands of active letter writers.

Really? In what part of Tel Aviv do they all live?

CAMERA is a member of the Israel Campus Roundtable, therefore decidedly impartial, which includes the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Israeli Fifth Column in the US; the Anti-Defamation League run by Abraham Foxman, a bigoted Jewish watchman for anything that dares show Israel in its true light; The David Project Center for Jewish Leadership, and other pro-Israel organizations.

Surprised, anyone?

As a member of this Campus Roundtable, CAMERA operates on college campuses to combat what it perceives as "propagandistic assaults on Israel, and yes, the incentive for undergraduates willing to write articles and organize pro-Israel events on campus includes compensation (that’s money) and propaganda training in Israel.

Sounds like fun.

But what a sham. And the average poor unsuspecting American doesn’t even realise what is going on.

Australians can see that such a reliable source of information would make anyone (even the slightest bit interested, that is), feel safe in accepting this source as totally unbiased comment. Something akin to reading the New York Times or any Murdoch publication

Hans Christian Andersen is still with us.

#Jeremy

Article 2 of the PLO Covenant correctly defines where the boundaries of Palestine were located.

The Resolution of the Palestinian National Council referred to in my article confirms it.

Yasser Arafat said on June 25, 1987 in The New York Review of Books

"Jordan and Palestine until 1945 were one state, actually...Before that [Jordan] was an emirate .. completely part of Palestine.

Jordan's King Abdullah 1 and King Hussein also stated this geographical reality.

Jordan remained part of Palestine until its independence in March 1946. Jews were forbidden to settle there from September 1922. The PLO still claim this territory.

Abbas's 78/22% formula completely contradicts his own PLO Charter and these other Arab spokesmen.

I can give you many more such Arab statements.

#To halduell

You continue the Abbas deceit repeating his 78/22 formula. It is pure propaganda. See the above reply to Jeremy.

Israel comprises only 17% of former Palestine - not 78%.

The rest of your post is unsubstantiated drivel and has nothing to do with my article.

# To rexw

It is a pleasure to see you shooting another messenger - CAMERA - not me for a change - but as usual ignoring the message - namely that the boundaries of historic Palestine comprise what is today called Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan.

CAMERA was only substantiating what the PLO Charter and the other Arab sources referred to above in my reply to Jeremy have stated.

Had you said you were unaware of these facts and had been duped by something you previously believed - then you could be excused for your ignorance. When you stubbornly try to maintain a myth in the face of fact your actions take on an entirely different - and sinister - character.

This conflict can only be resolved by the parties first accepting basic facts - not proceeding on the basis of duplicity and irrationality.