Now let me see - will Israel allow Palestine to behave as a country? With an army and the right to evict illegal settlers, the right to arm themselves with nuclear weapons as Israel has, territorial rights to the sea off Gaza, the ability to conduct trade without interference, all that other stuff that countries do. Thought not.

Once again, David calls for a raft of preconditions to Middle Eastern peace on his terms. This, while ignoring the genocidal acts of the Israelli military, the genocidal and racist policies of the Israelli government and the illegal and accelerating encroachment on Palestinian (or Jordanian, or whatever) lands.

Only the most downtrodden and demoralised Palestinian would consider entering a debate with these preconditions.

If Palestine has been recognized as a country, then implicit in this is acceptance of the existing borders. If Palestine is a country, it then needs to renegotiate these later.

If the Gaza strip wants sovereignty over its sea and the right to import weapons, then it must expect to bear the brunt of war with Israel without restraint if it violates its borders.

Shadowminister is suggesting that the hair trigger theory of wars is the only one.

Are there no rules to war, Shadow?

What rules/preconditions would you want to apply to those who may otherwise seek to declare war on your country, which I presume to be Australia? Is perceived border transgression sufficient? In which casde, Australia would be permanently at all-out war with its northern neighbours because of frequent but minor indigenous travelling, fishing and other maritime activities, including people smuggling.

If border transgression is the issue, where does that leave Israel regarding the new settlements? Or the great wall?

It appears to me that a one eyed Shadow is demanding one rule or none for himself and another, much stricter, for his enemies.

JB, Please learn to read.

"Shadowminister is suggesting that the hair trigger theory of wars is the only one."

No I'm not. Which makes the rest of your post ridiculous. No one in their right mind would consider hundreds of rockets aimed at civilian areas a "hair trigger"

Simply consider the response to Lebanon where Israel destroyed their roads, bridges, buildings, power plants etc, all infrastructure shared with Hezbollah.

Shadow, your one eye is defective. Take a look through the other one and you will find that much more and varied armament is aimed out of than into Israel.

I stand by what I wrote.

As with politics and religion in general and as pertaining to the Middle East, it is not unusual to find that neither side is entirely civilised or reasonable. The world is far from perfect. However, to seek as Singer so often does, to force upon the "other side" a long string of preconditions while not contemplating similar standards of behaviour from his preferred side is odious and unacceptable to all but unthinking supporters of his position.

When I perceive fairness, compassion, humility or even willingness to abide by international law, I will reconsider my opinion. Until that day, my opinion will remain as at present:
The Israellis have adopted a morally indefensible stance.
The Palestinians are no better, but decades of subjugation at least explain their stance.
The powerful must show humility if negotiations are to be fruitful.
Singer's stance mandates that Israel should approach negotiations as if they are an extension of the battlefield, rather than an alternative to battle. Thus, he has poisoned the well.

Only one side has the luxury, through power, of having access to choices.

They alone have the key to unlock this deadlock. It's long past time they used it.