I felt like I had returned to the 1970s while reading this article; its been that long since I had read or heard anyone seriously suggesting that Palestine and the Palestinian people don't exist. Golda Meir described Israel as "a land with no people for a people with no land" and David Singer is trying on a similar colonialist misinformation. Terra Nulius anyone? Just because the more extreme end of the "Israel-right-or-wrong" lobby would like the Palestinians to disappear (much like the 18 century Australian eugenicists wished that Aboriginal people would die out) doesn't mean that Palestinians will give up their heroic struggle to regain their homeland. The really sad thing is that bigots like Mr Singer are ultimately working against the interests of the Jewish people. Ignore the lies of people like Singer and instead have a squiz at Israeli academic Ilan Pappe's The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine if you want to understand the true story of Palestinian dispossession in the face of Israel's founding.

Oh, dear. And after only 4 paragraphs into David's latest we find the expected get-out-of-jail-free card: Redrawing Jordan’s international boundary with Israel to restore the status quo existing before the outbreak of the 1967 Six Day War - as far as is now possible given the changed circumstances on the ground - provides a realistically achievable alternative to the doomed Israel-PLO negotiations.
- as far as is now possible given the changed circumstances on the ground -
And in a few more years those "changed circumstances on the ground" will include all of occupied Palestine, and the only option will be to finally declare that there is only one state between the river and the sea.
As this is inevitable, the race is now on, as it has been since 1948, to see how many Palestinians can be induced, whether by force or bribes, to leave. Otherwise any fair election in the new single state might result in some unacceptable returns.
The other, unmentionable desire to get rid of this Palestine is because a recognised State would have the right to take Israel to court for crimes against humanity.
That's right. Crimes against humanity. By Israel. Oops!
Time's running out, David. It's still possible to join the community of nations, but time is running out.

David, with your huge knowledge and extremely intimate grasp of the situation and underlying causes. They should retire Kerry and send you in his place.
And given your immense knowledge and abundant expertise, your are bound to fix things/find a permanent solution!
In fact, after reading your many posts and endless critiques, One could safely assume, you're the only one that could!
Y'll have a nice day now, y'hear.
Rhrosty.

1) "Kamel’s claim is refuted by article 2 of the PLO Charter”:
I am not sure how the PLO charter would refute that "never did the land beyond the Jordan have a religious, social or cultural value comparable to the land between the river and the Mediterranean Sea". Abu Khalid Thawr Ibn Yazid al-Kalai (764–854): “The holiest place [al-quds] on Earth is Syria; the holiest place in Syria is Palestine; the holiest place in Palestine is Jerusalem [Bayt al-maqdis]”. The perception of the local population is what it matters.
The PLO Charter is irrelevant, but also if we decide to focus only on it we should keep in mind that that Charter referred to the land between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea, that is the land on which the "palestinian nationality" applied. The inhabitants of Transjordan were in fact excluded from the scope of Palestinian nationality by Article 21 of the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Order:
"For the purpose of this Order: (1) The expression ‘Palestine’ includes the territories to which the mandate for Palestine applies, except such parts of the territory comprised in Palestine to the East of the [River of] Jordan and the Dead Sea as were defined by Order of the High Commissioner dated 1 September 1922". Government of Palestine, Proclamations, Regulations, Rules, Orders, 1925.

2) "Indeed, from the moment Prince Faysal set up a government in Damascus in October 1918":

a) Chaim Weizmann to his wife, July 17, 1918: “I made the acquaintance of Fayṣal [...]. He is not interested in Palestine [...] He is contemptuous of the Palestinian Arabs whom he doesn’t even regard as Arabs”. Cit. in Weizmann, Litvinoff (ed.), The essential Chaim Weizmann, p. 209.

b) During WWI Arab nationalists cooperated with Sharif Hussein and his sons in order to have an Arab kingdom. The Palestinians, who were part of this ideology, thought at that time, tactically, that it would be in their interest to be part of the Faisal kingdom in the Bilad al-Sham. That’s why it is the only two years (1918-1920) during which they speak about Palestine as Southern Syria or the kingdom of Faisal. After Faisal is kicked out of Damascus, the next conference doesn’t speak about being part of Syria or the kingdom of Feisal. In the summer of 1920 the episode is finished.

c) No documents have been produced by the local majority, prior to 1918 or after 1920, which put aside Palestine and all it represented in favor of the concept of “Southern Syria”. In order to understand the reasons behind the political statements made by the future founder of the OLP Ahmad ash-Shuqayri (1908-1980) and other Arab leaders, often cited in order to negate the existence of a particular Palestinian identity see D. Pipes, Is Jordan Palestine?: "For advocates of Jordan-is-Palestine, such claims suggest Arab agreement that Palestine and Jordan are identical. But this interpretation distorts the real character of these remarks, which are not disinterested analyses but propaganda ploys and declarations of hostile intent. Minimally, they establish diplomatic positions within inter-Arab arena. Maximally, they assert rights to expand and rule other regions; the PLO hopes to stake out a claim to territory it does not control; Amman seeks to protect territories it either controls or hopes one day to control again".

3. "Transjordan was always included in the annual Report for the Mandate for Palestine presented to the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission."
Transjordan was included with this clarification: "In view of the fact that Transjordan was a mandated territory, and since it was not excepted from the provisions of Article 24 of the Mandate, would it not be possible for the mandatory Power to take the necessary steps in order that the Commission should receive regularly the laws and other regulations promulgated in Transjordan?
In Yithak Gil-Har's words: "Great Britain had always treated Trans-Jordan as a political entity completely separate from Palestine. Its inclusion within the framework of the Palestine Mandate was an outcome of the political events following the fall of Faisal’s government in July 1920. The Palestine-Trans-Jordan boundary served as a political barrier separating two states. Therefore, the postulation by some writers that the boundary was merely administrative in its character, delineating two territories subjected to the one British rule within the British Empire has no foundation in reality”.

As for the Arab Legion: Transjordan was the only political entity in the region, among the ones within London’s sphere of influence, not directly garrisoned by British troops.

As for "Immigration from Transjordan": "Now Trans-Jordan has a government entirely independent of Palestine – the laws of Palestine are not applicable in Trans-Jordan nor are their laws applicable here. Moreover, although the High Commissioner of Palestine is also High Commissioner for Trans-Jordan, Trans-Jordan has an entirely independent government under the rule of an Amir and apart from certain reserved matters the High Commissioner cannot interfere with the government of Trans-Jordan […]. Trans-Jordan nationality is recognised […] Palestinians and Trans-Jordanians are foreigners and therefore Trans-Jordan must be regarded as a foreign state in relation to Palestine". 1945, British High Court (in Jawdat Badawi Sha’ban v. Commissioner for Migration and Statistics）

4. "It was only the provisions of the Mandate relating to the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine that were “postponed or withheld” in Transjordan under article 25 of the Mandate – as this Note presented by the Secretary General to the League of Nations clearly stated":
The Note to which you referred to did not mention what you claim.

"The seeds for an independent Jew-free Arab State"...In Nazmi Jubeh's words: “I think that slogans are not useful and do not explain the complexity of things. Any Jew who wants to live in our community, following the rules which this entails, must be free to do so. It’s quite a different story, however, to request that the settlers who arrived here by force and in defiance of international law can ipso facto be entitled to see their actions justified. In other words, those who want to live in a future Palestinian state must do so under the law and not as colonialists. When Israel was created, the Palestinians were already here, and accounted for the vast majority of the local population. This is why there are now over one million Palestinians in Israel, many of whom are known as ‘internally displaced persons’ [IDPs]. In constrast to this, settlers arrived in the Palestinian territories through violence and incentives received in recent years from Israeli governments. Equating the former to the latter is not only simplistic, but also morally reprehensible.”

Singer has an article here every week. Is this a Zionist site ?

Dearest Singer

Even our (that means Australia's) former Foreign Minister has problems with mouthpieces of Israeli foreign policy:

ABC News, April 9, 2014 reports http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-09/bob-carr-lashes-out-at-melbourne-pro-israel-lobby/5379074 :

"Former foreign minister Bob Carr says 'pro-Israel lobby' influenced government policy"

"Former foreign minister Bob Carr has hit out at what he calls the "pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne", saying it wielded "extraordinary influence" on Australia's policy during his time in Julia Gillard's cabinet.

Speaking to ABC's 7.30 program, Mr Carr said "extreme right wing" pro-Israel lobbyists had an "unhealthy" influence on Australia's policy towards Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Mr Carr details his time as foreign minister, and his criticism of the pro-Israel lobby, in his new book, Diary of a Foreign Minister.

"I found it very frustrating that we couldn't issue, for example, a routine expression of concern about the spread of Israeli settlements on the West Bank - great blocks of housing for Israeli citizens going up on land that everyone regards as part of the future Palestinian state if there is to be a two-state solution," he said.

"The important point about a diary of a foreign minister is you shine light on areas of government that are otherwise in darkness, and the influence of lobby groups is one of those areas.

"What I've done is to spell out how the extremely conservative instincts of the pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne was exercised through the then-prime minister's office.

"I had to resist it, and my book tells the story of that resistance, coming to a climax when there was a dispute on the floor of caucus about my recommendation that we we don't block the Palestinian bid for increased non-state status at the United Nations.""

Take note :)

Pete

#Shmuel_du (alias # shmuel , alias #Shmuel Pietra, alias #du Kium)

This is the fourth identical posting by you on four different web sites under four different aliases in response to this article.

Quite frankly I wonder why you have to go to such extraordinary lengths to conceal your identity. Why don't you come clean and tell us who you really are and give us your credentials to make the comments you have.

Are you part of the Jordanian propaganda machine in seeking to deny Jordan has any responsibility for resolving the problem it created when it invaded the West Bank and occupied it for 20 years from 1948-1967?

I have published the following response elsewhere to your comments and repeat it for the benefit of On Line Opinion readers:

"1. You claim the PLO Charter is irrelevant – although the PLO is the sole spokesman for the Palestinian Arabs.

2. You claim that the PLO Charter only applied to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean – which is not supported by article 2 of the Charter.

If you are correct – please explain why Arafat tried to take over Jordan in 1970.

3. You ignore statements by Arab leaders such as Arafat, Abu Iyad, King Abdullah 1, the PNC Council and King Hussein averring that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan.

4. You claim the Note from the Secretary General to the League of Nations did not mention what I claim – although I quoted the Note verbatim.

5. You claim that the Mandate was a joint mandate comprised of two states. This is rubbish. There were no states in existence until 1946. Under Article 5 of the Mandate:
“Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power. ”

The path to a peaceful resolution of the competing claims to sovereignty in the West Bank lies in direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan – the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine."

Hi David Singer

Slightly off topic. We can probably agree that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and needs it.

For the record Phillip Dorling for The Canberra Times, April 15, 2014, reported http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-still-denies-israels-open-secret-of-a-nuclear-arsenal-20140414-36nr4.html :

"Australia still denies Israel's open secret of a nuclear arsenal"

"Secret government files reveal that Australian governments, diplomats and spies have known for more than 30 years that Israel has an arsenal of nuclear weapons, while continuing to deny any knowledge of its existence to the point of misleading Parliament.

Previously secret diplomatic files declassified by the National Archives reveal a longstanding policy to turn a blind eye to Israel's nuclear arsenal. Last week the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade again declined to comment on whether the Australian government thinks Israel is an undeclared nuclear weapons state.

Foreign Affairs Department briefing papers prepared for former Labor foreign minister Bill Hayden in 1987 state that ''intelligence assessments are that Israel has a small arsenal of nuclear weapons (possibly about 20). Israel's technological capabilities would enable it confidently to deploy such weapons without recourse to a nuclear test.

In a confidential exchange with International Atomic Energy Agency chief Hans Blix on September 22, 1987, Mr Hayden ''commented that there appeared no doubt that Israel had nuclear weapons''.

Mr Hayden and Dr Blix were talking against the backdrop of the treason trial of Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli nuclear technician who in 1986 disclosed detailed evidence of Israel's nuclear weapons production. The Foreign Affairs Department advised Mr Hayden to publicly deny knowledge of Israel's nuclear weapons capabilities. Mr Hayden told Parliament on September 17, 1987: ''We have no information to corroborate these allegations.''

MORE TO FOLLOW BELOW

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-still-denies-israels-open-secret-of-a-nuclear-arsenal-20140414-36nr4.html

CONTINUED

"However, Foreign Affairs' files, declassified in response to applications by Fairfax Media, reveal that Australia had been monitoring Israel's nuclear program from its beginnings in the 1950s.

Australia scooped US and British intelligence when in 1966 its Atomic Energy Commission obtained ''highly sensitive'' information from the French builders of Israel's Dimona nuclear facility, revealing the existence of a chemical processing plant to extract plutonium from spent reactor fuel.

By 1970 Australia's Joint Intelligence Organisation thought ''Israel could have some weapons''.

Australian policy remains unchanged, with the Abbott government deciding last October not to support a UN General Assembly resolution on nuclear proliferation in the Middle East - 169 countries voted for the resolution. Only five - the US, Israel, Canada, Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia - voted against. Australia abstained.
Former foreign minister Professor Gareth Evans has long been closely engaged with nuclear disarmament issues. Last month he publicly described Israel as one of ''nine nuclear-armed states'' committed to the ''indefinite retention'' of their arsenals.

On Monday Professor Evans declined to explain why Australia had not acknowledged the existence of an Israeli nuclear weapons program, saying only: ''The whole world hasn't acknowledged it. I mean, this is the strange thing, but that's another story for another day." ENDS

My comment is that Australia would do well to join the US, Israel, Canada, Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia in actually voting against the UN's regular General Assembly resolution on nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, rather than Australia only abstaining.

Regards

Pete