As always, you are absolutely right Mr David Singer, never wrong, counter for the right.
So also is an equally always right Mr John Pilger, never wrong, counter for the left.
Would that it were possible to lock all these so called Leaders in a single room; and with access to only water and toilet facilities, and just leave them there until they had nutted out a solution they would and could all agree to.
And you and John could be locked in their with them and armed with cattle prods, to referee/ensure the debate was both lively and genuine. (Hey, watch were you're sticking that thing John! You don't want to lose it!)
And that might even work?
Problem is, I don't believe any of the participants would live the thousand or so years needed to end this thing; [the batteries in the prods would run out in just a couple of hours, even lithium phosphate?] particularly, while you and John are doing such a simply splendid job, of stirring the pot and feeding the flame, David.
Rhrosty.

#Rhrosty

Before you lock Pilger and myself in a room armed with cattle prods - we need to first agree on my criticism on 20 August 2007 of Pilger's following statement:

"Shortly after it was founded in 1948, Israel controlled, mostly as a result of a United Nations partition and partly by force, a total of 78 per cent of historic Palestine…During the Six-Day War in 1967, the Israelis occupied the remaining 22 per cent of Palestine. Today, the Palestinians, seeking to form their own independent state, want only that 22 per cent back."

Of which I wrote:

"These are false and deceptive statements based on an incorrect understanding of the size of Palestine and the boundaries that defined Palestine in international law.

The reality is that Israel was founded on 17% of historic Palestine in 1948 - not 78% , and captured 5% of historic Palestine in 1967 - not 22%.

The Committee for Accurate Reporting of the Middle East in America (CAMERA) succinctly summarises this reality as follows:

"In fact, the original land of Palestine, as determined by the League of Nations, included what is now Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and the entire state of Jordan. The British transferred nearly 78% of historic Palestine to the Arabs to create a new entity called the Emirate of Transjordan. Jews were forbidden to live, buy land or become citizens there."

The Emirate remained part of Palestine until 1946 when independence was granted by Great Britain with the consent of the League of Nations and it was renamed the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan,

That decision in 1946 created an independent Arab state in 78% of historic Palestine and truncated Palestine to just 22% of its original size."

(Part 2 following)

#Rhrosty

Part 2 ... continuing from my article

"In 1947 the United Nations recommended partitioning this remaining 22% of historic Palestine into a Jewish State (55%) and another Arab State (45%) . The Jews accepted the proposal but the Arabs refused. When the 1948 War ended, the State of Israel was created on 17% of historic Palestine whilst Egypt and Jordan occupied the remaining 5% - the West Bank and Gaza - until captured by Israel in 1967.

1948 Palestine therefore was only 22% of the size of 1946 Palestine. 78% of Palestine had already come totally under Arab control in 1946.

Arab propagandists deliberately ignore the events of 1946 to justify their claim that Israel now occupies 100% of Palestine. They are only telling 22% of the story - classic misinformation at its Goebbels' best."

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/singer082007.htm

When Pilger agrees with me on the size of Palestine - a solution that all could agree on will quickly become self evident.

Rh ... being the disinterested observer you are - who has got it right - Pilger or Singer?

We all need to be singing from the same hymn book.

If Pilger and I cannot agree on the facts - how can we ever agree on the solution?

In the case of Palestine and the cattle prods you mentioned - size really does count.

Well David, I don't believe I've ever agreed with anything a risible ranting John has written to date.
Given his only claim to fame has been "stirring" completely unhelpful and entirely unnecessary dissent!
And in areas, he has little if any factual knowledge of, in my view, or responds to, at least a hundred years after the event!
If you are advocating a return to 1948 boundaries or a new set of mutually agreed land swaps?
It could sway my opinion if really and demonstrably real.
But only if all new settlements/building projects are completely frozen, until all final final bounders are finally completely agreed to and formerly finally ratified!
And those on the wrong side, bulldozed or handed to the (homeless) Palestinians.
However, I don't see the current Israeli P.M. ever agreeing to or even just formulating that as any kind of actual prospect.
Regardless of the input or opinions of anyone else, however powerful!
He clearly has his own agenda, and by everything he has actually accomplished to date, a two state solution, will never ever be one of them.
An ethnic cleansing pogrom however, doesn't seem entirely out of the question, given his observed sabre rattlings and military responses thus far!
Yes size does matter, and getting you and John to agree on anything, would likely need a two storey high, tractor mounted, nuclear powered prod, with a 25 year life, before needing to be recharged or refueled!
And large enough not to lose it along with all the other useless junk that seems to have disappeared down the same fundamental orifice over the years?
You know, the one the now extinct whoslem bird flew in ever decreasing spirals, down and disappeared into; along with all those "other" peace proposals, never to be seen ever again?
Rhrosty

I would encourage the growing commentary between Rhosty and Singer.

They are both windbags and know-it-alls and, if they were locked in a room together, they would eventually nag each other to death.

I'm not sure that cattle prods are necessary although both of them are partly bovine and unusually full of methane gas.

That Singer doesn't want the Palestinians to be given any land by Egypt is understandable. After all, Israel wants all the land to the Nile.

Rhosty, well, I'm never sure what he wants because he is like a drunk blowfly in a bottle: here, there and every-which-where.

Any, the U.N. should be advised of the flowering friendship between the windbags. Perhaps they might be offered seats on the Security Council!

Then again, they might not!

Give it up singer.
It is obvious to anyone but the most stupid that israel has no interest in anything but the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and the genocide of Gaza.
Israels actions speak way way louder than your weazel words singer.