Yet more biased Israeli propaganda from our friendly author who doesn't know when to quit.
Hopefully within my lifetime the world will come to see Israel for what it really is and get rid of it for good.
In the meantime David will continue to right these silly one sided articles, and most others will continue to ignore him.

I know there is a limit as to how many posts I can add in a certain time. Does anybody know if OLO also has a limit on how many biased articles an author (no names please) can submit in a certain time?
Thanks.

Another excellent article detailing the complexities of the vexing situation in the middle east.

How often we only get the 'surface' and by necessity 'simplistic' account of events and negotiations occurring in this area.
The detail of the posts, accurate and relevant historic context and understandable explanations of the legalities, both local and international is enlightening and refreshing.

The disposition of energy resources, as eluded to in this article "the gas field off the Gaza shoreline" I will follow with particular interest, as I also follow, with increasing concern, the 'rock and a hard place' Isreal finds itself in with regard to Iranian nuclear policy.

I read with interest the observations of David Faber - 29/08/2012 and respect his well written, although somewhat under supported, opinion of the Palistinian/Jordan nexus.

Abuse of OLO editorial policy, in my opinion, unfounded.

Whilst there are those who have the right to view the subject matter of Mr Singers posts as subjective, the language used is invariably objective and supported with reference to documented evidence of comments and assertions made.

Comments that resort to 'ad-hominum' attacks, as opposed to disputing the content, Is intellectually laze and particularly tiresome. Perhaps if the opening sentence of comments made were devoid of these attacks I might read the rest of the comment as opposed to skipping immediately to the next comment.
Whilst Csteel invariably attacks Singers' articles and content, I will read with interest his comment and follow his links.

[Deleted. In breach of the Racial Villification Laws.]

The “peace process” (a.k.a. surrender process) details and legalities are neither here nor there. Cutting through all the cackle, the bottom line is that the most racist settler state on earth has been plonked at gunpoint on the Palestinian homeland - without Palestinian consent - and there can be no justice and no peace until it is dismantled and replaced by a Palestinian state belonging to everyone who was born there or is genuinely descended from actual (personally identified) individuals who were born there.

How the most racist state on earth? It is proclaimed as a state belonging to the world’s 14 million Jews - defined on purely racial criteria - any of whom can settle there at will. Any others of the world’s nearly seven thousand million people - “goyim” to the Zionists - need not apply. Most would not wish to, but there are more than four million Palestinians living in exile from their own homeland. That, on any definition of racism, is blatantly racist. No other state - anywhere - can match it (nor should). Not only do these nuclear-armed racists sponge on other countries to fund their territorial ambitions, but they demand blood sacrifice the moment their enclave gets scared of the defensive power of its neighbours. Such as Iran.

Where from here indeed! Time to act not dispense more BS?
Israel needs to stop with the making and then breaking agreements!
It won the war but losses the peace a little more each day, with for patently domestic policy purposes, recalcitrant intransigence that has to be seen to be believed.
Israel needs to stop emulating former Nazis or its infamous SS?
It needs to stop the endless migration of American or European Jews. It needs to stop "acquiring" Palestinian land and then opening new Jewish settlements or enclaves on it.
It needs to settle all its border issues/differences with neighbours; before it builds any new settlements, for new migrants!
New settlements, can only ever be on their side of a final and formally agreed to border.
And it clearly needs to resolve all these vexed issues before it attempts any military (mis)adventures over Iran?
It could do a lot worse as a military measure, than covertly enter the Syrian fray on the side of the rebels, supplying expertise, advanced weapons and trained fluent Arab language speaking "Palestinian" volunteers?
The overthrow of the Iran friendly Assard regime, would seriously weaken Iran, rob her of her only regional friend and her current conduit for very easily beating UN endorsed/imposed sanctions?
Iran needs to be isolated; before anyone, even one as well equipped as Israel, attempts any form of limited military engagement? Israel may have to tackle Iran on her own, for fear of inviting other major powers to participate.
A prospect, that would likely turn much of the middle east, into a war ravaged desolate unproductive desert, from which little or no oil would flow?
Oil, which many Middle Eastern economies are totally dependant on!
A prospect, which could only massively compound current problems and regional tensions!
Rhrosty.

In just a few weeks, the 17th of September to be exact it will be the 64th anniversary of the death of a humanitarian and very brave man. He was involved in the rescuing of over 30,000 concentration camp inmates before the end of the war including 450 Danish Jews from the Theresienstadt concentration camp.

This man should be honoured by inclusion in the list of “Righteous among the Nations”, those who “people risked their lives or their liberty and position to help Jews during the Holocaust”. The list is compiled the Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority in Jerusalem, but to date this gentleman has not been included.

Why not? Because he was assassinated by the Jewish terrorist group under the orders of a future Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Shamir.

Their reason? “because he disturbed our national ambitions”.

That man's name was Folke Bernadotte.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Bernadotte

What is the 'national ambition' Mr Singer and the Israeli government holds for Israel? It is of course that they take the lot and ghettoize where necessary.

What will they do to achieve it? The equivalent of poking a sub machine gun through a car window and slaughtering one of the Righteous.

This article is just another case of smoke and mirrors from Mr Singer.

Just go down any street in Australia and ask the question; 'Even given that international law and the United Nations deem the Israeli occupation of the West Bank illegal they continue to demolish Palestinian homes and set up their illegal settlements on Palestinian territory. Do you think it is unreasonable for the Palestinians to ask that the stealing of their land and demolitions of their homes be halted before negotiations proceed with Israel toward a lasting settlement?'

9 out of 10 fair minded Australians would answer 'Of course!'.

Cont...

Cont...

Some times things are eminently simple. There is only one reasonable and just 'concession/gesture' required here, that the Israeli's cease this illegal activity.

So I agree in part with Mr Singer that “the European Union should spell out what it considers needs to be further done by Israel to get the parties around the negotiating table” i.e. stop demolishing Palestinian villages and stop building illegal settlements on Palestinian land. As to “whether Israel’s refusal to do so would result in Israel being isolated from total or partial diplomatic and financial support from the European Union until Israel meets the European Union’s requirements” the answer again is 'Of course!'.

It is easy to recognise the current Israeli government is not looking for peace nor a settlement. It will prevaricate as much as possible to achieve its goals. Disturbing Israel's 'national ambitions' will take courage and commitment and will unfortunately cost the lives of more good people.

We can only hope that one day Israelis will demand from their government that a different path be taken. Perhaps a signal that this has happened will be the well overdue inclusion of Folke Bernadoote on the list of the “Righteous among the Nations”.

Dear Prompete,

The more I read and learn of this issue the less measured I find myself, further I'm afraid the fraught relationship between Mr Singer and myself has entrenched the 'ad-hominum'. Sorry to disappoint.

In calling for the removal of Mahmoud Abbas, Avigdor Lieberman is at odds with his Prime Minister and Cabinet. In addition, if the PA held elections today there could be only two outcomes: either the relection of Abbas, or his replacement by a more radical Hamas candidate. What would that prove?

See my recent blog towardsabetterday.blogspot.com.au (A very foolish man)

"The PA has refused to resume direct negotiations until Israel agrees to impose a construction freeze in the West Bank for the duration of such resumed negotiations - which Israel refuses to do".

Well David I think this just about settles all the rest of the argument that you put forward.

Israel and the Jewish people are no doubt sick to death of the terror that they feel, the continued anguish and anxiety that may result from some unknown missile attack from the Palestinians still willing to retain some strength to resolve their grievances with Israel.

I feel sorry for these ordinary Jewish people, I do not, for one minute feel sorry for the zealous Zionistic sociopathic supporters of a 'Greater Israel' from suffering these supposed injustices.

As the old adage goes, you reap what you sew; in this case it is deserved, in buckets.

Like South Africa in the 1980's Israel has become a pox on the good will and friendship that is pushed by so many 'progressive nations' Israel needs to take a long hard look at its political, social and economic ambitions. Energy and water are going to become two of the main drivers of hatred and fear in the very near future, religious zealotry and an insane mantra of 'return' runs counter to any chance of finding a bi-lateral solution to current problems in the region.

Your complete failure to acknowledge this and your unilateral view of history will become the pillar of Israel's downfall. Most US citizens have had enough and are sick of financially supporting a blatant apartheid system.

Never mind the EU, it’s in it terminal decline and you need to learn to acknowledge basic human decency, a rational sense of what is deemed right from wrong and give those less fortunate from you to climb some ladder to respectability.

Your continued biased view of Israel and its automatic right to statehood is mired between religion and a sense of political and social justice. Please get a grip on reality.

Geoff of Perth:

Yet again you recite the tired old claim of Apartheid, so often repeated by the extreme left, evidently without really understanding what the term means. Could you give us some examples of this Apartheid system in Israel? It should be interesting to see what you come up with.

As for Israel’s refusal to impose a construction freeze in the West Bank, one must remember that Israel did freeze settlement construction for a period of 10 months during 2009/10. It did nothing to stop the rockets raining down from Gaza into southern Israel, nor did it help to encourage the Palestinian authority to resume negotiations (other than at the 11th hour when they demanded the freeze to continue indefinitely).

While I am not a great supporter of Israeli construction in the West Bank, I can certainly understand why they are reluctant to repeat this gesture again.

Let's look at a few simple facts:
1. Muslims have hated Jews for 1400 years. Take a look at the Quran and hadith if you have doubts.
2. Mohammad massacred hundreds of Jewish prisoners, men and boys, using trickery and lies.
3. At the time of his death, Mohammad ordered the expulsion of both Jews and Christians from Arabia.
4. Muslims take no responsibility for their actions. In Islam, morality is about what others do. For Muslims, "belief" is all that counts (and a few silly rituals).
5. At times, yes, Muslims did treat minorities and jews better than Christians did, but still J+C were 2nd class citizens. If you want the truth about this, read the Rambam.
6. Read the travels and both Karl Marx and Mark Twain if you want to know about jews in pre-mandate Holy Land.
6. Today, everywhere they dominate, Muslims persecute and oppress others. Muslims have expelled more Jews from Islamic countries after 1947 than Palestinians were expelled by the establishment of Israel.
7. Just this year the Palestinians have attacked Israel with hundreds of rockets. Their charter denies the right of Israel to exist. If they could, certain people would kill every jew - men women and children - in Israel. Now that is hate.
8. Most of the evil done to the Palestinians is caused by their neighbors (also Muslims, as in 1947-48), by their corrupt leaders, by Islamic leaders that use this situation for political gain (and distraction), and by their religion.

Conclusion: the jews are doing what they can in an impossible situation. There can be no peace until Muslims have a change of heart. Won't happen. So it is hopeless. Negotiations are a waste of time because neither side is sincere. There can be no peace because Muslims don't want it. Quran 9:111

Dear Mr Singer,

I would like to commend you on your persistence in pushing the pro-Israel/Zionist stance in the face of continuous opposition. However, I think, given the vehemence of said opposition, I would have thought it prudent to try to understand why there is so much opposition and to realize that they are entitled to their POV just as you are entitled to yours.

The constant barrage of abuse that opens fire as soon as any articles or threads are posted regarding the volatile situation in Israel, Palestine and the Middle East, is indicative of why there will never be a solution to this problem.

In light of that, and to satisfy my own curiosity about Zionist, or at the very least right-wing political thinking (which I am trying very hard to understand), I have some questions which I believe (and hope) you may be able to answer. Most of these pertain to what I perceive as double standards; perhaps you can enlighten me. Any links are provided to inform other OLO members and deliver background context to the questions. I apologise in advance as these questions will run over several posts.

1. What do you believe to be Israel’s intent regarding its Arab population, in particular, the “perceived demographic threat” to a Jewish State and inflammatory remarks by Netanyahu? Without casting current Israeli government thinking in the same light as Hitler’s terrible regime, in what ways does the cleansing of Israeli territory from perceived Arab threat differ from Hitler’s nightmare of a pure Aryan nation?

See link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel
http://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/content/israeli-palestinian-conflict-101

2. Why are Palestinians deprived of water rights in the West Bank, on land which ostensibly is theirs? Is water - a continuing problem in this very arid region – and access to the most arable land in the Jordan Valley, the primary reasons for continued Israeli occupation and expansion into the West Bank?

Link: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/the-real-cost-of-israel-s-occupation-of-the-palestinians-1.395839

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/07/20127259518330800.html

3. How do you justify a) your previous arguments that UN rulings regarding the occupation of Palestinian territories have no basis in law, and that Israel is within its rights to ignore any such rulings and defy international pressure to cease all settlements in the West Bank, and b) Israel’s plea with Ban not to attend the NAM summit, thus giving credence to Tehran, with Netanyahu’s proposed visit to the UN in September to ostensibly seek UN support for its cause against Iran? Is this not evidence of double standards and hypocrisy on the part of Israel, to defy the UN when it suits, but seek support also when it suits?

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=283276

4a) Is Israel’s push to attack Iranian nuclear facilities an historical echo of the 1981 bombing of Iraqi nuclear facilities, claiming that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons – a claim that many later believed to be unfounded (much like the WMD claim by the US of Iraq in 2003)?

Do you believe Israel has the strength and commitment to attack Iran without US first strike, given that the US seems increasingly unlikely to do so?

Should Israel be more concerned about international condemnation following such an attack (as per 1981 attack on Iraq), given that the international community is less sympathetic to Israel than it was 30 years ago and it is unlikely that Israel will escape virtually scot-free, as it did 30 years ago?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

(Cont ...)

4b) In light of the above, why is it deemed permissible for Israel, who is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Agreement, to have nuclear weapons on the basis of self preservation, yet Iran (who is a signatory and has repeatedly claimed it does not seek to produce any such weapons) and who is also possibly the second most reviled nation in the Middle East after Israel, will never (under international agreement) be allowed to have such weapons? Is this not an instance of hypocrisy? Please note that admission to developing nuclear weapons grade uranium was inadvertently admitted to by an Israeli soldier who led the 1981 attack:
“In 2010, squad leader Ze'ev Raz said of the operation: "There was no doubt in the mind of the decision makers that we couldn't take a chance. We knew that the Iraqis could do exactly what we did in Dimona” (Israel’s nuclear facility).

While there is no excuse for the anti-Israel sentiments being expressed by Tehran, do you believe that Netanyahu and Barak are making a mistake by not recognizing them as merely attempts to incite an attack and inflame an already volatile situation?

4c) Why does Israel, the US and the UN insist that Iran is “intent” on creating nuclear weapons when the US’ most senior military officer, Martin Dempsey stated in London yesterday that “he did not know Iran's nuclear intentions, as intelligence did not reveal intentions.” Does this admittance negate Israeli/US rhetoric?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/30/israeli-attack-iran-not-stop-nuclear

(Another question – completely unrelated – is why a top ranking military officer heading the US delegation to the Paralympic Games?? Anyone??)

5) I do not know how much you know about the World Zionist Organisation, but you may be able solve a query I have about their website, which I visited out of curiosity this morning. The site is quite helpful and for those of us who do not speak, read or write Hebrew, it obligingly provides an English link – except to the section entitled “Settlement Division” where, inexplicably, it reverts to Hebrew.

http://www.wzo.org.il/index.php?language=eng

Now it may be argued that settlement in Israel is not the business of non-Jews or Hebrew speaking people, and therefore if we can’t read it, we clearly have no right to know what it says, but it made me more than a little curious about such an exclusionary tactic; and if Israel and its Zionist movement has nothing to hide, then why hide information about settlements in Israel from non-Hebrew speaking people? Of course, I could ask one of my Jewish friends to translate it for me, but really I’m not that fussed. Just curious, and perhaps thought you might be able to shed some light on the situation.

6) Finally, do you believe statements by Dr Dahlia Wasfi (of Jewish and Iraqi descent) that the intent of Israel (in particular the Zionist movement) is to ‘divide and conquer’ its Arab neighbours?

Do you believe her statements about Israeli influence in American politics, namely during the Bush administration and the Iraq Invasion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPbedvHm3ic