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.

If Mr. Singer, the 'Australian Lawyer' considers that things I have said have a sinister overtone, he really should proof read his own writings through Australian eyes, pontificating as he does for his own sinister government in Israel, as sinister (Oxford Dictionary...suggestive of evil, criminal, sinister motives, involving wickedness) and as devious a state in the history of inhumanity to man.

A pariah state.

Even in a Hebrew dictionary it has the same meaning but certainly able to be bespoke tailored on request to suit the requirements of Tel Aviv, of course.

Standard Zionist practice in whatever country one hangs one's shingle or wherever a sayanim places his jaundiced soapbox promoting sixty years of 'sinister' actions by an evil foreign state.

Not acceptable out here. Time for all people to decide to which country they owe their loyalty.

rexw,

You are challenged to cite where you obtain your information. Actual sources.

According to Dr Adel Safty, Former Head of UN Mission, Founder of the UNESCO Leadership Chair and President of the Global Leadership Forum, Singer's article

"is in fact a good illustration of how the author does what he accuses the Palestinians of doing: fixing the figures, fudging the facts. His whole argument is based on conveniently disregarding one simple but fundamental fact, namely that Great Britain, which received the Mandate for Palestine from the League of Nations in 1922, divided the Mandate territory, with the consent of the League of Nations, into Palestine, under direct British administrative rule; and Transjordan under the rule of the Hashemite family. Transjordan will achieve independence as today’s Jordan; the Palestine Mandate will end in May 1948, by which time the Zionists were in a position to announce the birth of the state of Israel.

The provisions of the 1917 Balfour Declaration promising help in establishing a Jewish home in Palestine were inserted in the Mandate for Palestine. The British restricted its application to mandated Palestine, and exempted Transjordan from the Jewish home project.
It is therefore factually correct to say that Israel is established on 78% of Palestine while the proposed Palestinian state will be restricted to the remaining 22% of Palestine.

The Zionists and their apologists in the West cannot accept the competency of Great Britain to promise the land of one people to another and to implement this fantastic project by perverting the very essence of the Mandate (“a sacred trust of civilization”) when such machinations benefit them, but reject the competency of the same Great Britain when it limits the application of the Balfour Declaration to Palestine."

#To Vacy

I am indeed interested to read the comments attributed by you to Dr Adel Safty - apparently it appears in response to this specific article of mine published by OLO.

I thank you for bringing them to my attention.

Is he the same Adel Safty who heads the Global Leadership Forum?

Before posting a reply I would be pleased if you could give me the link to his comments so that I can read his entire posting.

You have apparently quoted some of his comments from I assume an article or other post on the net that I have tried to access without success.

Rest assured I will respond after I have read his piece in full.

No one will forget Jordan's Black September.

Nor the much more recent Israeli's disgraceful incursion into and destruction of the infrustructure in Southern Lebanon and ... of course the subsequent humiliating defeat and forced withdrawal.

Hamas still exists as do the Syrian supplied rockets.