I agree that the EU is on shaky ground, but disagree as to where that ground is.
A few days ago the EU blacklisted Hezbollah's military wing as a terror group. Aside from the question as to whether or not Hezbollah even has a military wing, the 2012 bus bombing in Bulgaria giving initial rise to the push for blacklisting was quite possibly an Israeli false-flag operation specifically designed to put Hezbollah in the frame.
And then along came Syria. Shaky ground indeed.
Perhaps the European Union can't be judge and jury, but can the Israeli/US union trustfully do that job either? What a right bucket of worms those clowns have made for themselves and for the rest of us.

The settlements remain illegal. The are permanent civilian settlements in territory occupied by war. Singer, no nonsense on your part will change that. Israel has a right to have an army of occupation in the territories since there has been no peace treaty. They have no more right to settle civilians in those territories than the US had to establish towns and cities in Germany and Japan after WW2. Evacuate the settlements and retain the army of occupation until there is a peace treaty, and Israel will conform to international law. The problem is not the European Union. The problem is the illegal settlements.

Singer is like the youth that has put all his fingers in the still leaking dyke. He refuses to admit that Israel, because of its brutality, greed and genocide, is no longer favored by the world.

Yes, people across the world no longer believe the spin, the lies, the B.S. which Israel fills the world with. They remember the carpet bombing of Gaza where 1,400 Palestinians were killed compared with five or six Israelis.

They remember the phosphorous munitions the Israelis used which burn through to the bone. They remember the blockade of Gaza when food and medicines were turned off and on like a tap as a form of collective punishment.

Singer, Israel, like the U.S. has lost the plot and the world is turning against both imperial, warmongering nations.

You can't white-wash unadulterated evil!

I think the eminent Paul Craig Roberts put it well when he recently wrote:

“Polls from all over the world consistently show that Israel and the US are regarded as the two greatest threats to peace and to life on earth. Yet, these two utterly lawless governments prance around pretending to be the “world’s greatest democracies.” Neither government accepts any accountability whatsoever to international law, to human rights, to the Geneva Conventions, or to their own statutory law. The US and Israel are rogue governments, throwbacks to the Hitler and Stalin era.

The post World War II wars originate in Washington and Israel. No other country has imperial expansionary ambitions. The Chinese government has not seized Taiwan, which China could do at will. The Russian government has not seized former constituent parts of Russia, such as Georgia, which, provoked by Washington to launch an attack, was instantly overwhelmed by the Russian Army. Putin could have hung Washington’s Georgian puppet and reincorporated Georgia into Russia, where it resided for several centuries and where many believe it belongs.

For the past 68 years, most military aggression can be sourced to the US and Israel. Yet, these two originators of wars pretend to be the victims of aggression. It is Israel that has a nuclear arsenal that is illegal, unacknowledged, and unaccountable. It is Washington that has drafted a war plan based on nuclear first strike. The rest of the world is correct to view these two rogue unaccountable governments as direct threats to life on earth.”

The recent change of stance by the EU is therefore blatantly obvious and well justified.

Geoff from Perth echoes my words above when he quotes from Paul Craig Roberts. Indeed, Israel and America most threaten world peace!

The link to PCR can be found at: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/

Roberts is an eminent American who, correctly, condemns his own country for its imperialism and its attempts to control the world.

His words should be read by everyone but more particularly by those pathetic Australians who foolishly worship the U.S.

"Palestine: European Union can't be judge and jury"

Reckon?

They just have.

Onya, EU

I think, given the silence (lack of response in writing) from dear David, that perhaps he has realised, finally, that he is delusional.

I think the rest of us should now rest easy that this Zionist monster has been tamed............then again, I think not, how long before the next delusional rant....tick, tick, tick, still waiting David!

Pathetic really.

G

Mr Singer,

I doubt if anyone would be surprised by any "retaliatory" action by Israel, the country has conquered most of Palestine in "self defence", the Zionists will continue to "retaliate" until their war machine reaches the banks of the Euphrates. It's just the nature of the beast.

The EU boycott is a demonstration of moral repugnance, Zionist "concerns" in regard to its effect on the Palestinian ghettos and Bantustans are crocodile tears.

Geoff, on an earlier thread, the Singer is questioning the words of Dr Paul Craig Roberts whose condemnation of Israel and the U.S. you alluded to earlier.

Singer is like an annoying gnat on an elephant's bum such is the importance of Singer compared to the emminent Dr Roberts.

Of course, most Australian lawyers have an exaggerated view of themselves and if they're Jewish..., well, say no more!

To Geoff of Perth and David G

I see that both of you here are quoting Paul Craig Roberts who stated that most of the wars for the last 65 years originated in Washington or Israel.

I have asked David G the following question - which he has refused to answer on three occasions:

Which of the following wars between 1990 - 2000 originated in Washington or Israel?

1990-1991 Gulf War/Persian Gulf War Iraq and Kuwait 20,000 - 200,000 KILLED
1990-1993 Rwandan Civil War, Rwandan Genocide Rwanda ~500,000 - 1,000,000 KILLED
1991-1992 War in South Ossetia South Ossetia ~2,800 KILLED
1991-1994 Djiboutian Civil War Djibouti unknown number killed
1991-1995 Croatian War of Independence Croatia 10,668 - 13,603 KILLED
1991-2002 Sierra Leone Civil War Sierra Leone ~100,000 KILLED
1991-2002 Algerian Civil War Algeria ~150,000 - 200,000 KILLED
1992-1993 War in Abkhazia Abkhazia ~4,000 - 34,000 KILLED
1992-1995 War in Bosnia and Herzegovina 96,175 - 102,622 KILLED
1992-1997 Civil war in Tajikistan Tajikistan 50,000 - 100,000 KILLED
1993-2006 Burundi Civil War Burundi ~300,000 KILLED
1994-1994 Yemeni Civil War Yemen - unknown number killed
1994-1996 First Chechen War Chechnya, Russia ~58,500 - 108,500 KILLED
1996-2006 Nepal Civil War Nepal ~12,700 KILLED
1996-1999 Kosovo War Kosovo, Former Yugoslavia 578 - 13,627 KILLED
1996-1997 First Congo War Zaire ~200,000 KILLED
1998-2000 Ethiopia-Eritrea War Ethiopia and Eritrea 53,000 - 190,000 KILLED
1998-2003 Second Congo War Democratic Republic of the Congo 3,500,000 - 4,400,000 KILLED
1999-1999 Kargil War India and Pakistan 2,921 - 6,564 KILLED
1999-2003 Second Liberian Civil War Liberia ~150,000 KILLED
1999-2007 Ituri conflict Democratic Republic of the Congo ~60,000 KILLED
2000-2007 Second Chechen War Chechnya ( Russia) ~55,000 KILLED

Geoff of Perth:

Could you supply an answer to the above question - since David G refuses to give one.

By the way Geoff: I know you find it difficult to answer my questions - so I won't be surprised if you try to weasel out of answering this one too.

#To halduell

You state:

", the 2012 bus bombing in Bulgaria giving initial rise to the push for blacklisting was quite possibly an Israeli false-flag operation specifically designed to put Hezbollah in the frame."

Have you any evidence to support your claim.?

# To David f

You state:

"The settlements remain illegal"

As I point out - I know of no definitive legal judgement to support that claim. It is an opinion only - and there are opinions to the contrary.

Please inform me of any such judgements.

# To Emperor Julian

As I point out - the EU is free to make whatever judgement it likes. In deciding as it has - the EU has disqualified itself from remaining a member of the Quartet due to an obvious conflict of interest.

Do you agree?

# To all of you who have posted so far

Your Jew-hatred is clearly expressed for all to see - virulently expressed under the cloak of anonymity.

Keep it up. You prove that racism and discrimination is alive and kicking in Australia despite the best efforts of Governments to stamp it out.

"You prove that racism and discrimination is alive and kicking in Australia," says the Singer naming three or four OLO commenters.

The racism and discrimination against the Palestinians exhibited by Israel is of Mt Everest proportions.

Racism and discrimination in Australia is, by comparison, a tiny hillock.

David Singer,

"Your Jew-hatred is clearly expressed for all to see - virulently expressed under the cloak of anonymity."

Since you've mentioned "unanswered challenges", I've previously challenged you to provide examples of anti-Semitic comments that I've made. Please note, criticism of the policies of the nation-state of Israel and of the racist Zionist ideology are not anti-Semitic in themselves.

Russell Walton

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5 contains the text of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

In it is the following:

“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

The settlements of Israeli civilians have been set up with the approval and support of the occupying power thus constituting a transfer and are therefore illegal. A resolution stating that in the UN was blocked by a US veto.

Since there has been no peace treaty signed Israel has a right to have an occupying army in the territories and even have dependents of army personnel living with members of the Israeli Armed Forces. However, it does not have a right to set up permanent civilian settlements in occupied territory. That is the clear message of the relevant portion of the Fourth Geneva Convention cited above.

It is name calling to label criticism of the state of Israel or its actions antisemitic when such criticism is merited and would be applied to other countries committing the same acts. I am a dual citizen of the US and Australia. If either country were to declare itself a Christian country, finance clergy except for chaplains in the armed forces, have a public school system segregated by religion and not even allow civil marriage I would find it completely objectionable. I would no longer consider such a country a democracy. Unfortunately the wall between state and religion has been breached in both US and Australia to a small degree, However, the wall is eroded to such an extent in Israel that I think it dishonest to call Israel a democracy. It can be a Jewish state or a democratic state. It cannot be both.

#To David f

You have failed to produce any definitive legal judgement to substantiate your claim that Israeli settlements are illegal in the West Bank.

Whilst some argue the Fourth Geneva Covention renders such settlements illegal - there are arguments to the contrary based on the fact that the West Bank is not the sovereign territory of Jordan - that it is no man's land in which no High Contracting Party to the Convention has sovereignty.

Among those views are:

Professor Julius Stone,:

"That because of the ex iniuria principle [unjust acts cannot create law], Jordan never had nor now has any legal title in the West Bank, nor does any other state even claim such title. Article 49 seems thus simply not applicable. Even if it were, it may be added that the facts of recent voluntary settlements seem not to be caught by the intent of Article 49 which is rather directed at the forced transfer of the belligerent's inhabitants to the occupied territory, or the displacement of the local inhabitants, for other than security reasons.

Sir Elihu Lauterpacht:

"Thus Jordan's occupation of the Old City-and indeed of the whole of the area west of the Jordan river-entirely lacked legal justification; and being defective in this way could not form any basis for Jordan validly to fill the sovereignty vacuum in the Old City [and whole of the area west of the Jordan River]."

Professor Eugene Rostow:

"The opposition to Jewish settlements in the West Bank also relied on a legal argument - that such settlements violated the Fourth Geneva Convention forbidding the occupying power from transferring its own citizens into the occupied territories. How that Convention could apply to Jews who already had a legal right, protected by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, to live in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was never explained."

Dear David Singer:

You wrote: "Whilst some argue the Fourth Geneva Covention renders such settlements illegal - there are arguments to the contrary based on the fact that the West Bank is not the sovereign territory of Jordan - that it is no man's land in which no High Contracting Party to the Convention has sovereignty."

If the arguments for the legality of the settlements are based on the fact that the West Bank was not the sovereign territory of Jordan but a no man's land that is not a valid argument. Of course the West Bank is not the sovereign territory of Jordan. I didn't contend that it was. The Fourth Geneva Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

The Fourth Geneva Convention doesn't make exceptions. It is occupied territory, and settlements are illegal whether the territory is the sovereign territory of another country or not. Previously the territories were occupied by the Jordanian state, but Jordan did not violate international law by setting up civilian settlements. Israel did.

#To david f

It is quite clear that you don't agree with the legal opinions expressed by Stone, Lauterpacht and Rostow. That is your prerogative.

It is equally clear that you have so far failed to produce any binding court judgement declaring the settlements illegal in international law as claimed by you.

I know of no such judgements.

Do you?

Dear David,

I don't agree with the judgment of those who argued for the legality of the settlements because their arguments are based on an irrelevant matter, the fact that the West Bank was not Jordanian territory. The Fourth Geneva Convention does not accept civilian settlements in occupied territory and does not make an exception for that occupied territory which is not determined to be part of a state.

The fact that the matter has not been adjudicated is not relevant either. Whether a matter is adjudicated or not is often a political rather than a judicial matter. The US with its veto blocked a condemnation of the illegality of the settlements.

As an American I was bothered by the illegality of the Vietnamese War. There were five attempts to bring the matter to a US court. One woman whose son was conscripted brought suit to challenge her son's conscription since the war was illegal. The army released her son, and her suit was thrown out on the basis that she was no longer an interested party. That is an example of the tricks a nation can use to keep violations from adjudication. That did not make the war legal but marely prevented its legality from being challenged.

I don't know what legal maneuvers Israel has gone through to keep the matter from being adjudicated. However, if Israel is so sure that the settlements are legal they can allow a challenge to an international court. That should end all questions of legality. As far as I can see the clear language of the Fourth Geneva Convention does not allow the settlements, and the fact that matter has not been adjudicated does not make the settlements legal.

I feel you are not interested in justice but will use the law to support your case. That is something most lawyers will do for a client. Israel is your client, and you will use the law as an instrument to favour your client whether or not justice is served. I get that from your arguments. Winning an argument does not make Israel right.

"It is equally clear that you have so far failed to produce any binding court judgement declaring the settlements illegal in international law as claimed by you," says the Singer waving his white-wash brush.

Singer is devoid of morality and conscience. He sings the praises of the Israeli dictatorship from morning to night never caring that he is out of step with most of the civilized world.

I believe that most lawyers, because of their mind-numbing, nit-picking training, have a few screws missing.

Imagine being married to one? If there was an argument over who should wash up, out would come volumes of legal books and precedents and a wig.

It is unfair to attack all lawyers because David Singer is one of them. Some lawyers have chosen the law to serve justice. Some lawyers do much pro bono work serving those clients who need legal representation but can't afford it. In a society under law which ours supposedly is, law is a means which should be available to anyone to seek justice. Some lawyers do what they can to make sure that all have access to law.

Unfortunately some lawyers will use any means to support a client even if those means allow the client to evade, deny or escape justice as long as those means are within the law. Apparently Singer is the last kind of lawyer, but it is most unfair to condemn the entire profession because of the behaviour of one or more of them.

P.S. I forgot to mention that few lawyers have a sense of humor!

Two lawyers who wrote very funny books are John Mortimer who wrote the Rumpole stories, and Henry Fielding who wrote “The History of Tom Jones”. I think the statement about lawyers lacking a sense of humour is not accurate.

It is unfair to criticise Jews or lawyers because of David Singer.

He is apparently more interested in winning arguments than in seeking justice, but I don’t think Singer is representative of either Jews or lawyers.

David f

David Singer is a Zionist propagandist, winning arguments is not the purpose of propaganda.