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.

JB,

Your logic is defective. The Palestinians to achieve peace only have to accept some responsibility. The silly preconditions to negotiations only delay any progress and obviate Israel from any culpability. The rockets only show how their promises to this point have been lies.

Negotiation is just that. Neither side is going to capitulate, and without genuine negotiations there is just continuous stalemate.

To #Candide

There are no Jews living in the area that Abbas has designated a "country" which already has an army and over which Abbas has complete administrative and security control. I think you should see Abbas's statement as a positive development and be encouraging further progress to follow on such statement such as I have outlined in my article.

To #John Bennetts

If you don't agree with "my terms" how do you propose the way forward following Abbas's Kuwaiti declaration?

There is no debate being suggested by me. What I am suggesting is a series of unilateral actions to be undertaken by Abbas and the international community to further progress what Abbas has said.

Continuing with the task of country building in the area already under PLO control seems to not be an unreasonable expectation.

Putting an end to claims that the Palestinian Arabs have no country should be welcomed.

Focusing on developing the country rather than being obsessed with how large it should be is a welcome development in my opinion.

What nonsense this article is. Abbas is not only a collaborator but he has no mandate to engage in political discussions with anyone.

HAMAS won the most recent election but the PLO, with 'democratic' Israeli and 'democratic' American encouragement and support, refused to recognize the democratic outcome.

This biased and duplicitous article by Singer is typical.

From David Singer:
"What I am suggesting is a series of unilateral actions to be undertaken by Abbas and the international community to further progress what Abbas has said."

That succinctly encapsulates what is wrong about Singer's stance. Unilateral action by others... nothing required of Israel.

David, I carefully demolished that stance above. Israel is the holder of superior force and power in the region. It is Israel which has determined, far too often, that military engagements will be on their terms and that has repeatedly inflicted punitive military strikes against those they continually oppress. It is Israel that seeks to restrict the rights of others while demanding not only its legitimate rights but also its illegal wishes, eg construction of villages and military outposts on land which is not theirs.

Israel is the constant aggressor, yet it objects to the infrequent and puny efforts of those who it oppresses to strike back.

We, the readers, all know that David Singer's mind is closed to reason, but why are we subjected regularly to his strident and immoderate posts on the Forum? Has the Forum no editorial policies at all?

#To David G

You are a little behind the developments taking place at the moment.

Abbas is the darling of the international community and is driving the agenda of the Palestinian Arabs as evidenced by his successes at UNESCO and the UN.

His Kuwaiti Declaration needs to be built on - not denigrated.

To #John Bennetts

Unilateral action by Abbas is the path he has chosen to travel - repudiating negotiations with Israel under Oslo and the Roadmap.

That is his choice and Israel now takes a backseat. How it responds to Abbas and any further steps he takes to build up his newly created country will depend on what further actions Abbas chooses to take in conjunction with the international community.

If Israel perceives any further moves by Abbas endangers Israel's security it will no doubt respond. If Abbas acts wisely and engages in the steps suggested by me - then I believe such actions will be a contributing factor to ending the conflict - not perpetuating it.

DG,

Hamas won the most recent election which was many years ago. They then eliminated all opposition. They are way past being able to call themselves "elected" Abbas has been elected several times and has had no need to cancel elections.

Hamas is a group of thugs that only makes life for those they rule miserable.