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.”

Why?

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!

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.

Start;

“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”

End.

So just six times in 20,000 words.

Yet this fellow wants to lecture the Palestinians on semantics?

He hath no shame.

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!

#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.

#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.

"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)

David, wrong, another myopic response.

Dayan was hungry for more land to create greater Israel, he was hungry because he was a Zionist, conditioned by centuries of persecution, traumatised by the holocaust, driven by the belief that Gentiles were never to be trusted and, convinced that the world would one day turn against the Jews. In private he told this to a couple of journalists.

When that day came, Israel had to be big enough and secure enough to serve as the refuge of last resort for all the Jews. Israel confined to its pre-1967 borders was not big enough and did not possess sufficient natural resources, water especially.

In a private conversation Dayan was asked: “What you really fear is that a day will come when the major powers will require Israel to be the sacrificial lamb on the altar of political expediency – just as in 1947 and 1948 they required the Palestinians to be the sacrifice on that altar.” Dayan replied, “You could put it like that.” Then, after a long pause, he added, “But we won’t let it happen.” Though he did not say so, he meant, “We have an independent nuclear deterrent and nobody is going to make Israel do what it does not want to do.”

So is there really need to call in the psychologists to explain Dayan’s behaviour, including and especially his truth-telling in conversation with Rami Tal for publication after his death? I think not. If the Syrians “were not a threat to us”, why did he order the IDF to attack them and grab a chunk of their territory – i.e. if not for the sole purpose of completing Zionism’s Greater Israel project?

There was a part of the Dayan that wanted to say out loud: “I created Greater Israel. I delivered on the promise our founding fathers made.” But there was also a part of Zionism’s warlord that knew it would not be a good idea to say so – in case the Greater Israel of his creation turned out to be, as it has, a ghastly mistake.

David, while you are at it, can you respond to this:

What really happened to the USS Liberty, 10 to 1 you don't even know what it was really about and you will continue to spout your rose coloured version of history.....I dare you to give the real version of events.

#To puddle

You state:

"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."

Care to explain why it sounds good to you?

Do you think it is good that Governments should be officially telling their citizens what terms and phrases they should use? Does this kind of official brainwashing sound good to you?

#To Geoff of Perth

You follow the well trodden path of others before you who are not prepared to discuss or comment on the subject matter of my articles - instead seeking to go off on a tangent of their own or make ad hominem attacks on me personally and usually anonymously.

As I have said on so many occasions - shooting the messenger and ignoring the message is a complete waste of everybody's time.

You are certainly free to follow in their footsteps - but don't expect me to respond.

One little point of advice - it does your credibility no good to cut and paste and plagiarise the work of others and represent it as your own opinion without any acknowledgement.

Both of your lengthy posts contain complete lifts in identical language to that used in Chapter 2 volume 3 of Alan Hart's Book "Zionism - the real enemy of the Jews".

Shame on you for believing you could get away with this outrageous behaviour.

Kids get failed in exams and risk possible expulsion for doing what you did. Adults find themselves embroiled in breach of copyright suits.

On further reflection I will make a point of ensuring that I never reply to any future post by you.

Sorry David you are wrong again.

"Both of your lengthy posts contain complete lifts in identical language to that used in Chapter 2 volume 3 of Alan Hart's Book "Zionism - the real enemy of the Jews"."

I have never read the book that you have highlighted above.

I pulled the material from a range of sources, and yes I did do a lot of cut and paste to put my thoughts across, and they are my reasoned belief of the real 'facts' that are hidden out there if you care to look hard enough.

As to plagerism, I don't think so.

Too bad you still fail to answer the question I posed, I guess it confirms your inability to see the wood from the trees and what is really the truth.

Over to you.

To Geoff of Perth:

You state:
"I pulled the material from a range of sources, and yes I did do a lot of cut and paste to put my thoughts across, and they are my reasoned belief of the real 'facts' that are hidden out there if you care to look hard enough.

As to plagerism, I don't think so"

Your thoughts? Your reasoned belief? No plagiarism?

They are Alan Hart's thoughts and belief - not yours - as just these two comparisons will show.

Geoff of Perth:
".. he was hungry because he was a Zionist, conditioned by centuries of persecution, traumatised by the holocaust, driven by the belief that Gentiles were never to be trusted and, convinced that the world would one day turn against the Jews."

Alan Hart:
"He was hungry because he was a gut-Zionist, conditioned by centuries of persecution, traumatised by the Nazi holocaust, driven by the belief that Gentiles were never to be trusted and, above all, convinced that the world would one day turn against the Jews again."

Geoff of Perth:
"There was a part of the Dayan that wanted to say out loud: “I created Greater Israel. I delivered on the promise our founding fathers made.” But there was also a part of Zionism’s warlord that knew it would not be a good idea to say so – in case the Greater Israel of his creation turned out to be, as it has, a ghastly mistake."

Alan Hart:
"There was a part of the Dayan I knew that wanted to say out loud: “I created Greater Israel. I delivered on the promise our founding fathers made.” But there was also a part of Zionism’s warlord that knew it would not be a good idea to say so – in case the Greater Israel of his creation turned out to be, as it has, a ghastly mistake."

Shucks Geoff of Perth - Can we now tab you as being
1.a liar
2.a plagiarist and
3.the stealer of someone else's views and publicly representing and passing them off as your own?

As I said David, I have never read the book that you quoted, and yes the sources I did pull the material from have probably read the book and quoted it, however no source material was shown and no mention of a book was made, if that makes me someone who has plagarised something then take what you will from it.

As to me being a liar, I find this bemusing because nearly everything you write on OLO is based on the biggest lie of them all.

You cite your facts and write your thoughts based on lies and a false history.

Really, stones and glass houses just don't match your gall.

As to stealing someone else's view, these match my views, sorry that more than one person can have the same thought process

Oh and David, as to being a liar, you just proved you are happy to lie, you said you would no longer respond to comments from me, lo and behold you have, Pot calling the kettle seems appropriate here.

#To Geoff of Perth

Have you no shame or remorse?

Geoff of Perth:

"In a private conversation Dayan was asked: “What you really fear is that a day will come when the major powers will require Israel to be the sacrificial lamb on the altar of political expediency – just as in 1947 and 1948 they required the Palestinians to be the sacrifice on that altar.” Dayan replied, “You could put it like that.” Then, after a long pause, he added, “But we won’t let it happen.” Though he did not say so, he meant, “We have an independent nuclear deterrent and nobody is going to make Israel do what it does not want to do.”

Alan Hart:

"I once said the following to Dayan in private conversation: “What you really fear is that a day will come when the major powers will require Israel to be the sacrificial lamb on the altar of political expediency – just as in 1947 and 1948 they required the Palestinians to be the sacrifice on that altar.” Dayan replied, “You could put it like that.” Then, after a long pause, he added, “But we won’t let it happen.” Though he did not say so, he meant, “We have an independent nuclear deterrent and nobody is going to make Israel do what it does not want to do.”

Your thoughts or Alan Hart's thoughts?

You now have come up with a novel excuse stating:

"yes the sources I did pull the material from have probably read the book and quoted it, however no source material was shown and no mention of a book was made,"

Care to let us know who those sources were that you relied on? Why didn't you at least acknowledge those sources in your posts - since clearly you were plagiarising their thoughts - and representing them as your own original thoughts.

If you want to continue to try and justify your disgusting and indefensible behaviour then I will continue to respond.

Dear David Singer,

You call the claim that it was Israel that provoked Syrian involvement in the war a load of codswallop intimating instead that it was sparked by “Syrian gunners fired from their Golan Heights position on an Israeli tractor farming in the demilitarised zone.“

Yet you call GFP's posts shameful?

It appears you are happy to contradict the words of a famous Israeli General.

“I know how at least 80% of all these incidents there [border with Syria] started. In my opinion, more than 80%, but lets speak about the 80%. It would go like this: we would send in a tractor to plow…..in the de-miltarised area, and we would know ahead of time that the Syrians would start shooting. If they did not start shooting, we would inform the tractor to progress farther, until the Syrians in the end, would get nervous and would shoot. And then we would use guns, and later even the airforce, and that is how it went….We thought that we could change the lines of the ceasefire accords by military actions that were less than war. That is, to seize some territory and hold it until the enemy despairs and gives it to us.”

Your posts serve to drive home the almost daily shame I feel in believing for most of my adult life the propoganda that had me accepting things like the Six Day War was a David and Goliath affair justly fought against outside aggressors. I now know that was codswallop of the highest order.

Lets try another version of the timeline of incidents leading to the conflict.

The area in question was a tiny patch of land of 60 odd km2 that had been proscribed in the UN partition plan to go to Israel. It mainly contained Syrian villages and during the 1947-48 war Syria occupied it. Compared to the nearly 6,000 km2 Israel captured during the conflict represented it was about a hundredth in size. Under the subsequent Israel – Syrian armistice it was declared a demilitiarised zone.

Cont..

Cont..

It should be noted none of the land captured by the Israelis was treated in the same manner.

This small patch was placed under the supervision of the UN Truce Supervision Organisation plus a Israeli-Syrian Mixed Armistice Committee (MAC).

1951 Within a year trouble had started when Israelis commenced works on draining a lake and wetlands adjacent to the DMZ. Tensions flared when workers moved into the disputed area and Syria went to the MAC to complain. MAC ordered the Israelis to withdraw. Instead they declared the land belonged to Israel and expelled 2000 Syrian from three villages and bulldozed their homes. When some of the non-army Syrians responded by firing on Israeli forces it responded by bombing other Syrian villages inside Syria.

It took a UN Security Council resolution (93) to force Israel to back off to a degree and ordered the return of the 2000 Syrian villages. But with few homes to return to only a few hundred did so.

1953 Israel had another crack using the DMZ to divert water from the Jordan River for irrigation. Again it took the UN Security Council requested them to cease (Resolution 100) but it was only the threat of the US withdrawing funds that got them to stop entirely. Israel responded by withdrawing from the MAC.

1954 a squad of Israeli soldiers were capture inside Syrian territory.

1955 Syrian forces firing on an Israeli armoured patrol boat near its shore saw further Israeli incursions into Syria by Israeli forces and over 50 Syrian troops killed. One UNSTO officer called it “a premeditated raid of intimidation, motivated by Israel’s desire to test the strength of the Egyptian-Syrian mutual defence pact [signed in Oct. 1955] ……to bait the Arab states into some overt act of aggression that would offer then the opportunity to overrun additional territory without censure.”

Indeed the body's chief of staff said the Syrian “policy as regards Israel was to avoid incidents and situations which might involve Syria in active hostilities”

Cont..

Cont..

1956 Yet another unanimous UN Security Council was passed, it stated the Council “Condemns the attack of 11 December 1955 as a flagrant violation of the cease-fire provisions of its resolution 54 (1948), of the terms of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Syria and of Israel's obligations under the Charter of the United Nations”.

1957 The UN has to step in again to stop Israeli border police and workers from constructing irrigation works next to a Syrian village within the DMZ.

1958 The Israelis try the same project again, stopping Syrian farmers working their fields. Gunfire is exchanged between the Syrian villages and Israeli border police who under the armistice should not have been there. This escalated to shelling from the Golan Heights.

1960 The Israelis going in hard blowing up the original Syrian village before being forced to withdraw.

1962 Probing Israeli patrol boats were again fired upon by Syrian forces. Israel reacts predictably with entering Syria to attacking villages and military positions.

The responding UN Security Council 171 “Determines that the Israel attack of 16-17 March 1962 constitutes a flagrant violation of that resolution, and calls upon Israel scrupulously to refrain from such action in the future;” but by the end of the year Israeli tractors are ploughing up Arab owned land in the DMZ causing more exchanges.

1964 Israel completes its diversion works and starts taking water from the Jordan River. Syria attempts to respond by creating its own works which are subsequently bombed 12km inside Syria by the Israelis.

1964-66 Further clashes between Syrian farmers and Israeli Border police.

1967 January. Border police again fire on Syrian farmers attempting to work their field and Syria responds with fire from the Golan Heights. Israeli declares it would cultivate the entire DMZ and after readying its armed forces, delaying a day to ensure good weather for military operations, sent in armoured tractors to provoke gunfire.

Thus the Six Day War.

The underlying theme was less about shelling armoured tractors from the Golan Heights and far more about water and Israeli aggression.

Do those in authority lie because they know most people tend to reject the truth, or do most people accept the lie because they no longer know what the truth is?

Either way David, it’s the Zionistic culture, and its belief in a false history that has been lying to itself so much, for so long, it doesn't know the difference between reality and fantasy.

Then, again, as usual there is nothing new here; those with the best stories generally win, and have for millennia, as have philosophical debates regarding "truth" and “deception”.

For those of us who question everything, we become enlightened.

You will eventually realise there is little to be gained by trying to empower people with your own ‘facts (lies)’.

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes... Mark Twain(?) Sometimes it's best to stay home and go barefoot, frustrating, I know... but you will get used to it eventually!

Look David, it's Friday night and I think that we can both acknowledge that we are getting no-where with this tooing-and-frowing.

You don't want to answer my question and I don't have all my sources to hand from this computer.

I understand that everyone has a right to their belief's and I also acknowledge that some like to publish what their particular mantra is.

I do not understand your fervent belief regime, nor your continued stance on the question/solution as you tout it to be, being a so-called "Foundation Member of the International Analyst Network and Convenor of Jordan is Palestine International - an organisation calling for sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza to be allocated between Israel and Jordan as the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine.." (ref: OLO, author bio).

Your historical posting on OLO clearly shows that you are a 'zealot' in terms of your belief, however I believe in looking at all of the evidence and then attempting to make rational decisions and making discussion on points of divergance/interest and where my thought process diverges from your's.

I guess we will never agree, no hard feelings there, but I wish you would consider current events, non-MSM 'news' and post some rationale on current events taking place in the Middle East. Israel has a lot to answer for and your continued stance appears, at least to me, at odds with reality.

I hope you have a good weekend

Geoff

# To csteele

Your three part post is remarkably similar to that presented on the anti-Israel site "Israel Policy Forum" on 3 March 2007 and is totally irrelevant to the causes of the Six Day War.

Read this contemporary timeline:

Israel's Prime Minister Levi Eshkol addresses the Israeli Parliament on 12 June 1967:

Part 1

"The last four weeks have been weeks of tension and trial - from Independence Day, the fifth of Iyar May 15), until that great Sabbath, the second of Sivan 5727 (June 10, 1967).

On Independence Day, powerful Egyptian forces started to cross the Canal and move in the direction of the Israeli frontier. After three days, these forces were deployed on our border.

Once the deployment was completed, Nasser demanded the withdrawal of the UN force from Sharm el-Sheikh, Sinai and the Gaza Strip.

On the morning of Tuesday, May 23, Egypt announced the closing of the Strait of Tiran to Israeli shipping and to international shipping carrying strategic material to Israel's southernmost port, Eilat.

After the Egyptian ruler had annulled the international arrangements that had been in force for the past ten years, he went on to proclaim in public his desire to wipe Israel off the map. As has now transpired, the Commander of the Egyptian air force issued, on May 27, a secret operations order to his pilots to prepare for a surprise attack on Israel.

On May 30, Nasser signed a military agreement with Hussein. On June 4, he signed a similar agreement with Iraq. These agreements, in addition to the Egyptian-Syrian agreement, completed the encirclement of Israel - which was designed to facilitate a surprise attack upon us from all quarters.

On June 3, the then Commander of the Egyptian forces in Sinai issued an Order of the Day to his soldiers to prepare for an attack on Israel, describing the expected results of "this unique moment" as "of historic importance to the Arab people." His prophecy came true in a manner of which he did not dream at the time."

(Part 2 follows)

Israel's Prime Minister Levi Eshkol addresses the Israeli Parliament on 12 June 1967:

Part 2

"As the Egyptian forces advanced into the Sinai peninsula, I ordered, with the consent of the Government, the beginning of the mobilization of the Israel Defense Forces' reserves. As the threat increased in gravity, mobilization was expanded and our preparedness intensified."

In my statement to the Knesset on May 29, I informed you that our forces were "ready and prepared to frustrate the enemy's designs in all sectors and on all our borders."

On the same occasion, I suggested that the Egyptian ruler might "remember that this is not the first time that he has been borne on the wings of his imagination and seen himself a victor before he has set out to war." I added that "he ought to remember that disillusionment was not long in coming, as we witnessed."

To the Israel Defense Forces I said: "Thanks to your being strong enough to overcome the enemy in any situation, the Government of Israel is able to adopt in confidence and fortitude the grave decisions that confront it, as is dictated by our supreme responsibility for the fate of the country and the Jewish people."

Last Monday, June 5, 1967, 7-8 Egyptian divisions, 2 of them armored, were deployed in front of our border in Sinai; 900 tanks were dispersed along the border 200 of them opposite Eilat, with the aim of cutting off the southern Negev; along Israel's eastern border stood 60,000 Jordanian soldiers and 300 tanks; the Jordanian army had been placed under Egyptian command, and Egyptian commando units, as well as Iraqi forces, had entered its territory.

On our northern border with Syria, 50,000 Syrian soldiers were ready for the assault, and the entire border was sown with guns and mortars, dug in, fortified, and protected by concrete and steel.

Some 600 Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi planes were ready.

During the days preceding June 5, Egyptian air sorties took place over Israeli skies.

The decisive moment came."

#To csteele

When can I expect your answer to my following questions?

"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?"

Dear David Singer,

The Israel Policy Forum is not anti-Israel at all. It is run primarily by Jews, and supported by “members of Jewish, philanthropic, academic and political organizations”. It was set up by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and “Among the new significant names signing onto IPF’s revival are Rabbi Eric Yoffie, who just ended his term as president of the Union for Reform Judaism; Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), who is retiring and in recent years had public disagreements both with the Israeli establishment and J Street; Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt; and philanthropist Charles Bronfman.”
http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/65604/revived-israel-policy-forum-aims-to-rise-above-partisan-fray/

I went to them precisely because they had strong Jewish credentials. I used my own words as there were one or two pieces from their time line I was uncomfortable with but in checking everything else they seemed to be right on the money.

Calling them anti-Israel is reprehensible on your part. Just because they don't have your jaundiced and myopic world view doesn't mean you can insult them in that manner and you should think about apologising.

“Israel Policy Forum believes that a two-state solution to the conflict will "safeguard Israel’s security and future as a Jewish and democratic state."”
Wikipedia

Hardly anti-Israeli at all. What they do is to take the writings of people like yourself and subject them to factual and historical analysis so I know why you would feel so threatened by them.

I hold their time line in far more esteem than your own I'm afraid and I venture most thinking people would too so my conclusions stand.

GoP

The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty

This incident was subject to ten official U.S. investigations and three more by Israel. The U.S. government had access to all the relevant information. The indepth investigations and enquiries conclusively established the attack was a tragic mistake.

US Investigations & Reports.
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry (June 10-18, 1967); CIA Report (June 13, 1967); Clifford Report (July 18, 1967); Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (1967); Senate Armed Services Committee (Feb. 1, 1968); House Appropriations Committee (April-May 1968); House Armed Services Committee (May 10, 1971); Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (1979); National Security Agency (1981); House Armed Services Committee (June 1991).

Joint Chiefs of Staff Fact Finding Team (Russ Report) (June 9-20, 1967), Report of the JCS Fact Finding Team, "USS Liberty Incident, 8 June 1967," The Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, DC, June 18, 1967. (extract);

“There were four (4) messages disseminated during the period of 7-8 June 1967 from higher headquarters to subordinate echelons containing revisions to previous instructions regarding the assigned operating location of USS LIBERTY. Since each of these message transmissions contained instructions for substantially increasing the closets point of approach (CPA) to the UAR and Israel, the receipt of any one of these by the USS LIBERTY would undoubtedly have resulted in the ship's being a greater distance from the scene of action than underway between Israel and the UAR. Although the USS LIBERTY was either an action or an information addressee on each of these directives, there is no evidence available to confirm that the ship's Captain received any of them...The failure of the USS LIBERTY to receive any one of these time-critical revisions to operational directives can be attributed to a combination of (1) human error, (2) high volume of communications traffic, and (3) lack of appreciation of sense of urgency regarding the movement of the LIBERTY. (pp. 1-2)” *

cont...

Attack on a Sigint Collector, the USS Liberty (United States Cryptologic History)( 83 page report)
National Security Agency/Central Security Service classified by NSA/CSSM 123-2, Review April 2011 (Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 11-08-2006 pursuant to E.O.12958; MOR 51712)
www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/uss_liberty/attack_sigint.pdf

“...ruled out any thesis that the Israeli Navy and Air Force attacked a ship they knew to be American.”

Israel paid the US government $3,323,500 compensation on behalf of families of the 34 men killed in the attack; a further $3,566,457 compensation to the wounded; and $6m to the US for material damage to USS Liberty.

The most comprehensive analysis, A.J. Cristol, "The Liberty Incident," (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Miami, 1997) (subsequently published: A. Jay Cristol, The Liberty Incident. (Washington, D.C.: Brassey's Inc., 2002)

Israeli Investigations & Reports.
Ram Ron Commission (June 12, 1967); Preliminary Inquiry (July 1967); IDF History (1982)

GoP, Many further references are available.

Perhaps you aren't aware of the term “friendly fire.” A tragic, but commonplace of conflict.

csteele,

So much has been recorded and written of the Six-Day War ... you are embarrassing yourself ... as per usual.

The Israel Policy Forum is indeed laudable.

Do the Palestinians have a comparable forum?

Personally, I don't care what the Palestinians choose to call themselves, but they should do it without playing semantics.

Dear Danielle,

You wrote;

"csteele, So much has been recorded and written of the Six-Day War ... you are embarrassing yourself ... as per usual. The Israel Policy Forum is indeed laudable."

Your problem my dear is that I took virtually point for point the time line given by the Israeli Policy Forum, an institution you rightly labelled as laudable, yet you said I was embarrassing myself.

A fairly obvious case of purely judging the message by the sender rather than the content. Don't worry I will admit to a weakness in this area sometimes too,  though never quite at this scale. 

That would indeed be embarrassing. 

;)

csteele,

Whilst using up much space, you avoided the reasons for the Six-Day War. Significant, one would think!

But this is practice of yours; rabbitting on about something, or cherry-picking, without placing the events in context. Quite frankly, as others have noticed, you have a problem with comprehension. Is this because you get overly-excited, clutching at “whatever', or is this a genuine problem for which we can excuse you?

Arab hostility toward Israel reached crisis level preceding the Six Day War. Egypt's President Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. He expelled U.N. peacekeeping forces from the Sinai. Moslem leaders screamed for jihad (Holy War).

I queried whether the Palestinians had a program such as the “Israel Policy Forum,” (even a teensy, weensy little one). Lost for words, apparently, you didn't answer.

You had noted, and one hopefully assumes, agrees with:

“Israel Policy Forum believes that a two-state solution to the conflict will "safeguard Israel’s security and future as a Jewish and democratic state." (Wikipedia)

steele, 'old boy' … 'old chum' … when the Palestinians recognise the validity of this solution …

Isn't this the central issue...? Where have you been!?

Dear Danielle,

Actually the central issue right at this very moment is enjoying your response to getting caught with your pants down.

You had two options I would have thought, the first was to acknowledge the embarrassment with a wiry smile and move on, the second was to attempt high dudgeon and go on the attack.

You chose the second, probably predictably, and I must say;

"But this is practice of yours; rabbitting on about something, or cherry-picking, without placing the events in context. Quite frankly, as others have noticed, you have a problem with comprehension. Is this because you get overly-excited, clutching at “whatever', or is this a genuine problem for which we can excuse you?"

was a serviceable effort.

You do dowager duchess very well however I couldn't profess to being any sort of gentleman if I didn't quietly remind you your slip is still showing.

Enjoy your day.

#To csteele and Danielle

csteele is simply lying his head off to you Danielle and all OLO readers when he wrote on 2 July:

"Your problem my dear is that I took virtually point for point the time line given by the Israeli Policy Forum, an institution you rightly labelled as laudable, yet you said I was embarrassing myself."

csteele is certainly embarrassing himself - and much more.

There is no such time line on Israel Policy Forum. It happens to be on
Israel Forum Watch - 3 March 2007 - which is an anti-Israel web site.

You can view the timeline at:

http://israelforumwatch.blogspot.com.au/2007/03/syrian-shelling-from-golan-heights-1949.html

Perhaps cteele might like to confess - now that he has been caught out.

Now my confession - I incorrectly confused the two sites in my post and wrongly attributed csteele's steal of the time line to "Israel Policy Forum" - instead of "Israel Forum Watch"

It was in that context that I described "Israeli Policy Forum" as "anti-Israel" - which it clearly is not.

csteele also said of Israeli Policy Forum:

"I went to them precisely because they had strong Jewish credentials. I used my own words as there were one or two pieces from their time line I was uncomfortable with but in checking everything else they seemed to be right on the money.

Calling them anti-Israel is reprehensible on your part. Just because they don't have your jaundiced and myopic world view doesn't mean you can insult them in that manner and you should think about apologising."

I apologise for calling "Israel Policy Forum" anti-Israel - because I intended it to apply to "Israel Forum Watch"

But what is csteele going to do about the litany of lies, deceit and misrepresentation he has been engaging in with you Danielle and the gratuitous and insulting remarks about you that have been made by him?

Might I quote his own words addressed to you Danielle - back to him:

"Actually the central issue right at this very moment is enjoying your response to getting caught with your pants down."

Let's hear your response csteele.

David,

I tried unsuccessfully to access the Six-Day War article as stated being on “Israel Policy Forum.”

Now I understand the reason why it did not appear. Thank you for clarifying this for me.

Given the site, steele's “regurgitation” being off, sounded very odd.

You had ably addressed the points. However, the reason for any conflict is central to it, the reason d'etre.

Lol! Ouch.

OLO can be a real cure for hubris.

Right, first things first my apologies to both Danielle and Mr Singer.

I am a big fan of the Huffington Post which is where I have enjoyed the writings of Peter Joseph, the president of the Israeli Policy Forum.

After Mr Singer's time-line post I typed in “syrian shelling golan heights tractor israel policy forum” (actually I tried “syrian shelling golan heights tractor antony loewenstein” first) and the second result after the Wikipedia entry for Golan Heights was Israel Forum Watch: Syrian Shelling from the Golan Heights 1949-1967.

I did not do the proper due diligence and check the source was indeed the Israeli Policy Forum.

Was is even more unforgivable is, as mentioned earlier, there were a couple of things I was uneasy about that I chose not to include, and even that did not prompt me to double check I was on the right site.

I was too keen on setting up Mr Singer for a fall when he, as I predicted, lambasted my post and I would then reveal it was from the IPF.

Eagerness to score a point is often a vice.

I apologise.

To csteele

Your apology is not worth the paper it is written on.

You continue to lie - offering this excuse to justify your deceitful behaviour;

"After Mr Singer's time-line post I typed in “syrian shelling golan heights tractor israel policy forum” (actually I tried “syrian shelling golan heights tractor antony loewenstein” first) and the second result after the Wikipedia entry for Golan Heights was Israel Forum Watch: Syrian Shelling from the Golan Heights 1949-1967.

I did not do the proper due diligence and check the source was indeed the Israeli Policy Forum."

Here is what you actually saw when you did your search:

"Golan Heights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_HeightsOn 19 June 1967, the Israeli cabinet voted to return the Golan to Syria in ..... it without compensation on the grounds that "it was contrary to Syrian policy to ... In April 1967, after Syria heavily shelled Israeli villages from the Golan Heights, Israel shot ..... The archaeological site includes excavations of the city's forum, the small ...

Israel Forum Watch: Syrian Shelling from the Golan Heights 1949-1967
israelforumwatch.blogspot.com/.../syrian-shelling-from-golan-height...3 Mar 2007 – IsraelForum.com; 24-Hour Vilification, Apologetics and Hate from a Fanatically ... Syrian Shelling from the Golan Heights 1949-1967 .... The UNSTO chief-of-staff commented on the Syrian policy towards Israel in the DMZ, ... In December, Israeli tractors began ploughing Arab-owned land in the DMZ. Syrian ..."

When you clicked on to the Israel Forum Watch site - you saw this:

"Israel Forum Watch
IsraelForum.com; 24-Hour Vilification, Apologetics and Hate from a Fanatically Pro-Israel Viewpoint

SATURDAY, MARCH 03, 2007
Syrian Shelling from the Golan Heights 1949-1967
Discussions of the origins of the conflict are generally resolved with the standard IsraelForum retort – they started it."

The site was clearly identified as an anti-Israel site - which is why you used it.

Israel Policy Forum is not an anti-Israel site - as you have acknowledged.

You have lost all credibility.

Trying to lie your way out of your predicament has now become par for the course.

Your pants are still down - and it is not a pretty sight.

Dear Mr Singer,

Apologies should be delivered without ifs but or maybes. I endeavoured to do just that and in the spirit of that apology I did not refer to you calling me a liar.

Please do not mistake me refraining to mention it as any concession you would get away with it a second time. I'm sure you will agree I have been very nice to you up till this point, I have treated you with the respect you have deserved, some might argue more so.

The Israel Forum Watch is not an Israeli hate site. What it does is attempt to address the '24 hour Vilification, Apologetics and Hate' coming from fanatics such as yourself. This is entirely consistent with the Israel Policy Forum who have taken issue with your type in the past.

MJ Rosenberg then Director of Policy at the Israel Policy Forum wrote in the Huffington Post about the efforts of fanatics such as yourself to stymie the appointment of Chas Freeman by Obama.

“But here's the thing. Why is it that these people who are so concerned about China all of a sudden have never demonstrated concern about Palestinian human rights. I mean, there was just a terrible war in Gaza in which 1300 Palestinians were killed, a third of them children. Did any of the "get Freeman" crowd protest this violation of human rights? Just asking.”

“Of course, we all know that even the fiercest human rights activists in Washington tend to draw the line when it comes to Palestinians.”

“If I'm wrong, tell me. But I look at the list of those fiercely fighting Freeman and I find not one who spoke up about human rights in Gaza.”

Both the Israel Policy Forum and the Israel Forum Watch should be applauded for their efforts to counter the hate and propaganda you and like minded fanatics have been shovelling. While I am permitted I will continue to do my best here on OLO to you.

Expect me every time you attempt more to distribute more poison.

To csteele

Your latest post accusing me of being a "fanatic" is just another example of semantic skullduggery and has been used by you as a smokescreen to draw attention away from your own confession of having engaged in unconscionable conduct.

I reject your claim entirely.

Smearing me by innuendo by using an article written in 2009 by someone other than myself in which I am not even mentioned - is just another example of the kind of unconscionable conduct you are prepared to engage in.

You have the gall to state:

"I'm sure you will agree I have been very nice to you up till this point, I have treated you with the respect you have deserved, some might argue more so."

Really?

This is what you have said about me in your posts to this one article:

1. "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."

2. "He hath no shame."

3. "David, wrong, another myopic response."

4. "Just because they don't have your jaundiced and myopic world view doesn't mean you can insult them in that manner and you should think about apologising."

5. " I hold their time line in far more esteem than your own I'm afraid"

Finally - why do you continue to refuse to answer these questions I have specifically addressed to you on two occasions following your first post:

"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?"

Answering these two questions will be a far more constructive use of your time and my time than doing everything you can to avoid answering them.

Those pants of yours are still flopping around your ankles. Hitch them up so you can get to your computer and post your answers.

#To csteele

You maintain that "the Israel Forum Watch is not an Israeli hate site"

Have you read any of the following articles posted on that site:

“Death Camps” in Gaza: A PR problem.
Gaza, The Final Solution: “Kill Everyone”
40 Years of Occupation: 1967-2007.
1967: "Wasted Victory"?
No Arabs Please, We’re Zionists.
More Zionist Dreams: "to invent some sort of deadl...
They have a dream: “The coming war with Islam”.
Syrian Shelling from the Golan Heights 1949-1967
The Al-Aqsa Mosque
Peace with Syria?

You are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine.

I invite OLO readers to click on the web site and make their own judgements after reading any of these articles.

David,

No need to seek out sites.

Your articles are enough to make me stand back and shake my head in dismay.

Dear Mr Singer,

In my world referring to someone as shameless, myopic or a fanatic does not come close to calling someone a liar, twice.

I'm not asking for a retraction purely because I had become a little tired of continually dissecting your offerings on this site and have needed a reason, rather than the fact I have been rained off a job, to be more diligent and vigorous in exposing your views for what they are. A goad was needed and you have provided it.

Though I shouldn't over-emphasis the angst I feel, I am far more dark on my own sloppiness than anything that might come from your keyboard.

There is another reason for me to make the time and that is the real sorrow I feel that the Jewish story of survival, the contributions made to social and international justice by some very inspiring Jewish figures, the gifts to the world from Jewish intelligence are all being demeaned and debased by successive Israeli governments and people like yourself.

Jewish people like Antony Loweinstein, Joe Halper, Noam Chomsky, Peter Joseph, Richard Silverstein and a great many others along with organisations such as the Israel Policy Forum are attempting to make a stand and wrench back some of the legacy from history stealers such as yourself.

Cont...

Cont...

When Yututsu writes “Aren't David Singer's articles ALREADY the worst anti-Israel propaganda one can get?” and “Ordinary Israelis are held hostage by madmen with ideas like this...” one gets a sense of real despair with the actions of your ilk.

I would not be surprised if Michael, the author of the Israel Forum Watch was also Jewish. He was responding to unchallenged comments such as these on the Israeli Forum site;

“The terrorists and their supporters in Gaza definitely deserve to starve to death, but the problem is that Israel cannot sustain images of Palestinians looking like the Jews liberated from the Nazi death camps.”

“"In terms of a plan, Israel should assassinate a high profile Hamas operative, then at his funeral, as thousands of Hamas terrorists gather, drop a dozen or so 1 ton bombs on the crowd of terrorists.. "

“Why arrest anyone? Any horde stupid enough to cross into a sovereign land of another people, during a state of war especially, should be met with violent instant death. Thats what we call an invasion. Shoot them dead. All of them, their sheep and goats. Cover the cadavers, one and all with dog manure and anthrax.”

There are some good people from both sides who are trying to counter this poison and if we can applaud and support their efforts in any way we should try to do so.

To #csteele

I again ask you:

Why do you continue to refuse to answer these questions I have specifically addressed to you on three occasions following your first post:

"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?"

Answering these two questions will be a far more constructive use of your time and my time than doing everything you can to avoid answering them.

Those pants of yours are still flopping around your ankles. Hitch them up so you can get to your computer and post your answers.

Dear Mr Singer,

We both know I have addressed those questions in earlier exchanges and when you drag them out it is usually a sign you are again cornered.

But the fact that you are prepared to reintroduce them in a thread titled in part “semantic skullduggery scuttles sensible solutions” shows you have zero appreciation of either irony or hypocrisy.

I have been heartened to hear of UNESCO voting to grant a Palestinian request to place the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem on the World Heritage register. I do note Israel voted against the move.

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/single-view/news/church_of_the_nativity_and_the_pilgrimage_route_in_bethlehem_palestine_inscribed_on_unesco_world_heritage_list_along_with_sites_from_israel_palau_indonesia_and_morocco/

Actually the vote was 13 for, 6 against and 2 abstentions. In your world this is less than the 2/3rds majority required yet no hue and cry from you? Why not? Is the thought of highlighting the fact that government of Israel was objecting to the listing going to get you some blowback?

To csteele

Off on yet another diversionary rant which has nothing to do with my article. Par for the course.

I am still waiting for your answers to the following two questions - which I have now posed to you on at least four occasions:

"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?"

Why the ongoing refusal to answer?

Your response:

"We both know I have addressed those questions in earlier exchanges and when you drag them out it is usually a sign you are again cornered"

Sorry - but I don't know when you addressed these questions - and it is impertinent for you to suggest that I do.

For one who has already been caught with his pants down - you show no sign of reforming your errant ways.

Please let me know where and when you addressed these questions or stand condemned for engaging yet again in deceptive and misleading conduct.

Dear Mr Singer,

No in fact I did address your article by raising yet another instance of you employing admittedly rather fraught semantics to try and claim the UNESCO vote on including the Palestinians was illegal.

Nearly the only support you received was from Palestinian hating types who took the opportunity to vent their spleens. Your stand was not supported legally nor by public opinion yet you did such a great job semantically that you talked yourself into allowing your own online petition to stand even though it, in part, directly contradicted your conceded view.

Possibly semantics allowed you to navigate through that disconnect but you really must tie yourself in knots.

Do you ever give yourself a break from this or do you have visions of yourself as a tireless warrior armed with a pen defending the State by hook or by crook?

This can not be healthy physically or mentally. You really do need to step away and have a look at what you are becoming. Have a break and come back and read your articles. Perhaps you will see as I do a building nastiness and stridency, constantly defending the indefensible. Or at least get one of your non Jewish friends to read a selection and give you an opinion.

It is ultimately soul eating stuff and there is nothing terribly romantic about it.

#To csteele

Yet another rant.

For the sixth time - would you care to answer these two questions?

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

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

You have proved yourself to be the supreme master at cutting and pasting someone else's thoughts and representing them as your own.

If as you claim - you have answered the above two questions - do some more cutting and pasting - this time of your own previously expressed thoughts.

Why you keep twisting and turning and writing about everything but supplying the answers to the above two questions is really intriguing and in my opinion - childish and stupid.

Dear Mr Singer,

I thought I had adopted a compassionate tone but you have described it as a rant. It does give me a small inkling what it must be like for the Palestinians with the Israeli Government as bombastic as you.

For the record only and not because I feel any need to justify anything to you I did not directly cut and paste anything nor claim the sequence of events as my own. I quite specificity said here was another timeline.

These were not thoughts but a collection of facts, none of which you disputed and all of which I collaborated from other sources. Any I couldn't such as the killing by settlers of two Palestinians dismantling an illegal Israeli pump I did not include. 

Do you have an issue with any of the facts I presented? If so spit them out.

As to your often repeated questions which we have discussed numerous times in our past exchanges, I have little wish to jump through these hoops yet again. 

In truth we should leave it up to the readers to decide what to make of your pathological refusal to use the word Palestinian alone.

If you feel justified in continuing to do so then you should have no objection to me reminding the readers of this every time you post an article. 

I had become a little lazy on that score but certainly feel a new vigor and commitment.

To csteele

Please extend your new vigour and commitment to answering the two following questions (now asked of you for the seventh time):

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

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

My dear Mr Singer,

This is an interesting trade off isn't it.

You are getting your discussion count up and I am getting a platform for exposing you and your ideology for what they are.

The only problem is I doubt very much that any one is listening. We may well be indulging in a version of a Waiting for Godot.

Actually there's a thought, perhaps Pozzo is Israel and Lucky is Palestine. Did you want to do Vladimir?

For the record I have no objection to you personally being a fetishist over the word Palestinian so you really should have no objection to me pointing that out to readers of future articles.

As to semantics the Israeli government would be on a par with your efforts at this dark art.

When the PLO finally recognized the State of Israel and its right to exist many felt some hope that this might herald in an era of peace.

But as soon as they had made that concession the wording changed. The government, which has no stomach for peace, from then on insisted that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a 'Jewish' state.

Why doesn't the world acknowledge how racist this condition really is?

To csteele

So you continue to refuse to acknowledge who the "Palestinians" really are. There is no place for Jews or non-Arab Christians or secular non- Arabs in their society. Is that racist in your opinion?

You now query why Israel demands that it be recognized by the PLO as the Jewish state?

The answer is simple - article 20 of the PLO Charter which states:

"The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong."

Why doesn't the world acknowledge how racist this condition is?

In fact why don't you?

Another question you no doubt will not be prepared to answer.

Dear Mr Singer,

Forgive me but I thought the Palestinians harbored nearly half a million Jewish people in their State?

#To csteele

Another question for you then - what is the area that is controlled by the PLO or Hamas or the Palestinian Authority that "harbours" 500000 Jews and what rights have been conferred on those 500000 Jews by the Palestinian Arabs?

I do know the Jewish state of Israel doesn't "harbour" but indeed has granted citizenship to 1.2 million Arabs who live there and have the same rights to vote as the 6.25 million Jews who also live there.

I also know the area of land that is effectively controlled by Israel and under its sovereignty.

Another question - what is the area of the State of Palestine?

Another question - who is the current Prime Minister of Palestine?

Another question - what is the capitol of Palestine?

Another question - if there is a state of Palestine - why are the Palestinian Arabs still claiming to be stateless and homeless?

That's eight questions you now have to answer.