#To csteele

Into the conspiracy theories now? Poor misguided soul.Is this what you have been finally reduced to?

I will keep mentioning Jordan - because Jordan is part of the problem and must be part of the solution for the following reasons:

1. Jordan occupied the West Bank between 1948-1967 and agreed to it being unified with Transjordan into one state - then renamed Jordan

2. West Bank Arabs were Jordanian citizens from 1950-1988

3. Jordan comprises 78% of former Palestine

4. Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994 that deals with the processes needed to negotiate such contentious issues as refugees, Jerusalem and water.

I will also keep on asking the following questions until you answer them:

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?"

3. Do you consider the following article 20 of the PLO Charter to be racist?

"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."

4. 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?

5. What is the area of the State of Palestine?

6. Who is the current Prime Minister of Palestine?

7. What is the capitol of Palestine?

8. If there is a state of Palestine - why are the Palestinian Arabs still claiming to be stateless and homeless?"

Happy answering

David Singer

A bit of realpolitik

--Every country justifies its actions by invoking so-called "international law." Treaties, UN charters, etc. notwithstanding, there is no such thing as international law. What we have is a set of pious hopes that are sometimes enforced. More often than not there is no practical way of enforcing them. Hence Abdullah Omar is still a free man occupying whatever is the Sudanese equivalent of the White House.

--No state has a "right to exist." All states exist for just so long as they have the means and will to defend their territory against whoever wants to take it away from them. The Tibetans, the West Papuans and the Uighurs did not. You might say they had an inadequate border protection capability. So did the Aborigines which is why you and I are living here and not somewhere else.

--Some countries are lucky in their choice of neighbours. Others aren't. Canadians in the 21st Century do not expect the US to invade them. On the contrary being next to the world's most powerful country makes them feel more secure.

--Israel is less fortunate in its neighbours.

--Australia feels secure because it does not have a land border with any other country. Australians would be thinking completely differently if they had, say, a thousand kilometre land border with Indonesia.

--People who feel guilty about taking Aboriginal land should consider what would have happened to the Aborigines if Europeans hadn't arrived here before the Javanese. (Hint: Take a look at West Papua.)

--In international affairs might is not always right but it usually prevails – at least until it is no longer so mighty.

Now you understand why I am monumentally unimpressed by your legalistic approach to Israel and its right to the lands it occupies. If Israel ever loses the ability to defend itself its neighbours will take the land away. The world will accept a fait accompli and move on.

That is reality.

Not legal arguments.

Shannah tova

#To stevenlmeyer

You state:

"--Every country justifies its actions by invoking so-called "international law." Treaties, UN charters, etc. notwithstanding, there is no such thing as international law. What we have is a set of pious hopes that are sometimes enforced."

Sorry to disavow you but international law does exist. Certainly there may be differences in its interpretation and its enforcement but that is a different thing altogether to saying it does not exist.

In the case of Palestine there is an existing body of international law incorporating the Balfour declaration, San Remo Conference, the Treaty of Sevres, the Mandate for Palestine,article 80 of the UN Charter, the Geneva Convention and Security Council Resolution 242.

The problem is the rejection of that law outright by the PLO as embodied in article 20 of the PLO Charter:

"The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void."

Failure to accept this international law and replacing it with the law of the jungle is the problem.

No one can stop the PLO going down that route. That is their prerogative if they wish. Criminals treat the law with such contempt all the time. However such rejectionism has brought the Palestinian Arabs nothing but grief and suffering.

What is really disturbing are those countries and individuals that aid and abet the PLO in such behaviour. They all contribute to a breakdown of stability in the world order and give others license to ignore international law with impunity if it does not accord with their viewpoints.

When the head of the PLO Mahmoud Abbas appears at the United Nations this month he will be fawned over and given a standing ovation.

Those doing so will be giving their approval to law-denial as internationally acceptable conduct.

No wonder the world is in the mess that currently besets it.

Shana Tova

David Singer,

OK, so you concede there is a problem with enforcing what you call "international law."

It exists but it often cannot be enforced.

Very well, I shall rephrase my point:

It is very hard to enforce international law and in most really important cases it is not enforced.

It seems to me that, as a consequence, a state would be very foolish to rely on international law which means that for most practical purposes it can be ignored. Hamas' targeting of civilians supposedly contravenes international law. Has the ICC issued an arrest warrant for any of the Hamas leadership?

Instead Israel is excoriated for civilian deaths despite the fact that the Fourth Protocol to the Geneva Convention states clearly that you cannot render military targets immune from attack by surrounding them with civilians. A military installation remains a legitimate target even if you surround it with a kindergarten.

And targets include senior personnel. Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah remains a legitimate target even while he is visiting a children's cancer ward - not that I'm advocating going after him at that moment.

I also stand by my bottom line, which I do not think you would deny.

"...If Israel ever loses the ability to defend itself its neighbours will take the land away. The world will accept a fait accompli and move on."

And that, not the finer points of "international law" really is the bottom line.

And that is why I remain unimpressed by your legalistic arguments. They have no practical effect when I comes to Israel versus the Arabs.

Wow, David, so 12,000 Palestinians were allowed into their own country to do the dirty work of the occupiers.

How nice is that?

#To stevenlmeyer

1. You state:

"It is very hard to enforce international law and in most really important cases it is not enforced."

What most really important cases do you have in mind that are not being enforced - and should be enforced?

2. You further state:

"It seems to me that, as a consequence, a state would be very foolish to rely on international law which means that for most practical purposes it can be ignored."

There are volumes of cases in the International Court of Justice that don't support your conclusion. Ignore the law at your peril.

3. Apropos your example of rockets being indiscriminately fired into Israeli population centers from Gaza - the persons firing the rockets would need to be first apprehended which is probably impossible to do. But the law also gives Israel the right of self defense to respond to such attacks. If such defensive measures are found by a court to be disproportionate - relief will be granted.

There are laws, they can be complex and difficult to enforce, but they do exist and are used to determine disputes.

4. You also suggest I would not deny this statement by you.

"...If Israel ever loses the ability to defend itself its neighbours will take the land away. The world will accept a fait accompli and move on."

Well - I do deny it.

Such a general statement is easily disproved.

It hasn't happened with Jordan's loss of the West Bank to Israel.It didn't happen with Iraq's occupation of Kuwait. Did the world accept either of these cases as a fait accompli and move on? The answer is certainly "no".

Maybe the world will - maybe the world won't.