#To Geoff of Perth

Aren't you a lucky chappy not having to call on the benefits available to ex-servicemen in Australia.

Tens of thousands of other ex servicemen are not so fortunate. Do you castigate Australia for providing such benefits that are not available to other segments of Australian society?

Check the following:

http://www.dva.gov.au/aboutDVA/Statistics/Documents/TpopMar2013.pdf

Is Israel somehow different from all the other countries in the world who provide similar benefits for their ex servicemen ? Please explain why you have this opinion.

I note you have chosen to ignore my claim that some Arabs do in fact serve in the Israeli military. Again - your Jew hatred is there for all to see.

The hole is certainly getting deeper - for you.

I notice the way the Hasbarist troll hides behind the old "Jew hatred" libel. Someone acts criminally. Someone points it out. If the criminal is a goy he can be defended only by showing he has acted properly. But if he's a Jew the racist can cry "anti-Semitism" or "Jew-hatred". To these racists Jews aren't like us goyim. Being Jews they can commit crimes without being criminal, and to fail to concede that Jews are “special” is "Jew-hatred". In this way, to racists like Mr Singer, Jews are not bound by standards normally expected for lesser breeds.

Sorry, but no ethnic group is "special" and free from the moral requirements applying to the rest of us. To claim that any ethnic group whatever is "special" is racist, and to claim that one's own ethnic group is "special" is contemptible, especially when libellously described as "hatred" those who reject the false "special" status. Several correspondents here have not conceded that Jews are more special than lesser breeds, and for this have been labelled (libelled) by the troll as Jew-haters. Jews have no more right to invade others' land and reward collaborators who join the occupying army than anyone else. They merit condemnation for this just as Germans and Japs did for the same offence.

#Emperor Julian

You state:

"Jews have no more right to invade others' land and reward collaborators who join the occupying army than anyone else. They merit condemnation for this just as Germans and Japs did for the same offence."

Do you equally condemn successive Australian Governments for providing benefits to Australian servicemen who served during such wars as World War 2 or in Vietnam, Iraq, East Timor and Afghanistan?

What about every other country in the world that has acted as Australian Governments have in compensating those who fought for them - Do you condemn them?

Will you be lobbying Australian political parties to remove this discriminatory policy if they are elected in September?

Have you ever written a letter to anyone condemning Australia adopting the same policy as Israel - which Geoff of Perth describes in these terms - " a disgustingly discriminatory piece of legislation, one which will give Israelis who have served in the army a whole raft of extra rights in land and housing, employment, salaries, and the provision of public and private services."

Glad at least to see you confirm what Geoff of Perth has not been man enough to admit - that Arabs do serve in Israel's military.

David, happy to admit that Arabs do serve in the Israeli military, it's just the number of them, a minute proportion almost not worth mentioning.

The 'benefits' ex servicemen and women get in Israel is just so vastly different to what is on offer in other countries, especially when we start talking about land and housing.

If we are going to compare something, lets use apples against apples and not apples against watermelon.

#To Geoff of Perth

The hole certainly is getting deeper for you Geoff.

Now you sneeringly are forced to admit that Israeli Arabs serve in the Israeli military - but that it is a "minute proportion."

A minute proportion of what? The total number of Israeli Arabs men women and children - 1.5 million according to you - OR the total number of Israeli Arabs (male and female)who are medically fit and eligible to apply and want to join the army because it is their army that is defending them and their families too and are not cowered by being called "collaborators" as so demeaningly described by Emperor Julian or discouraged from joining by Israeli Arab members of the Israeli Parliament or frightened at the thought of being strung up like two "collaborators" in Gaza this week or by suffering the same fate as several West Bank Arabs who committed the heinous crime of selling land to Jews?

Do you even know how many Arabs are in Israel's military? If you do - why did you say there were none.

Your latest statement is unbelievable:

" The 'benefits' ex servicemen and women get in Israel is just so vastly different to what is on offer in other countries, especially when we start talking about land and housing."

How do you know what those benefits are when you yourself state - "
"They have been working on a disgustingly discriminatory piece of legislation"

Why don't you fill us in with the details of that legislation and tell us how it is so 'vastly different' from what we have in Australia.

You are making the claims - justify them.

The stench of Jew-hatred seems to be getting ever stronger with each response that you make to try and justify your ongoing misleading and deceptive statements.

David

This is in answer to the above article which you published on another site. That site wouldnt publish my answer so here it is.

Just to recap:

I said:

It didnt lie in your mouth to criticize Peres and others for the failure of the 2 state solution as you have always opposed it anyhow.

I then said - in passing - that I dont want to debate this again but as, I’ve said before, your reasoning re Art80/Mandate etc is plain wrong; it is rejected by every recognised legal expert not to mention every western government

You then said:

Please advise any recognized legal expert or any western government who has rejected the art80/Mandate argument and provide the link to their opinion.

Here is my response:

On the Art 80/mandate point, here is a link to an article by Professor Nathaniel Berman of Brown University rejecting the argument
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/san-remo-in-shilo-the-settlements-and-legal-history/

This is what the US had to say about the Levy Report when it came out. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4253423,00.html

I am not sure other countries bothered to issue formal statements but most governments do not of course consider the settlements to be legal anyway, a view that would not be open to them if the Art80/Mandate position had credibility.

Similarly if someone like James Crawford SC and the entire bench of the ICJ regard the settlements as illegal, it is reasonably safe to assume that they take the same view regarding the Art80/Mandate position. Julius Stone's writings on this issue go back to the 1970s and the Mandate is more than 90 years old. It may have escaped their attention but I wouldn’t bet on it.

The writers you quote have been criticised for their bias. In particular they fail to balance their views against the right of pals to self determination. You can find Professor Ben Saul and Andrew Dahdal's academic papers on line.

Please however refer me to any statements by US/UK or other western governments that you have been able to find supporting the Levy report or the Art80/Mandate position.

Ben