#Jardine K Jardine

If you can't appreciate what is happening before your very eyes to the civilian populations in independent States now being subjected to carve up and incorporation into one Islamic caliphate - then you are walking around with a blindfold over your head.

International law exists - to be complied with for better or for worse. Trying to reverse it by terror - as is happening now - is a recipe for disaster.

My article points out how the three Mandates for Syria/Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine were all cut from the same cloth. Trying to undo one by terror - Palestine - has emboldened ISIS to try and undo the other two by terror - at horrendous and future cost to the lives of millions of human beings caught up in this evil and barbarism.

Can you point me to any reference where God said that Palestine is "consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day"?

Hamas says that - but they are a far cry from any God.

You fall into the same trap as #spindoc in claiming:

"the problem is that the Jews think of "the restoration of Palestine to the Jewish people" i.e. it belongs to them (because God said so),"

Not only the Jews thought this - but all 52 member states of the League of Nations also agreed in 1922 when creating the Mandate for Palestine on just 0.01% of the 400 year old Ottoman Empire territories conquered in World War I - whilst giving the Arabs the right to self determination in the remaining 99.99%.

You state:
"In practice, given their mutual mindset, there is no solution but for the parties to fight it out."

As I pointed out to #Rhrosty there is a solution that involves direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan.

How much more death and suffering has to occur before international pressure is put on Israel and Jordan to sit down and allocate sovereignty of the West Bank between their respective States?

You are suggesting the end of the concept of statehood - with what? A world wide Caliphate?

"International law exists - to be complied with for better or for worse. Trying to reverse it by terror - as is happening now - is a recipe for disaster."

Now who do you think said these words? Yes, you're right. It was the Singer (see above), a duplicitous apologist for the Imperial nation of Israel which, just recently, bombed the tripe out of the Gaza Strip, killing more than 2,000 Palestinians, women, kids, old people, civilians while destroying most of the remaining infrastructure.

The same Israel has ignored International Law on a million occasions and continues to steal Palestinian land to build illegal Settlements and commit war crimes.

Hang your head in shame, Singer. You are a towering, unabashed hypocrite!

Dear Jardine,

<<In practice, given their mutual mindset, there is no solution but for the parties to fight it out.>>

What you have omitted is that in that region there are also many others who do not believe that "God said so", including most Israelis and an unknown number of Arabs as they're too afraid to speak up.

While those who believe that "God said so" are welcome to fight and kill each other, they should find an isolated spot in the desert to do so without hurting the innocent people who live there too.

---

Dear David Singer,

<<remains the only way forward.
This means direct negotiations between Jordan and Israel.>>

Why not China?

For Jordan, holding the West Bank would bring insurgence and instability.

For Israel, holding the West Bank brings moral corruption which eats up Israel from the inside, leaving only an empty shell of military might (which too, without the support of a vibrant living community with conviction of purpose, will crumble in time).

Why punish any of these people (or share the punishment between them)? You could just as well have a draw between all the nations of the world and whoever picks the short stick has to control this cursed West Bank (or perhaps they should take turns doing that filthy job?)!

Except, that we have those idiots who call themselves "Palestinians" and they WANT it. We can roll our eyes, but they actually WANT to control that place, those fools - so just let them have it and thank God for creating the feeble-minded!

‘morning David,

That was a perfectly executed “Lateral Arabesque”.

Drawing away from the actual criticism of 100 articles on the same topic over 4 years, you nicely side stepped into trying to discredit the messenger by questioning if I had read or responded to your articles. In answer, yes, and many more on the same topic, as have hundreds of others.

My issue is as stated, you have pounded this one to death, you are not getting any traction outside your minority “group thinkers” and the debate is getting away from you.

Why else would you become so obsessive?

This space has already been occupied for a long time by “John Pilger”, it is neither original, open minded or the subject of critical thinking. Such volume on the same topic over and over is not journalistic, not debate and certainly does not add value. It is simply proselytisation or bullying by volume.

Why don’t you tell OLO’ers what it is you want to achieve, maybe we can help you?

GY is the editor in chief, it’s his site and he can accept whatever he wants however, as a customer, consumer and contributor I am entitled, within GY’s rules, the provide customer feedback. You just had mine.

By doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome you exhibit obsessive tendencies. If you think I’m wrong you have the right to challenge that opinion.

So what is it you hope to achieve with 100 articles on the same topic over 4 years? Or do you just like the sound of your own obsession and self indoctrination?

Same old overlordspeak. Same old plea for the colonial overlords' decisions on disposal of colonial territory - without reference to the legitimate inhabitants - to be accepted by the dispossessed as "law" .

And now the overlords' spokesman is plumping for a new division of Palestine in negotiations between foreign settlers and the foreign state of Jordan.

The right people to make the decision about Palestine, through their CHOSEN representatives, are the Palestinians including those driven into exile in the Nakba. Not foreign racist settlers. Not foreign colonial governments. Not foreign feudal aristocracies. Anything less has no moral claim to respect or acceptance by the wider international community.

“Can you point me to any reference where God said that Palestine is "consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day"?”

No.

However I don’t need to. It’s enough that Muslim parties are proceeding – armed - on that basis.

“Hamas says that - but they are a far cry from any God.”

You are only demonstrating that both parties are trying to resolve the conflict on the basis of who are God’s representatives on earth.

“all 52 member states of the League of Nations also agreed in 1922 when creating the Mandate for Palestine on just 0.01% of the 400 year old Ottoman Empire territories conquered in World War I - whilst giving the Arabs the right to self determination in the remaining 99.99%.”

The League of Nations thought that: So what? Obviously the Muslims couldn’t care less. I don’t agree for entirely different reasons. And the result has been chronic dreadful racial and sectarian conflict. “The tree is known by its fruit”.

“there is a solution that involves direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan.”

Good luck with that.

“How much more death and suffering has to occur before international pressure is put on Israel and Jordan to sit down and allocate sovereignty of the West Bank between their respective States?”

Good luck with that too.

You are only demonstrating that your proposed solution involves a lot more than “direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan”.

In any event, given that widespread populism throughout all Muslimdom (like that? new word) is antagonistic to the very existence of Israel, I can’t see how the agreement of Jordan would necessarily be a solution? And I can’t see how you have faith that it would?

“You are suggesting the end of the concept of statehood - with what? A world wide Caliphate?”

I’m merely pointing out that the cause of problem is the concept of statehood itself. Your vaunted “international law” is just a state of anarchy backed by the force of the strongest against the weakest. How is that morally or technically any different from what you are calling “terror”?