Csteel. Apologies for the delay. Arrival of twin grandchildren has precedence.

When referring to the 'unelected body', I refer to the increasing example of the UN, an unelected body of beurocrats determining our laws and freedoms, evidenced by the implementation of the 'agenda 21' at local government level, and determining 'world heritage' status or endangerment based on incomplete or 'junk science' as is the case of the status of the Coorong and lower lakes.

Whilst this may seem 'off topic' with regard to Singers article, it illustrates the point that this organisation makes decisions based on false or incomplete information and, when this is pointed out, in this case ignoring the findings of his Honor El-Araby, Chooses to ignore it. Either article 80 of the San Remo Conference gave some legitimacy to Jewish occupation of all or part of the 'West Bank' or it didn't? Whichever way it goes, it seems illegitimate to ignore or dismiss it when seeking historic clarity with regard to the application of international law in the Middle East.

It has been my observation that the UN is woefully inadequate in almost every respect of its operations and can be said to either ignore or subvert it's own constitution as and when it suits.

Cont....

Cont...

With regard to Abbot theoretically appointing Justice Dawson to review the Mabo decision, which you draw as a parallel with Netanyahu, is drawing a rather long bow I think. I had occasion to study, in great detail, all opinions from each Judge in the Mabo decision and I found Dawson's judgement to be eminently sensible and justifiable in that instance. His comments read quite the opposite of any 'bias'.

Untill I read otherwise, I will continue to perceive the UN, as a body, to be astonishingly biased to whatever 'left' paradigm is in vogue at the time. As I said earlier, the moment the UN appointed Lybia as having influence within the 'Human Rights' framework of the organisation, it lost all respect or credibility. A simple tally of the anti Israeli sensure motions as opposed to most other dictatorial regimes must make even the most biased of observers question the legitimacy of the organisation.

CSteele, I endorse your comment about 'a desperate and deluded mind'. Regarding the Singer's questions: Singer asks no questions where he is interested in the answers.

He uses all manner of questions to provoke, to mislead, to obfuscate, to delude himself that he has such an open, inquiring mind when the truth is his racist belief system is set in concrete and will never change.

Regarding Murdoch, I was led to believe that his mother was Jewish and brought her son Rupert up as a Jew which apparently makes him a Jew.

Dear david g,

You wrote; “Regarding Murdoch, I was led to believe that his mother was Jewish and brought her son Rupert up as a Jew which apparently makes him a Jew.”

There is nothing I can find after a quick look that supports any of the above. Perhaps we might say his Grandmother was Jewish however the rest does not follow unless we are taking our lead from pre-war Europe.

For a more authoritative opinion just head to the Jewish media.

“In the Algemeiner Journal’s annual list of the top 10 non-Jews that are positively influencing the Jewish future, Murdoch has consistently ranked near the top.”
http://www.algemeiner.com/2011/07/20/israel-without-rupert-murdoch/

He is certainly a supporter of Israel and honoured by it and various Jewish organisations but that hardly makes him Jewish.

Could I invite you to perhaps do some research and you may well find a reassessment in order.

Dear Prompete,

Congratulations on the arrival of the twins. Such an occasion certainly warrants your full attention and absences from the rather sterile world of the online environment are perfectly understandable.

Addressing Dawson first. Of course he is biased, the law at that level is reflected upon and judged by a group of people, all with their own biases, and ultimately we attempt to accept that the majority view is the one we adorn with the label 'the truth'.

You wrote; “It has been my observation that the UN is woefully inadequate in almost every respect of its operations and can be said to either ignore or subvert it's own constitution as and when it suits.”

I tend to acknowledge the UN for what it tries to be and for what it ultimately is. It is a collection of the countries from around the world and just as we expect the Federal government to operate on a higher level than the states so should the UN. It means goals such as the eradication of small pox can be aimed for and achieved because of the coordination across borders that can only come through organisations like the UN.

Cont...

Cont...

From memory at the time of the Rwanda Massacre Kofi Annan contacted and pleaded with all the countries in the UN capable of giving arms and soldiers to intervene in the slaughter. This included Australia. In fact he rang them all twice. The failure to secure any meaningful means of intervention was laid at the feet of the UN but ultimately its effectiveness comes down to a commitment from its member states.

You wrote; “A simple tally of the anti Israeli sensure motions as opposed to most other dictatorial regimes must make even the most biased of observers question the legitimacy of the organisation.”

As your words correctly indicate Israel's actions toward Palestine are indeed dictatorial so why the focus of the UN? Perhaps it is the fact that Israel would have us include it as a 'Western Nation' but its actions severely impact on our ability to do so. I should remind you that in most UN censure motions toward Israel have been supported by virtually the entire world community, both left and right, except in the main by Israel and the US. Is there any censure motion addressing Israel that has had majority support you felt was unjustified?

Now to the Levy Report specifically. Here is a section;

Quote

It should be emphasized here that in the Mandate (as well as in the Balfour Declaration) only the "civil and religious" rights of the inhabitants of Palestine are mentioned as subject to protection, but there is no mention of the national rights of the Arab people. And concerning the practical implementation of this declaration, article 2 of the Mandate says:

"The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self -governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."

Cont...

Cont...

And in article 6 of the Mandate it says:

"The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."

In August 1922 the League of Nations approved the Mandate which was given to Britain, and thus was decided, as a norm anchored in international law, the Jewish people's right to settle in the Land of Israel, their historic homeland, and to establish their state there.

End Quote

It is actually pretty sly work by Levy but right up Mr Singer's alley.

Note the words “and to establish their state there”. The only problem was the Balfour Declaration and Churchill himself were at pains not to include the word 'state' for the obvious reason, because to do so would not allow for “ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced” nor for “safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”

A wise move since we have seem the result of ignoring the Mandate; the extreme prejudicing of the rights and position of large sections of the existing population.

Perhaps you might need to reflect on the justice of the situation. Do the Palestinians have the right to exist as a state in the West Bank free from an avowedly Jewish nation corralling and lording it over them. To me any right thinking person would say yes. They have suffered enough and if we are worth anything as a global community, or even just us as Australians, it is time that justice was served and we tell the Mr Singers of this world to get out of the way.