Hey pete lets see you reduce your income by 5% just to appease a bunch of lying land thieves. And then listen to your country men hide the real cause by repeating a load of foreign propaganda..

See if you don't feel some pain. Your attitude undermines your countrymen's lifestyles at no expense to you or the foreigners you support. Are you happy with that?

#Prompete

You omit some important facts:

1. Jordan's occupied Judea and Samaria (the West Bank)and East Jerusalem between 1948-1967 and purported to annex these areas in 1950 but this annexation was never recognised as being legal except by Great Britain and Pakistan.

2. Jordan drove out all the Jews living there.

3. The Palestinian Arabs and the Arab League never sought to establish a State in this Jew free area at any time between 1948-1967 when such a State could have been created overnight.

4. Israel claims sovereignty in Judea and Samaria pursuant to the rights vested in the Jewish People under the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter.

You are 100% correct - given the above facts these territories can only on any reasonable and fair minded interpretation be described as "disputed".

The use of the term "occupied" is deliberately intended to convey that these territories legally belong to someone else - but Jordan never secured international legal recognition of its annexation and it ceded any claims to such land in 1988

Judea and Samaria are currently "no man's land"

The Australian Government is 100% correct in rejecting this false and unsubstantiated assertion of the use of the term "occupied" as an unnecessary impediment in resolving where sovereignty should finally be allocated between the disputing parties.

Terra nullius - the lie parroted by land thieves wherever they have shot their way into territory they wished to occupy and plunder. I don't think the British used it against the Africans but they certainly used it in Palestine, America, Canada and Australia. But whether the land thieves admitted the reality of existing populations or not they invaded by armed violence and ruled with the aid of corrupt local compradores who would echo their claims of entitlement to rule and plunder. Happened in France too, when the Krauts arrogated to themselves the right to rule the country with the connivance of traitors.

The enlistment of traitors explains statements of Arab compradores which Prompete quotes in apparent defence of the British/Zionist "born to rule" pretensions and racist denigration of Palestinians as mere nomads wandering through terra nullius. Wikipedia has a good summary of the reality of the Palestinian people - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Palestinian_people and included references. To learn more, try a book like "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" by Ilan Pappe.

Without searching very hard, I could find no documented reference to any referenda in which the Palestinians voted to accept the "international law" mandating the takeover of their country by Ottomans, British or Zionists. Sounds a bit like the "international law" forbidding self-determination referenda in the captive territories of Ukraine. The "law" of the gun.

#Emperor Julian

The link you suggested - on “the reality of the Palestinian people” – states:

“The Palestinian people (are an Arabic-speaking people with family origins in the region of Palestine. Since 1964, they have been referred to as Palestinians but before that they were usually referred to as Palestinian Arabs. During the period of the British Mandate, the term Palestinian was also used to describe the Jewish community living in Palestine. The Israel Philharmonic Orchestra was founded as the Palestine Orchestra, and The Jerusalem Post newspaper was founded as the Palestine Post.”

This corresponds exactly to the change recommended in my article:

“Substituting "Palestinian Arabs" for "Palestinians" and "Palestinian people" - terms first appearing in the 1964 PLO Charter that excluded former Jewish and other non-Arab residents and their descendants having any rights”.

Your link rebuffs your own argument and indicates how you have swallowed the false Arab narrative hook line and sinker.

The Palestinian people is the product of a fictitious claim made by the PLO in 1964 that only Arabs comprise the Palestinian people whilst Jews and non-Arab Christians who lived there were non-entities.

Very arrogant and racist don’t you think?

Furthermore Palestine was not “their country” as you allege.

Palestine had formed part of the Ottoman Empire for 400 years prior to the loss of vast tracts in World War 1.

Jews Christians and Arabs were Ottoman subjects.

These conquered lands were allocated 99.99% for Arab self -determination and 0.01% for Jewish self- determination.

Syria, Lebanon and Iraq resulted from that decision.

The Arabs however have always wanted 100% and have never been prepared to recognise the Jewish people having their own national home in that tiny 0.01% - comprising an area that would fit into Tasmania three times.

People like you have been hoodwinked to support the Arab claim based on misleading and deceptive language - like “reality of the Palestinian people” and “their land”.

Australia is 100% correct in exposing this kind of language as unhelpful to ending the conflict.

Fact - not fiction - is needed to resolve this conflict.

Get real.

The Wikipedia piece defines the Palestinian people as I would (and always do) define them: People born in Palestine (including the Zionist enclave) or DIRECTLY descended from people born in Palestine. They exist. All statements denying their existence or reducing them to mere nomads are racist lies. PLO or any other statements restricting Palestinian identity to Arabs are racist ploys, not facts.

Imported settlers born somewhere else are not Palestinians and are roughly comparable to the French “blackfeet” – ultras who stole Algerian land and had to be prised out of Algeria with a chisel. It is these Israeli settlers who form a freakery of ultras who are worse than the general run of Zionists, and with whom Abbott and Bishop are cosying up in obediently denying the occupation of Palestinian land.

Mr Singer is peddling the ultras’ cry that occupied territory is not occupied and illegal doesn’t mean illegal. This cry is part of a current offensive, centred on a bodgie report (Levy Report), which tries to reverse understandings that have long been simply part of the language. Writing for Yesh Din, Yossi Gurvitz shows that the Levy Report denying occupation is such a pig’s breakfast that Netanyahu has to tiptoe around it because of its unintended implications. Read it at http://972mag.com/a-flawed-legitimation-of-occupation/91092

History is a marvellous thing, for those prepared to think things through.
Population of Jerusalem from Turkish and British census data.
Year Jews Muslims Christians
1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 At his time Jerusalem was a neglected area.
1896 28.112 7,560 5,470 The Jews have started to arrive and bring prosperity.
1931 51,222 19,894 19,335 A thriving multi cultural city.
From this we see that prior to Jewish migration in the late 19th century, and the concomitant development of the area, the Arab population was struggling. In other words most of the "Palestinian" Arabs were draw to the area by Jewish industry which provided work for them.

This is also true of Gaza, captured from Egypt in 1967 and turned into a paradise offering employment, and a reasonable standard of living for all. Now a wasteland. The West Bank, Jordanian territory captured in 1948. In 1948 number of high schools nil, now four universities and countless high schools built by Israel.

We often hear of the glories of Muslim Spain, but that has never been replicated in the middle east. Because Muslim Spain was built by people ISIS would execute without mercy.