//I think we should be kind to Armchair Cretin.//

I don't. He's a nasty piece of work who trys to deny the horrific reality of the Shoah in order to portray Jews as untrustworthy and deceitful. He's an anti-Semitic piece of shyt without a shred of common deceny. He doesn't deserve compassion, or pity for his lack of intellect.

#Kactuz

You state:
"BTW, the idea that Jordan is Palestine is, in my opinion, silly"

Care to elaborate?

#Armchair Critic

You state:
"Even though the BDS movement does state one of its objectives is ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands that in itself does not in any way equate to genocide."

Care to comment on whether the following statements in any way equate to the BDS campaign threatening genocide against the Jews and the elimination of their one and only Jewish State:

1. "But I view the BDS movement as a long-term project with radically transformative potential. I believe that the ultimate success of the BDS movement will be coincident with the ultimate success of the Palestinian enfranchisement and equal rights movement. In other words, BDS is not another step on the way to the final showdown; BDS is The Final Showdown.

This belief grows directly from the conviction that nothing resembling the ‘two-state solution’ will ever come into being. Ending the occupation doesn’t mean anything if it doesn’t mean upending the Jewish state itself.

- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2010/04/bds-is-a-long-term-project-with-radically-transformative-potential#sthash.bbyqyPO8.dpuf"

2. "Finkelstein rightly asks whether the real aim of BDS is to bring down the state of Israel. Here, I agree with him that it is. That should be stated as an unambiguous goal. There should not be any equivocation on the subject. Justice and freedom for the Palestinians are incompatible with the existence of the state of Israel."
http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/4289

3. “The goal of #BDS is the full restoration of Palestinian rights, not an agreement to create an artificial mini-state in order to save Zionism”

-Ali Abunimah
https://twitter.com/AliAbunimah/status/430888024864342016

4."BDS represents three words that will help bring about the defeat of Zionist Israel and victory for Palestine"
Ronnie Kasrils
http://palestinechronicle.com/old/view_article_details.php?id=14924

#Armchair Critic

You state:
"This shows us that David's whole mindset and arguments come from a completely legal perspective and that ethics and morality hold no sway whatsoever in his belief in a complete return of the Jewish peoples biblical homeland to those boundaries outlined in "The Mandate for Palestine".

In relation to this statement:

Firstly:
"ethics" and "morality" can be open to lots of interpretations and meanings. "Law" is binding and determinative and respect for the rule of law is accepted and respected - certainly in democratic countries.

Secondly:
I could also certainly argue "ethics" to justify Jews having the same and equal rights in one State - as Moslems currently enjoy in 57 Islamic States including 22 Islamic Arab States - without relying on international law to support my claim.

Thirdly:
The PLO dismisses international law by glibly asserting:
"The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.'

The PLO then has the gall to make continuing accusations against Israel of breaches of international law.

Is that what you term ethical or moral? Do you regard that kind of behaviour as ethical or moral?

Would you do business with an organisation with such ethics?

Fourthly:
I have not called for a complete return of the Jewish peoples biblical homeland to those boundaries outlined in "The Mandate for Palestine"

Those boundaries included what is to-day called Jordan (76.9% of the territory covered in the Mandate for Palestine) and I have never made any such suggestion that it become part of Israel.

In relation to Gaza,Judea and Samaria (West Bank) - I have proposed direct negotiations between Jordan and Israel - the two successor States to the Mandate - to divide sovereignty of those two areas represesenting 5% of the territory covered in the Mandate - between their two respective States - where sovereignty does not presently exist.

It is not ethical or moral for you to misrepresent me - so I expect you to withdraw your above statement unequivocally.

David mentioned the ".... occupation and colonization of all Arab lands .... "

Once upon a time, 'Arab lands' covered only part of the Arabian Peninsula. By 800 AD, through conquest, 'occupation and colonisation', the Arab-Islamic empire stretched from Persia through to Spain and down into Africa. At various times, the Islamic empire, through 'occupation and colonisation', stretched across Asia from Poland to Korea and Vietnam, through India and across to what is now Indonesia.

Of all imperialisms, the Arabs and Islam have the least excuse to cry about 'occupation and colonisation'.

The ancient practice (and it has to be said, of early Hebrews as well) seemed to be that, once a nation has conquered other territory, that land belonged forever to the conqueror. The Arabs certainly seem to hold to that frankly uncivilized notion even now, that what was at one time Arab (and/or Islamic) is forever Arab (and/or Islamic).

So, as long as the Arabs deny Israel the right to exist, and are obviously intent on either pushing people into the sea, or exterminating them in any other way possible, then they forfeit any right to expect support. Surely fascism must be combatted ?

Has the 'Left' become so opportunist that it would support fascism rather than a people's legitimate aspirations, certainly its right to exist ? Are there 'Islamic nations', even 'Christian nations' ? Yes. So why not a 'Jewish nation' ?

Recognise Israel, and we can go from there. After all, for all its faults, it's the only progressive, modern, healthy society in the Middle East ?

Go for it :)

Joe

There is absolutely no reason a Jewish nation should be ruled out as a concept.

The argument over Israel is to do with location.

Thats true Craig

Australia is stable politically, no nasty borders, English speaking and has a relatively low level of anti-Semitism.

If the Mid-East gets a bit too Iranian nuclear - I would enthusiastically broker a move of Israel to northern Western Australia. Similar hot climate, lots of sacred sites and the clincher is lots of Ord River water. The Israelis could also rebuild the manufacturing sector.

Netanyahu is a bugger to get on with (give him the democratic flick). But the Jewish nation have many center-leftists who Prime Ministers Tanya or Julie Bishop could negotiate with.

Cheers