The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Palestine - semantic skullduggery scuttles sensible solutions > Comments

Palestine - semantic skullduggery scuttles sensible solutions : Comments

By David Singer, published 26/6/2012

The People of the Book have been linguistically outsmarted by the successors to the authors of the One Thousand and One Nights.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. All
How about this for thought David:

In 1967, 45 years ago this month, the Israeli government, in cahoots with the US administration, and the unauthorised insanity of Moshe Dayan’s determination to stop at nothing to create Greater Israel, they created a false history that survives to this day.

In defiance of what had been agreed secretly with Johnson, the Golan Heights were in Israel’s hands. The war was over and the creation of Greater Israel was achieved.

It was Israeli that provoked Syrian involvement in the war, greater Israel was created by luck, it was not policy. Israel’s government did not go to war with the intention of creating the Greater Israel, but Dayan did. From the moment he became Defence Minister he consigned to history the Eshkol plan for limited military action, it was his war, not the government’s war, in the case of the attack on Syria, Dayan took it without consulting Eshkol or Rabin until after the attack had been launched.

The Great Lie was given by Eshkol in the Knesset when he asserted the war was started by “the Arab invasion of Israeli territory.” In the first moments of the war, Foreign Minister Eban launched the lie by asserting that “Israel was acting in self-defence.”

Why did Israel’s leaders lie, in 1967?
“The bigger the lie, the greater the authority with which it was told, the smaller the chance Israel being branded where it mattered most – the Security Council – as the aggressor.”


Because aggressors are not allowed to keep territory they take by force. They have to withdraw from it unconditionally. That is the requirement of international law. On the other is the generally accepted view that when a state is attacked, is the victim of aggression, goes to war in self-defence, ends up occupying some or even all of the aggressor’s territory, the occupier has the right, in negotiations, to attach conditions to its withdrawal.

Who needs an enemy when you can have friends like Israel, Google what happened to the USS Liberty to see what so called friends can really do!
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Tuesday, 26 June 2012 11:22:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is a bloke who runs a 'jordanispalestine' blog and has been so adverse to the term 'Palestinian' alone that it became an running joke.

Last year I wrote a post on it.


“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”


So just six times in 20,000 words.

Yet this fellow wants to lecture the Palestinians on semantics?

He hath no shame.
Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 26 June 2012 12:11:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
C.Steele, the problem is that David the Singer thinks that Palestinians are sub-human and certainly not fit to occupy the same space as a Child of God!

His racially-based religious cult believed in the beginning that if they humiliated and brutalized and murdered enough Palestinians they would disappear into the desert. Sadly for the Israelis, they have withstood a million atrocities and humiliations and they are still there. And good on them.

Eventually, Israel will drive the Palestinians into the sea or the desert. Then they will get on with their plan for Greater Israel. But first they have to rid the world of Iran.

Let the Singer have his little red herring about semantics. He will say anything to hide the alarming truth about Israel and its Zionist ambitions.

P.S. It might be time to build that nuclear bomb shelter!
Posted by David G, Tuesday, 26 June 2012 5:44:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#To Geoff of Perth

You claim that "It was Israel that provoked Syrian involvement in the war" is a load of codswallop.

Consider these Syrian statements and events before the Six Day War begun on 5 June 1967:

22 February 1967:
President Attassi of Syria: “it is the duty of all of us now to move from defensive positions to offensive positions and enter the battle to liberate the usurped land…Everyone must face the test and enter the battle to the end.”

7 April 1967:
Syrian gunners fired from their Golan Heights position on an Israeli tractor farming in the demilitarised zone. Artillery fire was exchanged and the fight escalated. Israel sent airplanes against the Syrian gun positions and several Syrian villages. The Syrians sent up MiG jets and an all-out dogfight ensued – Israel downed six Syrian MiG 21 fighters and chased the remainder all the way back to Damascus.

8 April 1967:
Syria’s information minister Mahmoud Zubi: “(this battle will be)…followed by more severe battles until Palestine is liberated and the Zionist presence ended.”

7 May 1967:
Syria shells Israeli village of Ein Gev in Israel

20 May 1967:
“Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse any aggression, but to initiate the act ourselves, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland of Palestine. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united. I believe that the time has come to begin a battle of anihilation.”- Syria’s Defence Minister Hafez Assad (later to be Syria’s President).

22 May 1967:
"We want a full scale, popular war of liberation… to destroy the Zionist enemy" - Syrian president Dr. Nureddin al-Attasi speech to troops

31 May 1967:
“The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear - to wipe Israel off the map” - President Aref of Iraq"

Seems you are totally confused Geoff.
Posted by david singer, Tuesday, 26 June 2012 7:49:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#To csteele

Your forensic analysis of the fact that I have used the term "Palestinians" just six times in 20000 words reinforces the content of my article - that the term "Palestinians" on its own has no meaning and needs to be defined.

Jews, non-Arab Christians and non-Arab secular citizens who also lived in Palestine have been expressly excluded from the definition of "Palestinians" under article 1 of the PLO Charter which states:

"Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation."

The use of the term "Palestinians" conceals this deliberately racist and supremacist position adopted by the PLO.

"Palestine belongs to the Palestinians" seems eminently reasonable until you understand that it denies any former citizens of Palestine - other than Arabs - any right to self determination or sovereignty in former Palestine.

Do you know the term "Palestinians" does not include Jews,non-Arab Christians and any other secular non- Arab citizens?

If you do - how can you object to my use of the term "Palestinian Arabs" to clarify and identify who the "Palestinians" are?

Clarity of language - not deceit and misrepresentation - should be the order of the day if this long running conflict is to have any hope of being ended.

Words count and those using words that mislead must be made to account.

I use the term "Palestinian Arabs" to correctly identify who are the "Palestinians". Perhaps you can also let readers know how many times I have used the term "Palestinian Arabs" in those 20000 words.

#To David G

Your blathering response makes it clear you have been duped by the use of the term "Palestinians".

The Arabs have no sole exclusive rights to sovereignty or self determination in Palestine. Others who reside there have those rights too.

Failure of the Arabs to accept that simple truth has been the downfall of the Arabs for the last 130 years and regrettably looks as though it is set to continue.
Posted by david singer, Tuesday, 26 June 2012 9:00:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Palestinian Arabs are encouraged to use terms that indicate that Israel is the result of "a racist, colonialist endeavor," and the book instructs Palestinians never to use the name "Israel" alone but instead to use the term "Israeli colonialism."

Sounds good to me.

And as we're bustin' out the quotes on '67, Davo, howz this one?

The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman stated that there was "no threat of destruction" but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could "exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies." "There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting." (Ha'aretz, March 29, 1972)
Posted by puddle, Tuesday, 26 June 2012 10:30:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy