Of all the national leaders who have recently walked the world stage, Tony Abbott reminds me most of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the last President of Iran. They are both wild card, trouble making types who are(were) potentially dangerous but mostly silly, and who both contribute(d) less than they imagine.

The hatred and denigration of Abbott by apparently everyone who sucks the kool-aid of the Left knows no bounds.

However, the adoption by those lefties of the thinking of the anti-Israel pack is testimony to seriously deficient thinking. The modern history of the Arab people of Palestine is a catalogue of self-harm. They suffer because their 'brothers' in the states that went to war with Israel want them there, as a way to attack Israel. Why adopt the world view that is grounded on propaganda and hate?

The terrirtories in question are disputed.

Yet again the Abbott government shows itself to be astonishingly ignorant and foolish. The situation in East Jerusalem is governed by international law, namely the 1949 Geneva Convention and the Hague Regulations of 1907. Territory is "occupied" when as a result of military conflict a country exercises administrative control over the area conquered. It is not "perforative" nor "judgemental" to describe it as such: it is a fact and has been a fact since the 1967 War.

For Brandis et al not to acknowledge that east Jerusalem is occupied means in effect that Australia no longer recognises the application of international humanitarian law. Apart from Israel itself I know of no other country that adopts this position. Even the US, Israel's great friend and protector, does no stoop to this foolishness.

In 2004 the International court of Justice (now also obsolete in Australia's eyes?) ruled in an advisory opinion that territory can be "occupied" even if there is a dispute as to the ownership of that territory. In the 1967 war the land in issue was taken from Jordan which has since renounced its claim in favour of Palestine.

The settlements that Israel is building on that land (all the while claiming a desire for a resolution as part of the "peace process" also constitute war crimes, not only under international law but also Australian law implementing the international obligations.

There was a time when Australia was a reliable supporter of international law. Sadly, that now seems part of the same "historical events" that Australia finds "unhelpful". Abbott et al continue to stumble down a path that is assuredly not in Australia's interests. What compounds the felony is the knowledge that Labour are equally bad.

Brandis described the use of the term ‘occupied’ as ‘judging matters that were still under discussion’ in the Palestinian- Israeli negotiations. He also called it a ‘tendentious’ description. On seeking to gain accuracy as to the meaning of this term I found the following- "When something is tendentious, it shows a bias towards a particular point of view, especially one that people disagree about. It shares a root with the word, tendency, which means leaning towards acting a certain way. If you have the tendency to talk in a tendentious manner about politics, people might tend to avoid you at parties.”

I wonder if Brandis and Abbott are avoided at parties for being tendentious in attempting to sanitise terminology about what is clearly a recognised occupation not merely an 'historic event'.
The Occupation of Palestine exists NOW, despite Israel's and now Australia's efforts and stealth at denying it on the world stage.

Is the stupidity i.e. unbridled vindictiveness of the Left a psychological disorder or is it as I suspect, genetic ?
I know that incest can cause some of these problem but Asexuals ? That's a new phenomenon.

Brandis has decided that progress towards a resolution of the problem, and a way forward for Palestinians to achieve their objective of an in dependant state, would more readily be achieve when an accurate use of terms, such as 'disputed' is used. it is Australian policy for Palestinians to achieve a safe, peacefully state as soon as possible. His use of accurate terms will only assist in that policy outcome. He has reinforced Australian policy objectives in this instance and I could not agree more with him. Well done to he, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister.