Before Israel’s unilateral declaration of independence in defiance of the will of the organised international community as it was at the UN, Zionism’s leaders met in Tel Aviv to formally adopt ‘Plan Dalet’ the plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

They did not and never would refer to the crime they authorised as ethnic cleansing. They preferred to call it “transfer”.

A briefing paper by the Institute for Middle East Understanding has demonstrated that from the earliest days of modern political Zionism its advocates grappled with the problem of creating a Jewish State where Palestinian Arabs were the overwhelming majority of the population.

Zionism was based on a colonial enterprise which used an immoral basis for the establishment and continues to use for the continued existence of Israel.

In the 1990’s an article for The American Zionist, Mordechai Nisan of the Truman Research Centre of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem expressed his concern about the failure to understand the major significance of terrorism in the struggle for Jewish sovereignty. He wrote: “Without terror it is unlikely that Jewish independence would have been achieved when it was.”

After the Zionist state declared itself to be in existence, its government set up an unofficial body known as the “Transfer Committee”. Its job was to oversee the destruction of Palestinian towns and villages and/or their repopulation with Jews.

Singer and his supporters fail to recognise this history in their argument or conversation, thereby making any rational context to the problem and their purported solution that more shameful.

Hey Geoff of Perth (3.41pm). See the problem?

The Jews went through the whole shebang; really being gassed and thrown in ovens by the truck-load etc...whilst a million and a half "Palestinians" are very content to be Israeli Citizens and STAY IN ISRAEL, right this minute. With you asserting they face Holocaust MkII!

This may seem incredibly clever down at the local basket-weavers collective, but really...as Julia would say "It looks like Hyper-Bowl" to me!

I've explained why things went bad from the very beginning. Once you've been hunted, and seen all your family murdered...with the assistance of Yassar Arafat's Uncle...it's sorta, ummm, kinda...hard to shake hands with 'em and say "These things happen old fruit".

You still refuse to answer why the 10,000,000 sq ks the Arabs already have is TOO LITTLE. Could you maybe try?

Hey Punter,

"You still refuse to answer why the 10,000,000 sq ks the Arabs already have is TOO LITTLE. Could you maybe try?".

Perhaps the establishment of an ersatz country, based on an ersatz religion based on an ersatz faith, counter to the tribal arab life they had all been living may have had something to do with it.

Your entire moral, social, religious, faith doctrine fails you fully.

Ask the Arabs in 1922 who agreed to the establishment of Israel and you won't find a single instance where they agreed to it.

Hitler offered Madagascar to the Jews and they declined the offer, had they taken the offer, I am sure the people of Madagascar would be facing the same fate as the Arabs today. Touche.

#To Geoff of Perth

You overlook these pertinent facts:

1. Palestine was 0.001% of the Ottoman Empire captured in World War 1 that was set aside for the Jews. The other 99.999% was set aside for the Arabs.

Why are you so hatefully opposed to Jews having their own state alongside 21 Arab Islamic states and another 36 Islamic states?

2. The Jews were subjected to murder,injury and destruction of their property during the Arab riots in 1920, 1929 and during 1936-1939 from a less than hospitable Arab population. They were denied to opportunity to escape the Holocaust and come to Palestine because the Arabs pressured the British to restrict Jewish immigration in 1939.

3 Separation of Jews and Arabs was recognized as the only solution - as the Peel Commission recommended in 1937.

4. Transfers of population against their will were undertaken in post-Ottoman Turkey and Greece and in India and Pakistan. Do you bash the Greeks, the Turks, the Indians and the Pakistanis, the Christians,the Moslems and the Hindus for pursuing these policies as you seem to delight in bashing the Jews?

5. The UN Partition Plan (33 for, 13 against and 10 abstentions)was rejected by the Arabs and justified the Jews declaring independence the day before Britain withdrew from Palestine.

6. Six Arab armies invaded the newly declared State of Israel with the intention of driving the Jews into the sea.

7. The League of Nations unanimously endorsed the right of the Jews to reconstitute their national home in Palestine and closely settle the land without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities living there. This right was enshrined in Article 80 of the UN Charter.

8. Mentioning Plan Dalet in isolation whilst plagiarising Alan Hart an avowed Jew-hater without acknowledgement (for obvious reasons)- and then claiming your remarks to be "history" - presents an entirely biased and prejudiced view. That is your right to do so if you wish - as is my right to point out to readers that all is not what you would like people to believe.

David "Why are you so hatefully opposed to Jews having their own state alongside 21 Arab Islamic states and another 36 Islamic states"?

I am not, and I don't hate anyone. What I hate is the immoral way in which Israel was established, the Zionistic plan and execution of the displacement and continued social and economic strangulation of the arab people which ensures that Israel continues to grow and grow and further displace the arab peoples who have just as much right, if not more right, to live in all the lands of Israel on an even humanitarian basis.

Current Israeli politics and military doctrine ensures there will never be a two state solution. Unfortunately the fanatical zionistic mantra purports to put one race of people above another.

You can pontificate about your version of history on the validity of the creationa and continued existence of Israel, however I am of the belief most of what you write is complete biased and in no way helps to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East.

Geoff

When Singer advocates inducing the Arab population to move from Area C to Areas A and B - the only possible reason I can imagine for suggesting this is so as to allow Israel to take over that area unimpeded by people living there. His idea of reciprocity seems to be something like "if you don't object to us taking over half of your land, then we won't take over all of it.

Someone asked "why the 10,000,000 sq ks the Arabs already have is TOO LITTLE". Answer - the Arabs who come from land that is now part of or occupied by Israel don't have land anywhere else. Arabs from other places have land in those other places. So what?

Singer says "Transfers of population against their will were undertaken in post-Ottoman Turkey and Greece and in India and Pakistan. Do you bash the Greeks, the Turks, the Indians and the Pakistanis, the Christians,the Moslems and the Hindus for pursuing these policies ..."?
I know nothing about post-Ottoman Turkey and Greece but in fact in India and Pakistan the transfers of population were due to communal violence, not Government action. And I absolutely condemn the violence that made Hindus and Muslims find moving necessary. As, I would hope, any decent person would.
And to address his question more precisely, I would find any forced transfer of population anywhere quite odious.