To #mac

Would you care to tell us what distinguished one Arab from another Arab in 1920?

Consider this statement:

"We rejoice, moreover, that your Highness and your people are of one opinion-that Arab interests are English interests and English Arab. To this intent 'we confirm to you the terms of Lord Kitchener's message, which reached you by the hand of Ali Effendi, and in which was stated clearly our desire for the independence of Arabia and its inhabitants, together with our approval of the Arab Khalifate when it should be proclaimed. We declare once more that His Majesty's Government would welcome the resumption of the Khalifate by an Arab of true race."

What do you think the words "Your people", "Arab interests", "Independence of Arabia and its inhabitants", "Arab Khalifate" and "An Arab of true race" meant?

Share your wisdom with us.

You further claim that:

"any "Arabs" living on the land required by the Zionists would simply be moved aside".

What do you think these words in the mandate meant?

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country;"

In your opinion did this mean "the non-Jewish communities in Palestine" were to be moved aside or were their civil and religious rights to be protected?

How come the League of Nations overlooked the fact that Palestine was the "Palestinians ancestral homeland" as you claim? Didn't the term "non-Jewish communities" include all the non-Jewish inhabitants living in Palestine at the time?

No wonder you want to start from 1948 and forget everything that happened before that.

Get real

Fellow, OLOs, in her article, 'Rediscovering Jurisprudence', Clare says the following: "Clever lawyers can literally help you get away with murder."

Lawyers have been doing this ever since they crept out of the woodwork and from under dank stones. The Singer has amply demonstrated that, in the case of Jewish lawyers, this is also the case!

To argue with him is a waste of time. He is not interested in your point of view, only pushing his own. If he lived to be a thousand, he would still push exactly the same line, never deviating, never conceding an inch.

This is because he is a religious fanatic and nothing deters him, especially the truth.

Argue with him at your peril. You'll wish you hadn't!

P.S. This has been a Public Service Announcement submitted by David G.

David Singer,

More sophistry, pious words mean nothing and don't try to divert the discussion by requiring irrelevant definitions.
I don't know why you bother to propagandise by trying to defend the indefensible, Israel has the US as a patron and protector, public opinion outside America doesn't matter.
I'll refer you to the chapters 6&9 in "The Arabs" by Eugene Rogan, the Palestinians were simply expendable- that's history prior to 1948, this is a long war that was planned in the 19th century.

I "got real" a long time ago and read about the origins of Zionism, it's completely revealing of your chauvinistic attitude that you actually think that you can assume the moral high ground by referring to Zionist plans before 1948.

We've reached an impasse. Shalom.

David G,

Generally I agree with your comments, but not the tone.

Mr Singer wrote;

“#csteele just doesn't want anyone to know about that. The deliberate use of the terms "Israelis" and "Palestinians" is nothing more than a form of obsessive Jew-denial and Jew-hatred. Just hope you are one of the brainwashed innocents caught up in this semantic cover up and not one of its deliberate perpetrators.”

Just for the record I find the label Jew-hater extremely offensive and have been a little surprised that the powers to be on this site have let it be bandied around as they have. In fact there are few things I could be labelled that would give me greater offence.

Yet interestingly from Mr Singer it does not have the sting it would otherwise. Why not? I've come to the conclusion it is the same reason that one doesn't take offence at the utterances of a deranged mind. There is a disassociation from reality that deserves our sympathy rather than our ire. I know it is important to challenge his articles as there are folk who may take our silence as acceptance of his poison but really there is little to really get truly upset over.

So in that vein let us dissect his latest point, that Israeli and Palestinian are not appropriate labels to use when conducting the debate.

I am an Australian, if someone was of the inclination they may well call me Anglo-Saxon, while technically accurate I would far rather be called an Australian and if that someone persisted I would set them straight. Any of the Israelis or Palestinians I have known have always identified themselves by those labels, not Jew or Arab.

Cont..

Cont..

It is only those with agendas/afflictions like Mr Singer who insists on the latter. It can only come from a deep well of racism, the kind that disturbs the mind and in the wrong hands can inflict horrors that we are all too well aware of.

That is not to say there aren't examples of racial labelling; African American or Hispanic American spring to mind, but the primary identifier would be American, however Mr Singer's determined aversion to the word 'Palestinians' speaks to a racism that should offend the majority of Australians, If instead of being a citizen he was a foreigner wishing to visit to this country I would hope our authorities would have the good sense to refuse him a visa as they have done for others thus afflicted.

I think we have something pretty special going in this country. Our generally tolerant attitudes are seen by many around the world as truly commendable and an example to others of what can be achieved. However we must be eternally vigilant and prepared to rebuke racism whenever it is given voice in our media even if it comes from the likes of Mr Singer. So if OLO wants to continue giving him a soap box I feel it is important his toxicity continues to be countered.

I thank those who have taken the time to do so in the past but ask that we attempt to be judicious with our approach and not fall into the trap of engaging with Mr Singer on his level, using his language, and on his terms since therein lies a special kind of madness.

csteele, Thanks for the shortcut about Palestine announcing its intentions to join the mine ban treaty. That is good news.

The change in Palestine's status was quickly heralded by Security Council States calling in Israeli diplomats and expressing displeasure over the E-1 expansion.

I hope to see more diplomacy in the direction of the two-state solution which was mandated by the UN.

Mr Singer, I compliment you on concocting a title for your article that draws so many people into making comments. Even though some of them were dreadfully silly.

Here is an interesting perspective on some of the points canvassed:
http://brismes2012.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/avi_raz.pdf