"The recognition of this new country called "Palestine" by Google - and anyone espousing the same viewpoint - requires them to identify the precise location and area of the land that such country encompasses."

Well, "Israel" is designated on Google maps even though it's continually expanding, so I'm sure Google's cartographers will have already developed the expertise to deal with what's left of Palestine.

Ah, the Singer is at it again, trying to chip away at what's left of the Palestinians who are under brutal Israeli occupation and blockade.

The Singer believes implicitly in the slogan 'Never give a sucker an even break!' Even when the Israelis are all over the West Bank with their military forces and are still building settlements and taking Palestinian homes and building Jew-only roads, that is not enough for him.

Enough is never enough for the Israelis and their misguided supporters. Why, Israel is now bombing Syria as well and who knows where they will venture next with their American arms.

No one and no nation in the Middle East is safe from the Jewish imperial scourge!

Dear David Singer,

For once I agree with you. Only states that have full diplomatic recognition by most other states should be designated as states by Google.

The UN resolution recognised Palestine as a non-member state. It did not admit Palestine into the UN as a member. Those states who voted for the resolution did not in general send ambassadors or other diplomatic representatives to Palestine as they should if they really regarded Palestine as a state.

Perhaps instead of constantly disputing as we usually do, we should rather concentrate on what we do agree on:

As binary google users cannot count beyond 2 anyway, Singer, myself and those people called 'Palestinians' all agree that Palestine is a fiction and the world-map should only include two areas:

"Israel" and "Not-Israel".

The slight and only difference is that:
- In Singer's map, the only area coloured "Not-Israel" would be the U.S.A;
- In my map, the area coloured as Israel would be exactly enclosed by its 1949-1967 borders;
- In the so-called-Palestinian's maps and their supporters', the "Israel" area would be invisible (Hocus Pocus! how did the Jews manage to do it again?!?).

So who said that we don't agree?

Next project would be to title all books as either "Bible" or "Not-Bible". We could then save librarians so much work!

David Singer has exceeded himself this time. His repeated appeals to subject Palestine to laws, declarations, resolutions etc made exclusively by foreigners have now expanded into calls for its pedople's right to self-determination to be denied because they don’t have defined boundaries. Here’s some news for this nitpicking lawyer: racist Israel doesn’t have defined boundaries. It doesn’t have a constitution at all, nor do the mythical “Jewish people”. People of Jewish ancestry have many homelands. Like the rest of us. In all these Jewish homelands (like Australia for example) Jews share equal rights with every other citizen. The Zionist grabbers have specifically excluded adopting a constitution for Israel because if they did so they would have to define a national boundary, and an outfit considering itself to have a right to endless piecemeal expansion is not about to set limits to it.

So the absence of a defined boundary, according to Mr Singer, means no right to exist as a nation. Well there are excellent moral reasons to deny racist Israel the right to exist as a nation, but if Mr Singer wants to add lack of a defined boundary as a legalistic reason for a state not to exist then his claim is applicable to Israel.

Dear Julian,

It's just slightly off-topic, but you stated: <<People of Jewish ancestry have many homelands. Like the rest of us. In all these Jewish homelands (like Australia for example) Jews share equal rights with every other citizen.>>

I am now anxious to learn how you then relate to Rehctub in another current thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5773&page=0#161490

Aren't people entitled then to have (or create) their own space where they can be assured for example that their movements will not be translated (by CCTV cameras) into electric signals during the Sabbath in contravention with their faith?

What good are "equal rights" for people who need a completely different set of rights?

Yuyutsu " In Singer's map, the only area coloured "Not-Israel" would be the U.S.A;". Come on now. The USA is another state controlled by the Zionists.

David

To Yuyutsu:

Rehclub's comment was not relevant to either the earlier thread or this one, nor was your reply to him. At the time when British grabbers (universally now dead) inflicted their Yawm-an-Nakba on the Aboriginal inhabitants and unilaterally set up states for British subjects their behaviour was as despicable as (though slightly less narrowly racist than) the behaviour of the Zionist invaders 1948 to the present day). No doubt back then there were scoundrels as desperately promoting the claims of the British settlers as David Singer now promotes the specious claims of the Zionist settlers.

Dear Julian,

<<Rehclub's comment was not relevant to either the earlier thread or this one>>

The relevance is that here we have an Australian (today, not 225 years ago) who insists that his culture (essentially British in origin) must reign supreme and has the right to impose rules and regulations that oppress other cultures, in this case installing CCTV cameras that would cause Jews to break their religious obligation to keep the Sabbath if they left their homes on the Sabbath - and if the Jews don't like it then they should leave Australia.

Jews were seeking a place on the face of this planet where they can observe their religious obligations, where they can for example walk outdoors on the Sabbath without accidentally activating electrical/electronic devices.

As some Australians (eg. Rehctub) would not allow orthodox Jews to live in Australia (unless they assimilate, as he wrote in another thread), and given it's practically the same in other countries (or perhaps even worse, as in Europe under Hitler or as in Muslim countries), then where would the Jews go? Why wonder if they want a state of their own where they can observe the Sabbath properly?

Where and how big that state may be, is a separate issue, open for discussion. What I am anxious to know, are your feelings about the very idea of Jews having their own independent space where they can follow the dictates of their religion without obstruction.

I overlooked Yuyutsu's final paragraphs.

Yes, people are fully entitled to set up their own space to observe the requirements and prohibitions of their own special claims. But not to foist them on anyone else. If normal people wish to arrange their own lives around electric currents or Saturday driving or whatever, that's THEIR right and nobody is "special" enough to be entitled to the power to prohibit them. That's what's meant by equal rights - the role of the state is to protect the exercise of these equal rights. Zionists claim the so-called "Jewish people" are entitled to "special" rights that transcend the rights of everyone else - hence the need for a "Jewish state" on Palestinian land. Shlomo Sand spells out, blow by blow, the way a cabal of Zionist historiographers has distorted history and education to promote this claim in Israel. Goyim who challenge this phoney history are described by Zionists as "anti-Semites" and Jews who challenge it through careful evidentiary research are termed "self-hating Jews".

Thank you Julian,

I am happy with your answer.

I have read Shlomo Sand. Yes, he falsifies the grandiose claims that Jews own the land of Israel on the basis of being a nation expelled from that land. So far so good.

Nevertheless, some Jews, for whatever reason, wise or otherwise, did purchase lands for the purpose of establishing their own space there.

So I understand that you have no problem with Jews having their own state on the lands which they purchased for full price from the local Arabs. The only issue would then be those additional lands that were not properly purchased.

Had the Arabs accepted the right of Jews to have their own state on their own purchased land, then no conflict would arise to begin with and the state of Israel would have remained quite small in size.

But they didn't, stupidly didn't, or perhaps because it was against their Islamic rules. It was fine to accept and pocket the money, but not so fine to accept the full consequences. Instead they turned to kill the Jews - and lost, and lost more lands in turn, causing many of their own people to become refugees - but did they care? I think not. I think that throwing the Jews out to the sea was a higher priority for their leaders than caring for the peace and welfare of their own people. It still is.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: "Jews were seeking a place on the face of this planet where they can observe their religious obligations, where they can for example walk outdoors on the Sabbath without accidentally activating electrical/electronic devices.

As some Australians (eg. Rehctub) would not allow orthodox Jews to live in Australia (unless they assimilate, as he wrote in another thread), and given it's practically the same in other countries (or perhaps even worse, as in Europe under Hitler or as in Muslim countries), then where would the Jews go? Why wonder if they want a state of their own where they can observe the Sabbath properly?"

The above is not true. Early Zionism was primarily a secular and not a religious movement. Herzl, an important figure in early Zionism, was not religious. However, he despaired when he, as a journalist, reported the Dreyfus case which indicated to him that even in the democracies Jews could not receive fair treatment. Jews were under extreme civil disabilities in Russia where they were limited in where they could live, what schooling they could get and what occupations they could pursue. Early Zionism envisaged a state where a Jew would be free to pursue any occupation and interests he or she would want to pursue and would not suffer civil disabilities for being a Jew.

Most religious Jews opposed Zionism as they believed only God could return Jews to Israel, and it was against God for man to assume they could do it by political means. it was only much later that many religious Jews became Zionists. Many religious Jews in Israel and other places still oppose the Zionist state as they regard it as the work of man rather than God.

Orthodox Jews can observe the sabbath without restriction in Los Angeles and Sydney as well as in Jerusalem or czarist Russia. In fact, most orthodox Jews in czarist Russia were poor and lived in non-electrified houses.

"Yet no map has been produced by President Abbas indicating where the country he presumably heads is located."

Where is the Israeli map of its borders mr singer?
There isnt one is there. You hypocrite.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Speaking of creating space this incident last week might serve to illustrate what is happening on the ground.

“The Palestinian landowners called the police to report the trespassing. Sh'hab a-Din, a volunteer in human rights organization B’Tselem’s Camera Project, filmed the incident as it unfolded. When soldiers arrived on the scene, the Palestinians told them that this was their own land and that they wanted the trespassers removed. The soldiers ignored these explanations. Rather than sending the settlers away, the soldiers arrested the Palestinians and took them to the Kiryat Arba Police Station. There, the police did not release the detainees. Instead, the police demanded cash bail and a pledge that the Zaros not go out to their land for 15 days. The detainees insisted that they were innocent of any wrongdoing and refused to pay any money or sign any pledge. Consequently, the police kept them in custody overnight.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3QrSxnQI74&feature=player_embedded

Here is a link to the entire story on B'Tselem.

http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20130430_arrest_of_a_zaro_family

These are illegal Jewish settlers who more likely than not will end up appropriating this land within a few years, possibly by provoking a response from the Palestinian owner that will get him barred from his own property.

And so on it goes.

Dear Csteele,

I writhe in agony upon reading such stories. I feel so helpless about it.

Dear David F.,

You are right, so that is why I mentioned earlier that I'm going slightly off-topic in introducing the issue of having a Jewish state for the purpose of being able to properly observe the Sabbath.

Nevertheless, it is not totally off-topic, because the founders of Israel promised that the Jewish state exists so that in future it can absorb ANY Jews persecuted around the world.

One cannot forecast the potential dangers 100 years in advance. Nobody believed that the holocaust could occur in the midst of civilised Western-Europe (and who either could believe that some Jews can behave like Nazis themselves, see Csteele above). Similarly, nobody could foresee the advent of CCTV cameras in public space. If this trend continues and CCTV cameras are introduced in the suburbs, then orthodox Jews will flee to Israel in droves, where they can safely walk the street on Shabbat without accidentally triggering an automatic shop-door to open or having to press a button to get a pedestrian green light.

Israel will still be there to accept them.

As for Zionism, I can justify observant Jews, but I honestly cannot understand why Jews who do not believe in the Torah should bother having a state just-for-Jews. If they feel threatened and overpowered, and as Herzl felt that even assimilation was not feasible, then they should instead create a state open for ALL refugees fleeing persecution. I do consider it outrageous for people who do not really believe in the Torah to wave that same bible-book, which they themselves do not believe in, as "evidence" for owning that land when it suits them.

To mikk

You confuse the issue of boundaries with borders.

The claim to be a country obliges the claimants in international law to state where the boundaries of the country are located - i.e the area of the land claimed to be under the control of the claimant. Whether those boundaries are recognised by neighbouring states as constituting a border between them is a matter for negotiation.

Abbas has gone outside the negotiations with Israel in declaring Palestine to be country.
He is perfectly entitled to abandon those negotiations and make a unilateral declaration
- but then he has to tell everyone the precise area where this country is located.

Otherwise his claim is nothing more than hot air.

Neither Abbas nor Google or indeed anyone else supporting Abbas's claim has stated the boundaries of the land that comprises the country of Palestine.

Is it Area A and Gaza, Area A and Area B and Gaza? Just Area A?

Google is looking pretty foolish jumping on Abbas's bandwagon before Abbas has made clear the area he claims constitutes the country called "Palestine"

The borders of Israel have been recognised by both Jordan and Egypt in their respective peace treaties with Israel. The West Bank and Gaza are disputed areas and are not recognised as being part of Israel by Egypt or Jordan - nor has Israel claimed these areas form part of Israel although it maintains a claim to at least some parts of these areas under the Mandate for Palestine and the UN Charter. There is no border between Israel and the West Bank and Israel and Gaza - only armistice lines agreed between Israel , Egypt and Jordan in 1950.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Many feel helpless. Some do what they can. I note Stephen Hawking's announcement that he is boycotting what had been a planned visit to Israel.

“Professor Hawking did not make a public announcement but a statement published by the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine with his approval described it as "his independent decision to respect the boycott, based upon his knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/stephen-hawkings-boycott-of-major-israel-conference-unjustifiable-and-wrong-8608229.html

The actions described above continue to validate such a stance.

Dear Csteele,

<<I note Stephen Hawking's announcement that he is boycotting what had been a planned visit to Israel.>>

The only reason I visit Israel is to see my family there.

I am not going to forsake my family.

They are not even responsible for the occupation and do not live in occupied areas. I know many good Israelis in that situation, being themselves victims of the Israeli government and the settlers. There is no reason to punish them.

I do take the risk of being blown up by Iranian nukes and other unholy pieces of metal, chemicals and explosives falling from the sky when I go there, but that's an appropriate type of risk one should take for their family's sake. Wouldn't you do the same?

Dear Yuyutsu,

You are conflating two different things. Persecution is one thing, and not being able to observe the Sabbath is another thing. All one has to do wherever one is to observe the Sabbath without triggering any electronic devices is to stay home on the Sabbath and not use any electrical devices. It’s that simple. Some Orthodox Jews in Sydney play traffic roulette and run through traffic so as not to press the buttons on the Sabbath.

However, with the threat of terrorism there are probably CCTV cameras all over Israel, and I doubt that they are shut down during the Sabbath.

I agree. It is outrageous for people who do not believe in the Torah to wave that book to claim the land. Please cite who has done that? To the best of my knowledge no non-believing Jew has cited the Torah. They do cite a historical connection that is more recent than the Torah in the same way that other irredentist claims are cited by other ethnic nationalists.

I don’t care for ethnic nationalism of any kind. Any country should not discriminate among its citizens on the basis of ethnicity, race or religion. Self-determination to demand a nation on the basis of a shared ethnicity has built in discrimination and unfairness.

Unfortunately Israel is only one of many ethnic nationalist states. Even if a country is not based on ethnic nationalism, patriotism and nationalism can result in xenophobia.

An unfortunate fact is that people of any ethnic origin can behave like Nazis. All colonial endeavours by the European powers were accompanied by extermination. Ben Kiernan’s “Blood and Soil” is a history of 2,400years of genocide accompanied by land takeovers and claims. A history of persecution can result in a desire for payback. Child abusers may have a history of being abused as a child.

And so it goes.

David S states the following:

"Abbas has gone outside the negotiations with Israel in declaring Palestine to be country. He is perfectly entitled to abandon those negotiations and make a unilateral declaration - but then he has to tell everyone the precise area where this country is located.

Otherwise his claim is nothing more than hot air."

Well by my count Israel's establishment was outside of the negotiations with the genuine Arabs who lived in what is now the 'mythical land of Israel', a blatant unilateral declaration, one that has no borders, at least recognised by modern international, unbiased and true law.

Without the financial and politically biased support of the myopic and sociopathic US government and their shills, Israel in its current form would fail to exist.

Singer is the ultimate hypocrite and his continued ranting shows his complete contempt for justice, fair-play and any sense of rational behaviour.

Why we bother responding is beyond me, other than the need to slap this silly man in the face with some real facts.

Show me on a map where Israel is supposed to be David and I will hold you account when the Zionists take one step over your mythical border and take by force as usual, the lands of those who currently reside there.............Mark the date 9 May 2013 and we will see where that border stands in 12 months, not the same place would be my guess!

To Geoff of Perth

Since sovereignty in the area known as the West Bank and Gaza remains unallocated between Israel and the newly declared country of Palestine your prediction could well prove true.

Abbas wants 100% of that territory. At best at present he himself controls about 40% by my calculations. The way he is going makes it likely he can end up with nothing in 12 months.

At last count he had been offered more than 90% and knocked it back.

With this kind of Arab bazaar he might just wake up one morning to find that the Jewish customer has walked out of the store as the price the Arab vendor was demanding was too high.

Like so many instances in history including 1923, 1937, 1948, between 1948-1967, 2000/1 and 2008 the Palestinian Arabs have passed up so many opportunities to have their own sovereign independent State alongside a Jewish State. It has always been their choice to ignore reality and bury their heads in the sand - as it is now.

They have to live with their decisions and do as they think is in the best interests of the Palestinian Arabs.

As I have said previously - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Abbas has walked away from Oslo and the Bush Roadmap. Once again he has proved that he never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Google seems to have swallowed Abbas's latest decision hook line and sinker.

So be it.

Dear David F.,

<<All one has to do wherever one is to observe the Sabbath without triggering any electronic devices is to stay home on the Sabbath and not use any electrical devices.>>

Is weekly home-detention such a light sentence?
Not being able to go to synagogue; Children cannot play outside; Not seeing friends and extended family - or alternately squeezing a minimum of 10 men in sleeping-bags in the lounge every Friday in order to have a quorum to pray - is that a way to live?

I am not privy to what Israeli security services do with their CCTV during Sabbath (whatever they do I'm sure they've got Rabbi-support), but I know that most traffic-lights in Israel have no pedestrian buttons, and even for those that have, green pedestrian traffic lights turn on periodically on the Sabbath even without pushing the buttons.

<<I agree. It is outrageous for people who do not believe in the Torah to wave that book to claim the land. Please cite who has done that?>>

Both Ben Gurion (below) and Aba Eban (in a U.N. speech):

[Lord Peel spoke up, saying “Mr. Ben Gurion, the Arab people have a Kushan entitling them to this land.” A Kushan was an Ottoman land deed. “Do you have a document saying that Palestine belongs to you?”

At that point, Ben Gurion became aware of the Tanach (Hebrew Bible) in his hand that he swore upon whilst taking the oath to be witness to the commission, and he held it up triumphantly exclaiming “Here is your Kushan, here is your document. It is the world’s most highly respected book, and I believe that you British regard it with much respect too. We must have this land.]

(From http://www.torchweb.org/torah_detail.php?id=125)

Like you, I also dislike nationalism/racism, but I consider it legitimate for any group of people owning a contiguous piece of land who unanimously desire sovereignty over that land so that they can pursue their unique lifestyle there, to have that wish fulfilled.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote;

“I do take the risk of being blown up by Iranian nukes and other unholy pieces of metal, chemicals and explosives falling from the sky when I go there, but that's an appropriate type of risk one should take for their family's sake. Wouldn't you do the same?”

Indeed. I hope you and your family remains safe from harm.

It is a wish I also extend to Iranian families and to Australians fortunate to be able to visit loved ones in Iran. Forgive me if I count their chances of being blown up by Israeli “nukes and other unholy pieces of metal, chemicals and explosives falling from the sky” slightly higher than that of your own though I recognise this perspective is only afforded those with no direct involvement in the hostilities.

But there has been some good news recently, the IDF has decided to stop stockpiling and using white phosphorus munitions. Apparently it “doesn't photograph well”'
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/463/591.html?hp=1&cat=875

These terrible weapons aptly fits your description of “ unholy pieces of metal, chemicals and explosives falling from the sky”

“It causes severe burns when it comes into contact with humans. Phosphorus continues to burn as long as it is exposed to oxygen, so the burns continue to penetrate deeper into the body's tissues, making the injury especially horrific. Even if physicians manage to remove the burnt tissue, the phosphorus is absorbed in the blood stream and poisons internal organs. One of the persons injured by phosphorus in Gaza, Ghadah Abu Halima, died from her wounds many weeks after testifying to B’Tselem about the incident in which five people in her family were killed by phosphorus-laden artillery shells. (Read Abu Halima’s testimony: http://bit.ly/o2IhBe )
Bt Selem

Israel had been heavily criticised for its use during Operation Cast Lead and the iconic photograph of the rain of white phosphorus on the UN school in Gaza put paid to any denial from the IDF. This was a weapon that was banned for use in civilian areas by international law for very good reason.

This is a very welcome undertaking from the IDF.

Yuyutsu: “Like you, I also dislike nationalism/racism, but I consider it legitimate for any group of people owning a contiguous piece of land who unanimously desire sovereignty over that land so that they can pursue their unique lifestyle there, to have that wish fulfilled.”

Dear Yuyutsu,

There is no unique lifestyle. Ultra-orthodox, the modern orthodox, the reform, the conservative and the irreligious Jews all have different lifestyles. To make all Jews have the same lifestyle is to promote a tyranny. It means that one of the differing Jewish lifestyles becomes law to which all Jews, whether they find that lifestyle compatible with theirs or not must conform.

There also is no place on earth where any contiguous piece of land of any size is occupied by a people of the same ethnicity or religion. Israel contains non-Jews. They have a right to pursue their lifestyles, too. There is no reason that a non-Jew living in Israel should have to conform to Jewish practices in regards to diet, holy days or anything else. They should also have the right to live where they are living and not be ethnically cleansed.

No decent society should have the right to enforce religious law on those who do not want to follow that law. I think both Israel and Australia have bent over backwards too far in catering to religious sensibilities. I see no reason that the general Australian taxpayer should finance non-public schools or have chaplains in the public schools. All religious schools should be entirely paid for by the parents of the children who go there and/or the religious body to which they belong. In Israel I see no reason that all Jews and non-Jews should be compelled to observe the lifestyle of a subset of Jews.

It is not legitimate for any group sharing the same ethnicity or religion to have a nation based on that shared identity. Nations must not discriminate among its citizenry. Law should not be based on a book of religious fables.

We will not agree. Let’s stop.

Dear David F.,

I never advocated any religious or ethnic coercion, expulsion or the like.

My statement:
"but I consider it legitimate for any group of people owning a contiguous piece of land who unanimously desire sovereignty over that land so that they can pursue their unique lifestyle there, to have that wish fulfilled.”

is general in nature. The group in question could be ethnic or religious, but not necessarily so. All that's required is:
1) A unique lifestyle.
2) Owning a contiguous piece of land (no "holes").
3) Unanimous desire for sovereignty.

This does not describe Israel. Period. In the context of this topic, it could have referred to the lands purchased by the early, pre-1948 Jewish settlers, as per my reply to Julian (Thursday, 9 May 2013 2:47:03AM) - but in no way to the current area of Israel.

While certain ultra-orthodox neighbourhoods in Israel fulfil #1+#2, I suspect that the ultra-orthodox in Israel do not currently want sovereignty for their neighbourhoods because:

1) It would isolate them from the other ultra-orthodox neighbourhoods, as well as from the rest of the world (their areas do not contain air or sea ports).
2) Even now, the state of Israel does not prevent them in any way from observing the Sabbath and all other Jewish laws.
3) They don't want to lose government funds.

If there was a Jewish-orthodox suburb of Melbourne where EVERYONE without exception was ultra-orthodox and EVERYONE without exception wanted sovereignty, then they should have it. They may as a result have no land, sea or air access to the rest of the world; or no sources of water, food, infrastructure, minerals and energy - well, that would be THEIR PROBLEM!

It would only be at the very last resort for the Jews of a Melbourne suburb to demand sovereignty. For that to happen, some horrendous legislation would have needed to be passed, forbidding them for example to observe the Sabbath or to circumcise their boys. If there was any other way around it (such as travelling interstate to circumcise), then they wouldn't go as far.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I have noted your most recent post.

To csteele

You state:

""This ( white phosphorous) was a weapon that was banned for use in civilian areas by international law for very good reason."

You may be unaware of the findings of the Goldstone Commission which concluded in paragraph 48 of its Executive Summary:

"48. Based on its investigation of incidents involving the use of certain weapons such as white phosphorous and flechette missiles, the Mission, while accepting that white phosphorous is not at this stage proscribed under international law, finds that the Israeli armed forces were systematically reckless in determining its use in built-up areas. Moreover, doctors who treated patients with white phosphorous wounds spoke about the severity and sometimes untreatable nature of the burns caused by the substance. The Mission believes that serious consideration should be given to banning the use of white phosphorous in built-up areas. As to flechettes, the Mission notes that they are an area weapon incapable of discriminating between objectives after detonation. They are, therefore, particularly unsuitable for use in urban settings where there is reason to believe civilians may be present."

Upon what authority do you rely to substantiate your claim that the use of white phosphorous by Israel was illegal in international law?

Dear David Singer,

The use of white phosphorus is legal under international law. However, it causes great harm and suffering. Did Israel have to use it? Unfortunately my country, the US, has used land mines, depleted uranium and cluster bombs, all of which cause great suffering and do not distinguish between children and other civilians and the military. I condemn both my country and Israel for using such devices. Could Israel have achieved its ends in Gaza without the use of white phosphorus? It is legal but is it right to use it?

Dear David Singer,

I note the quite lawyerly manner in which you have put the question on the legality of the use by the IDF of phosphorus munitions within civilian areas.

Unusually but understandably you have not stated your own position so I imagine you know the answer to the question.

However I also acknowledge the bind you are in. As an Australian you are a citizen of a country which along with 108 nations has signed the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III) which is part of the Geneva Convention.

This protocol specifically states in Article 2 that;

“It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.”

and;

“It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.”
http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=14FEADAF9AF35FA9C12563CD0051EF1E

Cont..

Cont..

Israel's position has been that the Geneva Convention does not apply within the Occupied Territories nor is it a signatory to this protocol so if you are also a citizen of that nation you might perhaps consider yourself not being bound by this piece of international law.

Yet the IDF went to great lengths to initially deny its use of this weapon in operation Cast Lead with a spokesperson telling CNN "I can tell you with certainty that white phosphorus is absolutely not being used."
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/12/white.phosphorus/index.html?_s=PM:WORLD

Although I'm not sure how they thought they would get away with it with pictures like this emerging on a daily basis.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45409000/jpg/_45409365_gazaphosphorusafp226b.jpg

However one must acknowledge they at least recognised it was an illegal act otherwise why bother to deny its use for so long.

In the end they admitted to firing over 200 white phosphorus shells into Gaza city and its surrounds. This area is one of the most heavily populated with civilians in the world.

The Israeli Human Rights group B'Tselem put the position quite clearly;

“Israel has not signed the Protocol, but the rule it states is based on two customary principles of international law, which are binding on Israel. The first is the prohibition on using weapons that cannot distinguish between combatants and civilians, and the second is the prohibition on using weapons which by their nature cause unnecessary suffering.”

“The use of such a weapon in a densely populated civilian area like the Gaza Strip breaches these two principles, and violates Israel's obligation to take every possible precaution to limit harm to civilians.”

So Mr Singer, do you take the Australian government's position or that of the the Israeli government?

To csteele

Your lengthy response on whether Israel's use of white phosphorous was illegal in international law is answered by your own following statement:
"Israel's position has been that the Geneva Convention does not apply within the Occupied Territories nor is it a signatory to this protocol so if you are also a citizen of that nation you might perhaps consider yourself not being bound by this piece of international law."

Davidf also agrees.

Thank you for correcting your previous erroneous statement.

Dear David Singer,

You didn't answer my question. I asked whether it was right to use white phosphorus - not whether it was legal. Are you a lawyer who defends a client doing whatever the client can get away with or are you a mensch who has a sense of right and wrong?

Your silence answers my question. To you it doesn't matter whether Israel is right or wrong. It doesn't matter whether Israel does something good or something bad. Whatever it does you are going to defend it. Your type is common. You are one of many who are blind supporters of whatever they support, and it doesn't matter what the entity that they support does. We Jews have such people among us - probably in much the same proportion as everybody else.

I wish we didn't, but that's the way it is.

Davidf

Democracies regulate human conduct by the rule of law. The system is not perfect but is capable of change when thought desirable by the Government of the day.

The Arabs have no respect for the rule of law when it comes to the former territory of Palestine regarding the Mandate for Palestine and the United Nations Charter as illegal and void.

That is their prerogative and yours as well.

It is a choice that has brought the Palestinian Arabs nothing but grief and disaster for the last 95 years.

Dear David Singer,

Unfortunately you chose to bang away about the Arabs rather than look at yourself. It was predictable but sad. As far as I am concerned you are not much of a mensch.

Davidf

You are entitled to your opinion. It is a pity you keep running away from discussing any points I make.

Respect for the rule of law is apparently not of importance to you. So be it.

Dear David,

Respect for the rule of law is most important to me. More important to me is a consideration for right and wrong. Going back to my question. We agree that it was legal for Israel to use white phosphorus in Gaza. Was it right and moral to do so?

Your refusal to answer indicates to me that you don't care whether it is right or moral as long as it is legal. Martin Luther jr., Henry Thoreau, Mahatma Gandhi and the Israeli refuseniks all put morality ahead of legality. One should not disobey the law lightly, but one should be aware of the difference between justice and law. Apparently you put the law above justice and will support Israel in whatever it does whether it is just or not as long as you can claim the act is legal. I have the feeling that if Israel does violate a law you will ignore the violation. It was significant that you chose to beat on the Arabs rather than answer my original question in this exchange. You are not a mensch.

Thank you David F. for your excellent replies and observations.

Wouldn't it be time for Mr. Singer to move his articles to some legal forum instead of insulting us here week in and week out?

Perhaps we should petition Graham Young to relieve us of this barrage of articles.

As a Jew you should really be concerned that such depiction of Israel as a heartless legalistic-monster is detrimental to the very thing which Singer wants to promote - and therefore to Jews in general. The editor of Der Stürmer would have been proud of this portrayal of Jews as shrewd lawyers.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I have expressed my opinion of David Singer with my replies to him. However, I am very reluctant to suggest that any speech be banned - especially speech that I find obnoxious. Others might find my views obnoxious and want to ban me. Graham is the editor and chooses what to post. I am satisfied to leave it to him.

As far as the stereotype of Jews as shrewd lawyers, Mr. Singer does not fit the stereotype. A shrewd lawyer is smart enough to appear unbiased and present his client's case as reasonable even if it isn't. Mr Singer is a bumbling lawyer whose evasions hurt his client's case. He destroys the stereotype. Jews can be as incompetent as anybody else. Mr. Singer proves it.

Peter Selleck is also a one trick pony who repeats his hobby horse ad nauseam. However, others whack him so I need say little. John Pilger has an unfailing negative viewpoint on whatever he reports. He reminds me of the man with Limburger cheese coating his mustache. He stuck his head out of the window and announced that the whole world stinks.

I appreciate your compliments.